Loosening Darwin's Grip

Citizen Magazine ^ | March 2003 | Clem Boyd

[Remedy]

Federal legislation has given Christians nationwide a boost in their battle to allow evidence against Charles Darwin's controversial theory into public school classrooms.

Larry Taylor had run his volunteers through public-speaking drills, and now he was seeing the fruit of his labor.

Parents favoring a new science education policy in Cobb County, Ga., a policy that would allow evidence against evolution into classrooms long dominated by Darwin’s flawed theory, were gaining the upper hand at the county’s September board meeting. The parents were offering coherent and compelling arguments, each of them concluding their remarks within the board-imposed time limit. The other side wasn’t nearly as impressive.

"The opposition was disorganized," Taylor recalled. "They kept making the same baseless charges and never got much beyond introducing themselves before their time was up."

The Cobb board must have noted the difference, because it voted unanimously for "teaching the controversy" — permitting teachers to discuss with their students the growing number of studies and reports contradicting evolutionary theory.

The media misreported what Cobb County board members had voted to do, though, claiming the school board had mandated creationism. No matter. The idea of allowing greater freedom in science education, encouraged by language attached to President Bush’s 2002 education act, is emboldening parents and school board members across the nation.

"It is time for defenders of Darwin to engage in serious dialogue and debate with their scientific critics," said Jed Macosko, a research molecular biologist at the University of California, Berkeley. "Science can’t grow where institutional gatekeepers try to prevent new challengers from being heard."

The List Keeps Growing

The seeds for the Cobb County success were sown in September 2001, when the Seattle-based Discovery Institute compiled a list of 100 U.S. scientists who said they were skeptical that the cornerstones of evolution — random mutation and natural selection — could account for the complexity of life. The list included professors and researchers at Princeton, the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, the University of Pennsylvania, Yale and the National Laboratories at Livermore, Calif., and Los Alamos, N.M.

Chemist Henry "Fritz" Schaefer of the University of Georgia, a five-time Nobel nominee, commented, "Some defenders of Darwinism embrace standards of evidence for evolution that as scientists they would never accept in other circumstances."

In 2001, the voices of dissent finally caught the attention of congressional leaders.

When the U.S. Senate considered Bush’s education reform bill, the No Child Left Behind Act, Rick Santorum, R-Pa., offered a nonbinding "sense of the Senate" amendment spelling out how science teachers should approach the subject of the origin and diversity of life.

The amendment read in part: "A quality science education should prepare students to distinguish the data and testable theories of science from religious or philosophical claims that are made in the name of science. Where topics are taught that may generate controversy(such as biological evolution), the curriculum should help students to understand the full range of scientific views, why such topics may generate controversy, and how scientific discoveries can profoundly affect society."

In other words, science classes should be free to teach the controversies surrounding the evidence for evolution.

The paragraph was not included in the final bill but inserted instead in the conference report accompanying the legislation. Conference reports offer a guide to understanding Congress’ intent in passing specific legislation.

"A number of scholars are now raising scientific challenges to the usual Darwinian account of the origins of life," Santorum said after the bill passed. "Thus, it is entirely appropriate that the scientific evidence behind them is examined in science classrooms. Efforts to shut down scientific debates, as such, only serve to thwart the true purposes of education, science and law."

Santorum’s paragraph gave further impetus to an ever-expanding movement.

Ohio Firestorm

In June 2001, a team of 41 teachers and scientists began writing standards to serve as the basis for science education curriculum throughout Ohio. These would become the foundation for new state-mandated achievement tests kids would have to pass to graduate high school. There was a lot on the line.

Bob Lattimer, a research chemist from Hudson, Ohio, and a member of the science writing team, noticed the proposed instruction on biological origins would require students to learn Darwin’s theory but not the debate surrounding it. He offered changes to the policy that would allow teaching alternative explanations only to have them repeatedly rejected.

Then, on Jan. 11, 2002, just a few days after the education reform act became federal law, the Ohio school board’s standards committee heard from John Calvert, managing director of the Kansas-based Intelligent Design Network. Calvert explained that the state’s science standards shut out competing theories about the origin of life and censored legitimate criticism.

That presentation spurred a debate drawing more than 1,500 spectators. Among the speakers was Brown University biologist Kenneth R. Miller, who searched his laptop’s hard drive for the text of the education bill and projected it onto a screen. He argued that Santorum’s paragraph is not law, and therefore irrelevant to Ohio science standards.

On his Web site, Miller blasted the intelligent design camp for misleading the public: "The fact that the anti-evolutionists eagerly misrepresent both the content of the education bill and the language in the new education act is at once distressing and instructive."

The Discovery Institute was quick to correct Miller’s assertions.

"While the Santorum statement may not have the ‘force of law,’ it is a powerful statement of federal education policy, and it provides authoritative guidance on how the statutory provisions of the No Child Left Behind Act are to be carried out," a Web site news release noted.

The board also heard from two Ohio congressmen — Republicans John Boehner and Steve Chabot. Their March 15 letter to the state board said, "The Santorum language clarifies that public school students are entitled to learn that there are differing scientific views on issues such as biological evolution."

Meanwhile, most of the public feedback sided with the Discovery Institute. A poll released in May 2002 by Zogby International found that nearly eight out of every 10 Ohioans supported the teaching of intelligent design in classrooms where Darwinian evolution also is taught. A survey by The Plain Dealer newspaper in Cleveland offered similar findings: 74 percent of Ohioans said evidence for and against evolution should be taught in science classrooms, while 59 percent said intelligent design should be included in origins study.

Altogether, 20,000 people contacted the state board, urging it to allow classrooms to "teach the controversy."

That swayed the state board, which voted in December to adopt a teach-the-controversy policy.

"The Santorum language gave impetus to the board that if they did move in this direction they would have support from federal legislators," said spokesperson Jody Sjogream of Science Excellence for All Ohioans.

Board member Debbie Owen Fink agreed.

"The Santorum language strengthened the case for Ohio to be bold in dealing with controversial areas of the curriculum, in a very up front and fair manner. Santorum helped us frame the issue."

Cobb Controversy

Meanwhile, another school board was warring over the origin of life.

The Cobb County debate began quietly in 2001, when attorney and parent Marjorie Rogers of Marietta learned the school district was preparing to adopt new science textbooks. When she reviewed the proposed textbooks at a public meeting in early 2002, Rogers noticed they presented evolution as a fact, not a theory. She rallied her neighbors and friends and circulated a petition urging the school board to use disclaimer language similar to what’s used in Alabama:

"This textbook contains material on evolution. Evolution is a theory, not a fact, regarding the origin of living things. This material should be approached with an open mind, studied carefully, and critically considered."

The board voted to apply disclaimer stickers to the books. But pro-family groups, such as the local chapters of the American Family Association (AFA), Concerned Women for America and the Christian Coalition, wanted more — a new policy for science education.

"The proposal of the Cobb School Board is to approach [evolution] objectively without bias or intellectual prejudice," wrote Steve Shasteen, executive director of AFA’s North Georgia chapter, in a news release. "Objectivity does not censor evidence because of its religious or nonreligious implications. It simply calls for critical thinking and open mindedness that will allow objective consideration of the full range of scientific views about our origin. We are not asking to teach a theology class in the public schools but to allow critical thinking."

Larry Taylor, a construction manager and father of three schoolchildren, organized Parents for Truth in Cobb (PTC) to support the proposed policy. He put together a list of talking points for the Cobb County board’s September meeting, covering everything from gaps in the fossil record to the list of prestigious scientists questioning macroevolution. A group of 20 to 30 parents divvied up the topics, put together one-minute presentations and critiqued each others’ speeches.

Taylor even played reporter.

"I asked them some of the trick questions I’d been hit with," he told Citizen. "Some handled it well, others got angry and defensive. But it gave us a chance to work through that and know what to expect."

When the meeting rolled around, the PTC and its supporters, about 80 in all, showed up in force on a rainy day, wearing buttons that said, "Evolution: A Leap of Faith." They crowded into the lobby of the board offices, shoulder to shoulder with pro-evolutionists, engaging in mini-debates as they waited to speak.

"I had one man come up to me and say my button was offensive to him," Taylor said. "He was wearing a black T-shirt with the Christian fish on it, but with feet coming out the bottom and ‘Darwin’ written inside. I told him his shirt was a desecration of a holy religious symbol. He didn’t have any comment."

About 20 PTC members spoke. "We kept bringing it back to the central message — this is not a religious issue, but an academic freedom issue," Taylor said.

PTC member Preston Hobby spoke at the meeting and was shocked by the opposition. "They didn’t say anything more than, ‘This is what we’ve always taught; this is accepted science; they only want to put God in the classroom,’ " he said. "We won the day."

The board adopted a new policy that did not address creationism or intelligent design but encouraged "objective" classroom discussion of origin.

Board member Gordon O’Neill said the policy is a step in the right direction.

"If an origin theory is written in a book, whether it’s a Bible or a science book, critical thinkers need to review it from different angles," he said. "This issue is steeped in principles of free speech, freedom of religion and free thought. Political correctness pushes freedom of thought out of the classroom."

O’Neill added that Santorum’s paragraph gave the board extra confidence. "The senator’s language sent the message we’d be within the boundaries of the Constitution and the laws of the United States with this policy," he said. "It increased our comfort level."

The Big Mo

The Discovery Institute said it is getting calls from across the country from state legislators and school board members who want to follow Cobb County’s lead. Calvert of the Intelligent Design Network said the next battlefront likely will be New Mexico, where state standards will be developed this year. Calvert already has set up a branch operation there in anticipation.

Mark Hartwig, Ph.D., the religion and society analyst for Focus on the Family, expects teaching-the-controversy policies to spread. And Focus on the Family, as it did in Ohio, is prepared to assist those willing to take the lead.

"In March and April, we sent out a letter to 128,000 constituents in Ohio letting them know what was happening," Hartwig said. "We encouraged people to contact the state board of education."

Hartwig expects the movement will ultimately have a life of its own.

"Cobb and Ohio gave it a lot of momentum," he said. "This isn’t some kind of fringe idea, promoted by fanatics, but a view supported by the public."

Lattimer, the Ohio science team member, said the victory in his state was a "cooperative venture."

"The unprecedented response could not have happened without many people getting on board — and we believe that the real credit goes to God."

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Clem Boyd is a freelance writer in Ohio.

This article appeared in the March 2003 issue of Citizen magazine. Copyright © 2003 Focus on the Family. All rights reserved. International copyright secured.

---

Religion in disguise?

To hear the mainstream media tell it, "intelligent design" and "creationism" are the same thing. Scientifically speaking, though, their main tenets are vastly different:

Creation science is defined by the following six tenets, taken together:

• The universe, energy and life were created from nothing.

• Mutations and natural selection cannot bring about the development of all living things from a single organism.

• The Earth is young — in the range of 10,000 years or so.

• "Created kinds" of plants and organisms can vary only within fixed limits.

• Humans and apes have different ancestries.

• Earth’s geology can be explained by catastrophic events, primarily a worldwide flood.

Intelligent design, on the other hand, involves only two basic assumptions:

• Intelligent causes exist for the creation of life.

• These causes can be empirically detected.

What they did right

What did the parents in Cobb County, Ga., say about teaching the controversy surrounding Darwinism that proved so persuasive? Larry Taylor, head of Parents for Truth in Cobb, put together a list of topics that became the basis for parents’ testimony at a crucial public meeting last year:

Parents want objective instruction: This is not an effort to get religion in the classroom, but to make sure all information for and against evolutionary theory is presented so students can decide.

Irreducible complexity: Darwin wrote if any complex organ existed which could not have been formed by numerous, slight modifications, his theory would break down. Biochemist Michael Behe contends the basic cell meets this criterion.

The No Child Left Behind Act: The Santorum conference report language advises schools that origins science should expose students to "the full range of scientific views that exists." Icons of evolution: Various "proofs" of Darwinian macroevolution, many treated as fact in the Cobb County seventh-grade science textbook, have been shown to be false.

Scientists who doubt Darwinism: A list of 160 Georgia scientists who question Darwin’s theory was presented, proving "this is not a debate between science and religion; it’s a debate between science and science."

The Zogby poll: A nationwide poll in 2002 found that 71 percent of Americans want biology teachers to teach Darwin’s theory but also to include the evidence against it. From the same poll, 78 percent said that where Darwin’s theory is taught, evidence for an intelligent designer should also be allowed.

Missing links: According to science experts, there are significant holes in the fossil record, indicating a lack of evidence for transitions between species, a major Darwinian tenet.

[Dataman]

Three or more ultimate, indivisible units?

Your answer confirmed my suspicion.

[Junior]

Ah, the cryptic creo reply. No meat; no substance; just a off-hand jab meant to make folks think you are a deeper thinker than you really are. Now, if you'd care to expound upon your statement, that might make things different.

[VadeRetro]

How did this happen? Simply by redefining what a transitional fossil is.

Darwin predicted the finding of Precambrian life. He was eventually right. Nobody had to redefine anything. He predicted the finding of whale ancestors that weren't full obligate marine mammals. It happened 100 years after his death. Nobody had to redefine anything. He predicted the finding of ape-to-human transitionals. (There were a few Neanderthal skulls known in his day, no other hint of transition.) Dart found Australopithecus in the 1920s, the Leakey's started digging in East Africa in the late 50s ... Darwin was right again. Nobody had to redefine anything. It was just necessary to look in the right places.

Did Darwin have a crystal ball? Was he lucky? How did he know something between man and ape would turn up but not something between bird and bat? How did he know not to predict something (no short, direct link, anyway) between fish and whale?

More such here.

The archaeopteryx is not the oldest bird. Why, then, should I trust your link?

Protoavis is not widely accepted as a bird, or even the remains of a single organism. It will stay controversial unless and until a specimen in better shape turns up.

Even if the author of the AMNH web page made a mistake--there is an unnecessary comma in one place--you don't make a superbly preserved specimen like that disappear by pointing out a mistake in the accompanying text. Not even a nice try, just squirming against the handcuffs.

[Ichneumon]

Here's an interesting link: http://www.mcremo.com/ Michael Cremo wrote a book some years ago - Forbidden Archeology or the Hidden History of the Human Race. Goes into much detail proving to reasonable minds some of the fallacies of Darwinism's claim of recent human evolution.

Been there, read that, laughed my butt off. Cremo is a wild-eyed crank, who can find one chipped rock in a vast gravel pit and call it a "stone tool" which "proves" that mankind lived at the same age as the gravel pit.

He's also fond of such sloppy techniques as insisting that a skull found somewhere in the vicinity of a mine which excavates an ancient strata must be the same age as the strata.

Etc. etc.

He's either an incompetent, or a charlatan who writes whatever sensationlistic thing he knows will sell his books and get him booked on lecture tours.

[VadeRetro]

Given your response to that link, I don't guess you care for the cover on the current issue of Scientific American on newstands now, huh? An ever-growing list of dromaeosaurs had feathers.

Why does it get hard to tell certain kinds of dinosaurs from birds? How could some creationists say Archaeopteryx is "A dinosaur, just a dinosaur!" and some say it's "A bird! Just a bird?" Wouldn't something like that be obvious? How hard is it to tell any modern reptile from any modern bird?

[Ichneumon]

I remember when someone tried to tell me that if the earth was really older than ~5000 years or whatever that the remains of dinosaurs would be stacked through the atmosphere. I reminded him of the concept known as decomposition and he quickly quieted down.

In fact, young-earth creationists have the opposite problem. There are so many shark teeth in the seabed sediments that if the Earth were only 6000 years old, there would have had to have been wall-to-wall sharks in the oceans to have produced that many teeth in that short a time period.

In fact, the vast number of shark teeth is one of the clues that first led people back in the 1800's to realize that the Earth had to be very old -- long before Darwin (contrary to the creationists' blather about how the "only" reason the Earth is believed to be old is in a "dishonest" attempt to "support" evolution.)

The same problem arises with the vast number of other artifacts from dead creatures, like the enormous numbers of small shelled sea creatures which make up limestone beds hundreds of feet thick, etc.

[Ichneumon]

All you descendants of primates have to do is overwhelm us with all of your proof.

There's already an overwhelming amount of proof. That point was passed decades ago. Only those who dogmatically reject any evidence that challenges their cherished beliefs are left huddled together with their eyes closed, reassuring themselves by reflexively repeating, "evidence, what evidence, I don't see any evidence"...

[Remedy]

>>>Simply by redefining what a transitional fossil is. If evolution is true, there is no such thing as a non-transitional fossil since all things are evolving and all are in transition.<<<

There has been an over extension of faith and credit invested in macroevolution. Now that it is beginning to come crashing down, it is not suprising to witness ever increasing absurdities from those who have significanly invested in macroevolution.

There may be a parallel with the Crash of '29. There will be a flurry of absurdities, followed by depression and then some suicides, as the foggy fantasy of macroevolution evaporates from increasing exposure to the light of creation and is displaced by the gentle breeze of intelligent design.

[Dataman]

Now, if you'd care to expound upon your statement, that might make things different. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------

You gave yourself away as well. It just kills me that you guys get caught in your own ignorance and then pretend that I'm just being cryptic.

Regardless, it doesn't matter what my definition of life is any more than it matters what your definition of transitional is.

[Ichneumon]

So what are the evos doing on a conservative forum?

*boggle*

The very fact that you think this is an intelligent question says volumes about you.

[f.Christian]

Liberalism (( abortion )) evolves ...

nothing substantial changes in conservatism (( 'perfection' )) !

[MattAMiller]

The only difference in the conservative-anti-science crowd and the liberal-anti-science crowd is the labeling. One is called Creationist and the other Post-Modern-Deconstructionist. They share the same philosophy and goals: the replacement of scientific inquiry by "feelings" about things.

Precisely. And they both groups seem totally unaware of of how similar their arguments are to one another.

[Remedy]

>>>A dinosaur, just a dinosaur!" and some say it's "A bird! Just a bird?"<<<

It's a bird, it's a plane. No, it's SUPERLINK, to the rescue.

Faster than a speeding Aeon. More powerful than Miller-Urey Elixir. Able to make a macroevolutionist take TALL LEAPS O FAITH over a single bone fragment.

[Dataman]

There may be a parallel with the Crash of '29. There will be a flurry of absurdities, followed by depression and then some suicides, as the foggy fantasy of macroevolution evaporates from increasing exposure to the light of creation and is displaced by the gentle breeze of intelligent design.

I wish it were true. I can imagine a very slow untangling of the snarled mess but darwinism has become a political entity that seeks to keep itself alive by squelching thinking and suppressing dissension by raw political force rather than truth or reason. Without any new political clubs for it to employ, darwinism will slowly lose ground and, perhaps, be relegated to history as the biggest urban legend ever.

[Ichneumon]

Somebody forgot to tell the late SJ Gould and the rest of the evos who keep inventing creative ways to explain the lack of transitionals.

CREATIONIST MISREPRESENTATION ALERT

Gould said no such thing, as I'm sure you well know.

This is the old creationist "quote Gould grossly out of context" misrepresentation. Let's hear what Gould himself had to say about that, shall we?

Kirtley Mather, who died last year at age ninety, was a pillar of both science and Christian religion in America and one of my dearest friends. The difference of a half-century in our ages evaporated before our common interests. The most curious thing we shared was a battle we each fought at the same age. For Kirtley had gone to Tennessee with Clarence Darrow to testify for evolution at the Scopes trial of 1925. When I think that we are enmeshed again in the same struggle for one of the best documented, most compelling and exciting concepts in all of science, I don't know whether to laugh or cry.

[...]

Scientists regard debates on fundamental issues of theory as a sign of intellectual health and a source of excitement. Science is—and how else can I say it?—most fun when it plays with interesting ideas, examines their implications, and recognizes that old information might be explained in surprisingly new ways. Evolutionary theory is now enjoying this uncommon vigor. Yet amidst all this turmoil no biologist has been lead to doubt the fact that evolution occurred; we are debating how it happened. We are all trying to explain the same thing: the tree of evolutionary descent linking all organisms by ties of genealogy. Creationists pervert and caricature this debate by conveniently neglecting the common conviction that underlies it, and by falsely suggesting that evolutionists now doubt the very phenomenon we are struggling to understand.

[...]

The third argument is more direct: transitions are often found in the fossil record. [...] For that matter, what better transitional form could we expect to find than the oldest human, Australopithecus afarensis, with its apelike palate, its human upright stance, and a cranial capacity larger than any ape’s of the same body size but a full 1,000 cubic centimeters below ours? If God made each of the half-dozen human species discovered in ancient rocks, why did he create in an unbroken temporal sequence of progressively more modern features—increasing cranial capacity, reduced face and teeth, larder body size? Did he create to mimic evolution and test our faith thereby?

Faced with these facts of evolution and the philosophical bankruptcy of their own position, creationists rely upon distortion and innuendo to buttress their rhetorical claim. If I sound sharp or bitter, indeed I am—for I have become a major target of these practices.

[...]

A trend, we argued, is more like climbing a flight of stairs (punctuated and stasis) than rolling up an inclined plane. Since we proposed punctuated equilibria to explain trends, it is infuriating to be quoted again and again by creationists—whether through design or stupidity, I do not know—as admitting that the fossil record includes no transitional forms. Transitional forms are generally lacking at the species level, but they are abundant between larger groups. Yet a pamphlet entitled "Harvard Scientists Agree Evolution Is a Hoax" states: "The facts of punctuated equilibrium which Gould and Eldredge…are forcing Darwinists to swallow fit the picture that Bryan insisted on, and which God has revealed to us in the Bible."

-- Stephen Jay Gould, "Evolution as Fact and Theory," May 1981

Note that this was written in 1981. Since then, countless more transitional fossils, both between species and between larger groups, have been found.

Come back when you've got something to "support" your side which isn't just a dishonest twisting of someone's actual position.

One way to judge the validity of the creationists is by how often they lie about things. Misquoting people for deceitful "support" is so common among creationists that there are now countless webpages devoted to correcting their lies. For example:

Online resources documenting antievolutionist misquotations

The Fossil Hominid FAQ of The Talk.Origins Archive has several pages on creationist misquotations on human evolution:

• Creationist Arguments: Misquotes (Many specific examples are provided.)
• Duane Gish quote about ER 1470
• Creationist Arguments: The Monkey Quote
• Rear view of Sinanthropus

Here are some other pages of The Talk.Origins Archive that are about creationist misquotes:

• The Revised Quote Book: Looking at how Creationists Quote Evolutionists
• Patterson Misquoted: A Tale of Two 'Cites'
• Clarence Darrow: Misquoted by Creationists
• Missing Supernova Remnants as Evidence of a Young Universe?: A Case of Fabrication
• Muller and Mutations

The following articles from The Talk.Origins Archive that that, in part, address creationist misquotations:

• Lucy's Knee Joint: A Case Study in Creationists' Willingness to Admit their Errors
• Creationist Whoppers
• Geochronology kata John Woodmorappe
• Supernovae, Supernova Remnants and Young Earth Creationism FAQs
• Thrust Faults
• 29 Evidences for Macroevolution: A Response to Ashby Camp's "Critique"
• January 2003 Feedback: Ilya Prigogine Quote

Here are some pages on the web that address creationist misquotations:

• Hiding the Numbers to Defame Radiometric Dating: A Few Examples of the Many Misused References in Woodmorappe (1999)
• More Classic Misquotations in Woodmorappe (1999)
• Chopping a Title Hides the Truth
• Quote-Mining...The Tradition Continues - ICR Representative Frank Sherwin Visits Eureka College
• Creationist Misquotations
• Quotes About Evolution
• Gee Responds to Discovery Institute Use of Quotations
• Discovery Institute Quotes Clark Out of Context
• Gilbert Rebukes Discovery Institute for Use of Quote
• Coyne Exposes Discovery Institute's "old tricks"
• Doubting Darwinism through Creative License
• Intelligent Design Bibliography Misleading
• Misquotations in the Creation Book
• George Gaylord Simpson Said There Are No Transitional Fossils?
• Tom Kemp Said that the Mammal-like Reptiles Are Not Transitions Between Mammals and Reptiles?
• "Dawn Horse" Is a Good "Ancestor" For Rhinos Discredits Horse Evolution?
• Simpson Rejected the Transformation From "Dawn Horse" to Modern Horse?
• Niles Eldredge Says that the Geologic Column is Circular Reasoning?
• D.M.S. Watson Admitted Evolutionists Dogmatically Rejected Creation?
• Creation Science is Garbage (This article has an example of a creationist citing a negative review as if it were an endorsement.)
• Criticism of moth study no challenge to evolution
• Charges of fraud misleading
• Famous Quotes found in books
• Just what DO they say Dr. Morris?
• Does Dr Jonathan Sarfati Have Any Integrity?
• Creationist "Out of Context" Quotes
• Creation Book: a critical analysis
• Re: Disowing Darwin
• Ted Holden's "intermediate fossil" quotes from Walter ReMine's "Biotic Message"
• Another Creationist Misquote (News report in Science two decades ago screwed-up and the creationists continue the error.)
• Lie Ho! Lie Ho! It's off to the quote mine we go...
• Michael Ruse on the misuse of his religion comments

A searchable archive on creationist quotes can be found at Antievolution Quotes and Misquotes: The Archive.

[Ichneumon]

I like science. Evolution ain't science.

Of course it is. Your dogmatic denial only shows that you don't understand science.

[Junior]

I gave myself away? I've never hidden anything from anyone (except my real name, but that's just being smart). I never give back cryptic remarks (i.e., "You gave yourself away"). If I think you're a moron, I'll tell you why I think you're a moron.

[Ichneumon]

[If you had an infinite amount of money for travel expenses, and started now, and spent the entire rest of your life, you could probably travel from university to university, museum to museum, to look at every transitional fossil, and you'd be lucky to see 10% of them before you died.]

So if a person can only see 10% of the evidence, how can they be sure that the other 90% doesn't contradict the 10%?

Because even though no one person could see all the evidence in one lifetime, other people *have* examined that evidence and verified that there's no contradiction.

If you think about your statement for a moment, you'll realize that you're making the data fit the theory, not proving the theory from the data.

Actually, if *you'll* "think about his statement for a moment", you'll realize that you're missing the point.

[VadeRetro]

Ooh! Look what you linked! George Gaylord Simpson's 1953 quote.

It isn't just out of date, it's dishonest! Now, guess which Luddite posted it on this thread in number 90 and guess who slapped high-fives with the poster for doing so?

[Ichneumon]

I'm adding a couple of rooms to my house. They just delivered the sand, mortar and blocks. I wonder, if I placed 4 items (blocks, mortar, sand and water) next to my house footings, how long would it take for those 4 simple items to mix themselves up and arrange themselves into a concrete block wall? I'll even let earthquakes, sun, wind, rain, ice and any other naturally occuring force come into play. BTW, we would also have to include erosion and decay. Wonder how long it would take?

It wouldn't happen no matter how long you waited, of course, but then your example is an incredibly poor analogy for the forces which act on living things. The only question was whether your grossly inappropriate analogy was based on ignorance of why living things are not like bricks, or on a dishonest attempt to misrepresent how evolution works. You might just as well ask about the feasibility of brick breeding programs, or whether it would be useful to vaccinate your bricks against weathering...

If your mistake is based on simple ignorance, the following would be a useful education for you: Introduction to Evolutionary Biology