Darwinist Ideologues Are on the Run

The two scariest words in the English language? Intelligent Design! That phrase tends to produce a nasty rash and night sweats among our elitist class.

Should some impressionable teenager ever hear those words from a public school teacher, we are led to believe, that student may embrace a secular heresy: that some intelligent force or energy, maybe even a god, rather than Darwinian blind chance, has been responsible for the gazillions of magnificently designed life forms that populate our privileged planet.

But the poster I was responding to could leave the general impression that no scientists in any field considered a Higer Power relevant.

He said nothing of the kind. In fact, he wasn't speaking of the views of *scientists* at all. He was speaking of whether scientific *theories* included any declaration or built-in presumption (for *or* against*) the existence a deity, and he (correctly) stated that they did not. Please pay attention to what is actually being said, and not what you presume someone might be talking about.

Actually, the quotes and concepts about a Higer Power's role in all of this are quite abundant through the years. I can't recall the exact quote, but Einstein said something along the lines of, "If you seek God, look deeply in to nature," and Hawking has written something along the same lines.

Again, you are on an entirely different subject than the one the poster you have misread was talking about.

But man, are there really people that go around every waking hour feeling the scientific method is some kind of sacrament?

No. Why would you ask such a strange question?

That's just kind of wierd. It's just a man-made constuct. The scientific method is not a force of nature, no matter how incredibly valuable it has been to mankind. It's almost like some folks here have a poster of C. Darwin on the ceiling, a jar of vasaline on the nightstand and then get up to go to work with a fake Darwin beard on and "Beagle" painted on the back of the car.

You have a very bizarre, distorted, false, and needlessly insulting view of us. Why don't you tone down the nonsense and try to discuss something we've *actually* said, a position we *actually* hold, or something we've *actually* done?

To think that a biology teacher couldn't lawfully start out the semester with "we are going to teach and study the theory of evolution this semester, a convergence of science from much convincing evidence, experimentation and review. There is debate over how the mechanism came about and was put in to play, but that is a question for outside this class...It will be studied in philosophy or religion class...." is really questionable teaching given we ALL think about this stuff and always have.

I doubt anyone *would* find that objectionable. But that's a poor representation of the kinds of things we *do* find objectionable that some folks are trying to get put into classrooms.

To just make an innocuous statement about what everyone thinks about anyway and possibly be punished for it is becoming almost Orwellian in nature.

The only Orwellian part is your "rewriting history" by misrepresenting the kinds of things that are actually being fought over in classrooms.

I guess I'm just saying that this pejoritive term of "scientism" is getting richly earned by even the evolutionary biologist IMO;

You are entitled to your misguided and incorrect opinion.

to get made fun of because one seeks some answers outside the scope of natural selection about a possible meaning for life, or dismissing someone who is fairly learned but inducts the possiblity we don't really know jack about how all of this started is not the best way to convert the unwashed masses some high-minded posters on the threads seem to want to help.

I agree, but that is *not* a fair description of these discussions. Contrary to your presumption, I haven't seen anyone get "made fun of" for any of the things you mention. I *have* seen people get made fun of for being obnoxious twits who think it's fine sport to ridicule and insult subjects and people they know little about (and most of what they do "know" is wrong), however.

I'd like to see you try to document, say, three examples of what you describe. And no, it *won't* count if the person being "made fun of" was first obnoxious, condescending, belligerent, arrogant, dismissive, belittling, or somesuch themselves (including earlier offenses -- some of the exchanges are due to prior history). Those people get what they deserve.

In order to count, you'll have to find examples of someone actually getting made fun of *merely* for a) "seeking some answers outside the scope of natural selection about a possible meaning for life", or b) "inducts the possiblity we don't really know jack about how all of this started". Go for it. Or ponder retracting your accusation if you can't substantiate it after all.

If they are engaged in something else, it smacks of sport and elitism for personal emotional reasons.

Funny, that's a good description of a lot of anti-evolutionists on these threads. And yes, I *will* be glad to post numerous examples if you wish.

I wonder how so many creationists actually practice medicine, have PHd.'s in all scientific fields?

Feel free to go count them if you wish. I do know that they're relatively rare, compared to the percentage in the general population. By and large, "higher learning" and anti-evolution creationism do not go hand in hand. First, AECreationists tend to be antagonistic towards science and science education. Second, many people who *start out* AECreationists end up realizing the error of their position once they start learning enough about the real-world evidence, and stop being AECreationists. Here's one example of many former AECreationists who learned that the AECreationist was bunk -- he is now convinced, by the evidence, of the truth of evolutionary biology. This kind of story is repeated countless times as AECreationists leave the echo-chamber of creationism and start to learn about how science actually works and what the real-world evidence actually is.

In your pea-brain, you think one can only understand science if they swear allegience to evolution?

In your pea-brain, you keep jumping to bizarre conclusions about me. No, that's not what I've said.

Again, why don't you go to your list and post a few of these accusations?

What are you babbling about here? Post *what* accusations?

Perhaps rather than do document dumps, you can actually hold an in-depth discussion of one issue at a time?

Indeed I can, as I've already done in scores of posts on this very thread. Not paying attention, are you?

Rather than prolonging an argument about the semantics -- let's assume that Coyotoman's definitions are correct. They aren't the only "correct" definition -- the ones I proffered are also correct; but, considering the way the English language evolves through usage, I'll concede that they are correct. I shouldn't have called the "wrong" -- that's too absolute a judgment to make about evolving language. (Please don't think this means I'm a moral relativist -- I'm not.)

Now that we've gotten the semantics out of the way, let's look at the underlying meaning and logic.

There is a raging debate about the truth value of the ToE. Some people dismiss it as "only a theory". Others say that a theory is the next thing to a proven fact -- therefore the ToE (being a theory) must be the next best thing to a proven fact.

This is a logical fallacy known as "begging the question". "Begging the question" is another thing that doesn't mean what most people think it means. You can look it up here:

http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/begging-the-question.html

The label we use for "Evolution" does not change its truth value -- it's just a label. It's a circular argument, and the only way to resolve it is to determine the truth value directly.

We test a theory by trying to prove it wrong. The falsification principle in science tells us that the best we can ever say about any theory is that it "has not yet been disproven". Scientific investigations are always designed to attempt to disprove the theory. So far, the ToE seems to have held up despite many attempts to prove it false. That gives it a high truth value -- but it does not give it infallibility.

It may shock you to learn that, if you have been out of school for several years, several of the scientific theories you were taught have since been falsified. If not outright falsified, then modified significantly. It happens all the time -- it's what we call progress. That's why it's important to focus more on the methods of science. (Along with teaching the current knowledge base). With a good grounding in the scientific method, students will be better equipped to debunk junk science. Without such a grounding, they will be too easily swayed by wishful thinking, or popular opinion.

When I was in high school, I was taught about several earlier theories of gravitation, along with the most current theory. I was also taught how the scientific method was used to disprove the earlier theories. It was a powerful way to learn the theory, and to appreciate the power of the scientific method. It didn't take any extra time at all.

Evolutionists are finally (and with great reluctance) publicly acknowledging large morphological gaps in the fossil record. These gaps are so distinct that evolutionists now recognize them as real, rather than as an artifact of poor fossil preservation.

ROFL! Yeah, sure son. Name a few of these "large morphological gaps" for us. Show us your knowledge of this field.

And no, your pathetic quote-mining (2) doesn't help your case any.

Here, have a look at *actual* fossil evidence instead of the snippets of misleadingly out of context quotes your creationist masters have selected to mislead you with: The Fossil Record: Evolution or "Scientific Creation"

For more transitional fossils (and documentation of creationist lies about it), see for example:

Index to Creationist Claims: Claim CC200: There are no transitional fossils.
Taxonomy, Transitional Forms, and the Fossil Record
On Creation Science and "Transitional Fossils"
The Fossil Record: Evolution or "Scientific Creation"
No transitional fossils? Here's a challenge...
Phylum Level Evolution
Paleontology: The Fossil Record of Life
Cuffey: Transitional Fossils
What Is A Transitional Fossil?
More Evidence for Transitional Fossils
The Origin of Whales and the Power of Independent Evidence
Transitional Forms of Whales
Fossil Horses FAQs
PALAEOS: The Trace of Life on Earth
Mammaliformes: Docodonta
Transitional Fossil Species And Modes of Speciation
Evolution and the Fossil Record
Smooth Change in the Fossil Record
Transitional fossil sequence from dinosaur to bird
Transitional fossil sequence from fish to elephant
Transitional Vertebrate Fossils FAQ

So many more evolutionists recognizing what YOU fail to acknowledge.

No, your creationist puppet-masters have mislead you by distorted misquoting. The actual position of biologists is in fine accord with my own position.

Let's take one of your distorted quotes as an example, shall we?

The absence of fossil evidence for intermediary stages between jamor transitions in organic design..is a persistent and nagging problem for gradulastic accounts of evolution... GOULD

This quote in its full context -- and the dishonest way in which creationists have misrepresented it -- is covered here. Gould was actually talking about the absence of fossil evidence for *some* transitions and the nature of what those transitions might be lacking such definitive indications, he wasn't claiming (as the creationists falsely imply) that he was saying that there weren't any transitional fossils of any sort, period.

Indeed, Gould's annoyance at being frequently misrepresented in this way by creationists was legendary:

Since we proposed punctuated equilibria to explain trends, it is infuriating to be quoted again and again by creationists—whether through design or stupidity, I do not know — as admitting that the fossil record includes no transitional forms. Transitional forms are generally lacking at the species level, but they are abundant between larger groups. Yet a pamphlet entitled "Harvard Scientists Agree Evolution Is a Hoax" states: "The facts of punctuated equilibrium which Gould and Eldredge…are forcing Darwinists to swallow fit the picture that Bryan insisted on, and which God has revealed to us in the Bible."
Continuing the distortion, several creationists have equated the theory of punctuated equilibrium with a caricature of the beliefs of Richard Goldschmidt, a great early geneticist. [...]
I am both angry at and amused by the creationists; but mostly I am deeply sad."
-- Stephen Jay Gould, "Hen's Teeth and Horse's Toes" (1994)

Finally, Gould's observation about the lack of transitional fossils in some sequences was written A QUARTER CENTURY AGO. There have been *vast* numbers of transitional fossils found since then, filling a great many previous "gaps" in evolutionary lineages. Your quote, even if it had been accurate at the time (and again, you're misrepresenting it) is way out of date.

For one example, at the time that quote was written, there were no major transitional fossils between whales and their land-based ancestors. In the time since, however, *many* have been found, mapping out an unmistakable sequence transitioning between land mammals and fully aquatic whales, including this fine fellow:

For details, see:

The Transitional Vertebrate Fossils FAQ
The Origin of Whales and the Power of Independent Evidence
Links on whale evolution
SINE Evolution, Missing Data, and the Origin of Whales
Phylogenetic relationships among cetartiodactyls based on insertions of short and long interpersed elements: Hippopotamuses are the closest extant relatives of whales
Evidence from Milk Casein Genes that Cetaceans are Close Relatives of Hippopotamid Artiodactyls
Analyses of mitochondrial genomes strongly support a hippopotamus±whale clade
A new, diminutive Eocene whale from Kachchh (Gujarat, India) and its implications for locomotor evolution of cetaceans
A new Eocene archaeocete (Mammalia, Cetacea) from India and the time of origin of whales
Mysticete (Baleen Whale) Relationships Based upon the Sequence of the Common Cetacean DNA Satellite1
The Mitochondrial Genome of the Sperm Whale and a New Molecular Reference for Estimating Eutherian Divergence Dates
Limbs in whales and limblessness in other vertebrates: mechanisms of evolutionary and developmental transformation and loss
Eocene evolution of whale hearing
Novel Phylogeny of Whales Revisited but Not Revised
Land-to-sea transition in early whales: evolution of Eocene Archaeoceti (Cetacea) in relation to skeletal proportions and locomotion of living semiaquatic mammals
Subordinal artiodactyl relationships in the light of phylogenetic analysis of 12 mitochondrial protein-coding genes
New Morphological Evidence for the Phylogeny of Artiodactyla, Cetacea, and Mesonychidae
Cetacean Systematics
LIKELIHOOD ESTIMATION OF THE TIME OF ORIGIN OF CETACEA AND THE TIME OF DIVERGENCE OF CETACEA AND ARTIODACTYLA
Phylogenetic Relationships of Artiodactyls and Cetaceans as Deduced from the Comparison of Cytochrome b and 12s rRNA Mitochondrial Sequences
Molecular evolution of mammalian ribonucleases

No transitional fossils? "Large morphological gaps"? Don't make me laugh.

"They aren't the only "correct" definition -- the ones I proffered are also correct; but, considering the way the English language evolves through usage, I'll concede that they are correct. I shouldn't have called the "wrong" -- that's too absolute a judgment to make about evolving language."

The definitions are singular, unique and they are THE only correct ones. There are no other definitions of those words allowed. Scientist are very insistent that what is, is.

"...ToE. Some people dismiss it as "only a theory". Others say that a theory is the next thing to a proven fact -- therefore the ToE (being a theory) must be the next best thing to a proven fact. This is a logical fallacy known as "begging the question". "

You'll have to work on your logic. Taking claims from 2 groups in conflict and forming a logical construct from their contradictory claims, as if they were one person is not an example of "begging the question". The act is irrational though.

"So far, the ToE seems to have held up despite many attempts to prove it false. That gives it a high truth value -- but it does not give it infallibility."

At this point in the history of the theory, the Correspondence principle applies. That says that any new theory must contain the old as a limiting example. Tossing out "fallible" is pointless. Evolution ain't going down.

"It may shock you to learn that, if you have been out of school for several years, several of the scientific theories you were taught have since been falsified. If not outright falsified, then modified significantly. It happens all the time -- it's what we call progress."

Oh, what theories are those?

"When I was in high school, I was taught about several earlier theories of gravitation, along with the most current theory. I was also taught how the scientific method was used to disprove the earlier theories."

Well, here's one you're claiming. For your information the Newtonian theory of gravity is correct. It is a limiting case of the more general theory in the limit of small local energy density. The General Theory of Relativity, of which Newtonian theory exists in the limit, is founded on the Equivalence Principle. It says, "The laws of physics are the same in all reference frames, regardless of motion." In order to for that to be true, it was realized that the gravitational field was in fact due to the curvature of space. That principle and the Principle of Relativity(fixed, constant speed of light) meant that all local frames are Lorentzian and local was now defined by the difference of curvature between adjacent world lines. Here on Earth and around most of the Solar System, Newton's law apply, because our local world is sufficiently flat.

Here's one example of many former AECreationists who learned that the AECreationist was bunk -- he is now convinced, by the evidence, of the truth of evolutionary biology. This kind of story is repeated countless times as AECreationists leave the echo-chamber of creationism and start to learn about how science actually works and what the real-world evidence actually is.

Of course, the opposite (scientists abandoning evolution for creation) never happens. Oh, wait...


	Emeritus Professor Tyndale John Rendle-Short - From (theistic) evolution to creation For Prof himself, educated at Cambridge and brought up with his father's writings, theistic evolution (or its variant, progressive creationism) was the natural direction for him to take. His odyssey to being chairman of one of the most effective creation science outreach ministries in the world was overseen by the Lord's hand in countless ways, both large and small.

	Charlie Lieberts - (Chemist) Charlie Liebert’s idea of a good time back in New Jersey was to drink beer with a bunch of buddies and mock Billy Graham on television. A self-described “atheistic evolutionist,” Liebert would ridicule the fact that he and his friends were “sinners.”

	Dr. Gary Parker (Biologist) "I was very consciously trying to get students to bend their religious beliefs to evolution." "Evolution was really my religion, a faith commitment and a complete world-and-life view that organized everything else for me, and I got quite emotional when evolution was challenged." Dr. Gary Parker's testimony as to how he went from teaching evolution at the college level to being a leading spokesman for Biblical creationism. - See the full story at From Evolution to Creation: A Personal Testimony

	Dr. D. Russell Humphreys (Physicist) While neither of the two links we have for Dr. Humphreys states that he was a former evolutionists and atheist, we know this to be true from a 1999 debate he participated in at Harvard University in which he stated these things. See this interview with Dr. Humphreys at: Creation in the Physics Lab.

	Dr. Alan Galbraith (Watershed Science) "I attended a creation seminar arranged by my pastor. I had only been a Christian for some four years or so, and was still a convinced evolutionist. I have to admit that I went with the attitude — what can this pastor, whose last science course was probably in junior high school, tell me about the area I know so much about?" See Recovery from evolution (Alan Galbraith interview)

	Dr. Donald Batten (Agriculturist) As a young Christian in boarding high school I naively thought that 'science was facts' and tried to believe in evolution and the Bible by accepting the notion that 'God used evolution', days-are-ages, 'progressive creation', etc.

	Dr. David Catchpoole (Plant Physiologist) Until his mid-20s, David was an ardent evolutionistic atheist, but a personal crisis while working in Indonesia brought him to embrace Christianity. However, for a decade he struggled to reconcile popular evolutionary beliefs with the Bible...

	Dr. A.E. Wilder-Smith (3 Doctorates and a NATO 3-star General) The late Dr. Arthur E.Wilder-Smith, an honored scientist with an amazing three earned doctorates. He held many distinguished positions. A former Evolutionist, Dr. Wilder-Smith debated various leading scientists on the subject throughout the world. In his opinion, the Evolution model did not fit as well with the established facts of science as did the Creation model of intelligent design. His background is referenced in footnote #4 at Do real scientists believe in Creation? - ChristianAnswers.Net.
	Dr. Robert V. Gentry - (Physicist) According to modern evolutionary theory, our planet originated from the accumulation of hot, gaseous material ejected from the sun, and the Precambrian granites were among the first rocks to form during the cooling process. University science courses convinced me that the evolution of the earth was just a part of the cosmic evolution of the universe. As a result I became a theistic evolutionist. Years later I began to re-examine the scientific basis for that decision. My thoughts turned to the age of the earth and the Precambrian granites. Were they really billions of years old? See Dr. Gentry's Book Overview. See his web site at Earth Science Associates.

I think there's one thing these Darwinist athiests hate more than an uninformed creationist.

We don't hate uniformed creationists. We think they're funny and annoying, but we don't hate them.

An informed creationist.

Name one. And no, DaveLoneRanger's post doesn't count -- there's nothing informed about it. He documents how he was blown out of the water by an "evolutionist" posting the actual contents of Feduccia's book which contradicted DaveLoneRanger's misrepresentation about Feduccia's position.

The former will get you called a "moron", while the latter will get you called a "stupid moron".

No, being an "informed creationist" will not get you called that, being, well, a stupid moron will get you called that. Try *reading* the actual post instead of beign dazzled by the number of links in it (and for pete's sake, most of those links are just links to the other posts, not "quoting sources" as you cluelessly presume).

DaveLoneRanger documents how he was put in his place and how it was documented that he was, indeed, being a "stupid moron" by belligerently and confidently making false claims without having a clue what he was talking about.

They love to quote their sources up the ying-yang. But don't YOU dare do it.

Go right ahead -- just don't give bogus "sources", misquoted "quotes", or misrepresent what the sources actually say, as is usually the case with creationist "sources".

Case in point, DaveLoneRanger's exchange, which DaveLoneRanger himself documented. He made a false claim, about Feduccia's position, and RightWingProfessor nailed him to the wall by quoting Feduccia *clearly* stating his position to the contrary of DaveLoneRanger's misrepresentation of it.

You seem confused and weirdly impressed by the length of that post. Here it is in its essence:

RWP wrote:
"No sane palaeontologist disputes that Archaeopteryx is an intermediate form"

DaveLoneRanger cluelessly replied:
"As for Archaeopteryx, and your absurd assertion that only insane scientists dispute the find, perhaps you would like to face University of North Carolina’s evolutionist and bird expert Alan Feduccia who stated: ”Paleontologists have tried to turn Archaeopteryx into an earth-bound, feathered dinosaur. But it’s not. It is a bird, a perching bird. And no amount of “paleobabble” is going to change that.”"

The astute reader will note that the Feduccia quote actually does nothing to support DaveLoneRanger's moronic assertion that Feduccia "disputes that Archaeopteryx is an intermediate form", it's just Feduccia disagreeing with the notion that it's a *dinosaur*, he's *not* disputing that it's a transitional fossil.
Rather than try to explain to the confused DaveLoneRanger that Feduccia was talking about another issue entirely, RWP decided to cut to the chase and just directly quote Feduccia CLEARLY STATING THAT ARCHAEOPTERYX IS INDEED A CLEAR TRANSITIONAL FOSSIL...
RWP replied:
You stupid moron. I've got a copy of Feduccia's Origin and Evolution of Birds in front of me as I write. This is from Chapter 1 page 1. "The Archaeopteryx is, in fact, the most superb example of a specimen perfectly intermediate between two groups of living organisms -- what has come to be called a"missing link", a Rosetta stone of evolution."
Go push your out-of-context quotes to your ignorant cultist friends, you stupid little man. They won't work with me; I've been studying birds and bird evolution for 30 years.
Game, set, and match. DaveLoneRanger goes down in flames.
And no, his followup quote doesn't do anything to salvage his disaster, because it's Feduccia writing about YET ANOTHER DIFFERENT TOPIC concerning Archaeopteryx.

And in case any stubborn creationist tries to claim that RWP's quote from Feduccia's book might be fabricated or out of context, let's look at a photocopy, shall we? (relevant portion highlighted in red):

And if *that's* not enough, Feduccia says the same thing on page 29 as well:

Sorry, but RWP was right, and DaveLoneRanger was wrong when he claimed that Feduccia disputes that Archaeopteryx is an intermediate form. Dead wrong. Embarrasingly wrong. Laughably wrong.

DaveLoneRanger is not an "informed creationist", he's the usual sort of uninformed hack, posting his false misconceptions as if they were fact, then getting hammered by reality.

There is a raging debate about the truth value of the ToE. Some people dismiss it as "only a theory". Others say that a theory is the next thing to a proven fact -- therefore the ToE (being a theory) must be the next best thing to a proven fact.

No, that's not what we're saying, but thanks for trying.

This is a logical fallacy known as "begging the question".

It would be if that's what we were doing, but it's not.

The label we use for "Evolution" does not change its truth value -- it's just a label. It's a circular argument, and the only way to resolve it is to determine the truth value directly.

The only thing circular here is your fixation on "labels" instead of on theories and evidence and testing. None of us are suggesting that there's any "truth value" to a label -- that's *your* fixation for some odd reason, and *we're* not begging any questions about labels. We're saying that the theory of evolution is extremely well-established because it actually *has* been.

We test a theory by trying to prove it wrong. The falsification principle in science tells us that the best we can ever say about any theory is that it "has not yet been disproven".

Excuse the bluntness, but this is complete horse manure.

If that were the "best we can ever say about any theory", then an as yet totally untested theory is "just as good as" a theory which has survived thousands of potential falsification tests, *and* successfully had thousands of predictions validated, since both "have not yet been disproven" and you claim that this is "the best we can ever say" about either one. That's obviously vapid.

Read this until it sinks in, and stop relying on half-remembered "philosophy of science" platitudes while forgetting that there's a lot more to validating a scientific theory than just failing to be falsified: Explaining the Scientific Method

The difference is that people abandon anti-evolution creationism because they become familiar with the real-world evidence, whereas people who abandon a belief in evolution do so not because of evidence, but because of evangelical conversions, in the same manner that some people convert to Islamic fundamentalism.

I'll ignore the repugnant comparison of "evangelical conversion" to a conversion of "Islamic fundamentalism" for now so as to address the main falsehood in your blanket statement. From one of the links provided:

...Dr Alan Galbraith...Ph.D. in watershed science is from Colorado State University...had been an evolutionist for decades, since high school, before becoming convinced of Genesis creation. His scientific career with the U.S. Forest Service has involved applied areas like hydrology, watershed and stream restoration. One of his most significant experiences was organizing, developing and directing a monitoring program for detecting acid rain in air pollution in remote wilderness areas, using an ecosystem approach.

So what changed Dr Galbraith’s mind? He said, ‘I attended a creation seminar arranged by my pastor. I had only been a Christian for some four years or so, and was still a convinced evolutionist. I have to admit that I went with the attitude — what can this pastor, whose last science course was probably in junior high school, tell me about the area I know so much about?

‘I came away from that meeting with my faith in evolution shaken enough to make me have to embark on what turned out to be a three or four year intensive study of all the available material on creation/evolution. At the end of that time, I was convinced that the creation point of view, from a scientific standpoint, was the only credible position that a thinking person with a scientific background could accept.’

Another link would have led you here:

As Science Digest reported:

"Scientists who utterly reject Evolution may be one of our fastest-growing controversial minorities... Many of the scientists supporting this position hold impressive credentials in science."

One example is the late Dr. Arthur E. Wilder-Smith, an honored scientist with an amazing three earned doctorates. He held many distinguished positions. A former Evolutionist, Dr. Wilder-Smith debated various leading scientists on the subject throughout the world. In his opinion, the Evolution model did not fit as well with the established facts of science as did the Creation model of intelligent design.

"The Evolutionary model says that it is not necessary to assume the existence of anything, besides matter and energy, to produce life. That proposition is unscientific. We know perfectly well that if you leave matter to itself, it does not organize itself - in spite of all the efforts in recent years to prove that it does."

Gosh, it turns out pro-evo scientists can change their mind by looking at the facts. Now, if you had read the information provided you could have saved yourself from making your incorrect blanket assumption. You had a preconceived notion and didn't want any inconvenient facts to get in your way so you didn't bother to take even a cursory look at the information provided. Funny, isn't that what you accuse Creationists of?

Of course, those links were just a sample. Creation, Facts of Life is a book written by Gary Parker, PhD. He earned his doctorate in biology, with a cognate in geology (paleontology.) Dr. Parker is a former evolutionist who spent years teaching evolution in college. After a three year analysis of creation science, he converted. Throughout his book, Dr. Parker demonstrated his own honesty and scientific integrity with a willingness to accept what science proved as he did his studies in science. He showed that he was truly in search of the truth first.

Confessions of a Rocket Scientist by Dr. Stanley Swinney is a compelling look at the origin of life from an astrophysics perspective. Swinney weaves in his own personal experiences as he shares the evidence that brought him to the conclusion of ID in the universe and away from evolution.

In "Creation's Tiny Mystery", Robert Gentry writes:

My enthusiasm for pursuing research on radioactive halos began a few decades ago while I was teaching and working toward a doctorate in physics at the Georgia Institute of Technology in Atlanta. I was informed, however, that the age of the earth had already been scientifically determined, and it was not something the physics department wanted to have reinvestigated. Concerns were expressed that I might find something which would conflict with the accepted evolutionary time scale, and this could be a cause of considerable embarrassment to Georgia Tech. Since the outlook for my research on radiohalos was unfavorable, my plans for completing the doctorate program were forfeited.

Working at home, I used a microscope to search for radiohalos in thin, translucent sections of granite-type rocks. One spring day in 1965 I was pondering over some special types of halos; there seemed to be conflicting requirements as to their origin. According to evolutionary geology, the granites now containing these special halos had originally formed as hot magma slowly cooled over long ages. On the other hand, the radioactivity responsible for these special halos had such a fleeting existence that it would have disappeared long before the magma had time to cool and form the granite rocks. I wondered how this baffling problem would be resolved.

As I peered into the microscope to view these tiny halos again, some profound questions flashed through my mind: Was it possible that the Precambrian granites were not the end product of slowly cooling magma, but instead were the rocks God created when He spoke this planet into existence? Were the special halos evidence of an instantaneous creation? Were they the Creator's fingerprints in Earth's primordial rocks? Was creation a matter of science as well as faith? I determined to explore these questions...

So, no, it wasn't God speaking to him through a bright light on the road to Damascus. It WAS based "on an actual examination of the facts" as was the case for the others cited, directly contradicting your post.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.