Skip to comments.Why Evolutionary-Based Science Is A Menace To Scientific Research, Discovery, and Progress
Posted on 11/06/2009 9:39:16 AM PST by GodGunsGuts
Why Evolutionary-Based Science Is A Menace To Scientific Research, Discovery, and Progress
Evolutionary-based research always begins with the inaccurate and unscientific presupposition that the Theory of Evolution, i.e. the Big Bang, the spontaneous generation of life, and common descent, is true.
Due to this systemic problem, scientific discovery and progress is severely hampered, not to mention the hundreds of millions of research dollars that are squandered every year.
In a time in which almost ANY alternative thought is given a platform, the evolution industry is silencing dissenting scientific evidence, even when its from fellow evolutionists!
See the growing list of dissenters and read the case histories of how the evolution industry is hopelessly locked in a battle with the Truth...
(Excerpt) Read more at whoisyourcreator.com ...
Very strange. Would you please name some of the books that you read from both sides? How long ago was this?
I don't remember precisely, but it would have been, I think, around 1982 or 1983.
I don't remember the exact order, but the first books I read were not conventional "creation science."
One was Francis Hitching's The Neck of the Giraffe. Hitching was, as I later understood, a "New Ager." He did use many "creation science" type arguments (e.g. gaps in the fossil record, no transistionals) but also used, IIRC, secular anti-darwinism type arguments, probably along the lines of natural selection being tautological and arguments for neo-Lamarkism.
I think before this I'd read lawyer Norman Macbeth's Darwin Retried. This book did not use "creation science" arguments, and was basically a secular critique of Darwinism (as opposed to evolution as such) without offering any particular alternative.
I also read a couple Darwin biographies that tended to be critical of Darwinism. The one by Gertrude Himmelfarb, and another more obscure one I don't recall now, but both influenced me.
Then, directed initially by Hitchings (who had claimed to be critical of YEC, but bizarrely cribbed their arguments) but soon striking out on my own, I started reading conventional "creation science" works.
I know I read, for instance, the classic Whitcomb-Morris The Genesis Flood before doing my library project, but am equally certain I would have selected arguments from the more up to date Creation Science (or was it called Scientific Creationism?) by Henry Morris. I also read quite a few other books by Henry Morris, although I don't recall which were before and which after my library project.
I'm also certain I used Duane Gish's Evolution: The Fossils Say NO! in my library project, and maybe (less certain here) a book by another ICR scientist, I believe last name Parker, although I don't recall the title. Oops. After googling that would be Gary Parker, probably What Is Creation Science?. However this was published in 1985. So if I did use that one my library project would have been a few years later than I thought.
Arguments I looked at. Hmmm. I think only a couple specific "young earth" arguments, and maybe only one. I wasn't inclined to think these were likely to pan out. But I do remember being startled by Henry Morris' claim that historic lavas (less than 100 or 200 years old, IIRC) in Hawaii dated to be millions of years old, and know I looked into that one early on. (One of my first big shocks about how blatantly dishonest creationists can be in misrepresenting their references.)
I'm equally certain I looked at one or more of Duane Gish's no transitional forms arguments, although I don't remember wrt to which critters. I think it would have most likely have been either in the area of hominids or the reptile-mammal transition.
That's the best I can recall here a quarter century or so later. I continued to follow the antievolution movement closely until around the mid 1990s, and more sporadically since.
BTW, you seem to think it "strange" that I would have read and examined creationist literature. In my experience it has been more the norm. Most other anticreationists I met were well read in "creation science" literature. Able to discuss the finer points of differences in "flood geology" scenarios and the like. Virtually all had read at least one or a few antievolution books.
It is obvious that you lack a basic understanding of science.
You really should do some additional research outside of your creationist talking points.
If you believe evolution of all species from one, then you are lacking in scientific knowledge far more than I. Unless you think science is about faith, guessing, and hoping as it seems you do.
Science is based on empirical evidence and not faith. The empirical evidence supports the evolutionary theory, for that reason I accept that fact.
All of your denial of history and regurgitation of creationist misconceptions will not change the facts. Evolution is real.
What evidence would it take for you to accept the evolutionary theory?
[The relative abundance of hydrogen/helium was well known before the Big Bang theory was formulated so how is predicting that which is already known meaningful? And it didnt require a particle accelerator to find this out.]
Because inherent in the Big Bang theory is details of the process for the synthesis of elements from simpler subatomic particles. These details not only predict the relative abundance of these elements but they also predict HOW and WHY they are produced. It’s more than just spitting out a number (which was already known) it’s about explaining the process and then using the explanation to make predictions about that which isn’t known and then running experiments to see if those predictions come true.
And they do come true which means the theory is, by definition, both “robust” and “reliable”. Search for “Quantum Electrodynamics” for more info on this.
That statement is simply not correct.
There are mountains of evidence if you just look beyond your creationist talking points, just because you say something that does not change the facts.
So what evidence would cause you to accept the evolutionary theory?
The falsity of Reverend Al's pal's story is well known.
The last three citations given are false ? I'd like to hear more about that.
“Who made you king? I didn’t vote for you.”