Posted on 12/22/2005 8:44:09 AM PST by Sweetjustusnow
Einstein thought it miraculous that the world was subject to rules and logical explanation, that science worked at all. There's nothing in science to contradict the idea of superior intelligence, creation by design...but neither is there evidence for it. No testable theories have been offered which can settle the issue. We're simply not there yet.
Meanwhile those who support ID are transparently trying to say that current religious dogma has scientific support. Ask the schools to teach paganism - the idea that at least some of the creators might be homosexual pederasts - and support will fall into the negatives.
"I don't know what "all ID" is"
All ID, though not formally defined, would be to me any theory that postulates an intelligent creator for the universe, to inlude Behe's ideas...and to include biblical literalist idea's too.
Darwinist's commonly dismiss Behe by knocking down the straw man of a young earth promoted by literalists. At least the ones here at FR do. I should know I have spent many an evening on FR debating this issue....and then have to refrain from sticking my head in an oven over the frustration of erroneous logic perpetuated by both sides, but mostly by Darwinists.
State what you consider evidence for ID other than gradual evolution over trillions and trillions of organisms over billions and billions of years could not have produced the observable results in your opinion.
Proof of ID requires you watching a microscope and seeing the molecules move in non random ways to produce a new organism. Evidence for ID would involve observation of non random biological events that are contrary to current laws of physics. I have not seen any.
Evolution is not contradicted by current laws of physics.
Great question! Maybe with your cred as a scientist you will get some respectful thoughtful answers. However, I doubt it.
If this thread goes as others, someone will ask:
| What kind of backwater scientific field are you in? |
| What kind of podunk college did you get your degree from? |
| What papers have you published on the topic? |
| Have you read everything there is on evolution? |
I wish someone could concisely explain, without a stream of insults, or a huge list of time consuming, generic, red-herring references, how irreducibly complex systems can pop into existence, over and over again, in our world.
Or explain why we don't have evidence of evolution across thousands of years of recorded history, given the "rate of change" that would have to take place to create all this complexity over just a few billion years.
Standing by for a stream of insults...
I've read these, and the argument for ID is not based on science, founded in science nor supported by science. There have been attempts to marshall the arguments using science "jargon," but they fall far short of the mark. For ID to make it as a science it will simply have to do scientific research on the topic (although I cannot imagine where one would begin...) and amass credible data.
Actually, it's because this lie keeps getting repeated that scientists go bonkers. No one's listening to ID'ers. That's why they've been able to make so much progress.
Here's one answer. Just follow the links and references...or Google "Irreducible complexity" for volumes of answers.
LOGICALLY that means they must subscribe to some form of "Incompetent Design" or "Ignorant Design".
Makes sense to me considering that the only people against "INTELLIGENT Design" are Leftist nitwits and the Dimwit Party.
You want science without facts or mathematics. In other words you don't want your closed mind opened.
That's meant as an insult.
You should check out Behe's testimony in the Dover trial. Even he (he coined the term) could not explain it under cross examination. When asked by the lawyer how one could tell if something was irreducibly complex, Behe replied, 'By noting the purposiveness of intention in the design.'
oookay
Yes, Darwin was a long, long time ago, and much of what he wrote is now dismissed--notably his racist comments. But "Darwinism" is the name everyone uses, including the courts, to refer to evolutionary theory. Or, if you prefer, Neo-Darwinism.
You don't really deal with the monopoly issue, or the issue of activist judges telling communities what they can and cannot teach in their schools.
I have read a number of books and articles on intelligent design, and it makes a lot of scientific sense. Simply to rule it out as "religious" is bigoted and narrow-minded. Monopolistic, in fact.
As for science in science classes and religion in religion classes, religion isn't allowed in the schools, at least not in any reasonable way. Some require students to learn about Islam, but any religion or morality that might be of use in making them better citizens and better human beings is ruled out.
No, the shrill insistence on no competition and the ad hominem attacks on all these threads suggest that Darwinists have a feeling that their backs are to the wall and that their beliefs are incapable of standing up to any kind of rigorous questioning. But maybe they can perpetuate their monopoly if activist judges give them the exclusive right to brainwash our children.
Apparently we have ... repeatedly! I have a fairly large anti-evolution library with a variety of titles heralding the "fall," "collapse" or passing of evolution variously from the 1920's, 40's, 60's, 80's, 90's and to date.
The Imminent Demise of Evolution:
The Longest Running Falsehood in Creationism
By G.R. Morton
In recent reading of Dembski and other ID proponents I saw them make a claim which has been made for over 40 years. This claim is one that the young-earthers have been making. The claim is that the theory of evolution (or major supporting concepts for it) is increasingly being abandoned by scientists, or is about to fall. This claim has many forms and has been made for over 178 years. This is a compilation of the claims over time. The purpose of this compilation is two-fold. First, it is to show that the claim has been made for a long, long time. Secondly, it is to show that entire careers have passed without seeing any of this movement away from evolution. Third, it is to show that the creationists are merely making these statements for the purpose of keeping hope alive that they are making progress towards their goal. In point of fact, no such progress is being made as anyone who has watched this area for the last 40 years can testify. The claim is false as history and present-day events show, yet that doesn't stop anyone wanting to sell books from making that claim. Now for the claims in chronological order.
1825
"...Physical philosophy, for a long time past, had taken upon itself to deny the truth of the Mosaical statements, and often with much sarcasm, because it assigned a date of not more than about four thousand years ago, for the period of a Revolution which was able to cause marine substances to be imbedded in all parts of this inhabited earth; even in places the most remote from the sea, and in elevations very considerably above its present level. But, the progress of physical research during the last few years, conducted by naturalists of acute and honest minds, has at last terminated in so signal a concession to the testimony of the Mosaical record in this particular; that, added to the authority of Bacon's and Newton's philosophy, it renders that testimony paramount, as the rule by which all inquiries concerning revolutions general to the globe ought henceforth to be conducted. For, the mineral geology has been brought at length, by physical phenomena alone, to these conclusions; 'That the soils of all the plains were deposited in the bosom of a tranquil water; that their actual order is only to be dated from the period of the retreat of that water; that the date of that period is not very ancient; and, that it cannot be carried back above five or six thousand years.'" Granville Penn, Mineral and Mosaic Geologies, Vol. 2, (London: James Duncan, 1825), p. 6
1840
Speaking of the diluvial theories of Granville Penn and the imminent demise of the old earth viewpoint:
"Till within a few years, these two [Neptunism and Huttonism] have been the prevailing system; but another has lately appeared which seems likely, I think, to supercede them: it is called by Mr. Granville Penn, who is its great champion, the MOSAIC GEOLOGY, because it is chiefly derived from the Mosaic History of the Creation and the Deluge." Granville Penn, Conversations on Geology, (London: J. W. Southgate and Son, 1840), p. 38
For those who don't know, Hutton was the predecessor of Charles Lyell and believed in an old earth without a global flood.
Of the concordance of history and the Biblical account:
"As time rolls on, new accessions of proof are unfolded; these will accumulate age by age continually, as Providence lifts the veil, until in the fulness of time, they shall merge into one mighty and irresistible blaze of truth, which will consume all the cobwebs of sophistry, and forever confound the infidel." John Murray, Truth of Revelation, (London: William Smith, 1840), p. xv, xvi
1850
Of the disappearance of old earth geology and evolution [physical development]:
"Perhaps the author of the 'Rambles' could favour us with the induction process that converted himself; and, as the attainment of truth, and not victory, is my object, I promise either to acquiesce in or rationally refute it. Till then I hold by my antiquated tenets, that our world, nay, the whole material universe, was created about six or seven thousand years ago, and that in a state of physical excellence of which we have in our present fallen world only the 'vestiges of creation.' I conclude by mentioning that this view I have held now for nearly thirty years, and, amidst all the vicissitudes of the philosophical world during that period, I have never seen cause to change it. Of course, with this view I was, during the interval referred to, a constant opponent of the once famous, though now exploded, nebular hypothesis of La Place; and I yet expect to see physical development and long chronology wither also on this earth, now that THEIR ROOT (the said hypothesis) has been eradicated from the sky.[!!!]--I am, Sir, your most obedient servant, "Philalethes." Scottish Press, cited by Hugh Miller, Footsteps of the Creator, originally published in 1850. (Edinburgh: William Nimmo, 1869), p. 257
1871
"Long ago, when all astronomers as well as modern geologists, were against me in the then amalgamated nebular and geological hypotheses, I ventured to prophesy, and that on the principles of our starting postulates, that both these hypotheses, being spurious, were destined to succumb under the advancing light of science properly so called. One of these, and that by far the more plausible, has since become extinct. And now again I venture, (but indeed there is no venture in the case,) to repeat the same prophecy regarding the survivor, that the time is on the wing, whether we require to wait for it short or long, when it will follow its better-half to the lower regions." Patrick M’Farlane, Esq., L.M.V.I., Antidote Against the Unscriptural and Unscientific Tendency of Modern Geology; with Remarks on Several Cognate Subjects, (London: Passmore & Alabaster, 1871), p. 89
1878
There are some signs of this whimsical theory of Evolution soon taking another phase. Carl Vogt has given hints that perhaps they have, after all, made a mistake as to the line of descent. It may be found, he conjectures, that Man is not descended from the Ape family but from the Dog!
"Other theories may soon be heard of--for the human mind is restless under the burthen of mystery." Thomas Cooper, Evolution, The Stone Book and The Mosaic Record of Creation, (London: Hodder and Stoughton), p. 186-187
1894
It is true that a tide of criticism hostile to the integrity of Genesis has been rising for some years; but it seems to beat vainly against a solid rock, and the ebb has now evidently set in. The battle of historical and linguistic criticism may indeed rage for a time over the history and date of the Mosaic law, but in so far as Genesis is concerned it has been practically decided by scientific exploration." ~ J. William Dawson, The Meeting Place of History and Geology, (New York: Fleming H. Revell, 1894), p. 206
1895
In conclusion, we venture to say that we expect one good result from the publication of Professor Prestwich's treatise, and that is that the flippant style of speaking of the Deluge, said to have been adopted in recent times by some who might, one would suppose, have known better, will henceforth be dropped;..." F. R. Wegg-Prosser, "Art. VIII.---Scientific Evidence of the Deluge," Dublin Review, p. 415
1903
"It must be stated that the supremacy of this philosophy has not been such as was predicted by its
defenders at the outset. A mere glance at the history of the theory during the four decades that it has been before the public shows that the beginning of the end is at hand."
"Such utterances are now very common in the periodicals of Germany, it is said. It seems plain the reaction has commenced and that the pendulum that has swung so strongly in the direction of Evolution, is now oscillating the other way. It required twenty years for Evolution to reach us from abroad. Is it necesary for us to wait twenty years more to reverse our opinions?" Prof. Zockler, The Other Side of Evolution, 1903, p. 31-32 cited in Ronald L. Numbers, Creationism In Twentieth-Century America: A Ten-Volume Anthology of Documents, 1903-1961 (New York & London, Garland Publishing, 1995) Source: Talk Origins message
news:atn3n90189g@drn.newsguy.com ...
1904
"Today, at the dawn of the new century, nothing is more certain than that Darwinism has lost its prestige among men of science. It has seen its day and will soon be reckoned a thing of the past. A few decades hence when people will look back upon the history of the doctrine of Descent, they will confess that the years between 1860 and 1880 were in many respects a time of carnival; and the enthusiasm which at that time took possession of the devotees of natural science will appear to them as the excitement attending some mad revel." Eberhard Dennert, At the Deathbed of Darwinism, 1904, cited by Ronald L. Numbers, Creationism In Twentieth-Century America: A Ten-Volume Anthology of Documents, 1903-1961 (New York & London, Garland Publishing, 1995) Source: Talk Origins message
news:atn3n90189g@drn.newsguy.com ...
1905
Book title:
Collapse of Evolution, by Luther Tracy Townsend -- Source: Talk Origins message
news:atn3n90189g@drn.newsguy.com ... Presages Scott Huse's book by the same title in 1983
1912
Of his theory of the flood, which he thought was being accepted, Isaac Vail wrote:
It was this independent research in a very wide field of thought that led me to enlarge the pamphlet of 1874 to a book of 400 pages in 1885; and again it was revised and enlarged in 1902; and I have been greatly encouraged by the fact that this last edition is now used in some of the colleges, and in at least two universities as an educator. "
"When the first volume was published in 1874 it was a rare thing to meet with a scientist who would admit that the earth had a ring system; to-day it is as rare to meet with one who does not concede the great fact, and the great problem is resolving itself into this form: How did the earth's rings fall back to the surface of the planet?" ~ Isaac Newton Vail, The Earth's Annular System, 4th ed. (Pasadena: The Annular World Co., 1912), p. v
Book title
"The Passing of Evolution", by George Frederick Wright. Volume VII of the Fundamentals (1910-1915).
Source: Talk Origins message
news:atn3n90189g@drn.newsguy.com ...
1922
The science of twenty or thirty years ago was in high glee at the thought of having almost proved the theory of biological evolution. Today, for every careful, candid inquirer, these hopes are crushed; and with weary, reluctant sadness does modern biology now confess that the Church has probably been right all the time" - George McCready Price, quoted in J. E. Conant’s The Church The Schools And Evolution (1922), p.18 Taken from Troy Britain's reply at http://www.talkorigins.org/origins/feedback/jul02.html
The American Association for the Advancement of Science felt forced to formally deny such a claim . They issued a report which says:
Since it has been asserted that there is not a fact in the universe in support of this theory, that it is a "mere guess" which leading scientists are now abandoning, and that even the American Association for the Advancement of Science at its last meeting in Toronto, Canada, approved this revolt against evolution, and
Inasmuch as such statements have been given wide publicity through the press and are misleading public opinion on this subject, therefore,
The Council of the American Association for the Advancement of Science has thought it advisable to take formal steps upon this matter, in order that there may be no ground for misunderstanding of the attitude of this Association, which is one of the largest scientific bodies in the world, with a membership of more than 11,000 persons, including the American authorities in all branches of science. The following statements represent the position of the Council with regard to the theory of evolution.
The Council of the Association affirms that, so far as the scientific evidences of evolution of plants and animals and man are concerned, there is no ground whatever for the assertion that these evidences constitute a "mere guess." No scientific generalization is more strongly supported by thoroughly tested evidences than is that of organic evolution." http://archives.aaas.org/docs/resolutions.php?doc_id=156
1924
...I am convinced that science is making substantial progress. Darwinism has been definitely outgrown. As a doctrine it is merely of historical interest. True, the current teaching of geology still occupy the center of the stage, and the real modern discoveries which completely discredit these teachings are only beginning to get a hearing. The New Catastrophism is the theory of tomorrow in the science of geology; and under the teaching of this new view of geology the whole theory of evolution will take its place with the many ‘perishing dreams and the wrecks of forgotten deliriums’. And at that time the entire teaching of science along these lines will be found to be in complete harmony with the opening chapters of the Ancient Hebrew Scriptures. ‘In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth." - George McCready Price, quoted in Alexander Hardie’s Evolution: Is It Philosophical, Scientific Or Scriptural? (1924), pp.125-126 Taken from Troy Britain's reply at http://www.talkorigins.org/origins/feedback/jul02.html
1929
The world has had enough of evolution … In the future, evolution will be remembered only as the crowning deception which the arch-enemy of human souls foisted upon the race in his attempt to lead man away from the Savior. The Science of the future will be creationism. As the ages roll by, the mysteries of creation week will be cleared up, and as we have learned to read the secrets of creative power in the lives of animals and plants about us, we shall understand much that our dim senses cannot now fathom. If we hope to continue scientific study in the laboratories and fields of the earth restored, we must begin to get the lessons of truth now. The time is ripe for a rebellion against the dominion of evolution, and for a return to the fundamentals of true science," Back To Creationism. - Harold W. Clark (1929) Back To Creationism, p. 139 Taken from Troy Britain's reply at http://www.talkorigins.org/origins/feedback/jul02.html
1935
The chain of evidence that purports to support the theory of evolution is a chain indeed, but its links are formed of sand and mist. Analyze the evidence and it melts away; turn the light of true investigation upon its demonstrations and they fade like fog before the freshening breeze. The theory stands today positively disproved, and we will venture the prophecy that in another two decades, when younger men, free from the blind prejudices of a passing generation are allowed to investigate the new evidence, examine the facts, and form their own conclusions, the theory will take its place in the limbo of disproved tidings. In that day the world of science will be forced to come back to the unshakable foundation of fact that is the basis of the true philosophy of the origin of life." Harry Rimmer, The Theory of Evolution and the Facts of Science (Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1935), p. 113-114
(I would like to thank J. Barber for pointing this out to me. He had previously quoted it at: http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/horses/eohippus_equus.html The above comes from my copy of the book.)
1940
The Bible is the one foundation on which all true science must finally rest: because it is the one book of ultimate origins. Science established on this foundation will endure. In fact, there can be no true science without this foundation. False science must fall. Already, its decline is evident." L. Allen Higley, Science and Truth, (London: Fleming H. Revell Co., 1940), p. 10
1961
I suspect that the creationist has less mystery to explain away than the wholehearted evolutionist. On the balance of the things that I have both read and discovered for myself I am a creationist, so far as mega-evolution is concerned. By mega-evolution one refers to the origin of kingdoms, phyla, classes and orders, the largest groups in any classification of living things. I concede micro-evolution, of course, which is the origin by evolutionary processes of species, genera, and even families. An increasing number of thoughtful scientists seem to be adopting this view, which I should add is decades old, and far from being original." ~ Evan Shute, Flaws in the Theory of Evolution, (Nutley, New Jersey: Craig Press, 1961) p. 2
1963
In spite of the tremendous pressure that exists in the scientific world on the side of evolutionary propaganda, there are increasing signs of discontent and skepticism" ~ Henry Morris, The Twilight of Evolution, (Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1963), p. 84
Here and there, surprisingly enough, even in the standard scientific publications media, there are beginning to appear evidences of doubts concerning evolution. Nothing much which is overtly skeptical of evolution as a whole can be published, of course, but at least signs are appearing which indicate there may exist a very substantial substratum of doubt concerning evolution today." ~ Henry Morris, The Twilight of Evolution, (Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1963), p. 84
1970
Indeed, of late, more and more have come to recognize not only the reality but also the importance of the spiritual. Dryden says that scientists have come to realize that atrophy of the moral and spiritual life is inconsistent with well-rounded development. " ~ John W. Klotz, Gene, Genesis and Evolution, (St. Louis: Concordia Publishing House, 1970), p. 14
1975
QUESTION--Do non-Christian scientists still argue that man has
descended from apes or monkeys?
ANSWER--In many school textbooks this is accepted almost as if it is fact, but many biologists and other scientists have long since swung away from this view. There are many and varied theories of evolution today, but scientists who reject divine creation are beset with serious problems and these are being increasingly recognized." ~ Clifford Wilson, In the Beginning God..., (Balston Spa, New York: Word of Truth Productions, 1975), p. 32
1976
But even at that time there were some evolutionists who were beginning to express doubts concerning this formulation of evolution theory. A decade later, these incipient cracks have widened to the point that some, formerly strongly committed to this theory, are now expressing disillusionment." Duane T. Gish, "Cracks in the NeoDarwinian Jericho, Part 1," Impact, 42(Dec. 1976). http://www.icr.org/pubs/imp/imp-042.htm
1980
"Is Darwinism on it's Last Leg?" http://www.ncseweb.org/resources/articles/images/cej1_03.jpg
1983
Scott M. Huse's book title: , The Collapse of Evolution,
1984
Furthermore, even if it wasn't clear in Darwin's day, the modern scientific creationist movement has made it abundantly clear in our day that all the real facts of science support this Biblical position. Despite all the bombastic books and articles, both by secular evolutionists and compromising evangelicals, which have opposed the modern literature on scientific Biblical creationism/catastrophism, the evidence is sound, and more and more scientists are becoming creationists all the time." Henry M. Morris, A History of Modern Creationism, (San Diego: Master Book Publishers, 1984), p. 329-330
One of the encouraging signs of our day is to see the large number of young people who are beginning to realize they are being manipulated by the educational system. In my lectures on university campuses and elsewhere, I am encouraged by the increasing awareness of young people to this problem. More and more young scientists are interested in searching out the creationist explanation for origins and earth history. Some excellent creationist research is also being accomplished by these young people even at the graduate level. They are not receiving much encouragement from the educational establishment, but they are going ahead anyway." ~ Donald E. Chittick, The Controversy: Roots of the Creation-Evolution Conflict, (Creation Compass, 1984), p. 191
1985
There are still some die-hard uniformitarians who would question the first assumption but, as documented in the preceding chapter, more and more in the modern school of geologists are saying that everything in the geologic column is a record of catastrophe." ~ Henry M. Morris, Creation and the Modern Christian, (El Cajon, California: Master Book Publishers, 1985), p. 241
1987
Evolution is in absolute chaos today and has been especially for this decade of the '80's. The '80's has been extremely bad for Evolution.Every major pillar of Evolution has crumbled in the decade of the '80's." D. James Kennedy on "The John Ankerberg Show," 1987
1988
Hundreds of scientists who once taught their university students that the bottom line on origins had finally been figured out and settled are today confessing that they were completely wrong. They have discovered that their previous conclusions, once held so fervently, were based on very fragile evidences and suppositions which have since been refuted by new discoveries. This has necessitated a change in their basic philosophical
position on origins. Others are admitting great weaknesses in evolution theory. One of the world's most highly respected philosophers of science, Dr. Karl Popper, has argued that one theory of origins, almost universally accepted as a scientific fact, does not even qualify as a scientific theory. A 1980 display at the prestigious British Museum of Natural History made the same admission." ~ Luther D. Sunderland, Darwin's Enigma, (Santee, California: Master Books, 1988), p. 7,8
Leading scientists are abandoning their faith in Darwin's theory of evolution. Why?" Luther D. Sunderland, Darwin's Enigma, (Santee, California: Master Books, 1988), Back cover.
1989
Although the history of the earth and life has long been interpreted by the uniformitarian maxim, 'the present is the key to the past,' more and more geologists are returning to catastrophism." ~ Henry M. Morris, "Evolution - A House Divided," Impact, 194, August, 1989, p. iii.
1990
Even though the large majority of modern scientists still embrace an evolutionary view of origins, there is a significant and growing number of scientists who have abandoned evolution altogether and have accepted creation instead." ~ Mark Looy, "I Think; Therefore, There is a Supreme Thinker," Impact, 208, October, 1990, p. i
1991
Of course, the demise of the Big Bang theory will not discourage evolutionary theorists from proposing other theories. In fact, theories based on plasma processes and a revised steady-state theory have already been advanced to replace Big Bang cosmologies." Duane T. Gish, "The Big Bang Theory Collapses" Impact, 216 (June 1991), p. iv.
1993
Today, however, the 'creative' role of natural selection is being questioned by a growing number of scientists. Yet most of these scientists have not reconsidered the intelligent design argument which was replaced by natural selection as the supposed source of apparent design." ~ Percival Davis and Dean H. Kenyon, Of Pandas and People, (Dallas: Haughton Publishing Co., 1993), p. 67
Today, there is a growing recognition among scientists of the dramatic implication that the principle of uniformity holds for the origin of functional information. This is not an argument against Darwinian evolution. It is, however, an important scientific inference in favor of the intelligent origin of genetic messages." ~ Percival Davis and Dean H. Kenyon, Of Pandas and People, (Dallas: Haughton Publishing Co., 1993), p. 64
"There are hopeful signs, however. Evolution theory itself has now collapsed under scientific scrutiny. Further, the foundations have not been totally abandoned by scientists." ~ T. V. Varughese, "Christianity and Technological Advance," Impact, 245, p. iv.
1994
Even scientists are leaving Darwinian evolution in droves, recognizing that strictly natural processes, operating at random on inorganic chemicals, could never have produced complex living cells. They have grown weary of arguing how random mutations in a highly complex genetic code provide improvements in it." ~ John D. Morris, The Young Earth, (Colorado Springs: Master Books, 1994), p. 121
Well, the Big Bang has started to fizzle! Astronomer Hoyle says that a 'sickly pall now hangs over the big bang theory.' The Big Bang has fallen with a big bang! Eminent scientists who reject the BBT include Nobel Prize winner Hannes Alfven, astronomer Sir Fred Hoyle, astronomer Jayant Narlikar, astronomer N. Chandra Wickramasinghe, astronomer Geoffrey Burbidge, physicist Allen Allen, physicist Hermann bondi, physicist Robert Oldershaw and physicist G. de Vaucouleurs." ~ Don Boys, Evolution: Fact, Fraud or Faith, (Largo, Fl: Freedom Publications, 1994), p. 44-45
1995
The cosmologists (with a number of notable exceptions) are all committed to the 'Big Bang' theory of cosmic origin, the date of which is the age for which they are searching. But the 'Big Bang' itself is highly speculative, and there are a growing number of astronomers who are questioning it." ~ Henry M. Morris, "Cosmology's Holy Grail," Back To Genesis February, 1995,No. 74, p. b.
Of course, I take a different view. In my opinion, much of the history of the twentieth century will be seen in retrospect as a failed experiment in scientific atheism. The thinkers most responsible for making the twentieth century mindset were Darwin, Marx, and Freud. Freud has now lost most of his scientific standing, and Marx has been so spectacularly discredited that he retains his influence only in the loftiest academic ivory towers. Darwinism is still untouchable, but the most widely used college evolutionary biology textbook (by Douglas Futuyma) links his achievement to that of the other two. Phillip E. Johnson, "What (If Anything) Hath God Wrought? Academic Freedom and the Religious Professor" Academe, Sept. 1995. http://www.leaderu.com/pjohnson/wrought.html
GRM: Sounds a bit like Harold Clark's 1929 statement.
1996
We are the only people ever to see (or need) direct scientific proof not only of God's existence, but also for His transcendent capacity to create space and time dimensions, as well as to operate in dimensions independent from our own four." ~ Hugh Ross, Beyond the Cosmos (Colorado Springs: NavPress, 1996), p. 33
The Behe argument is as revolutionary for our time as was Darwin's argument was for his. If true, it presages not just a change in a scientific theory, but an overthrow of the worldview that has dominated intellectual life ever since the triumph of Darwinism, the metaphysical doctrine of scientific materialism or naturalism. A lot is at stake, and not just for science." ~ Phillip E. Johnson, "The Storyteller and the Scientist", First Things, Oct. 1996, p.47.
1997
Even though the Big Bang is still the cosmogony of choice for the majority of astronomers, there is a rapidly growing body of very competent dissenters. "Henry Morris, Back to Genesis,101, May, 1997, p. a,b
1998
"Darwin gave us a creation story, one in which God was absent and undirected natural processes did all the work. That creation story has held sway for more than a hundred years. It is now on the way out. When it goes, so will all the edifices that have been built on its foundation." William A. Dembski, "Introduction to Mere Creation," in William A. Dembski, ed.,Mere Creation, (Downer’s Grove, Ill.: Intervarsity Press, 1998), pp 13-30, p. 29
What is science going to look like once intelligent design replaces it?" William A. Dembski, "Redesigning Science," in William A. Dembski, ed.,Mere Creation, (Downer’s Grove, Ill.: Intervarsity Press, 1998), pp 93-112, p. 93
Of Evolution:
In appearance it is as impregnable as the Soviet Union seemed a few years ago. But the ship has sprung a metaphysical leak, and that leak widens as more and more people understand it and draw attention to the conflict between empirical science and materialist philosophy. The more perceptive of the ship's officers know that the ship is doomed if the leak cannot be plugged. The struggle to save the ship will go on for a while, and meanwhile there will even be academic wine-and-cheese parties on the deck. In the end the ship's great firepower and ponderous armor will only help drag it to the bottom." Phillip Johnson, "How to Sink a Battleship," in William A. Dembski, ed.,Mere Creation, (Downer’s Grove, Ill.: Intervarsity Press, 1998), pp 446-453, p. 453
1999
Meanwhile, it is my personal hope that these positions newly adopted by scholars in the scientific community when they do reach the larger world, will lead to turn to a renewal of philosophy and humane letters, and that an enhanced confidence in the ordered structure of physical reality will afford men and women a more assured, firmer stride in the paths of narrative and poetic composition. Actually, I have no doubt that this will be the case, at least after my time, and I cherish the suspicion that future students of literary history, not so terribly far down the road, may look back to these past two centuries as a somewhat weird period, during which an extraordinary multitude of singularly disturbed authors composed an inordinate number of very bizarre and disquieting books. 'Yes,' their teachers will be obliged to inform them, 'a lot of people back in those unfortunate days had gotten it into their silly heads that the whole world and everything in it had somehow evolved by accident, you see. It was all rather strange." Patrick Henry Reardon, "The World as Text," Touchstone, July/August, 1999, p. 89
2000
There is growing interest in a biological theory of intelligent design around the world. While many still vigorously oppose all such ideas, there is a much greater openness than ever before. Philosophers, mathematicians, chemists, engineers, and biologists are willing to suggest, even demand, that a more rigorous study of intelligent design in relation to biological organisms be pursued. A renaissance may be around the corner." Ray Bohlin, "The Natural Limits to Biological Change," in Ray Bohlin, ed., Creation, Evolution, & Modern Science, (Grand Rapids: Kregel Publications, 2000), p. 44
2001
Nevertheless, evolutionists, having largely become disenchanted with the fossil record as a witness for evolution because of the ubiquitous gaps where there should be transitions, recently have been promoting DNA and other genetic evidence as proof of evolution." Henry Morris, "The Scientific Case Against Evolution: A Summary, Part II", Impact, 331(2001) http://www.icr.org/pubs/imp/imp-331.htm
Intellectual honesty will soon force many scientists to abandon Darwin's theory of the evolution of species in exchange for intelligent design or outright Biblical creation." Gregory J. Brewer, "The Immanent Death of Darwinism and the Rise of Intelligent Design," Impact, 341(2001), p. i
2002
Creation scientists may be in the minority so far, but their number is growing, and most of them (like this writer) were evolutionists at one time, having changed to creationism at least in part because of what they decided was the weight of scientific evidence." Henry Morris, "What are Evolutionists Afraid of?" Back to Genesis, No. 168(Dec. 2002).
"As the evidence mounts, many biologists and others are returning to a belief in a Creation-God." Ralph O. Muncaster, Why Are Scientists Turning to God?, (Eugene, Oregon: Harvest House Publishers, 2002), p. 19
"The good news is that the ever-increasing acquisition of knowledge is now pointing scientists back to God! Based on historical factors, eventually that belief will filter down to the schools and the general public." Ralph O. Muncaster, Why Are Scientists Turning to God?, (Eugene, Oregon: Harvest House Publishers, 2002), p. 21
Others may fear a need to change their lifestyles to please a God. Still others make their livelihood trying to prove naturalistic evolution. There are many possible reasons, yet the scientific trend, particularly in microbiology, is a return to consideration of God." Ralph O. Muncaster, Why Are Scientists Turning to God?, (Eugene, Oregon: Harvest House Publishers, 2002), p. 35
Seeing all this, one can reasonably ask the question: When exactly will the demise of evolution be apparent to the rest of us?
Acknowledgement: Thanks to all who have pointed out quotations which were added to the original document.
Originally posted at http://home.entouch.net/dmd/moreandmore.htm. Copyright 2002 G.R. Morton. This can be freely distributed so long as no changes are made and no charges are made.
So you're under the impression that the appropriate venue for scientific (or putatively scientific) ideas to compete is the high school classroom or textbook?
Speaking of sloppy and lazy science, 600 years ago, the religious leaders of the day believed that the world was flat and that the sun and stars rotated around the earth.
Galileo had scientific evidence that challenged their beliefs, yet had to hide it or else face the wrath of the religious leaders.
What's changed since then? The beliefs of the religious leaders hasn't. The very same religious tenets that supported a flat-earth 600 years ago are still in place today.
Who's being sloppy and lazy today? Not the scientists. They're challenging and testing their beliefs every day. Are the religious leaders challenging and testing their beliefs for validity?
Say, here is a another news report.Seems scientists are, well, er, um, creating life by intelligent design:
Work on the world's first human-made species is well under way at a research complex in Rockville, Md., and scientists in Canada have been quietly conducting experiments to help bring such a creature to life. http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20051219.wxlife19/BNStory/specialScienceandHealth/ Robert Holt, head of sequencing for the Genome Science Centre at the University of British Columbia, is leading efforts at his Vancouver lab to play a key role in the production of the first synthetic life form -- a microbe made from scratch. The project is being spearheaded by U.S. scientist Craig Venter, who gained fame in his former job as head of Celera Genomics, which completed a privately-owned map of the human genome in 2000. Dr. Venter, 59, has since shifted his focus from determining the chemical sequences that encode life to trying to design and build it: "We're going from reading to writing the genetic code," he said in an interview. The work is an extreme example of a burgeoning new field in science known as synthetic biology. It relies on advances in computer technology that permit the easy assembly of the chemical bits, known as nucleotides, that make up DNA. Several scientific groups are trying to make genes that do not exist in nature, in hopes of constructing microbes that perform useful tasks, such as producing industrial chemicals, clean energy or drugs. Dr. Venter and his colleagues are pushing the technology to its limits by trying to put together an entirely synthetic genome.http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20051219.wxlife19/BNStory/specialScienceandHealth/
Does this make them non scientists?
Pavlov's dog, I tell you. Salivate, Galileo, salivate, church, ring the bell pull the string hear the canned robotic response.
The Bible teaches that all animals were created out of nothingness with all their unique features intact. That's also what the ID proponents/defense witnesses said in testimony during the trial.
Fish created with scales/fins and birds created with feathers/beaks/wings.
This is incompatible with the theory of evolution which states that all plants and animals share a common origin and evolved into what they've become due to natural selection.
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.
