When will evo's and creato's learn?

Great Debates
21

**

There might be nothing wrong with it per se, but when it leads to people manipulating scientific evidence, inventing things out of whole cloth and ignoring solid scientific data simply because it doesn’t say what you’d like (which has been shown), it isn’t a very good witnessing tool.

In fact, raad the forward to for the Don Stoner book A New Look at an Old Earth (What the Creation Institutes Are Not Telling You About Genesis) written by a Christian scientist Dr. Hugh Ross:

As you can see, some people feel that it does the exact opposite.

To put it bluntly: Why the Hell am I going to listen to a bunch of people about a God who they have to lie for?

**

And no matter what, religion cannot be taught as science. People can use witchcraft to get the “proof” they want that their theological beliefs are right for all I care. But the issue is what science can use in its pursuit of the “truth,” and that is tangible evidence so far removed from religious faith that it might be the exact opposite.

**

The fact that they have been answered by the scientific community says that they have.

If you can find an example of any evidence brought forth by a Creationist to support his or her views that science said, “Get away boy, you bother me” and never addressed, you;d have a point. Can you?

**

That’s why it’s so ironic that they seem to think so.

Creationists don’t submit their findings for peer review. They go and put it on a video tape and sell it at speeches. This is not because they are forced out. I can show you evidence of respected scientists being turned down to debate some of these guys.

It is a baseless claim that science is inflexible. I would like to see your evidence for it, in fact.

**

And then they make up what they like to hear rather than look at the scientific evidence. Because that’s the only way they can reconcile those thoughts if they are in the literalist camp.

**

By hook or by crook.

**

And all I did was show you that they have challenged, their claims have been refuted, and they still come back saying the same things over and over again. I gave you actual citations of people who admitted themselves that certain things were incorrect and then they were caught still teaching it!

**

I appreciate that, but I do think I know how these folks think. And no, I won’t ever agree that any God worth His salt needs people to lie for them (as has been shown), and I won’t ever agree that philosophical dogmatic beliefs belongs on par with actual science any more than witch doctory belong on the same level as medical doctors. And I’ll never let people try and pawn those off as good ideas.

22

Oh J. F. C! That is the second “I never said I was referring to X” post that I’ve read today. When you said:

Yeah, you probably could’ve been a little more clear that ‘these boards’ didn’t actually refer to ‘these boards right here that I’m posting on right now’. Sheesh.

23

For those interested in some actual, researched facts concerning the OP from an independant source rather than the ‘all scientific theory and evidence points towards evolution’ mumbo-jumbo being spouted by certain board members I heartily recommend “Ideology and environmental science research” from “Environmental Science and Policy” Volume 3, Issue 1
1 February 2000
Pages 9-10
This is a respected journal with no affiliations to any theological group.

"Almost everywhere I find scientists making claims that can only be considered theories at best, or speculation at worst. Such claims are made in all fields, including my own. Let me provide some examples. Let me begin with the most controversial one of all ¯¯ Darwinian evolution, or the claim that life evolved spontaneously, by chance (i.e., macro- and not micro-evolution). Is this fact or fancy? Or is this simply a useful working hypothesis? If it is the latter, then I raise no objections, but if it is touted as a “fact of science”, not open to discussion, then I must demur. The empirical evidence to support unequivocally the Darwinian claim simply does not exist; there are as many reasons to accept design as an explanation of life’s origins as chance (e.g., Johnson; Miller and Behe). As a scientist, what bothers me most about the debate is the ideological stand that some scientists take regarding any opposing views ¯¯ all opponents are labelled religious fundamentalists. I would hardly classify the highly-regarded historian Paul Johnson (1996, p. 3) as a religious fundamentalist, nor the self-proclaimed atheist Richard Miller (1992), nor Michael Behe (1996) and Phillip Johnson (1991), for that matter. Of course, the label of religious fundamentalism can easily be made to stick to anyone if it is defined narrowly enough. Thus, Stephen Gould (1999, p. 84) implicitly defines a religious fundamentalist as anyone who accepts miracles (viz., creation, virgin birth, resurrection). Gould’s attempt to reconcile the opposing views of how life came about only serves to drive a greater wedge between them. My point is simply this: we can never empirically verify that one view is correct. Therefore, why do we only accept one way of looking at issues that involve origins? Why do we let ideological matters dictate whose view is acceptable in reviewed journals?

24

Gaspode:

Considering that the quote you provided was written in the first person, might it not have been helpful to provide the author’s name along with the quote?

Or ist there something that you’re trying to conceal there?

25

Actually, not much to hide. Just from kind of an unusual source.

G. Cornelius VanKooten is a Ph.D in Economics who works for the Department of Forest Resources Management at the University of British Columbia. He lists his research intrests as “Economics of climatic change, Forest economics, Agricultural economics, Economics of natural resources, and Economics and religion.”

http://www.forestry.ubc.ca/people/kooten.htm

It’s also pretty clear from his course’s titles, including such gems as “Economic evaluation of British Columbia’s Forest Practices Code: Where are the benefits” and “Use of public perceptions of ground water quality benefits in developing livestock management options” exactly which directions his Economic intrests tend to lean. (Sidenote: My favorite was actually “Economics of anti-poaching enforcement and the ivory trade ban”, reminded me a little of a Simpsons moment)

Beyond that, I would question the exact benefit of consulting economists with the hope of discerning the origin of biodiversity. Perhaps it was purchased? I suppose that does count as a seperate theory. . .

26

I guess that simply posting an editorial-like narrative from a professor at the Department of Forest Resources Management at The University of British Columbia should mean something? Seems that he is long on opinions but short on any evidence.

Not only that, but his expert opinions seem to be based on some falsehoods.

First of all, I have to take issue with this statement:

Anyone who uses the phrase “Darwinian Evolution” is initially suspect. Throw the term in your favorite search engine. Only Creationists ever use it. And you.

Also, please put the terms micro- and macro-evolution in any search engine and you will also see it for the loaded term that it is.

According to the Macroevolution FAQ at The Talk Origins Archive, the difference between the two thoughts is quite negligible:

Also, simply saying that, “the empirical evidence to support unequivocally the Darwinian claim simply does not exist” does not bring anything to the table. All you did was bring someone in who, like you, says (paraphrased) “there isn’t a mountain of evidence.” Nowhere in his editorial is any of this evidence or reasons for doubt presented. Just like your posts thus far on the subject.

Now, his only defense is not the actual evidence. That would be way too easy. Instead, he complains that everyone is just writing off those who do prevent dissenting views as Fundamentalist Christians. Then he claims that a few notable folks who offer evidence which refutes Evolution (or so the author claims) and argues that they’re not even religious.

I don’t know what his definition of religious is, but let’s see here:

Paul Johnson is a Historian. I do not know if the man has any scientific credentials at all. His view is decidedly conservative, however, based upon his ideas in his best-selling book Modern Times.

However, this is the same Paul Johnson who wrote The Necessity for Christianity, and his list of books have a lot more theological, philosophical and historical titles than science texts. I wonder if the claims in the editorial you reprinted have much merit. Regardless, what are his credentials, exactly? And more important, what did he claim?

If you can find something that this Richard Miller has done, maybe I can comment on it. Or if someone here has an idea as to what this guy has researched, please to share. Because I couldn’t find anything about a Rickard Miller relevant to this discussion anywhere.

As for Michael Behe, he was quoted as saying:

“Behe has refused to identify the ‘designer’ when confronted, even though he professes belief in the Judeo-Christian God, is more than willing to speak at religiously-sponsored events, and get his attacks on evolutionary biology published in conservative magazines,” according to Behe’s Empty Box, which lists a slew of citations about how “non-religious” Behe really is.

In an Interview with Phillip Johnson, he comes right out and says that he is:

The rest of the interview continually upholds that Johnson is, indeed, quite Christian.

The silly thing is that the person’s religion really doesn’t matter, and in fact, dismissing the arguments of a Christian out-of-hand just because he or she was a Christian would be an ad hominem of sorts. To be sure, all of the people mentioned in this article - and everyone else who wasn’t - have had their faulty ideas challenged by mainstream scientists. I repeat, their ideas. Not their religious beliefs.

So, in summary, what you have presented as your evidence is an opinion piece from a Scientific publication. In it, no new or even old evidence is brought forth. Instead, the person whose qualifications and background seem dubious, simply says that science is ignoring people. Then, he either lies or is tragically misinformed about those people’s theologic affiliation, and the irony is that it doesn’t matter anyway since their ideas have all already been discredited and have not been ignored.

In any event, finding a person who thinks that there is evidence either against Evolution and/or for Creationism is not difficult. Finding the actual evidence itself seems to be a lot more difficult…

As we witnessed yet again.

27

[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by yosemitebabe *
**

Nice to see you’re still pitching. S I must admit that, when confronted with a true believer, there is a tendancy among us heathen to write the guy off as being ignorant and just ignore him. Or, react with total contempt. Strangely enough, the religious people seem to resent this. S

On a few occasions though, it really DOES get irritating when you hand the man the evidence and he just writes it off as “Satanic lies,” or scientists “misinterpreting” the evidence without really addressing the issues. On one or two occasions I’ve wanted to grab the guy and shake him and ask “WHAT’S WRONG WITH YOU?” I suppose that comes across pretty clearly.

The worst part is that all this happens BEFORE he even bring up the subject of trying to teach my children creationism. Up to that point he really hasn’t done me any harm.

Regards.

Testy

28

I have absolutely nothing further to add to the OP other than to restate my agreement with Icewolf
I don’t even have much of a problem with Satan’s critique of the document I posted. Actually it’s very well done.

[slight hijack in the interests of fighting ignorance]

What I do wish to point out is this statement.

This is deliberate dissemination of erroneous information by Satan.
I have already posted the following cites in another thread but I will repost them here.

Thornhill RH. Ussery DW. A classification of possible routes of Darwinian evolution. Journal of Theoretical Biology. 203(2):111-116, 2000 Mar 21.

Davis B.K.
A fitness principle for pre-darwinian evolution based on selection of the least action path,
Journal of Molecular Evolution, Volume 43, Issue 1, 1996, Pages 1-3

Eva Jablonka, Marion J. Lamb and Eytan Avital
`Lamarckian’ mechanisms in darwinian evolution, Trends in Ecology & Evolution, Volume 13, Issue 5, May 1998, Pages 206-210

These were gathered with a five minute search using the ‘ScienceDirect’ search engine and are only those that use the term in the title. There are a plethora of articles printed in journals in the last year that use the term in the text.
The term is not one that ‘only creationists ever use’. These are respected peer-reviewed scientific journals and I certainly have no evidence the authors are creationists and challenge Satan to support his assertion that they are.

Anyone who makes blanket statements when they have clearly not read the literature is immediately suspect.

[/slight hijack in the interests of fighting ignorance]

29

Just trying to introduce the concept that some of us just want to be left the heck alone with our private beliefs, thank you very much!

Do either, just leave them in peace, unless they are “in your face” about it, and initiating a debate.

As long as you react in contempt behind their back, all is fine. I am sure they can still sleep at night, with the realization that “those evil evolutionists think we’re all fools”. But if you react with contempt to their faces, even if they have been low-key about their beliefs - well, that is the epitome of rudeness. I am sure you don’t like it when someone reacts towards you with contempt when you dare to have an opposing point of view.

Anyway, if they are as zealous about their beliefs as you are about yours, I am sure the feeling of contempt will be reciprocal.

Well, did they ask for the evidence? Were they trying to convince you of their way of thinking? Are they interested in a debate? If they are, they are probably thinking “WHAT THE HELL IS WRONG WITH YOU?” right back. If they are not trying to argue or debate with you, leave them the heck alone, and don’t bother with them. Worry about the ones who are trying to teach Creation in schools, and trying to change public policy. But if they are minding their own business - why let their beliefs bug you?

30

Yosemitibabe.

I seem to have gotten off on the wrong foot with “still pitching” line. It wasn’t intended as a slam, just nice to see you sticking up for your fellow believers or “still pitching.” OK?

I ALWAYS leave Christians (fundies and otherwise) alone with their beliefs. Most of my relatives are serious 6000 year old earth, fossils are tricks of satan, Adam & Eve type fundies so I have some sympathy for their views, or at least some sympathy for the people that hold those views.

Having said all of that, it IS frustrating when someone rejects the evidence of their eyes in favor of faith in something intangible and unprovable. It seems irrational and that is alarming.

Regards.

Testy.

31

Sometimes a more complete picture of the truth can be gained by taking the good points of both sides of a debate and constructing a synthesis that is better than either theory separately.

This is not one of those times. Just like we don’t look for a synthesis between the flat earth theory and the spherical earth theory, or a synthesis between the geocentric theory and the heliocentric theory, there is no reason to look for a synthesis of evolutionary theory and creationist theory.

In this particular case, one side is completely 100% wrong. Now, that doesn’t mean that the other side is completely 100% right…just that combining a 100% wrong theory with a 50% wrong theory makes the better theory worse rather than better.

So, the heliocentric theory is improved, not by trying to figure out how both the earth and the sun could be the center of the universe, but by noting that the sun is only the center of the solar system, not the entire universe. Likewise, evolutionary theory can be improved by better understandings of genetics, populations, ecology, etc. It cannot be improved by bringing in theism.

32

[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by Testy *

I did not think you were starting a some big honking mud fest with me. You’be been quite polite. But I have to ask, what exactly is your point by taking pains to tell me how you often “react with contempt” towards Creationists, and how you want to shake some of them and ask “WHAT THE HELL IS WRONG WITH YOU?” Why did you tell me this, exactly? Don’t you think I already know this? This board is FULL of that kind of reaction.

Thanks for sharing that. My advice is (as it was before) that unless these people are trying to change public policy, don’t let their beliefs bother you. The world is FULL of people who will not “see the light” the way you think they should.

33

cainxinth wrote, in the OP:

Oh yeah, I forgot that everybody who doesn’t believe in Creation is an atheist. :rolleyes:

34

Is that really a problem, though? Do people usually come up to you and, unprovoked, start telling you about evolution?

35

I was speaking in more general terms. (Like, be able to keep my Sundays off without having someone “decide” that my “reasons” aren’t “good enough”. You know, things that we discussed on the “persecution” thread.) I already gave this example earlier on this thread. Often on message boards, (more than in real life), some people do pester others who dare to not share their beliefs (and this goes BOTH ways, believe me!) Also, some people just cannot let it go when someone just mentions that they have particular beliefs.

36

Dunno about you, but once a month I go to neighborhood houses on Sundays, quiz people if they believe in Christ, and if they say “yes”, I try to convert them to atheism. :slight_smile: Never have much success, though – for some reason, not a lot of Christian folks are home on Sunday mornings… :smiley:

(The above was a joke, for the humor-impaired)

37

I stated at the start of my post that I didn’t want to start yet another evolution vs creation debate on ** these boards ** because I was posting on ** these boards ** and that is the ** only ** reference to ** these boards ** that I made. If you want to read something into my posts that isn’t there, so be it, but don’t get annoyed at me for it.

I didn’t ask you to! In all honesty, I don’t think that’s what the majority of creationists do - at least I hope not. If they are wrong (and I know you believe they are!) then at least accept that they are honestly wrong, in the sense that they are not motivated by a desire to mislead and deceive. That would hardly fit with Christianity, would it?!

38

Iguana Boy:

Some of them certainly do intend to deceive. They spout misinformation, get called on it, admit that they were wrong, and then go back to spouting the very same misinformation. What else can you call that?

39

I call that deceit.

That’s why I said the ** majority ** of creationists!

40

slight aside - how would a public school go about teaching creationism? what’s to teach? “god created everything. ok, on to math.” i don’t get it. did anyone go to a public school where they taught creationism?