Creationism and Truth (Creationists are a 'threat')

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.

"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.

"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.

"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.

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 .

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.