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.

[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.

[JimSEA]

The entire article is at the 2002 edition of SA

[bondserv]

Irreducible complexity from an engineering and informational science perspective closes the door to anything but intelligent design.

[wideawake]

Come back, ZC!

[Secret Agent Man]

all i can say is if evolution is true, life is a random accident and therefore everything in your life and mine means absolutely nothing and everything is completely arbitrary and void of any purpose.

[Parody]

“Scientific American” is neither scientific nor American.

Get this through your head, you charlatan: there’s no such thing as anthropogenic global warming, the gay gene, evolution, or the Tooth Fairy.

[freedumb2003]

I agree that TToE is how God allowed His Plan to unfold.

Is there a point to posting a 12 year old article?

The Crevo wars are many years behind us.

[Olog-hai]

It’s not true. It’s a rework of old Greek pagan philosophy.

[Darteaus94025]

If there were a “gay gene”, shouldn’t it have died out by now?

[Dogbert41]

The Creator of the universe did it all in 6 days. I still fear Him. I could care less for today’s “scientists” that tell us “God doesn’t exist or is a liar”.

[dr_lew]

Continual attacks on the theory of evolution should be answered.

... but perhaps not necessarily in this manner, with "embarrassingly" and "fantasy", etc. I prefer a steadfast adherence to the unique status of Darwinian Evolution as a scientific explanation for the Origin of Species.

My doctrine: "Creationism does not offer a scientific alternative to Evolution."

[freedumb2003]

>>Irreducible complexity from an engineering and informational science perspective closes the door to anything but intelligent design.<<

Can we please not do this again?

It pains me to explain to lurkers that Conservatives DO understand science. Your statement does not help.

[wbarmy]

There is so much to attack when statements like this are made;

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.

This is a totally inept analogy and faulty reasoning. The program made those choices based on a specific endstate. Is evolution picking its choices made on a specific endstate? If it is truly random, then there is no specified endstate for the "program" to match.

[Olog-hai]

OK. What’s scientific about the evolutionary theory?

[bondserv]

>>Irreducible complexity from an engineering and informational science perspective closes the door to anything but intelligent design.<<

Can we please not do this again?

It pains me to explain to lurkers that Conservatives DO understand science. Your statement does not help.

I prefer clarity over agreement.

[freedumb2003]

>>If there were a “gay gene”, shouldn’t it have died out by now?<

As an outlier aberration, like pedophilia, the numbers are so small as to be statistically insignificant and thus just part of genetic drift.

[Viennacon]

“They lobby for creationist ideas such as “intelligent design” to be taught as alternatives to evolution in science classrooms”

This statement alone completely discredits the article. Liberal crapola. Clean up on aisle 12.

As an aside, I am in favor of the disestablishment of public education entirely, so there would be no public ‘science classrooms’ if I had my way. Too radical? Remember, that colleges used to be hotbeds of eugenics. Modern science has become a tool for government indoctrination. Just look at global warming.

[Shery]

To reject God’s word is to enter the road to perdition.

[freedumb2003]

>>OK. What’s scientific about the evolutionary theory?<<

OK, do you know the difference between a Scientific Theory and just a theory/hypothesis/guess?

Unless and until you do we do not have a basis for discussion.

[Phinneous]

I raise the evolutionists’ 12-year old article with a Letter from 1961, in a book from 2003. Mind Over Matter, (Kehot Publishing company, a compilation of responsa from the Lubavitcher Rebbe, Rabbi Menachem Mendel Schneerson, of righteous memory.) The Rebbe was trained in electrical engineering, not just Jewish theology.

I would except it but it’s a long chapter. VERY worthwhile reading. The basis— (from the sages of Israel) G-d looked into the Torah and created the world... there can be no true contradiction between science and Torah. When the onion is peeled back, the conflicts dissolve.

http://www.chabad.org/library/article_cdo/aid/112083/jewish/Theories-of-Evolution.htm