Those Defensive Darwinists

The Seattle Times ^ | 11/21/05 | Jonathon Witt

[Michael_Michaelangelo]

THE first court trial over the theory of intelligent design is now over, with a ruling expected by the end of the year. What sparked the legal controversy? Before providing two weeks of training in modern evolutionary theory, the Dover, Pa., School District briefly informed students that if they wanted to learn about an alternative theory of biological origins, intelligent design, they could read a book about it in the school library.

In short order, the School District was dragged into court by a group insisting the school policy constituted an establishment of religion, this despite the fact that the unmentionable book bases its argument on strictly scientific evidence, without appealing to religious authority or attempting to identify the source of design.

The lawsuit is only the latest in a series of attempts to silence the growing controversy over contemporary Darwinian theory.

For instance, after The New York Times ran a series on Darwinism and design recently, prominent Darwinist Web sites excoriated the newspaper for even covering intelligent design, insulting its proponents with terms like Medievalist, Flat-Earther and "American Taliban."

University of Minnesota biologist P.Z. Myers argues that Darwinists should take an even harder line against their opponents: "Our only problem is that we aren't martial enough, or vigorous enough, or loud enough, or angry enough," he wrote. "The only appropriate responses should involve some form of righteous fury, much butt-kicking, and the public firing and humiliation of some teachers, many school board members, and vast numbers of sleazy far-right politicians."

This month, NPR reported on behavior seemingly right out of the P.Z. Myers playbook.

The most prominent victim in the story was Richard Sternberg, a scientist with two Ph.D.s in evolutionary biology and former editor of a journal published out of the Smithsonian's Museum of Natural History. He sent out for peer review, then published, a paper arguing that intelligent design was the best explanation for the geologically sudden appearance of new animal forms 530 million years ago.

The U.S. Office of Special Counsel reported that Sternberg's colleagues immediately went on the attack, stripping Sternberg of his master key and access to research materials, spreading rumors that he wasn't really a scientist and, after determining that they didn't want to make a martyr out of him by firing him, deliberately creating a hostile work environment in the hope of driving him from the Smithsonian.

The NPR story appalled even die-hard skeptics of intelligent design, people like heavyweight blogger and law professor Glenn Reynolds, who referred to the Smithsonian's tactics as "scientific McCarthyism."

Also this month, the Kansas Board of Education adopted a policy to teach students the strengths and weaknesses of modern evolutionary theory. Darwinists responded by insisting that there are no weaknesses, that it's a plot to establish a national theocracy — despite the fact that the weaknesses that will be taught come right out of the peer-reviewed, mainstream scientific literature.

One cause for their insecurity may be the theory's largely metaphysical foundations. As evolutionary biologist A.S. Wilkins conceded, "Evolution would appear to be the indispensable unifying idea and, at the same time, a highly superfluous one."

And in the September issue of The Scientist, National Academy of Sciences member Philip Skell argued that his extensive investigations into the matter corroborated Wilkins' view. Biologist Roland Hirsch, a program manager in the U.S. Office of Biological and Environmental Research, goes even further, noting that Darwinism has made a series of incorrect predictions, later refashioning the paradigm to fit the results.

How different from scientific models that lead to things like microprocessors and satellites. Modern evolutionary theory is less a cornerstone and more the busybody aunt — into everyone's business and, all the while, very much insecure about her place in the home.

Moreover, a growing list of some 450 Ph.D. scientists are openly skeptical of Darwin's theory, and a recent poll by the Louis Finkelstein Institute found that only 40 percent of medical doctors accept Darwinism's idea that humans evolved strictly through unguided, material processes.

Increasingly, the Darwinists' response is to try to shut down debate, but their attempts are as ineffectual as they are misguided. When leaders in Colonial America attempted to ban certain books, people rushed out to buy them. It's the "Banned in Boston" syndrome.

Today, suppression of dissent remains the tactic least likely to succeed in the United States. The more the Darwinists try to prohibit discussion of intelligent design, the more they pique the curiosity of students, parents and the general public.

[Cicero]

Until then stop whining. Are we clear now?

Indeed, you are very clear. Darwinists want a total monopoly and don't want to permit anyone hear about anything else. Exactly the point I was making.

[PatrickHenry]

Added to: The List-O-Links:

NEW The "Clergy Letter Project". 10,000 clergymen endorse evolution.

[Ichneumon]

Thank you for providing a handy list of useful rebuttals for the times when the AECreationists exhibit "Ignorance & Lies", "Stupidity & Lunacy", "Topic Switches", or "Cluelessness & Misc."

For example, when the AECreationists indulge in the common habit of dishonestly using outdated, out-of-context or doctored quotes in order to dishonestly pretend that some expert agrees with them, it will be *much* handier to simply refer them to "A6!" instead of having to tediously point out their dishonesty.

Similarly, when an AECreationist tries the dishonest "Topic Switch" ploy by trying to discredit evolutionary biology pointing out that there are many gaps in abiogenesis research, it is much easier to respond "C7!" than it is to, yet again, try to explain to them that these are independent fields of study, and that one in no way depends upon the other.

And so on.

But your "Tool Kit" is only preliminary and leaves out many forms of AECreationist ignorance, fallacies, lies, lunacy, tangents, cluelessness, etc. Perhaps you could save yourself more work and simply refer people to this catalog of AECreationist flawed claims instead:

Index to Creationist Claims

edited by Mark Isaak

Copyright © 2005
[Last update: 19 Aug 2005]

Introduction

CA: Philosophy and Theology

• CA000: Ethics
  • CA001. Evolution is the foundation of an immoral worldview.
    • CA001.1. Crime rates etc. have increased since evolution began to be taught.
  • CA002. Survival of the fittest implies might makes right.
    • CA002.1. Evolution leads to social Darwinism.
    • CA002.2. Marx admired and corresponded with Darwin.
  • CA005. Evolution is racist.
    • CA005.1. Darwin himself was racist.
    • CA005.2. Darwin's work refers to "preservation of favoured races".
    • CA005.3. T. H. Huxley was racist.
  • CA006. Evolution encourages eugenics.
    • CA006.1. Hitler based his views on Darwinism.
  • CA008. Evolution encourages promiscuity and lust.
  • CA009. Evolution teaches that we are animals and to behave as such.
  • CA010. Homosexuality receives approval from evolutionists.
  • CA012. Evolutionists are intellectual snobs.
  • CA040. Fairness demands evolution and creation be given equal time.
  • CA041. Teach the controversy.
    • CA041.1. Federal law (Santorum Amendment) supports teaching alternatives.
  • CA042. Biology can reasonably be taught without evolution.
  • CA045. Inherit the Wind is false propaganda.
  • (see also CH010: Creationism is good.)
• CA100-CA499: Epistemology
  • CA100: Foundation of Knowledge
    • CA100. Argument from incredulity
      • CA100.1. Evolution leaves lots of things unexplained.
    • CA110: Argument from Authority
      • CA110. Evolution will soon be widely rejected.
      • CA111. Many current scientists reject evolution.
        • CA111.1. Over 300 scientists express skepticism of Darwinism.
      • CA112. Many scientists find problems with evolution.
      • CA113. Quote mining
        • CA113.1. Darwin on evolution of the eye.
      • CA114. Many famous scientists were creationists.
        • CA114.1. Lord Kelvin was a creationist.
        • CA114.2. Linnaeus was a creationist.
        • CA114.10. Fabre was a creationist.
        • CA114.22. Louis Pasteur was a creationist.
        • CA114.28. Steno was a creationist.
      • CA118. Your arguments do not count because you are not qualified.
    • CA120. An evolved mind is fallible, its conclusions untrustworthy.
    • CA131. Darwin suffered from psychoneurosis.
  • CA200: Theory of Science
    • CA201. Evolution is only a theory.
    • CA202. Evolution has not been proved.
    • CA210. Evolution does not make predictions.
    • CA211. Evolution can not be falsified.
    • CA212. Evolution is ambiguously defined.
    • CA215. Evolution is a useless theory.
    • CA220. Evolution can not be replicated.
    • CA221. Were you there?
    • CA230. Interpreting evidence is not the same as observation.
      • CA230.1. Evolutionists interpret evidence on the basis of their preconceptions.
        • (see also CI402: Evolutionists refuse to see design.)
    • CA240. Ockham's Razor says the simplest explanation (creation) is preferred.
    • CA250. Scientific findings are always changing.
  • CA300-CA499: Scientific Method
    • CA301. Science is naturalistic. (see also CA601: Methodological naturalism)
      • CA301.1. Naturalistic science will miss a supernatural explanation.
        • (see also CI401: Science's method rules out design.)
    • CA310. Scientists find what they expect to find.
    • CA320. Scientists are pressured not to challenge established dogma.
      • CA320.1. Mims was fired because he was a creationist.
      • CA320.2. Damadian was denied a Nobel prize because he was a creationist.
    • CA321. Scientists are motivated to support naturalism and reject creationism.
      • CA321.1. Scientists' conclusions are motivated by money.
    • CA325. Creationists are prevented from publishing in science journals.
    • CA340. Evolutionists do not accept debate challenges.
      • CA341. Evolutionists have not met Hovind's challenge to prove evolution.
      • CA342. Evolutionists do not accept Walt Brown's debate challenge.
      • CA343. Evolutionists refuse Mastropaolo's "Life Science Prize" challenge.
    • CA350. No gradual biochemical evolution models have been published.
  • CA500. "Survival of the fittest" is a tautology.
  • CA510. Creationism and evolution are the only 2 models.
    • CA510.1. Problems with evolution are evidence for creation.
  • CA520. The Origin of Species does not address speciation.
• CA600: Theology
  • (see also CH: Biblical Creationism)
  • CA601. Evolution requires naturalism.
    • CA601.1. Evolution's materialism or naturalism denies a role for God.
    • (see also CA301: Science is naturalistic.)
    • (see also CI401: Science's method rules out design.)
  • CA602. Evolution is atheistic.
    • CA602.1. Darwin made it easy to become an intellectually fulfilled atheist.
    • CA602.2. Scientists aim to make God unnecessary.
  • CA603. Naturalistic evolution rules out all but a Deist god.
  • CA610. Evolution is a religion.
  • CA611. Evolutionary theory has become sacrosanct.
  • CA612. Evolution requires as much faith as creationism.
  • CA620. If man comes from random causes, life has no purpose or meaning.
  • CA622. Without a literal Fall, there is no need for Jesus and redemption.
  • CA630. Animals are not moral, aesthetic, idealistic, or religious.
  • CA640. Do you want to be descended from a monkey?
  • CA650. Death and suffering before humanity implies an unmerciful God.
    • CA651. God would have pronounced death and suffering "very good."
    • CA652. Christ's death was unjust if physical death was not the penalty for sin.
  • CA660. Pope's statement about evolution was mistranslated.
  • CA662. It is not true that the church used to teach a flat earth.

CB: Biology

• CB0: Abiogenesis
  • CB000. Pasteur proved life only comes from life (law of biogenesis).
  • CB010. The odds of life forming are incredibly small.
    • CB010.1. Even the simplest life is incredibly complex.
    • CB010.2. First cells could not come together by chance.
  • CB015. DNA needs proteins to form; proteins need DNA.
  • CB020. Why is new life not still being generated today?
  • CB025. Not all amino acids needed for life have been formed experimentally.
  • CB026. Abiogenesis experiments produce toxins, such as cyanide and formaldehyde.
  • CB030. Early molecules would have decayed.
    • CB030.1. Early molecules would have been destroyed by ultraviolet light.
  • CB035. Miller's experiments had an invalid assumption of the type of atmosphere.
    • CB035.1. Earth's early atmosphere had abundant oxygen.
    • CB035.2. Earth's early atmosphere had no reducing gases.
    • CB035.3. Amino acids are not generated from just CO2, nitrogen, and water.
  • CB040. Life uses only left-handed amino acids.
  • CB050. Abiogenesis is speculative without evidence.
  • CB090. Evolution is baseless without a theory of abiogenesis.
• CB100: Genetics
  • CB100. Mutations are rare.
  • CB101. Most mutations are harmful.
    • CB101.1. Mutations are accidents; things do not get built by accident.
    • CB101.2. Mutations do not produce new features.
  • CB102. Mutations do not add information.
    • CB102.1. Dawkins could not give an example of increasing information.
  • CB110. Microevolution selects only existing variation.
  • CB120. Genetic load from mutations would make populations unviable.
  • CB121. The cost of natural selection is prohibitive (Haldane's dilemma).
  • CB130. "Junk" DNA is not really junk.
  • CB141. Chromosome counts differ greatly and unsystematically between species.
  • CB150. Functional genetic sequences are too rare to evolve from one to another.
  • CB180. The genetic code is a language.
• CB200: Molecular Biology
  • CB200. Some systems are irreducibly complex.
    • CB200.1. Bacterial flagella are irreducibly complex.
    • CB200.2. Blood clotting is irreducibly complex.
    • CB200.3. Protein transport within a cell is irreducibly complex.
    • CB200.4. The immune system is irreducibly complex.
    • CB200.5. The metabolic pathway for AMP synthesis is too complex to have evolved.
  • CB211. An antigen receptor protein structure is same in camels and sharks.
  • (see also CA350: No gradualistic biochemical models published.)
• CB300: Physiology and Anatomy
  • CB300. Complex organs couldn't have evolved.
    • CB301. The eye is too complex to have evolved.
      • (see also CB921.1: What use is half an eye?)
    • CB302. The ear is too complex to have evolved.
    • CB303. The brain is too complex to have evolved.
      • (see also CB400: Behavior and Cognition)
    • CB310. The bombardier beetle is too complex to have evolved.
      • CB310.1. Bombardier beetle chemicals would explode if mixed without an inhibitor.
    • CB311. Butterfly metamorphosis is too complex to have evolved.
      • CB311.1. Evolution can't explain butterfly evolving from caterpillar.
    • CB325. The giraffe neck could not evolve without a special circulatory system.
    • CB326. The woodpecker tongue could not have evolved.
    • CB340. Organs and organ systems would have been useless until all parts were in place.
    • CB341. Snake venom and hollow fangs could not have evolved simultaneously.
  • CB350. Sex cannot have evolved.
    • (see also CB610: no mate for 1st of a species.)
  • CB360. Vestigial organs may have functions.
    • CB360.1. The human appendix is functional, not vestigial.
    • (see also CB130: Junk DNA not really junk.)
  • CB361. Vestigial organs are just evidence of decay, not evolution.
    • CB361.1. Presently useless vestigial organs once had function.
  • CB365. Spinal treatments based on evolutionary theory fail.
  • CB370. Endorphins at death indicate a beneficent creator, not evolution.
  • CB381. Men have fewer ribs than women.
• CB400: Behavior and Cognition
  • CB400. Evolution cannot explain consciousness.
    • CB400.1. Evolution does not explain human intelligence.
  • CB401. Instincts are too complex to have evolved.
  • CB402. Evolution does not explain language ability.
  • CB403. Evolution does not explain homosexuality.
  • CB411. Evolution does not explain morals, especially altruism.
  • CB420. Evolution does not explain art.
  • CB421. Evolution does not explain music.
  • CB430. Evolution does not explain personality and emotions.
  • CB440. Evolution does not explain religion.
• CB500: Botany
  • CB501. Dendrochronology is suspect because two or more rings can grow per year.
  • CB510. Evolution cannot explain photosynthesis.
• CB600: Ecology and Population Biology
  • CB601. The traditional peppered moth story is no longer supportable.
    • CB601.1. Peppered moths do not rest on tree trunks, and pictures of them there were faked.
    • CB601.2. Peppered moths occur in uncamouflaged colors in many areas.
      • CB601.2.1. Dark moths never completely replaced light ones in Manchester.
      • CB601.2.2. In several areas dark moths were more common than expected.
      • CB601.2.3. Dark moths increased in s. Britain after pollution control began.
      • CB601.2.4. In places, light moths increased before lichens reappeared.
      • CB601.2.5. Light moths increased before trees got lighter.
    • CB601.3. Direct mutagenesis better explains peppered moth variation.
    • CB601.4. An increased recapture rate suggests fraud in Kettlewell's data.
    • (see also CB910.2: Peppered moths remain same species.)
  • CB610. The first individual of a new species would not find a mate.
  • CB620. Human population growth indicates a young earth.
  • CB621. Humanity was traced back to an African Eve.
    • CB621.1. Mitochondrial Eve lived only 6500 years ago.
  • CB630. Mutually dependent species could not have evolved.
• CB700: Developmental Biology
  • CB701. Haeckel falsified his embryo pictures.
    • CB701.1. Recapitulation theory is not supported.
  • CB704. Human embryos do not have gill slits.
  • CB710. Genes with major effects on development are conserved across phyla.
  • CB731. Finger development disproves birds descended from dinosaurs.
  • CB732. Finger development differs greatly between human and frog.
  • CB751. Bilateral symmetry is improbable under evolution.
• CB800: Systematics
  • CB801. Science cannot define "species."
  • CB805. Evolution predicts a continuum of organisms, not discrete kinds.
    • (see also CC201: smooth continuum through the fossil record.)
  • CB810. Homology cannot be evidence of ancestry if it is defined thus.
  • CB811. Homologous structures are not produced by homologous genes.
  • CB821. Phylogenetic analyses are inconsistent.
  • CB822. Evolution's tree-like pattern is discredited.
• CB900: Evolution
  • (see also CB102: Mutations don't add information.)
  • CB901. Macroevolution has never been observed.
    • CB901.1. Range of variation is limited within kinds.
    • CB901.2. No new phyla, classes, or orders have appeared.
    • CB901.3. Darwin's finches show only microevolution.
  • CB902. Microevolution is distinct from macroevolution.
    • CB902.1. There are barriers to large change.
    • CB902.2. Small changes do not imply large changes.
  • CB904. No entirely new features have evolved.
    • (see also CB101.2: mutations don't produce new features.)
  • CB910. No new species have been observed.
    • CB910.1. Fruit fly experiments produce only fruit flies.
    • CB910.2. Peppered moths remained the same species.
  • CB920. No new body parts have evolved.
  • CB921. New structures would be useless until fully developed.
    • (see also CB300: complex organs can't evolve.)
    • CB921.1. What use is half an eye?
    • CB921.2. What use is half a wing?
  • CB922. No two-celled life exists intermediate between one- and multicelled.
  • CB925. We do not see creatures in various stages of completion.
  • CB926. Preadaptation implies that organs evolved before they were needed.
  • CB928. Why are beneficial traits not evolved more often?
    • CB928.1. If intelligence is adaptive, other apes should have evolved it.
  • CB929. Evolution does not explain our using one tenth of our brain.
  • CB930. Some fossil species are still living.
    • CB930.1. The coelacanth, thought extinct for ages, is still living.
    • CB930.2. A plesiosaur was found by a Japanese trawler.
    • CB930.3. Dinosaurs may still be alive in the Congo.
  • CB932. Some modern species are apparently degenerate, not higher forms.
  • CB940. Pure chance cannot create new structures.
    • CB940.1. Odds of many successive beneficial mutations are minuscule.
  • CB941. How do things know how to evolve?
  • CB950. Overspecialization with no adaptive value sometimes occurs.
  • CB951. Long-term trends (orthogenesis) do not fit evolutionary theory.
  • CB952. The evolution of specialized diets would not be adaptive.
  • CB990. Proposed evolution scenarios are just-so stories.

CC: Paleontology

• CC0: Physical Anthropology
  • CC000-CC049: Questionable fossils
    • CC000: Specific hominid fossils were hoaxed
      • CC001. Piltdown man was a hoax.
        • CC001.1. Piltdown man was the subject of 500 doctoral dissertations.
      • CC002. Nebraska man was a hoax.
      • CC003. Lucy's knee was found far from the rest of the skeleton.
      • CC004. Ten Peking Man skeletons were suppressed.
    • CC020: Specific hominid fossils were misidentified
      • CC021. "Orce Man" was a donkey skull.
    • CC030. All human fossils would fit on a billiard table.
    • CC040. Anthropologists disagree.
      • CC041. Homo habilis is an invalid taxon.
  • CC050. All hominid fossils are fully human or fully ape.
    • CC051. Neanderthal was based on a disfigured human.
      • CC051.1. Neanderthals were humans with rickets.
    • CC052. Laetoli footprints were human.
    • CC054. KP 271 (a fossil humerus) was human.
    • CC061. French scientists called Peking Man "monkey-like."
    • CC080. Australopithecus was fully ape, closer to chimp.
  • CC100: Human fossils are out of place.
    • CC101. Human footprints have been found with dinosaur tracks at Paluxy.
    • CC102. Sandal footprints have been found associated with trilobites.
    • CC110. Moab man was found in Cretaceous sandstone.
    • CC111. Malachite man was found in Cretaceous sandstone.
    • CC112. Castenedolo, Olmo, and Calaveras skulls were found in Pliocene strata.
    • CC120. Baugh found a fossilized finger from the Cretaceous.
    • CC130. A petrified hammer was found in Cretaceous rocks.
    • CC131. An iron pot was found encased in Carboniferous coal.
  • CC150: Other Anthropology
    • CC150. If we are descended from apes, why are there still apes around?
• CC200: Transitional fossils
  • CC200. Transitional fossils are lacking.
    • CC200.1. There should be billions of transitional fossils.
  • CC201. We should see smooth change through the fossil record, not gaps.
    • CC201.1. Punctuated equilibrium was ad hoc to justify gaps.
    • (see also CB805: smooth continuum among living creatures.)
  • CC210: Specific examples of non-transition
    • CC211. There are gaps between invertebrates and vertebrates.
    • CC212. There are gaps between fish and amphibians.
    • CC213. There are gaps between amphibians and reptiles.
    • CC214. There are gaps between reptiles and birds.
      • CC214.1. Archaeopteryx was probably not an ancestor of modern birds.
        • CC214.1.1. Archaeopteryx is fully bird
      • CC214.2. Duck-billed dinosaur find disproves its bird ancestry.
    • CC215. There are gaps between reptiles and mammals.
    • CC216.1. There are gaps between land mammals and whales.
    • CC216.2. Horse fossils do not show evolution.
    • CC220. Arthropods arose suddenly.
      • CC220.1. There are no fossil ancestors of insects.
    • CC250. There are no fossil ancestors of plants.
      • CC251. Progymnosperms are imaginary evolutionary ancestors.
• CC300: Fossil Record
  • CC300. The Cambrian explosion shows all kinds of life appearing suddenly.
    • CC301. Cambrian explosion contradicts evolutionary "tree" pattern.
  • CC310: Dating of fossils
    • (see also CD0: Geochronology)
    • CC310. Fossils are dated from strata; strata are dated from fossils.
      • (see also CD103: Geologic column assumes evolution.)
  • CC330: Polystrate fossils
    • CC331. Polystrate fossils indicate massive sudden deposition.
    • CC332. Yellowstone's Specimen Creek fossil forests were evidently transported.
      • CC332.1. Specimen Creek fossil trees grew at the same time.
      • CC332.2. Orientations show Specimen Creek fossil trees were transported.
    • CC335. A fossil whale was found vertically through several strata.
  • CC340. Many fossils are out of place.
    • (see also CC100: Human fossils out of place)
    • CC341. Recent pollen has been found in old rocks.
  • CC350: Some fossils are faked.
    • (see also CC000: Hominid fossils faked)
    • CC351. Archaeopteryx is a fake.
    • CC352. Archaeoraptor was a fake.
  • CC360: Taphonomy
    • CC360. No new fossils are being formed.
    • CC361. Fossils can form quickly.
      • CC361.1. Coal and oil can form quickly.
      • CC361.2. Mammoths that were quickly frozen have been found.
      • CC361.3. Contorted positions of fossil animals indicate rapid burial.
    • CC362. Large collections of fossils indicate catastrophism.
    • CC363. Fossilization requires sudden burial.
    • CC364. Sea fossils have been found on mountaintops.
    • CC365. Footprints in the Coconino Sandstone appear to have been made underwater.
      • CC365.1. Coconino Sandstone was deposited underwater.
    • CC371. Evidence of blood in a Tyrannosaurus bone indicates recent burial.
      • CC371.1. Soft tissues from a Tyrannosaurus bone indicate recent burial.
    • CC373. Jurassic shells from mud springs are remarkably preserved.
• CC400: Methodology
  • CC401. Paleontologists reconstruct an entire animal from a single bone.

CD: Geology

• CD0: Geochronology
  • (see also CD241: Varves can form quickly.)
  • CD000: Radiometric dating makes false assumptions
    • CD001. Radiometric dating falsely assumes rocks are closed systems.
    • CD002. Radiometric dating falsely assumes initial conditions are known.
    • CD004. Cosmic rays and free neutrinos affect U and Ar decay rates.
    • (see also CF200: Radiometric dating)
  • CD010. Radiometric dating gives unreliable results.
    • CD011. Carbon dating gives inaccurate results.
      • CD011.1. Variable C-14/C-12 ratio invalidates C-14 dating.
      • CD011.2. Vollosovitch and Dima mammoths yielded inconsistent C-14 dates.
      • CD011.3. Living snails were C-14 dated at 2,300 and 27,000 years old.
      • CD011.4. A freshly killed seal was C-14 dated at 1,300 years old.
      • CD011.5. Triassic wood from Australia was dated at 33,000 years old.
      • CD011.6. Ancient coal and oil are C-14 dated as only 50,000 years old.
    • CD012. U-Th dating gives inaccurate results for modern volcanic rocks.
    • CD013. K-Ar dating gives inaccurate results for modern volcanic rocks.
      • CD013.1. K-Ar dates of 1986 dacite from Mount St. Helens are very old.
    • CD014. Isochron dating gives unreliable results.
      • CD014.1. Isochron date of young Grand Canyon lava is excessively old.
    • CD015. Zircons retain too much helium for an old earth.
    • CD016. The U-Th-Pb method, properly corrected for neutron capture, gives recent dates.
  • CD020. Consistency of radiometric dating comes from selective reporting.
  • CD031. KBS Tuff shows the flaws of radiometric dating.
• CD100: Geological Column
  • (see also CH540: Flood effects)
  • CD101. Entire geological column does not exist.
  • CD102. The geological column is sometimes out of order.
    • CD102.1. Out-of-order strata occur at the Lewis Overthrust.
  • CD103. The geologic column is based on the assumption of evolution.
    • (see also CC310: Circular dating of fossils and strata.)
  • CD110. Meteor craters are never found in deeper strata.
  • CD111. Meteorites are never found in deeper strata.
• CD200: Sedimentation
  • (see also CH540: Flood effects)
  • CD200. Uniformitarian assumption is untenable.
  • CD202. Sandstone and shale layers are too extensive for normal deposition.
  • CD203. Limestone and dolomite layers are too extensive for normal deposition.
  • CD210. The mouth of the Colorado River does not have enough sediment for the Grand Canyon.
  • CD211. Mississippi delta could have formed in 5,000 years.
  • CD220. There is not enough sediment in the ocean for an old earth.
    • CD220.1. Much more sediment is deposited than removed by subduction.
  • CD221. Oceans do not have enough dissolved minerals for an old earth.
    • CD221.1. Sodium accumulates in oceans too fast for an old earth.
  • CD222. Juvenile water is added to oceans too fast for an old earth.
  • CD230. Natural gas escapes too fast to allow for long ages.
  • CD231. High pressures in oil fields would have bled off if earth were old.
  • CD232. Oil seepage would have drained offshore reservoirs in 20,000 years.
  • CD240. Experiments show that strata can violate principles of superposition.
  • CD241. Varves can form in less than a year.
  • CD250. Stalactites can grow very rapidly.
  • (see also CC365.1: Coconino sandstone deposited underwater.)
• CD300: Evaporation
  • CD301. Evaporites could form without evaporation.
  • CD302. Evaporites are too thick.
  • CD303. Evaporites contain no organic matter.
• CD400: Glaciation
  • CD410. World War II airplanes are now beneath thousands of "annual" ice layers.
• CD500: Mountain Building
  • CD501. On an old earth, mountains would have eroded by now.
  • CD502. Volcanic mountains are built too fast for an old earth.
  • CD510. Folded rocks must have been soft when folded.
• CD600: Erosion
  • (see also CH540: Flood effects)
  • CD610. The erosion rate of Niagara Falls' rim indicates a young earth.
  • CD620. Average soil depth is consistent with a young earth.
• CD700: Geophysics and Plate Tectonics
  • CD701. The earth's magnetic field is decaying, indicating a young earth.
    • CD701.1. Cowling's theorem disproves dynamo theory of earth's magnetic field.
  • CD740. The theory of plate tectonics is wrong.
    • CD741. Midocean magnetic anomalies are not reversals.
  • CD750. Plate tectonics occurred catastrophically and has since slowed.
• CD800: Climate Change
  • CD821. Sahara Desert is expanding.

CE: Astronomy and Cosmology

• CE000: Earth
  • CE001. There is not enough helium in the atmosphere for an old earth.
  • CE010. NASA scientists found a day missing.
  • CE011. Earth's rotation is slowing, indicating a young earth.
    • CE011.1. The frequency of leap seconds indicates a young earth.
  • CE020. An old earth would be covered by 182 feet of meteoric dust.
• CE100: Moon
  • CE101. There is not enough moon dust for an old universe.
  • CE110. The moon is receding at a rate too fast for an old universe.
  • CE130. Lunar moonquakes, lava flows, and gas emissions indicates the moon's youth.
  • (see also CF220: Short-lived U-326, Th-230 found on moon.)
• CE200: Planets and Solar System
  • CE210. Venus's high temperature and atmosphere should have eroded its surface features.
  • CE230. Io's great volcanic activity indicates a young age.
  • CE231. Jupiter and Saturn are cooling too rapidly to be old.
  • CE240. Saturn's rings are unstable.
  • CE260. Three planets and several moons revolve backwards.
    • CE260.1. Retrograde motion of planets disproves the big bang.
  • CE261. Comets would not have lasted in an old universe.
    • CE261.1. Oort cloud and Kuiper belt are ad hoc fantasies of astronomers.
  • CE280. Solar wind should have cleared the inner solar system of microparticles.
  • CE281. The Poynting-Robertson effect would remove space dust in an old solar system.
• CE300: Sun and Stars
  • CE301. The lack of solar neutrinos indicates that the stellar model is wrong.
  • CE302. The sun has most of the mass but little angular momentum of the solar system.
  • CE310. A shrinking sun indicates a young sun.
    • CE310.1. Helmholtz's contraction theory says the sun is young.
  • CE311. The faint young sun paradox contradicts an old earth.
  • CE351. Sirius was a red star 2,000 years ago and is a white dwarf now.
  • CE380. Galaxies should lose their spiral shape over millions of years.
• CE400: Cosmology
  • (see also CI300: Anthropic principle)
  • CE401. There are too few supernova remnants for an old universe.
  • CE410. Physical constants are only assumed constant.
    • CE411. The speed of light has changed.
      • CE411.1. Physicists found that the speed of light was once faster.
    • CE412. Gravitational time dilation made distant clocks run faster.
    • (see also CF210: Radiometric dating assumes constant rates.)
  • CE420. The big bang theory is wrong.
  • CE421. The cosmos has an axis, contrary to big bang models.
  • CE425. Red shift comes from light aging, not expansion of the universe.
  • CE440. Where did space, time, energy, and laws of physics come from?
  • CE441. Explosions such as the big bang do not produce order or information.

CF: Physics and Mathematics

• (see also CE400: Cosmology)
• CF000: Second Law of Thermodynamics and Information Theory
  • (see also CB102: Mutations don't add information.)
  • (see also CE441: Big Bang doesn't produce information.)
  • CF001. The second law of thermodynamics prohibits evolution.
    • CF001.1. Systems left to themselves invariably tend toward disorder.
    • CF001.2. The second law of thermodynamics, and the trend to disorder, is universal.
    • CF001.3. Instructions are necessary to produce order.
    • CF001.4. The second law is about organized complexity, not entropy.
    • CF001.5. Evolution needs an energy conversion mechanism to utilize energy.
  • CF002. Complexity does not come from simplicity.
    • CF002.1. Tornadoes in junkyards do not build things.
  • CF003. How could information, such as in DNA, assemble itself?
  • CF005. 2nd law of thermodynamics applies to information theory.
  • CF010. Cybernetic simulations show that Darwinian processes do not produce order.
  • CF011. Evolutionary algorithms smuggle in design in the fitness function.
    • CF011.1. The outcome of Dawkins's WEASEL program was prespecified.
    • CF011.2. NFL theorems prove that evolutionary algorithms do not beat blind search.
• CF100: First Law of Thermodynamics
  • CF101. The universe's energy cannot come from nothing.
    • (see also CE440: Origin of everything; CI200: First cause)
• CF200: Radiometric Decay
  • (see also CD000: Radiometric dating)
  • CF201. Polonium haloes indicate a young earth.
  • CF210. Radiometric dating falsely assumes that rates are constant.
    • (see also CE410: Physical constants only assumed constant.)
  • CF220. Short-lived isotopes Th-230 and U-236 exist on the moon.

CG: Miscellaneous Anti-Evolution

• CG000: History
  • CG001. Darwin recanted on his deathbed.
  • CG010. The oldest living thing is younger than 4,900 years.
  • CG020. All all languages and religions could develop in 3,000 years.
    • (see also CB620: Population growth.)
  • CG030. Oldest structures, such as pyramids, are already very complex.
• CG100: Linguistics
  • CG101. Chinese glyph for "ark" is literally "8 mouths."
  • CG110. The first known languages are highly complex.
  • CG111. Why are languages getting less complex?
• CG200: Folklore
  • CG201. There are flood myths from all over the world.
  • CG202.1. The Miao flood myth is very like the story of Noah.
  • CG202.2. The Chinese Hihking flood myth is very like the story of Noah.

CH: Biblical Creationism

• CH000: Biblical Creationism Generally
  • CH001. Creationism has explanatory power.
  • CH010. Creationism, being Bible-based, is good.
    • CH010.1. Learning creationism stimulates mental health, joy, and morals.
  • CH030. God is all-good.
    • (see also CA650: Death before humanity implies unmerciful God.)
  • CH050. Genesis is foundational to the Bible.
  • CH055. Noncreationist Christians are compromisers.
• CH100: Biblical Accuracy
  • CH100. The Bible says it; I believe it; that settles it.
    • CH100.1. Science must be interpreted in light of scripture.
  • CH101. The Bible is inerrant.
    • CH101.1. If part of the Bible is wrong, none of it can be trusted.
  • CH102. The Bible is literal.
    • CH102.1. Genesis must be literal; it is straightforward narrative.
    • CH102.2. Genesis must be literal; later writers refer to it as fact.
      • CH102.2.1. Jesus refers to creation and flood as though they were literal.
  • CH103. Bible claims inspiration.
  • CH110. Prophecies prove the accuracy of the Bible.
  • CH120. The Bible must be accurate because archaeology supports it.
  • CH130. The Bible's accuracy on other scientific points shows overall accuracy.
    • CH131. The Bible says that the earth is round.
    • CH132. The Bible says that the earth is unsupported.
    • CH133. The Bible got the water cycle right.
    • CH134. Records say civilization was man's original state.
    • CH135. The Bible specifies good medical and hygienic practices.
      • CH135.1. The Bible specifies the best time for circumcision.
      • CH135.2. Moses reveals that blood is the essence of life.
    • (see also CB621: Humanity traced to an African Eve.)
  • CH180: The Bible is unique in other ways.
    • CH181. The Bible is popular.
    • CH182. The Bible is influential.
    • CH183. The Bible is target of persecution.
    • CH184. The Bible is intellectually honest.
  • CH190. The Bible is harmonious throughout.
• CH200-CH799: Young Earth Creationism
  • CH200: Age of the Universe
    • CH200. The universe is 6,000-10,000 years old.
    • CH210. The earth is 6,000-10,000 years old.
    • CH220. The universe was created with apparent age.
  • CH300: Death and the Fall
    • CH301. There was no death or decay before the Fall.
    • CH310. The pre-Flood vapor canopy would have made the world Edenic.
    • CH311. The pre-Flood vapor canopy would have extended human lifetimes.
    • CH320. Life is deteriorating.
      • CH321. Parasites are degenerations of free-living species.
  • CH350: Created Kinds
    • CH350. Organisms come in discrete kinds.
    • CH370. The stars and galaxies are unchanging.
  • CH400-CH599: Flood
    • CH400: Source of Flood
      • CH401. Flood from vapor canopy.
      • CH410. Flood from comet.
      • CH420. Hydroplate theory.
      • CH430. Runaway subduction.
    • CH500: The Ark
      • CH500. Noah's ark has been found.
        • CH501. We can expect to find Noah's ark on Mount Ararat.
        • CH502.1. Noah's ark may have been photographed on Ararat in 1949.
        • CH502.2. ERTS satellite photographed Noah's ark in 1973.
        • CH503. Noah's ark has been found near Dogubayazit, Turkey.
          • CH503.1. Anchor stones of Noah's ark have been found.
          • CH503.2. The Turkish government officially recognized the site of Noah's ark.
        • CH504.1. James Bryce found a 4-foot timber high on Ararat.
        • CH504.2. Navarra retrieved hand-hewn wood from high on Ararat.
        • CH504.3. Hardwicke Knight found soft wood timbers on Ararat.
        • CH505.1. Yearam guided three vile scientists to Noah's ark in 1916.
        • CH505.2. An 1883 Turkish expedition found Noah's ark.
        • CH505.3. Prince Nouri of Baghdad found the ark in 1887.
        • CH505.4. Hagopian visited the ark with his uncle around 1908.
        • CH505.5. Russian aviator Roskovitsky photographed the ark.
        • CH505.6. Resit, a Kurdish farmer, found the ark in 1948.
        • CH505.7. Local Kurds led Ed Davis to the ark in 1943.
        • CH505.8. Ed Behling was led to the ark in 1973.
      • CH508. Chinese treasure ships show Noah's ark was feasible.
      • CH510-CH529: Animals on the Ark
        • CH511. Insects survived on floating vegetation mats.
        • CH512. All kinds could fit.
          • CH512.1. Juveniles of large animals were taken aboard.
          • CH512.2. The average land animal is the size of a sheep.
        • CH513. Animals hibernated on the ark.
        • CH514. The crew could feed and care for the animals.
          • CH514.1. Many animals do not require fresh or live food.
        • CH520. Pre-Flood animals lived in a uniform climate.
        • CH521. Animals' exacting needs could have evolved after the Flood.
      • CH540-CH599: Effects of the Flood
        • CH541. Aquatic organisms could have survived the Flood.
        • CH542. Plants could have survived the Flood.
        • CH550. The geologic column was deposited by the Flood.
          • (see also CC364: Seashells on mountains.)
        • CH560: Fossils were deposited by the Flood.
          • CH561: Fossil order was determined by the Flood.
            • CH561.1. Fossils are sorted by ecological zonation.
            • CH561.2. Fossils are sorted hydrologically.
            • CH561.3. Fossils are sorted by the ability to escape.
            • CH561.4. Fossils are sorted by a combination of these factors.
          • (see also CC361: Fossils form quickly.)
        • CH570. High mountains were raised during the Flood.
        • CH580. The Flood shaped the earth's surface in other ways.
        • CH581. The Grand Canyon was carved by retreating Flood waters.
          • CH581.1. Rapid erosion on Mount St. Helens shows Grand Canyon could form suddenly.
        • CH590. The Flood caused an ice age.
  • CH700: Miscellaneous Young Earth Creationism
    • CH710. Man and dinosaurs coexisted.
      • (see also CC100: Human fossils out of place)
      • (see also CB930.3: Dinosaurs may be in the Congo.)
      • CH710.1. Ica stones show that humans and dinosaurs coexisted.
      • CH710.2. Dinosaur figurines from Acambaro show a human-dinosaur association.
      • CH711. Behemoth, from the book of Job, was a dinosaur.
        • CH711.1. Leviathan, from the book of Job, was a dinosaur.
      • CH712. Dragons were dinosaurs.
        • CH712.1. Some dinosaurs breathed fire.
• CH800: Day-Age Creationism
  • CH801. Genesis 1 got the order of events right.
• CH900: Geocentrism
  • CH901. Bible says the sun goes around the earth.
  • CH910. Relativity shows geocentrism is true.

CI: Intelligent Design

• (see also CH000: Creationism Generally)
• (see also CF000: 2nd Law of Thermodynamics and Information Theory)
• CI000: ID as Science
  • CI001. Intelligent design theory is scientific.
    • CI001.1. Intelligent design theory is not religious.
    • CI001.2. Intelligent design is not creationism.
    • CI001.3. Intelligent design is mainstream.
    • CI001.4. Intelligent design has been published in peer-reviewed journals.
    • (see also CA041.1: Santorum Amendment.)
  • CI002. Intelligent design has explanatory power.
  • CI009. Evidence for design disproves evolutionary mechanisms.
  • CI010. There is a law of conservation of information.
  • (see also CF011: Design from ev. algorithms comes from fitness function.)
• CI100-CI199: Detecting Design
  • (see also CA100: Argument from incredulity.)
  • CI100. Design is detectable.
    • CI100.1. Look; is design not obvious?
  • CI101. Complexity indicates design.
  • CI102. Irreducible complexity indicates design.
  • CI110. Complex specified information indicates design.
  • CI111. Dembski's filter can detect design.
    • CI111.1. Specified information criterion produces no false positives.
    • CI111.2. Specified complexity characterizes what intelligent agents do.
  • CI113. Genetic algorithms require a designer to specify desired outcome.
    • (see also CF011: Design from ev. algorithms comes from fitness function.)
  • CI120. Purpose indicates design.
  • CI130. Functional integration indicates design.
  • CI141. Similarities in DNA and anatomy are due to common design.
    • CI141.1. Similar structures for similar functions, different for different.
  • CI190. SETI researchers expect that they can detect design.
  • CI191. Archaeologists and forensic scientists can detect design.
• CI200: First Cause.
  • CI200. There must have been a first cause.
• CI300: Anthropic Principle.
  • CI301. The cosmos is fine-tuned to permit human life.
  • CI302. The cosmos is fine-tuned to permit scientific discovery.
• CI400: Meta-arguments
  • CI401. The methodology of science rules out even considering design.
    • (see also CA301.1: Science rules out supernatural explanations.)
  • CI402. Evolutionists have blinded themselves to seeing design.
    • (see also CA230.1: Evolutionists interpret per their preconceptions.)
  • CI410. Design requires a designer.

CJ: Other Creationism

• CJ000: Vedic Creationism
  • CJ001. Mankind has existed essentially unchanged for billions of years.
• CJ200-CJ499: Native North American Creationism
  • CJ300: Creationism from individual tribes
    • CJ311. The 9,400-year-old Kennewick Man was an Umatilla ancestor.
• CJ500-CJ699: Islamic Creationism
  • CJ500: Qur'an Accuracy
    • CJ530. The Qur'an's accuracy on scientific points shows overall accuracy.
      • CJ531. The Qur'an speaks of an expanding universe.
      • CJ533. The Qur'an describes human embryology accurately.

Authors

[JCEccles]

Modern evolutionary theory has grave weaknesses, the most grave being its inability to account for the creative, transformative role of intelligence in the development of life forms. Intelligent design dares honestly to confront this compelling and vital evidence. Because Darwinism has no credible response based in science, its supporters resort to ad hominem attacks.

Darwinists have become an embarrassment to thinking people.

[Coyoteman]

OOOOOH, Ichny dumped the big nuke on 'em.

That's a lot of reading. But, most likely, none of 'em will read a word of it, let alone check out the links. (We don't need no stinking data, whadda you think we are, scientists?)

[Ichneumon]

[Until then stop whining. [HUGE AMOUNT OF DISCUSSION BETWEEN THESE TWO SENTENCES DISHONESTLY CLIPPED BY CICERO WITHOUT "..." MARKER] Are we clear now?]

Indeed, you are very clear. Darwinists want a total monopoly and don't want to permit anyone hear about anything else. Exactly the point I was making.

An AECreationist tells another falsehood about someone, so what else is new?

The astute reader is invited to go back and read my post, and see for himself just how laughably bad Cicero's misrepresentation of my position is -- *and* note how much he snipped out between the two sentences of mine he quoted, including:

"Go ahead and discuss it all you like. Just stop lying about it, and stop trying to dishonestly push religion into schools in a Trojan Horse with "science" scribbled on the side, when it isn't."

Whether his gross distortion of what I actually wrote is due to his gross dishonesty, or a reading comprehension so poor that it would embarrass a gradeschooler, is left as an exercise for the reader.

In any case, this sort of thing is unfortunately extremely common when having discussions with AECreationists. I invite lurkers to ponder the reason why.

[Liberal Classic]

Darwinists have become an embarrassment to thinking people.

The anti-science movement is an embarrassment to conservatism and Republicanism.

[Ichneumon]

Modern evolutionary theory has grave weaknesses, the most grave being its inability to account for the creative, transformative role of intelligence in the development of life forms.

Evolutionary theory has no such "inability". The problem is that IDers have been unable to provide any evidence for their presumption.

Intelligent design dares honestly to confront this compelling and vital evidence.

IDers keep alluding to this "compelling and vital evidence", but keep "forgetting" to show it to anyone, even when asked repeatedly.

Because Darwinism has no credible response based in science,

...other than the very to-the-point and very credible response that if the IDers want to be taken seriously *as* science, they're going to have to follow the "rules" of science. To date, IDers have failed to do so, they just want to bitch and moan about how "unfair" and "exclusive" the methods and practices of science are, and try to force their stuff into science classrooms and science journals *without* actually having to bother with that pesky "evidence and research" stuff.

its supporters resort to ad hominem attacks.

IDers call it "ad hominem attacks" when people point out the truth about the IDers behavior, and point out the vast number of times that IDers have been caught lying, engaging in dishonest propaganda, trying to rewrite history, committing perjury, and other behavior that makes them very much like Michael Moore.

Darwinists have become an embarrassment to thinking people.

"ID" has become such an embarrassment that even ~10,000 Christian clergy have endorsed evolutionary biology and stated that ID has no place being taught as science.

Deal with it, and stop making further misrepresentations about science, scientists, and the facts of the issue.

[ml1954]

Hey, that's right! I've seen evolutionists hang ten creationist partisans who were just walking down the street in retaliation for every one evo that was killed. It's the 3rd Reich all over again!

You were an eyewitness to this?

[TN4Liberty]

Please don't post to me anymore. You have some issues and I don't want all your crap in my ping list. Thanks!

[thomaswest]

http://www.motherjones.com/news/outfront/2005/12/godless_pride.html

Why have so many fundamentalist religious leaders formed politically-active organizations? Who are they, and how successful have they been? To begin, consider the Reconstructionists, arguably the most fanatical of the Christian Right groups. According to them, says William Martin, author of With God on Our Side, “Christians have a mandate to rebuild . . . all of human society,” and “they contend that the Bible . . . offers the perfect blueprint for the shape a reconstructed world should take.”

Reconstructionists are also known as Dominionists, as in Genesis 1:28, which calls on them to: “Fill the Earth and subdue it and have dominion over every living thing that moves upon the Earth.” As “agents of God’s unfolding plan,” they are working to establish a theonomy, or “rule of God,” which leaves no room for toleration of other points of view. According to Martin, “a theonomic order would make homosexuality, adultery, blasphemy, propagation of false doctrine, and incorrigible behavior by disobedient children subject to the death penalty, preferably administered by stoning.” Since these ethical principles reflect the will of an immutable God, Reconstructionists reason, they apply to all people, in every era. R.J. Rushdoony, the founding father of Reconstructionism, regards pluralism as a heresy, since “in the name of toleration, the believer is asked to associate on a common level of total acceptance with the atheist, the pervert, the criminal, and the adherents of other religions.”

Frankly, it is highly unlikely that Reconstructionists will suddenly seize political power. Their ideas are simply too extreme. Leaders of the religious right have been cautious about showing any interest in this radical movement. Still, Reconstructionists have clearly been influential. Fundamentalist ministers Jerry Falwell and D. James Kennedy have endorsed Reconstructionist books. An anonymous member of the religious right undoubtedly spoke for many when he confessed, “Though we hide their books under the bed, we read them just the same.” While most religious right activists have discarded the more unpalatable aims of Reconstructionists, they have embraced their underlying theory that the Bible provides a blueprint for running government. Jay Grimstead, leader of the Coalition on Revival, expressed the sentiment of many conservative Christian leaders when he argued that while they may not be in full support of a theonomy, it is still their desire to rebuild a Bible-based America.

An opposing view is at
http://www.motherjones.com/news/feature/2005/12/a_nation_under_god.html

[Baby Driver]

What I find myself contemplating are the
qualities and weaknesses of both 'the Visionary'
and 'the Plodder'. the 'Doer' and the 'thinker;

"...and the poet sheathes his pen,
and the soldier lifts his sword.."

[Ichneumon]

If you believe that all clergy actually BELIEVE and preach the word of God, you are sadly mistaken. I prefer to place my faith in the unshakable word of God than to a bunch of educated idiots.

If you believe that this lame response is the best you can do, instead of some sort of substantive rebuttal (or better yet, a grasp of the point being made), go for it.

And personally, I prefer to learn directly from God's *actual* work (the world itself, and the evidence it provides) than from misunderstandings about the "unshakable word of God" from someone who uses "educated" as an insult.

Here, get a clue:

"The doctrine of the movements of the earth and the fixity of the sun is condemned [by Biblical literalists] on the ground that the Scriptures speak in many places of the sun moving and the earth standing still… I think that in the discussion of natural problems we ought to begin not with the Scriptures, but with experiments and demonstrations." -- Galileo Galilei

Pop quiz: Who was right -- Galileo, learning from observation and evidence, or the Pope and his entire Church, relying on their reading of the text of the Bible?

Does the Sun actually revolve around the fixed Earth, as the Church was convinced the Bible clearly said?

"And if Your Reverence would read not only the Fathers but also the commentaries of modern writers on Genesis, Psalms, Ecclesiastes and Josue, you would find that all agree in explaining literally (ad litteram) that the sun is in the heavens and moves swiftly around the earth, and that the earth is far from the heavens and stands immobile in the center of the universe. [...] I add that the words 'the sun also riseth and the sun goeth down, and hasteneth to the place where he ariseth, etc.' were those of Solomon, who not only spoke by divine inspiration but was a man wise above all others and most learned in human sciences and in the knowledge of all created things, and his wisdom was from God."
-- Cardinal Robert Bellarmine, April 12, 1615 letter to Foscarini concerning Galileo's "heresy".

And:

"Whereas you, Galileo, son of the late Vaincenzo Galilei, Florentine, aged seventy years, were in the year 1615 denounced to this Holy Office for holding as true the false doctrine taught by some that the Sun is the center of the world and immovable and that the Earth moves, and also with a diurnal motion; for having disciples to whom you taught the same doctrine; for holding correspondence with certain mathematicians of Germany concerning the same; for having printed certain letters, entitled "On the Sunspots," wherein you developed the same doctrine as true; and for replying to the objections from the Holy Scriptures, which from time to time were urged against it [i.e. for disagreeing with Bible-based criticisms - Ich.] [...] This Holy Tribunal being therefore of intention to proceed against the disorder and mischief thence resulting, which went on increasing to the prejudice of the Holy Faith, [...] The proposition that the Sun is the center of the world and does not move from its place is absurd and false philosophically and formally heretical, because it is expressly contrary to Holy Scripture. [...] Furthermore, in order to completely eliminate such a pernicious doctrine, and not let it creep any further to the great detriment of Catholic truth, the Holy Congregation of the Index issued a decree which prohibited books which treat of this and declaring the doctrine itself to be false and wholly contrary to the divine and Holy Scripture. [...] We say, pronounce, sentence and declare that you, Galileo, by reason of these things which have been detailed in the trial and which you have confessed already, have rendered yourself according to this Holy Office vehemently suspect of heresy, namely of having held and believed a doctrine that is false and contrary to the divine and Holy Scripture: namely that Sun is the center of the world and does not move from east to west, and that one may hold and defend as probable an opinion after it has been declared and defined contrary to Holy Scripture. [...] Consequently, you have incurred all the censures and penalties enjoined and promulgated by the sacred Canons and all particular and general laws against such delinquents.
-- Papal Condemnation (Sentence) of Galileo (June 22, 1633)

If the Vatican get get Scripture so freaking wrong when they read it, I have even less confidence in the textual interpretations of amateurs. And I'll take 10,000 Christian clergy over *your* impression of whether evolution is compatible with scripture.

Why don't you leave the 1600's and come join the rest of us in the 21st Century?

[Cicero]

Why post all that silly boilerplate?

I'm perfectly happy to read Darwin and to let the theory be taught in schools, as long as it doesn't pretend to have a total monopoly on the truth.

Why aren't Darwinists willing to entertain other possibilities in a similar way? Why do they refuse to let anyone even open their mouths about them? Why do they fire professors who dare to question Darwin? Why do they take school districts to court if they dare to question Darwin or even order an ID book for the school library?

Is Darwin so delicate he can't stand up to questioning?

[Ichneumon]

Evolutionistoids are fanatics who have lost their direction, but redouble their futile efforts. Evolution is of the devil's propagation.

Admit it -- you're just a troll working to make the AECreationists look crazy, aren't you?

[LiteKeeper]

And if you check carefully you will discover a large number of these same clergy do not believe in the Diety of Jesus Christ, the Virgin Birth, the Resurrection, or the Second Coming of Christ, but do believe in same sex marriage, abortion [oops, excuse me, a woman's right to chose to murder her baby], ordination of homosexuals - they are definitely not in the orthodox, evangelical camp. And many of us have a hard time giving any credibility to what they sign on to.

But hey, that's why Baskin-Robbins makes 31 flavors - we all like something different!

[Liberal Classic]

Have you owned up to that Sam Francis quote yet?