Top scientist gives up on creationists

The Guardian (UK) ^ | 30 May 2006 | James Randerson

[PatrickHenry]

A leading British scientist said yesterday that he had given up trying to persuade creationists that Darwin's theory is correct after repeatedly being misrepresented and, he said, branded a liar.

Speaking at the Guardian Hay festival at Hay-on-Wye, the evolutionary biologist Steve Jones spoke of his frustrations when trying to debate with religious opponents.

"I don't engage with creationists directly," he said, saying that, when he had, they had frequently quoted him out of context or accused him of lying. "If somebody has decided to believe something - whatever the evidence - then there is nothing you can do about it."

[Snip]

The most important difference between evolutionists and creationists, Prof Jones concluded, is that scientists are always prepared to say, "I don't know".

"If there weren't any unknown parts of evolution, bits we don't understand, it wouldn't be a science," he said, "That's one thing that believers never say, because it's all written down in a big book."

In 1997, Prof Jones was awarded the Royal Society's Michael Faraday prize, the UK's foremost award for communicating science to the public.

[VadeRetro]

Your abortion might be any baby anywhere.

I wish people would stop doing oppo research on me!

[Dimensio]

Many scientists do not want to consider God as source for creation

I do not see how this relates to the theory of evolution. Moreover, you will need to be specific regarding the "God" to which you refer, as literally thousands have been worshiped and acknowledged throughout human history.

want to accept this one as they do accept the other unproven and weak theory of the Big Ben.

I was unaware that a scientific theory was required to explain the existence of a large clock in London. Also, all scientific theories are unproven; your statement is redundant.

[PatrickHenry]

AAAAARRRRGGGGGHHHHHHHH!

The secret is out! The dreaded question has been asked: Why are there still monkeys? It's all over!

[Stultis]

Many scientists do not want to consider God as source for creation

"Many" may not. Yet most do. And yet evolution still prevailed, despite the initial strong scientific bias against it, AND the procreationist, protheistic bias of most Western scientists.

Why? How could evolution, if a "weak" theory, possibly have prevailed???

[jveritas]

Darwin theory is not biology in the exact definition of biology, it is just junk science.

[VadeRetro]

No! It's worse! This time it's "Why are there still monkeys but not the Neanderthals??"

Dive! Dive! OOOoo-GAH!!

[ml1954]

I have a Bachelor of Science in Physics and Master of Science in Mechanical engineering ...

Then you ought to know this is irrelevant to your argument, such as it it, whatever it is.

[CarolinaGuitarman]

"And why we do not have these ancestors anymore."

The same reason I don't have most of my ancestors any more. They died. Ancestors have a way of doing that.

"Why do we still have the ape who is according to Darwin one of the ancestors but we do not have anymore the creature in between man and ape."

They died.

"The MISSING LINK, and hence the THEORY FALLS APART."

Not even close.

[CarolinaGuitarman]

"Darwin theory is not biology in the exact definition of biology, it is just junk science."

What is the exact definition of biology?

[Stultis]

Why do we still have the ape who is according to Darwin one of the ancestors but we do not have anymore the creature in between man and ape. The MISSING LINK, and hence the THEORY FALLS APART.

Ahhh. So, in the precisely analogous situation that your father were to die, say get hit by a bus (i.e. go "extinct"), and yet your grandfather were to remain alive, then the theory that you are descended from your grandfather would thereby "FALL APART"?

You can't be serious (or that dumb)?

[Dimensio]

And why we do not have these ancestors anymore.

What do you mean by this statement?

Why do we still have the ape who is according to Darwin one of the ancestors

I cannot understand what you mean by this statement. I am aware of no ape species ancestral to homo sapiens that exists today.

but we do not have anymore the creature in between man and ape.

This statement is meaningless. Humans are a subset of apes. You cannot have an "in between" state between a set and a member of the set.

[VadeRetro]

"The MISSING LINK, and hence the THEORY FALLS APART."

Hmmm. Used to be they were missing if we didn't have the fossils. Now they're missing if they aren't walking around alive.

I guess the creationists will never run out of missing links.

[CarolinaGuitarman]

"The secret is out! The dreaded question has been asked: Why are there still monkeys? It's all over!"

Drat! Nobody has dared ask that before. What will we do?!! Oh, the horror!!

[Gumlegs]

I was unaware that a scientific theory was required to explain the existence of a large clock in London.

It's only because you're theory CAN'T explain Big Ben that you want to ignore it. And isn't TIME supposed to be a part of evolution?

BTW, I'm not disputing micro-time because there is evidence of the Baby Ben.

[Dimensio]

Darwin theory is not biology in the exact definition of biology, it is just junk science.

On what basis do you make that claim, given that you do not have a background in biological science?

[balrog666]

I keep thinking the Creationists have scraped the bottom of the barrel, but they keep on digging ...

[jveritas]

Define Biology.

[Dimensio]

Like Jones I am tired of arguing with fools who who refuse to take into account the existence of a creator God.

You did not explain the specific "creator God" to which you refer. Why should I assume any specific deity?

Go Google it.

Your response suggests that you do not actually have an answer to my question, which suggests that creationism is not actually a scientific theory.

[VadeRetro]

I can't believe you posted 56 before 57 hit. You win the "Psychic Award!"

[Gumlegs]

It's barrel-bottoms all the way down.