15 Answers to Creationist Nonsense

Scientific American ^ | June, 2002 | John Rennie

[JimSEA]

When Charles Darwin introduced the theory of evolution through natural selection 143 years ago, the scientists of the day argued over it fiercely, but the massing evidence from paleontology, genetics, zoology, molecular biology and other fields gradually established evolution's truth beyond reasonable doubt. Today that battle has been won everywhere--except in the public imagination.

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. 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.

[Zionist Conspirator]

Hoo boy.

Scientific laws do not apply where nothing exists. Scientific laws cannot create something from nothing. However the universe functions at present, this cannot be retrojected into a situation in which absolutely nothing existed.

Let's see . . . science tells us that we live in an incomprehensively vast universe in which earth is a mere mote of dust of no significance whatsoever. And you believe this and are crusading against "big government?" The vast meaningless universe has no interest in how big the government is on this insignificant speck of dust. Why do you?

[NCLaw441]

You posted: To reject God’s word is to enter the road to perdition.
***

One has to have faith to believe in God and His Word (which I do) in order for this to be an effective argument. Many, many people do not yet believe, and must be convinced. This happens by God’s grace (Ephesians 2:8). Don’t be too hard on those who have not (yet) received God’s grace.

[DoodleDawg]

It cannot be tested, and it is not falsifiable.

Wouldn't the same be true of Creationism/Intelligent Design?

[ShadowAce]

Yup—but I never claimed that Creationism/Intelligent Design was science.

[Robert DeLong]

You are correct that I am mixing, however, you have the wrong ingredients. It is not science with philosophy, but rather science with faith.

You are so sure that evolution is a scientific fact, but it has never been proven. What has been proven is that mutations occur to deal with environmental changes or from cross-breeding. There is absolutely no species you can point to and say definitively that species evolved from xyz species. It may share a high percentage with xyz species but differences remain. So was it mutation or cross-breeding that created the new species? Impossible to prove that it was evolution.

Thus you are the guilty party of conflating science with philosophy.

That being said I disagree with the whole notion that creationism should not be taught in our schools because "science" has deemed it to be untrue since "science" is incapable of proving or disproving creationism.

I stand by my assessment that you have closed your mind to learning because “science” has told you to do so.

[kinsman redeemer]

Why couldn’t God’s hand guide evolution?

Because then He would be a liar.
He's not.

Somebody else's god is a liar but not mine.

[freedumb2003]

Sarcasm is totally lost in the interwebz...

[publius911]

“Scientific American” is neither scientific nor American.

But it used to be.
I remember the period well, when it was scientific and apolitical.
Not always right, sometimes wrong, but always faithful to the scientific method.

That was a long way to fall! And it happened so quickly!

[bondserv]

But I do urge you to study Chaos Theory — fascinating stuff.

I have dabbled, but will take a more serious look. Mathematics can be a dry investment. Although, if you've read Modesitt's Recluse Saga, Chaos can be intriguing. :-)

[bondserv]

Francis Crick:
“An honest man, armed with all the knowledge available to us now, could only state that, in some sense, the origin of life appears at the moment to be almost a miracle...”

I recognize that evolutionist claim the origin of life is not part of the theory. But from an information theory perspective, if the information of evolution was derived from somewhere we cannot determine, what difference does it make that the code of life is so sophisticated that it can develop into the life we actually can examine today. Junk DNA is not necessarily junk.

There is more to learn and it continues to stray from the academic version of evolution.

[bondserv]

In Academia, common sense is not so common.

Unfortunately modern left wing seminaries, aka Universities and Colleges have even highjacked the science departments. The scientific method has never been more agenda driven than any time in history.

[Nifster]

True words and well said

[freedumb2003]

>>Unfortunately modern left wing seminaries, aka Universities and Colleges have even highjacked the science departments. The scientific method has never been more agenda driven than any time in history.<<

How dare they teach science in science classes!

Yep, that “science” crap must be suppressed at every turn!

[freedumb2003]

>>It cannot be tested, and it is not falsifiable<<

If a modern horse was to be found in the Jurassic level then TToE would have to be completely be reset.’

Of course we would have to deal with the billions of physical data in our possession, but we won’t have to deal with that shall we?

[daniel1212]

However, as a tool to evade the essentially deterministic arguments of intelligent design, stochastic process may not be the holy grail you seek. Dembski has written a book called Intelligent Design: The Bridge Between Science and Theology, in which he dismantles the case that stochastic process works as a wildcard to escape the effect of deterministic process in biological system. You may be interested.

Thanks. For as low as $4.00 (used) it's not too expensive.

My own take is that if SETI were to discover an “intelligent” signal from outer space that told us to reduce greenhouse emissions "or else," then it would be immediately hailed as being from a superior intelligent entity.

But if that message stated judgment was coming due to fornication, sodomy etc. then the consensus would be that this was a wrong translation, or metaphor, etc. or a random transmission.

[ShadowAce]

Hmm. I’m not sure what you are trying to say. Can you re-word it?

[daniel1212]

I fail to see a logical connection between the Christian Science cult’s fallacy and a straightforward understanding of Genesis. Mary Baker Eddy devised a system that effectively rejects physical reality in toto. Traditional Christian supernaturalism accepts physical reality, but allows that God can, at His sole discretion, act outside that material reality.

Christian Science is neither.

[freedumb2003]

If we were to dig down to the the depth associated with the Jurassic period and found a skeleton of a modern horse then that would falsify TToE.

[ShadowAce]

Actually, it would not. They've already found multiple sites where older layers are above new layers. This is due to earthquakes, volcanoes, erosion, and other natural events that move the earth around.

I've seen fossilized spark plugs. Actual stone surrounding a plug. The stone was quite a bit older than the the plug, of course.

[BroJoeK]

JimSEA: "Continual attacks on the theory of evolution should be answered.
I couldn't really find anything better than this oldie from Scientific American. Have at."

Thanks for posting an oldie-but-goodie.
Remarkable how little effect it's had, and how ignorant the anti-science arguments remain, even after all these years.