Anti-evolution, pro science conservatives

WorldNetDaily ^ | 3/29/2008 | Gary Bauer and Daniel Allott

[wastedpotential]

Of all the factors that led to Mike Huckabee's demise in the 2008 presidential sweepstakes (insufficient funds, lack of foreign policy experience), there's one that has been largely overlooked: Huckabee's disbelief in the theory of evolution as it is generally understood – without the involvement of the Creator.

Perhaps you're thinking: What's evolution got to do with being president? Very little, as Huckabee was quick to remind reporters on the campaign trail. But from the moment the former Baptist minister revealed his beliefs on evolutionary biology, political commentators and scientists lambasted him. Some even suggested those beliefs should disqualify him from high office.

We believe most Americans

[Fichori]

I think a very interesting and revealing discussion about Evolution could be had if the Evolutionists would leave religion out of it.

I simply don’t understand why they must always be interjecting religion into a discussion about science.

[AndrewC]

That is a lot of words to simply say god did it.

That is more explicit evidence of the attitude of some evolutionists. When the simple words of "God did it" are used, the retort is, "You have no argument". When an argument is presented, no matter what that argument is, the retort is "That is a lot of words to simply say god did it."

[tokenatheist]

This:

‘Or could it be, rather, a master code that decrypts all the relevant information needed by the particular living organism being transmitted to it by a nonphemomenal, extra-spatial, extra-temporal source; i.e., a source existing outside the four-dimensional spacetime of normative human experience?’

isn’t an argument - it is the plot to a science fiction movie.

[CottShop]

[[I said your portrayal your god as a psychotic. God is not psychotic.]

My portrayal is no such hting- you’ve intimated that I’ve doen somethign that was never my intention- My first example was a bit off, which I corrected- and as I said, the example was not perfect and hadn’t been fleshed out enough- but you apparently won’t allow that a mistake was made and later cleared up- your argument continues to be nothign gut petty ignorance of the clarifications.

[[I’ve already said how. The god you worship is a psychotic whose mode of thinking could not have produced that marvelous complexity that is this universe]]

You have explaiend absolutely nothign of the sort- You’ve not hsown how a God who sets down ‘either or’ rules is a psychitic God incapable of subtleties in other circumstances. Yuor accusation is shallow and ill thought out. As for hte reaminder of your post- I’m simply goign to ignore the ignorant accusation.

[CottShop]

[[I said I would thank God for my personal good fortune after everyone else is served.]

Here again you confirm that your love is shallow and would only be given to God IF He abides by your personal set of moralities. You seem unwilling to Allow the Omniscient God to do as He sees best, and intimate that you know better than He how He should conduct mastters of eternal consequences.

[[Haven’t you ever had a family meal?]

No- I was kicked out of hte house upon birth, raised by Trilobytes where it was survival of the fittest

[betty boop]

That is a lot of words to simply say god did it.

Whether God "did it" or not does not depend on the number of words I use. It doesn't even depend on whether or not I personally acknowledge that He "did it."

Having said that, I find it curious that something like over 200 universal physical constants have to be, not only just-so in themselves, but must all function together seamlessly and harmoniously, in order that a universe such as ours — one evidently primed for Life — could exist in the first place, in an "orderly" form that evidently persists in evolutionary time. That such a universe could be produced in some sort of abstract infinity by means of "pure, blind chance" is a sheer statistical (and logical) improbability....

So, what does that tell you, tokenatheist?

[Fichori]

"No- I was kicked out of hte house upon birth, raised by Trilobytes where it was survival of the fittest"

I guess that would explain why Trilobites are so rare these days!
(You really should have been nicer to those Trilobites)

[CottShop]

[[”That is a lot of words to simply say god did it.”]]

Which is usually followed by “Which means it isn’t science but religion”

However, when asked why God can’t be a part of a scientific equation, they have no answer- just more petty character attacks. Nature, if it is to be the ONLY answer for scientific enquirey, MUST rule out the possibility of any other menas of life, yet those hwo support Natural Macroevolution can’t do so. I find it particularly funny htough that they can sit htere and say “Because you beleive God did it, you are not practicing ‘science’ Yet their only answer to the severe gaps in Macroevolutionary evidences is to say “Nature-did-it” without giving ANY evidence to support.

And, these aren’t just minor gaps that can be filled in with highly plausible scenarios evidnet in nature, but they are huge gaping holes that require serious twistings and assumptions in order to link dissimilar KINDS, all the while ignoring hte biological differences and pointing to moot few homological similarities, and ignoring the fact that science can’t explain how NEW ifnormation gets introduced into species as they supposedly make hteir way up thje non existent species ladder. Yet their ‘science’ isn’t, in their minds’ a religious belief- oh no- it’s pure sicence because as we all know, science demands natural explanations- despite hte fact that the eivdneces point strongly toward non natural explanations.

Macroevlutionists never once stop to concider that their lengthy evidenceless diatribes attempting to explain some minor Macroevolutionary scenario amounts to nothign more than “A lot of words to declare “We don’t know how ‘just yet’ but Nature-did-it” Irregardless of the fact that the biological evidneces simply do not support the assertion.

[hosepipe]

[ isn’t an argument - it is the plot to a science fiction movie. ]

Fiction simply HAS to make sense to be believed.. reality does not..
Must God make sense to YOU?..

[CottShop]

[[That such a universe could be produced in some sort of abstract infinity by means of “pure, blind chance” is a sheer statistical (and logical) improbability....]]

Their counter argument- from all I’ve gathered i nthe yearso n here and in other forums, is that Macroevolution isn’t ‘pure chance’ but a directed purposeful process (as though the process is forward looking- intimating of course intelligence) and that statistics don’t count- why? Because ice crystals forming show a process of negative entropy (ignoring again the fact that static law abiding moot examples of geometric patterns showing SLIGHT negative entropy in no way compares to highly dynamic, highly complex self organizing, irreducibly complex law violating living systems- their best argument against statistics hinges on irrelevent examples of negative entropy in non living, geometry abiding formations of crystals- yet apparently htis is ‘enough’ for them to discount statistical impossibilites.

[CottShop]

[[‘Or could it be, rather, a master code that decrypts all the relevant information needed by the particular living organism being transmitted to it by a nonphemomenal, extra-spatial, extra-temporal source; i.e., a source existing outside the four-dimensional spacetime of normative human experience?’

isn’t an argument - it is the plot to a science fiction movie.]]

You’ll have to do better than that- You’ve not explained why it isn’t scientific to concider what was proposed. You’ll also need to show that nature must be the ONLY explanation- why Natural explanations are the only viable exclusive answer to all we see and know about.

[AndrewC]

isn’t an argument - it is the plot to a science fiction movie.

True, it is not an argument. False, it is not the plot to a science fiction movie. It is rather a statement which is part of an argument. Again, you are giving more evidence of your dismissive nature of argument, and further establishing your adeptness at strawman construction.

[Coyoteman]

[re: AIG] If they are so wrong, why don't you refute their evidence instead of attacking their character?

Already been done.

This is where science is conducted (partial list), not internet chat rooms:

American Journal of Human Biology
American Journal of Human Genetics
American Journal of Physical Anthropology
The Anatomical Record Part A
Annals of Human Biology
Annals of Human Genetics
Annual Review of Genomics and Human Genetics
Anthropological Science
Anthropologie
L' Anthropologie
Archaeometry
Behavior Genetics
Behavioral Ecology and Sociobiology
Biological Psychology
Biology and Philosophy
BMC Evolutionary Biology
Current Anthropology
Current Biology
Economics and Human Biology
Ethnic and Racial Studies
European Journal of Human Genetics
Evolution and Human Behavior
Evolutionary Anthropology
Forensic Science International
Gene
Genetical Research
Genetics
Genome Research
Heredity
Homo
Human Biology
Human Heredity
Human Genetics
Human Genomics
Human Molecular Genetics
Human Mutation
International Journal of Osteoarchaeology
Journal of Anthropological Archaeology
Journal of Archaeological Science
Journal of Biosocial Science
Journal of Ethnic and Migration Studies
Journal of Human Evolution
Journal of Human Genetics
Journal of Molecular Evolution
Journal of the Royal Anthropological Institute
Molecular Biology and Evolution
Molecular Phylogenetics and Evolution
Nature
Nature Genetics
Nature Reviews Genetics
PLoS Biology
PLoS Genetics
Proceedings of The Royal Society: Biological Sciences
Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences
Russian Journal of Genetics
Science
Trends in Genetics

[betty boop]

Their counter argument- from all I’ve gathered in the years on here and in other forums, is that Macroevolution isn’t ‘pure chance’ but a directed purposeful process (as though the process is forward looking- intimating of course intelligence) and that statistics don’t count- why?

Well that just goes to show you that man has taken up, and is following, the "God model," after first having "killed God." Then they can imagine they have "the field of truth" all to themselves, as in the ancient saying, "man is the measure of all things"....

It's the sort of reasoning you'd expect from a three-year-old. And yet one hears it routinely these days, from eminent scientists no less.

Go figure!

[Fichori]

In other words, unless we all meet at a laboratory and actually do science, any discussion we have here is just a philosophical debate of the merits of Evolutionary conjecture.
(Based on the preposition that scientists do experiments in a lab, whereas philosophers do not.)

[hosepipe]

[ that just goes to show you that man has taken up, and is following, the "God model," after first having "killed God." Then they can imagine they have "the field of truth" all to themselves, as in the ancient saying, "man is the measure of all things".... ]

LoL....

[tokenatheist]

‘That such a universe could be produced in some sort of abstract infinity by means of “pure, blind chance” is a sheer statistical (and logical) improbability....

So, what does that tell you, tokenatheist? ‘

It tells me that you throw out statements without anything at all to support them.

[js1138]

Here again you confirm that your love is shallow and would only be given to God IF He abides by your personal set of moralities.

You have perhaps the most amazing inability to read simple English sentences of anyone I have ever encountered.

[tokenatheist]

‘irreducibly complex law violating living systems’

What do you mean by this?

[tokenatheist]

Does your god make sense to you?