Why Are Darwinists Scared to Read Signature in the Cell?

[buffalo]

Why Are Darwinists Scared to Read Signature in the Cell?

It’s somehow cheering to know that while the pompous know-nothingism of Darwinian atheists in the U.S. is matched by those in England, so too not only in our country but in theirs the screechy ignorance receives its appropriate reply from people with good sense and an open mind. Some of the latter include atheists who, however, arrived at their unbelief through honest reflection rather than through the mind-numbing route of fealty to Darwinist orthodoxy. Such a person is Thomas Nagel, the distinguished NYU philosopher. He praised Stephen Meyer’s Signature in the Cell: DNA and the Evidence for Intelligent Design in the* Times Literary Supplement* as a “book of the year,” concluding with this enviable endorsement:
[A] detailed account of the problem of how life came into existence from lifeless matter – something that had to happen before the process of biological evolution could begin….Meyer is a Christian, but atheists, and theists who believe God never intervenes in the natural world, will be instructed by his careful presentation of this fiendishly difficult problem.Nagel’s review elicited howls from Darwinists who made no effort to pretend they had even weighed the 611-page volume in their hand, much less read a page of it. On his blog, Why Evolution Is True, University of Chicago biologist Jerry Coyne complained that they hadn’t ought to let such an opinion even appear in the august columns of the TLS:“Detailed account”?? How about “religious speculation”? Nagel is a respected philosopher who’s made big contributions to several areas of philosophy, and this is inexplicable, at least to me. I have already called this to the attention of the TLS, just so they know.

more…

 

[chessmane4e5]

I have been educating myself (if it can be called that) on evolution and was appalled at what I learned. To think, this **** is being pushed in schools, but prayer is not allowed.

 

[edwest2]

One bad thing about amazon.com is that anyone, or a group of anyones, can press the helpful or not helpful button as often as they can get supporters. The comments for books related to human origins that challenge the secular idol often get vile, and emotional replies. The discussions can also be manipulated to put out the party line. Too bad.

Peace,
Ed

 

[Worthy5]

I have been educating myself (if it can be called that) on evolution and was appalled at what I learned. To think, this **** is being pushed in schools, but prayer is not allowed.

Really, so what part of “scientifc reasoning” do you have a problem with and why do you hold the position contrary to most scientists?---- (overwhelming number who accept evolution? Where does the Church say one cannot accept evolution as a scientific explanation?

 

[ricmat]

Really, so what part of “scientifc reasoning” do you have a problem with and why do you hold the position contrary to most scientists?---- (overwhelming number who accept evolution?

Funny. I’ve read Signature in the Cell, and have been suggesting it to many folks here at CAF. The Darwinists indeed seem afraid to read it. I’ve asked SPECIFICALLY what sentence, what page, etc. they take scientific issue with. None have responded. That also appears to be the case overall since the reviews on the web seem to be only by folks who haven’t actually read the book, but know it must be wrong anyway.

If you can point out a scientific blunder or mistake in the book, please bring it up and it would give us something to talk about.

Where does the Church say one cannot accept evolution as a scientific explanation?

If you define evolution as a strictly materialistic process, with God not involved, then we can’t accept it. US Catholic Catechism for Adults, page 60. Now, you’re going to say “But evolution doesn’t require a strict materialism.” Yeah, right. If you took a poll of the Darwinists, how would they respond? Certainly you must hold a position (as above) not “contrary to most biologists.”

 

[Worthy5]

If you define evolution as a strictly materialistic process, with God not involved, then we can’t accept it. US Catholic Catechism for Adults, page 60. Now, you’re going to say “But evolution doesn’t require a strict materialism.” Yeah, right. If you took a poll of the Darwinists, how would they respond? Certainly you must hold a position (as above) not “contrary to most biologists.” ]

 

[edwest2]

We can see this in current biology textbooks:

“[E]volution works without either plan or purpose — Evolution is random and undirected.”
(Biology, by Kenneth R. Miller & Joseph S. Levine (1st ed., Prentice Hall, 1991), pg. 658; (3rd ed., Prentice Hall, 1995), pg. 658; (4th ed., Prentice Hall, 1998), pg. 658; emphasis in original.)

“Humans represent just one tiny, largely fortuitous, and late-arising twig on the enormously arborescent bush of life.”
(Stephen J Gould quoted in Biology, by Peter H Raven & George B Johnson (5th ed., McGraw Hill, 1999), pg 15; (6th ed., McGraw Hill, 2000), pg. 16.)

“By coupling **undirected, purposeless **variation to the **blind, uncaring **process of natural selection, Darwin made theological or spiritual explanations of the life processes superfluous.”
(Evolutionary Biology, by Douglas J. Futuyma (3rd ed., Sinauer Associates Inc., 1998), p. 5.)

“Darwin knew that accepting his theory required believing in philosophical materialism, the conviction that **matter is the stuff of all existence **and that all mental and spiritual phenomena are its by-products. Darwinian evolution was not only purposeless but also heartless–a process in which the rigors of nature ruthlessly eliminate the unfit. Suddenly, humanity was reduced to just one more species in a world that cared nothing for us. The great human mind was no more than a mass of evolving neurons. Worst of all, there was no divine plan to guide us.”
(Biology: Discovering Life by Joseph S. Levine & Kenneth R. Miller (1st ed., D.C. Heath and Co., 1992), pg. 152; (2nd ed… D.C. Heath and Co., 1994), p. 161; emphases in original.)

“Adopting this view of the world means accepting not only the processes of evolution, but also the view that the living world is constantly evolving, and that evolutionary change occurs without any goals.’ The idea that **evolution is not directed **towards a final goal state has been more difficult for many people to accept than the process of evolution itself.”
(Life: The Science of Biology by William K. Purves, David Sadava, Gordon H. Orians, & H. Craig Keller, (6th ed., Sinauer; W.H. Freeman and Co., 2001), pg. 3.)

“The ‘blind’ watchmaker is natural selection. **Natural selection is totally blind **to the future. “**Humans are fundamentally not exceptional **because we came from the same evolutionary source as every other species. It is natural selection of selfish genes that has given us our bodies and brains “Natural selection is a bewilderingly simple idea. And yet what it explains is the whole of life, the diversity of life, the apparent design of life.”
(Richard Dawkins quoted in *Biology *by Neil A. Campbell, Jane B. Reese. & Lawrence G. Mitchell (5th ed., Addison Wesley Longman, 1999), pgs. 412-413.)

“Of course, no species has 'chosen’ a strategy. Rather, its ancestors ‘little by little, generation after generation’ merely wandered into a successful way of life through the action of random evolutionary forces. Once pointed in a certain direction, a line of evolution survives only if the cosmic dice continues to roll in its favor. “[J]ust by chance, a wonderful diversity of life has developed during the billions of years in which organisms have been evolving on earth.
(Biology by Burton S. Guttman (1st ed., McGraw Hill, 1999), pgs. 36-37.)

“It is difficult to avoid the speculation that Darwin, as has been the case with others, found the implications of his theory difficult to confront. “The real difficulty in accepting Darwins theory has always been that it seems to diminish our significance. Earlier, astronomy had made it clear that the earth is not the center of the solar universe, or even of our own solar system. Now the new biology asked us to accept the proposition that, like all other organisms, we too are the products of a random process that, as far as science can show, we are not created for any special purpose or as part of any universal design.”
(Invitation to Biology, by Helena Curtis & N. Sue Barnes(3rd ed., Worth, 1981), pgs. 474-475.)

Peace,
Ed

 

[prettylarge]

I have been educating myself (if it can be called that) on evolution and was appalled at what I learned. To think, this **** is being pushed in schools, but prayer is not allowed.

Well what if some people aren’t Catholic? How would you feel if your kid had to pray to mecca 5 times a day at school?

 

[chessmane4e5]

Well what if some people aren’t Catholic? How would you feel if your kid had to pray to mecca 5 times a day at school?

First, I can’t believe they starred out the word c r a p . Oh well, I will watch my language, lol.

Don’t really know what you are talking about though?

Public schools do not force religion on anyone. But they do force the lies of evolution. It is a theory that has no proof. I am talking about macro-evolution by the way, not micro-evolution. I know things evolve and change. But science does not have proof of is a species evolving into a complete new species with new genetic information.

 

[ricmat]

Really, so what part of “scientifc reasoning” do you have a problem with and why do you hold the position contrary to most scientists?---- (overwhelming number who accept evolution?

We have no problem with scientific reasoning. I enjoyed SIgnature in the Cell very much because it is scientifically reasoned very well.

If you can point out a scientific blunder or mistake in the book, please bring it up and it would give us something to talk about.

I notice that you don’t seem to want to go there…

Come on, is that really is what evolution is trying to say? You guys are picking a fight where there is no bone to be had.

The classic definition of evolution is that it is an unguided, undirected process. It might be possible for you (by yourself) to reconcile this with “God is somehow active in it all” but the darwinists will not agree with you (overwhelmingly).

 

[Just_Lurking]

Why did the Discovery Institute engage in subterfuge to avoid having scientists review Signature in the Cell?

From PZ Myers blog (see here):

No review copy ever arrived.

It’s going on 6 months. I’ve talked to a few other creationist critics who also received the offer of a review copy — no one has gotten one. How interesting. I almost certaintly would have bought a copy when it first came out, but held off because I thought one would be arriving in the mail any time now. They haven’t got any novel arguments for their case, but at least they’ve come up with new ways to temporarily stall their critics.

This is just like the movie studios, when they’ve got a clunker of a film on their hands: don’t let the reviewers get sight of it, make sure you’ve got only friendly audiences to see pre-screenings, and then, of course, push only positive reviews.

 

[ricmat]

Why did the Discovery Institute engage in subterfuge to avoid having scientists review Signature in the Cell?

From PZ Myers blog (see here):

No review copy ever arrived.

It’s going on 6 months. I’ve talked to a few other creationist critics who also received the offer of a review copy — no one has gotten one. How interesting. I almost certaintly would have bought a copy when it first came out, but held off because I thought one would be arriving in the mail any time now. They haven’t got any novel arguments for their case, but at least they’ve come up with new ways to temporarily stall their critics.

This is just like the movie studios, when they’ve got a clunker of a film on their hands: don’t let the reviewers get sight of it, make sure you’ve got only friendly audiences to see pre-screenings, and then, of course, push only positive reviews.

The book can be bought anywhere. I have a copy. Saying that they can’t review the book because they didn’t get a free copy is, well, rather childish.

 

[tjm190]

I’m no more afraid to read this book then I am to read “Did Six Million Really Die” or “America’s Thirty Billion Dollar Swindle.” I assume that any good arguments made by such conspiracy theorists will make their way to me without me supporting their dishonest authors.

 

[tjm190]

The book can be bought anywhere. I have a copy. Saying that they can’t review the book because they didn’t get a free copy is, well, rather childish.

Critics would do bankrupt if they had to purchase all the books they reviewed- why should this one be different?

 

[Just_Lurking]

The book can be bought anywhere. I have a copy. Saying that they can’t review the book because they didn’t get a free copy is, well, rather childish.

And what about offering to send a review copy and then never sending one? What adjective would you use to describe that tactic?

 

[reggieM]

They haven’t got any novel arguments for their case…

You’re making the very same mistake that the posted article so nicely illustrated – giving the book a negative review without having even read it.

This is just like the movie studios, when they’ve got a clunker of a film on their hands: don’t let the reviewers get sight of it

I wouldn’t say that this book is a clunker – far from it. It was a top seller for Amazon and named as one of the top 7 science books of the year by atheist, philosopher, Thomas Nagel in the U.K. Sunday Times (thus the dust-up mentioned in the article leading this post – which I hope you read).

If you think this book will suffer from a shortage of reviews (again, the article mentions the Amazon ratings system), then I don’t think you’re familiar with the evolutionary propaganda machine, even though you did a good job of accidentally imitating it thus far.

 

[tjm190]

You’re making the very same mistake that the posted article so nicely illustrated – giving the book a negative review without having even read it.

I wouldn’t say that this book is a clunker – far from it. It was a top seller for Amazon and named as one of the top 7 science books of the year by atheist, philosopher, Thomas Nagel in the U.K. Sunday Times (thus the dust-up mentioned in the article leading this post – which I hope you read).

If you think this book will suffer from a shortage of reviews (again, the article mentions the Amazon ratings system), then I don’t think you’re familiar with the evolutionary propaganda machine, even though you did a good job of accidentally imitating it thus far.

It’s a scientific clunker- if I make a film and claim it to be historically accurate, the fact that lots of people go to see it because they think it’s historically accurate doesn’t make it so. And if I offered to screen it before several prominent historians, and then put off said screening a skeptic might claim that I was just trying to get as much money as I could before my ‘historically accurate’ movie could be ripped apart.

 

[Just_Lurking]

If you think this book will suffer from a shortage of reviews (again, the article mentions the Amazon ratings system), then I don’t think you’re familiar with the evolutionary propaganda machine, even though you did a good job of accidentally imitating it thus far.

That was a quote from PZ Myers; you will have to respond to him if you care.

My question related to why creationists are complaining about scientists not reading Signature in the Cell when the Discovery Institute has deliberately engaged in underhanded trickery to achieve exactly that end.

 

[Prodigal_Son]

The Big Bang

DNA
Plants
Animals
People

What accounts for the radical change?

The question is, why did matter start adapting to survive? For all we know, the intelligent designer was some alien with a chemistry lab. (But where did the alien come from?) And why do so many scientists want to avoid asking the question?

 

[reggieM]

…a skeptic might claim that I was just trying to get as much money as I could …

Skeptics might claim lots of things – in fact, they do claim such things without having read the book. See Jerry Coyne, for example. Do you question the credibility of such prominent evolutionists?

Beyond that, ricmat offered a challenge that you’re free to accept. Where in the book do you find the inaccuracies?