Posted on 07/11/2002 9:44:50 AM PDT by ZGuy
The prominent magazine Scientific American thought it had finally discredited its nemesis—creationism—with a feature article listing ‘15 Answers to Creationist Nonsense’ (July 2002). Supposedly these were the fifteen best arguments that evolutionists could use to discredit the Bible’s account of Creation. (National Geographic TV also devoted a lengthy report to the article.)
Within 72 hours, Dr Jonathan Sarfati—a resident scientist at Answers in Genesis–Australia—had written a comprehensive, point-by-point critique of the magazine article and posted it on this Web site.
So Scientific American thought it would try to silence AiG with the threat of a lawsuit.
In an e-mail to Dr Sarfati, Scientific American accused him and AiG of infringing their copyright by reproducing the text of their article and an illustration. They said they were prepared to ‘settle the matter amicably’ provided that AiG immediately remove Dr Sarfati’s article from its Web site.
AiG’s international copyright attorney, however, informed Scientific American that their accusations are groundless and that AiG would not be removing the article. Dr Sarfati’s article had used an illustration of a bacterial flagellum, but it was drawn by an AiG artist years ago. AiG had also used the text of SA’s article, but in a way that is permissible under ‘fair use’ of copyrighted materials for public commentary. (AiG presented the text of the SA article, with Dr Sarfati’s comments interspersed in a different color, to avoid any accusations of misquoting or misrepresenting the author.)
Why the heavy-handed tactics? If AiG’s responses were not valid, why would Scientific American even care whether they remained in the public arena? One can only presume that Scientific American (and National Geographic) had the ‘wind taken out of their sails.’ Dr Sarfati convincingly showed that they offered nothing new to the debate and they displayed a glaring ignorance of creationist arguments. Their legal maneuver appears to be an act of desperation. (AiG is still awaiting SA’s response to the decision not to pull the Web rebuttal.)
The same tactic the Los Angeles Times and Washington Post used to try to shut down FR.
These materialist weasels will silence their critics before they ever engage in honest debate with them.
If science gives only natural explanations for items it cannot explain, what than is it claiming?
Then you're a Darwinist.
You're one of us, just arguing about what the limits are, and how the exact mechanism works.
Really?
Click through the links here for a laugh…
Do I agree that changes in species occur every day? Micro changes yes, macro changes, no. Unless you want to count birth defects of course. In real life, mutations, which are supposed to be the driving force of evolutionism, are called "birth defects". That's the generic term for them.
Ever notice the women going door to door for the Mothers March of Dimes? Ever notice that they are always looking for money for research to PREVENT mutations, and not cause them? Ever wonder why that might be?
In real life, in the real world outside the ivory tower in which evolutionism rules thought, mutations all have names, like Tay-Sachs disease, Down's syndrome, "cri-du-chat" syndrome, phoco-loci etc. etc.
Am I mistaken, or is it incorrect to say that science seeks 'natural explanations'?
I think science is all based on the concept of 'cause and effect'. Science is looking for causes of effects. It could even be a 'supernatural' cause, assuming you had evidence of such. That would still be 'science'.
For example, if 'God' were to show up in the sky over New York, and explain that the bible is specifically true, then that would be 'scientific' evidence of God's 'supernatural' existence.
I'm beginning to think the entire thing with these folks is certain words scare them, so they'll argue with those words no matter what, even if they believe the words are in fact true.
'Evolution'. 'Natural Explanation'.
If you want to label me, Christian is a label I would be glad to have.
I don't mean this to sound hostile, but Such As? Could you please tell me what you consider (for you) to be the 3 most convincing proofs? And have you ever read critical reviews of them? And by critical I don't mean creationist, I mean any scientific analysis (creationist or evolutionist) that double-checked the claims of the scientist who made the discovery. You do know that there is a long list of "famous" discoveries that were either disproven, an exaggeration, or had some other problems.
And yet, a million micro-changes would certainly equal a 'macro' change.
If I understand you correctly, you simply disagree that there has been enough time on Earth for that many micro-changes to happen. I don't necessarily agree with your interpretations of the evidence, but I am intrigued by your concepts and eagerly read your posts.
I'm just interested in the notion that you actually do, at the heart of it, agree with Darwin. All of ya'll, it appears, agree with and believe that species evolve.
You simply have differing opinions on the limits, actual mechanisms, and the environment it has happened in.
I find that fascinting.
I could go with the theory that god made the universe, and made the building blocks of science, knowing it would 'evolve' into us. Or that god guides evolution, perhaps thru controlling environments -- kinda like we do with plants.
It's plausible. I'm not sold on it, but it's certainly possible.
But the bottom line is, you're a Darwinist Christian.
You're not arguing *against* evolution.
So you’re a 'theist evolutionist'… We can label each other without real meaning if you like.
I do not believe that mankind evolved from plants or animals.
I suppose by "natural", you mean observable. Science, on a very regular basis, postulates theories that incorporate and rely on unobservable and often untestable phenomena.
General Relativity, for example, postulates that time (along with matter and energy) was created at the occurence of the Big Bang and did not exist prior to the Big Bang. Which could address the vexing question of, if there is a God, who created Him... in a pre-Big Bang timeless existence, God could very well be an uncaused eternal entity, always existing prior to and outside of our space-time dimensions. Interestingly, the Bible is unique among holy books suggesting that time had a beginning (2 Timothy 1:9, Titus 1:2).
And various theories seeking to reconcile General Relativity and quantum mechanics suggest that there may be up to eleven space time dimensions, of which we can only perceive, and test in, four.
Given this, to suggest that science studies only the "natural" may not be entirely correct, as quantum mechanics and unobservable dimensions border on the realm of metaphysics. Or, perhaps, if there is a God, would he be as "natural" as some of these theoretical fields of study?
I figured that out pretty quickly. Good post, in my view, but open minds are hard to find. "strange" ideas have a way of becoming mainstream with time.
I'd say there's a very specific meaning -- to clearly define what we're really talking about. Ya'll say amazing things about 'Darwinism', all the while you actually believe species evolve.
That's very important, in this context.
Oh, and I was describing your theory, which I found plausible. You'd be the 'theist evolutionist'.
I, personally, don't believe that. I don't see any evidence that there is any guiding force to the universe what-so-ever. I look around, and see chaos reigns supreme, so conclude no one is in charge.
But I'm also keenly aware I could be wrong.
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.