Darwin/Evolution

[parmandjack]

Axly, I learned this stuff they're now calling, "critical thinking," pretty naturally--through science classes, which particularly in the case of biology organized their curriculum around evolution.

When you start ripping Darwin out of the science curriculum because of religious nutjobs, you have to come up with abstracted ways of teaching analysis.

As for the teaching of history--it would be hilarious in its awfulness, if I didn't have professional objections to utter incompetence and deep-seated racism combined with propagandizing.

... heres another one for you rob...just let me know when you would like me to stop providing arguments against evolution....

EVOLUTION IS RELIGION--NOT SCIENCE
- IMPACT No. 332 February 2001
by Henry Morris, Ph.D.*


The writer has documented in two recent Impact articles1, 2 from admissions by evolutionists that the idea of particles-to-people evolution does not meet the criteria of a scientific theory. There are no evolutionary transitions that have ever been observed, either during human history or in the fossil record of the past; and the universal law of entropy seems to make it impossible on any significant scale.

Evolutionists claim that evolution is a scientific fact, but they almost always lose scientific debates with creationist scientists. Accordingly, most evolutionists now decline opportunities for scientific debates, preferring instead to make unilateral attacks on creationists.

Scientists should refuse formal debates because they do more harm than good, but scientists still need to counter the creationist message.3

​

The question is, just why do they need to counter the creationist message? Why are they so adamantly committed to anti-creationism?

The fact is that evolutionists believe in evolution because they want to. It is their desire at all costs to explain the origin of everything without a Creator. Evolutionism is thus intrinsically an atheistic religion. Some may prefer to call it humanism, and New Age evolutionists may place it in the context of some form of pantheism, but they all amount to the same thing. Whether atheism or humanism (or even pantheism), the purpose is to eliminate a personal God from any active role in the origin of the universe and all its components, including man.

The core of the humanistic philosophy is naturalism—the proposition that the natural world proceeds according to its own internal dynamics, without divine or supernatural control or guidance, and that we human beings are creations of that process. It is instructive to recall that the philosophers of the early humanistic movement debated as to which term more adequately described their position: humanism or naturalism. The two concepts are complementary and inseparable.4

​

Since both naturalism and humanism exclude God from science or any other active function in the creation or maintenance of life and the universe in general, it is very obvious that their position is nothing but atheism. And atheism, no less than theism, is a religion! Even doctrinaire-atheistic evolutionist Richard Dawkins admits that atheism cannot be proven to be true.

Of course we can't prove that there isn't a God.5

​

Therefore, they must believe it, and that makes it a religion. The atheistic nature of evolution is not only admitted, but insisted upon, by most of the leaders of evolutionary thought. Ernst Mayr, for example, says that:

Darwinism rejects all supernatural phenomena and causations.6

​

A professor in the Department of Biology at Kansas State University says:

Even if all the data point to an intelligent designer, such a hypothesis is excluded from science because it is not naturalistic.7

​

It is well known in the scientific world today that such influential evolutionists as Stephen Jay Gould and Edward Wilson of Harvard, Richard Dawkins of England, William Provine of Cornell, and numerous other evolutionary spokesmen are dogmatic atheists. Eminent scientific philosopher and ardent Darwinian atheist Michael Ruse has even acknowledged that evolution is their religion!

Evolution is promoted by its practitioners as more than mere science. Evolution is promulgated as an ideology, a secular religion—a full-fledged alternative to Christianity, with meaning and morality. . . . Evolution is a religion. This was true of evolution in the beginning, and it is true of evolution still today. 8

​

Another way of saying "religion" is "worldview," the whole of reality. The evolutionary worldview applies not only to the evolution of life, but even to that of the entire universe. In the realm of cosmic evolution, our naturalistic scientists depart even further from experimental science than life scientists do, manufacturing a variety of evolutionary cosmologies from esoteric mathematics and metaphysical speculation. Socialist Jeremy Rifkin has commented on this remarkable game.

Cosmologies are made up of small snippets of physical reality that have been remodeled by society into vast cosmic deceptions.9

​

They must believe in evolution, therefore, in spite of all the evidence, not because of it. And speaking of deceptions, note the following remarkable statement.

We take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs, . . . in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated commitment to materialism. . . . we are forced by our a priori adherence to material causes to create an apparatus of investigation and set of concepts that produce material explanations, no matter how counterintuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door.10

​

The author of this frank statement is Richard Lewontin of Harvard. Since evolution is not a laboratory science, there is no way to test its validity, so all sorts of justso stories are contrived to adorn the textbooks. But that doesn't make them true! An evolutionist reviewing a recent book by another (but more critical) evolutionist, says:

We cannot identify ancestors or "missing links," and we cannot devise testable theories to explain how particular episodes of evolution came about. Gee is adamant that all the popular stories about how the first amphibians conquered the dry land, how the birds developed wings and feathers for flying, how the dinosaurs went extinct, and how humans evolved from apes are just products of our imagination, driven by prejudices and preconceptions.11

​

A fascinatingly honest admission by a physicist indicates the passionate commitment of establishment scientists to naturalism. Speaking of the trust students naturally place in their highly educated college professors, he says:

And I use that trust to effectively brainwash them. . . . our teaching methods are primarily those of propaganda. We appeal—without demonstration—to evidence that supports our position. We only introduce arguments and evidence that supports the currently accepted theories and omit or gloss over any evidence to the contrary.12

​

Creationist students in scientific courses taught by evolutionist professors can testify to the frustrating reality of that statement. Evolution is, indeed, the pseudoscientific basis of religious atheism, as Ruse pointed out. Will Provine at Cornell University is another scientist who frankly acknowledges this.

As the creationists claim, belief in modern evolution makes atheists of people. One can have a religious view that is compatible with evolution only if the religious view is indistinguishable from atheism.13

​

Once again we emphasize that evolution is not science, evolutionists' tirades notwithstanding. It is a philosophical worldview, nothing more. Another prominent evolutionist comments as follows:

(Evolution) must, they feel, explain everything. . . . A theory that explains everything might just as well be discarded since it has no real explanatory value. Of course, the other thing about evolution is that anything can be said because very little can be disproved. Experimental evidence is minimal.14

​

Even that statement is too generous. Actual experimental evidence demonstrating true evolution (that is, macroevolution) is not "minimal." It is nonexistent!

The concept of evolution as a form of religion is not new. In my book, The Long War Against God,15 I documented the fact that some form of evolution has been the pseudo-rationale behind every anti-creationist religion since the very beginning of history. This includes all the ancient ethnic religions, as well as such modern world religions as Buddhism, Hinduism, and others, as well as the "liberal" movements in even the creationist religions (Christianity, Judaism, Islam).

As far as the twentieth century is concerned, the leading evolutionist is generally considered to be Sir Julian Huxley, primary architect of modern neo-Darwinism. Huxley called evolution a "religion without revelation" and wrote a book with that title (2nd edition, 1957). In a later book, he said:

Evolution . . . is the most powerful and the most comprehensive idea that has ever arisen on earth.16

​

Later in the book he argued passionately that we must change "our pattern of religious thought from a God-centered to an evolution-centered pattern."17 Then he went on to say that: "the God hypothesis . . . is becoming an intellectual and moral burden on our thought." Therefore, he concluded that "we must construct something to take its place."18

That something, of course, is the religion of evolutionary humanism, and that is what the leaders of evolutionary humanism are trying to do today.

In closing this summary of the scientific case against evolution (and, therefore, for creation), the reader is reminded again that all quotations in the article are from doctrinaire evolutionists. No Bible references are included, and no statements by creationists. The evolutionists themselves, to all intents and purposes, have shown that evolutionism is not science, but religious faith in atheism.

References
​

1 Morris, Henry M., "The Scientific Case Against Evolution—Part I," (Impact No. 330, December 2000), pp. i-iv.
2 Morris, Henry M., "The Scientific Case Against Evolution—Part II," (Impact No. 331, January 2001), pp. i-iv.
3 Scott, Eugenie, "Fighting Talk," New Scientist (vol. 166, April 22, 2000), p.47. Dr. Scott is director of the anti-creationist organization euphemistically named The National Center for Science Education.
4 Ericson, Edward L., "Reclaiming the Higher Ground," The Humanist (vol. 60, September/October 2000), p. 30.
5 Dawkins, Richard, replying to a critique of his faith in the liberal journal, Science and Christian Belief (vol. 7, 1994), p. 47.
6 Mayr, Ernst, "Darwin's Influence on Modern Thought," Scientific American (vol. 283, July 2000), p. 83.
7 Todd, Scott C., "A View from Kansas on the Evolution Debates," Nature (vol. 401. September 30, 1999), p. 423.
8 Ruse, Michael, "Saving Darwinism from the Darwinians," National Post (May 13, 2000), p. B-3.
9 Rifkin, Jeremy, "Reinventing Nature," The Humanist (vol. 58, March/April 1998), p. 24.
10 Lewontin, Richard, Review of The Demon-Haunted World, by Carl Sagan. In New York Review of Books, January 9, 1997.
11 Bowler, Peter J., Review of In Search of Deep Time by Henry Gee (Free Press, 1999), American Scientist (vol. 88, March/April 2000), p. 169.
12 Singham, Mark, "Teaching and Propaganda," Physics Today (vol. 53, June 2000), p. 54.
13 Provine, Will, "No Free Will," in Catching Up with the Vision, Ed. by Margaret W. Rossiter (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1999), p. S123.
14 Appleyard, Bryan, "You Asked for It," New Scientist (vol. 166, April 22, 2000), p. 45.
15 Morris, Henry M., The Long War Against God (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Baker Book House, 1989), 344 pp.
16 Huxley, Julian, Essays of a Humanist (New York: Harper and `Row, 1964),
p. 125.
17 Ibid., p. 222.
18 Ibid.​

 

[parmandjack]

Axly, I learned this stuff they're now calling, "critical thinking," pretty naturally--through science classes, which particularly in the case of biology organized their curriculum around evolution.

When you start ripping Darwin out of the science curriculum because of religious nutjobs, you have to come up with abstracted ways of teaching analysis.

As for the teaching of history--it would be hilarious in its awfulness, if I didn't have professional objections to utter incompetence and deep-seated racism combined with propagandizing.

...heres another article for you whichi may surprise you... evolution is just another religion!

[font=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]Evolution As Religion[/font]

[font=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]David Ungred[/font]

[font=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]First published in
Creation Ex Nihilo 4(4): 54-57, March 1982 [/font]

With his [Darwin's] Descent of Man, published in 1871, the theory was complete: a new model of : human origins had been constructed which could replace the fundamentalist Biblical one. Man was not a unique creation at the hand of God, but the product of a long evolutionary process; he evolved from the same humble marine ancestors as as the rest of the animal kingdom.​

Evolution as a religious system, has been adopted by many students, scholars and laypeople as a way to explain the origin and the development of the cosmos and all life including man. They are building their lives on the following beliefs:

1. Space, Matter and Time are the infinite and the eternal trinity. It is neither being created or destroyed, only changing in form and essence;

2.Because time is infinite, the potential of accidents to happen, for example, the formation of life from previously non living matter, becomes not only possible, but probable;

3. All life that exists today is the result of these chance accidents occurring in Time and giving rise to a Process of continued upward development of life on Earth. Man, ape, dog, cat, ant and plant, ail life, at one distant point in Time arose from at least one common ancestor.

The implications of these religious beliefs on Christianity have not been overlooked by the non-Christian. In his book Before Civilization, Professor Colin Renfrew, commenting on the impact of Darwin's original statement of the General Theory of Evolution, writes:

With his [Darwin 's Descent of Man, published in 1871, the theory was complete: a new model of human origins had been constructed which could replace the fundamentalist Biblical one. Man was not a unique creation at the hand of God, but the product of a long evolutionary process; he evolved from the same humble marine ancestors as the rest of the animal kingdom.​

In Science Ponders Religion, Curtly Mather of Harvard University views the impact of evolution on Christianity in this respect: When a theologian accepts evolution as the process used by the Creator, he must be willing to go all the way with it. Not only is it an orderly process, it is a continuing one. Nothing was finished on any seventh day; the process of creation is still going on. . . Moreover, the creative process of evolution is not to be inter- rupted by any supernatural intervention. . . The spiritual aspects of the life of man are just as surely a product of the processes called evolution as are his brain and nervous system.

Thus there was no historic Adam and Eve who were sinless creatures created in the image of God. There was no historic Fall of mankind because of original sin. Death was not a penalty of sin, since death has always been an inseparable part of life from the beginning. And what of the atoning work of Christ on the cross? His death is not needed because the process marches onward and upward. So would argue the evolutionist. "Evolution is a light :which illuminates all facts, a trajectory which all lines of thought must follow." Geneticist Theodosius Dobzha

Sir Julian Huxley, evolutionist and biologist, states his faith in this way, "For my own part, the sense of spiritual relief which comes from rejecting the idea of God as a supernatural being is enormous. . . Darwinism removed the whole idea of God as the creator of organisms from the sphere of rational discussion." As geneticist and evolutionist Theodosius Dobzhansky metaphorically announces,

''Evolution is a light which illuminates all facts, a trajectory which all lines of thought must follow. "​

Is it because Evolution is a religious system built on individual faith that makes its proponents so fervent in their support? No matter how compelling, how complete the evidences against the General Theory of Evolution may be, or how impressive the evidence for the Biblical account of Creation and the Flood-Judgement, the community of secular scientists will never concede the fundamental fallacy of their religious system in favour of Scripture. Why? To accept the Creation Model or the Flood-Judgement Model as viable scientific models would also require the acceptance of the Creator Christ Jesus, and this they cannot do. "Our faith in the idea of evolution depends on our reluctance to accept the antagonistic doctrine of special creation", says the evolutionist.

Dr. Loren Eiseley in his book The Immense Journey has summarised his position and the position of his colleagues in this way: After having chided the theologian on his reliance on myth and miracle, science found itself in the unenviable position of having to create a mythology of its own: namely, the assumption that what after long effort, could not he proved to take place today had, in truth, taken place in the primeval past.

Evolution makes religious claims on the basis of a presumed flow of history It is a religious system which is against Christ and His Church. One system of faith denies the other. Evolution is a contemporary creation myth, not really so different from the creation myths of the ancients. In evolution the names of the gods are shrouded in the scientific jargon of the age and culture.

By contrast, the Creationist who believes that the Bible is inerrant revelation from God about God, must then believe that the God who created the universe, life and man, is capable of communicating the significant details of this event. To relegate the first eleven chapters of Genesis to mythology is to deny the Creator this ability to communicate. The Word of God makes religious claims in conjunction with historical claims. Jesus illustrated this inseparable linkage when He asked Nicodemus, "You do not believe me when I tell you about the things of this world; how will you ever believe me then when I tell you about things of heaven?" [John 3:12].

Jesus is the true Light of this world which illumines all facts - not evolution. Jesus is the Word, the trajectory along which all lines of thought must follow in order to be true- not evolution. ​

Any truth that is known concerning what has happened in history is contained in the Messiah, the Son of God. All knowledge must be Christ-centered. To the degree that any man knows truth, to that degree he has encountered Jesus Christ, the Son of God.

Professor Peter Medawar has had this to say about a fellow evolutionist, Karl Popper, 55

I have come to the conclusion that Darwinism is not a testable scientific theory, but a metaphysical research programme - a possible framework for testable scientific theories . . . This is of course the reason why Darwinism has been almost universally accpeted. Its theory of adaptation was the first nontheistic one that was convincing; and theism was worse than an open admission of failure.
Science Philosopher, Karl Popper. ​

"I think Popper is incomparably the greatest philosopher of science that has ever been. " What does Popper have to say about Evolution? In his autobiography Unended Quest, Karl Popper writes: I have come to the conclusion hot Darwinism is not a testable scientific theory, but a metaphysical research prograinine - a possible fromework for testable scientific theories . . . This is of course the reason why Darwinism has been almost universally accpeted. Its theory of adaptation was the first nontheistic one that was convincing; and theism was worse than an open admission of failure, for it created the impression that on ultimate explanation has been reached.


Karl Popper views evolution not as a science, but as a "possible framework" on which to build "testable scientific theories". Creationist academics have successfully argued that their belief system is a better framework upon which to build scientific theories. Theories, for example, concerning the development of speech capability and the proliferation of the various languages will be constructed totally differently depending on whether the investigator begins from Scripture or the evolutionist worldview, The decision the scientist must make is upon which framework to build his theories - the framework communicated by God to man, or the framework built by man to avoid the need for God. The scientific theories of both the Creationist and the Evolutionist are subject to the accuracy of their respective assumptions of origins. If the framework is myth, what are the theories derived from the framework? Should they be considered no more than merely embellishments of the original myth? Is the "ultimate explanation" found in evolution as contemporary man insists, or is the ultimate truth revealed in the Scriptures that Popper and his friends have rejected? As the Scriptures testify: Ever since God created the world, his invisible qualities, both his eternal power and his divine nature, have been clearly seen; they ore perceived in the things that God has made. So those people have no excuse at all! They know Cod, but they do not give him the honor that belongs to him, nor do they thank him. Instead, their thoughts have become complete nonsense, and their empty minds are filled with darkness. They say they ore wise, but they ore fools; instead of worshipping the immortal God, they worship images made to look like mortal man or birds or animals or reptiles. [Romans 1:20-22.] "Darwin argued that all species evolved in gradual fashion, leading to man. But some experts now contend evolution occurred in relatively sudden leaps.", reports Newsweek [November 3, 1980]. In the periodical Science [August 22, 1980] we read, "The sudden disappearance of more than 70 percent of all living species on land and in the ocean 65 million years ago, at the end of the Cretaceous Period, is a major event in the history of the earth. . . Hypotheses proposed to explain the terminal Cretaceous extinction include spillover of the Arctic Ocean, causing a severe change in the earth's climate, [ii] magnetic reversal, [iii] radiation from a recent supernova, and [iv] meteorite impact." Why, after over one hundred years of evolutionist theory of gradual change, is there the necessity for "sudden leaps" and "sudden disappearances"? What current events have driven some evolutionists to search for catastrophic episodes with which they feel they must fortify their position? Could a major reason be that the Word of God is penetrating areas into which it has too long been thought impotent and irrelevant? Christians with scientific and technical training are rediscovering that the Word of God is not a hazy Jewish myth, but is today still sharper than any two-edged sword destroying the false dogma and the contrived doctrines of men. Evolutionist Beverly Halstead writes in New Scientist [July, 1980]: Palaeontology and the theory of evolution are under attack from a curious variety of sources. There has been a recent upsurge of books and articles condemning the idea of evolution and the fossil record in particular, while at the same time urging a return to the revealed truth documented in the Bible. This new generation of fundamentalist tracts differs from its predecessors in the [eve.' of sophistication. Moreover, for the first time the tracts' views are receiving a sympathetic echo from the British Museum [Natural History] London.

With increasing rapidity the evolutionists are having to abandon the position of gradual upward development occurring over eons of time. The data being discovered in the fossil record can no longer be relied upon to defend the process of gradual change. It is the fossil record on which the General Theory of Evolution most heavily rests. Fossils are mostly the remains of creatures and plants which died and were suddenly buried in such a manner as to be preserved as an impression in stone or as casts where minerals have replaced the organic structures. The numbers and types of animals and plants preserved as fossils attest to a sudden and cataclysmic burial: the preservation in stone of a butterfly's impression with the delicate markings on its fragile wings still visible; or the fossilised remains of two small dinosaurs which were frozen in battle, preserved in stone by a flood of sediment which suddenly overtook them. The gradual processes of the General Theory of Evolution and the cataclysmic fossil record cannot be reconciled. In order to salvage the evolutionary theory, more theories explaining the sudden appearances of living species must now be brought into existence.

As new scientific discoveries are made and as new facts emerge, the General Theory of Evolution will continue to be changed; of this we can be certain. We can also be certain that because the Word of God is true, the Biblical account of the Creation and the Flood- Judgement will continue to be illuminated in such a way as to testify to the Glory of God. ​

 

[parmandjack]

Axly, I learned this stuff they're now calling, "critical thinking," pretty naturally--through science classes, which particularly in the case of biology organized their curriculum around evolution.

When you start ripping Darwin out of the science curriculum because of religious nutjobs, you have to come up with abstracted ways of teaching analysis.

As for the teaching of history--it would be hilarious in its awfulness, if I didn't have professional objections to utter incompetence and deep-seated racism combined with propagandizing.

...I think I'll make this the last article I present to you rob, as I think the point has been made.... that you can consider "yourself" to be one of those "religious nutjobs" you grouped and condemned...

Evolution & creation, science & religion, facts & bias

by Jonathan Sarfati, Ph.D., F.M.

First published in Refuting Evolution
Chapter 1



Many evolutionary books, including Teaching about Evolution and the Nature of Science, contrast religion/creation opinions with evolution/science facts. It is important to realize that this is a misleading contrast. Creationists often appeal to the facts of science to support their view, and evolutionists often appeal to philosophical assumptions from outside science. While creationists are often criticized for starting with a bias, evolutionists also start with a bias, as many of them admit. The debate between creation and evolution is primarily a dispute between two worldviews, with mutually incompatible underlying assumptions.

This chapter takes a critical look at the definitions of science, and the roles that biases and assumptions play in the interpretations by scientists. The bias of evolutionary leaders

It is a fallacy to believe that facts speak for themselves—they are always interpreted according to a framework. The framework behind the evolutionists’ interpretation is naturalism—it is assumed that things made themselves, that no divine intervention has happened, and that God has not revealed to us knowledge about the past.


Evolution is a deduction from this assumption, and it is essentially the idea that things made themselves. It includes these unproven ideas: nothing gave rise to something at an alleged ‘big bang,’ non-living matter gave rise to life, single-celled organisms gave rise to many-celled organisms, invertebrates gave rise to vertebrates, ape-like creatures gave rise to man, non-intelligent and amoral matter gave rise to intelligence and morality, man’s yearnings gave rise to religions, etc.

Professor D.M.S. Watson, one of the leading biologists and science writers of his day, demonstrated the atheistic bias behind much evolutionary thinking when he wrote:

Evolution [is] a theory universally accepted not because it can be proven by logically coherent evidence to be true, but because the only alternative, special creation, is clearly incredible.1

​

So it’s not a question of biased religious creationists versus objective scientific evolutionists; rather, it is the biases of the Christian religion versus the biases of the religion of secular humanism resulting in different interpretations of the same scientific data. As the anti-creationist science writer Boyce Rensberger admits:

At this point, it is necessary to reveal a little inside information about how scientists work, something the textbooks don’t usually tell you. The fact is that scientists are not really as objective and dispassionate in their work as they would like you to think. Most scientists first get their ideas about how the world works not through rigorously logical processes but through hunches and wild guesses. As individuals, they often come to believe something to be true long before they assemble the hard evidence that will convince somebody else that it is. Motivated by faith in his own ideas and a desire for acceptance by his peers, a scientist will labor for years knowing in his heart that his theory is correct but devising experiment after experiment whose results he hopes will support his position.2

​

It’s not really a question of who is biased, but which bias is the correct bias with which to be biased! Actually, Teaching about Evolution admits in the dialogue on pages 22–25 that science isn’t just about facts, and it is tentative, not dogmatic. But the rest of the book is dogmatic that evolution is a fact!

Professor Richard Lewontin, a geneticist (and self-proclaimed Marxist), is a renowned champion of neo-Darwinism, and certainly one of the world’s leaders in promoting evolutionary biology. He recently wrote this very revealing comment (the italics were in the original). It illustrates the implicit philosophical bias against Genesis creation regardless of whether or not the facts support it:

We take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs, in spite of its failure to fulfil many of its extravagant promises of health and life, in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated just-so stories, because we have a prior commitment, a commitment to materialism. It is not that the methods and institutions of science somehow compel us to accept a material explanation of the phenomenal world, but, on the contrary, that we are forced by our a priori adherence to material causes to create an apparatus of investigation and a set of concepts that produce material explanations, no matter how counter-intuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is an absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door.3

​

Many evolutionists chide creationists not because of the facts, but because creationists refuse to play by the current rules of the game that exclude supernatural creation a priori.4 That it is indeed a ‘game’ was proclaimed by the evolutionary biologist Richard Dickerson:

Science is fundamentally a game. It is a game with one overriding and defining rule: Rule #1: Let us see how far and to what extent we can explain the behavior of the physical and material universe in terms of purely physical and material causes, without invoking the supernatural.5

​

In practice, the ‘game’ is extended to trying to explain not just the behavior, but the origin of everything without the supernatural.

Actually, evolutionists are often not consistent with their own rules against invoking an intelligent designer. For example, when archaeologists find an arrowhead, they can tell it must have been designed, even though they haven’t seen the designer. And the whole basis of the SETI program is that a signal from outer space carrying specific information must have an intelligent source. Yet the materialistic bias of many evolutionists means that they reject an intelligent source for the literally encyclopedic information carried in every living cell.

It’s no accident that the leaders of evolutionary thought were and are ardently opposed to the notion of the Christian God as revealed in the Bible.6 Stephen Jay Gould and others have shown that Darwin’s purpose was to destroy the idea of a divine designer.7 Richard Dawkins applauds evolution because he claims that before Darwin it was impossible to be an intellectually fulfilled atheist, as he says he is.8

Many atheists have claimed to be atheists precisely because of evolution. For example, the evolutionary entomologist and sociobiologist E.O. Wilson (who has an article in Teaching about Evolution on page 15) said:

As were many persons from Alabama, I was a born-again Christian. When I was fifteen, I entered the Southern Baptist Church with great fervor and interest in the fundamentalist religion; I left at seventeen when I got to the University of Alabama and heard about evolutionary theory.9

​

Many people do not realize that the teaching of evolution propagates an anti-biblical religion. The first two tenets of the Humanist Manifesto II (1973), signed by many prominent evolutionists, are:

1. Religious humanists regard the universe as self-existing and not created.
2. Humanism believes that Man is a part of nature and has emerged as a result of a continuous process.

This is exactly what evolution teaches. Many humanist leaders are quite open about using the public schools to proselytize their faith. This might surprise some parents who think the schools are supposed to be free of religious indoctrination, but this quote makes it clear:

I am convinced that the battle for humankind’s future must be waged and won in the public school classroom by teachers who correctly perceive their role as the proselytizers of a new faith: a religion of humanity that recognizes and respects the spark of what theologians call divinity in every human being. These teachers must embody the same selfless dedication as the most rabid fundamentalist preachers, for they will be ministers of another sort, utilizing a classroom instead of a pulpit to convey humanist values in whatever subject they teach, regardless of the educational level—preschool day care or large state university. The classroom must and will become an arena of conflict between the old and the new—the rotting corpse of Christianity, together with all its adjacent evils and misery, and the new faith of humanism … . It will undoubtedly be a long, arduous, painful struggle replete with much sorrow and many tears, but humanism will emerge triumphant. It must if the family of humankind is to survive.10

​

Teaching about Evolution, while claiming to be about science and neutral on religion, has some religious statements of its own. For example on page 6:

To accept the probability of change and to see change as an agent of opportunity rather than as a threat is a silent message and challenge in the lesson of evolution.

​

However, as it admits that evolution is ‘unpredictable and natural,’ and has ‘no specific direction or goal’ (p. 127), this message is incoherent.

The authors of Teaching about Evolution may realize that the rank atheism of most evolutionary leaders would be repugnant to most American parents if they knew. More recently, the agnostic anti-creationist philosopher Ruse admitted, ‘Evolution as a scientific theory makes a commitment to a kind of naturalism’ but this ‘may not be a good thing to admit in a court of law.’11 Teaching about Evolution tries to sanitize evolution by claiming that it is compatible with many religions. It even recruits many religious leaders in support. One of the ‘dialogues’ portrays a teacher having much success diffusing opposition by asking the students to ask their pastor, and coming back with ‘Hey evolution is okay!’ Although the dialogues are fictional, the situation is realistic.

It might surprise many people to realize that many church leaders do not believe their own book, the Bible. This plainly teaches that God created recently in six consecutive normal days, made things to reproduce ‘after their kind,’ and that death and suffering resulted from Adam’s sin. This is one reason why many Christians regard evolution as incompatible with Christianity. On page 58, Teaching about Evolution points out that many religious people believe that ‘God used evolution’ (theistic evolution). But theistic evolution teaches that God used struggle for survival and death, the ‘last enemy’ (1 Cor. 15:26) as His means of achieving a ‘very good’ (Gen. 1:31) creation.12 Biblical creationists find this objectionable.

The only way to assert that evolution and ‘religion’ are compatible is to regard ‘religion’ as having nothing to do with the real world, and being just subjective. A God who ‘created’ by evolution is, for all practical purposes, indistinguishable from no God at all.

Perhaps Teaching about Evolution is letting its guard down sometimes. For example, on page 11 it refers to the ‘explanation provided in Genesis … that God created everything in its present form over the course of six days,’ i.e., Genesis really does teach six-day creation of basic kinds, which contradicts evolution. Therefore, Teaching about Evolution is indeed claiming that evolution conflicts with Genesis, and thus with biblical Christianity, although they usually deny that they are attacking ‘religion.’ Teaching about Evolution often sets up straw men misrepresenting what creationists really do believe. Creationists do not claim that everything was created in exactly the same form as today’s creatures. Creationists believe in variation within a kind, which is totally different from the information-gaining variation required for particles-to-people evolution. This is discussed further in the next chapter.

More blatantly, Teaching about Evolution recommends many books that are very openly atheistic, like those by Richard Dawkins (p. 131).13 On page 129 it says: ‘Statements about creation … should not be regarded as reasonable alternatives to scientific explanations for the origin and evolution of life.’ Since anything not reasonable is unreasonable, Teaching about Evolution is in effect saying that believers in creation are really unreasonable and irrational. This is hardly religiously neutral, but is regarded by many religious people as an attack.

A recent survey published in the leading science journal Nature conclusively showed that the National Academy of Sciences, the producers of Teaching about Evolution, is heavily biased against God, rather than religiously unbiased.14 A survey of all 517 NAS members in biological and physical sciences resulted in just over half responding: 72.2% were overtly atheistic, 20.8% agnostic, and only 7.0% believed in a personal God. Belief in God and immortality was lowest among biologists. It is likely that those who didn’t respond were unbelievers as well, so the study probably underestimates the level of anti-God belief in the NAS. The percentage of unbelief is far higher than the percentage among U.S. scientists in general, or in the whole U.S. population.

Commenting on the professed religious neutrality of Teaching about Evolution, the surveyors comment:

NAS President Bruce Alberts said: ‘There are very many outstanding members of this academy who are very religious people, people who believe in evolution, many of them biologists.’ Our research suggests otherwise.15

​

The basis of modern science



Many historians, of many different religious persuasions including atheistic, have shown that modern science started to flourish only in largely Christian Europe. For example, Dr Stanley Jaki has documented how the scientific method was stillborn in all cultures apart from the Judeo-Christian culture of Europe.16 These historians point out that the basis of modern science depends on the assumption that the universe was made by a rational creator. An orderly universe makes perfect sense only if it were made by an orderly Creator. But if there is no creator, or if Zeus and his gang were in charge, why should there be any order at all? So, not only is a strong Christian belief not an obstacle to science, such a belief was its very foundation. It is, therefore, fallacious to claim, as many evolutionists do, that believing in miracles means that laboratory science would be impossible. Loren Eiseley stated:

The philosophy of experimental science … began its discoveries and made use of its methods in the faith, not the knowledge, that it was dealing with a rational universe controlled by a creator who did not act upon whim nor interfere with the forces He had set in operation … . It is surely one of the curious paradoxes of history that science, which professionally has little to do with faith, owes its origins to an act of faith that the universe can be rationally interpreted, and that science today is sustained by that assumption.17

​

Evolutionists, including Eiseley himself, have thus abandoned the only rational justification for science. But Christians can still claim to have such a justification.

It should thus not be surprising, although it is for many people, that most branches of modern science were founded by believers in creation. The list of creationist scientists is impressive.18 A sample:

Physics—Newton, Faraday, Maxwell, Kelvin
Chemistry—Boyle, Dalton, Ramsay
Biology—Ray, Linnaeus, Mendel, Pasteur, Virchow, Agassiz
Geology—Steno, Woodward, Brewster, Buckland, Cuvier
Astronomy—Copernicus, Galileo, Kepler, Herschel, Maunder
Mathematics—Pascal, Leibnitz, Euler

​

Even today, many scientists reject particles-to-people evolution (i.e., everything made itself). The Answers in Genesis (Australia) staff scientists have published many scientific papers in their own fields. Dr Russell Humphreys, a nuclear physicist working with Sandia National Laboratories in Albuquerque, New Mexico, has had over 20 articles published in physics journals, while Dr John Baumgardner’s catastrophic plate tectonics theory was reported in Nature. Dr Edward Boudreaux of the University of New Orleans has published 26 articles and four books in physical chemistry. Dr Maciej Giertych, head of the Department of Genetics at the Institute of Dendrology of the Polish Academy of Sciences, has published 90 papers in scientific journals. Dr Raymond Damadian invented the lifesaving medical advance of magnetic resonance imaging (MRI).19 Dr Raymond Jones was described as one of Australia’s top scientists for his discoveries about the legume Leucaena and bacterial symbiosis with grazing animals, worth millions of dollars per year to Australia.20 Dr Brian Stone has won a record number of awards for excellence in engineering teaching at Australian universities.21 An evolutionist opponent admitted the following about a leading creationist biochemist and debater, Dr Duane Gish:

Duane Gish has very strong scientific credentials. As a biochemist, he has synthesized peptides, compounds intermediate between amino acids and proteins. He has been co-author of a number of outstanding publications in peptide chemistry.22

​

A number of highly qualified living creationist scientists can be found on the Answers in Genesis website.23 So an oft-repeated charge that no real scientist rejects evolution is completely without foundation. Nevertheless, Teaching about Evolution claims in this Question and Answer section on page 56:

Q: Don’t many scientists reject evolution? A: No. The scientific consensus around evolution is overwhelming … .

​

It is regrettable that Teaching about Evolution is not really answering its own question. The actual question should be truthfully answered ‘Yes,’ even though evolution-rejecting scientists are in a minority. The explanation for the answer given would be appropriate (even if highly debatable) if the question were: ‘Is it true that there is no scientific consensus around evolution?’ But truth is not decided by majority vote!

C.S. Lewis also pointed out that even our ability to reason would be called into question if atheistic evolution were true:

If the solar system was brought about by an accidental collision, then the appearance of organic life on this planet was also an accident, and the whole evolution of Man was an accident too. If so, then all our thought processes are mere accidents, the accidental by-product of the movement of atoms. And this holds for the materialists’ and astronomers’ as well as for anyone else’s. But if their thoughts, i.e., of Materialism and Astronomy are merely accidental by-products, why should we believe them to be true? I see no reason for believing that one accident should be able to give a correct account of all the other accidents.24

​

The limits of science



Science does have its limits. Normal (operational) science deals only with repeatable observable processes in the present. This has indeed been very successful in understanding the world, and has led to many improvements in the quality of life. In contrast, evolution is a speculation about the unobservable and unrepeatable past. Thus the comparison in Teaching about Evolution of disbelief in evolution with disbelief in gravity and heliocentrism is highly misleading. It is also wrong to claim that denying evolution is rejecting the type of science that put men on the moon, although many evolutionary propagandists make such claims. (Actually the man behind the Apollo moon mission was the creationist rocket scientist Wernher von Braun.25)

In dealing with the past, ‘origins science’ can enable us to make educated guesses about origins. It uses the principles of causality (everything that has a beginning has a cause26) and analogy (e.g., we observe that intelligence is needed to generate complex coded information in the present, so we can reasonably assume the same for the past). But the only way we can be really sure about the past is if we have a reliable eyewitness account. Evolutionists claim there is no such account, so their ideas are derived from assumptions about the past. But biblical creationists believe that Genesis is an eyewitness account of the origin of the universe and living organisms. They also believe that there is good evidence for this claim, so they reject the claim that theirs is a blind faith.27

Creationists don’t pretend that any knowledge, science included, can be pursued without presuppositions (i.e., prior religious/philosophical beliefs). Creationists affirm that creation cannot ultimately be divorced from the Bible any more than evolution can ultimately be divorced from its naturalistic starting point that excludes divine creation a priori. References and notes

1. D.M.S. Watson, Adaptation, Nature 124:233, 1929.
2. Boyce Rensberger, How the World Works (NY: William Morrow 1986), p. 17–18.
3. Richard Lewontin, Billions and Billions of Demons, The New York Review, 9 January 1997, p. 31.
4. C. Wieland, The Rules of the Game, Creation Ex Nihilo 11(1):47–50, December 1988–February 1989.
5. R.E. Dickerson, J. Molecular Evolution 34:277, 1992; Perspectives on Science and the Christian Faith 44:137–138, 1992.
6. D. Batten, A Who’s Who of evolutionists, Creation Ex Nihilo 20(1):32, December 1997–February 1998; How Religiously Neutral Are the Anti-Creationist Organisations? cited 18 February 1999.
7. C. Wieland, Darwin’s Real Message: Have You Missed It? Creation Ex Nihilo 14(4):16–19, September–November 1992.
8. R. Dawkins, The Blind Watchmaker: Why the Evidence of Evolution Reveals a Universe without Design, (NY: W.W. Norton, 1986), p. 6.
9. E.O. Wilson, The Humanist, September/October 1982, p. 40.
10. J. Dunphy, A Religion for a New Age, The Humanist, Jan.–Feb. 1983, 23, 26 (emphases added), cited by Wendell R. Bird, Origin of the Species Revisited, vol. 2, p. 257.
11. Symposium titled The New Anti-Evolutionism (during the 1993 annual meeting of the American Association for the Advancement of Science). See C. Wieland, The Religious Nature of Evolution, CEN Technical Journal 8(1):3–4.
12. W. Gitt, Did God Use Evolution? (Bielefeld, Germany: CLV, 1993); D.H. Lane, A Critique of Theistic Evolution, Bibliotheca Sacra 151:11–31, January–March 1994, Part 1; 151:155–174, April–June 1994, Part 2.
13. For refutations of Dawkins’ books, see: G.H. Duggan, Review of The Blind Watchmaker, Apologia 6(1):121–122, 1997; K.T. Gallagher, Dawkins in Biomorph Land, International Philosophical Quarterly 32(4):501–513, December 1992; R.G. Bohlin, Up the River Without a Paddle, Review of River Out of Eden: A Darwinian View of Life, Creation Ex Nihilo Technical Journal 10(3):322–327, 1996; J.D. Sarfati, Review of Climbing Mt Improbable, Creation Ex Nihilo Technical Journal 12(1):29–34, 1998; W. Gitt, Weasel Words, Creation Ex Nihilo 20(4):20–21, September–November 1998.
14. E.J. Larson and L. Witham, Leading Scientists Still Reject God, Nature 394(6691):313, 23 July 1998. The sole criterion for being classified as a ‘leading’ or ‘greater’ scientist was membership of the NAS.
15. Ibid., emphasis added.
16. S. Jaki, Science and Creation (Edinburgh and London: Scottish Academic Press, 1974).
17. L. Eiseley: Darwin’s Century: Evolution and the Men who Discovered It (Anchor, NY: Doubleday, 1961).
18. A. Lamont, 21 Great Scientists Who Believed the Bible (Australia: Creation Science Foundation, 1995), p. 120–131; H.M. Morris, Men of Science Men of God (Green Forest, AR: Master Books, 1982).
19. J. Mattson and Merrill Simon, The Pioneers of NMR in Magnetic Resonance in Medicine: The Story of MRI (Jericho, NY: Bar-Ilan University Press, 1996), chapter 8. See also the interview with Dr Damadian in Creation Ex Nihilo, 16(3):35–37, June–August 1994.
20. Standing Firm [Interview of Raymond Jones with Don Batten and Carl Wieland], Creation Ex Nihilo 21(1):20–22, December 1998–February 1999.
21. Prize-winning Professor Rejects Evolution: Brian Stone Speaks to Don Batten and Carl Wieland, Creation Ex Nihilo 20(4):52–53, September–November 1998.
22. Sidney W. Fox, The Emergence of Life: Darwinian Evolution from the Inside (NY: Basic Books, 1988), p. 46. Fox is a leading chemical evolutionist who believes life evolved from ‘proteinoid microspheres.’
23. Cited 18 February 1999.
24. C.S. Lewis, God in the Dock (Grand Rapids, MI: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1970), p. 52–53.
25. Ann Lamont, 21 Great Scientists who Believed the Bible (Australia: Creation Science Foundation, 1995), p. 242–251.
26. J.D. Sarfati, If God Created the Universe, Then Who Created God? CEN Technical Journal 12(1)20–22, 1998.
27. Some supporting information can be found in the following works, among others: H.M. Morris with H.M. Morris III, Many Infallible Proofs (Green Forest, AR: Master Books, 1996); G.L. Archer, Encyclopedia of Bible Difficulties (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1982); G.H. Clark, God’s Hammer: The Bible and Its Critics (Jefferson, MD: The Trinity Foundation, 2nd ed. 1987); P. Enns, The Moody Handbook of Theology (Chicago, IL: Moody Press, 1989), chapter 18; N.L. Geisler and R.M. Brooks, When Skeptics Ask (Wheaton, IL: Victor Books, 1990); N.L. Geisler and T. R. Howe, When Critics Ask (Wheaton, IL: Victor Books, 1992); N.L. Geisler and William E. Nix, A General Introduction to the Bible (Chicago, IL: Moody, 1986); H. Lindsell, The Battle for the Bible (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1976); J. McDowell, More Evidence That Demands a Verdict (San Bernardino, CA: Here’s Life Publishers, revised ed. 1981); John W. Wenham, Christ and the Bible (Guildford, Surrey, UK: Eagle, 3rd ed. 1993).

 

[heretic888]

Always amusing to see people try and fake "science" to promote an agenda. In this case, a religous/evangelical one.

Parmanjack, ever wonder why the veracity of creationism is never debated in peer-reviewed scientific journals?? Ever wonder why evolution of one form or another (not necessarily the neo-Darwinian model) is the entire basis for most biology classes?? Ever wonder why all the nutjobs you cited either: 1) wrote books independent of peer review, and 2) wrote in decidedly non-scientific maganizines??

Its utter silliness to claim evolution somehow doesn't pass as a "scientific theory". The vast majority of practicing biologists in this country would laugh in your face at such a baseless accusation. As someone pointed out on another thread, creationists trying to get the public to think that evolution is highly debated is like the tobacco industry trying to get the public to think that smoking doesn't cause cancer.

This isn't scientific method, its jingoistic ideology. It has no place whatosever in a biology classroom.

 

[loki09789]

Science is a way of acquiring knowledge. To do science, one must follow a specific universal methodology. The central theme in this methodology is the testing of hypotheses and the ability to make predictions. The overall goal of science is to better understand nature and our Universe.
www.geog.ouc.bc.ca/physgeog/physgeoglos/s.html
.

Sounds a HELL of a lot like what I learned as "Critical thinking" and also what I was talking about when I was stressing how it can apply to various subjects/areas if you change the language to "universal methodology."

Where, again am I lieing to students?

Where is the lie in demonstrating recognition for the fact that there is dignity in someone elses worldly view...we do it all the time when we absorb, adapt and practice/teach martial arts.

Of COURSE there is no scientific evidence to support a creation myth...it isn't based on scientific methodology.

Heretic beat me to the 'flat earth' topic. Thanks btw.

Look guys, I am saying that for all the talk about 'diversity respect' from folks who hate the 'conservative neocons' and such about Bush and Republicans there is a lot of hostility about an actual step in showing some respect to the dignity of another member of the communities point of view. It doesn't mean that I have to agree with it, but I do have to acknowledge that it deserves to be respected as a citizen of the country. That would make me a living example of the values that have been 'found to be lacking' in the current administration by folks who are now trying to poo poo all over this.

This criticism could be described as "philosophical oppression" since the battle over Evolution vs Creation isn't between religions so much as philosophical methodologies to view and seek understanding of the world. Do you really want to be part of that any more than you would want to be part of 'religious oppression'?

 

[loki09789]

I was thinking about why this is even a separate thread--I didn't start it, that's for sure--and I at least came up with why it is that these, "well, just teach all the theories about life in biology class," arguments bug me so much.

Beyond the fact that (as has often been mentioned) it's just a matter of correct classification, what bugs me about it that slice it however you like, it represents a caving-in to nutcakeism.

A lot of people, across the world and over the last few thousand years, worked hard--it sounds silly, maybe, but a lot gave their lives--to get us over the nightmare of superstition in all its forms.

The work of the Darwins, the Freuds, the Newtons, the Cricks, represent our collective attempt to crawl out of blindness and ignorance. Of course modern thought has brought its own horrors--but you know, when I read these, "we should just teach Creationism too," statements, I read a society trying to pull the covers up over its head and make the devils go 'way.

Sure, there are limits to science. Sure, it has its lacunae as an approach to reality. Sure, science is in part a culturally-constructed discursivity reflective of the animating ideological formation in which it is carried on. Sure.

But it's a helluva lot better than banging pots together to keep the dragon from swallowing the sun. Not to mention the fact that the considerable majority of the big fat fibs promulgated by our educational system fall apart if looked at scientifically for 30 seconds.

Became a separate thread because I was willing to work with the MODs who wanted to shut it down because it was way off topic from the original thread...thanks for doing it by the way.

I don't know if you have even read what I wrote. Science class hasn't ripped evolution out of the curriculum nor are other creation theories/views being presented in science class. Simply put, science class still teaches evolutionary theory, but has to make sure that it is clearly stated to be A theory and not the only true theory.

Covering the various cultural myths (even including Christian stories under that heading - based on a literary view instead of a faith view) would be something to do in an English Language Arts class unit on various storytelling traditions or something along those lines or possibly in an Anthropology Elective is it was available.

 

[heretic888]

Okay, Loki, here's my take:

1) My definition of "science" is basically how Thomas Kuhn laid it out (paradigm/illumination/confirmation), and this can be applied to everything from matter to biology to mathematics to psychology to "spirituality" (experiential mysticism). Its just a means of acquiring, and then validating, data.

2) The point remains that, creationist speculations still have no place in a biology classroom. This has nothing to do with them being "unworthy" philosophies or anything like that, they're just not related to biological science whatsoever. It makes about as much sense as teaching cell theory in English literature classes.

3) Its obvious there is a "culture war" going on in the West, and by no means is this unique to America. One of the manifestations of this culture war is the centuries-old positivism vs fundamentalism. Of course, real scientists know that both fundamentalism and positivism are untestable philosophies and thus outside the realm of scientific concern.

4) You're welcome concerning the "flat earth" stuff.

Laterz.

 

[heretic888]

Simply put, science class still teaches evolutionary theory, but has to make sure that it is clearly stated to be A theory and not the only true theory.

This, of course, makes little sense and shows a misunderstanding as to what a "theory" is in science. To date, evolution is the only currently workable THEORY (that is, a successfully time-tested hypothesis) to explain the development of biological adaptations.

I think the problem is that people think a theory means to sciene what it means in the common vernacular --- a speculated idea. This is not the case.

 

[parmandjack]

...To date, evolution is the only currently workable THEORY (that is, a successfully time-tested hypothesis) to explain the development of biological adaptations.

...hahahaha... now that IS laughable heretic... besides loving the sound of your own voice, your total refusal to accept anything other than your own opinion is prominent in everything you post... your arrogance and intolerance towards any contradicting information is eye-opening... suffice to say, you DO consider yourself as quite the intellectual don't you?

...hahaha... evolution is NOT a "successfully time-tested hypothesis"... as an explanation for the origins of life... did you even READ the articles, or simply quickly scan and then flippently dismiss them because they did not "jive" with your opinion? hmmm... that assessment would seem to be the accurate one considering you dismiss the arguments by name-calling prominent scientists in their own fields!

MICRO-Evolution, ie: adaptions within a species due to a "loss" of information, is valid... however Macro-Evolution, ie: adaption of one species to another as in cat to horse etc... is not valid... that would require the injection of new information... I could FILL this thread with scientific paper after scientific paper dis-proving the "theory" of evolution... but you would flippently ignore that evidence too...

...hahahaha... you are as funny as you are close-minded and intolerant heretic... so as I plan on ignoring your secular rantings and ravings (isn't that what you like to call any differing opinions from Born Again Christians?) from this point on, you can "interpret" my silence on THIS string starting this moment, in any way you want...

...hahahahaha... LOL

 

[heretic888]

Oy vey.

Ok, a few things:

1) Just because a bunch of guys wrote a few book and published some articles in non-scientific media does not "disprove" evolution's standing as a working theory. You will note that NONE of those individuals had their formulations go through a peer-reviewed scientific journal.

2) The dilineation between "micro" and "macro" evolution is an artificial one, created by creationists (heh, a pun) to further their agenda. Those terms are not discussed among current scientific circles.

3) Evolutionary theory does not attempt to explain the "origins of life". It explains how biological forms change and adapt over time (including humans).

4) Contrary to what one of your articles stated, scientific method is not just observations of phenomena that happen in the present. This demonstrates a decided ignorance of what exactly "science" is --- once again, most likely to further a political agenda. Science is quite often used in reconstructive methodologies, such as with the big bang theory (which, like evolution, has much data to support its premises).

If science only studies presently observable states of change, what do you call archaeology?? History?? Semiotics??

5) Usually, those that feel the need to attack their opponents with such labels as "ignorant", "intolerant", "close-minded", and "ranting", don't have much of a strong premise to base their arguments. Name-calling is the tactic of the intellectually desperate.

Laterz.

 

[parmandjack]

...I know what I said...well after this.... I really mean it this time... i just had to address this guys rantings one last time, his rediculous comments have got my dander up as bignick likes to say...

1) Just because a bunch of guys wrote a few book and published some articles in non-scientific media does not "disprove" evolution's standing as a working theory. You will note that NONE of those individuals had their formulations go through a peer-reviewed scientific journal.

....are you sure? did you research your claim? or just making a blanket statement (again) to support your opinion... and even if you were correct, wouldn't you wonder why? its called going against the current, and in this secular world, they are ignored in favour of the religions of atheism and evolution... remember that just because the majority believes something, doesnt make it correct... previous scientific "facts" believed by the "majority" of scientist, have repeatedly been proven false...

2) The dilineation between "micro" and "macro" evolution is an artificial one, created by creationists (heh, a pun) to further their agenda. Those terms are not discussed among current scientific circles.

...ummm...you are wrong

3) Evolutionary theory does not attempt to explain the "origins of life". It explains how biological forms change and adapt over time (including humans).

...ummm.. you are wrong again

4) Contrary to what one of your articles stated, scientific method is not just observations of phenomena that happen in the present. This demonstrates a decided ignorance of what exactly "science" is --- once again, most likely to further a political agenda. Science is quite often used in reconstructive methodologies, such as with the big bang theory (which, like evolution, has much data to support its premises).

....ummm you are wrong again and again and again - don't you ever get tired of injecting your "beliefs" into topics under the guise of fact?

If science only studies presently observable states of change, what do you call archaeology?? History?? Semiotics??

...both of which support biblical claims... thanks...

5) Usually, those that feel the need to attack their opponents with such labels as "ignorant", "intolerant", "close-minded", and "ranting", don't have much of a strong premise to base their arguments. Name-calling is the tactic of the intellectually desperate.

... you really think so?

hmmm....

Well considering that I have been constantly assaulted with all of those labels and more, such as "bigot", for voicing my opinion in contradiction to many in these strings, I would have to state that it I find it humerous being again labelled with yet another tag, as now being "intellectually desperate", for simply stating a fact.

LOL...

Well for the record...here are just a couple of quickie quotes of comments you have made in the past, but I'm sure you'll explain them away, considering your self held belief in your intellectual superiority and logic.... assuming your own description doesnt include you?

.... Ever wonder why all the nutjobs you cited either....

....Just spent the last ten minutes or so reading through this thread (although I must admit I often found myself merely skimming through the rantings that were parmanjack's posts).

Once again, I provide facts this time refuting evolution (and only the tip of the iceberg too), and the information is flippantly dismissed with nothing more than opinions...

GASP!!!!
... oh yes people, you are correct... my comments are not very "loving" or "christian" like are they?!?!!

Imagine that... a Born-Again Christian who exhibits human feelings and failings such as annoyance and anger and lack of patience towards the intolerance, arrogance and false modesty of others... guess I'm human after all eh?

whew... better mark that down as another black mark against belief in Jesus.... but wait a minute.... He didn't make me angry, and isnt responsible for my present attitute... heretics arrogance is... I guess then we shouldnt hold Christianity and God hostage and accountable for all the evil perpetrated in the world in the "name" of Christianity and Jesus then eh?

But wait a minute!!!! there is also Scripture that tells of Rightious Anger, in defense of the Word of God! Could that be describing me considering the non-stop onslaught of unbelievers ?

 

[kenpo tiger]

He's baaaack.

Robertson, you, Paul and Heretic had me really interested. Then that person entered the fray, so yours truly is o-u-t.

By the by, my educational basics included all sorts of things which weren't, uh, *scientific* in origin - I'm an arts person and always have been, but I can think in the manner to which you refer despite my abysmal record in the sciences. :ultracool

Darwin was a genius.

 

[RandomPhantom700]

i just had to address this guys rantings one last time, his rediculous comments have got my dander up as bignick likes to say...

So how many more "one last times" are there going to be? I swear, this is like hearing about the "final farewell tour" from Cher.

its called going against the current, and in this secular world, they are ignored in favour of the religions of atheism and evolution... remember that just because the majority believes something, doesnt make it correct... previous scientific "facts" believed by the "majority" of scientist, have repeatedly been proven false...

I wasn't aware that there is a singular "current of atheism" going on in the world. There are numerous other paths to follow, such that to be or not to be religious doesn't really go against any one flow of thought.

And oh yes, just because scientific claims have been disproven means nothing about the validity of science itself. In fact, these disproofs simply go to support science, since the standards of observation, testing, and adjustments of theory are central to the scientific process.

Finally, I'd like to point out that "just because the majority believes something, doesn't make it correct" applies just as equally to any belief, including Christianity.

...ummm...you are wrong

...ummm.. you are wrong again

....ummm you are wrong again and again and again - don't you ever get tired of injecting your "beliefs" into topics under the guise of fact?

Way to back up your claims here, buddy. And you accuse heretic of blanket statements?

...both of which support biblical claims... thanks...

Uhhhh, what?

Could that be describing me considering the non-stop onslaught of unbelievers ?

Onslaught of unbelievers...I need to write that down somewhere. See, if I had to pick one single aspect of fundamentalism that bothers me the most, it is the absolute refusal to see any common ground with those who are in one way or another different or opposed. The right & the wrong, the saved & the damned, our belief or complete lack of any belief, these are the terms that any type of disagreement is described in.

 

[Makalakumu]

A long time ago, I was really passionate about this debate. As an undergrad, I regularly participated in the type of discussion we are having in formal and in formal ways. Some of the things that have been posted on this thread have stirred the dragon...

Allow me to inject a little insight for what its worth... :idunno:

1. All anti-evolutionists are not creationists. This is true. There are a lot of other people out there who have vested interests in making sure evolutionary theory does not influence to many of our nation's youth. If you look at the bankrollers of the creationist movement, many of them are large corporations who have large PR campiagns to change people's perceptions regarding the environment. A central tenet of evolutionary "doctrine" states that we evolved from a common ancestor. If this is no longer true, then we no longer have to worry about our connections to other creatures on this planet. In this way, anti-evolutionism is nothing more then a facet in the continuing industrial attack on our environment.

2. Many of the anti-evolutionist's best arguments are attacks on evolutionary science. I am afraid that a great many of the oppositions points are true in this respect. Many evolutionists, myself included (as a physicist, I have regularly had to make assumptions regarding things that have barely been testable), have been prone to take the theory too far into untestable territory. This is the major failing of inductive theory, in my opinion. It is so seductively easy to overextrapolate. Fortunately, the majority of scientists are much more conservative then I, choosing instead to limit evolution more strictly to observation. A paleontologist professor I worked with in Western MN digging up plesiosaurs, fit this model well. Detailed studies of the comparitive anatomy of this family of animals points toward evolution. This brings me to my second point, evolutionary scientists who rely on deductive models instead of inductive, always find themselves coming out on top in this debate. The evidence points at the theory. The evidence points at evolution.

3. Lastly, when creationism and evolution are compared side by side, creationism is an inferior theory. Creationists who debate regularly viciously attempt to avoid this comparison because it truly is the deathknell. The sheer weight of evidence on the side of evolution buries the creationists convoluted explanations of the same evidence. They cannot escape Occum's Razor...

If anyone would like to test what I have posited, feel free... :asian:

upnorthkyosa :jedi1:

 

[rmcrobertson]

I really can't respond in detail to the endless--stuff, let's call it--dumped on the Forum from a group that's busy building a "Creation Museum," in Tennessee. One wonders if they will have a cool painting of one of Noah's kids feeding a stegosaur in the hold of the Ark, as they do out here at the Institute for Creation Science.

I was struck, however, by the chanting of the great Louis Agassiz's name as "proof," that evolutionary theory is completely absurd. Agassiz was perhaps the first or second scientist whose name I ever knew, back when I was four or five and reading all the "All About," books I could get my greasy little mitts on.

Regrettably, Agassiz was not always to be relied upon in scientific matters, particularly with those dealing with the development of human beings. Here is a quote of his from 1850:

"The indominable, courageous, proud Indianin — how very different a light he stands by the side of the submissive, obsequious, imitative negro, or by the side of the tricky, cunning, and cowardly Mongolian! Are not these facts indications that the different races do not rank upon one level in nature?"

Louis Agassiz, Professor of Geology and Zoology, Harvard University, 1850

This is, I am sorry to say, the sort of thing I have come to expect: it sure looks to me like somebody's ashamed of the human race's (singular, incidentally) origins in Africa.

Even worse, from the viewpoint of science, is the refusal to look at contemporary evolutionary theory--especially when writers like Steven Jay Gould dealt with creationist claims all the time. Why be so afraid? God, if he's there, ain't going anyplace.

I suspect that there's a whole knot of problems here. One has to do with capitalism: folks like "Parmandjack," blame, "secular humanism," for what's being done to their lives by the very economic system they espouse. One has to do with class resentment: many fundamentalist Christians, quite properly, are more than a little pissed about the general attitude towards them expressed by pointy-head intellectuals like me.

But, sorry, some of it's just clinging to a small world, a small universe. And that I find pretty awful--why be afraid to look clearly at the great, beautiful universe that you believe your Creator made? Why hang on to the petty, trivial little God who seems to want people to grovel and keep their eyes closed?

The story the Bible tells, you know, is about the human race growing up. Why reject that?

 

[heretic888]

Yup. Gonna agree with Robert here.

The simple truth is that a lot of these rejections of evolutionary theory have to do with other, underlying issues ---- y'know, like not wanting there to be a single human "race", an impetus to respect environmental concerns, notions that animal rights might actually have something to them, and lots of other wacky "liberal" ideas that are all actually scientifically sound.

.... of course, don't get me wrong. There are a LOT of "liberal" ideas that are not particularly scientifically sound --- such as the tabula rasa (which is really just a veiled argument for brainwashing for the sake of social "utopia"), cultural relativism, the "noble savage", the "noble chimp", and so forth. But, sorry, evolution ain't one of them.

I do find some of parmanjack's arguments rather.... interesting.

Y'know, like the idea that science only deals with present phenomena or observations. Might wanna tell that one to archaeologists, historians, or those crazy physicist guys that propose the big bang theory.

I have also personally never come across the terms "micro" and "macro" evolution in any of the standard biology textbooks I was taught in. I have only heard this dualism come up when a creationist is involved in the debate. Perhaps someone can shed some light??

Of course, the blanket generalizations, personal attacks, and "I swear this will be my last post --- REALLY!!" tactics of parmanjack certainly don't surprise. A troll I doth name thee.

Laterz.

 

[Bob Hubbard]

I always like it when someone tosses in the 'Jesus' card.

Age of planet

According to the 'creationists', it's about 6,000 years old.
According to various scientific tests, about 4.6 Billion years
http://geography.about.com/library/faq/blqzearthage.htm

Age of the "Sphinx"
Common belief is about 4,500 years old
New theory places it at about 10,000 years old
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/630309189X/103-6975610-7635047?v=glance

Age of Man
Biblical Belief is about 6,000 years.
Recent scientific studies: 160,000 years
http://www.warmafrica.com/index/geo/9/cat/1/a/a/artid/244


Personally, I think both theories are right, it is us who don't understand 'Gods' timescale. A conversation I had with a friend of mine who is a thological researcher says we've got it wrong. God didn't do it in 6 'days' and take Sunday off. He did it in 6 'time periods' (or little whiles) and then took a break. Think about it.
"I'll be there in an hour'
"I'll be there in a little while"
There is a difference, as anyone with kids knows.

God made Adam and Eve, they had 2 kids. 1 killed the other.
3 people.
Where did everyone else come from?
If there was a daughter not mentioned, then....we're all bastards.
If there were other people, who made them and when since they aren't documented? (And supposedly everything is.)

Maybe Evolution is the process by which Creation works?
The 2 concepts are compatable, IF we can step back and use an open mind.

 

[heretic888]

Personally, I think both theories are right, it is us who don't understand 'Gods' timescale. A conversation I had with a friend of mine who is a thological researcher says we've got it wrong. God didn't do it in 6 'days' and take Sunday off. He did it in 6 'time periods' (or little whiles) and then took a break. Think about it.

Personally, I think this literary revisionism. It happens quite often in theological circles --- more "modernized" thinkers begin to "read into" the Bible contemporary scientific and historical knowledge. Some have even read the Big Bang into the Genesis account (such as author Dan Brown).

The dead giveaway, of course, is that no one even imagined speculating something like the Big Bang or "six epochs" into Genesis until science disclosed these realities in the first place. I am quite sure, as human knowledge progresses, that new "truths" will be read into the Bible. My guess its the need to make it still seem "relevant" in an increasingly secular society --- not merely as literature or inspiration or an ethical guide, but as some kind of historical-empirical explanantion.

More conservative circles try and do this in Revelation (such as it "mentioning" 9/11 or Osama Bin Laden) --- with an opposite goal in mind, of course.

The simple truth is that the Bible did not magically pop out of the sky. It was written by human hands --- and formulated by human minds that thought the earth was flat, that the sun revolved around the earth, and that the "world" was all of 100 square miles. These guys were obviously not privy to the scientific knowledge we have today, and its rather disingenous to project such knowledge onto them posthumously.

God made Adam and Eve, they had 2 kids. 1 killed the other.
3 people.
Where did everyone else come from?
If there was a daughter not mentioned, then....we're all bastards.
If there were other people, who made them and when since they aren't documented? (And supposedly everything is.)

This is not unique to the Judaic myths. The creation myths of many, many peoples only revolve around the "creation" of that particular people. You will not that, generally, the word a tribe or group has for "human" is the same word they use for themselves.

All of them, without exception, have some way of "explaining away" where all these OTHER humans come from if they're actually the progenitors of the species. Hardly new.

Laterz.

 

[loki09789]

Herry,

As far as "science" how it is applied to the subject matter will have an impact on how it is viewed. The philosophical application of 'science' in the study of people will look different from the study of biology (physical study) or Chemistry. I am referring to the 'method of discovery' that science provides. Is it pure science, or 'true science' by no means, but will it help people recognize and be able to see how the scientific method has become the ruling mental structure that affects almost all aspects of our lives? Yes.

I agree, and have made the point that teaching "alternative brews" of creation and life in science that are based on religious or mystical origins is not appropriate. But, in Science classes, as NYS has chosen to resolve the issue to this point, Evolutionary theory has to be taught as only one of many perspectives on the issue. There are other areas/groups/school districts that are battling for equal time/representation and I don't agree with that either. My son's science teacher said that now the language is "Changes across time" or something to that affect.

I agree with the respecting other values idea, even if I don't agree with them. Now, when the rubber meets the road, the scientific theory (and I do know the difference between the 'everyday use' and the 'scientific use') of evolution AND the methodology that people use to support it has a more rational and convincing explanation.... but that could also be because we are living in the times when science rules the mind, I am not closing all doors on the validity of the mystics cuz there are things that we can explain logically that may have some 'divine spark' involved. Who knows.

Even Carl Sagan admitted to 'touching the divine' at times when he had started as a man with faith convictions, evolved to a follower of science and then became a 'doubter' of the pure science mind because the design was too perfect in his mind for it all to be purely random occurances that happened to line up like this.

Of course, on this stuff, you appear to be FAR more read on the topic, but that is where I am working from in a nutshell. Call it childish, but I like to keep a little Magic in my life, if not just for the pure pleasure of the hope in the infinite it brings.

 

[Feisty Mouse]

I have also personally never come across the terms "micro" and "macro" evolution in any of the standard biology textbooks I was taught in. I have only heard this dualism come up when a creationist is involved in the debate. Perhaps someone can shed some light??

Microevolution is the aspect of evolution that we can examine in terms of small behavoral and/or genetic changes, incrementally, in one species or within a family. Darwin's finches, selective pressures on fruit flies in the lab, etc.

Macroevolution is explaining, essentially, more of the "big picture". How does a new species suddenly emerge in the fossil record? Whence the Cambrian explosion?

These two things are clearly not unrelated, but the mechanics of microevolution are worked out in much greater detail - in part because we can study it experimentally in very quick-generation species. Macroevolution is what "creationism" attacks, because it is harder for us to demonstrate exactly what happened to bring about large-scale changes in species/body form/diversity.

I find that a bizarre tactic, however - attack part of the theory, implicitly acknowledging that another part (that we can study more readily) may be correct, then try to throw out the entire thing.

But macroevolution is what evolutionary biologists would really like to be able to get a hold of, so to speak.

If you understand the ideas of natural selection, genetic drift, deleterious mutations, speciation by geographical isolation, and so on, it's not hard to imagine how species may have rapidly emerged. Also, how behavioral changes can lead genetic evolution (and please, no-one crying "Lamarck!" on me, this is not Lamarckian inheritance I'm talking about) and prime a species to take advantage of structural changes.

As myself a religious person, I try to respect other's religious beliefs. Packaging them as science and trying to re-write scientific methodology is as insulting to me as it would be for me to walk into someone else's belief system and re-write it as a science, or explain away their beliefs.