Hey, “Evolution News”: correct this!

| 27 Comments

bear_tongue-2.JPGThe CRSC Evolution News and Views blog, affectionately called by us at PT the “Discovery Institute Media Complaints Division”, does not demonstrate the same solicitude correcting their own and their associates’ “glaring errors of fact” that they show for real and imaginary mistakes from other media outlets. The time has come for them to put their red pen where their mouth is.

About a month ago I showed here on PT that Mike Behe’s endorsement blurb for the Discovery Institute-published anti-evolution diatribe “Why is a fly not a horse?” by Giuseppe Sermonti contains 2 major errors: that leaf insects appeared in the fossil record before leaves, and that insects appeared before plants. These are unarguably false statements, based on false information Behe obtained from Sermonti’s book (whether Sermonti simply concocted the stuff or got it from some other source I do not know). Despite the fact that we know EN&V/TDIMCD contributors read this blog, I have noticed that an ad for Sermonti’s book, displaying Behe’s endorsement of it, continues to appear on their main page.

That means that unaware readers of EN&V/TDIMCD for weeks have gathered patently erroneous information about biology from their site. In a few weeks, some high school student somewhere will raise their hand and tell their befuddled biology teacher that evolution is wrong because “insects appeared before plants”, causing much pedagogical consternation and wasting precious lesson time to fix the mistake. In Kansas, thanks to the political maneuvering of the Discovery Institute and other Creationits, a biology teacher too lazy to check the sources may actually teach that to his students as “evidence against darwinian evolutionary theory”. Ohio may even add this “controversy” to their evolution “lesson plans”, already riddled with gross biology errors gleaned from previous Intelligent Design literature (unless you people write enough letters to the Ohio media to reverse the course set by Ohio’s ID-friendly felon governor).

The appropriate thing to do for EN&V/TDIMCD is to withdraw Behe’s statement from their page, and issue in its place a correction to inform their readers of the factual evidence from the fossil record. Similarly, we may expect EN&V/TDIMCD contributor Rob Crowther to correct identical statements in his Amazon and Barnes and Noble.com reviews of Sermonti’s book. Ideally, EN&V/TDIMCD parent Institution, The Discovery Institute, should do the same with their press release about the book (it would help if the correction was issued by press release as well, since it was reported verbatim by many media outlets). They could also inform any ID-friendly sites that have repeated the erroneous claim. It goes without saying that future prints of the book, if any, will bear corrections both on the cover and in the text.

Now, EN&V/TDIMCD may complain that these are just minor details, that don’t affect the “big picture”. The truth is, however, that in science one must first get the facts right, and then some leeway in their interpretation can be afforded. Only politicians, cranks, and pseudo-scientists think that, in the name of their grand new ideas, facts can be freely made up.

27 Comments

…we may expect EN&V/TDIMCD contributor Rob Crowther to correct identical statements in his Amazon and Barnes and Noble.com reviews of Sermonti’s book.

We may also expect pigs to fly.

EN&V/TDIMCD may complain that these are just minor details, that don’t affect the “big picture”.

I have this theory that the “big picture” the DI paints consists of nothing more than the accumulation of hundreds of these lying less than fastidiously researched brush strokes.

Similarly, we may expect EN&V/TDIMCD contributor Rob Crowther to correct identical statements in his Amazon and Barnes and Noble.com reviews of Sermonti’s book. Ideally, EN&V/TDIMCD parent Institution, The Discovery Institute, should do the same with their press release about the book (it would help if the correction was issued by press release as well, since it was reported verbatim by many media outlets). They could also inform any ID-friendly sites that have repeated the erroneous claim. It goes without saying that future prints of the book, if any, will bear corrections both on the cover and in the text.

Riiiggghhhttttt.

That will happen about the same time that the creation “scientists” stop using the Paluxy footprints in their books.

Creation “science” and intelligent design “theory” are conjoined twins.

Is there a searchable wiki or other such web site where these errors are compiled. How else is a teacher or student confronted with this stuff going to be able to find out about it?

I don’t see anything cross referenced to individual articles or books at talk.origins. There are some good reviews of books, but I am afraid a casual reader will not expend the energy to wade through them.

I am thinking one stop shopping for error debunking.

Nidaros: the best and most comprehensive reference list available of the type you are asking for is Mark Isaak’s Index of Creationist Claims at the Talk.origins Archive. It should be widely publicized, in my opinion.

Thinking of it, I may ask Mark to add the Sermonti/Behe bogus bug claim to it, especially if anyone sees it mentioned somewhere else, as it probably will.

talkorigins.org has a nice “Index to Creationist Claims” listing many of them. Of course, new nonsense pop up all the time :)

Why would they want to correct something that might lead children to reject evolution? Wouldn’t they rather promote anti-evolution mistakes than pro-evolution facts, as long as the mistakes support their position?

Are there ever going to be responses to those Creation Wiki responses to the Index? I can’t seem to get quick any information on what is wrong with some of them.

That is to say “any quick”

Here is an idea:

Put on the front page of the Panda’s Thumb a box counting down how many days since this challenge has been issued. The box will not be pulled down until the DI removes the claim from its web sites, issues a full retraction on “Evolution News” and “ID the Future” and promises future editions of Why a Fly is Not a Horse will be corrected.

If the PT wants inspiration look at a “Sylvia’s Clock” on the James Randi Educational Foundation homepage.

Hit post and realized I should have said “printings” and not “editions” in my comment #46653 above.

Russell said:

We may also expect pigs to fly.

And if so, Francis Beckwith will properly exocriate me for not having gotten the Federal Aviation Administration to regulate said pigs.

Comment #46607

Posted by Russell on September 5, 2005 02:23 PM (e) (s)

We may also expect pigs to fly.

They do. It’s the landings they struggle with… ;)

Hmmm…I see your point there Moses.

Seems pigs aren’t the only things.

Take for instance Gooney Birds!

Have a creationist/ID’er explain God’s “intelligent” design criteria for that one!

Oh wait! That’s right, ID isn’t about God or Religion…

At least they can explain the Designer’s Intelligence behind that one.

This looks like a perfect candidate for pre-emptive legal action (disclaimer, IANAL, IAAengineer).

I suggest writing letters detailing these falsehoods, noting their religious origin, and then asking for plaintiffs in suits to halt miseducation of public-school biology students using them.  Distribute the letters to public-school biology teachers, and ask for any information about school boards or curriculum committees suggesting that the falsehoods be added to the curriculum or included in textbooks.

This would have the effect of putting the teachers on notice that they might be on the wrong end of a suit if they taught the falsehoods on their own initiative.

Instead of pointing out errors that don’t affect the black-box-opened premise of Behe, how about presenting a theory for the appearance of life that does not have errors in it?

I am waiting for a theory without holes in it that explains how life could have come together.

With A Heavy Heart

Should Creation Science be taught in Public Schools? A Biblical Christian Perspective

My name is Christopher Blake. I am a retired Los Angeles County Deputy Sheriff. I am also a minister (the lower case is intentional) and have been attempting to be a faithful bond servant in this position for the last fourteen years. I am writing this, after many years of prayer and study on the subject, with a heavy heart. I am hopeful that, although the content of this epistle is directed mainly at my brothers and sisters in Christ, it may prove to be of some benefit to those who do not believe as we do; primarily as to what the Bible actually teaches, as apposed to what is being widely promoted as Biblical Truth.

First of all, I should give my credentials, or lack of same. I do not have a degree in theology, nor have I attended seminary. My Hebrew and Greek are self- taught and rudimentary at best. I also hold no degrees in any field of science. I do not allow myself to get paid. My small group of twenty to thirty members meets in my home every Wednesday night. I prepare a meal for everyone, and then we have Bible study. I don’t claim any ministry related deductions on my taxes, and do not allow anyone to compensate me for performing marriages, funerals or counseling. I fully support others in receiving pay for their work for God; Paul made it clear in both I Corinthians 9:9 and I Timothy 5:18 that Deuteronomy 25:4 was not written for the sake of the ox, but for those who do the Lord’s work. I choose not to for the same reasons I believe Paul did. I do not feel worthy to be used. I believe in treasures in Heaven. I therefore have no vested financial interest in what I teach. I may, in other words, be wrong and/or a fool, but my motives are certainly not for personal gain.

There are, as I see it, two basic questions for us as Christians. Should Creation Science be taught in the public school system? What exactly is our job as Christians? The second question is, I believe, the most important and directly impacts the first. It should be given the most attention and length. I will, therefore, address it last. I will try to be as brief as possible on the first question.

No.

All right, perhaps that was too brief. First of all, I would encourage anyone reading this to attempt to do so with as open a mind as possible. If you are a Christian, pray and ask for God’s wisdom, not mine, and not Man’s in general. Try not to immediately label me with any of the conveniently used terms that allow people to dismiss a point because of the bias associated with that term. I am not an OEC, YEC, Theistic evolutionist, ID advocate, etc. I believe in what the Bible actually teaches, which normally makes me unwelcome in all of those groups and many more. I will now proceed to the issue. Why do I say no? I hate to be redundant by stating what to me is the obvious, but I have found it must be done each time this particular issue is discussed. Whose view of Creation are we going to teach? Hindu? Buddhist? Taoist? Jewish? Islamic? Native American? Ancient Egyptian? Classical Greek? The list goes on and on. The majority viewpoint? That is always subject to change. The Christian one, of course. Great. Which one of those? Old Earth? Young Earth? The multitude of others? Each one of the main ones is subdivided into different teachings. How can we propose to teach something that we, as Christians, can’t even come to a consensus on? We should then, at the very least, teach Intelligent Design, shouldn’t we? The Biblically correct answer is again, no. ID is a decidedly theistic viewpoint at best. It can be interpreted much differently than that, however. Let’s say you teach a designer. We again come to the question, who is it? The answer, using ID, doesn’t just allow for a theistic answer, but a whole range of others. Super intelligent aliens. Some dumb kid’s science experiment in one of the multi-verses. The inclusion of the anthropic principles (weak, strong, final, etc) opens up ID to the designer being us at some future date. Heck, we might be living in the Matrix right now. This is not the Biblical perspective; it is, in my humble opinion, not even science. It is, I believe, philosophy. Bad idea.

What does the Bible actually teach concerning creation? I do not believe that any of the main groups previously mentioned actually teach this. I would certainly hope that I’m not the only person teaching what I do, but I know I’m most definitely in the minority. Let’s start at the beginning, Genesis 1:1. “In beginning Gods he created the heavens and the earth. That’s right. In the original Hebrew the noun is in the third person plural but the verb is conjugated in the third person singular. This is usually taught as the majestic plural. I believe what the Bible says about itself. “All scripture is given by inspiration of God…” II Timothy 3:16. The Greek word translated inspiration is theopneustos; literally God breathed. What does this have to do with the issue at hand? Simply this. In the very first part of the very first verse of the first book in His word, God states His triune nature. Three, yet one. This is a point, once again, that even Christians differ on. It starts a premise which runs throughout the Bible. A pre-existent, self-existent God, who claims a nature that is unexplainable; in fact, incomprehensible. Science? No, of course not. Faith. More on that later.

Let’s proceed to the second part of verse one. No, wait. I’ve got a better idea. Read Genesis chapter one and then leave your Bible open.

Done? Good. Rather than an exhaustive word by word, let’s just highlight a few of the main points. The Hebrew in verse one is open to interpretation. I believe, as do a number of Hebrew scholars, that a proper reading of the idioms translates as, “At some point previously …Gods, He created the physical universe.” When did He do this? It doesn’t say. How did he do this? He commanded it (Psalm 148:1-5 and a host of others). That should be the end of whether this is taught as science, but I’ll continue. How long did He take? It doesn’t say. Was there a creation before verse one? Yes, at least one that we know of, or there would be no one to sing in Job 38:7. Will there be another creation? Yes (Isaiah 65:17, Revelation 21:1, etc). Have there previously been others? It doesn’t say.

Now we get into verse two and the whole tohu wa bohu controversy. Suffice it to say that I believe due to the other times this phrase is used, it is sound hermeneutics to interpret this as an act, or result of, Divine judgment. Once again, the questions abound. Cataclysm? Lucifer’s fall? It doesn’t say. The context from this point on makes it clear that all of the subsequent acts take place on the earth. Darkness on the face of the deep, the Spirit moving on the face of the waters, light manifested…all on the earth.

Next we come to the yom/day controversy. I believe in the three Cs of Biblical hermeneutics; context, context, context. The word in the context of the passage. The passage in the context of the book it’s in. The context of that verse and book in the Bible as a whole. Now, let’s look at Genesis 2:17. Did Adam and/or Eve die the day they ate the fruit? No. How long did Adam live after he ate from that tree? Nine hundred and thirty years. (You don’t start aging until you start dieing) Is it possible that yom in this context refers to something other than a twenty-four hour day? Say, perhaps, a thousand years? Do we have scriptural basis for thinking so? Yes. (Psalm 90:4, II Peter 3:8) As a point of fact, despite the advanced ages of the patriarchs, none that we are told of lives up to one thousand years. Does this mean with certainty that these days are one thousand years long? Of course not. Would I limit God? God forbid. I also, however, refuse to put words in His mouth. Let me just say that I believe, from the context, that Adam, not God, is given a great deal to accomplish in less than twelve hours on day six.

I could go on for days about many other reasons from scripture that Genesis shouldn’t be taught as science (I do mean days, just ask my poor congregation) but I’ll settle for just one more. What exactly is it that God says he made (not created) on day four?

If anyone from the creation camps has remained with me so far, this will probably be where they jump ship. Firmament. Waters above. Two great lights. Almost no one teaches a canopy above the earth anymore. Why? No scientific way to justify or explain it. I learned that in my theoretical physics class at fourteen. (yes I was in college at fourteen. Actually started at twelve…all I needed was a plastic pocket protector and a flashing neon sign that read GEEK) I’ll spare everyone the technical jargon. There’s no mechanism to hold it up, and, we get cooked if it comes down. Bad deal. Let’s just say that it doesn’t really say that. Unfortunately, it does. The worse is yet to come. The two great lights. Where are they? In between the waters above and the waters below. What was God thinking when He wrote this? Didn’t He know they wouldn’t fit? Let’s make firmament mean something else. That way it can still mean Sun and Moon. Maybe that’s why He didn’t use the Hebrew words for Sun and Moon. He used the Hebrew word m’orah. It is used most commonly to denote a lamp; in particular, a hanging lamp. It also doesn’t say that this is when he made the stars. Neither the verb to make nor the verb to create are used in reference to the stars in this passage. It just says that the lesser light is to rule over the night and the stars. So, what do we have? Waters above. Waters below. Two great lights in between those waters to give light on the earth. For signs, and seasons, etc. Fantastic? Yes. Scientifically provable? No. Scientifically sound? No. Do I believe it? Absolutely. How did God do this? And, why?

I really enjoy the movie “Pirates of the Caribbean”. At one point, early in the movie, Johnnie Depp’s character cheats while engaged in a fight. When called on this, his reply is, “Pirate”. What is our word as Christians? “Miracle”. How do we explain the parting of the Red Sea? Healings? People being raised from the dead? Five thousand men and their families being fed from the equivalent of a Filet of fish and fries, with baskets left over? Prophesy? Do I need a scientific explanation for those things? That stuff is easy compared to this: How do I prove that a triune God put on a tent of human flesh, came, lived a perfect life, gave his life sacrificially, rose from the dead, and is coming for us again? The most important thing the scriptures teach and I can’t prove it. How do I know that I can’t? Because this same Bible that I believe tells me so. Knowledge or gnosis on this is not possible in this life. Only pistis. Faith. If you are a Christian, I should not have to quote the scriptures that teach that,”…we walk by faith, not by sight.” If you need to be reassured on this point, just read Galatians and Hebrews. That should do it.

Am I saying that science doesn’t support the possibility of evidences for creation? Of course not. Evidence, and proof, however, are two different things. Evidence must be weighed and a judgment made. The argument is made that evolution is just as dogmatic, and unsubstantiated as creation. That misses the point entirely. The world is not required to show evidence for our faith, let alone teach it. That is part of our job. The argument is made that how we view our origins determines how we view our faith. This is scripturally unsound. Please read Matthew chapter 16, in particular verses 13-20. Jesus did not ask Peter his views on creation. He asked him who people said He was; more to the point, who Peter said He was. This is the crux of Biblical Christianity. Our view on who Jesus is separates us from everyone else. Belief in creation does not lead to a belief in the divinity of Jesus. Period.

What does the Bible teach about origins? God has always existed. He created the spiritual realm long ago. He created the physical universe after that. He began a re-creative process on the earth long ago to benefit the introduction of Man. He created Man to bring glory to Himself, and to have a relationship with Him. I do not require science to substantiate this; in fact it is precluded from doing so. I must believe.

Am I saying creation shouldn’t be taught? God forbid. Do I teach it? You bet. Where? In my home, to my family. In my Church, to my congregation. Those are the appropriate places. It is NOT appropriate for Christians to advocate for the teaching of creation science in public schools. This is a Pandora’s Box, which once opened, can never be closed. I refuse to put the public school system in a position to teach matters of faith to my children. Every reasonable person, especially Christians, should feel the same.

Please allow me to close this point with this: The study of scientific facts has never impacted my faith even one degree. The more I learn of the wonders of this universe, the more in awe of God I am. I don’t need white holes to explain away the age of the universe. God never painted Himself into a corner. I don’t need Noah’s flood (although I believe it occurred) to explain geological strata, fossils, et al. It is far more impressive, to me, that God would plan the ages of His creation to benefit our relatively short time here, rather than put Him in a box of our making to explain away our faulty knowledge and understanding of His work.

Now, if anyone is still with me, I’ll move on to point two. What is our job as Christians? “Jesus said unto him, “Thou shalt love the Lord, thy God, with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind. This is the first and great commandment. And the second is like it, Thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself. On these two commandments hang all the law and the prophets. Matthew 22:37-40.

Simple? Yes. Easily accomplished? Hardly. Jesus tells us that we are to strive towards (understanding that we can’t fully accomplish these in the flesh) these two things as our primary goals. Why? If you love God (agape love) the best you can, you’ve got a better shot of keeping your relationship with Him the way it’s supposed to be. If you love your neighbor as yourself (with the same caveat attached) you’ve got a better shot of having a testimony to others that you’re striving to accomplish goal one. That should be enough on this topic. I wish it were. But the things I have read on this website; the things I read and hear in the press that purport to come from Bible believing Christians, tells me otherwise.

Now I come to you with a heavy heart. Are we striving to accomplish goal one? I find it hard to believe we are in light of the evidence of how we’re going about goal two. Does the church, as a corporate entity, love our neighbor as we love ourselves? To answer that question we must ask ourselves; who is my neighbor?

We are fortunate that Jesus answered that question for us in Luke 10:25-37. Read it. Those who hate and despise us for being who we are in Christ are our neighbors. I speak to our shame. Are we, as Christians, supposed to lash out at those who hate us? Despitefully use us? God forbid. We are commanded, not asked, commanded, to love them. Are we supposed to answer an ad hominem attack in kind? God forbid. Did our Master? Never. When He was being put to death unjustly, what did He say? “Father forgive them, for they know not what they do.” Again, I speak to our shame.

Aren’t we supposed to “…rightly divide the word of truth…” and “…have an answer…”? Yes. But let’s look at those passages carefully to see what they say. Please read II Timothy chapter 2. Play close attention to verses 1-18. Look at the context. We are to expect persecutions. We are to expect suffering. If we strive to do the Lord’s work, they will happen. We are to rightly divide, i.e. study, God’s word. We are to shun empty, unprofitable talk. What does the Bible teach us is more profitable; studying science, or His word? Where do you devote the bulk of your time? I feel very confident that I won’t be given a science exam to gain entrance to the Lord’s presence; nor will my treasures in Heaven be dependent on the amount of time I spent studying it.

Please read I Peter chapter 3:13-17. We are to be happy if we’re persecuted for our faith. We are to put people to shame that persecute us unjustly by the manner in which we live our lives. We are to have an answer (apologia) for the hope that lies within us when we’re asked why we have it. This presupposes that we have hope. That it is manifested to others. That they ask.

Apologetics has become something it was never intended to be. We are NOT commanded to tell people why they shouldn’t believe what they believe; or why they should believe what we believe. We are commanded to tell people, to present from the scriptures and the testimony of our lives, why we believe what we believe.

I can’t prove to you that what the scriptures teach is true. I can prove to you, if you get to know me, that I believe it. That’s all I’m required to do.

What does believe, or faith, mean in a Christian context. The Greek word is pistis. It is an active, not passive verb. I can say in English, “I believe my wife will catch me if I fall”, and take no action. I can sit on the couch. She doesn’t have to be anywhere around. If I say, “Ego pisteuo…” I must be in the act of falling, and she can not have caught me yet. Our lives are to be spent falling towards a Savior that no one, including us, can see…believing He will catch us when we die. This is faith. Are we being attacked for our righteous acts for God? Again, I speak to our shame. We are attacked as evil doers for violating the basic commands our Savior gave us. Aren’t we supposed to preach the Word? The Gospel? Of course. What does Gospel mean? Good news. You can’t have good news without bad news. So, what’s the bad news? Romans 3:23. “For all have sinned and come short of the glory of God.” The Geek word means to miss the mark. God’s requirement is that we hit the bull’s-eye perfectly every time. Tight groupings don’t count. Perfectly. Every time. Well…that sucks. That means nobody can shoot a qualifying score. We’re screwed. So, what’s the good news? Romans 5:8. “But God commendeth His love towards us in that, while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us.” You’ll notice it doesn’t say, “Me”. It doesn’t say, “you, maybe…unless you’re a…” It says us. If you don’t know who is born from above (not again) or how the process works, I suggest that your time is better spent in His Word than anywhere else.

Now, let us turn to Jesus’ sermons against the evils of the Platonic school of thought. Against abortion. Against (fill in your own personal cause). They’re not there. Does that mean that He endorsed these things? God forbid. He came to “…preach the gospel to the poor; …to heal the broken hearted, to preach deliverance to the captives, and recovering of sight to the blind, to set at liberty them that are bruised, to preach the acceptable year of the Lord.” Luke 4:18&19. Didn’t He renounce anyone? Attack anyone? Yes. Who? The leaders of His religion who were prostituting it for their own gain. Who would that be today? The Jews? Of course not. The Jews do not claim that Jesus is The Messiah. We do. So, who would it be today? Those who claim to represent our Savior, and prostitute Him for their own personal gain. This is the one thing that we are commanded to not only renounce, but to have no fellowship with. Simply greeting them in public as a brother in Christ can cause you to lose your rewards. (Not your salvation) Do you want to take an active stand publicly against something as a Christian? Stand against those who prostitute your Savior’s name; and those who, for what ever reason, choose to continue to endorse them, either actively or through their silence as they appear with them. Do you want to know where to look for these ‘…wells without water…? Turn on your TV. That’s all I’ll say. If you don’t have the discernment to know who I mean, I would again suggest, as strongly as I can, that your time would be better spent studying God’s Word.

This has not been as exhaustive as I would like, but I’m trying to be as brief as possible under the circumstances. To those of you who do not believe in Jesus as the Christ, I would humbly ask your forgiveness for the wrongs done to you in my Savior’s name. To those of you who profess to be Christians, I would exhort you with this challenge: Study God’s Word. Work on your relationship with Him. Be a vessel for His use, at His command, not your own. If you have wronged anyone in this debate, ask God for forgiveness; then ask it of those you have wronged. If you have been wronged unjustly, pray for those who have wronged you.

May God bless and keep each of you

Christopher Blake [Enable javascript to see this email address.]

“a biology teacher too lazy to check the sources”

Just like they check all the sources for false evolutionary ideas? Haeckel, anyone?

Phew! What a crowd of smug, cretinous Creationist losers you’ve collected here!

Haeckel criticized by one “cracker”? Scorn and insult, renamed “forgiveness” poured on & on and on & on and… in what must be one of the longest single streams of nonsensical bu–sh– yet seen on PT? Juvenile “gotcha!” courtesy of ultra-smug “fact-finder,” who couldn’t care less about receiving an answer, or anything else.

The Essence of Human Foolishness and Ugliness, the modern Creationist.

If there is any scorn and/or insult in my post, it is not directed at anyone in the evolutionary camp. If any forgiveness needs to be sought, it is not implied that it be sought by anyone in the evolutionary camp. I tried to make that clear. If I failed in so doing, I apologize. As to the nonsensical nature of my post, I don’t believe I tried to present, or intimate I was presenting, anything of a scientific nature. Just my opinion, from a Biblical point of view, why creation science should NOT be taught in the public schools. We, as creationists, have made not only ourselves foolish and ugly in this debate, but the connotative meaning of christian. If I offended you personally, darwinfinch, I ask your forgiveness.

Christopher Blake

No, let ME forgive YOU! C’mon, don’t take yourself so seriously! I mean, READ that endless post of yours. READ IT! Read what you said to people who don’t know all the wonderful nice-ness you evidently believe you intend. It is embarrassing, and that is if I extend you a lot of “sincerity” credit, something I have found a bad policy with Christians, since they have the nastiest habit of bankrupting the trust.

I am sorry you feel that way.

Christopher Blake

The fact that an entire article could be dedicated two a couple of minor and basically inconsequential oversights by a creation scientist is rather desperate. Whos really gonna use those arguments? Speaking of errors, open an average high school biology text and you’ll see some grievous ones. They literally fabricate data to support evolution. I had one that says the homo habilis had human-like body proportions (between ape and man) even though the only complete specimen ever found (Dik Dik Hominid) had a humero-femural index close to a chimpanzee. They must be referring to KNM 1470 and the human leg bones that were found in different strata and don’t belong to it. Yet they confidently describe habilis as a some kind of “missing link”. Sure, some creation scientists are crackpots, but Michael Behe isn’t. He, and a few other molecular biologists, have utterly devastated the theory of evolution by showing that it is completely incompatible with molecular biology. The view that complex biochemical pathways (which living things happen to be made up of) could be the product of evolution would be laughable if it wasn’t such a sad disgrace. Now that the truth is out we see the evolutionists scattering like like cockroaches when a light is turned on, and using every dirty tactic in there arsenal, including censorship, to save face. It turns out that all their books and articles and fancy words like “puntuated equilibrium” are just pure BS. “See that there pelvis, that means it walked upright” - pure nonsense!As far as science is concerned there are no feasible natural mechanisms to explain the origins of life or the universe or any of it. If science finds one that is legit let the world know, otherwise just tell us how stuff works and stop twisting the facts and lieing to support your own secular humanistic agenda. We need more true scientists, and less inflated liberal egos. Fewer scientists would accept evolution if there wasn’t so much propaganda supporting it. As far as the bible is concerned, I suppose some Christians think that the beast of revelation is a literal monster thats gonna come from the ocean and start trashing our cities like a Godzilla movie. Or maybe the floodgates of Noahs flood are literal mechanical gates. And what geographical location in the world is guarded night and day by a flaming cherub like Eden is? I find the scriptures to be by design cryptic and mysterious, and often metaphorical, yet if someone fairly studies them they will find information, wisdom, and corrobaration that is beyond the product of a human mind. Like layers of an oniion there is knowledge at many levels. Of course, you can’t interpret the bible any way you want and still have the truth. There is only one absolute truth, which science can attest to, and you have to put the pieces of information together right and interpret them correctly to begin to see that truth because like a puzzle they only fit together one way. The first step is just to honestly consider that God is real, that he is righteous and does care about us. Then take responsibility for your life by recognizing that your own feelings of inferiority, anxiety, depression, anger etc are because of your own sinful selfish nature. Once you go through the process of repenting you dont even have to feel guilty about all the crap you’ve pulled and people you’ve hurt, because it can all be erased if you just recognize that you fall short and work to do better instead of making excuses and digging yourself deeper into the pit. Then find yourself a good pastor or preacher or someone with knowledge of Gods word whos more like a humble servant and less like a super-preacher rip-off artist, and you’ll be on your way.

Let me respond with equal brevity and clarity:

ajbjucbiwnclksclaciencoaecnoaincfaolecnocnajbjucbiwnclksclaciencoaecno aincfaolecnocnajbjucbiwnclksclaciencoaecnoaincfaolecnocnajbjucbiwnclkscl aciencoaecnoaincfaolecnocnajbjucbiwnclksclaciencoaecnoaincfaolecnocnajbj ucbiwnclksclaciencoaecnoaincfaolecnocnajbjucbiwnclksclaciencoaecnoaincfa olecnocnajbjucbiwnclksclaciencoaecnoaincfaolecnocnajbjucbiwnclksclacienc oaecnoaincfaolecnocnajbjucbiwnclksclaciencoaecnoaincfaolecnocnajbjucbiwn clksclaciencoaecnoaincfaolecnocnajbjucbiwnclksclaciencoaecnoaincfaolecno cnajbjucbiwnclksclaciencoaecnoaincfaolecnocnajbjucbiwnclksclaciencoaecno aincfaolecnocnajbjucbiwnclksclaciencoaecnoaincfaolecnocnajbjucbiwnclksc laciencoaecnoaincfaolecnocnajbjucbiwnclksclaciencoaecnoaincfaolecnocn ajbjucbiwnclksclaciencoaecnoaincfaolecnocnajbjucbiwnclksclaciencoaecn oaincfaolecnocnajbjucbiwnclksclaciencoaecnoaincfaolecnocnajbjucbiwncl ksclaciencoaecnoaincfaolecnocn!!!!

What a cunning idea: wait until a thread has become extinct and then post utter Creationist garbage on it. Genius!

In response to a few coherent sentences that I managed to extract from ThisTimeILetMyselfDie’s brain-dump:

It turns out that all their books and articles and fancy words like “puntuated (sic) equilibrium” are just pure BS

Ignorance must be bliss, I guess. Have you ever considered that you might need to learn something about evolution in order to be able to criticise it?

Behe’s idea of irreducible complexity has been torn to shreds, as it completely ignores adaptation of function, one of the major aspects of evolution. At a biochemical level, gene duplication and further mutation can very easily produce irreducibly complex systems such as the blood-clotting cascade (well, that one’s been long shown to not be irreducibly complex anyway). The flagellum example has also been repeatedly disproved, as a large number of proteins are used elsewhere as a way of injecting poison into other cells.

Fewer scientists would accept evolution if there wasn’t so much propaganda supporting it Fewer scientists would accept evolution if there wasn’t such an enormously overwhelming amount of evidence supporting it. Scientists require hard evidence. Only Creationists operate on faith.

That said, I think I darwinfinch’s response is probably better.

Oh, and no charge for the paragraphs in my reply.

Just for the record, my entry above was tongue-in-cheek (the bear picture was not enough of a give-away, uh?). I do not expect EvoNews to correct their site - they have published much worse howlers without any qualms whatsoever.

It is however a nice demostration of how a very obvious falsehood can percolate from a fabulist (Sermonti) to a so-called “expert” blinded by preconceived expectations and allegiances (Behe), to the propaganda megaphones (the DI P.R. machine), and I expect ultimately from there to the credulous ID public at large.

I would like to comment on Christopher Blake’s posting. I do not feel that he was offensive or abusive to followers of science. He has a different perspective, but so what? He clearly outlines the difference between the requirements of faith and the requirements of scientific inquiry. I thought the post was reasonable in tone.

I would like to comment on Lard Byron’s comment on Christopher Blake’s posting. I also do not feel that he was offensive or abusive to followers of science. I feel his post was a crushing, silly bore that shows how seriously he takes himself at quite astounding length w/o providing anything but a labororius sort of “shaggy dog” version of something or other that is so important to him that he had to go on and on and on about it without even having a decent punchline at the end and that he would be much better served, and have his faith served much better, by laying aside his silly self-serving “theorizing” and “philosophizing” and trying to actually listen of read what those in the very large and disciplined and tolerant, if a trifle brusque in the satire and/or criticism have to say, which is far, far better written, tested, and wonderful than any three words he has strung together in his original very, very, very, very, very, very long blathering about the requirement of faith and the requirements of scientific inquiry or something or other. So he has a different “perspective, but, like the common orifice oft compared with the possession of an individual “perspective.”

His intentions, as yours Lard, were good, or at least they were something, but so what?

I thank you all very, very, very, very, very, very, much!

[exit, broom up ass]

About this Entry

This page contains a single entry by Andrea Bottaro published on September 5, 2005 2:56 PM.

Accepting Berlinski’s Challenge was the previous entry in this blog.

Who is minding the store? is the next entry in this blog.

Find recent content on the main index or look in the archives to find all content.

Categories

Archives

Author Archives

Powered by Movable Type 4.361

Site Meter