Anti-evolution, pro science conservatives

WorldNetDaily ^ | 3/29/2008 | Gary Bauer and Daniel Allott

[wastedpotential]

Of all the factors that led to Mike Huckabee's demise in the 2008 presidential sweepstakes (insufficient funds, lack of foreign policy experience), there's one that has been largely overlooked: Huckabee's disbelief in the theory of evolution as it is generally understood – without the involvement of the Creator.

Perhaps you're thinking: What's evolution got to do with being president? Very little, as Huckabee was quick to remind reporters on the campaign trail. But from the moment the former Baptist minister revealed his beliefs on evolutionary biology, political commentators and scientists lambasted him. Some even suggested those beliefs should disqualify him from high office.

We believe most Americans

[Fichori]

"It is the Assumptions and Interpretations made by Evolutionists that Creationists have no faith in."

"The folks who developed these forms of radiometric dating are nuclear physicists and nuclear chemists.

Are they all "evilutionists" too, and so automatically not to be trusted?

Or is it only those scientists who come up with facts and methods inconvenient to creationism that are selected as "evilutionists"?"

The people who do radiometric dating are scientists, and oftentimes, Evolutionists.(But not necessarily)

Science, as shown in post 293, is based on Methodological Naturalism:

" Methodological naturalism is a philosophical rule used by scientists."[excerpt]

Methodological Naturalism is based on dogmatic assumptions that, among other things, there is no God.

Scientists Interpret the available evidence according to Methodological Naturalism.

It is these Atheistic assumptions being applied to science that YEC's have a beef with.

[Fichori]

See 821.

[Coyoteman]

The people who do radiometric dating are scientists, and oftentimes, Evolutionists.(But not necessarily)

"Evilutionists" submit their samples to laboratories for dating. They do not do that dating themselves, as they are practicing vastly different fields. For example, all of my radiocarbon dates go to Beta Analytic in Florida for processing.

Science, as shown in post 293, is based on Methodological Naturalism:

" Methodological naturalism is a philosophical rule used by scientists."[excerpt]

Methodological Naturalism is based on dogmatic assumptions that, among other things, there is no God.

Scientists Interpret the available evidence according to Methodological Naturalism.

It is these Atheistic assumptions being applied to science that YEC's have a beef with.

False (as usual). Otherwise all scientists would have to be atheists, which is a ridiculous claim.

And YECs have a problem with everything about science, because you can't pick and choose the results you like and discard the results you don't like. The earth is far older than 6,000 years and there's nothing the YECs can do about it other than denial of both the results and the methods of science. And the reasons they come up with for denying science are generally both hilarious and pathetic. One classic -- "the second law of thermal documents" will live in internet infamy forever!

Science is based on a working assumption of naturalism. This assumes that whatever gods there may be do not spend all their time diddling with nature, and that the scientific method can thereby discern the regularities of nature. In this they are joined by most recent popes and probably the vast majority of Christians. It is only a small percentage of fundamentalists who have a problem with science and its findings.

[metmom]

True.

There’s a difference between being opposed to the science itself and being opposed to the baseless assumptions that are required to be the starting point of what is called modern science.

[Fichori]

"False (as usual). Otherwise all scientists would have to be atheists, which is a ridiculous claim."

Nice strawman.

I never said the scientists were atheists.

Once agian, quoting post 293:

"This rule states that scientists must look for a naturalistic cause (and only a naturalistic cause) for a natural phenomenon. In other words, scientists cannot invoke supernatural explanations."[excerpt]

That is by definition, Atheism.

Once agian, I never said scientists were atheists, only that they used methods that made Atheistic assumptions.

[js1138]

“The second new factor, strangely ignored by Professor Behe, is the existence of computers and information networks. Having exemplars of physical objects endowed with computational and decision-making capabilities shows that there is nothing mystical, religious, or supernatural about discussing the potential for similarly intelligent action by living organisms.”

http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1282/is_n17_v48/ai_18667140/pg_3

You see what you wish to see in Shapiro, not what is there.

[Fichori]

Its called eating the meat and spitting out the bones.

(Ingesting bones can be harmful to your health.)

[mrjesse]

Speaking of the poor bat: Imagine how rough it must have been for him for the several hundred thousand generations while his fingers were too long to walk and too short to fly. It's amazing he lived!

(By the way, I once had the opportunity to hold a life but sleepy bat in my gloved hands and inspect it very carefully in broad daylight. They are amazing and beautiful creatures. )

Bats hover to catch the smallest of insects,

I've personally seen a bat hovering. I was fishing in a lake up in the mountains, and when it started getting dusk, a bat started swooping over the surface of the water, hunting. Several times he stopped and hovered by my fishing line and nibbled/tugged on it.

Ha Ha Thats Very Logical, you do seem to ask a lot tougher questions of ID then you do of the big bang, abiogenesis, and creation by speciation.

-Jesse

[mrjesse]

And YECs have a problem with everything about science, because you can't pick and choose the results you like and discard the results you don't like.

That's not fair. It's not even accurate. I love science! The vast majority of science works just the same regardless of the age of the earth or any other proposed idea of origins.

I just don't find the evidence convincing, and the dishonest tactics and straw men lend even less credence to the people telling me about the naturalistic idea of our existence.

-Jesse

[mrjesse]

A Critique of ‘’29 Evidences for Macroevolution’’ - Part 3

“One cannot take a known pattern of life, claim that pattern as a prediction of evolution, and then use the fact the pattern fits the prediction as evidence for the truth of evolution. To be of evidentiary value, the predictions must derive from the hypothesis itself, not be read back into the hypothesis from present knowledge.”

http://www.trueorigin.org/theobald1d.asp

Thanks, Cottshop! I've been reading through that 29+ evidences on Talk.O at someone's suggestion. So far I haven't found anything convincing, but I'm sure the critique will be helpful. Thanks!

-Jesse

[Ha Ha Thats Very Logical]

They are proving it with IC and hsowing that nature simply can’t overcome the biological impossibilities to produce stepwise IC

I'm sorry, but even if they succeeded, which they haven't yet, that wouldn't prove design. All it would show is that there are some things that evolution can't account for. Maybe, instead of design, it really did happen by that 1^bazillion chance coming together of proteins. A real scientist trying to prove design would be looking for actual evidence of design, not just nitpicking at alternative theories. They'd be proposing hypotheses about what they would find if design were true, and only if design were true, and then trying to falsify their own hypotheses. That's how science really gets done.

First of all you are ASSUMING they are that old

No, I'm not. But I've discussed how they determined ages of fossils with you before, and I don't think it will be fruitful to do it again.

[[The fossils were deposited in chronological order, obviously.]]

You’re sure of htis how?

Um, because the animals died at particular times? Like I said to Fichori, I'm not sure I understand the question.

And you’re positive these weren’t all three uniquely created fully formed creatures of different KINDS hhow?

I'm not positive. But if they lived as far apart (in time) as science tells us they did, then at some point the designer had to step in and create a fully formed species. That's what I want Wells et al. to bring forth some positive evidence for: what exactly did the designer do, and when?

Of course, if you don't accept the dates, that question doesn't trouble you.

beyond approximately 7000- years, the systems used rely on pure speculation and are forced to either ignore or explain away with yet more assumptions all the dates that didn’t fit

No, they don't. I've read enough to know that that's a false statement. Sorry.

[CottShop]

Also type ‘homology’ into hte search area on that site- you’ll find other talks about why homology can’t be concidered proofs for Macroevoltuion

[Ha Ha Thats Very Logical]

Once agian, quoting post 293:

"This rule states that scientists must look for a naturalistic cause (and only a naturalistic cause) for a natural phenomenon. In other words, scientists cannot invoke supernatural explanations."[excerpt]

That is by definition, Atheism.

No it's not! Are you kidding? You really don't see how a scientist could believe in God but not seek supernatural causes for natural phenomena?

[CottShop]

[[Speaking of the poor bat: Imagine how rough it must have been for him for the several hundred thousand generations while his fingers were too long to walk and too short to fly. It’s amazing he lived!]]

What I find interesting is that all the dinos that supposedly took to the air were said to do so out of ‘need’ for food, yet amazingly, every other ground creature was able to find plenty of ground or tree food to sustain them- but somehow, these poor tiny dinos, instead of feasting off nature’s bounties o nthe ground, felt the ‘need’ to take to the air to catch hard to secure bugs? Fickle diners I guess. as well, the marsupials which supposedly ‘learned to’ not just glide, but later, to fly fro mthe treetops, ‘had to do so’ to ‘escape enemies’, in ‘order to survive and carry on their lines’ yet these critter were far faster than many other tree dwellers already, and htese other tree dwellers susrvived just fine (Even htough they must have- if Macroevolution were actually true) had even greater pressures put on them after the marsupials took to the skies. You’d think the remaining tree critters would have ‘evolved’ jet engines since the pressures to survive were thus increased tenfold after their buddies the marsupials became airborne- theaving these other critters the only items on the new menue

[mrjesse]

Speaking as the judge or juror in this analogy: bring 'em. I don't categorically dismiss anything.

Great to hear! But you don't appear to me to be impartial like the judge or the jury any more then I look impartial to you [grin]

I think I would(and did) characterize it as you playing the part of the prosecution and me in the defense in a case in which evolution and the big bang are being accused of bringing into existence all matter.

I realize that you feel like you're the impartial judge and that I'm the shifty lawyer, but I think it's safe to say that to me it looks just the opposite, with me being the impartial jury and you the lawyer. Thus to be fair, I'll just say that one of us is with the defense and the other the prosecution.

So does the fact that the big bang violated many of our current laws of physics, and that we can't even demonstrate that it could happen let alone that it did happen? It was a super-natural incident, since it happened beyond any known natural process.

Or do you feel pretty confidant that something that noone saw and that violated the laws of physics did indeed happen? Any slight lingering questions?

I find the alledged causations highly improbable in their own right as well as countered by many other evidences, which I posted the other day.

And I sure haven't seen anything like a 9-to-1 ratio.

My point was to demonstrate how the side with less supporting evidence could manage it with a sort of sleight of hand which would give them the upper hand even though they had the weaker evidence.

Have you noticed any facts or evidences, even just a few small ones, that don't make sense with your understanding of evolution or origins, or does it all make perfect sense to you?

Thanks,

-Jesse

[Ha Ha Thats Very Logical]

Ha Ha Thats Very Logical, you do seem to ask a lot tougher questions of ID then you do of the big bang, abiogenesis, and creation by speciation.

I don't think so. Same questions. I'm just waiting for ID to supply me with some positive answers--what, how, when, where. The other thing is that science is willing to answer "I don't know" to some things, and I'm willing to accept that answer. ID tends to be uncomfortable with that and to insist on their explanation, even in the absence of positive evidence. It doesn't impress me.

[CottShop]

[[No it’s not! Are you kidding? You really don’t see how a scientist could believe in God but not seek supernatural causes for natural phenomena?]]

I can see how they’d be mistaken- sure- there’s tremendous pressures from the scientific comunity to beleive in and advocate Macroevoltuion, and everyoen is entitled to a mistake or two.

[CottShop]

[[I don’t think so. Same questions. I’m just waiting for ID to supply me with some positive answers—]]

No- you’re partial- There’s several positive answers- IC and discontinuity- both of which are biological probabilities- whereas Macroevoltuion and common descent are not- both of those violate biological science as well as statistical computations- thsse aren;t minor points, yet you treat them as meaningless

[Fichori]

"No it's not! Are you kidding? You really don't see how a scientist could believe in God but not seek supernatural causes for natural phenomena?"

I said Naturalistic Science was Atheistic, not the scientists.

[CottShop]

[[No, they don’t. I’ve read enough to know that that’s a false statement. Sorry.]]

Mmmm hmmm- you’ve read enough “Macroevolution is the answer’ aerticles to know for sure eh?

[[I’m sorry, but even if they succeeded, which they haven’t yet, that wouldn’t prove design.]]

You keep throwing out ‘prove’ as though proof is the only basis upon which science is foudned- many scientific discoveries haven’t been proven one way or another. What we’re talking about here is the most plausible explanation- Stepwise IC is impossible- the only thing we’re then left with is special creation or some creation done by Nature in one fell swoop.

[[Maybe, instead of design, it really did happen by that 1^bazillion chance coming together of proteins.]]

Trillions of times? Wow- you really do have a powerful faith

[[A real scientist trying to prove design would be looking for actual evidence of design, not just nitpicking at alternative theories.]]

Noone’s ‘nitpicking’ at alternative theories- they are making their case that stepwise IC is impossible and that Design needs an intelligence behind it just as any forensic scientist woudl do- your statement reveals that you are both biased/set in what you beleive, and that you are unwilling to cede anythign that doesn’t agree with your set beleif despite hte fact that your beleif relies so heavily on assumptions and biological impossibilties that it has absolutely Zero chance of beign a valid scientific hypothesis- sorry- but those are the facts.

[[They’d be proposing hypotheses about what they would find if design were true, and only if design were true, and then trying to falsify their own hypotheses. That’s how science really gets done.]]

If you think that’s not what they do already- then you know very little about ID and are just claiming counter arguments you’ve picked up somewhere along hte line (Don’t beleive everythign you’re told because in this instance, your way wrong).

[[No, I’m not. But I’ve discussed how they determined ages of fossils with you before, and I don’t think it will be fruitful to do it again.]]

If this is true- then I’ve showed you all the problems with every single one of those methods because I’ve got the problems all archived and ready for such discussions- if we had this discussion already, then I’m to assume you simply ignored what was posted.

[[I’m not positive. But if they lived as far apart (in time) as science tells us they did, then at some point the designer had to step in and create a fully formed species.]]

First of all- Macroevolutionists tell us ‘how rare fossils are’ and then they show us a couple of examples, and claim that the fossil record doesn’t show the species existed at the time they foudn hte other species=- And htey know this how? Concidering how rare fossils are as we’re told?

And let’s not forget hte cambrian explosion where all these fully formed creatures show uyp all at once- no forthcoming explanations for that- and many of the species are exactly or very near exact with minor microevolutionary changes as they were back then. you know, it’;d be itneresting to see al lthe handwaving explanations that explain away all the coutnerevidneces everytime fossil examples don’t jive with the Macroevoltuionary model- I can think of several right off the top of my head- Dating ocean waters- ooops- contaminations skew results. Young bones found with supposedly old ones or even deeper- wooops- it’;s either contamination or the ground shifted and folded- placing young under old. Human tracks foudn where they’re not supposed to be- wooops- can’t be human tracks- must be anomoly- human artifacts found amoundg supposedly millions upon millions of year old fossils, wooops- must have been a ‘local catastrophy’ which uprooted hte fossils and redepositted them- on and on it goes.