Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Creationism and Truth (Creationists are a 'threat')
Plesiosaur.com ^ | unknown | Richard Forrest

Posted on 10/05/2006 7:32:38 AM PDT by Imnotalib

I don't like the term 'evolutionist' - would you call a physicist a 'graviationist', or a "weak nuclear force-ist"? I'm a vertebrate palaeontologist, and evolution is an enormously robust theory without which it is virtually impossible to make sense of any of the observations I make in my field.

I am not averse to engaging in debate with creationists. I won't call them 'scientific creationists' - what they represent has little to do with science. It is as a simple matter of definition that if you start an investigation stating that anything you discover can only be explained in terms of a literal interpretation of the bible, it isn't science. I live and work in the UK, where creationism is not much of an issue. The situation is very different in the USA. Although it is easy as a European to laugh in a smugly superior way at the antics of the Americans, I think it is a mistake to do so. The growing political influence of Christian fundamentalists in the US, who are closely associated with creationists, is a threat to the rest of the world. Their agenda includes the strict censorship of science as taught in American schools, and the idea of a scientifically illiterate America dominated by religious fundamentalists fills me with horror.

(Excerpt) Read more at plesiosaur.com ...


TOPICS: Culture/Society; Miscellaneous; News/Current Events
KEYWORDS: creationism; creationist; plesiosaur; religion; science; truth
This guy clearly doesn't understand the theory of creationism. Why do scientists think that if they can explain the mechanism by which something happens, it automatially rules God out? Doesn't it make sense that God would work through the physical laws that he created? Does he have to wave a magic wand for these folks to be convinced it's God?
1 posted on 10/05/2006 7:32:39 AM PDT by Imnotalib
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: Imnotalib
"I don't like the term 'evolutionist'... "

Wonder if the guy would prefer "evo-loser"....

2 posted on 10/05/2006 7:38:38 AM PDT by tomzz
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Imnotalib
You are essentially describing a variation on 'intelligent design' rather than creationism, which says that there has not been any macro evolution.
3 posted on 10/05/2006 7:40:38 AM PDT by Lucius Cornelius Sulla (These days you are either nervous and uncomfortable or you are braindead!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Imnotalib

? The statement you just said is consistent with theistic evolutionism and perhaps with some forms of "intelligent designism", but not with young earth creationism, which is what the above scientist was objecting to. Young earth creationism requires massive divine intervention and circumvention of the laws of nature.


4 posted on 10/05/2006 7:41:16 AM PDT by ahayes (My strength is as the strength of ten because my heart is pure.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Imnotalib

I avoid arguments on evolution and intelligent design.
It's a "no win" discussion either way since both are "faith based".

But I meet creationists who have never read the Bible, and Darwinists who have never read Origin of the Species.

'Can't change either of their minds.

But neither of them are as irrational as the pro-abortion person who is also against capital punishment.


5 posted on 10/05/2006 7:50:18 AM PDT by Rhetorical pi2
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Imnotalib

>>>I don't like the term 'evolutionist' ->>>

Because that implies that I am not the allseeing, allknowing surpreme intellect that I think I am.


6 posted on 10/05/2006 7:50:36 AM PDT by sandbar
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Imnotalib
the idea of a scientifically illiterate America dominated by religious fundamentalists fills me with horror.

Oh yeah, a-hole, what about a scientifically illerate Muslim world dominated by religious fundamentalists? Does that fill you with horror, because that is more a reality than the America you described, you ignorant P.o.s.

7 posted on 10/05/2006 7:58:22 AM PDT by Catholic Canadian (Formerly Ashamed Canadian - thank you Stephen Harper!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: tomzz

Wonder if the guy would prefer "evo-loser"....
_________

I tend to think he couldn't care less what you might call him, but he'd likely chuckle at the childishness of the epithet.

What I find interesting in all of this is the notion that the so-called young earth creationists are mostly a US phenomenon. That point is made in this article, and has been stated by a few of our freepers of British persuasion.

Is it true, and if so, why is that?


8 posted on 10/05/2006 8:05:31 AM PDT by dmz
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Imnotalib

"The model of the Universe built by science is vast beyond our understanding, old beyond our comprehension, complex beyond any possibility of our ever understanding even a fraction of the whole. Which model is closer to the mind of God?"

Sorry, but you don't fight bullshit with more bullshit.


9 posted on 10/05/2006 8:13:40 AM PDT by gcruse (http://gcruse.typepad.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Rhetorical pi2

"
But neither of them are as irrational as the pro-abortion person who is also against capital punishment. '

Or the pro-lifer against abortion "except in the case of...."


10 posted on 10/05/2006 8:14:50 AM PDT by gcruse (http://gcruse.typepad.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: dmz
>Is it true, and if so, why is that?

Americans are better consumers than the people of other nations, quicker and more certain to reject inferior products including inferior science theories such as evolution.

11 posted on 10/05/2006 8:23:10 AM PDT by tomzz
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: dmz

Another example is English "cars". How long do you think Americans would tolerate something like Lucas making the electronics for all their cars?


12 posted on 10/05/2006 8:25:04 AM PDT by tomzz
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: Imnotalib
Actually evolution is a philosophy. Some say that there is so much evidence that evolution can not be argued against. These "facts" are only data and they can be argued either evolution or creation or for both sides. Scientific method was invented by Christians in the middle ages so to argue that creation in nonscientific is false.
13 posted on 10/05/2006 8:36:41 AM PDT by mountainlyons (Hard core conservative)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Imnotalib
" - what they represent has little to do with science."

And of course to the prideful, arrogant 'scientist', science is all there is. But his statement is not quite true anyway; actually what we (Christians) represent has nothing to do with science. Our vision transcends what the eye sees, and our souls are anchored in the Absolute, Eternal God. "Evolutionists" are anchored only to themselves in this fleeting life, and are doomed to live without any meaning in their lives beyond their own puny brain power. Their vision is limited to what their retina processes and their 'empirical' brain can comprehend. Beyond this they see nothing. Just as an animal will invalidate something he can't smell, the evolutionist will invalidate something he cannot 'prove' with his brain. Both live in a base, soul-less world of the senses.

How empty and vacuuous the evolutionists' lives must be as they age and their brains deteriorate, and all they have left to 'anchor' themselves to is a scrapbook with pictures of dinosaur bones and dashed hopes of discovering the 'missing link'.

14 posted on 10/05/2006 9:25:40 AM PDT by TheCrusader
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: mountainlyons

Scientific method was invented by Christians in the middle ages so to argue that creation in nonscientific is false.
_____________

Your logic is faulty. It does not follow that because Christians created the scientific method that one of their religious beliefs (creationism) automatically becomes scientific.


15 posted on 10/05/2006 9:35:58 AM PDT by dmz
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: TheCrusader

As opposed to living in an imaginary world filled with strange visions, unnatural practices, and undemonstratable invisible entities?


16 posted on 10/05/2006 9:37:33 AM PDT by thomaswest (Just curious.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: TheCrusader

Your post is very poetic. Not necessarily true, but very poetic. You have a gift for stringing words together.

I understand that Benedict may be rolling it back a bit, but his predecessor had no real issues with the theory of evolution, and one could hardly truthfully suggest that John Paul was living "in a base, soul-less world of the senses."


17 posted on 10/05/2006 9:42:43 AM PDT by dmz
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: Imnotalib

To rebut this guy, read Ann Coulter's latest book "Godless". Her last 4 chapters completely eviscerate Darwinian evolution theory.


18 posted on 10/05/2006 10:37:31 AM PDT by Gunner9mm (www.libertycall.us)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Imnotalib
The growing political influence of Christian fundamentalists in the US, who are closely associated with creationists, is a threat to the rest of the world.

LOL! Nothing like a little hysteria to perk up an otherwise stupid article.

19 posted on 10/05/2006 10:41:58 AM PDT by MEGoody (Ye shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Gunner9mm

The only thing Ann's writings on evolution eviscerated was her credibility as a writer on topics outside her area of expertise (politics).


20 posted on 10/05/2006 11:02:13 AM PDT by dmz
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: dmz
"one could hardly truthfully suggest that John Paul was living "in a base, soul-less world of the senses."

No he wasn't, but for a Pope he came pretty close. Pope JPII was one of the most sensual of all the popes in history, embracing evolution in a new way that attempted to combine this secularist error with Christian doctrine. He began his career as a playwright and actor, very much attracted to the senses. His "Catholic" theology was so diluted, shallow and liberal, that Catholics saw more new-age novelties introduced into the Church under this man than with ALL the other popes combined.

Pope JPII lived for change, and for "updating" the Church into "modern times". JPII was to the Catholic Church what Bill Clinton was to America; both liberal, sensual men who let things go too far. Clinton forgot his family and his Constitutional duties and was obsessed with sex; JPII forgot his Catholic traditions and his Canonical duties and was obsessed with Vatican II and the "spirit of change".

JPII loved to invite folks like Bob Dylan, the heroin addicted, washed up hippy, to entertain him. His famous "World Youth Days" turned Catholicism into some strange combination of hippy-fest, concert, mixed in with some convoluted Christian faith. He allowed a "Hula Mass" in Hawaii, where attractive young ladies in hoola skirts dance on the altar, because "that's their culture". He seemed to love the world that Jesus Christ rejected, as he embraced anti-Christs of all stripes, especially the muslims, whose koran he kissed for them in a PC ceremony. He worked hard to "unite" all faiths, but not in Christ, but rather in a loose, multi-cultural, multi-religious confederation of "people who worship the one God", (whatever that is). He wanted to please man so much that it interfered with his ability to please God first. And that is sensualism.

21 posted on 10/05/2006 9:26:05 PM PDT by TheCrusader
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: thomaswest
"As opposed to living in an imaginary world filled with strange visions, unnatural practices, and undemonstratable invisible entities?"

Living in an 'imaginary world', you mean like sitting in front of a TV or video game all day?

"Strange visions"; you must be referring to the things you see after smoking that bong, or do you refer to the special effects that dazzle your brain at on the silver screen?

"Unnatural practices", hmmm, perhaps you refer to what millions of Americans indulge themselves in these days, homosexuality, 'virtual' pornography and using abortions as a means of birth control?

"Invisible entities", yep, here you must be referring to the "proof" of evolution, or the proof of human-caused 'global warming', or the 'proof' of the so-called Big Bang; those 'proofs' are about as invisible as entities can get.

22 posted on 10/05/2006 9:37:42 PM PDT by TheCrusader
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

Comment #23 Removed by Moderator

To: Gunner9mm
Not that it might sway your opinion, but to read much more researched and thought out responses to Coulter drivel, I would suggest here, here, and here, among any other google search produced by "coulter" and "evolution". Sorry for the vitriol, but I was under the impression she was completely debunked and embarrased already.
24 posted on 10/07/2006 7:53:45 PM PDT by UndauntedR
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: UndauntedR

"TalkReason provides a forum for the publication of papers with well-thought out arguments against creationism, intelligent design, and religious apologetics.

"Papers whose goal is to promote creationism, Intelligent Design, irreducible complexity, the compatibility of the Bible with science, and religious apologetics, exegesis or papers arguing against established scientific theories such as the evolution theory will not be accepted."

Not exactly an unbiased website. You can believe who and what you want. But the most cogent arguments Coulter makes are the ones that show that, despite all the "scientific" experiments and studies, there is no proof of evolution. Her example of fruit fly experiments resulting in nothing but more fruit flies, and the lack of fossil links are hard to refute. The arguments you have referenced do not contain facts or science, merely opinions supported by wishful thinking.

I accept your apology for your "vitriol". Try to control yourself in the future.


25 posted on 10/09/2006 1:42:24 PM PDT by Gunner9mm (www.libertycall.us)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: Gunner9mm
Check those links again. You see all those crazy names and numbers at the bottom of the page? Those are called 'citations'. These 'citations' are sources where one can check the facts of the paper. In fact, after each "opinion" and/or "wishful thinking", James Downard will make a 'cite' so that you, yourself, can go to the library, look into the science catalogs and verify that little piece of "wishful thinking". Many of these sources are primary sources... coming directly from science journals... which, in turn, are produced directly from data/observations.

Interestingly, Downard shows how Coulter is either (1) incompetent, (2) deliberately misleading, or (3) DIDN'T EVEN READ many of the sources which she cites. Many of her "sources" DIRECTLY CONTRADICT what she claims in her book.

Finally, I'll even respond to your direct criticism of evolution so that you don't have to waste any extra time reading, trying ever-so-hard to find the answers to those burning questions (I know how intellectually curious so many on these forums are).

Her example of fruit fly experiments resulting in nothing but more fruit flies...

Evolution is defined as "a change in allele frequencies of a population over successive generations (time)." Coulter cites papers and uses examples which are exactly this. Evolution is observable. The issue she has, and which you have, is that SPECIATION is a much more difficult phenomena to observe, but not impossible. A speciation event is said to occur when two population are no longer able or willing to exchange genetic information (create viable offspring/get giggy with it). This has been accomplished in the lab. For example, see

Dobzhansky, Th., and O. Pavlovsky, 1971. "An experimentally created incipient species of Drosophila", Nature 23:289-292.

please, claim that's a biased source. So yes, we can get different species. We apologize that these new species are *GASP* very closely related (!!!) to the original fruit fly species Drosophila paulistorum (exactly as evilution would predict... but that's too obvious) and not more like dogs (which I'm pretty sure was what Coulter was disappointed the fruit flies were not becoming).

So yes, in review, Coulter's incompetent/deceptive/ignorant vitriol is not too difficult to refute using actual responsible science and facts, even if it does require slowing down to thinking speed.

Again, I would suggest here, here, and here .
26 posted on 10/10/2006 1:22:22 AM PDT by UndauntedR
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson