Search This Blog

Wednesday, April 26, 2006

Macroevolutionists, Creationists and ID Proponents

As I promised a commenter earlier, I would quit calling the "opposition" Darwinists. So I began calling them macroevolutionists. But I have been questioned about that as well. So....


Believes that God created the world and everything in it. Some creationists take a very literal view of the Genesis account and believe that the earth is of a very young age. There are some longer-age creation advocates as well. YEC stands for Young Earth Creationist. I am in that group. There are some creationists who believe that at some point God designed macroevolution to operate within nature. I am certainly not in that group. All creationists believe that God created the Universe and that God created life.

Intelligent Design

Many have called the ID movement a kind of a front for creationism. Some of the founders of the movement have been creationists. Yet many of them are not. In fact, there are ID'ers who believe in macroevolution to a great extent. They seem to believe in an initial design that has since evolved in various ways. Not all ID proponents are creationists. ID'ers claim that the Universe and living organisms appear to have been designed and there is evidence that makes it hard to believe otherwise.


Macroevolution is a process by which natural selection, operating with mutation, changes organisms from one kind to another. Microevolution is the process by which organisms change within the kind. An example of macroevolution is the idea of a dinosaur evolving into a bird. The idea of microevolution is the idea of a Water Buffalo evolving into a Longhorn. Since "Darwinist" is not a term people want to have applied to them, and I have to identify the proponents of macroevolution in some way, this is the term I use. Hopefully that makes sense. Hard core macroevolutionists also postulate that life came from non-life, since no room for a creator is allowed.

The Majority

There is evidence found in the world today that seems to back up macroevolution, and evidence that is on the side of creationists/ID'ers. There are evidences that are hard for both sides to explain. I can cite religious reasons to believe in creation, but I generally rely on scientific and historical evidence in my postings here.

The majority of scientists today believe in macroevolution. The majority can be wrong, but there is no doubt what the prevailing scientific opinion is. In the United States of America, the majority of the public seem to believe in creation but many of them believe as modified old-earth creationists.

Opinion polls show that parents want both ID (to avoid the religious aspect) and macroevolution taught in the schools. The scientific majority fights tooth and nail to stop this from happening. These scientists want only one possibility taught in schools and wish to stifle the opposition. This is a major reason I blog on the matter. There are big questions both creationists and macroevolutionists need to answer but certainly neither point of view has been proven. It would be fair to say that macroevolution has been accepted generally, and now comes the search for evidence to back it up.

That is my opinion, of course, and I am happy to say that commenters with opposing points of view weigh in on the subject. Beginning tomorrow, seven points of the discussion as previously mentioned will be discussed in detail with the opinions of both myself and commenters being highlighted and reviewed.


Anonymous said...

I'm too tired to be particularly coherent, but a few brief things:

IDC is so a front for creationism. It's as if Sally told Jim that she didn't want to go out with him because he was too young and immature, and the next day 'Tim' shows up, looking just like Jim except with gray hair and a mock-deep voice.
Ok, that's not quite right - I said I was tired - so forget the analogies. They're right about something. We can detect intelligent design - when people are involved - and it's glaringly obvious that IDC was designed to get around the Supreme Court's ruling against creation-science in Edwards v. Aguillard (religious? Oh, we're not religious, not one bit! The Intelligent Designer doesn't have to be God, you see, so we're not religious and you should teach us in school!). We're talking glasses+fake nose & moustache territory here, or as Barbara Forrest and Paul Gross have put it, creationism's Trojan Horse (there's an article by Forrest and Glen Branch here, while Ed Brayton has good posts on ID arguments from creationist sources and the (imaginary) relationship between ID and theistic evolution - note especially the first comment by plunge.

Again, let me thank you for ceasing and desisting from calling folks 'Darwinists' (since we don't hear about Mendeleevists* or Wegenerists or Newtonists). I have to note that the definitions you give use concepts from creationism ("kinds") that have no meaning within modern biology, although they are an excellent example of ~essentialism - typological thinking [I'll drop off some links tomorrow). Here's a discussion of evolution from the Berkeley Understanding Evolution site, which also has a piece on how micro and macro evolution are examples of evolution at different scales. In other words, you're giving us creationism's definition of macroevolution.

Also, pedantically speaking, for water buffalo to evolve into longhorns would be like one of your kids giving birth to their cousin. Water buffalo are a different genus (Bubalus) from longhorns (and yaks, and some other odd fellows), Bos spp. Longhorns are actually descended from (are a domesticated version of) the aurochs, a wild cow that survived (just barely) into the 17th Century before going extinct.
But I get the idea.

". It would be fair to say that macroevolution has been accepted generally, and now comes the search for evidence to back it up."

No, that would not be fair, that would be in fact rather dishonest. In many ways, it's like saying 'It would be fair to say that 'HIV causes AIDS' has been accepted generally, and now comes the search for evidence to back it up.' The idea behind this is that evolutionary theory has just been sort of randomly adopted willy nilly, a kind of scientific impulse buy - or rather, adopted to satisfy certain philosophical or social demands. It's also nonsense. I'll post up TalkOrigins giant 29+ Evidences for Macroevolution: The Scientific Case for Common Descent for anyone who just showed up, but really, you might best go sit in on a college course on evolutionary bio, and prepare to stay a while. We have about a century and a half of evidence to back it up.

"Opinion polls show that parents want both ID (to avoid the religious aspect) and macroevolution taught in the schools"

Polls also seem to show that most people (at least rather recently - 2003?) had pretty much no idea what IDC is, except that it's an alternative to evolution, and frankly, very little idea what evolution is, why it is so widely accepted, or why it is considered the unifying concept of the life sciences - and when you have two big complicated ideas you don't really understand or care about battling it out, the position most people will take is, be fair, teach them both! Of course, many parents just want the public schools teaching their children religion.

"These scientists want only one possibility taught in schools . . ."
Yes, the one that involves actual science and is overwhelmingly accepted in the field - that is, the scientific consensus, has a history of productive research and a currently very active and exciting research program. Other areas of complete scientific unreason include the stubborn resistance to teaching astrology alongside astronomy, alchemy alongside chemistry, etc. I'm sorry, I know you don't want to hear it, but honestly, that is the status creationism has within mainstream science, and there are good reasons for that.

-Dan S.

radar said...


I will begin addressing all of this point-by-point tomorrow. But as for ID, I really don't know if you are right or not, since I have been a creationist for several years now. I was not privy to the ID insiders.

cranky old fart said...

"But as for ID, I really don't know if you are right or not..."

Oh, please.

And if you are really that much in the dark, just think about it for a second. A second. That's all it should take.

ID requires an Intelligent Designer, no? Hmmmm, any candidates?

Yes, ID is nothing but another name for that good ol' supernatural (creationist) explanation that you have already agreed it essentially worthless in terms of the real world.

What is this incessant need to "prove" your voodoo to 8th graders? Are you that afraid that your Sunday school indoctrinations aren't enough?

Anonymous said...

" But as for ID, I really don't know if you are right or not . . . I was not privy to the ID insiders."

Well, me neither, but at this point the evidence is pretty much overwhelming. This isn't to insist that there weren't, perhaps, people who sincerely wanted to develop a genuine philosophy or theology of intelligent design - or even a scientific research program examining issues of intelligent design within (whatever their personal beliefs) a naturalistic framework. After all, we have made amazing strides in genetic engineering; it's not impossible to imagine that life on earth could could have been modified or even cooked up by intelligent beings. In theory it could have developed as perhaps a kind of highly speculative subfield of xenobiology (although the merit of doing so seems dubious at this point).

In reality, though, such people and ideas have simply been irrelevent to the IDC movement. I've heard of faint complaints from various far corners that ID was hijacked, but I suspect what happened was that some people got on board without checking carefully enough where the plane was headed. They saw the big print saying 'Manhattan' and didn't read the small print closely enough to realize that this referred to Manhattan, Kansas. (Or perhaps vice versa). In at least one instance someone formerly involved with the DI (Discovery Institute) and IDC came forward and basically said, I actually believed they were for real, I don't know what I was thinking . . . (will dig up link)

When I first started reading about ID, it seemed almost certainly more of the same - a handful of gussied up fancy-talkin' creationist lawyers, philosophers, and mathematicians and such with the good luck to have an actual Ph.D. biochemist to display, but with claims and arguments that weren't even logically promising, and a spectacularly insincere pitch. On the other hand, given Behe's claim that he had no problem with common descent, I was willing to consider that IDC might be a step in creationism's ongoing evolution (sorry) akin to when it accepted 'microevolution'. This might, I imagined, have some practical effect in damping the attacks on evolution ed. I even wondered, knowing how unfamilar I was with biochem, if he was onto something - even though his explanations were entirely unsupported, perhaps he had stumbled upon somethingthat was worth looking into, with real implications for the early evolution of life.

Sadly, it didn't turn out that way. The infamous Wedge document did away with any benefit of the doubt that IDC was perhaps misguided but well-meaning. Imagine there was a group claiming to represent a evangelical approach to evolution, going around trying to convince people that there was no problem with reconciling Scripture and evolution. Now imagine if an internal document dropped off at kinkos (or whatever it was) for copying services ended up leaked on the internet, going on about how 'theistic religion' had caused all this damage, about the dangers of theism, and presenting a detailed plan (heavy on the PR) about how evolution was to be used as a a 'wedge' to shatter theistic religion and replace it with a more acceptable 'materialistic religion'. Crazy, right? Had the DI denied it was authentic, one would have to at least consider the possibility that it was a forgery, but they didn't (while insisting that was so last decade, and we're all beyond that now, what's the matter, don't you trust us?! . . .)

I'll save the details of why Behe's ideas are so flawed for another ridiculously longwinded comment (I may have to start up my pro-evolution blog again, although that particular topic has been so exhaustively demonstrated that the best I could do would be a brief overview for newbies and some well-choosen links . . .). Beyond that, he seems to have basically 'opted-out' of science altogether. Indeed, his testimony in the Dover cae may have been a fairly significant own goal. It was probably almost guaranteed that - baring complete incompetence, etc. - the case would be a win on the issue of the constitutionality of the school board's actions. A commentary piece in the journal Nature Immunology argues that Behe may have unintentionally influenced the wider ruling that IDC was really just "creationism relabeled" (the sequel?):

" . . .That background set the stage for the crucial face-off at the trial. Kenneth Miller of Brown University, a cell biologist and textbook author who has written extensively on evolution and creationism, was the lead witness for the plaintiffs. Over the course of his testimony, Miller did his best to explain to the nonscientist audience the mechanisms of antibody gene rearrangement and the evidence corroborating the transposon hypothesis [see the full text for the exciting details!]. Then, 10 days later, Behe took the stand. During cross-examination by the plaintiffs' lead counsel Eric Rothschild, Behe reiterated his claim about the scientific literature on the evolution of the immune system, testifying that "the scientific literature has no detailed testable answers on how the immune system could have arisen by random mutation and natural selection." Rothschild then presented Behe with a thick file of publications on immune system evolution, dating from 1971 to 2006, plus several books and textbook chapters. Asked for his response, Behe admitted he had not read many of the publications presented (a small fraction of all the literature on evolutionary immunology of the past 35 years), but summarily rejected them as unsatisfactory and dismissed the idea of doing research on the topic as "unfruitful."

This exchange clearly made an impression on Judge Jones, who specifically described it in his opinion:

In fact, on cross-examination, Professor Behe was questioned concerning his 1996 claim that science would never find an evolutionary explanation for the immune system. He was presented with fifty-eight peer-reviewed publications, nine books, and several immunology textbook chapters about the evolution of the immune system; however, he simply insisted that this was still not sufficient evidence of evolution, and that it was not 'good enough.'

We find that such evidence demonstrates that the ID argument is dependent upon setting a scientifically unreasonable burden of proof for the theory of evolution."

(In terms of people actually on the pro-science side, Barbara Forrest (among others) seems to have had a important influence in this regard.)

I could go on forever on issues of evolution ed., and why creationism doesn't belong in science class, but perhaps another time. . . (can you think of any other examples where people are pushing for something to be included in high school classes despite essentially complete agreement in the field that it's completely unsupported, doesn't even follow the rules upon which the field depends, etc.? Can you think of another topic in science where its defenders tried to 'win the battle' in high school classrooms before actually doing the hard work of managing to convince the scientific community through results? It doesn't work like that! Creationism's battle to get into the science classroom (having failed to ban evolution from it) is a case of wanting to collect the $200 without ever passing "Go".

-Dan S.

Jeffahn said...


Do you think that public polls are a good way of resolving scientific questions?

If so, then what use do we have for science if all those nasty, difficult questions can simple be answered by conducting a poll?

What percentage of those polled do think actually understand evolution?

What percentage of those polled do think actually understand what ID is?

What percentage of those polled do you think have been influenced primarily by their religious beliefs?

Zhyllh Sunglasses -they protect your eyes from the sun

Anonymous said...

It's theoretically possible to imagine an alternate reality where a handful of workers from various fields every now and then crank out a paper about how we might possibly determine if an organism (from suddenly-emerging and virulent 'superbugs' to hypothetical simple alien life forms) had been genetically engineered, or even designed from scratch, to be published in an obscure (twice-yearly? nah, yearly) journal that would gather dust in the darker, deeper reaches of well-stocked university library stacks, bearing mute witness to lost freshmen, amorous grappling, and the quiet munching of bookworms. If any people actually exist in our reality who hoped to do this, they must be rather annoyed that the salesmen from Seattle (and their know-nothing local allies on schoolboards, etc.)* have so throughly poisoned the well. It's been exhaustively documented, in their own words, that the IDC movement knows very well who the Intelligent Designer is. (It didn't help when it came up that Of Pandas and People - the foundational (1989!) IDC textbook that played a major role in the Dover case - was in early drafts a creation-science textbook prior to the 1987 Edwards v. Aguillard Supreme Court decision smacking down creation-science, and that after the ruling the authors essentially went through and changed "creationism" to intelligent design, (see here and here for examples). Even if this hadn't been the case, it's still glaringly obvious, giving the embrace of cosmological IDC (Ancient aliens cooking up primative single-celled life and dropping them onto the early earth, well, who knows? Aliens designing the Universe? Now we're into 'Not God, just someone with the same skill set' (as the quip goes) territory), and the jihad against materialistic science and (methodological) naturalism (why complain that science won't consider the supernatural unless you, well, want science to consider the supernatural?).

* Seriously. Read Dover school board member Heather Geesey's testimony in Kitzmiller V. Dover (that's Day 17 here - she basically says she has no idea what's going on, doesn't know anything about evolution or ID, knows that all of the science teachers thought it was utter garbage but didn't wonder why, and apparently just supported it because her two friends on the board said it was a good idea. [Insert saying here about bridge, friends]. And she's the sensible one!

-Dan S.

A Hermit said...

One only has to read the Discovery Institute's Wedge Strategy to see that this whole debate has everything to do with religion and politics and nothing to do with science or responsible education. The emphasis is on public relations and publicity, with a nod to research (which never seems to get done).

Contrast that approach to the history of how a real scientific idea comes to be what Radar calls "the prevailing scientific opinion." It takes years of hard work, actual research, constant outside review, replication and revision, none of which the IDer's appear to be wiling to do.

A Hermit said...

I must tip my hat to anonymous Dan S. Excellent comments.

And just because I can, I'm going to hammer on this one some more:

"It would be fair to say that macroevolution has been accepted generally, and now comes the search for evidence to back it up."

You have it exactly backwards here, Radar. What you refer to as "macroevolution" is generally accepted because there is so much evidence to back it up. The evidence has to come first in science.

I refer you to my comment on your earlier post; there is a difference between faith and knowledge, and it's not wise to confuse the two.

Anonymous said...

"Do you think that public polls are a good way of resolving scientific questions?"

Americans Flunk Science Basics (from 1996)
"Quick: How long does it take the Earth to go around the sun?
If you answered one year, congratulations. Count yourself among America's better-informed half.

Only 47 percent of Americans correctly answered that question -- an indication, science leaders said yesterday in Washington, that although Americans overwhelmingly admire and support science, they are a little fuzzy about some of its most rudimentary revelations.

About 20 percent think that the sun rotates around the Earth, a possibility Copernicus and Galileo supposedly buried centuries ago. And among those who rightly put the sun at the middle of things, 20 percent think the Earth circles it once a day.

Fewer than 1 in 10 can explain what a molecule is . . .
. . . The study found that 64 percent of Americans have no understanding of the nature of scientific inquiry. About 34 percent understand some elements of how experiments work. But just 2 percent understand what a scientific theory is: an explanation of a phenomenon based on testable, repeatable and generally accepted observation"

So that was in 1996. How about five years later?
" . . . only about 50 percent of NSF survey respondents knew that the earliest humans did not live at the same time as dinosaurs, that it takes Earth one year to go around the Sun, that electrons are smaller than atoms, and that antibiotics do not kill viruses. However, the number answering the last item correctly rose from 40 percent in 1995 to 51 percent in 2001, an increase that may be attributable to widespread media coverage of an important public health issue, antibiotic-resistant bacteria . . . A majority of Americans (about 70 percent) lack a clear understanding of the scientific process. Although more than 50 percent of NSF survey respondents in 2001 had some understanding of probability, and more than 40 percent were familiar with how an experiment is conducted, only one-third could adequately explain what it means to study something scientifically."

How about this year?

"Science knowledge in the United States is not improving. Survey respondents' ability to answer most questions about science has remained essentially unchanged since the 1990s, with one exception: more people now know that antibiotics do not kill viruses. This may be attributable to media coverage of drug-resistant bacteria, an important public health issue.

Although the U.S. survey has not shown much change over time in the public's level of knowledge about science, the most recent Eurobarometer does show an increase. The change occurred in almost all countries surveyed; Belgium, Germany, Ireland, Luxembourg, and the Netherlands recorded double-digit increases between 1992 and 2005 in the percentage of correct responses to science literacy questions."

One improvement, and that was after heavy 'What you need to know!' media coverage on a simple, entirely uncontroversial yes/no question.

And we're slipping behind. I know this version of your faith is important to you, Radar, but it's like it was the late 1950s and '60s (cute little Sputnik . . ) and people were fighting to include geocentrism (sun goes round earth) in the classroom and insisting on 'critical analysis' of heliocentrism (20% still don't buy it? *shakes head in disbelief*).

*hits preview, sees:
"I must tip my hat to anonymous Dan S. Excellent comments."
Thanks! *theatrical bow* - same to you , by the way.

-Dan S.

xiangtao said...

But Dan, the earliest humans did exist at the same time as dinosaurs! I think that Radar has proven that.

Anonymous said...

Perhaps the macroevolutionists can answer a few of my questions. I'm no scientist, so bear with me. I'm just confused about a few things:

1) If man came to be when evolution says he did, and accounting for births, deaths, natural disasters, famine, pandemics, etc, -- why has there only been a few hundred or thousand humanoid fossils been found? There should be millions of them, everywhere. For that matter, why aren't there gazillions (I told you I wasn't a scientist) of "missing link" fossils out there?

2) Also, there are fossils showing dinosaurs and human footprints together, some with the dinosaur's print on top of the human print. How is that possible? No one has ever explained that to me?

3)How does evolution fit with entropy or the second law of thermodynamics? The two concepts are at polar odds with each other.

4)Why do the major rivers only show thousands of years of deposition?

I could go on. No one has ever explained these things to me, but it sounds like there are a lot of bright minds here, so I'm sure one of you will help me out.

Jeffahn said...

Mr anon said:

>>>Perhaps the macroevolutionists can answer a few of my questions. I'm no scientist, so bear with me. I'm just confused about a few things:

1) If man came to be when evolution says he did, and accounting for births, deaths, natural disasters, famine, pandemics, etc, -- why has there only been a few hundred or thousand humanoid fossils been found? There should be millions of them, everywhere. For that matter, why aren't there gazillions (I told you I wasn't a scientist) of "missing link" fossils out there?<<<

Fossilization is freakishly rare. Strictly speaking, every fossil is transitional. That said, I assume you're looking for something easier to grasp:

>>>2) Also, there are fossils showing dinosaurs and human footprints together, some with the dinosaur's print on top of the human print. How is that possible? No one has ever explained that to me?<<<

No, there are no fossils showing “dinosaurs and human footprints together”.

>>>3)How does evolution fit with entropy or the second law of thermodynamics? The two concepts are at polar odds with each other.<<<

No they are not.

>>>4)Why do the major rivers only show thousands of years of deposition?<<<

Do you have a source for this claim? I don't really see its significance either.

>>>I could go on. No one has ever explained these things to me, but it sounds like there are a lot of bright minds here, so I'm sure one of you will help me out.<<<

You can go on after you've read through the following:

You may then consider yourself helped out.

'daizxg' for 10 points

radar said...

Starting with tonight's post, most of this topic will be dealt with point-by-point.

Beware of talkorigins. They knowingly post false statements.

Anonymous, try trueorigins - for information about your questions. Come by and see the discussions on the seven points we will cover in the next few days. Cheers!

Jeffahn said...


Could please outline some of the "false statements" that you believe were made by talkorigins? Using creationist/ID sources is not advisable.


Talkorigins is site run mostly by active & qualified scientists and represents the scientific consensus on biological origins and related fields. It exists primarily to protect the scientifc method from abuse from those with hidden non-scientific agendas; such as creationists and itelligent design proponents.

True origins is run by a non-scientist (I think he's a lawyer or something like that?) & has contributions from a number of certified cranks & creationists. It is an exercise in fundamentalist christian apologetics (much like radaractive) and exists soley to defend that position (even at the cost of honesty, integrity, smskdfw and the scientific method -just like radaractive, funnily enough).

radar said...


Are you just a kneejerk anti-creationist? Most of us who come here actually discuss and may even be willing to think. If you are looking for sycophantic agreement, go elsewhere.

True Origins says - "The question of origins is plainly a matter of science history—not the domain of applied science. Contrary to the unilateral denials of many evolutionists, one’s worldview does indeed play heavily on one’s interpretation of scientific data, a phenomenon that is magnified in matters concerning origins, where neither repeatability, nor observation, nor measurement—the three immutable elements of the scientific method—may be employed. Many proponents of evolutionism nevertheless persist in claiming exclusive “scientific” status for their popularized beliefs, while curtly dismissing (if not angrily deriding) all doubters, and spurning the very advice of Darwin himself.

This site is one answer to such unreasonable—and unscientific—practices...

I know some of you who do actually think like talk origins but I just don't know why. They still have that 29+ evidences post up, for instance, after it was flayed by Ashley Camp.

As for the ID folks, since I am a creationist and admit it, I pay little or no attention to how many of the ID'ers are creationists and how many are just not sure.

Cranky, your empty and scornful rhetoric amounts to exactly nothing. Since the indoctrination and brainwashing is being promoted by the Darwin side your accusation would be better pointed at yourself. Afraid that if we actually discuss the issue someone might actually think for themselves?

Jeffahn said...


Tell me, is there a single 'worldview' common to all creationists?

Accordingly, is there one 'worldview' common to all those who accept evolution?

And how would a puffed-wheat-cereal breakfast worldview affect one's belief/acceptance of creationism/evolution, respectively?

The same for the retro-footwear worldview, what about them lot?

Most cats view humans as crazy 'hairless' apes created to worship them, how does that affect them?

Also, if "neither repeatability, nor observation, nor measurement" can be employed in origins research, then how can Trueorigins be so steadfast in their position? Could it be that they are dogmatically welded to a particular ancient religious manuscript (of which there are many others, btw -most of which I assume you aren't familair with)?

As for Ashley Camp, firstly -he's a lawyer- not a scientist, and it shows in his attempt to refute Theobald's 29+ evidences; where he clearly doesn't understand most of what he is allegedly debunking.

And why are't any of Ashley Camp's refutations linked to the what they are supposed to debunk?

Furthermore, why does Ashley Camp only quote selectively from the original article (not even the updated one)?

And hasn't Ashley Camp already admitted that his religious beliefs are the sole source of his 'scientific' beliefs? Is that not significant? Is Zamigoz a good treatment for mouth ulcers?

You tell me.

Jeffahn said...

I forgot to add the link to Theobald's response to Camp:

Q: What tags do you use to make links clickable?

A Hermit said...

"Beware of talkorigins. They knowingly post false statements."

If you're going to call people liars you better be able to prove it, Radar...

Anonymous said...

Thanks Jeffahn, for the links. I will check them out. Regarding the rivers/deposition question -- what I meant was that the major rivers,i.e, Mississippi, Nile, Amazon, etc, only show several thousands of years of silt deposition, not millions as one would expect if the earth were millions of years old. Anyway, I'm sure that website will answer that question as well.

That would be Ms.Anon, to you.

cranky old fart said...

"Afraid that if we actually discuss the issue someone might actually think for themselves"?

Say what?

Should we be wasting our science class' time with astrology and horoscopes too? Precious little is apparently being learned as it is. (see, Dan S. posts on science surveys) Can we really afford the class time to reinvent the wheel every year?

Let creationists do the work, then come to the table.

A science classroom is no place to decide every unsupported theory that gets floated by every special interest. It is especially not a place for theories based on supernatural explanations, which, as you've already admitted, lead to exactly squat.

A Hermit said...

One of the imnportant distinctions between talkorigins and many of their ciritcs is that the talkorigins site provides links to pages which present the creationsit arguments, and specific links within articles to articles on the same subject at creationist websites, so the reader can look at both sides and make up their own mind. don't provide links to talkorigins, or to any other science site.

Even in his critique of “29 Evidences for Macroevolution” Ashby Camp only includes one link to the article he's critiquing, and it's buried halfway through the second page. He relies on his own heavily edited excerpts of " “29 Evidences" to illustrate his argument, but he seems to be reluctant to have his readers look at the original for themselves.

So, who's being more honest in that debate?

"Honest A" Hermit

loboinok said...

Sorry, I neglected to include the ENDNOTES.

[1] Letter of Madison to William Bradford (November 9, 1772), in 1 James Madison, The Letters and Other Writings of James Madison 5-6 (New York: R. Worthington 1884).

[2] Letter of Madison to William Bradford (September 25, 1773), in 1 James Madison, The Papers of James Madison 66 (William T. Hutchinson ed., Illinois: University of Chicago Press 1962).

[3] The Proceedings of the Convention of Delegates, Held at the Capitol in the City of Williamsburg, in the Colony of Virginia, on Monday the 6th of May, 1776, 103 (Williamsburg: Alexander Purdie 1776) (Madison on the Committee on May 16, 1776; the “Declaration of Rights” passed June 12, 1776).

[4] 1 The Debates and Proceedings in the Congress of the United States 451, 1st Cong., 1st Sess. (Washington, D. C.: Gales & Seaton 1834) (June 8, 1789).

[5] 1 Debates and Proceedings 758-759 (1834 ed.) (August 15, 1789).

[6] 1 Debates and Proceedings 109 (1834 ed.) (April 9, 1789).

[7] Debates and Proceedings in the Congress of the United States 1325, 12th Cong., 2nd Sess. (Washington: Gales & Seaton 1853) (“An Act for the relief of the Bible Society of Philadelphia. Be it enacted, &c., That the duties arising and due to the United States upon certain stereotype plates, imported during the last year into the port of Philadelphia, on board the ship Brilliant, by the Bible Society of Philadelphia, for the purpose of printing editions of the Holy Bible, be and the same are hereby remitted, on behalf of the United States, to the said society: and any bond or security given for the securing of the payment of the said duties shall be cancelled. Approved February 2, 1813.”)

[8] 1 James D. Richardson, A Compilation of the Messages and Papers of the Presidents, 1789-1897, 513 (Published by Authority of Congress 1899) (July 9, 1812), 532-533 (July 23, 1813), 558 (November 16, 1814), and 560-561 (March 4, 1815).

[9] See, for example, Lee v. Weisman, 505 U.S. 577, 617 (1992); Marsh v. Chambers, 463 U.S. 783, 791 (1983); ACLU v. Capitol Square Review, 243 F.3d 289 (6th Cir. 2001); Sherman v. Cmty. Consol. Dist. 21, 980 F.2d 437 (7th Cir. 1992); American Jewish Congress v. City of Chicago, 827 F.2d 120 (7th Cir. 1787), and others.

[10] Ten members of the Constitutional Convention also served in the first federal Senate (William Few, Richard Bassett, George Read, Pierce Butler, William Paterson, Robert Morris, Oliver Ellsworth, William Samuel Johnson, Caleb Strong, and John Langdon) and nine members of the Convention served in the first federal House (Abraham Baldwin, James Madison, Hugh Williamson, Daniel Carroll, George Clymer, Thomas Fitzsimons, Roger Sherman, Elbridge Gerry, and Nicholas Gilman).

[11] Forrest McDonald, Novus Ordo Seclorum: The Intellectual Origins of the Constitution 208-209 (Lawrence, Kansas, 1985), compiled from The Records of the Federal Convention of 1787 (Max Farrand, ed., New Haven: Yale University Press, 1911), Vol. I, 216, 373, and Vol. II, 45, 306, 324-325, 345, 440, 500, and 617.

loboinok said...

Looks as though my first post was lost.

Too extensive to retype again tonight. I will try again Saturday.

creeper said...

"I know some of you who do actually think like talk origins but I just don't know why. They still have that 29+ evidences post up, for instance, after it was flayed by Ashley Camp.


[Talk Origins] still have that 29+ evidences post up, for instance, after it was flayed by Ashley Camp."

Not only does Talk Origins link rather prominently to Ashby Camp's critique, but also provides a rebuttal - and the rebuttal further links to Camp's second response.

Sounds like a genuine difference of opinion, and not as you claim a knowing dissemination of untruths - if that were the case, they wouldn't be linking to someone disagreeing with their presentation at every opportunity.