← Autodidact Archive · Original Dissent · Petr
Thread ID: 13658 | Posts: 18 | Started: 2004-05-11
2004-05-11 18:57 | User Profile
This is one newsblog worth observing: it teaches you to "read between the lines" with science news as you already know how to read political news...
[SIZE=5]Science Bashes I.D. 05/07/2004[/SIZE]
[[COLOR=Blue]COLOR=Red]The Intelligent Design movement took another lashing by the journal Science,1 in the form of three book reviews by Steve Olson, a Washington DC area science writer. Olsen reviewed one pro-ID book, Darwin, Design and Public Education by John Angus Campbell and Stephen C. Meyer, and two anti-ID books, God, the Devil and Darwin by Niall Shanks, and Creationism’s Trojan Horse by Barbara Forrest and Paul R. Gross. A flavor of Olson’s rhetoric: “Shanks... deftly skewers the scientific pretensions of intelligent design creationists. He is particularly effective in demolishing the claims of creationist William Dembski...” (emphasis added in all quotes.). Olson calls the faithful to holy war: [/COLOR]
[COLOR=Red] Resistance to the teaching of evolution is not going to fade away. On the contrary, creationism appears again to be in a period of ascendancy. Science educators must try to understand and come to terms with the viewpoints and passions of those who feel threatened by the teaching of evolution in public schools. They also must be well informed to continue to resist the inclusion of religiously motivated ideas in science curricula.
1Steve Olson, “Evolution and Creationism: Shapes of a Wedge,” Science Vol 304, Issue 5672, 825-826, 7 May 2004, [DOI: 10.1126/science.1097382]. [/COLOR] [/COLOR]
[COLOR=Blue] Saddam Hussein talked tough when he had the power to torture any opponent, but when he met his match, he cowered in a hole. Evolutionists are such cowards. If you thought for a moment they were interested in the truth, then why don’t they invite Dembski to review the anti-ID books? It’s always loyal D.P. (Darwin Party) comrades who get to pummel the strawmen when reviewing pro-ID books, and cheer their champions when reviewing anti-ID books. Science, when touching on these subjects, is the Al Jazeera of Charlie worship. It broadcasts the weaknesses of its enemies, but hides the genocides of its imams. It rallies jihad against anyone who questions their sacred dogmas or threatens their pantheistic worldview.
Dembski can take care of himself. The master swordsman in The Design Revolution: Answering the Toughest Questions About Intelligent Design (IVP, 2004) and previous books, he deftly parries the “skewering” that Shanks and Olson bluff about, and doesn’t need our help, nor do Meyer and the other ID leaders. Their arguments are weightier and better stated than our few responses here.
Olson launches the usual stereotypes. It gets so tiring when they won’t listen. All the usual tactics, the usual fear-mongering, the usual loaded words, the usual hidden agendas, the usual guilt by association rhetoric must be swept aside when looking for any argument of merit. Strangely, Olson accuses ID of being aligned with radical deconstructionists. What? If anyone is removed from the demands of evidence, it is the Darwinists, whose flexible just-so storytelling method of science can explain away any problem.
Olson faintly admires Campbell’s “fine rhetorical flourish” and “the sophistication of those opposed to the teaching of evolution,” but only in the sense of watching a good actor, not admiring the substance of his arguments. But he cannot help but admit that “The volume’s legal, pedagogical, and social arguments--in contrast to much of its scientific discussion--are nuanced and informed.” How to respond to this artful rhetoric, he asks, which he fears will “play well with legislators and school board members”? [/COLOR]
[COLOR=Red]Scientists [sic] face a dilemma in deciding how to respond to anti-evolutionists. Demonstrating the scientific errors committed by creationists requires a thorough familiarity with their claims. But studying intelligent design hypotheses can be frustrating because they seem so obviously [sic] inspired [sic] by nonscientific [sic] considerations. When rebutted, intelligent design theorists tend to ignore the objections [sic], claim that all will be revealed in the future [sic; Dembski’s detailed response has been in print three months now, with years of responses by all ID leaders in print, on tape, on film, on radio, and on the web], or rework their arguments [sic] to draw the same conclusions in a slightly different way [Darwinists, of course, never do this]. Essentially, the worldviews of scientists [sic] and intelligent design theorists fail to intersect. Scientists seek to explain [sic] the natural world, whereas creationists [sic] seek to find unexplainable mysteries [sic] in the natural world. Sometimes, scientists [sic] may be tempted simply to ignore the entire affair. [/COLOR]
[COLOR=Blue]Stop right there. This is so lame and so hypocritical. It has all the flavor of the Pharisees discussing among themselves how to respond to Jesus’ clever “render unto Caesar” repartee “if we say this, he’ll say that, if we say that, he’ll say this, but if we say nothing, the people will stone us. I wish he would just go away.”
Not feeling that “science” (read: the priesthood of Darwin) is yet threatened, Olson is just annoyed at these pesky neighborhood brats, the “creationists” that keep coming back and disturbing his tea, not listening to them trying to warn him his house is on fire. He’s right about the worldview differences; trouble is, he equates (that is, equivocates) “science” with naturalistic philosophy. “Scientists seek to explain the natural world,” he claims (as if creationists and design theorists do not, forgetting that Kepler, Newton, Maxwell and so many other great scientists were design theorists), but he means they restrict themselves to natural causes (chance and necessity) and rule out, a priori, intelligent causes. The claim that “creationists seek to find unexplainable mysteries in the natural world” is a bald lie cloaked in loaded words. Intelligent causes are the only explanation for coded messaging and complex specified information. That is no mystery. It is already a practical truth in forensics, crytography, archeology and SETI. That lie is only superseded by this one: “Advocates of intelligent design have produced no evidence that anything other than naturally occurring mechanisms is responsible for the empirically observed world.” Anybody home? Watch this film... again.
Since we know Olson is already cheering for Shanks, it is a bit surprising to hear him worried that his Goliath is ignoring the sling. He asserts without elaboration that Shanks has skewered Dembski’s law of “conservation of information,” but then sees his champion’s forehead unprotected: “However, Shanks offers relatively little advice about how to respond to the demand that science educators ‘teach the controversy.’ In fact, by focusing on the more extreme social ambitions [sic] of creationists [sic], he sometimes overlooks their less divisive and therefore stronger arguments.” He must have read something that bothered him.
Most of Olson’s bluff consists of unmasking the hidden agenda of creationists, as if the D.P. motives are pure as the new fallen snow. He delights in Forrest and Gross holding up all the evidence of subversive religious public relations activity by the ID conspirators. What if they’re onto something? We’d like to hear more about those ”less divisive and therefore stronger arguments.” After all, they don’t want to conquer the D.P. regime with weapons of mass destruction; they just want to teach the controversy, to get the scientific evidence out into the open marketplace of ideas for discussion. They want to show the captives, who have heard only the party line about the usual icons (Haeckel’s embryos, melanism, the origin of life, the Cambrian explosion--items which Olson lists), the rest of the story: the facts admitted in the scientific journals but carefully filtered for mass consumption. Olson can’t allow that: he knows exactly what will happen: [/COLOR]
[COLOR=Red]According to polls (which are themselves controversial [sic] in this area), relatively few people in the United States believe that God played no role in the evolution [sic] of human beings from other life forms. Fortunately [sic], many Americans are adept at recognizing a material and a nonmaterial dimension to life, and usually they succeed [sic] in keeping the two domains separate. But when individuals are forced to choose, such as through a ballot initiative, science [read: the Darwin Party line] almost invariably suffers.[/COLOR]
[COLOR=Blue]Since the pigs at the Darwinian Animal Farm control the media and train the dogs, you have to attend the private councils with the other animals to know what’s really going on. Don’t despair over the power of the regime. Since the incessant news about molecular motors, biological codes and sudden appearance of complex organisms is screaming in their ears, it will only be a matter of time before their Dagon falls over face-first toward the ark of evidence. [/COLOR]
[url]http://www.creationsafaris.com/crev0504.htm[/url]
Petr
2004-05-11 20:11 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Petr]Science, when touching on these subjects, is the Al Jazeera of Charlie worship. It broadcasts the weaknesses of its enemies, but hides the genocides of its imams. It rallies jihad against anyone who questions their sacred dogmas or threatens their pantheistic worldview.[/QUOTE]
Great stuff, Petr. Good to see this kind of rhetoric coming from the right side of things. :thumbsup:
2004-05-11 22:26 | User Profile
Here's another example of the kind of bias the author discusses.
In the summer of 2002, the Boston Review invited the fifth-rate biologist Allan Orr to write a 6000 broadside attacking Dembski, Behe, and the Intelligent Design movement.
The editors then invited Bill Dembski to respond.
His response, the editors told him, should be no more than 1000 words.
Not 6000 -- 1000.
So Dembski wrote a 1000 word reponse.
The editors then gave Orr another 1000 words to attack Dembski's rebuttal, and -- amazingly enough -- in his 1000 word rebuttal to the rebuttal Orr complained that Dembski didn't deal with all of the points he made in his original 6000 word essay!
Good grief, Ya think!
If the editors of the Boston Review were genuinely interested in the Truth, they should have given Dembski and Orr 4000 words each.
But no.
Out of 8000 published words, the member of the Darwin Party got 7000 -- and the ID proponent got 1000.
That's the way the Darwin Party likes to play it.
We Christians are clearly up against dishonest cowards.
2004-05-12 02:04 | User Profile
I have a number of questions for you folks. I'm asking them mainly for the sake of curiosity. There are quite a few here, so don't feel compelled to answer them all:
Let's assume that evolutionary biologists all know they're wrong about evolution but stick to their false story nonetheless. What do you suppose the motives are for their deceit?
Some evolutionary biologists are Christians (e.g., Ken Miller of Brown University). Do you think their profession of Christian faith is merely a facade? Are you comfortable with making that judgment before God?
Have any evolutionary biologists ever broken ranks and blown the whistle on the great conspiracy to push evolution at the expense of the Gospel?
What other areas of science besides evolutionary biology do you NOT trust (if any)? Why not?
Are only evolutionary biologists evil, lying cheats, or does that description apply to physicists, chemists, and all types of engineers as well? If only evolutionary biologists are liars, then why do you suppose they're unique in that regard among scientists? On the other hand, if scientists in general cannot be trusted, then why do you use their products and trust your lives and those of your loved ones to their work every single day?
If creationists are smart enough to be correct when nearly all of mainstream biology is wrong, then why do creationists not use all that immense brainpower to do things like cure cancer? If someone's smart enough to debunk evolution and prove all those experts wrong without even needing to take the time to earn a biology degree, then certainly a relatively minor feat like curing cancer should be a piece of cake, right?
Have Christians ever turned out to be wrong about the claims of science in the past, even when they'd been certain they were right and science was wrong?
Do witches exist? Are they responsible for causing major storms, bad harvests, and similar catastropic events?
2004-05-12 02:55 | User Profile
[COLOR=Red]- “Do you think their profession of Christian faith is merely a facade? Are you comfortable with making that judgment before God?” [/COLOR]
No sir. Some of them can be very sincere in their faith, and one can also be very sincere in error.
Do not put words in our mouth – we simply feel that they are deceiving themselves if they think that the hypothesis of evolution of life - as it now stands - is in any way agreeable with Christianity.
Humans are very prone to self-deception, especially on important matters.
[COLOR=Red]- “Do witches exist? Are they responsible for causing major storms, bad harvests, and similar catastropic events?”[/COLOR]
Clumsy strawman. The Bible teaches nothing like this.
See another thread that I have just posted on the history section to see how the so-called “witch craze” has been hugely exaggerated, and how early medieval Church in fact actively discouraged faith in witchcraft.
You just keep pushing on the idea that believing in evolution, and by implication, in materialist naturalism, is equivalent in “believing in science.”
Petr
2004-05-12 03:08 | User Profile
[COLOR=Red] - "If creationists are smart enough to be correct when nearly all of mainstream biology is wrong, then why do creationists not use all that immense brainpower to do things like cure cancer?"[/COLOR]
This argument contains no internal logic whatsoever.
But what do you know, certain man named Raymond Damadian happens to be a hard-core creationist, and also the man who was responsible for invention of MRI scanner, which I think has had somewhat benevolent effect on cancer studies.
[SIZE=4][COLOR=Blue][SIZE=5]Super-Scientist Slams Society’s Spiritual Sickness! [/SIZE] [/SIZE]
Dr Raymond Damadian, Pioneer of MRI
[url]http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/magazines/docs/v16n3_mri.asp[/url]
"Dr Raymond V. Damadian would probably be too humble to accept the title ‘super-scientist’ but the many people whose lives have been saved by the MRI (magnetic resonance imaging) scanning technology he developed might think otherwise.
Hailed as one of the greatest diagnostic breakthroughs ever, this technique, using advanced principles of physics and computing, lets doctors visualize many organs and their diseased parts without the risks of exploratory surgery or the radiation associated with traditional scanning methods.
Hall of fame
Dr Damadian’s invention has earned him several top awards, including the United States’ National Medal of Technology, the Lincoln-Edison Medal, and induction into the National Inventors Hall of Fame alongside Thomas Edison, Alexander Graham Bell and the Wright brothers.
A Bible-believing Christian, this great inventor is convinced of the scientific truth of Genesis creation and its foundational importance to church and society.
...
Highest purpose
Dr Damadian says emphatically that his greatest scientific discovery was to find that ‘the highest purpose a man can find for his life is to serve the Will of God.’ He recently attended a major seminar at which he heard creation speaker Ken Ham calling for Americans to return to trust in the whole Word of God ‘beginning with Moses and the prophets’. He says that he is tremendously encouraged by the creation science ministry and blessed by it, calling it ‘a courageous exposition of the truth’ and a vitally important message for America today.
He believes that rejection of God’s account of Creation as the foundation for our society is basic to the spiritual, social and economic sickness of our times. We are replaying ‘the seven steps of human regression and social disintegration’ which the Apostle Paul described in Romans chapter 1 as happening subsequent to the rejection of the true God as Creator.
If Genesis cannot be accepted unqualified, what else in Scripture can be taken as the unqualified Word of God? Acceptance of the unqualified Word of God ‘has been the foundation for Western civilization since the printing of the Gutenberg Bible in the fifteenth century’, he says. This has resulted in 200 years of blessing for Western civilization, including a level of individual freedom ‘unprecedented in human history’.[/COLOR]
(By the way: Damadian offers us a perfect example of institutional discrimination against creationists: any evolutionist in his place would have become a Nobelist long time ago.)
Petr
2004-05-12 03:25 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Angler]Have Christians ever turned out to be wrong about the claims of science in the past, even when they'd been certain they were right and science was wrong?[/QUOTE]
Of course. Nobody is claiming Christian science rises to the level of infallability. On the other hand, it's important to keep in mind that many of the great minds of science were genuine Biblical Creationists. Maxwell is a great example. Practically every achievement that relies on electricty or magnetism depends on his insights, and he was a creationist.
2004-05-12 04:25 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Valley Forge]Out of 8000 published words, the member of the Darwin Party got 7000 -- and the ID proponent got 1000.[/QUOTE]
Just call that the handicap. :thumbsup:
2004-05-12 05:17 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Angler]Let's assume that evolutionary biologists all know they're wrong about evolution but stick to their false story nonetheless. What do you suppose the motives are for their deceit?
Let's assume the moon is made of green cheese. What do you suppose its nutritional content is? Your questioned is loaded and invalid.
Who is claiming all evolutionary biologists know they're wrong about Evolution? I believe Evolutionists believe in Evolution.
Some evolutionary biologists are Christians (e.g., Ken Miller of Brown University). Do you think their profession of Christian faith is merely a facade? Are you comfortable with making that judgment before God?
There are people professing to be Christian even though they embrace every kind of evil under the sun. Reading Miller's webpage leads me to think he's nothing but a nominal Christian. Everything I read was about getting people to accept Evolution and none of it was to get people to accept Christianity. Why is this the way all "theistic evolutionists" address theism vs. evolution?
"That's why creationist reasoning, ultimately, is much more dangerous to religion than to science." Of course, he doesn't find any danger in Evolutionist reasoning - even though Evolution is the primary cause of atheism. I could have predicted that.
After Miller was brought up in a school system, a culture, and maybe even a family that promoted Evolution, maybe Miller is just deluded. His arguments aren't compelling.
"By pointing to the process of making a flower as proof of the reality of God, Father Murphy was embracing the idea that God finds it necessary to cripple nature." Hasn't Brown ever heard of the Fall? To make matters worse for Brown, what he thinks is crippled nature (flowers are modified leaves) is not crippled at all, it's just efficient design.
"Each of the great Western monotheistic traditions sees God as truth, love, and knowledge." "Each and every increase in our understanding of the natural world is a step toward God." Such comments sound more pantheist than Christian.
Have any evolutionary biologists ever broken ranks and blown the whistle on the great conspiracy to push evolution at the expense of the Gospel?
What great conspiracy? A room full of zealots need not conspire. They all share the same agenda. Are you part of of great conspiracy, or are your loaded and invalid questions your own doing?
Why is it that "Christian" evolutionary biologists seem so unconcerned about Evolution displacing the Gospel? Do you deny that Evolution contributes to atheism? Do you disagree with the statement "Darwin made it easy to become an intellectually fulfilled atheist." Do you think atheism is not at the expense of the Gospel?
What other areas of science besides evolutionary biology do you NOT trust (if any)? Why not?
Another loaded and invalid question. Evolution is a religion. Creationists do not dispute scientific findings, just evolutionist interpretations.
If creationists are smart enough to be correct when nearly all of mainstream biology is wrong, then why do creationists not use all that immense brainpower to do things like cure cancer?
If finding the cure for cancer is the measure of who is right, then why haven't evolutionists cured cancer? Again, your question is bogus. Evolutionists have a huge advantage in that the government has given them control of the educational system and of most cancer research. Still, what will you say when someone does come up with a cure for cancer and that person is a Creationist? Suddenly, you'll agree that your measure is invalid.
Have Christians ever turned out to be wrong about the claims of science in the past, even when they'd been certain they were right and science was wrong?
Have Evolutionists ever turned out to be wrong about the claims of science in the past?
2004-05-12 20:48 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Petr][COLOR=Red]- ââ¬ÅDo you think their profession of Christian faith is merely a facade? Are you comfortable with making that judgment before God?ââ¬Â [/COLOR]
No sir. Some of them can be very sincere in their faith, and one can also be very sincere in error.
Do not put words in our mouth ââ¬â we simply feel that they are deceiving themselves if they think that the hypothesis of evolution of life - as it now stands - is in any way agreeable with Christianity. I was not putting words into your mouths; I was asking for your viewpoints. There's a difference.
Humans are very prone to self-deception, especially on important matters. Oh, I agree completely.
[COLOR=Red]- ââ¬ÅDo witches exist? Are they responsible for causing major storms, bad harvests, and similar catastropic events?ââ¬Â[/COLOR]
Clumsy strawman. The Bible teaches nothing like this. How can a question be a "strawman"? And although I never mentioned the Bible in my question, the Bible does imply that witches exist. It says, "Thou shalt not suffer a witch to live." It also mentions sorcerers and magicians (such as Simon of Magus and those of Pharaoh). For many years, Church authorities believed that witches were responsible for great misfortunes like those mentioned above. They based that belief on the Bible. If you don't believe this, pick up a copy of the Malleus Maleficarum and read through it. (You can find it online for free.)
See another thread that I have just posted on the history section to see how the so-called ââ¬Åwitch crazeââ¬Â has been hugely exaggerated, and how early medieval Church in fact actively discouraged faith in witchcraft. I haven't seen that thread yet, but it's absurd to claim that the medieval Church discouraged faith in witchcraft. There are many surviving documents from that period that tell a very different story.
You just keep pushing on the idea that believing in evolution, and by implication, in materialist naturalism, is equivalent in ââ¬Åbelieving in science.ââ¬Â Evolution does not imply materialism. And resorting to supernatural explanations of natural phenomena (as creationists do) is not science. Science is about seeking natural explanations for phenomena.
2004-05-12 21:00 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Petr][COLOR=Red] - "If creationists are smart enough to be correct when nearly all of mainstream biology is wrong, then why do creationists not use all that immense brainpower to do things like cure cancer?"[/COLOR]
This argument contains no internal logic whatsoever. LOL. You may not understand the logic, but it's there.
But what do you know, certain man named Raymond Damadian happens to be a hard-core creationist, and also the man who was responsible for invention of MRI scanner, which I think has had somewhat benevolent effect on cancer studies. I have heard about him, but I'm not familiar enough with the details of his story to comment on it. If he did invent the MRI independently, then I agree that he should have received the Nobel Prize for it. In any case, he is a glaring exception. Most creationist "scientists" I've heard about received their degrees from online "degree mills" or unaccredited schools, and few every contribute anything to the fund of scientific knowledge.
2004-05-12 21:13 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Valley Forge]Of course. Nobody is claiming Christian science rises to the level of infallability. On the other hand, it's important to keep in mind that many of the great minds of science were genuine Biblical Creationists. Maxwell is a great example. Practically every achievement that relies on electricty or magnetism depends on his insights, and he was a creationist.[/QUOTE]Maxwell was a mathematician and physicist who didn't investigate problems in biology (at least not to my knowledge). Even more important, evolutionary theory was only in its infancy during his lifetime. No fossil record was known back then, and DNA had yet to be discovered. I wouldn't be surprised if Maxwell never even heard of evolutionary theory during his lifetime (though I could be wrong about that).
2004-05-12 21:54 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Happy Hacker]Let's assume the moon is made of green cheese. What do you suppose its nutritional content is? Your questioned is loaded and invalid. If the moon is made of green cheese, then its nutritional content is obviously whatever the nutritional content of the appropriate amount of green cheese happens to be. My question was not "loaded and invalid" -- it was hypothetical.
Who is claiming all evolutionary biologists know they're wrong about Evolution? I believe Evolutionists believe in Evolution. That's why I asked; because I didn't know what you believed. I never assumed anything there.
There are people professing to be Christian even though they embrace every kind of evil under the sun. Reading Miller's webpage leads me to think he's nothing but a nominal Christian. Everything I read was about getting people to accept Evolution and none of it was to get people to accept Christianity. Why is this the way all "theistic evolutionists" address theism vs. evolution? Maybe because they're trying to make the point that theism and evolution are perfectly compatible (which they obviously are).
"That's why creationist reasoning, ultimately, is much more dangerous to religion than to science." Of course, he doesn't find any danger in Evolutionist reasoning - even though Evolution is the primary cause of atheism. I could have predicted that. Whether or not evolution tends to cause atheism is irrelevant to whether or not evolution is true. And as a personal aside, my own loss of faith in Christianity did not come from belief in evolution. Even as a faithful Catholic I never took the Bible literally, so evolution was never an obstacle to my faith.
After Miller was brought up in a school system, a culture, and maybe even a family that promoted Evolution, maybe Miller is just deluded. His arguments aren't compelling. Do you not think that those who are brought up by people who oppose evolution aren't influenced by their upbringing?
What great conspiracy? A room full of zealots need not conspire. They all share the same agenda. Are you part of of great conspiracy, or are your loaded and invalid questions your own doing? Of course I'm not a part of any conspiracy. And why are my questions "invalid"? Why are they "loaded"? They are meant to be taken at face value.
Why is it that "Christian" evolutionary biologists seem so unconcerned about Evolution displacing the Gospel? Do you deny that Evolution contributes to atheism? Do you disagree with the statement "Darwin made it easy to become an intellectually fulfilled atheist." Do you think atheism is not at the expense of the Gospel? You seem to think that only Biblical literalists are real Christians, but the simple fact is that only a small minority of Christians -- almost all of them confined to the US Bible Belt -- take the Bible literally. Most Christians believe that the Bible uses allegory to teach moral and spiritual truths, much as Jesus used parables to teach his followers. Fundamentalist Christianity is not mainstream Christianity, although of course many fundamentalists like to think that they are the only "true" Christians.
In short, evolutionist Christians aren't worried about evolution displacing the Gospel because they see science as independent of the Gospel.
Another loaded and invalid question. Evolution is a religion. Creationists do not dispute scientific findings, just evolutionist interpretations. Evolution is not a religion; it is a theory that makes predictions based on empirical evidence. It attempts to explain observations in natural terms. Religion explains observations in supernatural terms, and it does so without supporting evidence. Evolution IS supported by evidence. Denying that the evidence exists doesn't change any of it one bit, and neither does it change the fact that evolutionary theory has been validated by successful predictions of other phenomena.
[url]http://www.biomedcentral.com/1471-2148/[/url]
If finding the cure for cancer is the measure of who is right, then why haven't evolutionists cured cancer? That wasn't the point. The point is that creationists generally feel qualified to comment on issues about which they know little to nothing. Where do creationists get off criticizing the scientific work of people whose work they don't understand?
Again, your question is bogus. How so?
Evolutionists have a huge advantage in that the government has given them control of the educational system and of most cancer research. Perhaps that's because applying for funding is a competitive process in which scientists whose work yields concrete, usable results are the winners. Creationists generally don't understand science (or they explain everything by "God did it"), so they don't get funding. Meanwhile, mainstream science astounds the world with its progress in fields such as medicine and computing.
Still, what will you say when someone does come up with a cure for cancer and that person is a Creationist? Suddenly, you'll agree that your measure is invalid. I never said that curing cancer was a measure of anything; as noted above, I was making a point about the arrogance necessary to argue with experts in fields in which one doesn't even have a degree.
Have Evolutionists ever turned out to be wrong about the claims of science in the past?[/QUOTE]Yes. Apart from mathematics, science never claims to have the complete and unadorned truth about anything. Scientific theories are NEVER considered proven beyond doubt. That's what makes science so much more credible than religion. Religion claims to have absolute truth without having any real basis for that claim; science has a basis for its claims, but even then it always remains open to new evidence and the modification of theories.
Furthermore, creationists have an emotional bias in favor of their beliefs; evolutionists generally do not. How do I figure that? Because evolutionists come from a wide variety of religious beliefs, whereas creationists are ALWAYS religious fundamentalists. If evolutionists are proved wrong, it doesn't force them to change their religious views (proving intelligent design does not prove the existence of God); if creationists are proved wrong, they have to discard their most cherished beliefs. Which side, then, is more likely to be biased?
2004-05-13 13:44 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Angler]Most creationist "scientists" I've heard about received their degrees from online "degree mills" or unaccredited schools, and few every contribute anything to the fund of scientific knowledge.[/QUOTE]
Another major problem with creation science is the leaders' willingness to deceive. If creationists are concerned about credibility and honesty they should drive people like "Dr." Carl Baugh ([url]http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/paluxy/degrees.html[/url] ) from their midst and never allow him to publish in Ex nihilo or any of their other mags again. This and the fact that so much of their science sounds like tabloid headlines ("Dinosaur Blood Discovered" "A Frozen Ninety Foot Tall Plum Tree with Ripe Fruit and Green Leaves Found North of the Arctic Circle" "Japanese Trawler Discovers Living Plesiosaur" "Noah's Ark Discovered"-- yes, these are real creationist claims) should make anyone suspicious.
An earlier poster noted that many evolutionists (like those at talkorigins) have an agenda. To that I would say, so what? Maybe they do. That neither proves nor disproves anything. Those promoting slave reparations have an agenda, should I then conclude that slavery never occured?
I've found that just by following the creationists' citations, one can learn scads about their claims. For instance, my father-in-law, a priest and a creationist, was taunting me on how mtDNA dating has yielded a date for Mitochondrial eve at 6,500 years ago. I suppose the assumption is that there were two (and only two) studies; one yielding a finding of about 200K years ago and one pointing to about 6500 years ago and, of course, the wicked evolutionists picked one and ignored the other. So I located the creationist article and followed the citation.
[Parsons, T. J. et al., 1997, A high observed substitution rate in the human mitochondrial control region. Nature Genetics 15: 363-368.]
The study showed that the part of the mitochondrial dna they were looking at gave a bunch of differing dates. The creationists just plucked the one they wanted and gave no credence nor explanation for the others. If all (or even most or much of) the dating was showing 6,500 years ago, then that might indicate something. But the fact that they pick one date out of several, indicates the level of science going on among them. Because of the volitility of that part of the mtDNA (showing a great many differing dates) it is not now used. Subsequent dating has pointed to a date about 171,500 years ago. But the creationist claim also got me thinking, mtDNA has also been used to discern when races diverged from one another. It is determined that Asians and whites (according to mtDNA) diverged about 40K years ago. Take the ratio of that to the 171,500 and then substitute 6500 for the larger date. This would indicate that by creationist accounts, whites and Asians would have diverged in about 489AD!
2004-05-13 23:41 | User Profile
The Darwin Party should clean up its own side of the street before casting stones Feric.
Or have you forgotten have forgotten Ernst Haeckel's notorious forgeries?
Haeckel's fictionalized drawings of human embryos popularized the "theory" that "ontogeny recapitulates phylogeny," which is still found in many biology text books (according to talkorigins.org).
How many text books mention the Paluxy's tooth hoax?
2004-05-14 00:17 | User Profile
But who was it who exposed these hoaxes?
Creationists???
Nope.
[QUOTE=Valley Forge]The Darwin Party should clean up its own side of the street before casting stones Feric.
Or have you forgotten have forgotten Ernst Haeckel's notorious forgeries?
Haeckel's fictionalized drawings of human embryos popularized the "theory" that "ontogeny recapitulates phylogeny," which is still found in many biology text books (according to talkorigins.org).
How many text books mention the Paluxy's tooth hoax?[/QUOTE]
2004-05-14 00:26 | User Profile
Feric,
I realize a creationist was behind the Paluxy's tooth hoax. My point is that this hoax has caused little or no damage wheras Haeckel's fictional embryos are still found in many textbooks. And, anecdotally, in debating this subject on the Internet I've encountered a surprising number of people who still spout that "ontogeny recapitulates phylogeny" baloney.
2004-05-14 00:32 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Valley Forge] I realize a creationist was behind the Paluxy's tooth hoax. [/QUOTE]
Yes, I misunderstood your argument with the original post, I'm sorry you saw it before I could correct it.