Scientific American threatens AiG : Demands immediate removal of Web rebuttal

Correction...

You're so smart!

Creation/God...Christianity---secular-govt.-humanism/SCIENCE!

Originally the word liberal meant social conservatives(no govt religion--none) who advocated growth and progress---mostly technological(knowledge being absolute/unchanging)based on law--reality... UNDER GOD---the nature of GOD/man/govt. does not change. These were the Classical liberals...founding fathers-PRINCIPLES---stable/SANE scientific reality/society---industrial progress...moral/social character-values(private/personal) GROWTH!

That is so true! I am in a perpetual gallery surrounded by the works of that great and famous artist, creator - Exhibitionist! - GOD!! My new hobby is astronomy and I can't get enough of it. I am constantly amazed and searching for more works of wonder.

Inhibits curiosity, searching, learning about the world - the universe - around us? Bunk!!

Phaedrus, it doesn't matter man. If you dare question their orthodoxy you will be summarily labeled "Creationist" and derrided as a kook. This is the kind of intellectual substance often found on these threads.

LOL! So Einstein's theory is questionable, but by god Darwin's theory isn't! It's a fact man!!

Would this be the same "scientific method" that showed how that the earth was flat? Or maybe it was the improved "scientific method" that showed how the sun rotated around the earth? Or maybe it's the "scientific method" that discovered malaria was caused by "bad air."

Nope.

The uncertainty of Darwinian theory is apparent even in the actions of those who claim to be strong adherants to the orthodoxy. By the very fact that they come here to debate, they acknowledge that there is something to debate. They acknowledge that there exists uncertainty, which even they recognize (even if they'd never publicly admit as much). I mean seriously, would these people waste time arguing on a thread where the poster was asserting the sun didn't exist? Of course not. Actions speak louder than words, as always.

I noticed you haven't replied to my question yet. How can current evolutionary theory be subjected to the Scientific Method?? I'm anxious to learn!

Why publish on our Web site?
Foundational Creation Resources!
Creation Intro Pack (Seminar special)

These three books show why the creation/evolution issue is so important for Christians, provide a general critique of the most up-to-date arguments for evolution, and answer the 20 most common questions about Genesis. The discounted pack includes: The Lie, The Answers Book, and Refuting Evolution.

MORE INFO / PURCHASE ONLINE

Visit our Questions and Answers Pages
What follows is a point-by-point response to Rennie’s ‘arguments’. We are posting this on the Web site, since we know it would be a waste of time trying to submit a letter to the editor. Not only has Scientific American shown that it is willing to practise religious discrimination in its hiring policies with Forrest Mims, but they also refused to allow Phillip Johnson to defend himself against a vindictive and petty review by the late atheistic Marxist, Stephen Jay Gould in the July 1992 issue. So Johnson published Response to Gould on the Web site of Access Research Network, which promotes Intelligent Design. It’s far more likely that they’d have the attitude of the editor of Australasian Science, one Guy Nolch (who like Rennie has limited scientific qualifications), who refused to print a response by AiG to a defamatory and scientifically incompetent attack on creationists by a proven promoter of fallacies and fabrications—see More nonsense from Professor Plimer. Rennie’s article is indented and in green text, while my response is non-indented and in black text. We follow Rennie’s section headings.

Return to contents
Rennie’s introductory comments
When Charles Darwin introduced the theory of evolution through natural selection 143 years ago, the scientists of the day argued over it fiercely, …

This is true. Darwin’s main opposition came from the scientists (see Holy War? Who really opposed Darwin?) and much of his support came from compromising clergymen such as Rev. Charles Kingsley, who applied it to humans to assert that the African-Americans and Australian Aborigines had not evolved enough to understand the Gospel (see Darwin’s quisling).

… but the massing evidence from paleontology, genetics, zoology, molecular biology and other fields gradually established evolution’s truth beyond reasonable doubt.

This is a debate tactic known as ‘elephant hurling’. This is where the critic throws summary arguments about complex issues to give the impression of weighty evidence, but with an unstated presumption that a large complex of underlying ideas is true, and failing to consider opposing data, usually because they have uncritically accepted the arguments from their own side. But we should challenge elephant-hurlers to offer specifics and challenge the underlying assumptions.

Today that battle has been won everywhere—except in the public imagination.

To be honest, I think Rennie underestimates the hold of evolution on the ‘public imagination’. While many Americans say they believe in creation and reject evolution, sadly many seem to be evolutionized in their thinking. This is shown by the widespread idea that their personal faith should not influence their public life. It’s unfortunate to hear professing Christians who say that they won’t let their faith influence their public policy, e.g. ‘I’m personally opposed to abortion, but I won’t enforce my faith on the pregnant woman who must be given the right to choose’, although the unborn baby has no ‘choice’. However, atheists are very happy to let their own faith influence their public policy and enforce their views on people—we rarely hear: ‘I’m personally in favor of abortion, but I won’t enforce my view on the innocent unborn baby’. For a refutation of the related fallacy that ‘you cannot/should not legislate morality’, see Dispelling false notions of the First Amendment: The Falsity, Futility, Folly Of Separating Morality From Law. See also The Separation of Church and Faith and Stephen Jay Gould and NOMA.

That is why AiG’s primary focus is not on refuting evolution per se, but rather building a consistent Biblical Christian world view. Refuting evolution (and millions of years) is a corollary. See It’s intelligent, but is that good enough?

Embarrassingly, in the 21st century, in the most scientifically advanced nation the world has ever known, creationists can still persuade politicians, judges and ordinary citizens that evolution is a flawed, poorly supported fantasy. They lobby for creationist ideas such as ‘intelligent design’ to be taught as alternatives to evolution in science classrooms.

Perhaps the USA is ‘the most scientifically advanced nation the world has ever known’ precisely because it has been the most Bible-based society the world has ever known! And that includes belief in the Biblical account of Creation, the Fall and the Flood. See The Creationist Basis for Modern Science.

Note, AiG is not a lobby group, and we oppose legislation for compulsion of creation teaching. For one thing, why would we want an atheist to be forced to teach creation and, thus, give a distorted view? But we would like legal protection for teachers who present scientific arguments against the sacred cow of evolution—see Chemistry teacher resigns amid persecution.

As this article goes to press, the Ohio Board of Education is debating whether to mandate such a change. Some antievolutionists, such as Philip E. Johnson, a law professor at the University of California at Berkeley and author of Darwin on Trial, admit that they intend for intelligent-design theory to serve as a ‘wedge’ for reopening science classrooms to discussions of God.

By this ‘reasoning’, he would have to blast Rufus Porter for founding Scientific American for a similar purpose!

Besieged teachers and others may increasingly find themselves on the spot to defend evolution and refute creationism. The arguments that creationists use are typically specious and based on misunderstandings of (or outright lies about) evolution, but the number and diversity of the objections can put even well-informed people at a disadvantage.

Perhaps the ‘well-informed’ find the creationist arguments convincing because they recognize the validity of them? And real scientists, whom Rennie would call ‘well-informed’, actually have no use for evolution in their work! See How important is evolution to science, really?

To help with answering them, the following list rebuts some of the most common ‘scientific’ arguments raised against evolution. It also directs readers to further sources for information and explains why creation science has no place in the classroom.

Cool! We’d love Bible-believing Christians to be confronted with the weak arguments from Rennie’s article—demonstrating the fallacies will boost their confidence in witnessing! And it could help some non-Christians to see the fallacy of materialist thinking—especially as these arguments from the editor of a major science magazine are presumably the best they’ve got.

Return to contents

"If this is the new definition, then my religion does not qualify as faith based..."

Actually, it's been around for some time. See John 20:29 and Hebrews 11:1, for example. You didn't sleep through Sunday school, did you? ;o)

Look at them go too, wow, I have never seen such self congratulations and ridiculousness in all my days.

I can't believe that one of them actually claimed that evolution was a religion, still can't stop laughin on that one.

The creationists are just too funny...

You are confusing copyrights with trademarks. One doesn't have to work to keep copyright enfringment ripe. And if there was ever a better example of fair use -- using the copyrighted text only to demonstrate the argument, so one can rebut it -- I've never heard of it.

Copyrights & trademarks get conflated all the time. Not that I'm saying this is right. I think SciAm is wrong in their attitude. And they frequently use confusion over copyright vs. trademark as a club. I agree with you on the fair use issue.

"And if there was ever a better example of fair use -- using the copyrighted text only to demonstrate the argument, so one can rebut it -- I've never heard of it."

Dang, 1L. Sarfatti reprinted the entire article verbatim!

" I tire of this thread. It is a never ending battle here."

It is always interesting to read these exchanges because the plain truth is neither side has the "goods" to make their case. Both arguments rest on a foundation of "faith," one on a divine creator, the other on the perverse idea that nature could self-assemble unimaginably complex systems with no external intervention.

Given the way that science has had to retract previous theories in so many situations, I find it odd that "evolutionists" maintain such passion for a theory that seems to have many weak reeds. Einstein was SURE that God wouldn't play dice with the universe, but the accepted theory of quantum mechanics says that He does. It might have been considered supernatural at one time to suggest that there was "invisible matter" or "energy in a vacuum" but now modern day physicists have concluded there is. Those who reject ID or creationism out-of-hand represent the arrogant side of science. Of course, the arrogant side of creationism is rejecting the evolutionary mechanisms out-of-hand as though an Intelligent Designer would not have thought to devise such an efficient mechanism to create the species (a designer of limited intelligence?).

The good thing is that the questions are being asked, theories are being challenged and the search for understanding our world continues.

Actually, it's been around for some time. See John 20:29 and Hebrews 11:1, for example.

I know your leading to a point here, I just can't figure out yet what on earth it is.

Analyze predictions made by evolution theory (some of them relate to fossils, others relate to mutation in DNA, others relate to successive generations in populations), test said predictions and compare results to predicted values.

-- Evolutionists extrapolate from scientific findings. This is quite different than faith --

Evolutionists extrapolate from scientific findings that support their theory while ignoring and suppressing all contrary evidence. Evolutionists start with the assumption that evolution is true and then proceed to present only the evidence that supports their theory to prove their theory. That horse before the cart mentality is called circular reasoning. Many evolutionists believe in the theory more than they do in the science. That is called blind faith.

Good points on your #86.

. Evolution is only a theory. It is not a fact or a scientific law.
AiG has also advised against using this, in this section of Arguments we think creationists should NOT use, because a ‘theory’ in science means something with a reasonable amount of support, and gives evolution more credence than it deserves.

All sciences frequently rely on indirect evidence. Physicists cannot see subatomic particles directly, for instance, so they verify their existence by watching for telltale tracks that the particles leave in cloud chambers. The absence of direct observation does not make physicists’ conclusions less certain.

This misses the point—these cloud chamber experiments are still observations in the present and are repeatable. A dinosaur turning into a bird 150 Ma (million years ago) is neither observable in real time, directly or indirectly, nor repeatable.

Return to contents
2. Natural selection is based on circular reasoning: the fittest are those who survive, and those who survive are deemed fittest.
Here is another argument we have previously advised creationists not to use, in this section of Arguments we think creationists should NOT use. Why should we argue this, since tautology is quite common in science, and natural selection is an important part of the Creation/Fall framework?—See Q&A: Natural selection.

Return to contents

3. Evolution is unscientific, because it is not testable or falsifiable. It makes claims about events that were not observed and can never be re-created.
This blanket dismissal of evolution ignores important distinctions that divide the field into at least two broad areas: microevolution and macroevolution.

Look who’s talking about ‘ignoring important distinctions’! It’s evolutionary propagandists who generally conflate them (see this discussed in What is evolution?). Many define evolution as ‘change in gene frequency with time’ or ‘descent with modification’, or other such ‘microevolution’ words, and then go on to useDarwin’s finches and industrial melanism in the peppered moths (faked photos and all) as clinching proof of ‘evolution’ in the ‘macro’ sense and disproof of creationism! An example is the atheist Eugenie Scott, Executive Director of the pretentiously named National Center for Science Education, the leading US organisation devoted entirely to pushing evolutionary indoctrination. She approvingly cited a teacher whose pupils said after her ‘definition’, ‘Of course species change with time! You mean that’s evolution?!’7

Having said that, AiG has advised people not to use the micro-/macro-evolution distinction in this section of Arguments we think creationists should NOT use, because the main issue is not the size of the change but the direction. All observed change involves sorting and loss of genetic information, while goo-to-you evolution requires an increase in information.

The links are missing!
Evolution: The Fossils Still Say No!
Dr. Duane T. Gish

An updated and much-enlarged edition of Dr. Gish’s classic book Evolution: The Fossils Say No! The most compelling critique available anywhere of the supposedly key argument for evolution: the fossil record. Dr. Gish documents, from the writings of evolutionists, the complete absence of true evolutionary transitional forms.

MORE INFO / PURCHASE ONLINE

Visit our Q&A page on fossils!
Microevolution looks at changes within species over time—changes that may be preludes to speciation, the origin of new species. Macroevolution studies how taxonomic groups above the level of species change. Its evidence draws frequently from the fossil record and DNA comparisons to reconstruct how various organisms may be related.

But ‘evidence’ doesn’t speak for itself; it must be interpreted. As Rennie proclaims at the end, this evidence is interpreted within a materialistic framework. Then materialists turn around and proclaim evolution as a major evidence for materialism, which was responsible for it in the first place! Creationists interpret the same evidence but by a Biblical framework—see Creation: ‘Where’s the Proof?’. How creationists treat the fossil record is explained in the articles in the book and Q&A page (right).

DNA comparisons are just a subset of the homology argument, which again also makes sense in a Biblical framework. A common designer is another interpretation that makes sense of the same data. An architect commonly uses the same building material for different buildings, and a car maker commonly uses the same parts in different cars. So we shouldn’t be surprised if a Designer for life used the same biochemistry and structures in many different creatures. Conversely, if all living organisms were totally different, this might look like there were many designers instead of one. See Common structures = common ancestry?

Since DNA codes for structures and biochemical molecules, we should expect the most similar creatures to have the most similar DNA. Apes and humans are both mammals, with similar shapes, so have similar DNA. We should expect humans to have more DNA similarities with another mammal like a pig than with a reptile like a rattlesnake. And this is so. Humans are very different from yeast but they have some biochemistry in common, so we should expect human DNA to differ more from yeast DNA than from ape DNA.

So the general pattern of similarities need not be explained by common-ancestry (evolution). Furthermore, there are some puzzling anomalies for an evolutionary explanation—similarities between organisms that evolutionists don’t believe are closely related. For example, hemoglobin, the complex molecule that carries oxygen in blood and results in its red color, is found in vertebrates. But it is also found in some earthworms, starfish, crustaceans, molluscs and even in some bacteria. The a-hemoglobin of crocodiles has more in common with that of chickens (17.5 %) than that of vipers (5.6 %), their fellow reptiles.8 An antigen receptor protein has the same unusual single chain structure in camels and nurse sharks, but this cannot be explained by a common ancestor of sharks and camels.9 And there are many other examples of similarities that cannot be due to evolution.

These days even most creationists acknowledge that microevolution has been upheld by tests in the laboratory (as in studies of cells, plants and fruit flies) and in the field (as in Grant’s studies of evolving beak shapes among Galápagos finches).

And why should creationists deny such things? All are part of a created and fallen world, but have never been observed to add new genetic information. And we have shown that the sorts of changes which are observed are the wrong type to drive the evolutionary story. See The Evolution Train’s A-coming.

Return to contents

On a related note --

Find called oldest human ancestor: Age of skull from Africa is put at 6-7 million years

bump