What else could I have done?


I had a deadline for a “real” science article that was receding into the past at an alarming rate (to my co-author if not the journal editors).

So, what did I do? Of course! I wrote a totally unrelated item about creationist lies from Answers in Genesis. The motivation was when a young creationist was floating big chunks, err, posting large sections from an Answers in Genesis article about the origin of the Moon written (sort of) by Michael Oard.

John Stear was kind enough to post it on NAiG entitled “Oard’s Moonbeam”.


I found that very interesting.

But what on Earth does Orad mean by “evolutionary astronomers”?

Could there be a little known branch of cosmology that believes stars and galaxies are formed by random mutation and natural selection?

1.AiG is a pack of proud YECs 2.YECs thinks there are only creationist or evolutionists 3.Astronomy proves old earth 4.Astronomers are not YECs 5.Astronomers are not creationists 5.Astronomers are evolutionists 6.Evolutionary astronomers.

I must admit that I find the expresion “evolutionary astronomers” very amusing. Or maybe he meant “evolving astronomers”, in which case it might be accurate.

By ‘Evolution’ AiG usually means something like “change over time, where time is >10,000 years”. So any branch of science is evolutionary if it includes explanations involving development over “millions of years”. Of course, very rapid change over the last approx 10,000 years is needed by YECs, but they don’t consider this ‘evolution’ . … By the way, I am a Brit, in the south of the UK, and I follow all this with fascination. Panda’s Thumb and AiG are my favourite web sites, for purposes of instruction and entertainment respectively.

In the YEC world an evolutionist is anyone who is anti-YEC. Simple. That would make just about anyone who dares to look into a telescope an evolutionary astronomer.

Curse those evil telescopes and their uncanny ability to capture light from very very very distant galaxies!! It’s a conspiracy, I tell you, a conspiracy!

Oard’s biggest, and most revolting lie was that the Giant Impact Hypothesis was proposed after the historical hypotheses of the Moon’s origin were rejected because “They (we evilutionists) must have a naturalistic hypothesis for all origins, including the moon’s, so will believe almost any hypothesis to fill the void”. If scientists were at all inclined to “believe almost any hypothesis” there would never have been any disputes or the scientific rejection of the ideas that failed to fit with observed phenomena. This is the same striving for truth, and questioning of even minor details by scientists that feeds Oard with papers to distort. The willing rejection of reality exhibited by Oard is the hallmark of young Earth creationists and other fantasists.

I always love to read the creationists’ explanations of why the entire scientific community disagrees with them.

Comment #53265

Posted by Stephen Elliott on October 23, 2005 01:06 AM (e) (s)

I found that very interesting.

But what on Earth does Orad mean by “evolutionary astronomers”?

Could there be a little known branch of cosmology that believes stars and galaxies are formed by random mutation and natural selection?

Steve, how could you have missed the classic paper by Jack Chick, “Big Daddy”? (http://tinyurl.com/yums) It’s the definitive work on evolutionary education. If your education hadn’t been so obviously botched, you would know that there are 6 basic concepts of evolution:

Cosmic Evolution Chemical Evolution Evolution of stars and planets from gas Organic Evolution Macro-evolution Micro-evolution

Please, just read the paper. I shouldn’t have to explain such rudimentary things to you.

What you could have done else was to a) Notify me, if you are putting up anything like a hint of usefull information; b) Tell me how, or, more to the point, why, you read that AIG etc. stuff; C) Do a peer review job on the COMMON DONOR – CAPTURE THEORY MOON ORIGIN, and find a mathematician who can do the maths. You or anyone viewing this page who has an interest in objective research has an open invitation to contribute to publishing in their areas of expertize. People who can only grasp facts or find papers which support their private politics and religion, need not apply. A passing note; peer review does not equal peering into a hollow log. Sincerely, P.H..

I couldn’t agree more.

About this Entry

This page contains a single entry by Gary Hurd published on October 22, 2005 10:44 PM.

Robert Shapiro on Behe and ID was the previous entry in this blog.

Ask Prof. Steve Steve #1 is the next entry in this blog.

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



Author Archives

Powered by Movable Type 4.381

Site Meter