Anti-Creationists Backed Into a Corner?

AgapePress ^ | February 24, 2003 | Jim Brown

[Remedy]

More than 200 evolutionists have issued a statement aimed at discrediting advocates of intelligent design and belittling school board resolutions that question the validity of Darwinism.

The National Center for Science Education has issued a statement that backs evolution instruction in public schools and pokes fun at those who favor teaching the controversy surrounding Darwinian evolution. According to the statement, "it is scientifically inappropriate and pedagogically irresponsible" for creation science to be introduced into public school science textbooks. [See Earlier Article]

Forrest Turpen, executive director of Christian Educators Association International, says it is obvious the evolution-only advocates feel their ideology and livelihood are being threatened.

"There is a tremendous grouping of individuals whose life and whose thought patterns are based on only an evolutionary point of view," Turpen says, "so to allow criticism of that would be to criticize who they are and what they're about. That's one of the issues."

Turpen says the evolution-only advocates also feel their base of financial rewards is being threatened.

"There's a financial issue here, too," he says. "When you have that kind of an establishment based on those kinds of thought patterns, to show that there may be some scientific evidence -- and there is -- that would refute that, undermines their ability to control the science education and the financial end of it."

Turpen says although evolutionists claim they support a diversity of viewpoints in the classroom, they are quick to stifle any criticism of Darwinism. In Ohio recently, the State Board of Education voted to allow criticism of Darwinism in its tenth-grade science classes.

[Lurking Libertarian]

"dogmatic darwinite" placemarker.

[MoGalahad]

<>Actually, the "simple truth" is that you don't know me at all, but that doesn't stop you from making huge presumptions which allow you to rationalize your failure to answer some simple questions.<>

I find your statement to be hypocritical since this started with one of your Darwinian evolutionists, i.e., 'staytrue', proclaiming that all creationists do is stop at 'god did this'. That is a patently false statement no matter what your philosophical preference my be. The only thing that I owe you is to point you to the Truth; which I have done. The burden of proof is on you because ultimately you are the only one that can convince yourself, but beware of self deception. Its your soul that hangs in the balance.

<>Been there, done that (for close to 30 years), found it extremely wanting. I was hoping that you'd have something new and actually worthwhile to offer, as you promised -- something actually resembling a "current body of valid scientific work" in creationism. I'd like to see it. Where is it? <>

I promised you nothing. However there are two excellent books by Phillip Johnson; one dealing with Darwinism and the other with Naturalism that you might want to read. Dr. Hugh Ross has written three excellent books on intelligent design and Fred Herren has also written a excellent book on the same topic. The Creation Institute has also published a great deal of information. If, as you have claimed, you have read these books and articles and still believe there is 'no current body of valid scientific work' concerning creationism then by all means continue in your dogmatic defense of Darwinian evolution. But be advised that you are betting your eternal life that you are right.

My second point here is that the 'current body of valid scientific work' supports intelligent design better than Darwinian evolution. Many of the current experts in the field recognize this. Jamie Shapiro, a molecular biologist at the University of Chicago, recently stated in 'National Review' that "There are no detailed Darwinian accounts for the evolution of any fundamental biochemical or cellular system, only a variety of wishful speculations. It is remarkable that Darwinism is accepted as a satisfactory explanation for such a vast subject-evolution-with so little rigorous examination of how well its basic theses work in illuminating specific instances of biological adaptation or diversity." There have been many other reservations expressed about Darwinian evolution by eminent scholars in closely related fields over the past decade. Unfortunately I don't have the time right now to track all of those down.

<>I certainly did read "the full post" -- it was a broadside rant about "you and your ilk suppress any dissenting view", but provided nothing about what sort of "valid scientific work" is actually done by creationists. So I *invite* you to show some (not suppress you), and what do you do? Evade and make excuses.<>

Then you don't understand English because the point of my post was not to delineate all the 'valid scientific work' which supports creationism. If scientific work is truely valid it supports the truth not a particular established dogma; one way of the other. My contention is that the body of valid scientific work on this issue supports intelligent design/creationism more than it does darwinian evolution. But this is an aside. The point of my post is that the Darwinists have stacked the deck, so to speak, in their favor so it shouldn't surprise anyone that they claim to have a significant body of scientific evidence supporting their point of view. Perhaps one of your own can make my point better than I did. Harvard geneticist Richard Lewontin had the integrity and honesty to say this about Darwinian evolution; "It is not that the methods and institutions of science somehow compel us to accept a material explanation of the phenomenal world, but, on the contrary, that we are forced by our a priori adherence to material causes to create an apparatus of investigation and a set of concepts that produce material explanations, no matter how counter-intuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated." In other words, evolution is a philosophy not a fact.

<>Fine, run away if you choose.<>

I don't share personal information on the internet as a matter of prudence not as a matter of fear. Second I have never run away from a fight,intellectual or otherwise, in my life and I don't intend on starting now. Be advised that that accusation puts you on very thin ice with me. Also be advised that many of us who have dealt with the excessive ignorance and arrogance which sometimes emanates from the Darwinian evolution camp, consider snide remarks like 'there is no current body of valid scientific work' to be not only incorrect but patronizing and rude. There is a correct way to conduct intelligent dialogue, even when you disagree. If that way is ignored by one side don't be surprised when it is ignored by the other.

[AndrewC]

. Many of the current experts in the field recognize this. Jamie Shapiro, a molecular biologist at the University of Chicago, recently stated in 'National Review' that "There are no detailed Darwinian accounts for the evolution of any fundamental biochemical or cellular system, only a variety of wishful speculations.

He posted this on a post-chat question and answer session on ISCID.

James Shapiro Post-Chat

Yaakov
Hi James, It seems to me that what you are saying throws out Darwinian(or NeoDarwinian) theory of evolution as the "major" means of evolution of life on Earth and now this 21st century evolution sees a much more elegant and orgerly mechanism to induce a guided development of life when needed. Do I understand your propositions correctly

Masciarelli
My wild question: Jim wrote: "cells are capable of altering their genomes in non-random but not rigidly specified or pre-determined ways." Could this mean that cells are making 'choices' about how to react, adjust & develop to input?

James Shapiro
Yaakov, you get the message. Evolution, yes, Randomness and gradualism, only in the fine-tuning after the heavy lifting has been done.

[metacognative]

huh?

[Lurking Libertarian]

I follow these evolution threads a lot, and post "placemarkers" so I know where I was up to. (The threads tend to get very long, and there are ofter 2 -3 of them active at a time.) Patrick Henry (I think) started the practice of labelling each of his placemarkers with a memorable phrase from the previous post, and I often imitate that practice, just as a conceit, really. No biggie.

[PatrickHenry]

Patrick Henry (I think) started the practice of labelling each of his placemarkers with a memorable phrase from the previous post ...

I don't think I originated the practice. I don't even know what it signifies. I just do it when the mood strikes me.

[AndrewC]

I just do it when the mood strikes me.

About as often as a 6 pack a day smoker gets the urge. You must have DT's when Freerepublic has problems as it did recently.

[longshadow]

I don't even know what it signifies.

Prepare to be savaged by blue fonts; LBB has gratuitously declared that "placemarkers" are some sort of "secret code" used by Evo's to coordinate their evil evolutionary shenanigans.

Alpha-Smegma-Smegma; "Pierre has a moustache."
Authenticator: Bravo-Sierra.
Darwin Central HQ, OUT.

[Heartlander]

<sigh> It never helps your side when your references are full of typos & grammatical errors, nor when they conclude with lines like: "This alleged transition would be laughable if it were causing people to reject Christ and go to Hell."

What is “my side” exactly?

I, like you, dislike seeing statements as the one you quoted. I do not think that a belief in evolution will cause an individual to go to hell. I have stated numerous times that I have theistic evolutionist friends and I do not question their faith. A tragic event in someone’s life can be ‘used’ by someone to reject God and naturalist science can be ‘used’ by someone to reject God - This is an individual’s choice for the beliefs in their life.

An atheist ‘can’ be just as evangelistic about their beliefs as a Christian.

Examples:
William Dembski and Michael Behe wrote Intelligent Design: The Bridge Between Science & Theology.
Most people will agree that this should not be required reading for college biology students. You and I can agree here. Beyond the whole ‘Intelligent Design is not science thing’ - they draw some theistic conclusions. (Although ID is not necessarily theistic)

Richard Dawkins wrote The Blind Watchmaker: Why the Evidence of Evolution Reveals a Universe Without Design.
This book is required reading for some colleges. Now, beyond the whole ‘evolution is science thing’ – Dawkins draws atheistic conclusions. I am sure you can understand why an individual might find this offensive. Should science stay neutral on the subject of God or not? Dawkins actually includes abiogenesis (among other things) with evolution.

A recent interview with Dawkins:
(Note that this is just an interview and not an except from a required reading biology book. I point this out only to show how people ‘use’ their beliefs)

In the name of rationality, would you like to see Father Christmas and the Tooth Fairy stamped out?
Patricia Kell, London

No. Father Christmas and the Tooth Fairy are part of the charm of childhood. So is God. Some of us grow out of all three.

Did you have a Pauline conversion to atheism? Or did your beliefs evolve more slowly over time? What changed your mind?
Adam Elford, Northampton

I had a normal, decent Anglican upbringing, which is to say that I was never brainwashed as I might have been had I been brought up in another faith.

I toyed with atheism from the age of about nine, originally because I worked out that, of all the hundreds of religions in the world, it was the sheerest accident that I was brought up Christian. They couldn't all be right, so maybe none of them was. I later reverted to a kind of pantheism when I realised the shattering complexity and beauty of the living world. Then, around the age of 16, I first understood that Darwinism provides an explanation big enough and elegant enough to replace gods. I have been an atheist ever since. Link

Let’s look a Kent Hovind vs. Peter Singer. Hovind is not in a position of any ‘scientific’ influence. What about Peter Singer? Well he is he is Ira W. DeCamp Professor of Bioethics at the University Center for Human Values, Princeton University. He has taught at the University of Oxford, New York University, the University of Colorado at Boulder, the University of California at Irvine, and La Trobe University. Singer was also the founding father of the International Association of Bioethics. What does he believe?

Who has more influence and who is deserving of more attention here?

Look Jenny, although these are two of many individuals I have a problem with, I would not just assume that this is ‘your side’. You are intelligent and you make your own decisions. We all debate on this forum – there are times where it may be fun, entertaining, frustrating, educational, or just a way to pass time. Regardless, our influence is extremely limited.

I have singled out two people of influence with which I have a problem. But let me state to anyone who has a problem (on this forum) with Christianity or Intelligent Design,– you should take it up with the President .

[Heartlander]

Not necessarily - but again, why can't you stick to the topic? The original post was about creationists and their lame and/or disingenuous attempts to refute evolution.

Look, if you don’t like my questions – don’t answer. There are many times that I ignore questions and statements.

Someone who disagrees with evolution is not necessarily a creationist.

Someone who sees ID in science is not necessarily a creationist.

And someone who doubts the ‘theory of common descent’ is not an idiot, ignorant, or dishonest. Why should science discourage doubt with insults and intimidation?

[Heartlander]

Look, your disclaimer basically stated that they were honest but misinformed. (Does this fall under ignorant)

But now you go on to say:
I did, however, describe the nature of the folks who make a habit of making quixotic crusades against evolution with various attempts to "disprove" it. To date, as I said, those attacks have been almost without exception perpetrated by the foolhardy.

But with a new disclaimer:
I also took care to mention that there have been a few honest, intelligent folks in that same crowd, although they are depressingly rare. Is there any reason you chose to snip that out when you quoted my post for your reply and then asked a question that implied I thought the idiots were the *only* possibilities?

So now are you stating that these ‘few honest, intelligent folk’ are correct?

[PatrickHenry]

Prepare to be savaged by blue fonts; LBB has gratuitously declared that "placemarkers" are some sort of "secret code" used by Evo's to coordinate their evil evolutionary shenanigans.

Ah yes. The "big three" of the crevo threads will pile on (LBB, the babbler, and the nit-picker).

Sixty-nine skidoo. The crow flies at dawn. Industrial-strength placemarker.

[edsheppa]

OK. If you develop the ability to address the points made in the posts you respond to, let me know.

[metacognative]

Soo...is your mind made up? Or do you follow the evidence?
Do you believe darwinistic 'ascent' is possible? I see only 'descent' in the present day world.

[F16Fighter]

After a brief haitus from FR, I have regretably discovered my "y-a-w-n" post had begun to take on a life of its own while inadvertently replicated itself numerous times (OR was it trying to evolve?).

Since there happen to be threads on this forum addressing the same problem of apparent 'server difficulties', I do indeed have an convenient alibi -- nonetheless, please accept my humble apologies...

[F16Fighter]

Devastating table -- BOOKMARKED...

I especially find science's acceptance of the possiblility that somehow: 'Rocks (or gaseous elements for that matter) gave rise to intelligence', to be incredulous.

[Lurking Libertarian]

Soo...is your mind made up? Or do you follow the evidence?

As a Jew, I believe, as a matter of faith, that God is the ultimate author of life. The evidence I have seen thus far convinces me --until I see other evidence to the contrary-- that "evolution," more or less as described by scientists, is most probably the method God used to get from the first life forms to the diversity of life now seen on earth.

[metacognative]

Actually, for evolution to have happened, it would need miraculous guidance, being blind and all. But the dogmatic darwinites insist the process was Mindless as well.

[PatrickHenry]

... for evolution to have happened, it would need miraculous guidance ...

This is confusing. I had thought that creation was the divine miracle, and evolution was the non-miraculous natural process.

[Saturnalia]

I especially find science's acceptance of the possiblility that somehow: 'Rocks (or gaseous elements for that matter) gave rise to intelligence', to be incredulous.
I think that statement is missing quite a bit in between....