Why don't creationists publish?

Jehovah's Witnes Discussion Forum ^ | 5-2-03 | German JW

[Aric2000]

Actually, I think the insane fanaticism is his life.

Either that, or my theory is this.

He lives in a nice little home, with cushioned rooms, and they sit him down in front of his computer because it makes him calm, and when his posts make sense, you know the medicinal doses are right.

You want to yell out of his monitor at the nurses, leave the dose RIGHT THERE, leave it there!!!

[f.Christian]

Definitely !

Evolution ... time -- erosian is backward --- impossible !

I've written about it 10 x's on the FR ...

no one can dispute it (( not my subject of publication -- theology // science is my avocation )) !

You won't know (( subject )) until months from now !

[bneal]

Being a Geologist myself, I'd love to hear about "the Geologic Column". Just that phrase alone is vague at best. One would not use that if they new what they were talking about.

Having faith and believing in evolution are not mutually exclusive. God has used physical science (as we refer to it) for a long time now, why not evolution. One can publish data in support or opposition to evolution anytime, even though the overwhelming evidence points to evolution model.

[Right Wing Professor]

Some actual facts: this is from Nature, 4/4/03.

Axeing of website article sparks row at Max Planck

ALISON ABBOTT

[MUNICH]
The Max Planck Institute for Plant Breeding Research in Cologne has removed the detailed description of 'intelligent design' from its website, following complaints from scientists that it was inconsistent with the laboratory's scientific mission.

The article, which was posted by Wolf-Ekkehard Lönnig, a theorist at the institute, discusses the idea that an intelligent force must be responsible for the origin of the Universe and for the diversity of life forms. Known as intelligent design, this theory rejects natural selection, and has been portrayed by its opponents as a 'front' for creationism (see Nature 416, 250; 2002).

Earlier this month, Peter Gruss, president of the Max Planck Society, asked the four directors of the Cologne institute to provide a scientific justification for Lönnig's pages. Lönnig posted the material five years ago, and the site has since received over 35,000 hits. A disclaimer identifying the article as a personal opinion was added in 2001, following earlier complaints.

"Only scientific issues should be discussed on a Max Planck site," says Gruss. And last week, Lönnig's pages were removed from the institute's site, pending a directors' meeting on 28 April to determine their fate.

Ulrich Kutschera, an evolutionary biologist at the University of Kassel, has campaigned against the presence of the material on an official Max Planck website, branding it "pseudoscience". "It is fine as a personal opinion expressed on a personal website, but not on the official site of a scientific organization of international status," he says.

Many evolutionary biologists share Kutschera's concerns: Axel Meyer of the University of Constance, for example, says that he was "shocked" by the contents of the pages. But others, such as Diethard Tautz at the University of Cologne and Svante Pääbo at the Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology in Leipzig, are more circumspect, saying that independent opinions should be permitted. Tautz, however, says it might be more appropriate for such opinions to be aired at "an institute of philosophy" than at the Max Planck.

Lönnig is displeased by the removal of his discussion. "No one is happy when someone switches off the information flow of what he thinks is right," he says. And Heinz Saedler, one of the institute's directors, who has supported Lönnig and published jointly with him, says that although he doesn't believe in intelligent design himself, he enjoys discussing it with Lönnig.

[Aric2000]

But, but, but, don't you know that there is a vast evolutionist conspiracy to keep ID from becoming a scientific theory?

It would disprove evolution and upset all those evolutionist apple carts.

Didn't you know that?

Sorry, just have to see that sometimes, I wonder if it looks as silly to IDr's as it does to me?

[bneal]

Probably not

[general_re]

Speaking of publishing, I am holding in my hands a pre-press (galley) copy of a really excellent book, that some posters may be interested in - the title is "Unintelligent Design", by (Dr.) Mark Perakh, and it will be available later this summer. It's a very good examination of the various ID theories, as well as discussing well-known creationists like Behe, Dembski, Johnson, and so forth. I really can't recommend it highly enough for that, so check it out when it comes out...

[Aric2000]

Yep, that is pretty sad, I must say.

[Aric2000]

No fair, how did you get a pre press copy?

Now I know that life isn't fair...;)

[Right Wing Professor]

I found a link to Perakh's reviews on amazon.com. Heh heh heh. I can't wait for the book.

http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/cm/member-reviews/-/A3HRUW583WV2U/1/ref%3Dcm%5Fcr%5Fauth/102-6919873-1241755

[jennyp]

Interesting. Mark Perakh has written several interesting analyses of ID at Talk.Reason.

[r9etb]

Having faith and believing in evolution are not mutually exclusive.

IMHO the real issue is not the usual formula of "religion vs. science."

The creationist side of the argument recognizes that there are those who use evolution as an argument against the existence of God. And so, without much thought, they attack the theory of evolution with the intent of "protecting God."

This provokes serious scientists, who naturally want to "defend science."

The waters are muddied here, in that many scientific defenders of evolution (e.g., Dawkins) are also loudly atheist in their views.

At any rate, the sound and fury of this argument abated for me once I realized what was really at issue in this debate. It is only tangentially a "science vs. religion" issue. The real battle is over "God vs. Atheism."

[balrog666]

Speaking of publishing, I am holding in my hands a pre-press (galley) copy of a really excellent book, that some posters may be interested in - the title is "Unintelligent Design", by (Dr.) Mark Perakh, and it will be available later this summer. It's a very good examination of the various ID theories, as well as discussing well-known creationists like Behe, Dembski, Johnson, and so forth. I really can't recommend it highly enough for that, so check it out when it comes out...

Sounds delicious! Ping us when it hits the shelves!

[george wythe]

Jehovah's Witnesses are followers of a small band of Brooklyn men who are extremely deceptive in their publishing practices.

For example, their Evolution book is full of misquotes and fabrications about evolutionists, voodoo science at its worse.

And their dishonesty is not limited to their anti-evolutionist literature.

Their Trinity booklet contains enormous misrepresentations and outright lies about the Church Fathers's view on the Trinity.

I wonder which kind of garbage this JW was posting as "scientific fact."

[MEGoody]

"He isn't banned; he's merely been told not to use the Max Planck Institute's server for publishing this material."

LOL Sounds like banning to me.

[Aric2000]

Maybe to Fundamentalist the debate is over Atheism vs religion, but to 99% of those that believe that evolution is indeed on the right track, it is not.

Fundamentalists try to put us all in the same atheist box, and it doesn't wash, and they get a bit upset about it.

[f.Christian]

The title of your site (( as I have already told you )) ...

'evolution -- the eternal debate' (( paradigm grind // reverse ))---

is an oxymoron (( you don't get it ? )) !

Also ...

why am I the only one able to explain ---

why there are no pre cambrian fossils (( besides worms // shells )) ?

Check ... this (( clue )) --- out !

[Aric2000]

He can post all the scientific findings he wants, he still has access to publishing on their servers, he is just not allowed to put his ID goofiness in a scientific forum.

[Long Cut]

"Having faith and believing in evolution are not mutually exclusive."

I have long maintained this, but I also maintain that mixing the two, or using the one to prove(or disprove) the other, is the height of folly.

Simply put, the standards of proof for each are at polar opposites. That's why it is called "faith".

Whilst no P.H.D-wielding scientist, I do utilize scientific principles (Sound physics, ocean topography/geology, radio theory, Doppler theory, etc...) on a daily basis, and they ALL can be seen to work, every time, without fail. Thus, I can conclude that these principles are factual. I need not make "a leap of faith" to believe that the Doppler effect exists!

I would have to do just that to believe in Creationism. Creationism is a theory which sprang up wholly developed, and now is ever seeking proof of itself. Evolution, however, developed over time with some parts being tested and rejected, and others being proven and kept. Rather than needing the science tailored to fit it, it fits the available science.

I must be an innocent...I cannot understand why the Creationists feel so strongly that, to be good Christians (and the greater bulk of them are), they must disprove a proven theory. Is their own faith so very fragile? Religions of the world have, after all, adapted to scientific discoveries which contradicted their dogma without shattering themselves.

[f.Christian]

Check ... this (( clue // forgot '#50' )) --- out !