The "Threat" of Creationism, by Isaac Asimov

Internet ^ | 1984 | Isaac Asimov

[f.Christian]

"The buzz is, a new substratum of Democrat has evolved."

"It is liberal, deviant, and incredibly boring."

"It is called a Cuomo (( fr thread // link )) -sexual."

[Nataku X]

Actually, I don't think he's bogus. It's possible to do research in science without any scientific education at all--I should publishing my first paper in a peer-reviewed biology journal in a couple of months, and my only biology background is that it was my undergraduate minor.

So, theoretically, you could know nothing except what you have read from AiG, and still be able to make lots of good contributions to science.

[Aracelis]

Darwin talks about Finch beaks. In his book he says that after a harsh storm the finches with the big beaks were more prevalent than before, and thus, natural selection. But that was 150 years ago! how could he have possibly inventiried every bird onthat island?

Perhaps you may wish to update your scientific repertoire just a tad, for Peter and Rosemary Grant of Princeton University have been studying medium ground finches (Geospiza fortis) on Daphne Major in the Galapagos Islands for over 20 years and have well-documented evidence of beak-depth evolution due to environmental pressures. I suggest you perform a Google Search for further details of their work and results.

[Aracelis]

I've been a vaccine immunologist for 5 years. I've studied genetics. Here are a few take home messages for you from the Genetics books... 1)mutations rarely, if ever confer an ADVANTAGE on the host. Most often they confer a disadvantage. I can't think of a single example of an induced favorable mutation. Can you?

Really? You're an honest-to-god vaccine immunologist? And you can't think of a single favorable mutation??? Well, this lowly carbonate geochemist can think of one. Ever heard of Ebola Reston? I can assure you that the airborne qualities this little beauty acquired created quite a stir on the east coast.

[PatrickHenry]

I keep trying to get the inferrers of design to put their inferences to the test, but so far I don't have much luck in getting anyone to play. I'm not sure why, since the claim that we can (reliably, of course) infer design by examining things may be the only testable hypothesis yet produced by ID theory.

The ID crowd, as you know, have absolutely no way to determine design. My choice of the human digestive system was not a random choice. The big claim of ID (or of creationism) is that man is intelligently designed (or specially created). But one glance at our intestines should be sufficient to send the advocates of such claims hiding in shame. But no, they go on with their scam. Their entire "science" consists of picking some examples of evolution that they hope will be difficult to explain, at least for a year or two, or just long enough to keep selling some more books, tapes, and comic books.

For the creationiods, their "research program" consises of snatching a few more bogus quotes out of context, asking a few more razzle-dazzle questions, demanding ever-more rigorous levels of proof from their opponents (while they themselves offer nothing but hot air). Another year, another five years, that's plenty of time for a carnival pitchman like Hovind or the others to keep traveling from town to town, selling snake oil to the ignorant, then dashing off before the tough questions appear, and start the whole shabby routine at the next town. Sickening, but at least they're in it for the easy money. What's the excuse for their followers?

[general_re]

The ID crowd, as you know, have absolutely no way to determine design.

They claim otherwise, of course - even in the absence of historical knowledge about artifacts or structures. So it seems to me that the best way to sort out who's right and who's wrong is to see what happens when the rubber meets the road. Nobody's exactly pounding down my door to take me up on my offer, though. Maybe I should put up a cash prize or something, in the same spirit as Alamo-Girl's wager over the whole sordid Dini affair....

[gore3000]

Perhaps you may wish to update your scientific repertoire just a tad, for Peter and Rosemary Grant of Princeton University have been studying medium ground finches (Geospiza fortis) on Daphne Major in the Galapagos Islands for over 20 years and have well-documented evidence of beak-depth evolution due to environmental pressures. I suggest you perform a Google Search for further details of their work and results.

Acutally you are totally mischaracterizing the findings of the Grants - as have evolutionists for the last 20 years or so. First of all, the finches are not different species, they can intermarry and produce offspring which are even more viable than those of the same variety. Secondly, yes the beaks of the finches can grow and also get smaller. However, this happens according to the rainfall and goes back and forth according to it. It is not evolution, it is adaptation and the fact that the beaks change within a short time to small, large, then small again shows it is not due to any mutation which is what is required by evolution.

[D. Brian Carter]

This thread is still going? This is hilarious. Reminds me of the Atheists/Agnostics/Monotheists arguing at http://www.normalbobsmith.com , but not as funny... This conversation is a dead end, folks. Ah, but I guess it's been going on since the beginning of time, whenever THAT was.

[js1138]

But folks like you keep posting to it.

[f.Christian]

1111

The 2nd law of thermodynamics ... evolution // liberalism === decadence (( entropy // anarchy // chaos)) !

[Physicist]

For analagous example, even though I might lack exhaustive knowledge of the ultimate purpose of the designer and sculptor of Mount Rushmore, that subjective inscrutablity does not preclude the immediate defeasible inference that the work was the product of intelligence, as opposed to wind erosion.

There's no way someone would mistake something designed for something fortuitous.

   

[VadeRetro]

So, theoretically, you could know nothing except what you have read from AiG, and still be able to make lots of good contributions to science.

Failure of my imagination, there. He could be washing test tubes. He might be letting them inject him with virus cultures, perhaps in exchange for commuting a death sentence.

[PatrickHenry]

I was off by three logs

Desperately trying to use scientific (or mathematical) sounding terms. Utterly failing. Very amusing.

[f.Christian]

Creation/God...REFORMATION(Judeo-Christianity)---secular-govt.-humanism/SCIENCE---CIVILIZATION!

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(limited NON-intrusive PC Govt/religion---schools)!

Evolution...Atheism-dehumanism---TYRANNY(pc/liberal/govt-religion/rhetoric)...

Then came the SPLIT SCHIZOPHRENIA/ZOMBIE/BRAVE-NWO1984 LIBERAL NEO-Soviet Darwin/ACLU America---the post-modern LIBERAL age of switch-flip-spin-DEFORMITY-cancer...Atheist secular materialists !

[Diamond]

Do you really want to compare the specified complexity of Mount Rushmore with those two photos?

Cordially,