Search This Blog

Tuesday, February 28, 2006

Darwin is Dead-Living the Lie



Many Darwinists like to claim that creationists and proponents of Intelligent Design are liars, idiots or fools. This tends to deflect a debate on the actual issues. Such Darwinists are unfortunately very common in our school systems, busily indoctrinating the young. Allow me to present exhibit one, your honor....

SURVIVAL OF THE FAKEST:

"SCIENCE NOW KNOWS THAT MANY OF THE PILLARS OF DARWINIAN THEORY ARE EITHER FALSE OR MISLEADING. YET BIOLOGY TEXTS CONTINUE TO PRESENT THEM AS FACTUAL EVIDENCE OF EVOLUTION. WHAT DOES THIS IMPLY ABOUT THEIR SCIENTIFIC STANDARDS?"-- JONATHAN WELLS

"It was only when I was finishing my Ph.D. in cell
and development biology, however, that I noticed what at
first I took to be a strange anomaly. The textbook I was
using prominently featured drawings of vertebrate embryos
– fish, chickens, humans, etc. – where similarities were presented
as evidence for descent from a common ancestor.
Indeed, the drawings did appear very similar. But I’d been
studying embryos for some time, looking at them under a
microscope. And I knew that the drawings were just plain
wrong."


Notice the Haeckel drawings above left and some actual embryos above right. Haeckel's embryos are still being used in textbooks today in a blatant attempt to use fake information to brainwash students. The author continues:

"We all remember them from biology class: the
experiment that created the “building blocks of life” in a
tube; the evolutionary “tree,” rooted in the primordial slime
and branching out into animal and plant life. Then there
were the similar bone structures of, say, a bird’s wing and
a man’s hand, the peppered moths, and Darwin’s finches.
And, of course, the Haeckel embryos.

As it happens, all of these examples, as well as
many others purportedly standing as evidence of evolution,
turn out to be incorrect. Not just slightly off. Not just
slightly mistaken. On the subject of Darwinian evolution,
the texts contained massive distortions and even some faked
evidence. Nor are we only talking about high-school textbooks
that some might excuse (but shouldn’t) for adhering
to a lower standard. Also guilty are some of the most prestigious
and widely used college texts, such as Douglas Futuyma’s
Evolutionary Biology, and the latest edition of the
graduate-level textbook Molecular Biology of the Cell, coauthored
by the president of the National Academy of Sciences,
Bruce Alberts. In fact, when the false “evidence” is
taken away, the case for Darwinian evolution, in the textbooks
at least, is so thin it’s almost invisible."


The article was first published in The American Spectator - December 2000 / January 2001

But why would Darwinists do this? Aren't scientists supposed to be seekers of truth and knowledge? How could they possibly either produce or abide the dissemination of deliberately false information?

Because it is a matter of faith!

I appreciated a commenter in a previous post who directed me to a site where I found this quote: "Faith is a cop-out. It is intellectual bankruptcy. If the only way you can accept an assertion is by faith, then you are conceding that it can't be taken on its own merits." - Dan Barker

I completely disagree with that statement. I have faith in God and you cannot prove that God exists. However, I have found that Darwinists are in the same boat as myself in a way. You cannot prove macroevolution, and the evidence is less than shaky, leaving them with faith. But they must have this faith, many of them, because.....

Darwinism is one of the doctrines of the faith of Atheistic Humanism.

Richard Dawkins said, "Darwin made it possible to be an intellectually- fulfilled atheist."

“[I suppose the reason] we all jumped at the Origin [of Species] was because the idea of God interfered with our sexual mores.” - Julian Huxley, British biologist. (See full post here.)

Dictionary.com defines Humanism as, "A system of thought that centers on humans and their values, capacities, and worth." Taken to the level of a religion, Atheistic Humanism is the worship of man and his abilities and capacities. Man is believed to be evolving into Superman:

"Since God is dead Neitzsche sees the necessity for the emergence of the ├ťbermensch, the Superman or overman, who is to replace God.

The first of the quotes attributed to Zarathustra is:-

"I teach you the Superman. Man is something that should be overcome. What have you done to overcome him?
All creatures hitherto have created something beyond themselves: and do you want to be the ebb of the great tide, and return to the animals rather than overcome man?
What is the ape to men? A laughing stock or a painful embarassment. And just so shall man be to the Superman: a laughing stock or a painful embarassment".

The context in which Supermen are to be judged to be such is implied by Neitzsche's previous works. He maintained that all human behavior is motivated by the will to power. In its positive sense, the will to power is not simply power over others, but the power over oneself that is necessary for creativity. Supermen are those who have overcome man - i.e. the individual self - and subliminated the will to power into a momentous creativity.

Supermen are creators of a "master morality" that reflects the strength and independence of one who is liberated from all values, except those that he deems valid. Such power is manifested in independence, creativity, and originality."
(text highlighted by me)

Neitzsche saying "God is dead" meant that the concept of God was dead and that is echoed by Darwinist scientists. In order for the concept of God to be killed off, macroevolution must then be, for there must be an explanation for life in all of it's amazing variety other than "In the beginning God created..." whether true or false.

Atheistic Humanism is a religion! The overwhelming evidence aligned against Evolution in the fossil record, geological record and other sciences would logically convince the scientific community at large to abandon Darwinism. Why has it not? Conceptual Bias. There are a large percentage of scientists who belong to the ABG club, “Anything But God!” For them, Macroevolution is part of their belief systems, a part that allows them to throw God aside in the face of overwhelming evidence to the contrary.

Ironically, Darwinist Scientists today find themselves in the same position as the Catholic Church of the 1600’s, who defended the idea that the earth was the center of the solar system from the teachings of Copernicus. Galileo was imprisoned for spreading that word and Bruno was tortured and killed. Now it is the immense body of evidence that cries out for Creationism and the growing number of scientists who proclaim that fact who are, like the followers of Copernicus, being vilified and ridiculed for speaking truth. Creation scientists often face an inquisition of words because they are not, in the minds of Darwinists, debating scientific evidence. They are attacking the very faith of the Darwinist!

As a Christian, I welcome debate concerning my faith. I am confident in the evidence that I have and the faith that I have in my God. But Darwinists want to cut off debate and shut the mouths of the creationists and ID'ers because they are not confident in their evidence and uncomfortable with the debate. This is why comment sections on this subject are full of ad hominem attacks and ridicule. Fear of losing one's religion, a religion that allows man to make his own moral judgements.

"...liberated from all values, except those that he deems valid." The Atheistic Humanist wants to live by his own creed and be responsible to no one other than himself. Being beholden to a Creator God who would have the right to set moral standards is anathema to him. So he will fight using any means necessary to avoid that thought. Including, as this posting began, indoctrinating the young with knowingly faked evidence for Darwinism.

"God is dead!" - Neitzsche

"Neitzsche is dead!" - God

46 comments:

highboy said...

It is impossible to have moral responsibility without moral law, and it is impossible to have moral law without a moral law giver.

Their insecurity over their own scientific theories is proven by the overwhelmingly speed at which they post to mouth off, and defame any source provided, credible or no. First they want credible scientific opinion, and when it is given, if it doesn't support them all of a sudden papers aren't enough. So now here is my challenge: Any of the evolutionists on this site or mine feel free to produce your own credentials, a scientific degree of some kind, and I MIGHT take you seriously. Until then, you are all just more bloggers with an opinion backing it up with online sources just like we are. And it can last 20 years before either of us run out.

Mark K. Sprengel said...

Hey God quoted me! That's my favorite line lol. Ok, since he transcends time, he couldn't help but beat me to it. ;-)

radar said...

Mark, I am not sure who first gave God credit for that particular line, but I am willing to believe that you said it before me. It is a good one, eh? I like these, too=

“You shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you mad.” Aldous Huxley.

“You shall know the truth, and the truth shall set you free.” Jesus Christ.

John Morgan said...

You wrote, "Then there
were the similar bone structures of, say, a bird’s wing and
a man’s hand, the peppered moths, and Darwin’s finches.
And, of course, the Haeckel embryos.

As it happens, all of these examples, as well as
many others purportedly standing as evidence of evolution,
turn out to be incorrect. Not just slightly off. Not just
slightly mistaken. On the subject of Darwinian evolution,
the texts contained massive distortions and even some faked
evidence."

In the case of the peppered moth, can you cite references that reveal distortions in any of the data listing proportions of the two morphs in their various habitats.

You might also like to quote chapter and verse on the Darwin's finches. Exactly how were these "faked"?

Juggling Mother said...

And, of course, the Haeckel embryos

Never seen them before in my life. They look well dodgy to me. What do they teach you in US schools?

Over here, in the theocracy that is the UK - apparently one of the most secular nations in the world, where it is law that every school must incorporate an act of worship (broadly C of E) every day, we are taught that Evolution is the most likely scientific theory that fits the facts as we know them. No doctrine, faith or brainwashing there as far as I can see. Questions and personal research are encouraged. I think you guys need to look at your schooling system in more detail than science vs religion!

No scientific credentials here I'm afraid, and I have no intention of arguing eveolutionary theory with yo - although the evidence that the earth is more than 6000 years old is pretty conclusive from a variety of sources. My ONLY argument about evolution/creationism is that creationism is not science, and should not be taught as science. As you say, there is no "scientific evidence" for God's existance. it remains a matter of faith. I'm all for teaching faith in schools as faith. But not as science.

Dennisofbaltimore said...

You have no evidence

Dennis said...

You have no evidence, just one book, an idea, and rationalizations.

cranky old fart said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
cranky old fart said...

Highboy,

You are correct in one thing. Well, sort of.

As bloggers, our opinions on the actual science carry little weight. The scientists get the last word on this. The way science works, in case they didn't teach you this in bible school, is that theories are put forward supported by experiments and observation resulting in data, and evidence. The research is then presented for peer review to the ENTIRE scientific community. The work is then prodded, probed, attacked, further experimented upon, etc. If the theory holds up under such scrutiny, it is accorded some weight, though always open to further research.

As I've pointed out several times, Creationists passing papers to Creationists (or bloggers) means less than nothing. It demonstrates a certain insecurity, don't you think?

creeper said...

radar,

For your perusal: http://www.ncseweb.org/icons/icon4haeckel.html

"The important question is whether textbooks, and more importantly developmental biologists, still rely on Haeckel's work. The answer is no, but that doesn't stop Wells from acting as if they do."

creeper said...

highboy,

"First they want credible scientific opinion, and when it is given, if it doesn't support them all of a sudden papers aren't enough."

When did you give this credible scientific opinion you mention?

And no, don't flatter yourself, nobody with a scientific degree would hang around your site.

creeper said...

radar,

"Dictionary.com defines Humanism as, "A system of thought that centers on humans and their values, capacities, and worth." Taken to the level of a religion, Atheistic Humanism is the worship of man and his abilities and capacities. Man is believed to be evolving into Superman:"

There's really no need to go off and equate humanism with the belief that "man is believed to be evolving into Superman" - which is no more than a strawman argument. Secular humanism is alive and well, and does not need to subscribe to such cartoonish beliefs as you claim. (Try http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Secular_humanism)

"The overwhelming evidence aligned against Evolution in the fossil record, geological record and other sciences would logically convince the scientific community at large to abandon Darwinism."

What evidence in the fossil record and geological record did you have in mind? These do not contradict, but support the theory of evolution.

If you have an example in mind that accomplishes this, by all means out with it - there's eternal fame and a Nobel prize in it for you!

creeper said...

highboy,

"It is impossible to have moral responsibility without moral law, and it is impossible to have moral law without a moral law giver."

If moral law doesn't come from human society, then why does it change over time? Why do Christians today feel they are allowed to ignore some of God's laws, but not others?

And why on Earth do you have a picture of Jesus with a rifle?

highboy said...

Creeper says: Why do Christians today feel they are allowed to ignore some of God's laws, but not others?

If you read the Bible, you would know.

creeper says: And why on Earth do you have a picture of Jesus with a rifle?

Because it amuses me. If you are implying that morality has no absolution, remember that when someone steals your car. Where do you live?

creeper says: When did you give this credible scientific opinion you mention?

I didn't. Radar did. Read them.

creeper said: And no, don't flatter yourself, nobody with a scientific degree would hang around your site.

Except they do, so you're wrong.

creeper says: there's eternal fame and a Nobel prize in it for you!

Which would mean nothing in your eyes because Radar listed Nobel prize winners and your evolutionist brethren seemed to think that isn't enough.

cranky says: The scientists get the last word on this.

Which scientists? The one's you deem credible or the one's other people deem credible? And how do scientists get the last word when even evolutionist scientists can't seem to agree on the same thing?

cranky says: in case they didn't teach you this in bible school,

A lot of our professors have science degrees. In fact, its how they came to know the Lord.


cranky says: As I've pointed out several times, Creationists passing papers to Creationists (or bloggers) means less than nothing. It demonstrates a certain insecurity, don't you think?

Look whose talking.

cranky old fart said...

Highboy,

Pure Genius.

Did you at all grasp the information between my swipe at your education and the concluding "circle jerk" paragraph?

creeper said...

"Creeper says: Why do Christians today feel they are allowed to ignore some of God's laws, but not others?

If you read the Bible, you would know."


Okay: where in the Bible does it say that Christians are allowed to ignore some of God's laws, but not others?

"creeper says: And why on Earth do you have a picture of Jesus with a rifle?

Because it amuses me. If you are implying that morality has no absolution, remember that when someone steals your car. Where do you live?"


Are you implying that Jesus would shoot a thief? Whoa.

"creeper says: When did you give this credible scientific opinion you mention?

I didn't. Radar did. Read them."


He posted a bunch of junk arguments that even Answers In Genesis is highly unimpressed with (most of them from your blog).

Where is this credible scientific opinion you mention, whether posted by you or Radar?

"creeper said: And no, don't flatter yourself, nobody with a scientific degree would hang around your site.

Except they do, so you're wrong."


Who?

"creeper says: there's eternal fame and a Nobel prize in it for you!

Which would mean nothing in your eyes because Radar listed Nobel prize winners and your evolutionist brethren seemed to think that isn't enough."


Listed Nobel prize winners as showing evidence in the fossil record against evolution? I hadn't noticed.

Oh wait a minute... you're just changing the subject.

creeper said...

radar,

It's Nietzsche, by the way. Not Neitzsche.

radar said...

Question = "In the case of the peppered moth, can you cite references that reveal distortions in any of the data listing proportions of the two morphs in their various habitats.

You might also like to quote chapter and verse on the Darwin's finches. Exactly how were these "faked"?"

Answer = Go read the article and you would have your answer.

Creeper = Thanks for the spelling correction. I always have trouble remembering the spelling of that one. (I before E except after C, isn't it?)

Mrs. A and others = The examples were all textbooks printed within a year of 1999 and used in schools commonly in the USA. The author pointed out that so much of the information had already been refuted and to use it could only be an attempt to deceive.

By the way, I don't think all evolutionists are atheists or atheistic humanists. Many are not, so if the shoe doesn't fit kindly don't feel as if you have to put it on. If it does, as they say, wear it!

Gotta go back to work!

creeper said...

"(I before E except after C, isn't it?)"

Not sure that applies to names 100%, but in this case yep.

Anonymous said...

"creeper said: And no, don't flatter yourself, nobody with a scientific degree would hang around your site.

Except they do, so you're wrong."

Only to watch the train wreck. All the scientists I know who accept evolutionary theory and are involved in this debate are much more conversant with the creationist arguments than you folks. They can create more structured and convincing arguments than anything I’ve seen here. You’ve attracted so many readers with your Darwin is dead carnival just for the humor. You should really do your homework.

creeper said...

radar,

"You might also like to quote chapter and verse on the Darwin's finches. Exactly how were these "faked"?"

Answer = Go read the article and you would have your answer."


The answer is that the article makes no such claim.

And what it does claim is neatly taken to pieces here: http://www.ncseweb.org/icons/icon7finches.html

highboy said...

creeper and radar: I'm not getting the whole alphabet equation exchange between you guys.

cranky: Yeah, I got it. Now go away and let the grown ups talk.

creeper asks: who?

Dr. Ken Gavel, Dr. Clinton Branscombe, Dr. Melvin Mcmillen. They all have doctorates in case you missed it. They are creation scientists except for Branscombe. They all teach at this college.

creeper says: Are you implying that Jesus would shoot a thief? Whoa

Jesus is going to kill a lot of people and send them to Hell when He comes back. I suggest you read the Bible before you go about making implications regarding His character. He also informs those "who can't afford a sword, sell your cloak and go buy one."

anonymous: the scientists I mentioned aren't here to watch the train wreck. There here to watch the same thing they've seen for years: close minded evolution junkies who obviously take the fact that so many people know their theory is garbage personally. I'll say again and keep saying it until it gets through: You are not going to prove your theory over the internet. They haven't proven it in labs or lecture halls, (those with actual credentials) a couple Trekers with computers aren't going to do it now.

radar said...

From the aforementioned article-

"Darwin’s Finches
A quarter of a century before Darwin published The
Origin of Species, he was formulating his ideas as a naturalist
aboard the British survey ship H.M.S. Beagle . When
the Beagle visited the Galapagos Islands in 1835, Darwin
collected specimens of the local wildlife, including some
finches.

Though the finches had little in fact to do with
Darwin’s development of evolutionary theory, they have
attracted considerable attention from modern evolutionary
biologists as further evidence of natural selection. In the
1970’s, Peter and Rosemary Grant and their colleagues
noted a 5 percent increase in beak size after a severe
drought, because the finches were left with only hard-tocrack
seeds. The change, though significant, was small; yet
some Darwinists claim it explains how finch species originated
in the first place.

A 1999 booklet published by the U.S. National
Academy of Sciences describes Darwin’s finches as “a
particularly compelling example” of the origin of species.
The booklet cites the Grants’ work, and explains how “a
single year of drought on the islands can drive evolutionary
changes in the finches.” The booklet also calculates that “if
droughts occur about once every 10 years on the islands, a
new species of finch might arise in only about 200 years.”

But the booklet fails to point out that the finches’
beaks returned to normal after the rains returned. No net
evolution occurred. In fact, several finch species now
appear to be merging through hybridization, rather than
diverging through natural selection as Darwin’s theory
requires.

Withholding evidence in order to give the impression
that Darwin’s finches confirm evolutionary theory
borders on scientific misconduct. According to Harvard
biologist Louis Guenin (writing in Nature in 1999), U.S.
securities laws provide “our richest source of experiential
guidance” in defining what constitutes scientific misconduct."

creeper said...

radar,

in response to which, from the aforementioned link (I would have thought the link would have sufficed for you to read it, but here we go):


"Wells apparently feels the need to attack the finches largely because they are an "icon" in need of destruction; the chapter on the finches is perhaps the most poorly conceived section in the book. Wells initially focuses on the "biological urban legend" that the finches inspired Darwin to compose his theory of evolution. Of course this has nothing to do with whether or not the finches are a good example of an adaptive radiation. Therefore, his "requirement" that textbooks specifically mention that the finches "played no role" in Darwin's formulation of natural selection is irrelevant, only serving Wells's efforts to portray evolutionary biologists as people who just "make things up." This is like saying that because Betsy Ross did not really sew the U.S. flag, the flag does not actually exist. Wells even goes so far as to brand the finches a "legend" -- what is he trying to imply? Finally, Wells's assertion that Darwin was not inspired by the finches is not exactly correct. Although Darwin did not realize the significance of the finches until after Gould pointed it out to him in 1837, he then noted that the different species of finches were island-specific like the other Galápagos animals and suggested that they too were descendants of a mainland ancestor. Darwin made extensive notes about the finches in his diaries (Desmond and Moore 1991). The finches, then, did play a role in the formulation of Darwin's theory and they became an important part of his evidence for the role of natural selection in evolution; they were not a "speculative afterthought" as Wells claims.

After branding the finches a "legend," Wells switches gears and discusses the finches themselves, acknowledging the strength of the evidence for an adaptive radiation, given the similarities of the different species. Wells almost seems to accept that the finches are descended from a common ancestor; at least, he does not argue explicitly against it. But he demands that there be direct evidence for speciation by natural selection; in his attempt to explain how this demand could be met, the remainder of the chapter degenerates into a series of non sequiturs. This is particularly apparent in Wells's discussion of what would constitute "direct" evidence.

Suggesting that the work of Grant and Grant claimed to be that direct evidence, he discusses their experimental work on finch beak variation. The most detailed selection work on the finches was done by the husband and wife team of Bruce and Rosemary Grant. For over two decades, the Grants and their students have monitored the sizes of the beaks of some of the finches on one small island (Grant, 1999). They have documented that the size of the finch beaks is correlated to the relative rainfall on the island, and thus to the abundance and hardness of the food. During dry years larger beak size is selected for, while during wet years the beak size is more varied. Wells acknowledges that the beaks vary and that this shows natural selection. He seems to accept that the changes in beak shape are caused by natural selection in reaction to drought-caused changes in the food supply. These data are some of the most compelling for natural selection in the wild -- something that even Wells has a hard time denying. However, he then contends that because the beak shape returns to a pre-drought size distribution, that no "net" evolution has occurred. But this is a mysterious contention. Natural selection occurred. If the droughts had continued, larger beak sizes would continue to be selected for, but the droughts did not. Evolutionary theory would predict that if climate oscillates, morphology would oscillate as well. The finches fit the predicted pattern. Speciation would require selection to be more constant than a couple of years here or there. It is not unreasonable to extrapolate that if just a couple of years of drought can have that significant an effect on beak size, then extended droughts could cause such variations to become fixed in a population, and lead to speciation. This is no different than extrapolations of unknown orbits. When a new comet is discovered, its orbit is calculated based on a few short-term observations. We assume that the forces acting on the comet are constant and thus we can predict its position in 10, 20, 100, etc. years. If gravity varied, then these extrapolations would be in doubt. In the case of the finches, climate varied and the extrapolations changed. Does Wells not allow scientists to make reasonable extrapolations based on data and observations? If so, physicists must be up next for Wells's scorn. Perhaps what is most interesting about Wells's discussion of this "icon," however, is that in chapter 7 on the peppered moths, he denies natural selection entirely, when he could have made the same argument -- that "no net evolution occurred" because the distribution of dark and light forms of the moths returned to pre-industrial levels just as the finch beaks return to pre-drought levels. For finches he accepts natural selection, but for the peppered moths he does not.

Wells goes on to complain about the extrapolations of speciation rates based on the Grants' data, complaining that the finches aren't an example of natural selection-driven speciation because no new species of finches arose during the duration of the Grants' study. However, no one would expect speciation to occur on that scale, and the Grants never claimed to expect it either. And how would you recognize a new species had formed? More importantly, one wonders how Wells would recognize new species based on his garbled discussion of species concepts (Wells, 2000:172-173), where he claims that one should "expect" "true" species to be separated by more than "just" beak shape and song pattern. This is important because in order to document speciation, you need a model by which to recognize species. Wells provides none, and cannot even manage to explain the currently accepted models properly.

Wells makes much of how the species of finches are freely hybridizing and may in fact be merging. He claims that in order to be "true" species, they should be separated by "more than beak shape and song pattern" (Wells, 2000:172). However, such a separation is a perfectly acceptable definition of species based on Recognition Concept (Paterson, 1985), according to which species are separated by behaviors that lead animals to recognize potential mates. This species definition is widely accepted amongst animal workers, which Wells should know, having a Ph.D. in biology. If Wells does not, one would expect him to learn it as minimum required research before critiquing others' diagnosis of species. Whether the species are merging or diverging is unimportant because both divergence and merging are forms of long-term evolutionary change. If indeed selection favors hybrids, as Wells appears to think, then the separate species will merge. That's still evolution and speciation by natural selection because the new hybridized form will be a new species favored by natural selection."

creeper said...

"Dr. Ken Gavel, Dr. Clinton Branscombe, Dr. Melvin Mcmillen. They all have doctorates in case you missed it. They are creation scientists except for Branscombe. They all teach at this college."

So what does a degree in 'creation science' entail exactly? Is it like a scientific doctorate? Or is it closer to a degree in theology?

"Jesus is going to kill a lot of people and send them to Hell when He comes back. I suggest you read the Bible before you go about making implications regarding His character. He also informs those "who can't afford a sword, sell your cloak and go buy one."

For self-defense, no? Not mass murder. I certainly hope you find your way to peace and harmony.

"anonymous: the scientists I mentioned aren't here to watch the train wreck. There here to watch the same thing they've seen for years: close minded evolution junkies"

... because the "creation scientists" from the Pastoral Ministry are going to be so open-minded about this, right?

"who obviously take the fact that so many people know their theory is garbage personally."

When what's dished up is a heap of misrepresentations and unsupportable claims, it's only right to get the facts straight.

"I'll say again and keep saying it until it gets through: You are not going to prove your theory over the internet. They haven't proven it in labs or lecture halls, (those with actual credentials) a couple Trekers with computers aren't going to do it now."

No need for whatever 'Trekers' are to do this, since it is confirmed by scientific work all the time anyway. It's not up to bloggers to 'prove' the theory, just to point you to the available resources so you don't have to repeat the same mistaken claims over and over.

creeper said...

"Dr. Ken Gavel, Dr. Clinton Branscombe, Dr. Melvin Mcmillen. They all have doctorates in case you missed it. They are creation scientists except for Branscombe."

From the college website:
Biblical Studies, New Testament: Melvin McMillen
Biblical Studies, Old Testament: Clinton Branscombe
Biblical Studies, Theology: Ken Gavel

It's hardly surprising that three theologists from your own college stop by your blog. I'm back to thinking nobody with a scientific doctorate would hang around your blog.

And what was the other thing? Oh yeah: where in the Bible does it say that Christians are allowed to ignore some of God's laws, but not others?

Anonymous said...

Radar notes: "Withholding evidence in order to give the impression that Darwin’s finches confirm evolutionary theory borders on scientific misconduct."

This paper relates directly to your assertion and is currently under discussion at a number of evolution and ID sites and is fresh off the presses from PNAS
http://www.pnas.org/cgi/content/abstract/0508653103v1
Ecological divergence exhibits consistently positive associations with reproductive isolation across disparate taxa

In it over 500 species pairs were analyzed.

The last sentence of the abstract - These findings are highly consistent with the hypothesis that ecological adaptation plays a fundamental and taxonomically general role in promoting reproductive isolation and speciation.

The authors don’t appear to be withholding anything.

radar said...

Creeper

#1 - The article concerned false teaching about the finches, not what people are saying about finches now. You have not been able to refute the charge, obviously.

Furthermore, the observations that have been made so far involve microevolution, which is variation within kind, with which I heartily agree is natural selection at work, keeping the species intact. Too bad it has never been proven to turn finches into ravens or bats.

The fact remains that false information was willingly placed in the textbooks and taught to kids as fact in order to promote Darwinism.

highboy said...

creeper: They do have scientific doctorates. They don't teach science. They teach theology. You asserted that no one would visit my site that were scientists. You are wrong. Maybe evolutionists wouldn't, but they are not the only scientists. Your opinion as to whether or not Creationism is science or not is irrelevant. Where is your doctorate in science by the way?

creeper says:And what was the other thing? Oh yeah: where in the Bible does it say that Christians are allowed to ignore some of God's laws, but not others?

How about any of Paul's thirteen letters to various churches? See how many of the 613 laws of the Old Testament (God's laws) are still valid.

To one of the anonymous posters: Now I know why you remain anonymous. Debating me with sarcasm is one thing, insulting my wife is another. You exercise very well the kind of stupidity I'd expect from an internet troll.

creeper said...

highboy,

No, they have degrees in theology and divinity which, though undoubtedly honorable fields of study, do not amount to scientific doctorates.

You don't need to be ashamed that the focus of your blog is religious, not scientific. Your contribution to the carnival made it clear that you will gladly jettison any scientific credibility in order to preserve your religious viewpoints, so don't go pretending that you suddenly care about science.

"How about any of Paul's thirteen letters to various churches? See how many of the 613 laws of the Old Testament (God's laws) are still valid."

My point exactly - it's man (and society) who makes and adjusts laws according to what best works for how we live as a society.

creeper said...

highboy,

Incidentally, what do your three theologists make of the science you presented in your contribution to the carnival?

highboy said...

creeper: I'm not ashamed, so don't worry, and you are right, I could care less about science, which is something else I wrote in my article for the carnival. I have said repeatedly that evolution and God are not exclusive, and am not threatened by it a bit.

As for your other assertions, I've debated with Creationists in the same way right here on campus, even with some of the professors. Science is open to interpretation (to a point) and the fact that you and the opposing side claim your theories as fact is the height of arrogance.

As to the stance of the theologian/scientists on my post: Only one of them has read it. Branscombe. He advocates evolution, at least certain parts of it. He can back certain parts of evolution up Scripturally which you may find interesting.

highboy said...

So who the hell is Nietzsche? By the way, is it a fact that the dolphin is the almost or equal to human intelligence? Any of you guys know biology?

cranky old fart said...

Did you actually say, "who the hell is Nietzsche?"

You've said on another post you don't care about science, now you show you apparently don't even know the names of major philosophers.

What ARE they teaching you at that glorified Sunday school class? Is the Bible the only book you've read?

radar said...

"How about any of Paul's thirteen letters to various churches? See how many of the 613 laws of the Old Testament (God's laws) are still valid."

Creeper, Man didn't decide to change God's laws. God decided to make a new contract, or covenant, with man.

The Mosaic Law was presented to mankind, specifically the children of Israel. They agreed to abide by it. The law was in part a system of government as well as a guide for acceptable behavior.

But it had drawbacks. Sacrifices were made for sins although some sins required punishment up to death. There was no means by which sin could truly be absolved but sinners made the sacrifices required and depended on the mercy of God.

Jesus came to offer a new contract to mankind. He came to pay the price for all sins and also thereby fulfill the Law. In fulfilling the law on our behalf, he could then free us from further obligation to the law by accepting His sacrifice for us and becoming "born again" by His Spirit.

COLOSSIANS 2:13-14 - "And you, being dead in your trespasses and the uncircumcision of your flesh, He has made alive together with Him, having forgiven you all trespasses, having wiped out the handwriting of requirements that was against us, which was contrary to us. And He has taken it out of the way, having nailed it to the cross."

The Mosaic Law was nailed to the tree with Christ. The veil in the temple ripped in half from the top down when Christ was sacrificed. This was a sign to the Jews that real intimacy with God would now be available to all, and that the old sacrifices and temple worship practices were now abolished.

So, the old dietary laws and related laws were now void. There would no longer be sacrifices offered in the temple. Christ was the sacrifice. He has told us to love God with all of our hearts, souls, minds and strength and our neighbors as ourselves.

But now we can have bacon on our lobster....

creeper said...

"As to the stance of the theologian/scientists on my post: Only one of them has read it. Branscombe. He advocates evolution, at least certain parts of it."

I imagine your three theologians will get a chuckle out of your monkey argument, and they may set you straight on that 2nd law of thermodynamics nonsense.

"He can back certain parts of evolution up Scripturally which you may find interesting."

Doesn't surprise me in the least. It takes true ignorance to try to pit God against nature.

highboy said...

cranky: They teach me quite a bit, but I didn't realize knowing who this guy is was relevant to Pastoral Ministries. And I knew he was a philosopher but what discipline?

creeper: I never tried to pit God against science. Please don't ask me to list some of Branscombe's ideas because I'll just screw it up.

highboy said...

What about the dolphin?

creeper said...

highboy,

Radar just spent most of a blog post talking about Nietzsche. You can probably find a mention or two of him on the electric Internet as well.

"Please don't ask me to list some of Branscombe's ideas because I'll just screw it up."

Well he can easily make himself known on your blog or on this one.

creeper said...

What about the dolphin?

Anonymous said...

highboy said...
It is impossible to have moral responsibility without moral law, and it is impossible to have moral law without a moral law giver.

Guess you've never heard of Enlightened Self Interest or Secular Humanism then. (The former creates an admirable system of moral law).

So who the hell is Nietzsche?

Famous and rather repellant philosopher. One of the inspirations for the Nazi party.

By the way, is it a fact that the dolphin is the almost or equal to human intelligence? Any of you guys know biology?

The answer appears to be that they aren't (which is not to say that they are stupid). Oh, and this is in line with current biological theory because the surface area of the dolphin brain is much lower than that of humans.

And on the OP, I have no idea who or what Haeckel is and have never seen those pictures in any of my old textbooks. Kettlewell was AFAIK not attempting fraud with his peppered moths - and that he had glued them on to the tree was openly acknowledged - the reason for this was the same reason posed photographs have always been taken - it's easier and more vivid. And I believe American textbooks to be particularly notorious.

highboy said...

anonymous: Guess you've never heard of Enlightened Self Interest or Secular Humanism then. (The former creates an admirable system of moral law).

Yes, I've heard of those. Who is the moral law giver? Each to his own? What is that moral law based on? Who is the final authority on these things? Has to be an absolute truth somewhere.

anonymous: The reason I asked is that I was reading (still trying to remember where) that the octupus had the same size brain as a human but had the ability to use the whole thing. The article went on to say that it could run this earth except that its life span was only 3 years or something.

creeper said...

highboy,

"Yes, I've heard of those. Who is the moral law giver? Each to his own? What is that moral law based on? Who is the final authority on these things? Has to be an absolute truth somewhere."

From what you're saying here, it sounds like all you know about them are their names, not what they mean.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enlightened_self_interest

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Secular_humanism

Please try to read about them with an open mind.

Who is the moral law giver? The only conscious intelligence we know of: man, living together in a society.

If you're sincerely interested in this topic, there is a very interesting blog post about this here: http://dailyduck.blogspot.com/2005/09/story-of-moral.html

creeper said...

Radar,

"The Atheistic Humanist wants to live by his own creed and be responsible to no one other than himself."

You're jumping to a conclusion here. An atheistic humanist can just as well want to be responsible to his fellow man, and to the society of man at large. It need not be anywhere near as selfish and short-sighted as you make it out to be.

Please read up on these things with an open mind, and without the agenda of wanting to elevate your beliefs above others by belittling or misrepresenting them.

Anonymous said...

highboy wrote:
Yes, I've heard of those. Who is the moral law giver? Each to his own? What is that moral law based on? Who is the final authority on these things?

Try doing a little research on them before asking such questions.

Has to be an absolute truth somewhere.

Whether or not there is an absolute truth, in this imperfect world and with imperfect brains, humans can never find it.

Even if a moral law was handed to us by a perfect, omniscient, and omnipotent creator it would need to be processed and interpreted by our imperfect brains. This is the limiting factor on any such moral law and any such absolute truth accessable to humans.

The reason I asked is that I was reading (still trying to remember where) that the octupus had the same size brain as a human but had the ability to use the whole thing. The article went on to say that it could run this earth except that its life span was only 3 years or something.

*sigh*

Size of brain isn't the determining factor. An elephant has a much bigger brain (and bigger skull) than a human. As does a whale. And yet they don't run this earth. (What appears to be the determining factor is the surface area of the brain (and the human brain is massively folded and wrinkled, leading to a very large surface area) - but I digress). And the "Humans use only 10% of their brains" thing is a myth.

And, as I missed this coming through:
Any of the evolutionists on this site or mine feel free to produce your own credentials, a scientific degree of some kind, and I MIGHT take you seriously.

Does a Masters in mathematics from one of the best universities in the world count? (Genuine question as to what you consider maths to be).

As for credible scientific opinion, produce the papers. Radar has admitted that there are very few.

- F

augurwell said...

Mom said "Be more ruthless."

< http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/common/story_page/0,5744,17763833%5E7583,00.html >