National Academies book on evolution

[reggieM]

Creationist challenges come from people who murdered a young man last year whom they assumed to be gay (the murderers fled back to Russia).

I found that to be a very interesting comment!

Creationists are known to murder gay people – therefore they’re really, really bad! Forget the science, I think we just should put them in jail.

 

[drpmjhess]

Creationists are known to murder gay people – therefore they’re really, really bad! Forget the science, I think we just should put them in jail.

Not all creationists, but certainly these; it may be just a coincidence. Preemptively jailing creationists before murders take place would be grossly unjust !

 

[edwest2]

Well, I don’t think you’ll ever see “Atheist Murders Entire Family” in your newspaper.

God bless,
Ed

 

[The_Barbarian]

If Darwinian evolution is false, then it’s a benefit to everyone that it not be taught.

If squirrels know how to pick locks, then our pantries are at risk.

That’s a triumph of the truth.

Bad assumption, goofy conclusion.

Before Darwin there were plenty of Catholic scientists who cured people and invented useful things.

There are just more of them, nowadays. And since evolutionary theory has helped to reduce the level of antibiotic resistance, and even help predict how future resistance might evolve, it’s a good thing for medicine, too.

I just don’t think we should believe that the welfare of the human race is entirely dependent on Darwin’s theory,

I’m beginning to suspect you actually think someone made that assertion.

 

[The_Barbarian]

That is an excellent question. I have found this to be simply amazing in every forum I’ve ever been on that discussed evolution. The defenders of Darwin are so passionate – they argue with bitterness and endlessly, and it does seem that they’re trying to spread this teaching and make sure nobody ever disagrees with it.

I’ve noticed that almost all the spite and emotional responses on most boards (including this one) are from creationists.

Why? Because it’s a crusade for them. They get very upset when their personal religious doctrines aren’t accepted.

Of course, they usually deny it, and accuse others of “attacking” them instead of their ideas.

The more evidence one puts in front of them, the more stridently they deny it.

 

[edwest2]

I have seen too many vicious attacks against Christians all over the internet. It is clear evidence that evolution is an ideology and not much in the way of science. The Bible is called a book of fairy tales or just a collection of cobbled together myths. There is even a Bible Explanation Industry ™ that seeks to reinterpret all Biblical miracles as natural events.

As someone who works in media, I see the use of the same talking points. There is also clear evidence of a concerted effort, not just a comment here or there. Propaganda is something that happens in the United States as well. This is part of a campaign of promoting vagueness, maybe-ism, who-knows-ism and who-can-say-ism.

The canon truths in the deposit of faith of the Catholic Church will endure.

God bless,
Ed

 

[The_Barbarian]

(Barbarian observes increasing defections from the ID camp)
Tough times to be an IDer/creationist, um?

Your continual knee-jerk replies to each and every post on this 20 page long thread is all the evidence I need to see that you’re wrong.

In my last post, I provided evidence for my assertions. If you go back and look, your post had nothing whatever to back it up.

It’s like the evolutionist who laughs that there is nothing to discuss with ID and then he writes a book “refuting” it.

I think there’s nothing to racism, either, but from time to time I explain to some ignorant racist that his beliefs are scientifically unsupportable. I don’t often convince them, but many people read those things, and learn thereby.

I’ll just say that you’re a living example of how compelling the ID position is.

That seems rather hard to fit with Denton and Behe jumping ship. Or with the fact I showed you that younger people are more inclined to accept science and evolution then the old generation. ID was suppose to “save creationism” by giving it a new name and a scientific gloss. But as Phillip Johnson admitted, the last confrontation was a “train wreck” for ID.

Every day, every single day … you are posting numerous comments trying to support Darwinian theory against ID.

If you were reading, you would have learned a lot of science. The evidence is vast and from numerous sources.

You offer insults, snide comments, sarcasm, emotional posts, ridicule and even some research that you had to find … for some reason, you never tire of this.

I don’t think personal attacks, or even projecting them on me, is going to help. You need some evidence. Facts could yet save the day for you, if you have any.

The discussion ID goes far beyond the confines of CAF, as we know.

As the Wedge Document proposed, it’s well-funded, and vigorously promoted. But it’s dying. “Train wreck” says Phillip Johnson in a moment of candor.

It’s 100 times larger and more significant than it was 20 years ago.

Essentially, a halfway house for recovering creationists. More or less a name change with nothing else to show for it but a nihilistic notion that facts can be adjusted to meet one’s wishes.

And the defeatism is palpable. Even Johnson has grudgingly come to terms with the truth…

Asked about the evidence for common ancestry, Johnson recently admitted:

"It might be because of common ancestry. That is definitely a possibility to be considered. I’m just not insistent that common ancestry is true. It’s a possibility."
pbs.org/wgbh/nova/id/defense-id.html

That pretty much marks the tipping point for the ID movement. With the few scientists formerly on board now admitting to naturalistic evolution, and the godfather of ID now admitting that he could be wrong after all, the demoralization seems complete.

Barbarian observes:
Behe is now firmly an evolutionist

That alone tells us that the term “evolution” means nothing

Means the same thing it has for about a hundred years; change in allele frequency over time.

 

[drpmjhess]

That pretty much marks the tipping point for the ID movement. With the few scientists formerly on board now admitting to naturalistic evolution, and the godfather of ID now admitting that he could be wrong after all, the demoralization seems complete.

Barbarian, you may be right that for intellectuals ID and YEC are now effectively dead in the water, but they certainly don’t lack adherents in my state. I was called in today on a consultant basis to do a workshop for a community college system that is plagued creationism so badly that it is affecting morale and teaching success. A physicist said that studnets have challenedge him in class to the effect that radioactive decay is “B*sh” because the world has not existed long enough for it to have occurred. An anthropologist has had students walk out on a discussion of the evolution of religious belief.

I offered my workshop on strategies for dealing with YECs without attacking their religious belief systems. One atheist did challenge me for continuing to adhere to my Catholicism while accepting evolution, but on the whole the faculty acknowledged that one can both believe God and accept evolution, which was of course my argument,

Petrus

 

[The_Barbarian]

Barbarian, you may be right that for intellectuals ID and YEC are now effectively dead in the water, but they certainly don’t lack adherents in my state.

Marxism in the old Soviet Union was intellectually discredited for decades before enough people realized it and it collapsed. If you raise children with creationism (er,"ID) and drum it into their heads that any dissent is atheism, then it takes a while. As you might have seen from the statistics, fewer people in each generation are buying creationism/ID.

Just as the Soviets first turned nasty, and then tried “communism with a human face”, so you can expect ID to initially be aggressive and confrontational, and later to seek accomodation.

It’s the usual trajectory for such things. Those snotty kids who hurl “Bull…” at you can’t really help it. They’ve been completely indoctrinated.

I offered my workshop on strategies for dealing with YECs without attacking their religious belief systems. One atheist did challenge me for continuing to adhere to my Catholicism while accepting evolution, but on the whole the faculty acknowledged that one can both believe God and accept evolution, which was of course my argument,

The fact that Christians, even Catholics can accept evolution with no challenge to their faith, is the very best argument against creationism’s claims that it is atheistic. I do see an alliance between some postmodernists and IDers. The notion that reality is what we make it to be, has powerful attraction for ID.

 

[Wolseley]

Darwinism cannot survive. Already it’s in a reactive mode to the challenges of ID. This whole thing about “evolution is not random” is a reaction to the criticisms of anti-evolutionsts over the decades.

Darwin is really the last holdover from the 19th century’s “Unholy Trinity”: Marx, Freud, and Darwin. Marx has been discredited, Freud has been downplayed into irrelevancy, and Darwin is on his way out. His adherents are not going peacefully into the good night, but that won’t stop the inevitable. By 2100, people will look back at the idea of evolution and liken it to the flat earth theory and the controversy around it to arguments about how many angels can dance on the head of a pin.

edwest2:

Those of us who question evolutionary theory are attacked. Why? What is so important about this theory that people have been assigned to make sure it is spread and universally accepted?

Because it’s a religion. Darwinists like to insist it’s science, but it’s nothing of the kind—it takes just as much faith to believe that mankind developed from a gob of goo by means of “beneficial mutation” as it does to believe that God created Man by the words of His mouth. And, just like any other fanatical belief, when it is challenged, the True Believers go nutzoid and get very belligerant and defensive about it. We suggest that the whole thing is nothing more than a fairy tale for adults, and that’s when they get rather touchy.

 

[The_Barbarian]

Darwin is really the last holdover from the 19th century’s “Unholy Trinity”: Marx, Freud, and Darwin.

Wolsey is unaware that Darwinism was “crimethink” in the Stalinist state. Marxists don’t like science any more than creationists do. For some of the same reasons.

Marx has been discredited, Freud has been downplayed into irrelevancy, and Darwin is on his way out.

Whistling in the dark, he is. The number of journals on evolution are at a record high. The number of biologists who doubt evolutionary theory is around 0.3% (figures taken from Discovery Institute and "Project Steve) The last great biologist who was not a Darwinian died around 1900.

And even among the general public, polls show that each generation is less and less inclined to creationism. It’s a grim future for science haters.

Wolsey tries once more:

Because it’s a religion.

Here’s a way to test that; ask a scientist why he accepts evolution. If he says “because Darwin said so”, it’s religion. If he starts citing evidence, it’s science.

Darwinists like to insist it’s science, but it’s nothing of the kind—

It’s based on evidence. From Darwin on, the theory has always been about the evidence. I often wonder about creationists who have so little trust in religion that they use it as an accusation and an insult. Have some faith in faith, Wolsey.

it takes just as much faith to believe that mankind developed from a gob of goo by means of “beneficial mutation”

Wolsey still clings to the idea that evolution is about the origin of life, in spite of all the discussion that shows it isn’t.

And, just like any other fanatical belief, when it is challenged, the True Believers go nutzoid and get very belligerant and defensive about it.

And Wolsey is “exhibit A.”

 

[drpmjhess]

Wolsey still clings to the idea that evolution is about the origin of life, in spite of all the discussion that shows it isn’t.And Wolsey is “exhibit A.”

Even Wolseley’s grasp of of YEC talking points is paper thin. His phrases like “a fairy tale for adults” are not original to him, but come straight out of the creationist playbook. (See talkorigins.org/faqs/ce/3/part12.html)).

Petrus

 

[drpmjhess]

Even Wolseley’s grasp of of YEC talking points is paper thin. His phrases like “a fairy tale for adults” are not original to him, but come straight out of the creationist playbook. (See talkorigins.org/faqs/ce/3/part12.html)).

Petrus

talkorigins.org/faqs/ce/3/part12.html

 

[SpiritMeadow]

Always seemed self-defeating to me. They can’t comment on what others are saying but others can comment on them. But they have no one to blame, but themselves.

BTW, almost all of them “peek” to find out. Or it could be that Woolsey just happened to post right after I did.

Yeah, what ya gonna do. The truth simply is the truth no matter how hard one may wish it wasn’t.

 

[SpiritMeadow]

All of that is true and I am sympathetic with the Darwin-fundamentalists. It is a lot to ask of them to be reflective enough to see the absurdities that have been portrayed as “fact” over the past decades, and some of the even more ridiculous notions we see today.

I am old enough to remember some social and religious changes in the world, and I was a part of some of those in the early stages. I would say something like the early pro-life movement which I remember and I debated the Catholic position on that in the face of incredible hostility. Now, even the most ardent pro-abortionists have had to change their rhetoric, not to mention the many people who have seen the truth about abortion.

I can remember also even in the Church where there was a liberal element that hated anything of the past (Latin liturgy, devotions, catechisms, etc). They had similar emotional and irrational outbursts as we see in the Darwinist camp today also. But today, thanks to Mother Angelica (she was persecuted in her early years) and Pope Benedict and Catholic Answers itself – Catholic orthodoxy is on the rise and liberalism is on the defensive.

I see the same trend with Darwinism. The vitality and momentum is with the ID camp. They’re offering criticisms of evolution calmly and mostly in obscurity, but this is all building quiet but solid support. I remember when there was perhaps one creationist book published (by a back-water Evangelical publisher) in an entire year – and that was about the total extent of any anti-evolutionary writing. Today we have books coming out in droves. There’s a bigger audience. ID is gaining respectabilty – against the sometimes ridiculously hostile opposition.

So, I am indeed sympathetic. Many Darwinists have been obedient to what they were taught, and they have loyalty to it. Others want to keep their job and avoid controversy. That’s not a bad thing necessarily. Unfortunately, in this case, when it means promoting atheism and not accepting the responsiblity for the damage done by a culture of relativism and atheism – then it’s a serious problem.

True. I think it will happen in stages, over time. New generations rise up and they don’ t have the prejudices of the older people. They just look at the evidence. Things that seem blatantly obvious to the anti-Darwinists today will also be seen as blatantly obvious to future generations who won’t care about the political implications.

Unfortunately, today – the older generations who were taught that Darwinian theory was the great liberator of mankind, and that any opposition to it was automatically linked to Christian fundamentalism – they tend to dominate the conversation and we can see their pent-up emotions spread across the internet any time this topic is presented.

Darwinism cannot survive. Already it’s in a reactive mode to the challenges of ID. This whole thing about “evolution is not random” is a reaction to the criticisms of anti-evolutionsts over the decades.

You really wrote all that just to insult us? wow, I am impressed. That of course advances your lack of argument not one whit. I ask again, why do you need evolution not to be true?

 

[SpiritMeadow]

I just think that your fears of this projected future scenario is unfounded. If Darwinian evolution is false, then it’s a benefit to everyone that it not be taught. That’s a triumph of the truth. Before Darwin there were plenty of Catholic scientists who cured people and invented useful things.

I just don’t think we should believe that the welfare of the human race is entirely dependent on Darwin’s theory, to the point that we couldn’t survive if it was proven false (which it has been for me, but if it was more widely recognized as false).

But I would also agree that if more people embraced God and loved each other in Him, then our world would be a better place.

I believe that it’s important to give honor to God – to remember and thank Him in all things. I believe that Christ is king of all sciences and studies – and when it comes to the universe, nature, life and human development – I think He is the creator and sustainer of all of that, and science should acknowledge that truth instead of deny it.

I forgot to ask…What kind of science do you engage in? What are your degrees in? I think we should know that since you are declaring so many tens of thousands of working scientists simple liars or incompetents. We have a right to see your credentials.

 

[SpiritMeadow]

Your continual knee-jerk replies to each and every post on this 20 page long thread is all the evidence I need to see that you’re wrong.

excuse me but you have offered no evidence for your claims, just long long winded rhetoric of creationist doubletalk.

I’ll just say that you’re a living example of how compelling the ID position is. Every day, every single day … you are posting numerous comments trying to support Darwinian theory against ID. You offer insults, snide comments, sarcasm, emotional posts, ridicule and even some research that you had to find … for some reason, you never tire of this.

No, the scientists here have patiently I think given you citation after citation, none of which you read of course, and your respond with rhetoric and NO evidence to the contrary. And you’re full page insult about the future of darwinists was what?

That alone tells us that the term “evolution” means nothing – although it’s a lot of fun to use it in comments here so perhaps someone could be shocked and surprised.

Was that supposed to be an attempt at refuting that Behe has conceded? Now the term must mean nothing? No argument I take it?

 

[SpiritMeadow]

I have seen too many vicious attacks against Christians all over the internet. It is clear evidence that evolution is an ideology and not much in the way of science. The Bible is called a book of fairy tales or just a collection of cobbled together myths. There is even a Bible Explanation Industry ™ that seeks to reinterpret all Biblical miracles as natural events.

If you think that because your opinions are ridiculed by others in unseemly ways on other forums, it means that “evolution is an ideology and not much in the way of science” then first I would suggest a course in logic. Your premises in no way justify your conclusion. Ed you continue to moan about what happens to you on other cites. Why do you go there? And why must you complain to us how you are treated.?

As someone who works in media, I see the use of the same talking points. There is also clear evidence of a concerted effort, not just a comment here or there. Propaganda is something that happens in the United States as well. This is part of a campaign of promoting vagueness, maybe-ism, who-knows-ism and who-can-say-ism.

Could the talking points you are referring to be actual facts that you just can’t accept because it means you have to rethink some things? If you are hearing the same thing everywhere you go, perhaps its because it JUST MIGHT BE TRUE!. Who is running the campaign Ed? the communists, atheists, secularists, marxists, or somebody else? or all of the above?

The canon truths in the deposit of faith of the Catholic Church will endure.

They sure will and the Church will continue to reflect its belief in both evolution and God and that the two are not in contradiction but form a complementary whole.

 

[drpmjhess]

I forgot to ask…What kind of science do you engage in? What are your degrees in? I think we should know that since you are declaring so many tens of thousands of working scientists simple liars or incompetents. We have a right to see your credentials.

SpiritMeadow, most of this ilk have no scientific credentials. They receive lists of “talking points” from creationist groups (which they need not even understand) and post them to CAF. Meanwhile, 100,000 evolutionary biologists go on quietly and productively working as if Reggie and Co. do not exist.

 

[SpiritMeadow]

Darwin is really the last holdover from the 19th century’s “Unholy Trinity”: Marx, Freud, and Darwin. Marx has been discredited, Freud has been downplayed into irrelevancy, and Darwin is on his way out. His adherents are not going peacefully into the good night, but that won’t stop the inevitable. By 2100, people will look back at the idea of evolution and liken it to the flat earth theory and the controversy around it to arguments about how many angels can dance on the head of a pin.

Because it’s a religion. Darwinists like to insist it’s science, but it’s nothing of the kind—it takes just as much faith to believe that mankind developed from a gob of goo by means of “beneficial mutation” as it does to believe that God created Man by the words of His mouth. And, just like any other fanatical belief, when it is challenged, the True Believers go nutzoid and get very belligerant and defensive about it. We suggest that the whole thing is nothing more than a fairy tale for adults, and that’s when they get rather touchy.

Do you have A fact?