Darwin, Lose, or Draw
Thanks, Dave!
I haven`t had anything to get my Darwinian friends a-lather in a while, so I thought I`d post this piece to exercise their collective cardio-vascular systems. Also, go here to read an article about dissent in the scientific community from Darwinian Orthodoxy. Here is the piece about Cardinal Schonborn-enjoy!:
Austrian Cardinal Accuses America of Censorship in Evolution Debate
Says, "A truly liberal society would at least allow students to hear
of the debate"
By Meg Jalsevac
NEW YORK, February 8, 2007 (LifeSiteNews.com) Christoph Cardinal
Schonborn of Vienna delivered a speech Wednesday evening in a
continued effort to correct the frequent misconceptions regarding the
Church's teaching on creation and evolution. In his lecture,
Schonborn took to task the US court that forbad the teaching of
"intelligent design" in a Pennsylvania school and accused the court of
mandating censorship in schools and the general public.
Schonborn's lecture was sponsored by the New York based Homeland
Foundation.
Schonborn was commenting on a 2005 US federal court ruling that forbad
the Dover, Pennsylvania school district from teaching "intelligent
design" creation theory in its biology classes. The cardinal
condemned the ruling saying that it only allowed for children to be
taught an atheistic view of creation without any mention of a Divine
Creator. "A truly liberal society would at least allow students to
hear of the debate," he said.
The judge in the Dover case ruled that "intelligent design" could not
be taught in the school system because it was too closely related to
creationism, a belief in the strict interpretation of the six days of
creation as laid out in Genesis, the first book of the Bible.
In his lecture, Schonborn reinforced the Church's position that
science alone cannot explain creation but was careful to explain that
"the Catholic faith can accept" the possibility that evolution does,
in fact, occur but only under the direction of God, Himself.
Schonborn rejected the blanket acceptance of Darwinian evolution in
today's society and criticized the attempts to eliminate inquiry into
Darwin's findings. "Commonly in the scientific community every
inquiry into the scientific weaknesses of the theory is blocked off at
the very outset," Schonborn said of Darwinism. "To some extent there
prevails a type of censoring here of the sort for which one eagerly
reproached the church in former times."
Schonborn also cautioned against attributing the thoughts of others to
the Church and told his audience to "listen to my arguments." When
asked if he would endorse the beliefs of the Discovery Institute, a
think tank based in Seattle that promotes the belief of "intelligent
design", Schonborn reinforced that he adhered only to the teachings of
the Church saying, "I do not belong to any kind of boxes."
Schonborn's lecture comes at a time of particular discord between the
scientific camps of "intelligent design" creation and Darwinian
evolution.
As reported by LifeSiteNews.com, the spiritual leader of the Russian
Orthodox Church, Patriarch Alexy II recently demanded that the
communist government cease the exclusive teaching of Darwinian
creation in Russian schools. He encouraged instead the teaching of
biblical creation saying, "Teaching the biblical theory of the world's
creation will not harm students."
Just last year, the Discovery Institute gathered 500 signatures from
doctoral scientists on a statement which read: "We are skeptical of
claims for the ability of random mutation and natural selection to
account for the complexity of life. Careful examination of the
evidence for Darwinian theory should be encouraged."
In a similar instance to the Dover ruling, the Ministry of Education
in the Canadian province of Quebec issued an order last year mandating
even private, Christian schools teach Darwinian evolution or face closure.
Read Previous LifeSiteNews.com Coverage:
Russian Orthodox Church Demands End to Communist Practice of Exclusive
Darwinism in Schools
http://www.lifesite.net/ldn/2007/feb/07020606.html
Over 500 PhD Scientists Proclaim Their Doubts About Darwin's Theory
http://www.lifesite.net/ldn/2006/feb/06022204.html
Quebec Government Forcing Evangelical Private Schools to Teach Sex Ed,
Darwinism
http://www.lifesite.net/ldn/2006/oct/06102404.html
A scientific theory has to be tested and falsified, but the Defenders of the Darwinian Faith refuse to allow this for fear that their ice castle will melt away in the sunlight of open inquiry. If their case were as solid as they claim they would welcome the debate to prove it. Their hysterical reactions to any challenge suggests a deep-seated fear that they may be wrong; they cling to the theory as a drowning man clings to a life preserver.
Personally, I couldn`t care less who wins the argument in that it will not affect my belief system one way or another; I want to get to the truth. If Darwinian Theory is true, I`d happily admit I am wrong, but I want it proven, not postulated as an article of faith. Unfortunately, too many atheists are invested in Darwin to ``prove`` that there is nothing beyond the material, and the failure of their pet theory will break the philosophical bank for them. They desperately try to stifle debate because they know that there are serious shortcomings in the theory upon which they have pinned all of their beliefs.
Belief in something that cannot be proved is Faith. People don`t like their Faith challenged-especially a Faith which dismisses the spiritual for the physical, because observations can easily be used against them. It`s little wonder that the True Believers get so testy!
I haven`t had anything to get my Darwinian friends a-lather in a while, so I thought I`d post this piece to exercise their collective cardio-vascular systems. Also, go here to read an article about dissent in the scientific community from Darwinian Orthodoxy. Here is the piece about Cardinal Schonborn-enjoy!:
Austrian Cardinal Accuses America of Censorship in Evolution Debate
Says, "A truly liberal society would at least allow students to hear
of the debate"
By Meg Jalsevac
NEW YORK, February 8, 2007 (LifeSiteNews.com) Christoph Cardinal
Schonborn of Vienna delivered a speech Wednesday evening in a
continued effort to correct the frequent misconceptions regarding the
Church's teaching on creation and evolution. In his lecture,
Schonborn took to task the US court that forbad the teaching of
"intelligent design" in a Pennsylvania school and accused the court of
mandating censorship in schools and the general public.
Schonborn's lecture was sponsored by the New York based Homeland
Foundation.
Schonborn was commenting on a 2005 US federal court ruling that forbad
the Dover, Pennsylvania school district from teaching "intelligent
design" creation theory in its biology classes. The cardinal
condemned the ruling saying that it only allowed for children to be
taught an atheistic view of creation without any mention of a Divine
Creator. "A truly liberal society would at least allow students to
hear of the debate," he said.
The judge in the Dover case ruled that "intelligent design" could not
be taught in the school system because it was too closely related to
creationism, a belief in the strict interpretation of the six days of
creation as laid out in Genesis, the first book of the Bible.
In his lecture, Schonborn reinforced the Church's position that
science alone cannot explain creation but was careful to explain that
"the Catholic faith can accept" the possibility that evolution does,
in fact, occur but only under the direction of God, Himself.
Schonborn rejected the blanket acceptance of Darwinian evolution in
today's society and criticized the attempts to eliminate inquiry into
Darwin's findings. "Commonly in the scientific community every
inquiry into the scientific weaknesses of the theory is blocked off at
the very outset," Schonborn said of Darwinism. "To some extent there
prevails a type of censoring here of the sort for which one eagerly
reproached the church in former times."
Schonborn also cautioned against attributing the thoughts of others to
the Church and told his audience to "listen to my arguments." When
asked if he would endorse the beliefs of the Discovery Institute, a
think tank based in Seattle that promotes the belief of "intelligent
design", Schonborn reinforced that he adhered only to the teachings of
the Church saying, "I do not belong to any kind of boxes."
Schonborn's lecture comes at a time of particular discord between the
scientific camps of "intelligent design" creation and Darwinian
evolution.
As reported by LifeSiteNews.com, the spiritual leader of the Russian
Orthodox Church, Patriarch Alexy II recently demanded that the
communist government cease the exclusive teaching of Darwinian
creation in Russian schools. He encouraged instead the teaching of
biblical creation saying, "Teaching the biblical theory of the world's
creation will not harm students."
Just last year, the Discovery Institute gathered 500 signatures from
doctoral scientists on a statement which read: "We are skeptical of
claims for the ability of random mutation and natural selection to
account for the complexity of life. Careful examination of the
evidence for Darwinian theory should be encouraged."
In a similar instance to the Dover ruling, the Ministry of Education
in the Canadian province of Quebec issued an order last year mandating
even private, Christian schools teach Darwinian evolution or face closure.
Read Previous LifeSiteNews.com Coverage:
Russian Orthodox Church Demands End to Communist Practice of Exclusive
Darwinism in Schools
http://www.lifesite.net/ldn/2007/feb/07020606.html
Over 500 PhD Scientists Proclaim Their Doubts About Darwin's Theory
http://www.lifesite.net/ldn/2006/feb/06022204.html
Quebec Government Forcing Evangelical Private Schools to Teach Sex Ed,
Darwinism
http://www.lifesite.net/ldn/2006/oct/06102404.html
A scientific theory has to be tested and falsified, but the Defenders of the Darwinian Faith refuse to allow this for fear that their ice castle will melt away in the sunlight of open inquiry. If their case were as solid as they claim they would welcome the debate to prove it. Their hysterical reactions to any challenge suggests a deep-seated fear that they may be wrong; they cling to the theory as a drowning man clings to a life preserver.
Personally, I couldn`t care less who wins the argument in that it will not affect my belief system one way or another; I want to get to the truth. If Darwinian Theory is true, I`d happily admit I am wrong, but I want it proven, not postulated as an article of faith. Unfortunately, too many atheists are invested in Darwin to ``prove`` that there is nothing beyond the material, and the failure of their pet theory will break the philosophical bank for them. They desperately try to stifle debate because they know that there are serious shortcomings in the theory upon which they have pinned all of their beliefs.
Belief in something that cannot be proved is Faith. People don`t like their Faith challenged-especially a Faith which dismisses the spiritual for the physical, because observations can easily be used against them. It`s little wonder that the True Believers get so testy!
posted by Timothy Birdnow | 5:28 AM
22 Comments:
When debate and discussions are scorned or denied mankind loses.
So true!
Well, the problem is that there is a difference between 'teaching' and 'discussion'. We teach the best available science in the science classroom. That is, in biology, evolution is taught. We don't teach ID /creationism because it is not the best, or any science. If the ID supporters want their ideas taught as science they need to do some.
You are not only swallowing the kool-aid but you are mixing up your own batch.
The simple fact is that ID is no more science than astrology, numerology or astral projection. All of yer protestations are victimology and persecution complex bleating and whining that non-science is not being accepted as science.
What Disco fails to tell is that the only published papers of the Biologic institute are fascinating, but not proof of "ID." They lead to more exploration, not incredulity.
Wells is lying about the Haeckel imbroglio, the reason that the drawings are in biology textbooks is to show how scientific theories are tested and proved wrong, not as pillars or icons of evolution.
If the whole of ID depends on lying, obfuscation and propaganda why should it be treated as science?
So the criteria is open critique, review, and rigorous testing of scientific concepts?? This is posted as a question because the statements in your blog posts are not all too clear on the specific criteria you desire to see implemented in reference to evolutionary biology.
Another aspect of your post that I find puzzling is your reference to the concept of proof in regard to science. Science does not in any way "prove" things. Scientists in general in my experience tend to leave the concept of proof in the domains of courts of law and dispensers of beverages with high ethanol content. Science instead works at knowing about objects and phenomena with varying degrees of certainty. This very basic concept of scientific literacy is one that seems to be lost on at least a portion of those who object to evolutionary biology for some reason. It does not speak well of public education systems that this specific aspect of science appears to remain foggy to the public over a considerable period of time.
At present a person may peruse numerous scientific journals such as Science, Nature, Evolution, Systematics, Journal of Paleontology, Paleobiology, and a veritable cornucopia of similar publications and literally find them filled with various primary research articles testing evolutionary theory in rigorous, unique, and significant ways. Come to think of it, the scientific literature of life sciences and paleontology going back about 150 years is full of such material and even more testing of evolution procedes on a daily basis around the world. This reality makes me wonder about the sincerity of your post claiming some fear to test or critique evolutionary theory. It is tested, has been tested, and will continue to be tested. Please do not blame the messengers if evolutionary theory stands up as the most thoroughly and rigorously tested concept in all science....like ever...
Now...about the intelligent design concepts...when, where, who, why, and how will these ideas be subjected to critical and rigorous testing and peer review, with independently verifiable results published in a manner accessible to the public at large?
Wait a minute! I know what happened! You got evolutionary biology and intelligent design confused and intended to expose the lack of testing, evidence, and support for intelligent design, other than many voices clamouring about evolutionary biology being unfair to it.
You guys are so predictable! I always get a kick out of watching you go!
Maybe Darwinists should try doing a little science themselves, instead of blindly following a theory which has pretty well failed the tests laid down by it`s inventor.
Strange I never hear from you people except when I use the word Darwin; why, it`s as though you spend your lives trolling the web in a desperate attempt to strongarm anyone who doesn`t agree with you!
Uh, Marty, the fossil record is a complete embarassment to Darwinian theory, which says that there should be a smooth transition between species. That was what Gould was trying to rectify with punctuated equilibrium, as you know. THAT was the primary test proposed by Darwin himself.
Defending the lies of the Discovery Institute is so passé. I thought that that anti-science creationists had moved on from there.
There is nothing in science to debate about whether evolution happened. The evidence is overwhelming that it did. The claims about an imperfect fossil record are just silly. If there were not a single fossil in the world, we would know that evolution happened. While the anti-science creationists were attacking fossils and making their own fake footprints, scientists were making ever more discoveries about evolution. Please, keep up.
Uh...Timmy, they *are* doing science. It's not their fault that you don't read the literature.
Here's a selection of journals which regularly publish some of the research that's being carried out into evolutionary biology-
http://arjournals.annualreviews.org/loi/ecolsys?cookieSet=1
http://www.springerlink.com/content/1432-041X/
http://www.bioone.org/perlserv/?request=get-archive&issn=0014-3820
http://www.ingentaconnect.com/content/1520-541X
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=PublicationURL&_cdi=5031&_pubType=J&_auth=y&_acct=C000050221&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=10&md5=ee909fdceb5ab82c5bcfb22024544bc0
http://www.metapress.com/content/1573-5109/
http://www.edpsciences.org/journal/index.cfm?edpsname=gse&niv1=contents&niv2=archives
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=PublicationURL&_cdi=6650&_pubType=J&_auth=y&_acct=C000050221&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=10&md5=e9532c3e271c40e8aae3c1e398f77356
http://www.springerlink.com/content/1424-3202/
http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/cgi-bin/jhome/102521318?CRETRY=1&SRETRY=0
http://www.ingentaconnect.com/content/ap/hu
http://www.springerlink.com/content/1573-7055/
http://www.metapress.com/content/1432-1432/
http://www.ingentaconnect.com/content/0737-4038
http://www.ingentaconnect.com/content/ap/fy
http://www.ingentaconnect.com/content/0737-4038
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=PublicationURL&_cdi=20201&_pubType=J&_auth=y&_acct=C000050221&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=10&md5=883c43acd1c3847a9e30f1dfba42ff05
http://www.springerlink.com/content/1573-0875/
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=PublicationURL&_cdi=20440&_pubType=J&_auth=y&_acct=C000050221&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=10&md5=b7e971afd09492c74016e8506ae95220
http://www.springerlink.com/content/1615-6110/
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=PublicationURL&_cdi=6081&_pubType=J&_auth=y&_acct=C000050221&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=10&md5=aabd495612590ef055d8d54d29f96ec8
Now, don't criticise what you don't know anything about.
YAWN! Come on, guys, you`ve got to have something better than this!
Uh, Anonymousie, most of your links are dead. It really does not matter; of course biologists do biology, but that has nothing to do with falsifying Darwin and his theory of Natural Selection. You`ve had 130 some-odd years to come up with some evidence, yet you still have to resort to the thinnest gruel. You cannot make any predictions with Natural Selection, you really cannot define it in any meaningful way. The tests to determine it`s validity have basically failed,or at best proven inconclusive. Come on, guys; put up or shut up!
Of course, this is about Faith and not Science, with your side clinging desperately to a moth-eaten theory lest your Faith be falsified.
Anyway, I am providing a valuable service to you, the good and faithful servants of Nothing, in allowing you to spill your pent-up anger and resentment-enjoy!
I can only come to the conclusion that you are a Loki and not really interested in anything other than trying to stir things up.
Go back to sleep, Timothy; you will re-awaken at the Rapture. Trust me.
Timothy, let's presume the fossil evidence doesn't support evolution... please provide three empirical tests that affirm the ID/creation hypothesis.
Also, please provide an example of peer-reviewed biology research that you consider "the thinnest gruel" and explain your criteria for judging it as such.
Be very specific and provide actual citations (author, article title, journal title, vol/issue, page #) since most web links aren't persistent.
Notice there's no anger or resentment here, just a simple request for verifiable evidence to back up your declarations.
The burdon of proof is on you, dave; you are the one insisting that Darwinian theory is Gospel. You know that the fossil record is against you, that the spontaneous formation of gigantic information-coding molecules highly unlikely by random processes, that certain biological traits make no sense from the negative pressures of Natural Selection. Explain male homosexuality from an Evolutionary standpoint!
You are trying to waste my time.
The peer-reviewed work is about biology, but does not do one thing to falsify Natural Selection. You assume that, because we see similarities in development, we can say Darwin was correct. Why? Evolution is not the argument here; Natural Selection is. There you have something which requires a leap of Faith. Your side has managed to confuse the two quite nicely.
If you had bothered to go through my archives, you would know that I have stated quite plainly my doubts about I.D.
I`ll humor you; here is a list of published works from the Discovery Institute. You could have found this with a quick search yourself, if you had bothered to take the time. I`ll enjoy watching you claim this isn`t science-as if Darwin is!
Darwinian theory is a model in circular logic; Natural Selection is both cause and effect. How did the woodpecker develop the ability to peck through trees? Natural Selection. Why would a species develop which could bash it`s head against a tree? Because it is a survival trait. Why is it a survival trait? Because Natural Selection says so. Darwin answers no questions, and you cannot give any solid answers, or make any reasonable predictions, with this theory. The fittest are those who survive, and they survive because they are fittest-end of discussion!
Where have all the dinosaurs gone? They were warm-blooded, and some as small and fast as the mammals which displaced them. Why can`t Natural Selection explain their disappearence (except the birds.)
Every time I post anything about Darwin, you guys come out of the woodwork trying to waste my time. Funny, I never see you any other time. If you are interested in truth, not in buttressing your particular value system, but in the actual truth, you would spend less time with RSS feeds seeking to pick a fight with people who may not agree, and would devote more time to the actual issue at hand. Why are you here? Why is my opinion important to you? This isn`t about science, and you know it. Darwin is an article of Faith, and that is the reason why you strangers suddenly pop up whenever Darwin is challenged.
Again, dave, the burden of proof is on you. You`ve had 130 or so years, yet haven`t been able to close the case. Why is that? Nobody but kooks dispute Quantum Physics, or Relativity, or the existence of atoms. Why hasn`t Darwinism gained similar acceptance? I`ll tell you what, you give ME three experiments which prove that Natural Selection is the conclusive author of speciation. Be very specific and provide actual citations (author, article title, journal title, vol/issue, page #) since most web links aren't persistent. These have to be real, repeatable experiments, and they have to show that natural selection is at the root of them, not merely that species have undergone some minor metamorphosis. DNA mutates, that isn`t in dispute. I want experimental proof of speciation resulting from a clear application of Natural Selection.
I used to be a proponent of Darwinian theory, but I just couldn`t ignore the gaps. What is more, the ferocity of the defenders of this theory did not speak spoke volumes; only those who are unsure of the defendability of their beliefs become so agitated.
You know, of course, that a variation of Intelligent Design has been the preferred theory throughtout history, being espoused by Aristotle and most of the Greeks. You know, too, that the theory of evolution predates Darwin, and that, too, did not cause such a controversy. While many people probably do dispute Darwin on religious grounds, there are clear reasons to believe Darwin was co-opted for political and ideological purposes, and that all effort is made to keep him enthroned, to stifle scientific debate, for those same reasons. As I have stated, I want to resolve this, not fight childish squabbles with the True Faithful. We need a more open mind here.
I rememer stories in the news over the last few years where parents were fighting to get creationism "also" taught in the schools. Notice the word also, not only! Why is it that the Darwinian faithful are so adamant about squashing any discussion or teaching of creationism? If the science is so concrete, let it speak for itself.
The silence is deafening, isn't it?
Me again. Those links were all active when I posted them, if you can't see them it's probably because you haven't got Athens Authentification, you'd need to go to a university library to get at them.
And no, my post had nothing to do with falsifying Darwin and his theory of natural selection, it was a response to you implying that Darwinists don't do science. It was also intended to demonstrate that as much as you would like to believe that the scientific community is getting their knickers in a twist over the likes you, they really aren't. Evolution is a scientific fact, accepted virtually unanimously amongst the scientific community. You think you're winding people up by pointing out the holes in their theory, you're not. They've heard and responded criticisms time and time again, in fact here's a nice example-
http://pharyngula.org/index/weblog/comments/timothy_birdnow/
Now, stop making a fool out of yourself and your country.
Oops, for some reason half the address got chopped off, here it is in full-
http://pharyngula.org/index/weblog/comments/timothy_birdnow/
I was wondering how long it would be before you starting launching insults, anonymous.
I hate to rain on your parade, there ARE people in the scientific community who disagree, but people such as yourself launch desperate attacks to stifle any dissent. You would welcome debate, if you knew you were on solid ground.
Why are there so many neo-Darwinists, hmm, if this is all settled? Your own side can`t agree...
Actually I'm trying to help you out, you really are making a fool of yourself.
For example, bringing up the term 'neo-Darwinist' as evidence that there's some scientific dispute over whether or not evolution happened, do you even know what that term means? Here, I'll help you out again-
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neo-darwinism
While there are some scientists that doubt evolution (afterall, I did say it was 'virtually' unanimous), there is no scientific debate. Every creationist argument has been refuted, over and over again.
Anonymous, if you want to bring up P.Z. Myers, let`s let the readers see the entire debate:
Here is the original piece P.Z. attacked.
Here is my response.
Once again, you cannot stop yourself from hurling insults, can you anonymous?
You state:
``For example, bringing up the term 'neo-Darwinist' as evidence that there's some scientific dispute over whether or not evolution happened, do you even know what that term means?``
You are again trying to confuse the evolution with Darwin. It is Darwin`s theory of Natural Selection that is in dispute, not whether species evolve. You are dishonest, sir.
Gould and others have tried to preserve Natural Selection, have created their neo theories (such as punctuated equilibrium) precisely BECAUSE the search for evidence for Darwinism has failed-as you well know. Punctuated Equilibrium is an attempt to explain why you guys have been unable to find an adequate fossil record-as you also know. You are a very dishonest anonymous!
That is the reason why every time I or any other blogger writes anything about Darwin you guys come buzzing in like hornets; you are desperate to kill dissent in utero. Who has the guts to go into biology and have to take the beating that someone like Michael Behe has taken? Your sole purpose is to shout down the opposition.
I love your blanket statement that ``every creationist argument has been refuted over and over``; if you`ve done such a fine job of refuting, why won`t the issue die? Because you have failed, that`s why. We don`t see this with quantum physics, or relativity, because they HAVE refuted their critics. You guys hang desperately to this theory because it buttresses your religious faith in nothing. Who is for science, and who is for faith here?
To Mike Haubrich;
You said;
``Go back to sleep, Timothy; you will re-awaken at the Rapture. Trust me. Go back to sleep, Timothy; you will re-awaken at the Rapture. Trust me.``
I`m a Catholic, and we don`t really believe in a Rapture. I will say this to you, though, since you want to talk religion-I lose nothing if I`m wrong and there is no God and no Heaven. Can you say the same? You sleep at your own peril, sir.
Anyway, I`ve enjoyed-as always-watching you guys melt down. What I get a kick out of is that you claim I am such a fool and idiot, yet you are forever coming back to argue with me; who is the bigger fool?
If my head is so deeply buried in the sand, why bother with me? Me thinks thou dost protest too much!
QUOTE:
"You are again trying to confuse the evolution with Darwin. It is Darwin`s theory of Natural Selection that is in dispute, not whether species evolve. You are dishonest, sir."
Right...so you think that neo-Darwinists dispute Darwin's theory of Natural Selection but accept evolution?
Also, you might want to scroll up a few posts because you did, in fact, bring up the term in response to me saying that *evolution* is accepted as fact.
QUOTE:
"That is the reason why every time I or any other blogger writes anything about Darwin you guys come buzzing in like hornets; you are desperate to kill dissent in utero."
Here you're using the same argument as the DI, it's like a win-win strategy, except that anyone who's not a complete a idiot can see straight through it. It goes something like this-
Make a false statement, this leads to two options
1) No one disagrees with you, you take this to be a sign that everyone agrees and you're right
2) People disagree, you take this to be a sign that people are threatened by the 'truth'.
QUOTE:
"I love your blanket statement that ``every creationist argument has been refuted over and over``; if you`ve done such a fine job of refuting, why won`t the issue die? Because you have failed, that`s why. We don`t see this with quantum physics, or relativity, because they HAVE refuted their critics."
Quantum Physics and relativity don't contradict a literal interpretation of the bible. It's not just evolution/natural selection/Darwinism that's under attack: geology, geography and cosmology are also under attack. Young-Earthers have had all their arguments refuted, just as the anti-evolutionist crowd.
No, I said that ne-Darwinist are struggling to force a round peg in a square hole by coming up with a variation of Darwinian theory which could be twisted to fit the facts, as opposed to following where the facts lead. The facts lead, frankly, away from Darwinian-style evolution.
Even the I.D. people believe in evolution in some form, as you well know. Churchmen were the originators of evolutionary theory, after all; Darwin was the guy who came up with a theory of how it works-a theory that is yet unproven and as of now likely unprovable.
``Here you're using the same argument as the DI, it's like a win-win strategy, except that anyone who's not a complete a idiot can see straight through it. It goes something like this-
Make a false statement, this leads to two options
1) No one disagrees with you, you take this to be a sign that everyone agrees and you're right
2) People disagree, you take this to be a sign that people are threatened by the 'truth'.``
Ah, the old accuse your enemy of that which you are most guilty tactic; I had wondered when that particular trick would be pulled, anonymous. You might want to read my latest blog post.
If I so much as whisper ``Darwin`` from inside a cave in Outer Mongolia you people come running. What am I supposed to think? Personally, I don`t care if a person says he was kidnapped by aliens, or can fly on a broom, because they are just kooks, not worthy of my time. You people are awfully concerned with my ``kooky`` opinions; what should I think?
Shakespear said it best; ``me thinks he doth protest too much``; you, sir, and your ilk protest far too much.
``Quantum Physics and relativity don't contradict a literal interpretation of the bible. It's not just evolution/natural selection/Darwinism that's under attack: geology, geography and cosmology are also under attack. Young-Earthers have had all their arguments refuted, just as the anti-evolutionist crowd.``
Finally, we get to the heart of YOUR problem! You aren`t upset about science, you want to smite God.
I would suggest that you take up your personal animus with the Almighty, instead of trying to hijack science to service your atheism. Be truthful. Admit what you are really about! This argument is, to me, merely a matter of science; I hate self-delusion, something that YOUR side has in overabundance. To YOU this is about your faith in nothing, and your desire to browbeat Christianity. I don`t know why you hate God and Christ so much. I can`t imagine what it is that drove you to such a bitter outlook. Doubtless you have learned an atheistic fairy-tale of history, one which blames Christians for every ill in this world and acknowledges none of the good, but that is your affair. (If you want to fight about that, you really should read my American Thinker articles!) I don`t know why you carry such anger, but you have just let it slip here.
I agree with you that Young-Earthers are way out there. I also agree that we have evolution-never said I didn`t! Again, you guys are always trying to confuse evolution with natural selection, and they aren`t the same thing at all. You do that to try to pin a ``stupid`` label on anyone who doesn`t agree.
Uh, nobody but a few flying saucer types have any complaints about geology, geography, or cosmology. I know a bit about the latter, and have heard of few complaints, except by the normal lunatic fringe. Darwin is different, and people disagree based on the physical evidence. You, of course, absolutely refuse to admit that.
It`s not about the science with you, it never has been.
"If I so much as whisper ``Darwin`` from inside a cave in Outer Mongolia you people come running. What am I supposed to think? Personally, I don`t care if a person says he was kidnapped by aliens, or can fly on a broom, because they are just kooks, not worthy of my time. You people are awfully concerned with my ``kooky`` opinions; what should I think?"
You know, this is the first thing you've been right on so far. All your criticisms of Darwinism and Natural Selection may have been completely off the mark, but why should I care, you're a kook! It's not even as if your views are ever going to be taught in schools, so the future of education in your country isn't really at stake. Evolution, natural selection and Darwinism will continue to be taught as facts to your children and those that are smart enough to go on and become scientists will be able to see that the evidence is overwhelmingly in favour of natural selection.
Lets stop wasting time. Timothy is a loki troll, so just ignore him and he will rant about so other subject he knows nothing about.
Post a Comment
<< Home