What Are Creationists Afraid Of?

The New Individualist ^ | 1/2006 | Ed Hudgins

[jennyp]

...

Third, complexity does not imply “design.” One of Adam Smith’s most powerful insights, developed further by Friedrich Hayek, is that incredible complexity can emerge in society without a designer or planner, through “spontaneous order.” Hayek showed how in a free market the complex processes of producing and distributing goods and services to millions of individuals do not require socialist planners. Rather, individuals pursuing their own self-interest in a system governed by a few basic rules—property rights, voluntary exchange by contract—have produced all the vast riches of the Western world.

Many creationists who are on the political Right understand the logic of this insight with respect to economic complexity. Why, then, is it such a stretch for them to appreciate that the complexity we find in the physical world—the optic nerve, for example—can emerge over millions of years under the rule of natural laws that govern genetic mutations and the adaptability of life forms to changing environments? It is certainly curious that many conservative creationists do not appreciate that the same insights that show the futility of a state-designed economy also show the irrelevance of an “intelligently designed” universe.

...

Evolution: A Communist Plot?

Yet another fear causes creationists to reject the findings of science.

Many early proponents of science and evolution were on the political Left. For example, the Humanist Manifesto of 1933 affirmed support for evolution and the scientific approach. But its article fourteen stated: “The humanists are firmly convinced that existing acquisitive and profit-motivated society has shown itself to be inadequate and that a radical change in methods, controls, and motives must be instituted. A socialized and cooperative economic order must be established to the end that the equitable distribution of the means of life be possible.”

Subsequent humanist manifestos in 1973 and 2000 went lighter on the explicit socialism but still endorsed, along with a critical approach to knowledge, the kind of welfare-state democracy and internationalism rejected by conservatives. The unfortunate historical association of science and socialism is based in part on the erroneous conviction that if humans can use scientific knowledge to design machines and technology, why not an entire economy?

Further, many supporters of evolution were or appeared to be value-relativists or subjectivists. For example, Clarence Darrow, who defended Scopes in the “monkey trial” eight decades ago, also defended Nathan Leopold and Richard Loeb. These two young amoralists pictured themselves as supermen above conventional morality; they decided to commit the perfect crime and killed a fourteen-year-old boy. Darrow offered the jury the standard liberal excuses for the atrocity. He argued that the killers were under the influence of Nietzschean philosophy, and that to give them the death penalty would hurt their surviving families. “I am pleading for life, understanding, charity, kindness, and the infinite mercy that considers all,” he said. “I am pleading that we overcome cruelty with kindness and hatred with love.” This is the sort of abrogation of personal responsibility, denial of moral culpability, and rejection of the principle of justice that offends religious conservatives—in fact, every moral individual, religious or atheist.

In addition, nearly all agnostics and atheists accept the validity of evolution. Creationists, as religious fundamentalists, therefore see evolution and atheism tied together to destroy the basis of morality. For one thing, evolution seems to erase the distinction between humans and animals. Animals are driven by instincts; they are not responsible for their actions. So we don’t blame cats for killing mice, lions for killing antelope, or orca whales for killing seals. It’s what they do. They follow instincts to satisfy urges to eat and procreate. But if human beings evolved from lower animals, then we might be merely animals—and so there would be no basis for morality. In which case, anything goes.

To religious fundamentalists, then, agnostics and atheists must be value-relativists and subjectivists. Whether they accept evolution because they reject a belief in God, or reject a belief in God because they accept evolution, is immaterial: the two beliefs are associated, just as are creationism and theism. By this view, the only firm basis for morality is the divine edicts of a god.

This reflects the creationists’ fundamental misunderstanding of the nature of morality.

Morality from Man’s Nature

We humans are what we are today regardless of whether we evolved, were created, or were intelligently designed. We have certain characteristics that define our nature.

We are Homo sapiens. Unlike lower animals, we have a rational capacity, an ability to fully, conceptually understand the world around us. We are self-conscious. We are the animal that knows—and knows that he knows. We do not survive automatically, by instinct, but must exercise the virtue of rationality. We must think. We must discover how to acquire food—through hunting or planting—how to make shelters, how to invent medicines. And to acquire such knowledge, we must adopt a rational methodology: science.

Furthermore, our thinking does not occur automatically. We have free will and must choose to think, to focus our minds, to be honest rather than to evade facts that make us uncomfortable—evolution, for example—because reality is what it is, whether we like it or acknowledge it or not.

But we humans do not exercise our minds and our wills for mere physical survival. We have a capacity for a joy and flourishing far beyond the mere sensual pleasures experienced by lower animals. Such happiness comes from planning our long-term goals, challenging ourselves, calling on the best within us, and achieving those goals—whether we seek to nurture a business to profitability or a child to adulthood, whether we seek to create a poem or a business plan, whether we seek to design a building or to lay the bricks for its foundation.

But our most important creation is our moral character, the habits and attitudes that govern our actions. A good character helps us to be happy, a bad one guarantees us misery. And what guides us in creating such a character? What tells us how we should deal with our fellow humans?

A code of values, derived from our nature and requirements as rational, responsible creatures possessing free will.

We need not fear that with evolution, or without a god, there is no basis for ethics. There is an objective basis for ethics, but it does not reside in the heavens. It arises from our own human nature and its objective requirements.

Creationists and advocates of intelligent design come to their beliefs in part through honest errors and in part from evasions of facts and close-minded dogmatism. But we should appreciate that one of their motivations might be a proper rejection of value-relativism, and a mistaken belief that acceptance of divine revelation is the only moral alternative.

If we can demonstrate to them that the basis for ethics lies in our nature as rational, volitional creatures, then perhaps we can also reassure them that men can indeed have morality—yet never fear to use that wondrous capacity which allows us to understand our own origins, the world around us, and the moral nature within us.

Edward Hudgins is the Executive Director of The Objectivist Center.

[Ichneumon]

[29+ Evidences for Macroevolution. Yes, macro-evolution.]

A critique of "29 Evidences for Macroevolution"

Sigh... Look, if you're not going to actually read the material for yourself and understand it -- if you're just going to fling "anti-links" as a talisman protecting you from learning anything -- why should we bother with you, and why do you pretend that you're approaching this intellectually instead of reflexively defending your cherished preconceptions from being challenged?

I say that because anyone who had actually read and understood the "Evidences for Macroevolution" material, and then actually read Camp's "critique" of it, would have no problem realizing how shoddily and dishonestly it tries (and utterly fails) to hand-wave away the evidence. Clearly you didn't bother to engage your own brain, and instead just went through a process of, "oh my gosh, I can't let myself consider the actual evidence for evolution, so I'm going to have to flail about the internet for an excuse to dismiss it entirely, ah, here we go, a creationist 'critique' which claims that the first link is trash, and even though I haven't bothered to check to see if the author actually addresses the material competently or his rebuttal isn't riddled with flaws, that's good enough for me!"...

If you guys aren't interested in actually thinking for yourselves, why do you even bother participating in these discussions? Why ask to see evidence if you're just going to respond by desperately looking for excuses to ignore it?

Here's a very detailed point-by-point critique of Camp's "critique" and all the many errors it contains (neatly placed into 17 different categories of error)

If you feel that there remains any portion of Camp's critique which has not yet been shredded, or if you find a flaw in any part of the rebuttal to Mr. Camp, feel free to specifically state it and make your case.

And if that's not enough, here's my own review of Camp's "critique":

which has been thoroughly debunked in A Critique of 29 Evidences for Macroevolution as well as on several threads right here on FreeRepublic.

Oh, puh-leaze... "Frantically denounced" is not the same thing as "thoroughly debunked". Let's take a look at your link, shall we?

Ashby Camp attempts to "debunk" item "4.2 DNA Coding Redundancy", but he screws it up royally. First, he attempts to summarize the argument as:

The alleged prediction and fulfillment are:

1. If universal common ancestry is true, then ubiquitous genes will have the same or a similar codon sequence in two or more species.

2. Ubiquitous genes have the same or a similar codon sequence in two or more species.

This COMPLETELY misses the point of the DNA Coding Redundancy argument. In fact, it practically *reverses* the actual argument entirely. It's a downright laughable attempt at summarizing the actual argument, and grossly misrepresents the original point being made.

Ashby Camp can hardly "debunk" an argument if he doesn't even understand it to start with.

Instead, the actual argument which Camp is misrepresenting goes like this: If modern life arose through common descent, then the redundancy in the DNA coding (which allows *many* different DNA sequences to produce *identical* protein results) should result in very similar DNA sequences between recently-related species (for the same protein), less similar DNA sequences for less-recently-related species, and very less similar DNA sequences for distantly-related species. For *all* species relationships and *all* coding sequences.

That's *quite* a bit different than Camp's ridiculously oversimplified version, which grossly distorts the above into "some sequences will be found to be similar, somewhere". The *actual* prediction is *far* more specific, and *vastly* less likely to occur by chance or some other method which does not involve common descent. The actual prediction makes testable, narrow predictions about *every* ubiquitous gene sequence in *every* species. It's extremely specific, and leaves no wiggle-room for observations which might violate the prediction.

Camp then uses his own skewed version of the argument to say, "It is not a prediction of the hypothesis of universal common ancestry or the more specific hypothesis of Neo-Darwinism that ubiquitous genes will have the same or a similar codon sequence in two or more species." That's true enough for Camp's distorted version, but *NOT* for the original.

Camp further claims: "If the codon sequence in such a gene was not the same or “similar” in two or more species, evolutionists simply would vary the time of divergence and/or the mutation rate, which is claimed to vary for different genes, to account for the differences." No, absolutely not. What Camp is missing is that this line of evidence applies not to absolute amounts of differences, but *relative* amounts of differences. Yes, the neutral mutation rate for some genes is larger than others. But that's irrelevant to this line of evidence, because whatever the mutation rate for a given gene, what's being compared is larger differences versus smaller differences when examining multiple pairs of species. "Larger" is distinguishable from "smaller" no matter what the absolute sizes might be.

Camp reveals his further misunderstandings when he writes: "Once again, the real argument being made is theological, not scientific. The claim is that, since God could make a gene for a protein with many different codon sequences, he would not have used an identical or similar series of codons in the cytochrome c gene of separately created species." No, Camp blows it again. There is, in fact, absolutely no argument of any sort in 29+ Evidences for Macroevolution about what God might or might not choose to do. That's Camp's own hallucination. What's worse, he obviously entirely misunderstands the *evidenciary* arguments being made in 29+ Evidences for Macroevolution. What makes this even more unforgiveable is that the points that Camp misses are spelled out explicitly in one of the "29+ Evidences" pages (this one).

What Camp entirely misses is that the 29+ lines of evidence for macroevolution are *not* given as "proofs". Nowhere is the argument made that there could be no other possible explanation for a particular type of observation, or that any given observation might not match the predictions of some other theory as well. That's *always* a "given" in science, because there's *always* some other theor(ies) which could likewise explain the evidence (if nothing else, some sort of unrecognized variation on the current theory, or even something radically different that no one's thought of).

What Camp misses entirely, because he's not a scientist (he's a lawyer) is that you don't "prove" a given theory by allegedly presenting something which can't be explained any *other* way (because this is almost always impossible to do even in principle), instead you *support* a theory by working out as many of its implications (i.e. predictions) as you can, and then check to see (via examination of known evidence, and experiment, and other methods) whether all observations you can manage to do actually "fit" the theory (and more importantly, whether any are found which *don't*). For details on how exactly this works and why it is an extremely strong method of validation, see my Explaining the Scientific Method.

The more evidence which falls into line to match the expectations of the theory, the more the theory is strengthened. Any evidence which appears to be a blatant violation of the expectations of the theory weighs *very* heavily against it. Furthermore, a theory is very much strengthened if the evidence which matches its predictions are from not just one type of prediction or line of argument, but from many. In the 29+ Evidences for Macroevolution page, there are over *29* independent lines of evidence, all of which beautifully match the predictions of the theories of common descent and macroevolution. And each line of evidence is supported by *thousands*, and in some cases *millions*, of individual pieces of evidence.

In short, evolution has an enormous amount of evidence supporting it.

I strongly invite readers to ignore Gore3000's "pay no attention to the man behind the curtain" attempt, and actually go *read* 29+ Evidences for Macroevolution for yourself (yes, all several pages). It'll take a couple hours, but it's well worth the time. After you read it, you'll understand why creationists are being hugely dishonest when they claim that there is "no" evidence supporting evolution, or that evolution is not a "scientific" or "predictive" theory. The pages at that link show in great detail how empty those claims are, even if you choose argue with a few particular points or disagree with its conclusion. There's an enormous amount of meticulous, well-researched evidence for evolution, and that page gives a large taste. Don't let anyone tell you there's not. And I trust any reader with an open mind will see for themselves how strong the evolutionary foundation truly is, contrary to hte "house of cards" declarations by its opponents. Again, even if you disagree with the conclusion, at least be honest enough to admit there's a lot of good evidence behind it -- if you take the time to look.

Camp blusters in several sections about how "well, maybe God chose to make things the way that the evidence indicates". Fine, maybe he did. Feel free to go off and develop a "scientific theory of creationism" (or "theory of ID"). But note that you can't just say (as Camp does), "maybe God wanted to do it in a way that only *appears* to match the expected results of evolution, we don't know why", because that's *not* a *scientific* prediction, because it doesn't let you predict *ahead* of your observations what you think you're going to find and why. As soon as you develop a "scientific theory of creationism" which *does* claim to grasp enough of God's processes and reasons to be able to predict (repeat: *predict*) enough of the details of His works that you'll be able to test your theory against the evidence (and also honestly deal with it if your predictions are falsified), *then* you'll have something that can truly be called "scientific". So far, no one has offered such a theory. "God could make it any way at all if he wanted to for His own mysterious reasons" does *not* qualify, because it is neither predictive nor falsifiable. It is, in fact, a declaration of *lack* of knowledge rather than a contribution to science (which is the *accumulation* of what we know and can confidently count on and predict about the world).

Camp even unwittingly admits this when he writes, "But even if there were no unknown design constraints on the gene for cytochrome c, how could one be sure that God would not conserve codon sequences when creating cytochrome c gene in separate species?" Yes, exactly. If one "can't be sure" -- if there's no way to test the unknowability of God's whims or predict what they will be in a given case -- then it's a philosophical issue, but it's not a scientific theory.

Camp's concluding paragraph for this section of his "debunking" only further reveals his misunderstandings:

Thus, the similarity of codon sequences in the cytochrome c gene of humans and chimps does not “make it look exactly like we are genealogically related.”

This quote appears nowhere in 29+ Evidences for Macroevolution. Camp is either summarizing, or was working off an older version of the web page. In any case, he misunderstands it. The meaning is that the gene similarities and differences between man/chimp are exactly the type we would expect to see if we were genealogically related, and closely so. It's not a claim that the gene sequences by themselves are some sort of irrefutable proof that we are.

That conclusion only follows if one ignores the possibility of unknown design constraints, insists that God introduce novelty for novelty’s sake, and denies that there could be other divine purposes, such as sending a biotic message, for the pattern of similarity.

See above. Camp repeatedly misunderstands the argument(s) which are actually being made in 29+ Evidences for Macroevolution, and thus his "debunking" misses the mark entirely.

Similar major flaws are present in the rest of his alleged "debunking" article. And you have "forgotten" to mention that talk.origins itself posts a lengthy rebuttal to Camp's sloppy 'critique'. In it, they describe his attempts to critique their material (and quite fairly, in my opinion), as:

Mr. Camp's critique is error-ridden in various ways, and is primarily characterized by:

1. Straw man arguments
2. Red herrings
3. Self-contradictions
4. Equivocation
5. Two wrongs make a right
6. Fallacies of accident and converse accident
7. Ignoratio elenchi
8. Naive theological assumptions
9. Insufficient knowledge of basic biology, molecular biology, biochemistry and genetics
10. Misunderstanding of the scientific method
11. Forwarding of untestable competing "hypotheses"
12. Mischaracterization of evolutionary theory
13. Misleading mis-quotes
14. Fallacies of accent
15. Distortion of scientific controversies
16. Arguments from authority
17. False analogies

The repeated use of these errors and others in Camp's "Critique" will be abundantly clear in the following rebuttal.

...and then they go on to very thoroughly document those errors in Camp's critique.

[PatrickHenry]

... ah, here we go, a creationist 'critique' which claims that the first link is trash ...

Actually, I listed two of your posts first, because they provided exactly the evidence that was requested. It must have been too much effort to read them, and impossible to find a convenient link at a creationist website to "contradict" them. So they were ignored. In such vast wastelands of ignorance, creationism thrives.

[Ol' Dan Tucker]

So you are placing your faith in an unseen law of nature?

Nope. Just making the simple statement that we might know more about our world tomorrow than we do today and provided specific examples that support my assertion.

How is this different than the Christian putting his faith in an unseen God? And why should your faith be taught in schools paid for with my taxes?

Science is not faith. It is the study of the natural world around us. Religion is faith. It is the study of the spiritual world, which by definition, is not detectable by existing scientific instruments or tests.

Religion does not belong in science classes until it can scientifically prove it's assertions.

[highball]

"In such vast wastelands of ignorance, creationism thrives."

I might have to change my tagline again....

[PatrickHenry]

Why not? This thread caused a change in mine too.

[Ol' Dan Tucker]

Do you have anything more to offer than ad hominem attcks?

Asking if your birth were a 'random, mindless accident' instead of a cherished, planned event is now an ad hominem attack?

Please forgive my intrusion into your personal, family history. I only mentioned it because sometimes accidents are beneficial and lots of children born were 'accidents', meaning not planned.

Face it, a godless universe doesn't make any sense.

Do you believe that all (and I mean ALL!) animals were created by God with absolutely no changes whatsoever to their physiology between the time of their creation and now?

IOW, do you believe that animals do not evolve?

[Coyoteman]

There is much more evidence for ID than humans coming from apes.

There is no evidence for ID or it would have been presented at Dover.

But look at these handsome creatures! Now, that's evidence!

Figure 1.4.4. Fossil hominid skulls. Some of the figures have been modified for ease of comparison (only left-right mirroring or removal of a jawbone). (Images © 2000 Smithsonian Institution.)

(A) Pan troglodytes, chimpanzee, modern
(B) Australopithecus africanus, STS 5, 2.6 My
(C) Australopithecus africanus, STS 71, 2.5 My
(D) Homo habilis, KNM-ER 1813, 1.9 My
(E) Homo habilis, OH24, 1.8 My
(F) Homo rudolfensis, KNM-ER 1470, 1.8 My
(G) Homo erectus, Dmanisi cranium D2700, 1.75 My
(H) Homo ergaster (early H. erectus), KNM-ER 3733, 1.75 My
(I) Homo heidelbergensis, "Rhodesia man," 300,000 - 125,000 y
(J) Homo sapiens neanderthalensis, La Ferrassie 1, 70,000 y
(K) Homo sapiens neanderthalensis, La Chappelle-aux-Saints, 60,000 y
(L) Homo sapiens neanderthalensis, Le Moustier, 45,000 y
(M) Homo sapiens sapiens, Cro-Magnon I, 30,000 y
(N) Homo sapiens sapiens, modern

[Liberal Classic]

It's in the creation of the universe as a place capable of generating and supporting intelligence that I see God's hand, more than in the evolution of specifically human intelligence.

Well said. Thank you.

[highball]

I just got used to my new tagline. But I sure am tempted....

[RightWingAtheist]

Along the lines of the connections between evolutionism and capitalism, has it ever frequently crossed your minds, as it has mine, that of all political doctrines, conservatism, at its most basic, is the one most analogous to evolution? True conservatism is not the mindless reactionarism or passive complacence that its detractors and, nor is it as simple as "Standing athwart history, yelling Stop". It aknowledges that change is inevitable, sometimes even desirable, but also that it is gradual, and that we cannot escape continuity with the past. Moreover, there is a process of selective adaptation in the course of history, where we preserve those traditions and values which have proven themselves to be beneficial to both the individual and society, cast off those which are harmful, and are skeptical of those mutations, the fads and personal indulgences passed off as "lifestyle choices" and "alternative perspectives" which try to overtake tradition and insunate themselves into the mainstream.

Conservatism also views both human nature and its products-our societies, our cultures and and our institutions- as parts of a natural order following certain laws, and while we can use our knowledge to ameliorate our condition, we cannot re-engineer society based upon our always limited understanding (something which Von Mises emphasizes in Theory and History. Contrast that to what calls itself "progressivism" today, which assumes that people are all products of their environment, that culture and society our all constructions, and that they are infinitely malleable, and can be restructured according to a desired ideal, and you have an approach which resembles a bizarre melange of intelligent design and Lysenkoism.

For your further edification, feel free to peruse the links section of my FR homepage (shameless plug, I know), which I've filled mostly with pro-evolution conservative and libertarian sites. This includes, surprisingly enough, Little Green Footballs, whose webmasters are pro-evo, and while they don't post as regularly on the evolution/creation debate as we do, and whose threads on the subject make ours look tame. If any of you have other suggested sites to add, please do so.

[highball]

Well put.

Thank you.

[ThinkDifferent]

True conservatives revere Adam Smith, Charles Darwin, and the Founding Fathers.

Heh. That should get a few reactions.

[Junior]

The Conspiracy That Cares

Corrupting the World's Youth Since 1859

---

January 27, 2006

The CrevoSci Archive

Since June 25, 1999

---

Keyword Searches

• CREATION
• CREATIONISM
• CREVO
• CREVOLIST
• DARWIN
• DARWINISM
• EVOLUTION
• EVOLUTIONISM
• INTELLIGENT DESIGN
• SCIENCE

---

Links

• List-O-Links

---

Box Scores

2006 Threads to date:	152
2006 Daily Average:	5.63
Cataloged Threads	3156
Daily Average:	1.31
Participants:	1012
Percent Banned:	11%

---

Freepdays

1. [2000-01-18] 2banana
   
2. [2001-01-24] agenda_express
   
3. [2002-01-26] ALS
   
4. [1999-01-23] Antiwar Republican
   
5. [1998-01-19] BB2
   
6. [1999-01-26] Bernard Marx
   
7. [1998-01-21] Cameron
   
8. [1999-01-24] Cautor
   
9. [2000-01-03] Condorman
   
10. [2003-01-17] conservativecorner
    
11. [2006-01-03] Creationist
    
12. [2003-01-16] cyborg
    
13. [2002-01-12] Dajjal
    
14. [2000-01-26] DallasMike
    
15. [2000-01-08] Deadeye Division
    
16. [2003-01-31] Diddley
    
17. [2003-01-23] El Laton Caliente
    
18. [2000-01-11] exnavy
    
19. [2005-01-30] From many - one.
    
20. [2005-01-03] Fruit of the Spirit
    
21. [2003-01-23] ganeshpuri89
    
22. [1999-01-29] Gritty
    
23. [1999-01-31] Hacksaw
    
24. [1998-01-16] holly
    
25. [2005-01-17] isaiah55version11_0
    
26. [2005-01-21] JCRoberts
    
27. [2002-01-02] Jeff Gordon
    
28. [2001-01-31] JMFoard
    
29. [2001-01-24] Just another Joe
    
30. [2000-01-07] Keyes2000mt
    
31. [2002-01-14] Lost Highway
    
32. [2005-01-27] manny613
    
33. [1999-01-04] Map Kernow
    
34. [1999-01-31] Mark Felton
    
35. [1999-01-25] Matchett-PI
    
36. [2004-01-16] mc6809e
    
37. [2002-01-17] MEGoody
    
38. [2005-01-20] MHalblaub
    
39. [2002-01-22] mikegi
    
40. [2003-01-21] Mikey_1962
    
41. [1999-01-31] Mr.Clark
    
42. [2004-01-08] orionblamblam
    
43. [2002-01-02] Oxylus
    
44. [2003-01-25] Prolixus
    
45. [2005-01-05] Right Wing It
    
46. [2000-01-31] RoughDobermann
    
47. [1999-01-22] Rudder
    
48. [2000-01-21] SJackson
    
49. [2003-01-06] skinkinthegrass
    
50. [1999-01-31] Slings and Arrows
    
51. [2001-01-13] Still Thinking
    
52. [2004-01-03] SunkenCiv
    
53. [2002-01-12] Tomalak
    
54. [2002-01-30] truenospinzone
    
55. [2003-01-12] Voice in your head
    
56. [2004-01-29] wagglebee
    
57. [2002-01-30] wallcrawlr
    
58. [2001-01-10] Weatherman123
    
59. [1998-01-22] wotan
    
60. [2004-01-15] writer33
    
61. [1998-01-21] zerosix
    

CrevoSci Threads for the Past Week

1. 2006-01-27 Morality on the Brain
2. 2006-01-27 Mountain ranges rise dramatically faster than expected (Earth not as old as evolutionists say)
3. 2006-01-27 Screwtape's 'Age of Darwinian Scientism'
4. 2006-01-26 BBC: Most Brits Don't Believe in Evolution
5. 2006-01-26 Fossil Yields Surprise Kin of Crocodiles
6. 2006-01-26 Making Darwin Right
7. 2006-01-26 Pitt Professor's Theory of Evolution Gets Boost From Cell Research [Sudden Origins]
8. 2006-01-26 What Are Creationists Afraid Of?
9. 2006-01-26 Why do you not understand what I say?(Understanding non-Christians)
10. 2006-01-25 Evolution Sunday!
11. 2006-01-25 Is ID science or religion?
12. 2006-01-25 Moon Is Dragging Continents West, Scientist Says
13. 2006-01-25 Movement hopes to bridge the gap between evolution and creationism
14. 2006-01-25 Nothing New under the Sun: Another Failed Attempt to Explain God Away
15. 2006-01-25 Studies examine withholding of scientific data among researchers, trainees
16. 2006-01-25 Time Changes Modern Human's Face
17. 2006-01-24 Fossil of 'Sphinx' discovered in NE China
18. 2006-01-24 Intelligent Design: Regarding Science and Religion
19. 2006-01-24 It May Look Authentic; Here's How to Tell It Isn't
20. 2006-01-24 Senators object to morning prayer on abortion, evolution
21. 2006-01-24 Size Does Matter in Bats' Evolution
22. 2006-01-24 Speaker stands behind theory [Dembski on Intelligent Design in Kansas]
23. 2006-01-24 What Science and Theology Have in Common
24. 2006-01-23 Deny the Designer, Save 'Science'
25. 2006-01-23 Evolution study tightens human-chimp connection
26. 2006-01-23 In Defense of Evolution
27. 2006-01-23 The unholy lust of scientists: It may be time to curtail public financing of scientific research
28. 2006-01-22 Do You Know this Man?
29. 2006-01-22 Does education fuel paranormal beliefs?
30. 2006-01-22 Hopkins to Found First Center for Comprehensive Study of Epigenetics
31. 2006-01-22 It's Dogged as Does It [Darwin in the Galápagos]
32. 2006-01-22 Questions for Daniel C. Dennett: The Nonbeliever
33. 2006-01-22 Small changes separate man from ape
34. 2006-01-22 WHICH CREATION STORY?
35. 2006-01-21 Ancient lakes of the Sahara
36. 2006-01-21 God's Guide to Sex
37. 2006-01-21 Hardwired To Seek Beauty
38. 2006-01-21 In 'Design' vs. Darwinism, Darwin Wins Point in Rome
39. 2006-01-21 Ken Ham Continues Assault on Bible & Christians
40. 2006-01-21 Mutation found that cures heart disease
41. 2006-01-21 'Scientific fact takes a back seat in George Bush's White House' (Massachusetts liberal gag alert)
42. 2006-01-21 The Intelligent Design Revolution
43. 2006-01-21 Theistic Revolution
44. 2006-01-21 Vatican's Evolutionists

On this Date in CrevoSci History

1. 01/27/2005 [Intelligent] Design Paper Published in PNAS
2. 01/27/2005 Scientists Recreate Genome of Ancient Human Ancestor
3. 01/27/2004 Study: That Neanderthal Was Not Your Grandfather
4. 01/27/2004 'Your Forefathers Were Not Neanderthals'
5. 01/27/2003 Cross-Species Birds May Offer Clues
6. 01/27/2002 Key West Is Tiring of Chickens in Road

Deleted, Locked, or Pulled Threads

1. 2005-11-15 'Perception' gene tracked humanity's evolution, scientists say [Locked]
2. 2004-04-27 Stop Teaching Our Kids this Evolution Claptrap! [Pulled]
3. 2003-10-29 The Mystery of the Missing Links (Intelligent Design vs. Evolution) [Pulled]
4. 2003-10-27 Physics Nobelist Takes Stand on Evolution [Pulled]
5. 2003-10-23 Gene Found for Obsessive Compulsive Disorder [Pulled]
6. 2003-10-21 Artificial Proteins Assembled from Scratch [Pulled]
7. 2003-09-23 Solar System Formation Questions [Pulled]
8. 2003-09-17 Agreement of the Willing - Free Republic Science Threads [Pulled]
9. 2003-07-18 Unlikely Group May Revive Darwin Debate [Evolution v. Creationism] [Pulled]
10. 2003-07-02 Unlocking the Mystery of 'Unlocking the Mystery of Life' [Pulled]
11. 2003-06-26 Darwin Faces a New Rival [Pulled]
12. 2003-06-06 Amazing Creatures [Pulled]
13. 2002-09-14 Geological Theory Explains Origin of Ocean, Continents [Pulled]
14. 2002-09-13 Oldest Known Penis Is 100 Million Years Old [Pulled]
15. 2002-04-13 To Creationists: Is There a Global Conspiracy to Promote Evolution? [Pulled]
16. 2002-04-10 (Creationists) CRSC Correction [Pulled]
17. 2002-04-04 Evolution: What is it? (long article) [Locked]
18. 2002-03-22 Evolution is designed for science classes [Pulled]
19. 2002-03-05 Life found 'on margin of existence' [Pulled]
20. 2001-11-10 Alabama to continue biology textbook warning sticker [Pulled]
21. 2001-11-06 Warming makes mosquito evolve, University of Oregon scientists find [Pulled]
22. 2001-09-18 CHEERED BY BIGOTS, SCIENTIFIC INDIA TAKES 'GIANT LEAP BACKWARDS' [Pulled]
23. 2001-08-29 How Not to Defend Evolution [Deleted]
24. 2001-08-28 The Ultimate Creation vs. Evolution Resource [6th Revision] [Deleted]
25. 2001-08-27 Top Ten Problems with the Big Bang [Deleted]
26. 2001-08-26 A Scientific Account of the Origin of Life on Earth [Thread I] [Deleted]
27. 2001-08-24 Satellites Search for Noah’s Ark [Deleted]
28. 2001-07-19 The Effect of Darwinism on Morality and Christianity [Deleted]
29. 2001-07-19 The Scientific Case Against Evolution: A Summary Part I [Deleted]
30. 2001-07-19 The Scientific Case Against Evolution: A Summary Part II [Deleted]
31. 2001-07-19 Evolution is Religion — Not Science [Deleted]
32. 2001-07-07 Evolution Fraud in Current Biology Textbooks [Deleted]
33. 2001-03-31 Enlisting Science to Find the Fingerprints of a Creator [No Such File]
34. 2001-01-13 A Christian Understanding of Intelligent Design [Deleted]
35. 2000-11-15 Evolutionism Receives Another Hard Blow [Deleted]
36. 2000-10-10 Another Lost Generation? [Deleted]
37. 2000-10-02 God and the Academy [Deleted]
38. 2000-09-18 The World of Design [Deleted]
39. 2000-08-30 Evil-Ution [Deleted]
40. 1999-11-14 Creationism's Success Past 5 Years: (Gallup: 1 in 10 hold secular evolutionist perspective) [No Such File]

The Wall
"In death, all men are equal"

1. 1LongTimeLurker
2. 2Trievers
3. Ada Coddington
4. Ahab Brigade
5. Ahriman
6. akdonn
7. ALS
8. angelo
9. Area Freeper
10. Aric2000
11. Askel5
12. Asphalt
13. biblewonk
14. bluepistolero
15. Boot Hill
16. broberts
17. churchillbuff
18. claptrap
19. Clinton's a liar
20. codebreaker
21. Con X-Poser
22. D. Skippy
23. dbbeebs
24. Destro
25. DittoJed2
26. dob
27. Ed Current
28. Exnihilo
29. f.Christian
30. Far Gone
31. farmfriend
32. followerofchrist
33. freeparella
34. general_re
35. geros
36. Good Tidings Of Great Joy
37. goodseedhomeschool
38. gopwinsin04
39. gore3000
40. H.R. Gross
41. Happy2BMe
42. Helms
43. Ignatius J Reilly
44. IllumiNOTi
45. JediGirl
46. JesseShurun
47. JethroHathaway
48. JFK_Lib
49. jlogajan
50. JoeSchem
51. john_baldacci_is_a_commie
52. Justice Avenger
53. Kevin Curry
54. kharaku
55. knowquest
56. Land of the Irish
57. LarryLied
58. Le-Roy
59. malakhi
60. Marathon
61. masked face doom
62. medved
63. Merdoug
64. metacognative
65. mikeharris65
66. missyme
67. Modernman
68. Morris Hattrick
69. mrustow
70. n4sir
71. neoconsareright
72. newsperson999
73. NoKinToMonkeys
74. nuda_veritas
75. Ogmios
76. OnlyinAmerica
77. peg the prophet
78. Pern
79. Phaedrus
80. Phoroneus
81. pickemuphere
82. RCW2001
83. ReasonedThought
84. ret_medic
85. RickyJ
86. RJCogburn
87. Sabertooth
88. ScotchBible
89. SeaLion
90. Selkie
91. Shubi
92. spiker
93. SplashDog
94. Stingy Dog
95. StupidQuestions
96. That Subliminal Kid
97. The Loan Arranger
98. the lone rider
99. Tomax
100. tpaine
101. Truth666
102. Turan
103. twittle
104. Unalienable
105. USA2000
106. WaveThatFlag
107. What about Bob?
108. winner45
109. xm177e2

---

[PatrickHenry]

I don't know why it took me so long to explicitly see all the connections, but now it's suddenly obvious. A proper understanding of the principles of: (a) the American Revolution (as expressed by the Founders); and (b) free enterprise (expounded by Adam Smith, also in 1776) prepares the rational mind to fully understand Darwin's theory of evolution in the context of the Age of Enlightenment. As it is with economics and politics, life itself will thrive in the absence of arbitrary authority. It may be that Darwin couldn't have achieved his intellectual breakthrough without the advantage of living in a post-1776 world.

The rational, freedom-loving conservative not only rejects the tyranny of Dark Ages guilds, state monopolies, trade restrictions, monarchy, and theocracy, but he also rejects creationism -- for the same reasons. Just as economies function best without controls, and societies function best when lightly governed, so too do biological systems organize themselves and proliferate without external guidance. Adam Smith's "invisible hand" appears to be everywhere, yet the hand of Providence is never intrusive.

Those who group Darwin with Marx and Freud are horribly confused. Darwin's work has nothing to do with theirs. Darwin properly deserves to be grouped with Adam Smith and the Founding Founders, as one of the Enlightenment philosophers -- perhaps one of the last, before the horrors of the 20th Century were unleashed by lesser minds.

[connectthedots]

Indeed. Angels may exist and if they do, they may even be capable of dancing on the head of a pin but how are we to know? And how do we determine their number or if they are only dancing clockwise or counterclockwise?

Anyone who dances knows it's counterclockwise

[Buggman]

Nope. Just making the simple statement that we might know more about our world tomorrow than we do today and provided specific examples that support my assertion.

That's fine, but in the meantime, the current evidence is that there is about as much chance of abiogenesis happening naturally as there is that a wall full of Egyptian heiroglypics were formed by random erosion.

It is the study of the spiritual world, which by definition, is not detectable by existing scientific instruments or tests.

Perhaps not--at our current level of technology. :) However, if the spiritual world has an objective reality, perhaps within a hyperdimensional universe, then we should not rule out the possibility that science and religion will eventually overlap a priori, which is the current trend.

Religion does not belong in science classes until it can scientifically prove it's assertions.

I agree. Look at my first couple of posts on this thread. Personally, I don't care if ID is taught per se (not because I don't think that it's scientific, but because I recognize that it's in its infancy), I just want certain known lies about evolution to be removed from the textbooks, and I want an honest admission given to the students that there is currently no viable theory for how abiogenesis could have come about by accident or natural law. As it stands, the primordial soup nonsense is still being taught as fact as of this year.

If the evolutionist side of this debate were completely honest in the classrooms about what they do and do not know and about what they can and cannot prove, teaching ID as a counter-point wouldn't be an issue.

[highball]

If the evolutionist side of this debate were completely honest in the classrooms about what they do and do not know and about what they can and cannot prove, teaching ID as a counter-point wouldn't be an issue.

Specifics?

What is being taught in the classrooms that is not honest? And in which classrooms?

[CobaltBlue]

Nature certainly never has alone.

Ever seen a liger?

Ligers are not sterile, either. If they mate with a tiger, they produce titis, and if they reproduce with a lion, they produce lilis.

[CobaltBlue]

BTW - I've actually petted the liger in the above photo. His name is Sudan. I have photos of me and my kids petting him. Big scary looking dude but perfectly polite as long as he's not hungry. ;^)