Replies

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...

Great. Now I'll be spending the rest of the night reading.

Sheesh. The things I won't do to push back the frontiers of ignorance.

Awe inspiring post.

In the words of Darwin Central:

>>>>>>>Thunderous Appause<<<<<<<<

err..umm

>>>>>>>>Thunderous AppLause<<<<<

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"?

OK, I'll be first, "No I don't." I've made my points in earlier posts. We have a local guy here who is seen as the "expert" for ID. But all he wants to do is get his name in the papers and push his little political agendas. He comes up with the dumbest stuff (e.g. you can't have a dog and cat have a dat"). He doesn't do the creation movement any good at all. Yet he still thinks he's someone special. I will still believe in creationism and ID for a long time, but again as I've said many times before, I have no problem with evolution or learning it. Too many times people want to reject ALL science based on their being against evolution. That is not practical either. I can let someone have their belief on evolution and can respect it, just as I can those who believe in creationism and ID. My own view that nobody really knows exactly every little thing came about makes it so I have little conflicts.

You won't find many or hardly any creationists who will be able to go toe for toe on scientific issues regarding evolution. Some can on some points, but on everything, it's hard BECAUSE creationism requires a different type of approach AND there are actually a lot of views and versions of it.

I know I can't go toe to toe, but I don't need to (not saying any all-knowing thing here).

[Thunderous applause!]

I have not lied. Nor have you refuted a lot of my questions. The shotgun cut and paste approach does not work well with new ideas, but it is useful only to bury them.

As to Hitler, he claimed to be a Christian, just like Bill Clinton, but his SS troops were obviously cultists, even though they wore belt buckles stating "got is with us".

I tend to believe someone is a real Christian when they act like one, and Christianity is against racism. After all, I have even heard the Bible quoted by someone trying to justify Homosexuality and say that Jesus was a Homosexual.

Sorry, didn't wash with further study.

Evolution is not cut and dried science, and more and more these days the foundation stones are being removed and replaced with much more advanced science. It is bringing big questions on the assumptions of Darwin and his followers.

Radio-Metric dating is hardly the panacea to silence the curious anymore. But as it falls, and falling it is, it is taking the roof off of a lot of people locked in the dark.

“There's nothing "unique" about repeating the same old creationist mistakes and misrepresentations about science and evolution.”

Thank you for all this wonderful data, but I’ve seen most of it before. You’ve not previously sent it to me, but you’ve plastered it all over the place, so I’ve had ample opportunity to view it.

I've asked what conclusion could be obtained from the observation that "50% of americans have IQ's below 100 (by definition)." In what manner does your post relate to my query?

I've observed that “Pesky scientists' apparently must not know very much if they expect Science Education to be government-financed but not subject to the vicissitudes of public policy. In what manner does your post relate to my observation?

I've suggested that local school district patrons shouldn't be allowed out unsupervised on school board meeting nights, or on election days, and proposed that they might otherwise require watching by a company of Regulators in order that they be prevented from gathering too often in too great a number. In what manner does your post relate to my suggestion or my proposal?

I've also suggested that it's a bit late for appeals to the market place of ideas after the day-to-day conduct of education has been surrendered to public policy. In what manner does your post relate to this suggestion?

I've proposed that, because we’ve chosen to put education in the charge of government indoctrination centers, Scientists need but muster agreement from a majority of school district patrons, and they (the Scientists) can work their will with respect to educational policies. In what manner does your post relate to this suggestion?

Those to whom I’ve directed these various inquiries have chosen not to answer. That’s fine. My participation had not been solicited. You have elected to respond, and I thank you for the courtesy of your reply, but the original inquiries seem somewhat remote from your response.