Posted on 03/07/2009 9:00:43 AM PST by GodGunsGuts
Last week, we answered a poorly informed atheist about DNA complexity, and cited Gordy Slack, an evolutionist himself, agreeing that “some proponents of evolution are blind followers”. This week, we provide another example. Varun S. of Switzerland makes a number of false assertions that he could have corrected with a little study of our website. The letter is first posted in its entirety, then answered point by point by Dr Jonathan Sarfati.
For my part, I’m a biologist first but more so an atheist. I see you are hell bent on trashing Darwinian evolution. Let me remind you that the church ordered Galileo to stand trial for heresy in 1633...
(Excerpt) Read more at creation.com ...
Yesterday’s quote, worth posting again:
“The essence of the theory of evolution is the hypothesis that historical diversity is the consequence of natural selection acting on variations. Regardless of the verity it holds for explaining biohistory, it offers no help to the experimenter—who is concerned, for example, with the goal of finding or synthesizing a new antibiotic, or how it can disable a disease-producing organism, what dosages are required and which individuals will not tolerate it. Studying biohistory is, at best, an entertaining distraction from the goals of a working biologist.”
—Dr. Phillip S. Skell, Member, National Academy of Sciences, “The Dangers of Overselling Evolution,” Forbes 2/23/2009.
Isn't the phrase, 'poorly informed atheist' redundant?
"For my part, I’m a biologist first but more so an atheist. I see you are hell bent on trashing Darwinian evolution."
Aren't atheists, by definition, 'hell bent on trashing Biblical creation'? Does he criticize in others the very behavior he himself exhibits? (never mind the obvious self-condemnation projected onto others by his choice of terms)
"Let me remind you that the church ordered Galileo to stand trial for heresy in 1633..."
Didn't Ben Stein document the exact same behavior from 'science' in his movie "Expelled"? Does he again criticize in others the very behavior his own belief-system exhibits?
Is duplicity, ignorance and lack of critical-thinking skills common among atheists as this fellow demonstrates?
“It is my conviction that if any professional biologist will take adequate time to examine carefully the assumptions upon which the macro-evolution doctrine rests, and the observational and laboratory evidence that bears on the problem of origins, he/she will conclude that there are substantial reasons for doubting the truth of this doctrine. Moreover, I believe that a scientifically sound creationist view of origins is not only possible, but it is to be preferred over the evolutionary one.”
Dean H. Kenyon
Professor of biology
San Francisco State University
==Isn’t the phrase, ‘poorly informed atheist’ redundant?
LOL!
==Aren’t atheists, by definition, ‘hell bent on trashing Biblical creation’? Does he criticize in others the very behavior he himself exhibits?
Talk about lack of awareness!
==Is duplicity, ignorance and lack of critical-thinking skills common among atheists as this fellow demonstrates?
I tend to think so, seeing how they take great pains to insulate themselves from the competition.
Excellent quote!
The choice of the word “doctrine” is a good one in the quote you cited.
Thanks for the ping!
As I have said many times, 'science' is based on the 'a priori' assumption of philosophical naturalism and the non sequitur of assuming that the existence of natural, physical laws is conclusive evidence for that 'a priori' assumption.
It's a 'vicious circle' that even Karl Popper would be proud of.
In the context of the argument of evolution vs creationism/ID, what is supposed to be the relevance of this quote? If anything, it argues that neither one would be of any concern to the working biologist. They are both exercises in biohistory.
So I take it that you don't believe in the existence of natural laws? That F≠MA?
And the point that is worth repeating is? Do you really think it is necessary to understand Assembly language if you are writing a Perl program?
==And the point that is worth repeating is?
I’m glad you agree that evolution is largely superfluous to operational science. I can’t tell you how many Evo replies I have gotten that assume operational science depends on an understanding of evolution. Of course, nothing could be further from the truth.
==If anything, it argues that neither one would be of any concern to the working biologist. They are both exercises in biohistory.
You are quite correct. Now if we could just convince the rest of the Evos of this obvious fact!
Why do you think they don't or that it's important?
I think the argument can be made that while a knowlege of biohistory may not provide opportunity for experimentation, it may provide a context for interpreting the results of experiments.
Either way, all it does is qustion whether the study of biohistory falls within the domain of "working biology" or not. The conflict within the realm of biohistory remains as it always was.
==Why do you think they don’t or that it’s important?
I can’t tell you how many replies I get from Evos who assume that virtually all progress in the the biological sciences is dependent upon, and cannot be understood without, the “light” of evolution.
Any chemist who actually believes in abiogenetic origins of life via any permutation of Miller-Urey conditions needs to turn their degree back in, since they obviously didn't learn anything.
Do you agree with the author of the article that biological research should make no consideration of any aspect of biohistory, or only with the specific statements that it should disregard the theory of evolution?
I’m saying that the Evos either unintentionally or deliberately blur the clear difference between historical science and operational science. As such, evolution is of no practical significance to scientific innovation. However, evolution is of profound significance in terms of philosophy and religion. IMO, their attempts to link operational science with evolution is a disingenuous attempt to hide their religion behind advances in science that have nothing to do with evolution.
As for Creation Science, they make no attempt to link the advances of operation science with Creation Science (except, perhaps, to point out that Creationists helped push science along by their theological assumption that the Universe is guided by God’s regular, predictable laws that humans are designed to understand).
If that is correct, then the "evos" you describe are no less at fault than the the creation scientists that interpret research results in the context of the biblical account of creation.
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.