Apparently, you believe that science should accomodate you if you want to disagree with it about anything: Archimedes's Law of the Lever, perhaps. It can't be that flexible because there's such a thing as a firm observational fact. If there were no such, there wouldn't be any science as we know it and we'd still be sitting in caves and quarreling over the last scrap of woodchuck.
The nature of Rennie's criticism is that creationism cannot be reconciled with fact. The criticisms of medved are similarly grounded. He describes a game of planetary pinball that absolutely positively cannot have created the solar system we see. Most of his eyewitness "dinosaur" drawings could be anything. (And there's a stunning lack of other evidence--evidence that should be there if he's right--for the conclusion he tries to draw from them.) Then there's his funny compression of recorded history, his microwave element transmuter, his instantaneous light, his psychic parrot . . . You don't make all that stuff defensible by crying, "Opinion! You have your opinion, he has his!"
Equating nonsense and Creationist is simply a propaganda technique designed to marginalize, in the mind of the reader, anyone who disagrees with the author and his thesis.
Not at all, as I've explained. Let's take an example, Rennie's rebuttal of a specific and often-encountered creationist claim.
This is not ridicule. This is not attack. This is pointing out that a statement is flat false.10. Mutations are essential to evolution theory, but mutations can only eliminate traits. They cannot produce new features.
On the contrary, biology has catalogued many traits produced by point mutations (changes at precise positions in an organism's DNA)--bacterial resistance to antibiotics, for example.
Mutations that arise in the homeobox (Hox) family of development-regulating genes in animals can also have complex effects. Hox genes direct where legs, wings, antennae and body segments should grow. In fruit flies, for instance, the mutation called Antennapedia causes legs to sprout where antennae should grow. These abnormal limbs are not functional, but their existence demonstrates that genetic mistakes can produce complex structures, which natural selection can then test for possible uses.
Moreover, molecular biology has discovered mechanisms for genetic change that go beyond point mutations, and these expand the ways in which new traits can appear. Functional modules within genes can be spliced together in novel ways. Whole genes can be accidentally duplicated in an organism's DNA, and the duplicates are free to mutate into genes for new, complex features. Comparisons of the DNA from a wide variety of organisms indicate that this is how the globin family of blood proteins evolved over millions of years.
So, it would seem that there was a poll of sorts involved.
Conservatives supposedly abhor the cultural relativism of liberals, but in creationists such as yourself we see a curious variant. Call it factual relativism. Any facts that prove you wrong are just a matter of opinion.
There is no poll, unless you call the preponderance of hard evidence a poll of reality. If that's the poll, then it counts and you lose.
Rennie's article, which I read in it's entirity, doesn't say anything other than creationists misunderstand physical laws and their relationship to evolution, and cites specific cases of this misunderstanding.
Not a trivial complaint, if that were all there was. But he also says creationist claims are simply false, as in the example I chose.
Creationists will do likewise, and cite in a similar manner. Thermodynamics, is a prime example where both sides accuse the other of misunderstanding the law. Evolutionists tend to say the creationists twist the law. It basically boils down to to a "I'm right and you're wrong" argument.
Mainstream science can point to an existing literature of thermodynamics backing its description of the Second Law. Creationism can point to some ingeniously crafted out-of-context quotes designed to what it hopes is the same effect. Which one reflects a real physical law?
His closing statement is, yet again, a fine example of propaganda: "Time and again, science has shown that methodological naturalism can push back ignorance, finding increasingly detailed and informative answers to mysteries that once seemed impenetrable: the nature of light, the causes of disease, how the brain works. Evolution is doing the same with the riddle of how the living world took shape. Creationism, by any name, adds nothing of intellectual value to the effort." He might as well have written: "Disagree with evolution, and mark yourself as ignorant."
His statement reflects badly on creationism, yes. That doesn't make it propaganda. You don't refute it by pointing out that it makes you look bad. A thing can reflect poorly upon you and still be true. This would seem to be one of those cases.
For what it is worth, I find the Intelligent Design movement somewhat disingenous, but no more so than the Punctuated Equilibrium adherants, each in their respective attempts to overcome obsticles encountered.
You seem to think everything is some kind of a political movement with a set of propaganda points and the right to lie, cheat, and steal to win. You're right about ID, but that's as far as it goes. Punctuated Equilibrium is a theory with supporting evidence.
The above is an example of the silly little games that evolutionists play to "refute" opponents. This one is called putting words in people's mouth which they never said.
The correct position enunciated by the anti-evolutionists is that natural selection can only eliminate traits and that mutations are almost invariably detrimental to an organism.
As to the truth of the anti-evolutionist's statement, it is obviously true. Selection cannot be the source of genetic change. It only destroys species and individuals, it does not create anything. For creating things the evolutionists must therefore rely on mutations. While mutations do occur, no mutation has ever been observed that is little more than a small adaptation of the existing organism. It is in no way close to the transformations required to turn a bacteria into a man. While evolutionists for example, make ado about viri and bacteria being able to become immune to certain medicines, the change required for it is abysmally small. Medicines are made to be quite specific against a certain offensive agent and a slight change of shape of the offending organism will make the medicine useless. So a single point mutation can achieve this immunity to medicines and is nowhere close to the requirements of evolution to create new genes, new faculties, new organs, new traits. It is the creation of these new genes, new faculties, new organs, new traits through mutation which the anti-evolutionists say is impossible and no one has been able to give scientific evidence against it.
Now you're being silly. An experiment can be constructed to test Archimedes's Law of the Lever. The results are predictable and repeatable, reguardless who performs the experiment, or when they perform it. In a word, it's scientific.
In answer 10, which you cited, the main subject is a mutant fruitfly. No one denies that this mutation happens. However, the mutation is not from the single-cell to the multi-cellular representing taxonomic change from one kind to one different from the original. What the mutation does is confuse a preexisting complex organism. The mutation is, in fact, harmful to the fly, as it will not be able to survive without it's antenna. Mutations are destructive to the organism. Most, if not all mutant organisms are not capable of reproduction. Of course, this does depend upon the degree of mutation being addressed.
This statement: "Comparisons of the DNA from a wide variety of organisms indicate that this is how the globin family of blood proteins evolved over millions of years", is a conclusion arrived at because of the assumption of evolution, not because of any demonstrated facts. Because, the author states, it required millions of years, it cannot be disproven. Unlike Archimedes's Law of the Lever, this isn't a scientific conclusion, It requires the assumption of evolution, and some degree of belief.
The "poll" I am refering to is the one included in the article, illustrated by the graphic on page 3. It was a poll or survey conducted by the Gallup Organization in, I believe 1989 (the image a little fuzzy towards the bottom). I cited this as propaganda because the author does not address it, yet the image (along with several others) is included. These are distractions designed to reenforce the evolutionists' position.
"Conservatives supposedly abhor the cultural relativism of liberals, but in creationists such as yourself we see a curious variant. Call it factual relativism. Any facts that prove you wrong are just a matter of opinion."
What I have a problem with is "facts" constructed with a build-in bias, presented as truth. Personally, I don't believe it's possible to cite any really objective facts (truths) in this area (this is not to be construed as a general rule for there are many objective facts that all agree upon). You have your biases, as do I. Apparently, Rennie sees Antennapedia as an evidence of the mysterious process of evolution, otherwise, he would not have included it. I don't deny the existance of Antennapedia. I see it as a destructive mutation; a part of the Curse G-d placed upon all creation as a consequence of original sin. Now, if it could be shown how this mutation changed the fly from an insect into some other kind of creature, such as a crustacean for instance, or somehow made the fly a superfly [grin], then I would have to rethink my position. Of course, some might consider the mutant to be a superfly in the making.
Consider this "answer" from #8: "As an analogy, consider the 13-letter sequence "TOBEORNOTTOBE." Those hypothetical million monkeys, each pecking out one phrase a second, could take as long as 78,800 years to find it among the 2613 sequences of that length. But in the 1980s Richard Hardison of Glendale College wrote a computer program that generated phrases randomly while preserving the positions of individual letters that happened to be correctly placed (in effect, selecting for phrases more like Hamlet's). On average, the program re-created the phrase in just 336 iterations, less than 90 seconds. Even more amazing, it could reconstruct Shakespeare's entire play in just four and a half days.
Hardison would not have achieved those results had he simply removed all the designed software and firmware from his computer and just let it run randomly. No, he had to write a program. Having spent over 10-years in the past as a professional programmer, I know that programs do not come about via naturalistic processes and for the author to cite this particular example is specious at best. Who wrote evolution's program?
I cannot speak for other creationists on any of these issues. My desire is for the scientific community to acknowledge that theories are not truth. Facts can, and do, contain biases, depending upon the framework from which they were derived. Truth comes from how one interprets the facts. In public education, it does not do violence to science to say that "Scientists theorize ...", as opposed to "Science has proven ...".
"You seem to think everything is some kind of a political movement with a set of propaganda points and the right to lie, cheat, and steal to win."
Not quite, actually. I believe that everything can be resolved down to a conspiracy. This is a theological viewpoint. The battle of good ~vs~ evil. G-d ~vs~ Satan. As I believe Satan desires above all else to overthrow G-d and be worshipped in his stead, I do tend to look at all things through that lens. Only time and death will reveal the validity of this position so I won't bore or insult you by becoming overly theologically-specific. Nevertheless, That is one reason I view Punctuated Equilibrium with suspicion.
From your link: "In 1972, Niles Eldredge and Stephen Jay Gould revived this idea, under the name Punctuated Equilibrium. They agreed that transitional fossils are plentiful, and that smooth transitional sequences are sometimes found. However, they argued that these are not as common as theory predicted. Instead, we often see a species go on unchanged for a long time. And then the species is replaced, without any transition, by a new species that looks like a variation of the old one."
Just because Darwin implied it and then Eldredge and Gould elaborated upon it, does not make it true. They amassed a great deal of facts and interpreted them, with the assumption of evolution, to arrive at their conclusion, as testified by this statement: "They agreed that transitional fossils are plentiful, and that smooth transitional sequences are sometimes found". This is an assumption, based upon facts and evidence interpreted with the belief that evolution is true. As a creationist, I look at the same facts and interpret them as representating direct creation. I do not believe that what they consider to be transitional forms are any such thing at all. They are simply members of a different kind; similar, but different. Again, for me, this similarity reveals design, not randomness. A truely transitional fossil should, for example, display mutating limbs, legs on their way to becoming flippers, or three legs and a psudo-flipper. I am aware of no such fossils having ever been unearthed, neither can I imagine how such a poor misshapened creature could survive long enough to mate with another of it's genetically-compatible kind, in the world that evolution postulates these creatures evolved in.
What it all boils down to is how we each interpret the facts. And this is also why the issue will never be resolved to the satsfication of everyone. Unfortunately, the fighting and arguing will continue because most involved, on both sides of the fence, fail to recognise that it is not so much the facts which are in dispute, but the interpretation thereof.
I'm reading your comment reference thermodynamics, and again, I'm led back to how we interpret and apply the Law.
"His statement reflects badly on creationism, yes."
One of the larger problems with creationist thought in general is there is a lack of consensus as how to address the specific details. There is a lot of pride involved too. I am thinking of the creationists who offer thousands of dollars to anyone who can prove them wrong (they reminds me of that anti-tax guy; I'm sure you know who I'm talking about. His name excapes me at the moment). These people also reflect badly on the whole position, and with such shennagians going on, is it any wonder the evolutionist community would say: "Creationism, by any name, adds nothing of intellectual value to the effort."
Creationism is also saddled with dealing with several incompatable, dogmatic views, which evolutionists appariently do not suffer from the way we do. It is an immature area that needs to come together, dogma aside, before, I believe, anyone outside of the religious community will take it very seriously.
The main reason I post in these subjects is to encourage everyone to respect the views of others, just as they desire respect be shown theirs. Additionally, I enjoy an intelligent dialouge and once in awhile it happens.
Anyhow, we've been at this, on and off, for most of the day, and I've got some other things to attend to (as you might also), so we can break this off now or continue later. I'll leave that up to you. So, if I don't respond right away to any subsequent posts, I'm just busy. Thanks. It's been enjoyable.