Evolution of creationism: Pseudoscience doesn't stand up to natural selection

Daytona Beach News-Journal ^ | 29 November 2004 | Editorial (unsigned)

[shubi]

Pretty good. The idea I was trying to point out to Andy was the passage he quoted shot down the creationist idea of special creation and falsified their take on the Bible.

In other words, his argument made the Bible look bad, made God look bad and makes Christians look like fools. That is the whole problem with Bible literalism. It is why it is important to understand the reasoning behind these quotes:

"If sound science appears to contradict the Bible, we may be sure that it is our interpretation of the Bible that is at fault." Christian Observer, 1832, pg. 437

"Christians should look on evolution simply as the method by which God works." Rev. James McCosh, theologian and President of Princeton, 1890

[puroresu]

Shubi, what is your opinion on the use of the Darwin fish symbol by so many militant atheists and, in some cases, ferocious haters of God? Just drive down any busy street and you'll eventually spot a car with a Darwin fish bumper sticker, usually accompanied by assorted leftist and anti-Christian bumper stickers. It seems that for many on the kooky left, Darwinian evolution is a religion in and of itself. It's a substitute for the Christianity they so despise.

[shubi]

I am a Christian and do not consider the Darwin fish to be a big affront to my christianity, since I know that God used evolution to continue his creation.

I do think the Darwin fish and all its itterations are funny. They mock Bible literalists. That is the whole point of making sure that Bible interpretation meets reality of science.

Who would want to join a group that is ignorant?

[puroresu]

####I do think the Darwin fish and all its itterations are funny.####

Perhaps! But surely you would have to admit that the logo showing a Christian fish devouring the Darwin fish ("survival of the fittest") is also pretty witty!


####They mock Bible literalists. That is the whole point of making sure that Bible interpretation meets reality of science.####


Something tells me you aren't quite getting the point those people sporting Darwin logos are trying to make. They're essentially shouting to the world that God doesn't exist. I think the American Atheists group (Madeline Murray O'Haire's group) even sells those Darwin fish stickers, buttons, T-shirts, etc.


####Who would want to join a group that is ignorant?####


Not me, I'm a conservative Christian Republican! :-)

[shubi]

Do you think it is right for a Christian to mock an atheist with a Darwin fish swallowing a smaller fish?

[puroresu]

Just check out the site below. Click on the shopping link:


http://www.atheists.org/

[puroresu]

#####Do you think it is right for a Christian to mock an atheist with a Darwin fish swallowing a smaller fish?#####


I think it's well within the bounds of political satire! I have no problem with someone putting such a sticker on their car, wearing a T-shirt with such a logo, etc. Actually, as a 1st Amendment supporter I have no problem with atheists donning the Darwin fish logo, just as I support the right of Kerry supporters to express their preferences, even though I may disagree with them.

[shubi]

I tend to agree with you.

But evolution is a fact and it does not contradict the Bible. Thus, the so-called Christians that are in the creationist cult are wrong to mock atheists and the atheists who think Darwin contradicts the bible are wrong.

Truth will out.

[nasamn777]

But you are making a faith statement that is not backed up by science. Again, I challenge you to look at the probability. The NeoDarwinian cult is the propagator of pseudoscience.

[shubi]

Again, I say to you that you are WRONG!! OK, go study some biology and get back to me in a few years, if I haven't died of frustation from trying to teach creationists about science.

[nasamn777]

Shubi,
I'm not trying to be a smart Alec or wise guy. Certainly, I would go with Neo-Darwinian evolution if the evidence took me that way. But the evidence just doesn't stack up. The complexity of life is great, which means that the probability is small. I have looked at a number of papers addressing this issue by proponents of Neo-Darwinian evolution and their arguments are weak and not convincing. Just take a look at the book -- Climbing Mount Improbable -- by Dawkins. He presents a bunch of "just so" stories which do not scientifically address the problems. I question Neo-Darwinism because I am scientific. Certainly, it does sound egotistical to question mainstream biology but I am not one to accept something just because of the bandwagon. If the king has no clothes so I will state it.
Regards

[shubi]

"The complexity of life is great, which means that the probability is small."

This is simply the fallacy of personal incredulity. If you are truly a scientist, you will study the science until you understand. Speciation has been observed. The processes for how a single cell can turn into "complex" organisms is understood in some detail.(I say "complex" because a single celled organism is pretty darn complex.)

How can I put this so you won't be offended?
You are wrong. ;-)