click here to get Adobe Acrobat Reader which reads PDF files
Posted on 05/06/2003 11:22:05 AM PDT by \/\/ayne
9:00 AM “Origins of Life and the Universe” . . . . .Hank Giesecke
10:00 AM “Fifty Facts Why Evolution Doesn’t Work” . . . .Russell Miller
11:00 AM Lunch
1:00 PM “Age of the Earth, and Intelligent Design” . . . .Hank Hiesecke
2:00 PM “Data from Mt. Saint Helens” . . . . .Russell Miller
3:00 PM Break
4:30 PM Dinner available at U of A’s McKale Center
6:00 PM Debate at University of Arizona McKale Center “Alternative World Views: Evolution and Creation”
Dr. Duane Gish and Professor Peter Sherman
Sunday May 11, 2003
Calvary Tucson East Campus
8:00 and 10:20 AM “Take Creation Captive”.......Hank Giesecke
Calvary Tucson West Campus
9:10 and 11:30 AM “Creation or Chaos”......Dr. John Meyer
Calvary Tucson East Campus
6:00 PM “Why 600 Scientists Reject Evolution” ......Dr. John Meyer
(...seems like a billion years!)
BTW, one of the main reasons I became a Christian back in college was due to a very well presented creationist lecture on campus. It dismantled my evolutionary worldview, and made me seriously consider the claims of the Bible, not only in regard to origins, but in regard to my relationship with God.
There seems to be something about evolutionism that generates arrogance in many of its spokesmen. The concept is so wide-ranging that it purportedly can explain everything scientifically, from the origin of the cosmos to the origin of religion. Perhaps because it seems to eliminate the need for God, science itself becomes "god," and some evolutionists think they have become its official prophets and priests. One of their communicants, in fact, calls them its "shamans." He says,
We show deference to our leaders, pay respect to our elders and follow the dictates of our shamans; this being the Age of Science, it is scien-tism's shamans who command our veneration. . . . scientists [are] the premier mythmakers of our time.1
One of these great shamans, arguably the premier living evolutionist, is Professor Ernst Mayr of Harvard. He tells us that evolution can even answer the great "why?" questions of life. Many people of normal intelligence, including most scientists, have acknowledged that science can deal with questions beginning with "What?" and "Where," and "How," but not "Why?" The latter requires a theological answer, or at least philosophical. But not Shaman Mayr. He says:
There is not a single Why? question in biology that can be answered adequately without a consideration of evolution.2
After all, says Shermer, "cosmology and evolutionary theory ask the ultimate origin questions that have traditionally been the province of religion and theology" and evolutionism is "courageously proffering naturalistic answers that supplant supernaturalistic ones and . . . is providing spiritual sustenance. . . ."3
The investment of these leaders of the evolutionary faith with such pontifical authority, however, tends to generate in them an attitude of profound impatience with such heresies as creationism. Instead of opposing the creationists with scientific proofs of macroevolution, they resort to name-calling and ridicule. A professor at a Missouri university fulminates at the "lunatic literalism of the creationists,"4 especially "the weirdness produced by leaders such as Henry M. Morris."5
And even such an articulate and highly revered evolutionist as the late Stephen Jay Gould, in a voluminous book of 1433 pages published just before his death, referred angrily to "the scourge of creationism."6 He had refused many invitations to debate a qualified creationist scientist with the self-serving and misleading explanation that it would be a mistake to dignify creationism and its scientists in this way.
Dr. Massimo Pigliucci, who has lost a number of debates with Dr. Gish and other creationists, laments the fact that, "many Americans are still enchanted with dinosaurs such as John Morris and Duane Gish of the oxymoronically named Institute for Creation Research."7
Although Dr. Gould would never debate a creationist scientist, despite the inducement of large financial incentives to do so, he was quick to criticize them in print, calling them "fundamentalists who call themselves `creation scientists,' with their usual mixture of cynicism and ignorance."8 Gould often resorted, in fact, to the standard debate technique of name-calling and ad hominem arguments commonly used when one has no factual evidence to support his position.
[This ping list is for the evolution -- not creationism -- side of evolution threads, and sometimes for other science topics. To be added (or dropped), let me know via freepmail.]
You mean he published his views for all to see (at least, for those who could read) rather than trying to outyell a circus clown in a forum run by a bunch of screaming, foaming-at-the-mouth fundamentalists and for the amusement of an audiance of illiterate, backwoods hicks? Funny, that makes sense to me too.
15 Answers to Creationist Nonsense. From Scientific American
Arguments we think creationists should NOT use from Answers in Genesis.
300 Creationist Lies.
Site that debunks virtually all of creationism's fallacies. Excellent resource.
Creation "Science" Debunked.
The foregoing is just a tiny sample. So that everyone will have access to the accumulated Creationism vs. Evolution threads which have previously appeared on FreeRepublic, plus links to hundreds of sites with a vast amount of information on this topic, here's Junior's massive work, available for all to review:
The Ultimate Creation vs. Evolution Resource [ver 21].
Wow!
In America
In my flag
In Creationism.
That the little man that turns the light on in my refrigerator when I open the door gets cold and lonely at night, so I must visit him around 3am for a snack.
I can think of a few creationist predictions. Because -- according to creationism -- all species were specially created at virtually the same time, and did not gradually evolve from earlier forms:
1. There should be no transitional species.I call these The Five Failed Predictions of Creationism.2. There are most certainly no pre-human (but still humanoid) species.
3. There should be no evidence, whether in fossils or DNA, showing the chronological evolution of life.
4. There must surely be at least one species, and probably several, having no genetic similarities with any other life on earth. This isn't a direct prediction, but it's inferred by the concept of special creation. There is no reason at all for each to be so similar to the others in their molecular structure. For example, there's no creationist reason why a lion can eat animals from all over the globe.
5. The fossil record must show all kinds of species (such as dinosaurs and humans) living together at the same time.
In fairness to the creationists, although the first three have already been disproved (for example: #1 -- Transitional Vertebrate Fossils FAQ, #2 -- Human Ancestors, more #2 -- Comparison of all skulls, #3 -- Tree of Life Project ), the last two (#4 and #5) can't yet be considered to be totally failed predictions. All we can do is point out that the predicted evidence has not yet been discovered. Given the lack of actual research being conducted by creationists, it is unlikely to be discovered.
Anything that contradicts the theory of evolution will be interesting. And anything that supports creationism will be very interesting. Both categories of evidence are in short supply around here.
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.