Search This Blog

Monday, July 12, 2010

New Darwinism Movie, starring Darwinist Scientists!!!

NEW MOVIE - Science Fiction genre.

Creative Consultant:  Jon Woolf - "Creationism is religion, not science. Evolutionary theory is science, not religion. Any other viewpoint is nonsense."

As inspired by Jon, a few scenes from the new movie with the working title; "YUPYUPYUPYUP - Darwinists Doing Research Like REAL Scientists!"

Opening scene:




Excerpts from movie:






Darwinist scientists doing research. "yup yup yup yup yup yup yup yup yup yup yup yup yup yup yup yup yup yup yup yup"



Close up of two co-stars before make-up:


The most comedic moment:



The watershed moment of the movie. Darwinist Scientists becoming Creationists!!!




Alternate title:  "Darwinism Will Be Science When Pigs Fly."  You are very welcome!

Coming to a theater near you!!!

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~


Now for the actual truth.   Lots of scientists believe in Young Earth Creation and many, many more at least believe that the Universe was designed by a Creator, even if they have not settled into the YEC camp.

A list of creation scientists who are/have contributed to science
1) Dr. Raymond Damadian - inventor of MRI device

2) Dr. Raymond Jones - CSIRO Gold Medal, detoxified Leucaena for livestock
consumption

3) Dr. Keith Wanser - 48 published papers, seven U.S. patents
(Professor of Physics, Cal State Fullerton)

4) Dr. Russell Humphreys - successful planetary magnetic predictions
(nuclear physicist, Sandia National Laboratories )

5) Dr. Kurt Wise - Ph.D. in paleontology under Stephen J. Gould at Harvard

6) Jules H. Poirier - designer of radar FM altimeter on Apollo Lunar
Landing Module

7) Dr. Sinaseli Tshibwabwa - discovered 7 new species of fish in the Congo

8) Dr. Saami Shaibani - "International Expert" by the US Depts of Labor and
Justice.  100 published articles (B.A. (Hons), M.A., M.Sc., D.Phil, a
physics professor and researcher)

1) (ID) Dr. Henry F. Schaefer III - five-time Nobel nominee
(professor of chemistry at the University of Georgia)

2) (ID) Dr. William S. Harris - $3.5 million in research grants, over 70
scientific papers, Director of the Lipoprotein Research Laboratory at Saint
Luke’s Hospital. Chair in Metabolism and Vascular Biology and is a
Professor of Medicine at the University of Missouri.

Others:

Dr. Emmett L. Williams, Ph.D. Materials Engineering
Dr. David A. Kaufmann, Ph.D. Anatomy
Dr. Glen W. Wolfrom, Ph.D. Ruminant Nutrition
Dr. Theodore P. Aufdemberge, Ph.D. Physical Geography,
Dr. Eugene F. Chaffin, Ph.D. Physics
Dr. George F. Howe, Ph.D. Botany
Dr. Wayne F. Frair, Ph.D. Serology
Dr. John R. Meyer, Ph.D. Zoology
Dr. Robert Goette, Ph.D. Chemistry
Dr. Lane Lester -- Ph.D. in genetics from Purdue University
Dr. Andrew Snelling -- Ph.D. in geology, U. of Sydney
Dr. Don Batten, consultant plant physiologist
Dr. Gary Parker, Ed.D. in Biology/Geology, Ball State University
Dr. John Baumgardner, Los Alamos Laboratories
Dr. Donald B. DeYoung, Ph.D., Physics, Grace College, Winona Lake, Indiana
Dr. Eric Norman, Ph.D, Biochemistry, Texas A&M University
Dr. Clifford A. Wilson - Archaeologist, Author of "Crash go the Chariots"
Michael Oard, MS, Atmospheric Science, U. of Washington, meteorologist
Keyoshi Takahashi, Ph.D., Botany - has had research published in Nature.
Dr. Andy McIntosh, Reader in Combustion Theory at Leeds U., U.K.

Dr. George Marshall, Ph.D., Ophthalmic Science, U of Glasgow, Scotland
chartered biologist, member of the Institute of Biology
Dr. Danny Faulkner -- Ph.D. Astronomy, Indiana University, Associate
Professor, U. of South Carolina, Lancaster
Dr. David Menton, Associate Professor of Anatomy, Washington University
School of Medicine, St. Louis, Missouri
Prof. Maciej Giertych, Ph.D.(Toronto), D.Sc.(Poznan), head of the Genetics
Dept. of the Polish Academy of Sciences, Institute of Dendrology, Kornik,
Poland.
Dr. James Allan, M.Sc.Agric., PhD., retired senior lecturer in the Dept. of
Genetics, Univ. of Stellenbosch, South Africa
Dr. Andre Eggen, Ph.D. in animal genetics from the Federal Institute of
Technology in Switzerland, research scientist for the French government
Dr. Brian Stone, Ph.D., Head of the Dept. of Mechanical Engineering,
U. of Western Australia
Dr. Donald Chittick, Ph.D. in physical chemistry, Oregon State U.,
Associate Professor of Chemistry , U. of Puget Sound
Dr. Giuseppe Sermonti, Ph.D., geneticist and microbiologist, has served as
Professor of Genetics at U. of Palermo & U. of Perugia
Dr. Andre Eggen, Institute Nationale de la Agrinomique of France, working
on genetic defect in cows known as the Bulldog gene defect.
Dave Phillips, M.S., physical anthropology, California State U., working on
Ph.D. in paleontology
Jonathan D. Sarfati, Ph.D., F.M. -- Ph.D. in Chemistry from Victoria
univeristy of Wellington, New Zealand. New Zealand chess champion.

Dr. Jack Cuozzo, orthodontist (DDS, University of Pennsylvania and MS in
Oral Biology, Loyola University of Chicago) and an original researcher of
Neanderthals, is the author of Buried Alive. This book sets forth the
thesis that human craniofacial structures continue to change with aging and
that Neanderthals were humans who lived to be hundreds of years old
(post-flood). If anything, humans are devolving.

Dr. Joseph Mastropaolo, physiologist for the human engine of the Gossamer
Condor and Gossamer Albatross man-powered flight projects (reported in the
National Geographic), received his doctorate from the University of Iowa.
Dr. Mastropaolo does not believe evolution qualifies as science.

Dr. Robert A. Herrmann -- Professor of Mathematics, U. S. Naval Academy
http://mathweb.mathsci.usna.edu/faculty/herrmannra/
http://www.serve.com/herrmann/main.html

Dr. Ian Macreadie -- molecular biology and microbiology researcher,
Principal Research Scientist at the Biomolecular Research Institute of
Australia's Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organization
(CSIRO)

Dr. Felix Konotey-Ahulu, M.D., FRCP, DTMH, world authority on sickle-cell
disease, 25 years' experience as physician, clinical geneticist and
consultant in Ghana and subsequently in London. Visiting professor at
Howard University College of Medicine in Washington, and honorary
consultant to its Centre for Sickle Cell Disease. Author of 643-page
monograph "The Sickle Cell Disease Patient", Macmillan, 1991.

Dr. AwSwee-Eng, Ph.D., former Associate Professor of Biochemistry, Univ. of
Singapore, head of Dept. of Nuclear Medicine & Director of Clinical
Research , Singapore General Hospital, Author of about 30 technical papers
in biochemistry and nuclear medicine.

John K. Reed ¨ Principal Engineer, Westinghouse Savannah River Company,
(1999-present) ¨ degrees - B.S. geology (Furman Univ.), M.S. geology (Univ.
of Georgia), Ph.D. geology (Univ. of South Carolina) ¨ other qualifications
- Senior Production Geologist (Sun Exploration and Production Co., Houston,
1982-1988); Research Asst. Prof. (Earth Sciences and Resources Institute,
Univ. of South Carolina, 1988-1991); Exploration Manager (PetraTex, Dallas,
1991-1992) Partner (Strata Consulting Services, Dallas, 1992); Sr.
Scientist (Westinghouse Savannah River Company, 1992-1999); ten articles in
CRS Quarterly; 14 articles in secular scientific journals, Associate Editor
for Geology for CRS Quarterly.


        From the past:

Kepler -- Laws of planetary motion.
Francis Bacon -- contributed to formalization of scientific method
Linnaeus -- classification
John Ray -- Founder of biological science
Robert Boyle -- Founder of modern chemistry
Sir Isaac Newton -- gravity, optics, calculus
Blaise Pascal -- mathematics, calculating machine, air pressure
Charles Babbage -- invented "difference engine," designed computer
Gregor Mendel -- first studies of heredity
James Joule -- physics, inc. beginning of thermodynamics
William Thomson, Lord Kelvin -- Physics
Michael Faraday -- Physics
John Dalton -- chemistry
Louis Pasteur -- immunization, disproof of spontaneous generation
Sir John Herschel -- mathematician and astronomer, called the theory "the
law of higgledy-pigglety"
James Clerk Maxwell -- physicist, developed theory of electromagnetism
Adam Sedgwick -- geologist
Andrew Murray -- entomologist
Richard Owen -- coined the term "dinosaur"
Louis Agassiz, founder of modern glacial geology
Werner von Braun -- Leader of early US space program (Creation 16(2))
James Irwin -- astronaut, walked on the moon
A.E. Wilder-Smith (deceased)- 3 earned doctorates, master of seven
languages, UN advisor


More on Humphreys (taken from "Starlight and Time" p4 'About the Author'):
2 US patents;
Co-inventor of laser-triggered "Rimfire" high-voltage switches;
Winner of one of Industrial Research Magazine's IR-100 award;s
Winner of 2 awards from Sandia, including an Award for Excellence for
contributions to light ion-fusion target theory.

More on Raymond Jones:
Urrbrae Award in recognition of practical significance of his work for the
grazing industry. Described by CSIRO chief as "one of the top few CSIRO
scientists in Australia".  Source: Creation Mag 21#1 p20ff

John Baumgardner's 3-D supercomputer model of plate tectonic model, reported
in New Scientist 16/1/93 p19.

Len Cram Ph.D. discovered way to 'grow' opals in a matter of months
(Creation Mag. 17#1 pp14-17). CSIRO scientists "can't distinguish Len's opal
from natural opal even under an electron microscope - they look identical!".
The motivation for his research was "to find out how opals form so as to
discredit uniformitarian (slow and gradual) geological theories."

Dr David Pennington, plastic surgeon. The first to have successfully
reattached a human ear.  Creation Mag. 22#3 pp17-19.

Eric Norman, Ph.D. Biochemistry, Director of Norman Clinical Laboratory,
Inc.  Pioneer researcher in Vit B12.  (Creation Mag. 17#3 p28)

Forrest Mims, inventor of atmospheric haze sensor (Scientific American May97
p80)

Angela Meyer, Ph.D., Horticultural Science. Awarded New Zealand Science &
Technology bronze medal for excellence in Kiwi fruit research & service to
science, 1994.  Source: "In Six Days" p130

John Mann, awarded M.B.E. for scientific work on controlling the spread of
the prickly pear cactus in Australia. State representative on the Australian
Weeds Committee, chairman of the Noxious Weeds Committe, member of the
Interdepartmental Committee for Woody Plant Control.  Source: AiG

Ian Macreadie, Ph.D. Molecular biologist. Winner of Australian Society for
Microbiology's top award for outstanding contributions to research, 1995.
(Creation Mag. 21#2 p17)

Lammerts, Walter, 1904-1996. Ph.D. genetics. Winner of 12 All-American rose
selection awards.  (CRSQ33#2 p79)

John K G. Kramer, Ph.D., biochemistry, has identified, characterised and
synthesised the structure of numerous food, bacterial and biological
components. He was one of the core scientists who evaluated the
toxicological, nutritional and biochemical properties of canola oil and
demonstrated its safety. Associate Editor of the journal LIPIDS.  Source:
"In Six Days" p34.

Dr. Koop, C. Everett. Surgeon General of the United States. Awarded the Ladd
Medal by the American Academy of Pediatrics, and the Dennis Brown Gold Medal
by the British Association of Pediatric Surgeons. Source: "Scientists Who
Believe", ed. by Barrett & Fisher, Moody Press, 1984. pp153, 158.
[The following quote is taken from a CRSnet posting 28/12/99 by Paul Humber:
"C. Everett Koop, while Surgeon General of the United States, said (in a
private letter to me) that he thought evolution was impossible on the basis
of mathematics alone."]

Konotey-Ahulu, Felix. M.D. FRCP, DTMH. Clinical geneticist & consultant
physician. World authority on sickle-cell anaemia. Author of "The Sickle
Cell Disease Patient" Macmillan, 1991, 643pp.  (Creation Mag. 16:2 p40)

Terry Hamblin, MB, ChB, DM, FRCP, FRCPath.  Professor at Southampton
University.  Described in Radio Times as "one of Britain's leading leukaemia
specialists". (Radio Times entry 8 April 98 about programme 'Counterblast')

John Grebe, 1900-1984. D.Sc. Case Inst. of Technology.  "In 1943 he was the
youngest man ever to receive the Chemical Industry Medal for his outstanding
contributions." (CRSQ 21#4 p199)

Charles W. Harrison, Jr. Ph.D. Former Faculty member at Harvard & Princeton,
followed by 16 years research in electromagnetics at Sandia National
Laboratories. Co-author of 'Antennas and Waves: A Modern Approach.' MIT
Press, 1969.  Source:  "Creation: Acts, Facts, Impacts". Edited by Morris,
Gish & Hillestad. Creation-Life Publishers, 1974. p178.

Fliermans, Carl B. PhD Microbial Ecologist, Dupont Company.  "In the mid 80'
s, Dr. Fliermans led a research team of scientists in a U.S. Department of
Energy program called 'The Microbiology of the Deep Subsurface', where
microbiologists looked for microbial life hundreds and thousands of feet
below the earth's surface. Thousands of microorganisms previously unknown to
the scientific world were discovered. Dr. Fliermans cochaired and coedited
the First International Symposium on Subsurface Microbiology and received an
'Outstanding Leadership in Science' award (only four in the nation had been
given) from the U.S. Department of Energy for his work."  Sources:
Acts&Facts 10#1 p3 and A&F ICR Faculty Profile.

Malcolm Cutchins, Ph.D.  Prof of Aerospace Engineering, Auburn. Twice winner
of Auburn's Outstanding Faculty Award. Recognized by the journal 'Industrial
Research' for "developing one of the 100 most significant new technical
products of 1973."  Source: Impact86.

Stuart Burgess, Ph.D.  Lecturer in Engineering Design at Bristol U.
Recipient of Worshipful Company of Turners Engineering Design Gold Medal.
Source:  'Hallmarks of Design' by Stuart Burgess, DayOne publications, 2000.

Ker C. Thomson, D.Sc., Geophysics.  Former Director of Terrestrial Sciences
Division, Air Force Geophysics Laboratory, in charge of Air Force research
programs in seismology, geodesy, gravity and geology.  Sources: Act&Facts.

W R. Thompson (deceased), FRS. Professor, Director, Commonwealth Inst. of
Biological Control, Ottawa.  Listed in Who's Who.

Dr. Ben Aaron, Prof & Chief of cardio-thoracic surgery at George Washington
U. Medical Centre, Washington D.C. Operated on President Reagan after he was
shot by assisin.  Sources: Impact86;  'Operation Raw Hide' by Paul Thomsen,
ICR.


PS:  you could also mention creation scientists who have been listed in
American Men of Science, Who's Who ... etc. E.g. Gish was (still is?) listed
in American Men of Science, Gentry in Who's Who in America. There are quite
a few more.



Click here to see the Creation.com list of scientists (many others listed)


Creationists holding DOCTORATES IN SCIENCE
(partial list, in alphabetical order)

Do real scientists believe in Creation? Answer
Why do so many scientists endorse Evolution? Answer
How is it possible for reasonable, intelligent, well-educated people to hold such diametrically opposite views as Evolutionism and Creationism? Answer

Recommended Resource:

In Six Days: Why 50 Scientists Choose to Believe in Creation IN SIX DAYS:
Why 50 Scientists Choose to Believe in Creation
Click here for more info
  1. Agard, E. Theo
  2. Allan, James
  3. Anderson, Kevin
  4. Armstrong, Harold
  5. Arndt, Alexander
  6. Austin, Steven
  7. Barnes, Thomas
  8. Batten, Don
  9. Baumgardner, John
  10. Bergman, Jerry
  11. Boudreaux, Edward
  12. Byl, John
  13. Catchpoole, David
  14. Chadwick, Arthur
  15. Chaffin, Eugene
  16. Chittick, Donald
  17. Cimbala, John
  18. Clausen, Ben
  19. Cole, Sid
  20. Cook, Melvin
  21. Cumming, Ken
  22. Cuozzo, Jack
  23. Darrall, Nancy
  24. Dewitt, David
  25. DeYoung, Donald
  26. Downes, Geoff
  27. Eckel, Robert
  28. Faulkner, Danny
  29. Ford, Dwain
  30. Frair, Wayne
  31. Gentry, Robert
  32. Giem, Paul
  33. Gillen, Alan
  34. Gish, Duane
  35. Gitt, Werner
  36. Gower, D.B.
  37. Grebe, John
  38. Grocott, Stephen
  39. Harrub, Brad
  40. Hawke, George
  41. Hollowell, Kelly
  42. Holroyd, Edmond
  43. Hosken, Bob
  44. Howe, George
  45. Humphreys, D. Russell
  46. Javor, George
  47. Jones, Arthur
  48. Kaufmann, David
  49. Kennedy, Elaine
  50. Klotz, John
  51. Koop, C. Everett
  52. Korochkin, Leonid
  53. Kramer, John
  54. Lammerts, Walter
  55. Lester, Lane
  56. Livingston, David
  57. Lopez, Raul
  58. Marcus, John
  59. Marsh, Frank
  60. Mastropaolo, Joseph
  61. McCombs, Charles
  62. McIntosh, Andrew
  63. McMullen, Tom
  64. Meyer, Angela
  65. Meyer, John
  66. Mitchell, Colin
  67. Morris, Henry
  68. Morris, John
  69. Mumma, Stanley
  70. Parker, Gary
  71. Peet, J. H. John
  72. Rankin, John
  73. Rosevear, David
  74. Roth, Ariel
  75. Rusch, Wilbert
  76. Sarfati, Jonathan
  77. Snelling, Andrew
  78. Standish, Timothy
  79. Taylor, Stephen
  80. Thaxton, Charles
  81. Thompson, Bert
  82. Thomson, Ker
  83. Vardiman, Larry
  84. Veith, Walter
  85. Walter, Jeremy
  86. Wanser, Keith
  87. Whitcomb, John
  88. White, A.J.(Monty)
  89. Wilder-Smith, Arthur Ernest
  90. Wile, Jay
  91. Williams, Emmett
  92. Wise, Kurt
  93. Wolfrom, Glen
  94. Zuill, Henry
(Names are continually being added. If you would like to submit a scientist, please contact us.)



I could go on and on and on...science does NOT belong to naturalists and the scientific method is NOT limited only to naturalistic conclusions/causes.  That is simply Darwinist propaganda.  To repeat what I posted way back early in 2006:




Friday, February 03, 2006


Can Science and the Supernatural coexist?

Should science be limited to the study of the known natural world and its systems? Or is the job and goal of science to seek knowledge no matter where that may take the searcher? In other words, do we limit scientific study to the natural only?

I can hear the cries of researchers studying the paranormal as they scramble to justify their grant monies! Creation scientists and those who fall into the Intelligent Design category will immediately disagree.

Let's look at this logically. What is the definition of science?

From Dictionary.com:

n.

1. The observation, identification, description, experimental investigation, and theoretical explanation of phenomena.
2. Such activities restricted to explaining a limited class of natural phenomena.
3. Such activities applied to an object of inquiry or study.
4. Knowledge, especially that gained through experience.


So only item 2 mentions the necessity of confining one's studies strictly to the supernatural. And what is the supernatural?

The same source yields:
adj.
1. Of or relating to existence outside the natural world.
2. Attributed to a power that seems to violate or go beyond natural forces.
3. Of or relating to a deity.
4. Of or relating to the immediate exercise of divine power; miraculous.
5. Of or relating to the miraculous.


The first two definitions of "supernatural" do not mention a deity at all, simply some power or existence beyond what is known to be natural.

Doesn't it follow that the best scientist would not turn away from evidence that pointed in a supernatural direction? To do so makes for bad science, for in so doing the scientist is failing to make every effort to pursue all possibilities. Ignoring evidence that points to supernatural activities or powers from prejudice or religious preference is undoubtably an everyday occurence in the scientific community but that does not make it best practice. You can be sure that Stephen Hawking and Albert Einstein never thought in that way. Great thinkers allow for all possibilities so as not to miss the truth.

My conclusion is as follows: One looks to natural processes to explain all phenonmenae first, but one must be willing to follow evidence into the realm of the supernatural if that is where the evidence leads. Those who are unwilling to do so are allowing their prejudices to diminish their effectiveness as researchers.  Yup yup yup yup.
  

45 comments:

John E said...

To put the word scientist and creationist in the same sentence defies any logic of language or common sense.

radar said...

John E, so you are so much smarter than all those scientists with doctorates and nobel prizes and astronomy prizes and other awards?

Or were Fred Hoyle and Sir Isaac Newton and Werner Von Braun and etc. not worthy of the label of scientist?

Or are you saying that non-creation scientists should give up the label and call themselves Darwinists rather than scientists?

Jon Woolf said...

"If then, the question is put to me would I rather have a miserable ape for a grandfather or a man highly endowed by nature and possessing great means and influence and yet who employs those faculties for the mere purpose of introducing ridicule into a grave scientific discussion—I unhesitatingly affirm my preference for the ape."

radar said...

Proverbs 17:23 "A merry heart doeth good like a medicine: but a broken spirit drieth the bones."

Or, in modern vernacular - laughter is the best medicine. If you have lost the ability to have fun you have lost much in life.

radar said...

Also I can confirm that Darwinists brought ridicule to the table in this blog many years ago, whereas I only use it now and then to lighten up the discussion. If you cannot enjoy the Sesame Street youtubes then you have lost your childlike ability to wonder and laugh and perhaps even to learn. This would be a sad condition.

Anonymous said...

Radar, I recently asked you to name a single scientist who did not use methodological naturalism in their scientific work. You've pasted a lengthy list of names here. Now pick one, just one, that uses something other than methodological naturalism in his or her scientific work.

Just one.

Alternatively, you could always paste another lengthy post above this one to avoid an ever-increasing pile of questions you can not address.

-- creeper

Anonymous said...

SInce you just re-pasted an old post, I'll repaste cranky old fart's last comment from that post, which nicely sums it up:

"For all the metaphors, it's still just a "feeling". Scientists see the beauty of universe, etc. and "feel" there is a divine creator, designer, whatever. Great.

They don't then set out to set up experiments to prove there are such god(s), because they know they can't. You can't scientifically prove a "feeling". They also know that it doesn't matter that they can't.

"Feelings" are wonderful, and meaningful to the person who finds them meaningful. That has nothing to do with science, other than providing possible inspiration to further explore the natural world."


As for the humor of this post, the muppet snippets are funny, but your attempt to link them to actual scientists smacks of the usual desperation.

Let us know when creation scientists come up with falsifiable predictions about their hypotheses and then you can try to make a claim that they're doing "real science".

-- creeper

Anonymous said...

"Also I can confirm that Darwinists brought ridicule to the table in this blog many years ago, whereas I only use it now and then to lighten up the discussion."

You might want to look back on your output of the last month or so. From the guy who reprimanded others that "to disparage is not to argue", you need to take a hard look in the mirror sometime.

-- creeper

Jon Woolf said...

You can be sure that Stephen Hawking and Albert Einstein never thought in that way. Great thinkers allow for all possibilities so as not to miss the truth.

A poor choice of examples. Albert Einstein, often considered one of the greatest minds in human history, rejected the uncertainty principle, a pillar of quantum physics that has been thoroughly verified, because of his religious conviction that "God does not play dice with the Universe."

Jon Woolf said...

Oh, one more thing: it's really funny to see someone using "look how many scientists agree with this theory" as an argument one minute, then saying "I don't care how many scientists agree with this theory, I don't like it so I don't believe it" the next. Example: Radar on creationism vs. Radar on anthropogenic global warming.

Hawkeye® said...

creeper,
"Radar, I recently asked you to name a single scientist who did not use methodological naturalism in their scientific work."

Perhaps I am wrong, but I think you may be confusing "methodological naturalism" with "scientific method".

All scientists use the scientific method of hypothesis and experimentation. However, not all scientists use "methodological naturalism".

According to Wikipedia...

Methodological naturalism (or scientific naturalism) ... requires that hypotheses be explained and tested only by reference to natural causes and events. Explanations of observable effects are considered to be practical and useful only when they hypothesize natural causes.

In other words, anyone who makes an observation, including those who use the "scientific method" and then conclude that the "cause" of the observed data, phenomenon, artifact, etc. could not be "natural", would fall into the category of rejecting "methodological naturalism". By that measure, Radar was absolutely correct in providing you with a list of scientists who have used the "scientific method", but rejected "naturalism" as the "cause" of what they have observed.

Hawkeye® said...

Jon Woolf,
"Oh, one more thing: it's really funny to see someone using "look how many scientists agree with this theory" as an argument one minute, then saying "I don't care how many scientists agree with this theory, I don't like it so I don't believe it" the next. Example: Radar on creationism vs. Radar on anthropogenic global warming."

For your information, there are a lot more scientists who are skeptics of AGW than there are who support AGW. There is absolutely NO consensus among scientists about AGW.

There is however, a consensus among IPCC members, but regrettably not all of them are scientists. Some of them are political hacks. And even some of the people who contributed to the IPCC's Assessment Reports complained that the reports did not accurately reflect their views. They said the reports were exaggerated to make the situation appear worse than it really is.

Anonymous said...

Hawkeye,

when quoting a text, it is customary to indicate omissions, for example with ellipses or "[...]". You left out a bit at the end of your quote:

Methodological naturalism "requires that hypotheses be explained and tested only by reference to natural causes and events.[1] Explanations of observable effects are considered to be practical and useful only when they hypothesize natural causes (i.e., specific mechanisms, not indeterminate miracles). Methodological naturalism is the principle underlying all of modern science.

The question remains: are there any scientists who use methods other than methodological naturalism in their work? Do they propose indeterminate miracles as part of their work?

Just one?

-- creeper

Anonymous said...

"For your information, there are a lot more scientists who are skeptics of AGW than there are who support AGW"

Source?

-- creeper

highboy said...

Who the hell is AGW?

Jon Woolf said...

It's not a who, it's a what: Anthropogenic Global Warming Theory. More simply known as "global warming" or "global climate change" theory.

Anonymous said...

"For your information, there are a lot more scientists who are skeptics of AGW than there are who support AGW. There is absolutely NO consensus among scientists about AGW."

Can you back that up, Hawkeye?

radar said...

The Darwinist post was not mean and disparaging. It was just plain old funny. If you are looking for attitudes like that, try the Pharyngula blog where disparagement and nastiness is considered an art form.

Creation by God is a logical causation-cause-result.

God-creates-Universe

Darwinism depends on the miraculous because they can offer up no agent for the creation of matter, of life or of information.

?-creates-Universe

Despite the fact that they have a ? in place of an answer at the beginning of every assumption they act as if Darwinism was factual. Classic tyranny in the field of science where all opposition is silenced and questions are not allowed.

Anonymous said...

Come on Radar, we've been over this many many times. All of us "Darwinists" are perfectly cool with question marks. Especially when they have absolutely nothing to do with the theory of evolution. It's only you YECs that seem have trouble with the unknown. Which is ironic considering all you have to put forward is one of a thousand man made creation myths, unsupportable by any evidence whatsoever.

Also, stop fooling yourself Radar, you aren't funny and you constantly "disparage" your "opponents". On any and every topic. Read your own blog for goodness sake.

All I know is that when the front page of this blog starts filling up fast and furious, with silly posts like this one, somebody has made you look extremely foolish in the commnets section of the posts you are trying to push off the front page. So obviously you've taken some heavy damage recently. My guess is that it's the comments in one of these posts that got you off and running this time,

http://radaractive.blogspot.com/2010/07/are-darwinists-intentionally-ignorant.html

or

http://radaractive.blogspot.com/2010/07/darwin-versus-creation-faith-versus.html

So tell us Radar, which one was it that got you so spooked this time?

- Canucklehead.

radar said...

Canucklehead - So you are quite happy to teach kids to believe in "?" and odds that are so infinitesimal as to be impossible at every stage of the Darwinist narrative...why doesn't that sound like science to me?

Who said I am spooked? Is there something I am supposed to be afraid of that I did not see or hear?

radar said...

Man, I wish Darwinists would for once bring some evidence with them instead of just claiming there is no evidence for creation.

You all swung and missed at information and then pretended you hit a home run. Rod Blagoevich's hair has more answers than that!

More and more my commenters convince me that Darwinism is completely religious in nature and is giving up on the science part. Why bother researching what you cannot find when it is easier to just spend time brainwashing?

Anonymous said...

"You all swung and missed at information and then pretended you hit a home run. Rod Blagoevich's hair has more answers than that!"

Bit difficult to make that claim when the ball has been in your court on this consistently for some time (including in the comments in the past few days).

You tell us we have no answers? Do you really have no shame? Does the ninth commandment just not exist in your world?

You've provided a definition of information that doesn't hold up to simple scrutiny, as Jon has clearly pointed out.

You've provided no means of quantifying information, yet keep making claims about the gain or loss of information that you can't and/or won't support.

You can't answer the simple question "If information isn't material and it isn't abstract, then what is it?".

You've lied about us not having answered the question, even though we did so repeatedly. Instead you disparage us and refuse to engage in meaningful discussion.

To me that would indicate that there's no "there" there in the worldview you have constructed - namely taking a religious text and mistaking it for science.

-- creeper

Anonymous said...

" I wish Darwinists would for once bring some evidence with them instead of just claiming there is no evidence for creation."

Now if that isn't a major case of projection. Wow.

The evidence for the theory of evolution is extremely well documented and has been presented to you on countless occasions over the years. And I'm sure we'll go through it all again. And I'm sure you'll ignore and/or misrepresent it all again.

Evidence for creation: so far we've seen special pleading and a whole bunch of desperate overreaching, e.g. claiming that casting a bit of doubt on something has disproven it (see ice core layers, which by themselves disprove YEC), or claiming that, say, an incident of rapid burial "proves" a global flood (completely ignoring the fact that there are also other types of sedimentation mingled in that would not exist if YEC were true AND ignoring the fact that incidents of rapid burial are completely compatible with an old Earth and are therefore no proof of YEC over OEC).

Those are just some examples off the top of my head.

That's why you jump from one subject to another, promise various "series" before promptly abandoning them, and paste enormous "excerpts" from other people's posts.

The moment any focus on any particular subject is allowed to develop, YEC loses; it's unsupportable.

"Who said I am spooked? Is there something I am supposed to be afraid of that I did not see or hear?"

I think it's been demonstrated quite clearly over the years that you have an enormous aversion to ever admitting you're wrong, to the point of abandoning all logic and reason (for a laugh, I can mention the logical fallacy of division you slavishly adhere to re. your claims about the prison population, which you still refuse to understand). I'm not a trained psychologist, so I won't speculate on what has caused this particular personality trait in you, but it's blatantly obvious.

And so when you don't find yourself on the winning side of an argument (which happens quite often), you run for the hills. Typical tactics: the aforementioned Gish gallop (common among creationists), pasting lengthy articles you don't understand without using the "MORE" tag so as to push articles off the front page of your blog, and of course disparaging your opponents instead of arguing, and lying about what has or has not been answered.

-- creeper

radar said...

"You can't answer the simple question "If information isn't material and it isn't abstract, then what is it?"."

Absolutely false. I gave the dictionary definition, expanded upon it greatly, gave many analogies and demonstrated how to comprehend it. Information is the transmission of intelligence.

First definition from dictionary.com - "knowledge communicated or received concerning a particular fact or circumstance; news"

Root of word - Origin:
1350–1400; ME: instruction, teaching, a forming of the mind < ML, L: idea, conception. See inform , -ation

I have clearly communicated what information is but you and Jon just do not like the fact that it is NOT abstract and it is NOT material it is the transmission of intelligence and intelligence cannot be weighed or measured in and of itself nor can it be random in nature.

radar said...

I guess I have to do a whole post about just creeper's comments now. Yiyiyi!

Jon Woolf said...

I have clearly communicated what information is

No. What you've done is clearly communicate your definition of "information" -- a definition which is not used by any authority, is rigged in your favor, and is useless in this context anyway because it doesn't apply to the subject under discussion: the genetic code in DNA.

radar said...

Wow Jon! I co-opted dictionaries all over the globe to get them to agree with me?

IF I had that much power the Gulf would be cleaned up two months ago and we would be building nuclear plants and drilling for oil in Alaska like mad and the Federal Government would be downsized big time!

I started the subject of information with dictionary definitions, explained with analogies and presented lots of information from articles and abstracts of technical articles and followed up with one of the top information experts in the world.

Jon, if you cannot understand that DNA is complex coding for the cell and you cannot comprehend that it is designed to transmit information...not sure what to say. Junior HS kids know this. I almost never have a student that does not understand that DNA is full of information. Surely you do not want everyone to think you don't understand that? How do you tell someone that water is wet? Good grief!

highboy said...

"Who said I am spooked? Is there something I am supposed to be afraid of that I did not see or hear?"

You're not afraid of canucklehead's blindingly amazing analysis of the yec/evolution debate, and all the detailed arguments he's displayed? What a shocker.

Jon Woolf said...

How do you tell someone that water is wet? Good grief!

Heh. Now you know how Creeper and I feel when you try to poke holes in radiometric dating.

Jon, if you cannot understand that DNA is complex coding for the cell and you cannot comprehend that it is designed to transmit information...

Of course it is -- under the conventional definition of information. But your definition is not the conventional one. You yourself said that under your definition, there must be an intelligence at both ends of a data transmission before you can say that the transmission contains information. There is no intelligence involved in either sending or receiving a DNA data transmission. It's all just chemistry.

Your problem, Radar, is that you don't fully understand language, and so you can't disentangle yourself from your implicit assumptions. As just one example, look at the terms we're both using to describe DNA: "code," "information," "language," "words." These terms carry an implicit assumption that there's an intelligence involved, and it's taking conscious action. But there isn't. It's all just chemistry. In fact, what DNA is, what it does, and what it contains are not adequately described by any word in the English language. All we can do is use words that were coined for other uses, other contexts, and do our best to steer clear of the inevitable confusion. I've learned how to do that. You haven't.

Anonymous said...

"You're not afraid of canucklehead's blindingly amazing analysis of the yec/evolution debate, and all the detailed arguments he's displayed? What a shocker."

Do you really just come here to live out your obsession with Canucklehead?

Anonymous said...

"Information is the transmission of intelligence. "

And as such is abstract. It is a concept we perceive in our minds.

Radar, the reason we keep saying you have not provided an adequate definition of information despite your pasting of dictionary definitions is that the definition needs to be a quantifiable one so that you can back up your claims re. genetic information gain or loss. Can you look at any of those definitions and say that you can quantify information on the basis of that definition?

"if you cannot understand that DNA is complex coding for the cell"

I don't think Jon ever argued against that. You're pulling a strawman argument here.

"and you cannot comprehend that it is designed to transmit information..."

It transmits information. Whether it was designed is conjecture.

"not sure what to say. Junior HS kids know this. I almost never have a student that does not understand that DNA is full of information."

You're slipping and sliding here. DNA being full of information is a very different thing from DNA being designed.

-- creeper

Anonymous said...

Anybody else having problems commenting on the current post on this blog? I keep getting Blogger errors.

And as usual there's no shortage of errors, fallacies etc. to comment on...

-- creeper

Anonymous said...

Ah, it's in some kind of "preview mode".

-- creeper

highboy said...

"Do you really just come here to live out your obsession with Canucklehead?"

Do you really just come here to live out your obsession with trolling radar? And in case you've missed it, I respond to everyone who posts here. I realize you and canuck desperately want to believe that you're important enough to stalk on the internet, but its simply not true. I respond to everyone who posts here as anyone with two working eyeballs can plainly see.

You guys have this whole "information" aspect of this discussion completely muddled now. But YEC in my view is an attempt to start in the middle rather in the beginning radar. I find it rather odd that in some the "God hypothesis" is considered to be so irrational when science by nature only gets us so far. Even if you ascribe to the big bang theory, which in and of itself relies on more than one assumption that has yet to be tested, science cannot and never will be able to determine a first cause, because science is the study of the natural order, and natural order did not exist before hand. Atheists can dismiss first cause as unnecessary or irrelevant but that hardly makes the human attempt at filling in the blank "irrational".

Anonymous said...

Highboy,

1. You do spend a disproportionate number of comments pouncing on Canucklehead whenever he posts a comment. It's your prerogative of course, you can do as you please.

2. The "first cause" argument is a philosophical one, not a scientific one.

3. "science by nature only gets us so far" - it gets us as far as prudent conclusions from the available evidence allow. If the remaining question marks (which may well be less than you realize) are not satisfactory to you, you can of course fill them in with those supplied by religion, but be aware that these include answers from a time in which scientific understanding was significantly less than our understanding today. For example, once upon a time man had no scientific understanding of thunder and lightning and, dissatisfied with this gap in their knowledge, filled it with divine/supernatural explanations (e.g. Thor and his hammer). Later it turned out that there were of course scientific explanations for the phenomenon in question that are completely acceptable to just about everyone today.

That is why I personally don't have a big problem with any remaining gaps in our understanding. Given the size and scale and complexity of the Universe, it doesn't surprise me that it's difficult for us to understand, and that we haven't figured out every last detail yet.

It's also why arguments like "we have the answer: God did it! and that means we know more" are not particularly impressive. The Viking who "knew" that Thor created thunder and lightning didn't actually "know" that at all. He had no explanation for how thunder and lightning worked; he just managed to fool himself into thinking that he did. It's the same with Radar and his ilk who "know" that God created the Universe.

4. The "God hypothesis" isn't necessarily irrational, it's just not directly indicated by the evidence. If you want to plug a big "God" thing into the big questions about where did the Universe come from, fine, if it makes you feel better. I just don't see what that has to do with the very "small" personified God in the Bible narrative - you know, the one who advocates genocide or slavery of other tribes, who cares about our sex lives, that kind of thing. It's a non sequitur.

What is irrational is YEC, which is falsified by various directly observable evidence.

5. As for the information aspect "being muddled", it's perfectly simple: Radar asserts that information is being lost. In order to support that claim, one has to be able to quantify information in some way, so that one can say that X has more/less information than Y. You with me so far?

In absence of that, it's impossible to make the claims Radar is making...

... unless one is making them up out of whole cloth and not intending to support them in any actual, logical way. Which is the secret Radar is trying to hide amid all his disparaging of his opponents, running away from discussion with endless posts etc.

-- creeper

highboy said...

creeper:

1. its actually false that i spend more time on canucklehead than any one of you.
2. the first cause argument is both. science tells us every effect has a cause, so the effect of the creation of the universe has a cause.
3. comparing Christianity to Thor and his hammer is ludicrous. Despite all of the scientific advances our modern day world still sees a dominantly theist worldview by and large across all cultures. Science may have replaced Thor and his hammer with natural explanation of thunder and lightening but science has yet to replace the God hypothesis with anything at all and will never be able to do so.
4. You stated earlier that God hypothesis was in fact irrational, when in fact it isn't and I posted reasons why. As for your irrelevant remarks about the personified Christian God, the fact that the Bible is more reliable than most ancient texts may not be concrete evidence of the Christian God's existence but its enough combined with our own personal experience that such a hypothesis is far from irrational. Your stupid pot shots at God's character at the end of your remark did little to enhance your point by the way.

Anonymous said...

Highboy,

2. the first cause argument is both. science tells us every effect has a cause, so the effect of the creation of the universe has a cause.

So what caused the cause in this case? Then what caused the cause's cause?

Let me get this straight: Every effect has a cause. And therefore you think the creation of the universe has a cause, or, in other words, something's (in this case the universe's) existence is an effect that must have a cause.

Doesn't this same rule apply to god? What is the cause of god's existence?

lava

radar said...

The Universe has laws and one of them that is being around here is cause and effect. This is simplified but Newton generally "proved" this in his laws of motion.

But God is not bound by the rules of a Universe He created. God is eternal and time is not a dimension that binds him but rather one of His creations. As an eternal being, God does not require a cause. He is the First Cause and began the Universe and the laws thereof were created by Him.

Anonymous said...

The Universe has laws and one of them that is being around here is cause and effect. This is simplified but Newton generally "proved" this in his laws of motion.

Does the existence of matter require a cause? Serious question.

But God is not bound by the rules of a Universe He created. God is eternal and time is not a dimension that binds him but rather one of His creations. As an eternal being, God does not require a cause. He is the First Cause and began the Universe and the laws thereof were created by Him.

How the heck are you supposed to respond to this? It is like playing rocks-papers-scissors and instead of throwing out fingers, the other guy takes out a stick of dynamite and blows up everyone in the room.

Anonymous said...

LOL. Good analogy Anony.

It appears that, according to YECs, there is a point at which something moves from being complex enough to imply "obvious design" to being so complex that it couldn't possibly be designed. I mean, Radar says our own cells show obvious signs of design but whatever it is that makes up "god", and gives him all his super powers no less, is simply too complex to even consider that he (or she) might have a "designer" of their own. Wacky stuff, that.

It's just seems so weird to consistently beat the drum of "First cause! How did life begin? First cause! You have no answers for how the universe began", and then when faced with the question of who designed the designer, turn around and say that just doesn't matter. Or as radar casually suggests, "God does not require a cause". I mean, Huh? Says who?

- Canucklehead.

highboy said...

"It's just seems so weird to consistently beat the drum of "First cause! How did life begin? First cause! You have no answers for how the universe began", and then when faced with the question of who designed the designer, turn around and say that just doesn't matter. Or as radar casually suggests, "God does not require a cause". I mean, Huh? Says who?"

The difference being that radar correctly stated that its a matter of scientific fact that every cause has an effect within the natural order. God however, does not reside in the natural order and therefore the same laws wouldn't prevail. Like it or not, a first cause in the formation of the universe was outside the natural order because the natural order did not exist. So whatever the first cause was had to be....supernatural.

Anonymous said...

"The difference being that radar correctly stated that its a matter of scientific fact that every cause has an effect within the natural order. God however, does not reside in the natural order and therefore the same laws wouldn't prevail. Like it or not, a first cause in the formation of the universe was outside the natural order because the natural order did not exist. So whatever the first cause was had to be....supernatural."

... if there was such a thing as a "first cause". Which is speculative.

highboy said...

"... if there was such a thing as a "first cause". Which is speculative."

how is it speculative if natural order demands a cause to the effect?

Jon Woolf said...

how is it speculative if natural order demands a cause to the effect?

It doesn't. The true statement that "every cause must have an effect" does not equate to "every phenomenon must have a cause."

Anonymous said...

[color=#5588aa]Amazing website! I haven't landed on radaractive.blogspot.com before in my searches!I found very useful information about
[/color] [url=http://nuscin-online.info]akne[/url] [color=#5588aa]here... Keep up the great work![/color]