[Remedy]

FOSSIL THUMPERS have been digging in the OUTBACK for so long, looking for missing links, that they have hooked-up with SHAMANS.

The shamanistas then Dump Professor Over Evolution Beliefs

 

• Media Bias Stifles Creationists' Scientific Findings, Perspective He explains that the secular media -- which he describes as atheistic and anti-Christian -- publishes most anything it can that appears to indoctrinate people and "hits against the Bible."
• Loosening Darwin's GripA poll released in May 2002 by Zogby International found that nearly eight out of every 10 Ohioans supported the teaching of intelligent design in classrooms where Darwinian evolution also is taught. A survey by The Plain Dealer newspaper in Cleveland offered similar findings: 74 percent of Ohioans said evidence for and against evolution should be taught in science classrooms, while 59 percent said intelligent design should be included in origins study.
• Anti-Creationists Backed Into a Corner? Forrest Turpen, executive director of Christian Educators Association International, says it is obvious the evolution-only advocates feel their ideology and livelihood are being threatened.
• Intelligently Designed Films The two videos complement each other well. Unlocking the Mystery of Life develops all of Intelligent Design's major molecular-based arguments for an "intelligent cause" of life's complexity, and thus presents the positive case. Icons of Evolution, on the other hand, spotlights the problems of Darwinism: its censorship of key scientific information in public schools, and the scientific misinformation it spreads through public textbooks.
•  International Society for Complexity, Information, and Design (ISCID)
• True.Origin
• Institute for Creation Research
• Christian Answers
• Creation Research Society
• CARM
• Revolution Against Evolution
• Discovery Institute
• Law, Darwinism, & Public Education: The Establishment Clause and the Challenge of Intelligent Design."
• 'Intelligent Design' vs. Evolution
• Chapter 7 Thermodynamics of Living Systems, p113
• Chapter 8 Thermodynamics and the Origin of life, p127
• Chapter 9 Specifying How Work is to be Done, p144

[Hodar]

Please explain Dinosaurs and vegetable fossils. Are these merely curiously uniform deposits of minerals found world-wide; artifical constructs of the devil, or did these animals and plants exist? The bible does not account for them. Evolutionists do.

I have never known an Evolutionist to claim to have the whole story, like Creationists do. So, with this in mind, what about the rock record?

[Lysander]

...creationist scientist...

Oxymoron

[Terriergal]

something about evolutionism that generates arrogance in many of its spokesmen

When you represent the highest 'evolved' form of life, what do you expect? ;-)

[John H K]

FOSSIL THUMPERS have been digging in the OUTBACK for so long, looking for missing links, that they have hooked-up with SHAMANS.

Yeah, how apalling that a lot evolutionists spend most of their time in the field digging up actual physical evidence and analyzing it; how DARE they?

BTW, they've found tens of thousands of "missing links." Gould assumes Creationidiots are liars, because they ARE liars.

[biblewonk]

"Are you a scientist" bump.

[Ff--150]

fyi

[longshadow]

Luddite placemarker

[ThinkPlease]

It's funny, I've read that most creationists will refuse to have written debates these days, instead preferring to have nothing but spoken debates. Why? Because it's easier for someone like Gish to shoot out 15 half truths in 60 seconds than it is for someone like Gould to correct them in 60 seconds. In a written arena, you can't effectively use the "shotgun" approach that Gish loves so much. Could be also that there is no money to be made in a written setting, eh? Don't you wonder how much Gish etal gets in a speaking engagement at a church?

Also, consider this. Ever wonder why there's never a debate offered by a Creationist speaker about the scientific evidence of creationism? They are always about the evils of Evolution. Why is that?

[Illbay]

You already had the earlier thread pulled. Do you not work for a living?

Are you on government assistance?

[gg188]

Yeah. Those crazy creationists. Next thing you know they'll be telling us that GLOBAL WARMING is a hoax, too.

[js1138]

Criticising ideas in print is debate. I suppose you are referring to something like Crossfire, something designed to settle deep issues in a dignified forum.

[VadeRetro]

Strange that, in his 1433 pages, not to mention his copious other writings, Dr. Gould failed to site a single example of such misquotations.

Well, gee! I wonder if anyone has looked into that claim?

[gomaaa]

Dr. Gould failed to site a single example of such misquotations.

Then I shall reveal a couple in just the opening paragrahs of this essay.

One of their communicants, in fact, calls them its "shamans." He says, We show deference to our leaders, pay respect to our elders and follow the dictates of our shamans; this being the Age of Science, it is scien-tism's shamans who command our veneration. . . . scientists [are] the premier mythmakers of our time.1

He is citing Michel Shermer, head to the Skeptic society and holding him up as speaking for all of science.

http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?colID=13&articleID=000AA74F-FF5F-1CDB-B4A8809EC588EEDF

Dr. Shermer is a psychologist by training, and while I would say he does a lot to promote good science, he seems VERY idealistic. In the cited article, he talks mostly about Stephen Hawking, and explicitly compares him to God. This is a claim that I suspect Hawking himself would take issue with. His article, as implied by Morris, is trying to establish science as a religion in its own right. I, for one, do NOT think that this is an accurate representation of the position of most scientists. He even quotes Dr. Hawking as saying "I do not answer 'God' questions." then procedes to claim, as Morris suggests, that science can and does answer all the questions that religions purport to. I would say the Dr. Hawking's approach is far more representative of most scientists, and Shermer is out on a limb. As such, quoting him as speaking for the scientific community is a terrible misrepresentation of that community.

Many people of normal intelligence, including most scientists, have acknowledged that science can deal with questions beginning with "What?" and "Where," and "How," but not "Why?" The latter requires a theological answer, or at least philosophical. But not Shaman Mayr. He says: There is not a single Why? question in biology that can be answered adequately without a consideration of evolution.2

I, for one, would fully agree with the first statement, but Moriss's quotation of Mayr is a semantic juggling act. Mayr is explicitly referring to questions in biology. Questions about why fetuses develop in the way they do, or why the human is so similar to that of apes. Morris is trying to say that he was talking about philosophical questions such as why are we here? Why do we suffer? This is a gross and obvious mischaracterization of what Mayr was trying to say, but it sounds good out of context and if you don't think too much about it, so Morris whips it right out there. He subsequently backs it up with our old friend Shermer, who again is talking about something completely different from Mayr.

The rest of the essay is an exercise in the same sort of flat declarations (no proof!) that we've heard a million times. He's basically whining about how noone in the scientific community takes him seriously without providing a shread of contradictory evidence himself.

This sort of irresponsible writing really irks me. If someone does not want to believe in evolution because their faith in God doesn't allow it, then fine. I can acutally respect that quite a bit. But I wish Morris and his ilk would quit trying to twist science around to suit their needs! He is guilty of precisely the same misquoting practices that he dismisses in the same essay!

Faith in God I can deeply respect even if I disagree. Intellectual hypocrisy just pisses me off!

[Commander8]

Scientific Evolutionists and superstitious witch doctors. Strange bedfellows.

[Camber-G]

Bumping and bookmarking for later when I want a few laughs.

[<1/1,000,000th%]

The concept is so wide-ranging that it purportedly can explain everything scientifically, from the origin of the cosmos to the origin of religion.

Cosmology is apparently considered a branch of Biology in the Creationist/ID Church.