Barnum on Steroids [The Kansas evolution "trial"]

The Baltimore Chronicle ^ | 09 May 2005 | Jason S. Miller

[clearsight]

" However, the majority of the scientific community agrees over the principal aspects of the theory."

The European scientific community would take issue with this statement, as they would with the practice of fluoridation of the public water supply.

[DoctorMichael]

I assure you, unlike the Creationists who are doing everything that they can do to destroy the Conservative Movement, I'm quite sane.

".....take your meds....."

But then again, your Post is exactly what one would expect from a whiner who will complain how Evolutionists hurl only insults and not arguments when in fact it itself only contains an insult.

I usually don't reply to rude people, but I can see you're in need of counseling: Grow up.

Best of luck with your personal problems.

[RadioAstronomer]

Well said. :-)

[Doctor Stochastic]

In Kansas and her sister state, Turkey, science is evolving into the Great Egress.

[DoctorMichael]

".....take your meds......"

".....mocking hostility....."

See my #21.

[Steve_Seattle]

I don't think Behe and Dembski are jumping on a few gaps in evolution or the fossil record or anything of that nature. If I recall, they are saying that the generally accepted principles of microbiology provide no explanatory tools for what evolutionists claim to have happened. That is why I cited Rupert Sheldrake in an earlier post; he has tried to take ideas similar to creationism and put them more in the context of a working scientific hypothesis. As for creationism being a black-eye on conservatism, people should keep in mind that many recent books citing analogies between modern physics and Eastern mysticism have come from the LIBERAL side of the political sprectrum. Challenges to naturalism/materialism are thus not confined to conservatives by any stretch of the imagination.

[Coyoteman]

It's the same old crybaby stuff. Evos have had 150 years to make their case.

Right! This is the way it really was.

Creation of the Earth

The world was once nothing but water. The only land above the water was Black mountain. All the people lived up there when the flood came, and their fireplaces can still be seen.

Fish-eater and Hawk lived there. Fish-eater was Hawk's uncle. One day they were singing and shaking a rattle. As they sang, Hawk shook this rattle and dirt began to fall out of it. They sang all night, shaking the rattle the whole time. Soon there was so much dirt on the water that the water started to go down. When it had gone all the way down, they put up the Sierra Nevada to hold the ocean back. Soon they saw a river running down through the valley.

When they finished making the earth, Hawk said, "Well, we have finished. Here is a rabbit for me. I will live on rabbits in my lifetime." Fish-eater was over a swampy place, and he said, "I will live on fish in my lifetime." They had plenty to eat for themselves. It was finished.

Owens Valley Paiute creation story, eastern California

[Dimensio]

If I recall, they are saying that the generally accepted principles of microbiology provide no explanatory tools for what evolutionists claim to have happened.

The problem is that many of their direct examples -- such as the flagellum -- have already been refuted.

[Junior]

Well, it is an op-ed.

[PatrickHenry]

If the history of science or intellectual history teaches you one thing, it is that the certitudes of one age are inevitably refined - and in some cases completely overthrown - by subsequent advances in science and philosophy.

That happens, yes. But old ideas, such as creationism, astrology, phlogiston, etc., once overthrown, are never revived.

[blowfish]

Sounds good to me! Much more plausible than this '7 days, 7 nights' claptrap. And Adam's rib?? Give me a break!

[crail]

If the history of science or intellectual history teaches you one thing, it is that the certitudes of one age are inevitably refined - and in some cases completely overthrown - by subsequent advances in science

But it's always by newer and better models, or by further data which requires a more advanced model. Never by courts or politics... generally it is courts and politics that stand in the way of the overthrow. Take for example the geocentric view. There was no experiment performed, scientists looked at historical data of planetary trajectories and two competing models. Geocentric and Heliocentric. The Heliocentric view was simple and elegant while the geocentric was complex and unsatisfying.

This is much the same as evolution. Evolution is simple and satisfying and explains the historical data. Creationism is complex in that it invokes processes that can never be understood to explain the data. Creationism may overthrow evolution for all I know, (but I doubt it), but not at this time. Not without much more evidence, and not via the courts. Scientific debate takes place in scientific literature.

[js1138]

If they had as strong a case as their liberal whining complainers claim, they'd be there to blow the creationists out of the water. But they can't so they take their ball and go home.

Can you tell me exactly what kind of argument would convince someone who thinks Isaac Newton discovered that things fall down?

[crail]

As for creationism being a black-eye on conservatism, people should keep in mind that many recent books citing analogies between modern physics and Eastern mysticism

Dancing woo-lee or whatever. Forget liberalism, those are a frikin' embarrassment to common sense!!!

[Steve_Seattle]

"The problem is that many of their direct examples -- such as the flagellum -- have already been refuted."

I am not fully immersed in this topic and don't follow every new development as it happens, but I suspect that their ideas have been "disputed," which is not necessarily the same as "refuted." I'm unaware that either Behe or Dembski have abandoned their theses.

[Junior]

Once again: The purpose of Creationism is to destroy the Conservative Movement.

And discredit Christianity.

[Liberal Classic]

In the beginning the universe was created.

This has made a lot of people very angry and been widely regarded as a bad move.

Many races believe that it was created by some sort of god, though the Jatravartid people of Viltvodle VI believe that the entire Universe was in fact sneezed out of the nose of a beeing called the Great Green Arkleseizure.

The Jatravartids, who live in perpetual fear of the time they call The Coming of The Great White Handkerchief, are small blue creatures with more than fifty arms each, who are therefore unique in being the only race in history to have invented the aerosol deodorant before the wheel.

[BeHoldAPaleHorse]

I lack the arrogance needed to tell the Creator how He created the Universe.

[Dimensio]

I'm unaware that either Behe or Dembski have abandoned their theses.

Most ID-ers or creationists (though I'm not sure that Behe is actually a creationist per se) tend to avoid retracting claims no matter how often they are falsified. There are exceptions, but not many.

[PatrickHenry]

I'm unaware that either Behe or Dembski have abandoned their theses.

They probably never will. There is still a flat earth society too. Meanwhile, ID is sufficiently refuted (and so poorly supported) that there's really not much "controversy" to talk about.
Phillip Johnson's DARWIN ON TRIAL: A Review. Devastating critique.
Neither intelligent nor designed. No evidence of wise, omniscient design.
Irreducible Complexity Demystified. Major debunking of ID.
The Flagellum Unspun: The Collapse of "Irreducible Complexity," Kenneth R. Miller. Critique of Behe.