How Much Longer Can They Sell Darwinism?

From Sea to Shining Sea ^ | 1/4/09 | Purple Mountains

[PurpleMountains]

All across the country, archeologists, paleontologists and biologists are taking part in what is perhaps the greatest example of political correctness in history – their adherence to Darwinism and their attempts to ostracize any scientist who does not agree with them. In doing so, they are not only ignoring the vast buildup of recent scientific discoveries that seriously undermines the basics of Darwinism, but they are also participating, due to politically correctness, in a belief system that indirectly resulted in the deaths of millions of people – those slaughtered by the Stalins, the Hitlers, the Maos, the Pol Pots and others who took their cue from Darwinism’s tenets.

[Fawn]

Yes, I’vev heard of the missing link. It’s out there.

[schaef21]

I figured you’d punt.

Nice talkin’ to you.

[BroJoeK]

"By the way...reading a book by Eugenie Scott on the "breation/Evolution Controversy is equivalent to reading Al Gore’s Book on global warming."

I'm about half way through it now, and seems to me she's nailed this subject, including all the major schools of thought, the history, who the players are, etc.

Look, basically I'm a clueless newbie on this subject -- one of the other posters called me a "brat," but my "brats" have brats, and some of them are getting old enough to be thinking about having "brats."

But in all these years, I never could understand what the anti-evolution argument was all about. To me it sounds like the ultimate in charlatanism & scheisterism, nothing honest or honorable about it.

That's because, by definition, science deals only with the natural & material world -- not the spiritual or supernatural. So, as soon as you try to introduce God into science, it's not science any more -- it's something else.

So, in my mind, if you try to PRETEND that your religion is a "science," then by definition you are a liar and a charlatan. I don't need to know anything more about you, because I can see what you are trying to argue.

Scott's book spells the whole argument out in very clear terms, showing the historical development of the anti-evolution argument through Creationism to now "Intelligent Design." She also shows how all these arguments fit into the continuum from (p57):

Flat Earthism
Geocentrism
Young Earth Creationism
Gap Creationism
Day-Age Creationism
Progressive Creationism
Evolutionary Creationism
Theistic Evolutionism
Agnostic Evolutionism
Materialist Evolutionism

By the way, for anyone curious, my own views correspond to those of the Catholic Church and most Mainline Protestant churches -- accounting for over 2/3 of all Christians, a view identified by Scott as "Theistic Evolutionism."

Scott, Evolution Vs. Creationism, first edition

Scott, Evolution Vs. Creationism, second edition

[BroJoeK]

"No. By all means, go ahead and blame Christianity for all the evils you can think of, and put it up on your FR page too. See how far that gets you. "

I take it, you're saying that you DON'T AGREE that Christians today should all be blamed for historical persecutions of heretics, infidels, etc., in the name of Christ, right?

But you still think that everyone who accepts evolution as science SHOULD be blamed for any nut-case who ever misused that theory, am I right?

[schaef21]

In spite of the fact that you’ve twice now called me a liar...and in this recent post for saying something I never said...that my religion is science....I’ll treat you with respect. I only ask that you do the same with me.

In post #1379 I specifically say that it is not empirical science.....I don’t pretend it is.

The theory of evolution (specifically macro-evolution) is not empirical science either...it is mostly philosophy, especially when dealing with origins....See post #1394.

If you want to know what I think about something, ask me and I’ll tell you. For instance, although I am a young earth creationist, I don’t particularly care that creation is not taught in science class. What I do care about is that along side the evidence for the theory, they show the evidence against the theory, which in spite of what Eugenie Scott says, is mountainous.

Just a couple more comments...

Science only deals in what is natural/material. That’s fine with me. What happens, though, when the answer that they seek doesn’t fall into that realm.....should they make something up or should they admit that it might be outside the realm of science?

They really have no clue where matter came from (see my post #1394). A lot of scientists will admit that and I could give you a lot of quotes from evolutionists to back that up but every science text book deals with that. Should it?

Spontaneous generation defies the law of Biogenesis (as I’ve said also in earlier posts)....and by the way, a law is an absolute, that’s what makes it a law...yet spontaneous generation is in every science text book as if it’s a fact.

Look...you are free to believe what you want but don’t hide your head in the sand. We all come at this with a bias and I’ll admit mine. I have read copiously on both sides of this issue and I’m not a dummy...I’ve been on this earth 58 years.

If you want to read something on the other side, I can suggest a few books for you. What I’ve found is that most people on your side of the argument are unwilling to consider the other side. If you are a newbie as you say you are then you should consider both arguments.

Let me know if you’d like to read something that refutes the theory of evolution...I’ll gladly recommend something.

If you’d like for me to present a couple of arguments, I’ll do that as well.

In the meantime, it might be worth visiting that website that I mentioned to Fawn, www.dissentfromdarwin.com where you’ll find a whole bunch of scientists (over 700), mostly at the PhD level who say it’s to take a good hard look at the problems with the theory.

Regards to you......

[BroJoeK]

"In spite of the fact that you’ve twice now called me a liar...and in this recent post for saying something I never said...that my religion is science"

Sorry, but you are selling snake oil fraudulently labeled as "science." Well, it's NOT science, so you ARE a liar. That's a fact, not an accusation. You & your pals are what you are. AND YOU OUGHT TO STOP DOINT IT!

"Science only deals in what is natural/material. That’s fine with me. What happens, though, when the answer that they seek doesn’t fall into that realm.....should they make something up or should they admit that it might be outside the realm of science?"

Any good scientist, certainly including Scott, is happy to say that much of reality as we experience it, is outside the realms of science. For examples, anything spiritual, divine, supernatural, metaphysical, philosophical, moral, etc., etc. Even beauty is ultimately in the eye & mind of the beholder. The best science can do is take a stab at analyzing patterns we find "beautiful." But there's no scientific way I know of to appreciate beauty.

In a science class, if the pupil asks, "teacher, what came before the 'big bang?', the scientific answer is, "we don't know, all we can do scientifically is speculate, which philosophers & religions have been doing for thousands of years. Among the early philosophers, the best was a Greek, Aristotle, who believed there must be a First Cause. The Bible identifies God as the Universe's creator. But none of this is science. Science doesn't know the answer."

[BroJoeK]

schaef21: "Spontaneous generation defies the law of Biogenesis (as I’ve said also in earlier posts)....and by the way, a law is an absolute, that’s what makes it a law...yet spontaneous generation is in every science text book as if it’s a fact."

I'll say again, your basic problem is, you don't actually know ANY real science. That's why I recommend you read the Scott book -- it will STOP YOU from telling gosh awful lies about what science says or doesn't say.

For example, there's certainly no recent scientific theory of "spontaneous generation" of life from puddles of mud.

That's because any REAL scientist would begin to investigate this question by first asking, "what is life?" Well, a relatively simple bacteria is surely alive, but is a virus? What about ancient precursors of life? Are there any naturally occurring chemical compounds which might behave in somewhat "lifelike" fashion, etc., etc.?

Remember, from a scientific perspective, we are dealing with hundreds of millions, even billions of years, during which the very simplest forms were the ONLY forms to leave traces in the fossil record.

schaef21:"In the meantime, it might be worth visiting that website that I mentioned to Fawn, www.dissentfromdarwin.com where you’ll find a whole bunch of scientists (over 700), mostly at the PhD level who say it’s to take a good hard look at the problems with the theory."

"Problems with the theory"? Do you mean, scientists who say that some early organic compounds may have arrived on earth inside comets or meteors? That's not a "problem with the theory?"

But your implication of an actual "700 scientists," who oppose the theory of evolution and subscribe instead to "Intelligent Design," is I'm certain is a flat out lie. That's because I'm not aware of ANY serious scientist who has published ANY major anti-evolution work in ANY recognized peer-reviewed scientific journal. None, zero, zip, nada.

THAT's what makes your pretense of "science" so fraudulent. You are not in the least science -- by your own words, you are ANTI-SCIENCE. And your pretense otherwise is just despicable.

By the way, this is exactly the point which distinguishes anti-evolution from anti-"global warming." In the global warming debate, there ARE actual scientists, who do real scientific work on the subject of climate change, who have published scientific articles pointing out real flaws in the typical AlGore global warming scenarios.

In my view, your anti-evolution "scientists" are far more akin to the so-called historians who work at the Institute for Historical Research, trying to "prove" the Holocaust never happened!

It's all a fraud and mascarade, and you guys really ought to go do something more honorable.

[BroJoeK]

COMPARING ANTI-GLOBAL WARMING WITH ANTI-EVOLUTION:

EVERY DAY, articles like the following are posted here on Free Republic:

U.S. Astronaut Jack Schmitt Joins Global Warming Skeptics

Note the key paragraphs:

"Schmitt will be among more than 70 scientists, economists, public officials, legal experts, and climate specialists calling attention to new research that contradicts claims that Earth’s moderate warming during the twentieth century primarily was man-made and has reached crisis proportions.

"Joseph Bast, president of The Heartland Institute, producer of the event along with more than 30 co-sponsors, explained, “At the first conference last March, we proved that the skeptics in the debate over global warming constitute the center or mainstream of the scientific community while alarmists are on the fringe.

" “Now in the past nine months, the science has grown even more convincing that global warming is not a crisis. Also suggesting this ‘crisis’ is over are opinion polls in the U.S. and around the globe and political events, including the decisive defeat of ‘cap-and-trade’ legislation in the U.S. Senate last spring. The crisis has been canceled by sound science and common sense.”

Nothing even remotely resembling these reports has EVER come out of the anti-evolution crowd.

[BroJoeK]

FINAL WORDS: Saint Augustine on scriptures versus science:

St. Augustine of Hippo (AD 354 to 430) is recognized as the greatest thinker amongst the early Church Fathers.

From Scott, p49: St. Augustine, among other early church leaders, argued in the fourth and fifth centuries that it was bad theology to accept biblical statements about the natural world uncritically if such statements contradicted experience. He felt that too strict adherence to biblical literalism regarding statements about the natural world would diminish the credibility of proselytizers.

Augustine: "Usually, even a non-Christian knows something about the earth, the heavens, and the other elements of this world, about the motion and orbit of the stars and even their size and relative positions, about the predictable eclipses of the sun and moon, the cycles of the years and the seasons, about the kinds of animals, shrubs, stones and so forth, and this knowledge he holds to as being certain from reason and experience.

"Now, it is a disgraceful and dangerous thing for an infidel to hear a Christian, while presumably giving the meaning of Holy Scripture, talking nonsense on these topics... If they find a Christian mistaken in a field which they themselves know well, and hear him maintaining his foolish opinions about the Scriptures, how then are they going to believe those Scriptures in matters concerning the Resurrection of the dead, the hope of eternal life, and the kingdom of heaven?

"How indeed, when they think that their pages are full of falsehoods on facts which they themselves have learned from experience and the light of reason?"
(Saint Augustine 1982: 42-43)

[schaef21]

Well BroJoeK....I hardly know where to begin so this will be somewhat lengthy.

I’ll start by referring to the first of your 3 posts.

*****I’ll say again, your basic problem is, you don’t actually know ANY real science.*****

How could you possibly know this to be true? You spend a lot of time in these posts refuting things I never said and putting words in my mouth. I am very well read on the subject of science and will gladly have a rational discussion with you on any area that you choose.

*****That’s why I recommend you read the Scott book — it will STOP YOU from telling gosh awful lies about what science says or doesn’t say.******

Are there no other science books but this one? I don’t have to read it (though I might) to know that if it is written by Eugenie Scott it is a very one-sided view. Her whole existence is devoted to pushing anything that has to do with Intelligent Design theory to the curb.

***For example, there’s certainly no recent scientific theory of “spontaneous generation” of life from puddles of mud.***

The following popular High School level Science text books teach that spontaneous generation is one way that life could have formed out of the “primordial soup”...what I refer to as a “mud puddle”:

Biology: The Dynamics of Life, Glencoe/McGraw Hill, 2006
Biology: Exploring Life, Pearson Prentice Hall, 2006
Biology, Holt Rhinehart and Winston, 2006
Biology, Pearson Prentice Hall, 2006

I might add that these are four of the most popular text books used at the High School level.

****That’s because any REAL scientist would begin to investigate this question by first asking, “what is life?” Well, a relatively simple bacteria is surely alive, but is a virus? What about ancient precursors of life? Are there any naturally occurring chemical compounds which might behave in somewhat “lifelike” fashion, etc., etc.?****

No matter how you describe life, it begs the question “How did it begin”?

***Remember, from a scientific perspective, we are dealing with hundreds of millions, even billions of years, during which the very simplest forms were the ONLY forms to leave traces in the fossil record.***

As a young earth creationist, I disagree with your premise, but I’ll play along..... (incidentally there are many evidences of a young earth that are ignored by secular science. I’ll be glad to provide them if you’d like.)

Hemoglobin is made up of a chain of 287 amino acids. There are 20 amino acids used to build life. Macro-evolutionary theory says that random processes (some say directed by natural selection) are responsible for the building of life.

We know from High School math that the probability of getting the first amino acid in the chain is 1/20, to get the first 2 would be 1/400 (1/20 X 1/20), etc. until you reach the 287th amino acid. This number has 373 zeros in it.

Hemoglobin is but one protein out of 10,000 proteins (and I’m giving you the benefit of the doubt here, scientists put the number of proteins in the human body at between 10,000 and 50,000) in the human body.

You can say the earth is a trillion years old, it’s still not enough time. Imagine a trillion scientists trying a trillion combinations of amino acids every second for a trillion years trying to come up with hemoglobin....at the end of that time they would have made about 3.1 X 10^34 attempts....obviously this number has 34 zeroes in it.
It’s just not possible to even get hemoglobin, much less the other 10,000.

****schaef21:”In the meantime, it might be worth visiting that website that I mentioned to Fawn, www.dissentfromdarwin.com where you’ll find a whole bunch of scientists (over 700), mostly at the PhD level who say it’s to take a good hard look at the problems with the theory.”****

Let me clarify this for you....these scientists signed the following statement:
“ We are skeptical of claims for the ability of random mutation and natural selection to account for the complexity of life. Careful examination of the evidence for Darwinian theory should be encouraged.”

****”Problems with the theory”? Do you mean, scientists who say that some early organic compounds may have arrived on earth inside comets or meteors? That’s not a “problem with the theory?”****

This comment begs the question “where did that life come from”...in essence you’ve just moved the problem, you haven’t solved it.

****But your implication of an actual “700 scientists,” who oppose the theory of evolution and subscribe instead to “Intelligent Design,”****

Please show me where I said that....I most certainly didn’t. You are once again putting words in my mouth.
I’m quite sure there are any number of them who don’t subscribe to ID, it doesn’t say....it merely states that they dissent from Darwin.

***is I’m certain is a flat out lie.***

This is the third time now that you’ve called me a liar, the last two times you called me a liar for things that I never said.

***That’s because I’m not aware of ANY serious scientist***

If you’ll go to the website (Please, I encourage you to at least look at it if you are going to disparage these scientists who come from major Universities around the world including the Ivy League Schools, MIT, Cambridge...I could list a lot more but why don’t you go there and have a look yourself) you’ll see that these are “serious scientists”.

***who has published ANY major anti-evolution work in ANY recognized peer-reviewed scientific journal. None, zero, zip, nada.***

Scientists who believe in ID and write papers on ID can’t get them published. Go see the documentary
Expelled” and you’ll see why. People get fired for going against the scientific orthodoxy....

****THAT’s what makes your pretense of “science” so fraudulent. You are not in the least science — by your own words, you are ANTI-SCIENCE.****

You will be hard pressed to find anywhere that I say I am “anti-science”. (My own words) I am not. Science is a marvel to me. The complexity of DNA, genetic information, the cosmos....scientific inquiry is something that I admire, study and as I said above it is a marvel to me.

There are 2 ways that life could have come about:

1. On it’s own.
2. By the hand of a Creator

Secular science says: “OK, before we examine the evidence, we are going to reject #2”.

I say that’s bogus. Imagine a detective who is called on to determine whether a death was murder or suicide and ruling out one of the two before he starts. He might come to a lot of wrong conclusions based on his starting premise.

As I stated in an earlier post, that’s ok with me, they can rule out #2.....but they then should admit sometimes that the solution they seek might reside outside the realm of science.

****And your pretense otherwise is just despicable.****

What pretense is that? I’m really curious. You said in an earlier post that you are a “Theistic Evolutionist”. In order to be one you have to believe in a God who created (maybe not the God of the Bible but a god nonetheless). Why this hostility toward me? We are both starting with the same premise.

***By the way, this is exactly the point which distinguishes anti-evolution from anti-”global warming.” In the global warming debate, there ARE actual scientists, who do real scientific work on the subject of climate change,
who have published scientific articles pointing out real flaws in the typical AlGore global warming scenarios.***

So are you saying that any scientist (see again the list on www.dissentfromdarwin.com) who disagrees with you doesn’t do any real scientific work?

***who have published scientific articles pointing out real flaws in the typical AlGore global warming scenarios.***

There are many scientists, even evolutionists, who are pointing out the many flaws in the theory of evolution. As you know, because it’s in an earlier post, it is my belief that those flaws should be pointed out in the classroom. This is not ID, Creationism or anything else of that sort. There is no need to bring a Deity into the classroom in order to point out these flaws.

I’ll ask this question....shouldn’t science class present a topic truthfully?

****In my view, your anti-evolution “scientists” are far more akin to the so-called historians who work at the Institute for Historical Research, trying to “prove” the Holocaust never happened!****

This statement is ridiculous on its face, BroJoe. Your putting the word “scientists” in quotation marks doesn’t diminish them. Invective is not an argument, it’s not proof and it’s not evidence....it is merely invective.

****It’s all a fraud and mascarade, and you guys really ought to go do something more honorable.****

It’s funny that you should use the word fraud.....there are “proofs” of evolution in the text books that our kids study that have been proven fraudulent (not just false but fraudulent) a long time ago but are still in the books. You can start with an examination of Haeckel’s embryos.

On to your next post, #1409. I’ve been following the global warming hoax for some time. I believe I’ve touched on your argument above, so I won’t go there again.

Thank you as well for this post on Augustine. I’ve studied him and he’s a very interesting character....remember that he is just a man like you and I, albeit a very intelligent man. It might be worth your time to investigate the context of the times in which he spoke and what was going on in the church at that time.

I apologize for this very lengthy post but I felt compelled to address all of your issues. Please note that I did not call you names, insult your intelligence or use any other kind of invective in responding to you.

I’d appreciate it if you would show me the same courtesy. If you don’t, I’ll not respond again. I love a critical and rational discussion on this topic and would enjoy continuing....but I will not if you continue to insult.

Best regards to you.

[BroJoeK]

"There are 2 ways that life could have come about:

1. On it’s own.
2. By the hand of a Creator

Secular science says: “OK, before we examine the evidence, we are going to reject #2”."

In your lengthy response, I'll take this as the core of your argument. So, we'll start here. And much of my words will just be repeats of what was said before, which obviously didn't sink in the first time. So, I'll try again.

Your statement above is a lie on several levels, and I'm pretty certain, a deliberate lie, just because that's the kind of guys you are. Truth telling just doesn't come natural to you, does it?

To tell the truth, you must first acknowledge the difference between science and religion. Science, by definition, deals ONLY with the natural - material world. Anything outside that world -- anything spiritual, supernatural, divine, metaphysical, religious, moral, etc., even most philosophical questions, are outside the realms of science. Science can't and doesn't deal with those.

So a scientific theory on the origins or evolution of life, by definition, must be a materialistic - natural theory.

Of course, there are any number of potential ways that life could have risen & evolved, but science is LIMITED by what the physical evidence allows.

The physical evidence shows fossils in geological strata, rising from simple early forms to more complex modern features. The DNA evidence shows greater similarities among more closely related species than among distantly related species.

These are the kinds of facts that science must deal with.

Of course, science COULD look at the hypothesis that earth's life forms -- some or all of them -- were somehow planted here by, basically, little green ET folks who travel the galaxy growing gardens of Eden on barren planets!

Or, less exotically, that some kinds of life (or pre-life) arrived inside comets or asteroids.

But what physical evidence do we have of anything like that? None.

And even if convincing evidence for such things were found, it would only suggest the question: where and how did that life arise? Scientifically, the problem remains the same, regardless of where or how.

Now, I'll say again, there are many questions for which science has no answer, for example: "what happened before the Big Bang?" Since there is no evidence, there can be no scientific answer, beyond speculation. Since science has no materialistic answer, philosophical answers based on reason (i.e., First Cause) or religious answers based on revelation (i.e., "In the Beginning, God created the heavens and the earth") are the only answers we can turn to.

But where you have an enormous wealth of physical evidence, such as the fossil and DNA records, then science can have a literal field day, developing hypotheses and theories as to how all this came about NATURALLY.

That's the business of science -- it's what science does. So it's almost inconceivable that, even in the face of literal mountains of physical evidence, science would throw up its hands and say: "we give up, science can't explain it, because this all can't have a natural explanation, it must be outside the realm of science, so we'll let the philosophers & theologians answer this one!" Sorry, but that just ain't goin to happen -- not ever!

And here's the bottom line: science deals only in the natural material world, and its defenders accept only natural material theories to explain it. So if the evidence (or lack of evidence) can't support a scientific theory, then science has NO ANSWER for that question.

Where science has NO ANSWER, then of course, you are perfectly free to plug in WHATEVER ANSWER your religion or philosophy suggests. But YOU MUST NOT CALL YOUR ANSWER "SCIENCE," BECAUSE IT IS NOT.

Your refusal to acknowledge these basic concepts is what makes you a liar, and that's a fact by definition, not a personal attack. Of course, you can change that instantly -- just confess the truth.

[BroJoeK]

schaef21: "Spontaneous generation defies the law of Biogenesis (as I’ve said also in earlier posts)....and by the way, a law is an absolute, that’s what makes it a law...yet spontaneous generation is in every science text book as if it’s a fact."

BroJoeK: "I'll say again, your basic problem is, you don't actually know ANY real science. That's why I recommend you read the Scott book -- it will STOP YOU from telling gosh awful lies about what science says or doesn't say.

schef21: "How could you possibly know this to be true? You spend a lot of time in these posts refuting things I never said and putting words in my mouth. I am very well read on the subject of science and will gladly have a rational discussion with you on any area that you choose."

I say you are ignorant, because I'm trying to give you the benefit of the doubt. If you truly know as much about science as you claim, then you have to be lying, and I was hoping not to falsely accuse you.

Here's what Wikipedia says about the The Law of Biogenesis:

Wikipedia, Law of Biogenesis

"Redi's and Pasteur's findings that life comes from life is sometimes called the law of biogenesis and asserts that modern organisms do not spontaneously arise in nature from non-life."

Note the precise language: "MODERN ORGANISMS do not spontaneously arise in nature from non-life."

But modern scientific hypotheses regarding the Origins of Life do NOT claim MODERN life "popped" spontaneously out of Darwin's mud puddles.

Instead, they say that life slowly, slowly, slowly, step by step by step by step developed over long, long, long periods of time -- as utterly lifeless organic chemicals combined and recombined and recombined until some of them began to behave in ways that seem to us somewhat lifelike, but not really.

These very very simple chemical combinations could form a membrane, ingest other chemicals, and even reproduce. They were not alive, but at this point natural selection could take over, and those which performed all the life-like functions the best would survive and reproduce the most. And of course, those which did not would become food for the others.

Scientists have been working for many years now to demonstrate exactly how all this might have happened. My guess is, eventually they'll come of with detailed scenarios that can be demonstrated in a lab.

[BroJoeK]

"you’ll find a whole bunch of scientists (over 700), mostly at the PhD level who say it’s to take a good hard look at the problems with the theory.”

Let me clarify this for you....these scientists signed the following statement:

“ We are skeptical of claims for the ability of random mutation and natural selection to account for the complexity of life. Careful examination of the evidence for Darwinian theory should be encouraged.”"

First of all, I question your implication that ANY of these folks are actual working scientists, in any field related to biological evolution, or that any of them have ever published anything in any recognized scientific journal having anything to do with evolution.

Second of all, the statement is meaningless, since scientists by their very nature are trained to be skeptical -- it's what they do, it's how they work; and "careful examination" is just what's SUPPOSED to be taught in schools.

Third of all, I would hazard to bet that the signed statement is utterly disengenuous, since it's real intent is to promote the teaching of religious ideas in public science classes.

And if that was truly NOT the purpose, then you wouldn't be advertising it, would you?

[BroJoeK]

schaef21: "If you’ll go to the website (Please, I encourage you to at least look at it if you are going to disparage these scientists who come from major Universities around the world including the Ivy League Schools, MIT, Cambridge...I could list a lot more but why don’t you go there and have a look yourself) you’ll see that these are “serious scientists”.

BroJoeK: "who has published ANY major anti-evolution work in ANY recognized peer-reviewed scientific journal. None, zero, zip, nada.***

schaef21: "Scientists who believe in ID and write papers on ID can’t get them published. Go see the documentary Expelled” and you’ll see why. People get fired for going against the scientific orthodoxy...."

Here's an example why I say you are being dishonest and disingenuous with us.

You begin by suggesting that these are actual scientists, working at major universities in fields somehow related to evolution, who are only SCIENTIFICALLY skeptical of evolution. Reading their statement, a normal person might even suppose they are all applying for JOBS in scientific research departments!

But in the end, you let slip out the real truth, which is that these are actually religiously motivated people who want to insert the UNSCIENTIFIC idea of INTELLIGENT DESIGN in public science classes.

Sorry, but I don't think there's ANY way you can do it honestly. Creationism or Intelligent Design, whatever you want to call it, is a religious or philosophical idea without ANY supporting physical evidence. It should CERTAINLY be taught in philosophy & religion classes. But it should not be allowed to masquerade as science.

Yes, I understand your counter-argument: that science itself is dishonest and disingenuous, in not permitting research or publications in ID related subjects. But if you are going to run around calling all of science "liars," should you not expect to receive similar words in response?

Now, finally I'm going to tell you a secret, but it's just between you and me -- don't tell anybody else. Listen carefully: do you want to correct science? Do you want to defeat science, take them over, make them listen to you? OK, here's how you do it... shhhhhhhhhhh.... don't tell.

You begin with the seven magic words: "let me help you solve that problem." When you can solve science's problems for them, they will pay some attention to you. But as long as you're just throwing rocks at them, all you'll get is rocks in return (crack open the rock, look for a fossil...)

[schaef21]

You are pretty amazing, BroJoeK....you insist on calling me a liar. The first time you called me that because I mentioned that secular science teaches that life began in a “mud puddle”. I then gave you four currently popular High School text books that put that forward.

The second time you called me a liar for “trying to pretend that my religion (incidentally, it is not religion, it is faith) is science.” I’ve not done that. I’ve been careful to separate the two both in my posts to you and Fawn. I’ve even said that I don’t care that Creation is not taught in Science class....still...I’m a liar for saying something that I never said.

Now you’re calling me a liar for saying that there are only two ways that life could have come about...on it’s own or by the hand of a Creator. If I am a liar, I’m in good company. Here’s a quote from George Wald of Harvard University, a Nobel Prize winner who says the same thing:

“There are two possible explanations of how life arose: Spontaneous generation arising to evolution or a supernatural creative act of God….There is no other possibility. Spontaneous generation was scientifically disproved 120 years ago by Louis Pasteur and others but that leaves us with only one other possibility...that life came as a supernatural act of creation by God but I can’t accept that philosophy because I do not want to believe in God. Therefore I choose to believe in that which I know is scientifically impossible, spontaneous generation leading to evolution.”

If there’s a third possibility, then perhaps you can clue both Professor Wald and myself in on it.

Let me address some of your direct comments:

****So a scientific theory on the origins or evolution of life, by definition, must be a materialistic - natural theory.****

I’ve said that that’s fine with me in previous posts.

****science is LIMITED by what the physical evidence allows.****

Please remember that evidence has to be interpreted...if your only paradigm is that evolution occurred you are left with interpreting the evidence only in an evolutionary framework. This is circular reasoning, wouldn’t you agree?

It might be a good time for another quote from an evolutionist. This is Richard Lewontin, a research professor at Harvard (PhD in Zoology), it’s quite eye-opening:

“It is not that the methods and institutions of science somehow compel us to accept a material explanation of the phenomenal world, but, on the contrary, that we are forced by our a priori adherence to material causes to create an apparatus of investigation and a set of concepts that produce material explanations, no matter how counter-intuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is an absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door”

I think he supports my point rather well. No it doesn’t matter if it makes sense, it’s the only road they are willing to travel.

****The physical evidence shows fossils in geological strata, rising from simple early forms to more complex modern features****

This is simply not true...I know there are a lot of text books that say that...but it’s not true. The fossil record shows stasis. It does not show gradual change.

I know....I’m a liar. I guess I’ll have to back up what I say with a few more quotes from evolutionists.

This one is from Niles Eldridge. He and Stephen J. Gould (an icon on your side of the argument) came up with the theory of Punctuated Equilibrium to try to explain why the fossil record does not show a simple to complex gradual change as you say it does:

“It is, indeed, a very curious state of affairs, I think, that paleontologists have been insisting that their record is consistent with slow, steady, gradual evolution where I think that privately, they’ve known for over a hundred years that such is not the case...It’s the only reason whey they can correlate rocks with their fossils, for instance...They’ve ignored the question completely”

Here’s another one....This is from an article in “Scientific American” on “Genetic Regulation and the Fossil Record” article is from the November/December edition in 1975:

“The abrupt appearance of higher taxa in the fossil record has been a perennial puzzle. Not only do characteristic and distinctive remains of phyla appear suddenly, without known ancestors, but several classes of a phylum, orders of a class and so on, commonly appear at approximately the same time without known intermediates...If we read the record rather literally, it implies that organisms of new grades of complexity arose and radiated rather rapidly”

****The DNA evidence shows greater similarities among more closely related species than among distantly related species.****

I’ll just make a simple comment on this....it would be the case under either scenario and is not a persuasive argument either way.

Bill Gates once said that the information found in DNA was “like a computer program only far, far more complex than any computer program ever written.” I’ll just say this...it takes intelligence to write a computer program and by the way, as information theory is being developed it is pretty much trashing the idea of information coming from any source other than intelligence.

****But where you have an enormous wealth of physical evidence, such as the fossil and DNA records, then science can have a literal field day, developing hypotheses and theories as to how all this came about NATURALLY.****

They can develop all of the hypotheses and theories they want. There may not be a natural/material answer to the question. I’m not at all against them doing that....they should research the snot out of all of them. That’s how science advances.

****And here’s the bottom line: science deals only in the natural material world, and its defenders accept only natural material theories to explain it. So if the evidence (or lack of evidence) can’t support a scientific theory, then science has NO ANSWER for that question.****

You know what BroJoe...I wish that were true....they keep trying to put a square peg in a round hole. It would be ok with me if they said something like “well, the most promising line of inquiry that we have right now is xyz but we currently have no explanation.” They really don’t ever do that.

****Where science has NO ANSWER, then of course, you are perfectly free to plug in WHATEVER ANSWER your religion or philosophy suggests. But YOU MUST NOT CALL YOUR ANSWER “SCIENCE,” BECAUSE IT IS NOT.****

I don’t.

****Your refusal to acknowledge these basic concepts is what makes you a liar, and that’s a fact by definition, not a personal attack.****

I hope you can see by now that if I say something, I’ll only say it if I can back it up.

If it is an opinion that I give you, then by definition it can not be a lie....it can only be opinion.

In short....if you insist on calling me a liar, then you are a liar.

[schaef21]

BroJoe....

The Universities at which these scientists teach and the companies at which they do research will be greatly distressed to find out that they are not Scientists.....you should contact them all and make them aware of it immediately.

Come on man....at least have the guts to recognize that there educated men and women of science who disagree with your point of view....is that so hard to do?

[schaef21]

I’m growing really weary of this, BroJoe. There are learned men and women of science who disagree with the current scientific paradigm....why do you have such difficulty with that?

A couple of final rebuttals:

****You begin by suggesting that these are actual scientists, working at major universities in fields somehow related to evolution, who are only SCIENTIFICALLY skeptical of evolution. Reading their statement, a normal person might even suppose they are all applying for JOBS in scientific research departments!****

Are you serious? First of all most have to be tenured or they couldn’t get a job after signing this. Secondly, what do you mean “only SCIENTIFICALLY skeptical”. In order to be a skeptic (and especially to be willing to sign a statement like that when it could ruin your future job prospects) you have to have looked at the evidence and found it wanting.

****But in the end, you let slip out the real truth, which is that these are actually religiously motivated people who want to insert the UNSCIENTIFIC idea of INTELLIGENT DESIGN in public science classes.****

I must have missed that part....where is it?

****Yes, I understand your counter-argument: that science itself is dishonest and disingenuous, in not permitting research or publications in ID related subjects. But if you are going to run around calling all of science “liars,” should you not expect to receive similar words in response?****

This borders on the hysterical.....the only one running around calling somebody a liar is you. I would say that in any number of cases they have bought into a false paradigm based on their worldview. This does not make them liars....it makes them mistaken.

****You begin with the seven magic words: “let me help you solve that problem.” When you can solve science’s problems for them, they will pay some attention to you. But as long as you’re just throwing rocks at them, all you’ll get is rocks in return (crack open the rock, look for a fossil...)****

All the rocks have been thrown by you, my friend. I’m the one in this exchange who has tried to make reasoned, logical arguments. Go to your account page, start at the beginning and read. Then tell me who the rock-thrower is and who the “reasoned arguer” is.

You’ve worn me out with your tirades. If you would like to have a reasonable, give-and-take discussion on some area of the Creation/Evolution debate I’m in.....I’d love to do with you. If you continue to put words in my mouth and call me a liar for things that I never said, then I’m done.

May God richly bless you, BroJoe.

[schaef21]

Sorry BroJoe...there is one last thing...I somehow missed this post of yours, so I’ll go ahead and respond to it.

First of all, Wikipedia is not a reliable source...anybody can go in and change anything they want....for these purposes I’ll treat it as if it were reliable.

Again....the liar stuff.

Here’s my rebuttal....

****Note the precise language: “MODERN ORGANISMS do not spontaneously arise in nature from non-life.”****

So where is the evidence that it did in the distant past? I’ll save you the time.....it’s not evidence, it’s worldview. It goes something like this:

“Since we know that evolution is true, then at at some point in the distant past there had to have been an abiogenesis event.” I’ve referred to this before as circular reasoning. If you believe in a Creator, there is no need to posit this at all.

I’m actually a bit surprised at you. You’ve said you’re a theistic evolutionist...to be one you must believe that God had a role in it somewhere, otherwise you couldn’t be a theistic evolutionist.

****But modern scientific hypotheses regarding the Origins of Life do NOT claim MODERN life “popped” spontaneously out of Darwin’s mud puddles.****

I’ve given you the names of 4 textbooks that say that. Without a Creator, life had to come from non-life. Make whatever argument you want...it defies the law of biogenesis. To be a law there can be no known instances that it was violated.

****Scientists have been working for many years now to demonstrate exactly how all this might have happened. My guess is, eventually they’ll come of with detailed scenarios that can be demonstrated in a lab.****

This statement, BroJoe, is a statement of faith. Congratulations, we are both coming at this from a faith perspective.

[metmom]

nail...... wall...... jello.......

[BroJoeK]

"You are pretty amazing, BroJoeK....you insist on calling me a liar. "

To be clear: I consider the anti-evolution arguments of Creationism or ID-ism to be a Big Lie, worthy of a Goebbels in it's flaunting of truth -- and so, necessarily it's proponents are Big Liars, and that would include you.

But, PLEASE DON'T TAKE OFFENSE. After all, the essence of your Creationist / ID argument is: Science is a Big Lie. So, the very core of the debate is, who is the Big Liar -- or possibly, who is a Bigger Liar? You or science?

I'm just a guy, a regular Joe you might say. I "pound sand" for a living. I have some education -- it's not in science, but I still think I know the difference between science and religion. It's a matter of definitions. Where science deals ONLY with the natural, material physical world, religion involves the supernatural, spiritual, divine, etc.

So I've been thinking all week about a perfect example in which every reasonable person can see and admit the obvious Hand of God in action, in our lives today -- and yet there is not a shred of "scientific evidence," to "prove" it.

My example, of course, is the recent ditching of that airline plane in the Hudson River. Who could NOT see God's Hand in saving those passengers? Sure, the pilot was heroic, the rescuers courageous, the passengers just amazing. But in the end, does anyone seriously doubt that God reached out and saved all those passengers from certain death? If so, I'd question YOUR sanity!

And yet, there is not a single piece of scientific evidence to support my assertions. Science, literally has NOTHING to say about this. It can't, because science does not deal with the non-physical world.

Of course, most (all?) scientists are just as human as you or I, and can see it as clearly as we do, but that is their personal religious view, and must not be reflected in their scientific work.

Do you start to get the idea? The Hand of God does not need our scientific research to "prove" it. Indeed, science by definition cannot "prove" it. And yet it is there, clear as day, for all the world to see and appreciate.

So, science does not deny the Hand of God, science simply has nothing to say about it. And I doubt very much if God takes any offense at that.

Bottom line: Darwin's theory of evolution is very simple in concept: more or less random genetic mutations (some less random than others) cause some individuals to be better or worse adapted to their environments, which can lead whole species over time to change in the direction of those better adapted.

Of course, I see the Hand of God acting at every stage in this process, and I'd say, anyone who can't see that, who insists on more "scientific proof" of GOD (!), is at least religiously blind, and possibly not even sane.

But to go even further, and insist that science is all a lie, that PHYSICAL evidence somehow "proves" evolution invalid or the tenets of Creationism / ID-ism correct, is just, imho, well, outrageous, despicable and unacceptable.

So, by definition, Creationism / ID-ism is a Big Lie, and its proponents Big Liars. I'd say, you guys ought to be ashamed of yourselves, and you ought to stop doing it.