[GretchenM]

For anyone seeking facts on the debate, I highly recommend this book.

Tornado in a Junkyard: The Relentless Myth of Darwinism, by James Perloff
Dr. EMMETT L. WILLIAMS, PRESIDENT, CREATION RESEARCH SOCIETY, EDITOR, CREATION RESEARCH QUARTERLY "Tornado in a Junkyard is a unique presentation of the scientific case against Darwinism, informally written for laymen. If you are looking for a user-friendly explanation of the facts supporting creation, this book is for you."

This book examines growing scientific evidence that is challenging Darwin's theory of evolution: lack of transitional forms in the fossil record, the impossibility of mutations (almost universally destructive) serving as evolutionary building blocks, the bad logic of natural selection theory, the stunning lack of evidence for "ape-men," the mathematic impossibility of life beginning by itself, [and] more. Also explores how Darwinism helped foster Hitler's racial policies and examines how Inherit the Wind grossly misled Americans about the Scopes trial. Addresses the ever-vital question: Are we here by chance or are we created by God? Indexed, over 80 illustrations, hundreds of quotes from scientists.

[GretchenM]

FYI

[exDemocratbutnotRepubican]

50% of americans have IQ's below 100 (by definition).

[traviskicks]

"God created human beings in their present form exactly the way the Bible describes it."
---

And how does the Bible describe it? You have the literalists and the figurativelists and even they disagree among themselves.

A slightly misleading question, but I'm not sure how you would phrase it to more accurately capture the essence of what people think....

[adamsjas]

Evolution teaches, in part, that humans evolved over millions of years from apes.

Sigh... No, it does no such thing.

When one reads this in an article, one despairs at any possibility of an intelligent discussion.

[Kozak]

Science isn't conducted by polls.

[gondramB]

Some key points here - only 35% find conflict between their view of science and relgion.

It's mainly poor people that believe in strict creationsim it starts at 70% with income under $20,000 and drops to 37% with higher income.


http://www.usatoday.com/tech/science/2005-10-10-evolution-debate-centerpiece_x.htm?POE=TECISVA

[ARCADIA]

In the poll, 53 percent of adults say "God created human beings in their present form exactly the way the Bible describes it."

About the same bunch that walks around in fear of having an anal probe administered by UFO during an alien abduction. Without those who are so willing to accept myth as fact we would never have ghost stories, or the Loch Ness monster. It just means that there is a market out there who can be collectively referred to as Bigfoot Fodder. The scary thing is that these people decide who gets to put their thumb over the nuclear button.

[Gritty]

Despite decades of evolutionary indoctrination at all levels of education, it appears the American People are smarter and more resilient than the secularist bandwagon envisioned!

[Ichneumon]

Majority of Americans Reject Secular Evolution (Gallup Poll, Sep. 2005)

Because, of course, truth is determined by polls...

Well, at least the creationists think it is, they keep turning to polls to "prove" that they must be right.

Scientists, on the other hand, think that truth is better determined by a careful examination of the vast amounts of evidence from the real world, and countless validation tests performed in every conceivable way in order to find out which explanations actually fit the facts and actually work when applied in reality.

Who's more likely to actually find truth?

[HowlinglyMind-BendingAbsurdity]

Meanwhile left-brained liberal secular humanist dorks in major universities spend hours upon hours trying to figure out sophistical ways to make people believe that D.B. Cooper was descended from monkeys in an anxiety-ridden effort to overturn Christian sexual morality.

[Clemenza]

Nobody ever lost money betting on the stupidity of the average person. --- HL Mencken

Gee, polls show that the majority of people support more gun control, gay adoptions, and believe in space aliens. If the majority believes that it is OK to kill 29 year old management consultants, I guess that's OK as well?

Since when is anything made "right" by the "Will of the People."

I should also let you know that those who oppose Darwinism are disproportionately located among the less educated members of the population.

[Alter Kaker]

25% of Americans believe the sun revolves around the earth. (Source National Science Foundation, 2001)

[bert]

This same majority can't factor a quadratic equation either.

[LiteKeeper]

YEC SPOTREP

[Kay Ludlow]

bttt

[Ichneumon]

Tornado in a Junkyard: The Relentless Myth of Darwinism, by James Perloff

Even the title does not bode well, since it is obviously based on a frequent "straw man" fallacy, wherein creationists purposely misrepresent the processes of evolution by invoking an invalid analogy to evolution (a "tornado in a junkyard") and then dishonestly pretend that by showing how *that* process couldn't work, they have shown that evolution -- a very different process -- can't work either.. If the creationists actually have a valid case against evolution, as they claim, why do they keep having to lie about it?

Dr. EMMETT L. WILLIAMS, PRESIDENT, CREATION RESEARCH SOCIETY, EDITOR, CREATION RESEARCH QUARTERLY "Tornado in a Junkyard is a unique presentation of the scientific case against Darwinism, informally written for laymen.

There's nothing "unique" about repeating the same old creationist mistakes and misrepresentations about science and evolution. Some of these errors/lies are more than 100 years old, but the creationists never bother to update their material even after it has been proven wrong time and time again.

If you are looking for a user-friendly explanation of the facts supporting creation, this book is for you."

...he says, and then goes on to demonstrate that it's not actually about "facts supporting creation", but attacks on evolution. Newsflash -- you can't support one explanation by tearing down a different one. Your explanation doesn't "win" by default, since they could *both* be wrong and some other explanation entirely might be the right one. Creationists make this elemenary logical fallacy over and over and over again.

This book examines growing scientific evidence that is challenging Darwin's theory of evolution: lack of transitional forms in the fossil record,

Horse manure. Actually, a baldfaced lie. But then I've stopped expecting creationists to have any shred of honesty.

For more transitional fossils (and documentation of creationist lies about it), see for example:

Index to Creationist Claims: Claim CC200: There are no transitional fossils.

Taxonomy, Transitional Forms, and the Fossil Record

On Creation Science and "Transitional Fossils"

The Fossil Record: Evolution or "Scientific Creation"

No transitional fossils? Here's a challenge...

Phylum Level Evolution

Paleontology: The Fossil Record of Life

Cuffey: Transitional Fossils

What Is A Transitional Fossil?

More Evidence for Transitional Fossils

The Origin of Whales and the Power of Independent Evidence

Transitional Forms of Whales

Fossil Horses FAQs

PALAEOS: The Trace of Life on Earth

Mammaliformes: Docodonta

Transitional Fossil Species And Modes of Speciation

Evolution and the Fossil Record

Smooth Change in the Fossil Record

Transitional fossil sequence from dinosaur to bird

Transitional fossil sequence from fish to elephant

Transitional Vertebrate Fossils FAQ

When creationists say that there's a "lack of transitional forms in the fossil record", they're lying. Yes, lying. Bearing false witness.

the impossibility of mutations (almost universally destructive) serving as evolutionary building blocks,

Complete bollocks. Countless studies have verified the "possibility", the efficacy, and the reality of "mutations serving as evolutionary building blocks":

Are Mutations Harmful?

Index to Creationist Claims: Claim CB101: Most mutations are harmful, so the overall effect of mutations is harmful.

Index to Creationist Claims: Claim CB100: Evolution requires mutations, but mutations are rare.

Index to Creationist Claims: Claim CB101.2: Mutations only vary traits that are already there. They do not produce anything new.

New Analyses Bolster Central Tenets of Evolution Theory

The Evolution of Improved Fitness By Random Mutation Plus Selection

Rates of Spontaneous Mutation

Solvable biological evolution models with general fitness functions and multiple mutations in parallel mutation-selection scheme.

Spontaneous Mutations in Diploid Saccharomyces cerevisiae More Beneficial Than Expected

the bad logic of natural selection theory,

Unsupported assertion. *What* alleged "bad logic"? To date all the examples I've seen of creationists attempting to identify "bad logic" in evolutionary biology have backfired spectacularly -- they're either great examples of "bad logic" from the creationists themselves, or (again) outright lies. I invite anyone to try to substantiate the charge made here against evolutionary biology.

the stunning lack of evidence for "ape-men,"

Another false claim by creationists, what a surprise:

Fossil Hominids: The Evidence for Human Evolution

Creationist Classifications of Hominid Fossils

Prominent Hominid Fossils

29+ Evidences for Macroevolution, Part 1: The Unique Universal Phylogenetic Tree

Creationist Arguments: Brain Sizes

Index to Creationist Claims: Claim CC080: Australopithecus was fully ape

the mathematic impossibility of life beginning by itself,

All such claims I've seen from creationists have actually turned out to be, upon examinatino, more creationist errors and misrepresentations.

[and] more.

Uh huh... Sure.

Also explores how Darwinism helped foster Hitler's racial policies

Actually, Hitler's own handwritten notes on his racial philosophy gives credit to the Bible...

In any case, a scientific theory (or religion) is not responsible for how it may be subsequently misapplied and misused. This is just a cheap attack by the author.

and examines how Inherit the Wind grossly misled Americans about the Scopes trial.

Whether or not that movie misled anyone (and even if it did, that would be no evidence for/against evolution/creationism) the trial itself was no shining moment for creationists.

Addresses the ever-vital question: Are we here by chance or are we created by God?

False dichotomy -- we could be both, or even neither. Creationists too often presume that it must be one *or* the other, and that one "must" be right if the other one isn't.

Indexed, over 80 illustrations, hundreds of quotes from scientists.

Ah, yes, the infamous habit of creationists to use grossly misleading out-of-context "quote-mining" to dishonestly claim that scientists actually agree with the creationists. It's entirely despicable, but the creationists have done it an incredible number of times:

The Quote Mine Project: Or, Lies, Damned Lies and Quote Mines

The Revised Quote Book: Looking at how Creationists Quote Evolutionists

Quotations and Misquotations: Why What Antievolutionists Quote is Not Valid Evidence Against Evolution

Creationist Arguments: Misquotes

Creationist Whoppers

Quote-Mining...The Tradition Continues - ICR Representative Frank Sherwin Visits Eureka College

Misquotations in the Creation Book

Creationist "Out of Context" Quotes

Famous Quotes found in books (and misused by creationists)

Lie Ho! Lie Ho! It's off to the quote mine we go…

And yes, this is the kind of dishonest claptrap they want to fill your school child's head with.

Challenge for the FR anti-evolutionists: Find me one anti-evolution book that isn't packed with outright lies about evolutionary biology, or the evidence, or biologists. I've been looking for thirty years, and haven't found one yet. Anti-evolution creationists are the most dishonest bunch I've ever seen, and yes, that includes Michael Moore and the like. Moore and his ilk twist and misrepresent the truth outrageously, but they don't flat-out fabricate untruths nearly as often as the creationists.

Another challenge for the FR anti-evolutionists: Do you approve of lying in support of creationism? Yes or no -- it's not a complicated question. I've asked that question a *lot*, and to date (unless I've managed to miss some replies), everyone has run away from the question instead of answering it. Here's one such challenge, along with documentation of hundreds of creationist falsehoods (out of countless times I've asked such a question) -- hit the "View Replies" link on that post and note the lack of any response. How freaky is it that every time a creationist is simply asked whether he condones dishonesty by creationists, he can't even bring himself to say, "no, I dont"?

Questions for everyone: Why the heck do anti-evolution creationists lie so frequently and so unashamedly? And which master are habitual liars truly serving?

Finally, if the case against evolution is allegedly a good one, why do they have to lie about it? Wouldn't one single good, honest argument be more effective? Let me know if they ever find one that finally holds water...

[Youngblood]

So the same old tired and oft-refuted creationist nonsense then? I'll pass, thanks.

[Hacksaw]

NASHVILLE, Tenn. (BP)--A majority of adults support the biblical account of creation according to a new CNN/USA Today/Gallup poll -- the latest in a series of polls reflecting Americans' tendency to reject secular evolution.

I think a majority believe in the workings of evolution, but reject it as the explanation for the origins of life. I doubt the enthusiastic character assasination tactics of the "beginning to end" evolutionists has won any converts from them, which is one reason I am skeptical of them.

[Coleus]

I like that book.