Search This Blog

Wednesday, April 17, 2013

An Intelligent Design scientist, A Creation scientist and a Darwinist scientist walk into a bar...and then comes the journalist!

An Intelligent Design scientist, A Creation scientist and a Darwinist scientist walk into a bar...they sit down and the waiter comes to take their order.   All order a nice White Zinfandel to sip on while perusing the menu.

The waiter gives the ID guy a glass of wine and the ID guy thanks him.

The Creationist guy gets his glass.   The Darwinist gets nothing.

"How is your wine?"  The ID scientist asks.  

The Creationist frowns,  "This is water!"

The Darwinist complains,  "He didn't bring me ANYTHING!"

The Intelligent Design scientist told the Creationist, "Ask Jesus to turn it into wine."   Then he looks at the Darwinist.  "Given enough time, your wine will eventually just appear, right?"


credit

All three laugh as the waiter returns with two more glasses of wine.  The ID guy has pranked his buddies successfully.

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

Actually, everybody who is into wine knows that White Zinfandel wine comes from preparation of the Zinfandel grape, which requires the planting and cultivation of the vines, collection of the grapes and then there is a fermentation process that results in the White Zinfandel wine.   Once merely a by-product of the production of cheap Red Zinfandel, the White version became popular and now is far more desirable according to demand in the USA.   Any normal scientist of any stripe would know this to at least a primitive extent. So a Creationist would not expect Jesus Christ to show up and convert water into wine, Jesus did that only once to fulfill prophecy and demonstrate to the Jewish people that He, Jesus, was the Messiah.   A Darwinist would not expect a glass filled with wine to simply appear.   All three men would expect that a winery would have produced and bottled wine that was sold to the restaurant and said restaurant would provide the wine to them accordingly.

When the cameras are turned off, when no journalists are around, if scientists of various stripes sit down together casually, the walls come down and many times geologists are more geologist than anything else and the same is often true of cosmologists and biologists and engineers and hydrologists and etc.  A few drinks into an evening and they begin to agree that Darwinism is full of holes and questions.   But the next day in front of classrooms or working in labs they put out the sign labeled "Darwinist" and avoid troubles with keeping their jobs or attaining tenure.  Only a small percentage of Darwinists are crusading true believers.   The vast majority of scientists really make no use of Darwinism in their work at all.  The entire hypothesis is of no use when observing organisms or planets or recording DNA coding.  


Suppose we sent a journalist to report on Origins from the point of view of each of the three scientific positions.   The basic task of the journalist is to gather information on any story by collecting the vital information and then building on the points of greatest interest to the audience:

The Basic Journalism Questions aka 5 W's and an H
Who?
What?
When?
Where?
Why?
How?

Why is the trickiest of the questions and sometimes it is not immediately apparent.   In any event, once a journalist goes to get a story, he tries to get as many of these basics answered as possible and then the emphasis of the story is in part decided by the audience.

Balance in News Reporting is hard to find!

Although writing a story to appeal to an audience was standard journalism teaching for decades, in recent years the front page is hard to separate from the editorial page as journalists have left behind a sense of balance and bring their individual worldviews to news reporting.  

In a real life example, consider the trial of Kermit Gosnell, indicted for the murder of several babies who survived abortion attempts by Gosnell.  For many news outlets, the trial is not news because those who are committed to abortion would prefer the trial not be publicized.  

For news sources friendly to pro-life causes, headlines on the case included:  "Abortionist Joked: 'This Baby Is Big Enough to Walk Around With Me or Walk Me to the Bus Stop"

For news sources friendly to abortion, headlines included: "Kermit Gosnell, Pennsylvania Abortion Doctor, Pleads Not Guilty In Capital Murder Trial." 

Pro-life sources concentrated on the brutality and heartlessness of Gosnell's actions and the pain and suffering of live babies having their necks or spinal cords cut.   Pro-abortion sources called the prosecution racially motivated with terms like "prosecutorial lynching."  

So the very nature of the news coverage of the Gosnell trial, with the New York Times, MSNBC and the Big Three networks failing to provide coverage at first became a story in itself:  "Is the trial of alleged abortionist, Dr. Kermit Gosnell, getting enough media attention?"

BUT THERE IS NO BALANCE AT ALL IN THE WORLD OF ORIGINS SCIENCE!!! 

While the liberals in the news media far outnumber the conservatives and liberal news outlets also outnumber conservative outfits, both sides are found on the radio and television even if your local newspaper may be slanted only one way.   But you have to work VERY HARD to find any ordinary schools anywhere that present Intelligent Design or Creation Science points of view concerning origins.   There is a solid wall of propaganda, non-stop assertions of long ages and evolving organisms.   But if a reporter walked to the scene of the "crime" in that he came upon three scientists standing around looking over the view from the top of Pike's Peak, for instance, what would the reporter's notebook have listed for the quick answers to the questions?

Creationism (Young Earth variety)

Who? - The Creator God of the Bible
What? - Created the Universe and all aspects of it and all things within it
When? - About 6-7,000 years ago
Where? - Witness account centers around the Earth
Why? - To share the Glory and Wonders God experiences with others made in His image
How? - The Transcendent power of God


Intelligent Design
Who? - We do not care, an unknown entity but certainly a superior mind or minds
What? - Created the Universe and all aspects of it and all things within it
When? - Uncertain and unimportant
Where? - We can only observe from the point of view of Earth or spacecraft sent from Earth
Why? - That is not our concern although purpose is associated with design
How? - A power and intellect greater than our own

Darwinism
Who? - Nobody, it was simply a random event
What? - The Universe and/or multiverses and all aspects of it/them
When? - Probably about 13.7 billion years ago
Where? - From the center of the Universe and outwards from there
Why? - No reason for it
How? - Things exploding and breaking and popping into existence made everything we observe

Now I ask you, without any knowledge at all of Origins Science at all, of the three points of view, which of them have the answers and which don't?   Frankly the Creationist has an answer for every question.  Remember, all three points of view have the same evidence available to them.   The Creationist will access the Bible but actually the bulk of evidence a Creation Scientist uses is observable today,

The standard-issue Intelligent Design scientist has decided that three of the questions are irrelevant for the direction of his studies, but he has certainty concerning the areas of his concern.   He has ruled out making suppositions about the identity of a designer for all things because his area of study is all about what can be observed HERE and NOW and the logical application of those observations.  Yes, the Universe and organisms are certainly designed but he does not include any investigation into the identity of the designer nor is he likely to ponder why.   As it happens, there are Christians and Jews and Muslims among the ID clan and they will make their own statements about the God they believe in and His purposes.   But when they do that, they are stepping away from ID and venturing into Creationism.

The Darwinist really only has wild guesses for answers.   He may not even be sure that the Universe is actually the Universe!   Some claim that there are an infinite or a very large number of Universes (which of course defies the definition of the Universe itself) in order to find a statistical possibility for the impossibility of existence and all that is in it.   He will have no reason for existence, no first cause for it, no explanation (that is not a story bereft of evidence) for life or information or anything of importance.  His assertions concerning organisms, fossils, geology and other aspects of existence will be based on 19th Century teachings that do not hold up to inspection.  

Darwinists claim there is a geological column that represents long ages but field study of the rock layers disproves their claims.   The rock layers are just what would be expected from a world-wide flood followed by an ice age before the climate of the planet came to be balanced out.  

Darwinists claim life came from non-life but the Law of Biogenesis has never been broken.  They pretend to be "working on it" but we know enough about life to know better.  You will more likely turn into a centaur before anyone can find a way for non-life to evolve into life.

Darwinists claim life evolves upwards from simple to complex (in opposition to the Laws of Thermodynamics) but we observe the opposite - devolution and extinction.   Variation within kind aka speciation is a design feature of organisms known to mankind for as long as recorded history. 

Darwinists claim that the Universe just happened to happen for no reason and by no means, just a miraculous explosion from nowhere that made everything.  Is there anything more senseless than the idea that nothing exploded and made everything?

Darwinists claim that stars and planets come from dust that was produced by an explosion but dust cannot coalesce into either stars or planets.   The Nebular Hypothesis is defunct.

Darwinists deny the design and information that organisms demonstrate.   It is obvious to the casual observer or the intense inspector that organisms have a sophisticated coding system we still have not completely unraveled and that both information and design are demonstrated by both simple bacteria and complex buffalo.   Darwinists tell us to ignore the obvious and pretend it just happened.  You need a LOT of faith to believe THAT!  The real reason for Darwinism is to give Atheism a logical reason to exist as a faith.  

credit

Both Creationists and Intelligent Design scientists agree that life was designed and the physical laws of nature have been fine-tuned for life and blind chance had nothing to do with it.   Creationists depend on the historical record of the Bible to identify the Designer and also pinpoint the approximate time everything was created and even give a reason for why it was done.

Intelligent Design scientists do not prefer to even attempt to identify a Designer or pinpoint any particular time of creation.   They concentrate on what can be tested and observed today.  

BUT ISN'T EVOLUTION PROVEN FACT???!!!

Nope.  You can scout my blog for subjects that relate to the various aspects of origins science and you will see that the evidence does NOT support Darwinism.    You will also find many links in my links list where scientists provide evidence about all aspects of science relative to the subject of origins.   

If you are going to study the subject, begin with the basics.   You probably already know what Darwinists teach if you have attended public schools in the US.   Now go ahead and study biology, geology, cosmology, population science, genetics and other subjects by taking advantage of the resources found in the links list and/or doing searches on my blog for posts made on various aspects of the primary subject.    

I've spent years asking Darwinists to give us any good reason to believe what they teach and believe and thus far they have failed miserably.   Many Darwinists have come here to debate and eventually slunk off declaring victory over their shoulders as they run off, out of ammunition and wounded by the experience.   Not that I am mean.   But I do like to depend on evidence.   This is why I keep on keeping on.  The world deserves to know that they have been hoodwinked!

If you come here, you will continually find me posting articles from various great sources and also making comments on the pronouncements of the Ruling Paradigm, the High Priests of Darwin.   The mission is to help others discover that Darwinism does not have the answers, they simply control the message.   Censorship, lies, propaganda and just-so stories is 99% of Darwinism.   

This is a First Amendment-friendly blog.   If you do not use foul language, you may disagree with me in the comments thread.   You may remain anonymous if you wish.   It would be refreshing if a Darwinist commenter arrived on the scene who actually reads a post before commenting?   So many of them very obviously do not do that and sometimes have embarrassed themselves thereby.   

13 comments:

Anonymous said...

"Now I ask you, without any knowledge at all of Origins Science at all, of the three points of view, which of them have the answers and which don't? Frankly the Creationist has an answer for every question."

But he doesn't have scientific answers for every question, the biggest answer of all (the existence of God) is completely speculative, and the age of the universe that the creationist believes in is falsified by observable evidence.

So it seems the creationist actually does very poorly in the science area.

radar said...

Scientific answers? Are you telling me that the Darwinist story that NOTHING caused the Universe for no reason by no discernible means or power as a singularity which is unexplained somehow explodes and makes a Universe is scientific??!!

The existence of God at least has historical evidence. Not just the Bible but pretty much any culture you can find believed in a Deity or deities. As they moved away from belief in that God, the stories got Chinese-telephoned or some cultures substituted ancestors for gods (Greeks, Romans, Chinese, Norse and others).

The age of the Universe is not settled. The background radiation and the arrangement of galaxies and even the nature of galaxies does not fit into long ages. In fact, the Universe is best explained as a puzzle of conflicting data. There is support from the Creationist perspective for the Creator God being the force that stretched and is stretching the Universe out. Red-shift discovered by Hubble indicates stars moving away from us in all directions while we have indications of acceleration in some systems.

Big Bang equations are missing 96% of the data. So they do not really meet any criteria as observable evidence.

Yes, we have light that would seem to be billions of light years away. But we also are aware of General Relativity. So if the Bible is also correct about the stretching of the Universe then the observable evidence comes back to our side.

radar said...

Also I would point out to you that every space mission sent to observe he planets and moons of this Solar System has given back alarming (to long agers) information about said planets and moons. They all seem to be very young.

The magnetic fields on said planets were predicted many years ago by Creation Scientist Dr. Russell Humphreys back in 1984 - http://www.creationresearch.org/crsq/articles/21/21_3/21_3.html

He spiffed this up a bit later but long before NASA space missions confirmed his predictions.

Anonymous said...

"Scientific answers? Are you telling me that the Darwinist story that NOTHING caused the Universe for no reason by no discernible means or power as a singularity which is unexplained somehow explodes and makes a Universe is scientific??!!"

Your silly and misleading caricature of mainstream science aside, well of course a scientific approach puts "I don't know" first and then replaces it with what can actually be gleaned from observable evidence, instead of putting in place an unfounded answer just because it happens to fill the space where the answer should be.

"The existence of God at least has historical evidence. Not just the Bible but pretty much any culture you can find believed in a Deity or deities."

That's not "historical evidence", that's tradition. And a very understandable tradition as that, as mankind looks for answers and puts familiar patterns in place.

But seriously... you're not going to pretend that the Greek or Roman pantheons are evidence for the existence of a monotheistic God, are you? Really?

"The age of the Universe is not settled."

I thought you were pretending it was settled at 6,000 years. Well thanks for the admission, I guess.

"There is support from the Creationist perspective for the Creator God being the force that stretched and is stretching the Universe out. Red-shift discovered by Hubble indicates stars moving away from us in all directions while we have indications of acceleration in some systems."

And what exactly is the support for the Creator God being that force?

"Yes, we have light that would seem to be billions of light years away. But we also are aware of General Relativity."

So how does General Relativity get you to the kind of distortion needed to make the data fit into your worldview? As with all the other data, you're forced to handwave past this. Whistling past the graveyard once again.

Yes, we have light that appears to be billions of light years away. What suppositions would you need to put into place to make this plausible in a YEC scenario?

"Also I would point out to you that every space mission sent to observe he planets and moons of this Solar System has given back alarming (to long agers) information about said planets and moons. They all seem to be very young."

Universally 6,000 years ago?

radar said...

The Bible just happens to be the most printed and read book on the planet, furthermore the historical relevance of the Bible was unquestioned until the rise of Atheism within the ranks of science in the 19th Century, truly a sad time for mankind. The Bible has been correct about the nations that lived during the historical records of the Jews and now, finally, the faked added hundreds of years that the Egyptian historians attributed to their people is being adjusted as the Bible evidence proves accurate.

In fact, in every case, when the Bible speaks to history or science it is correct.

When I say the age of the Universe is not settled, I mean that long-agers have found evidence for a young Universe, Solar System and Earth and frankly there is almost no evidence at all to support long ages other than the immensity of the Universe and the assumed time needed for the light to travel to Earth.

Several Creationist cosmologists have come up with theories with fewer fudge factors than the Big Bang.

No, I am not being inaccurate about what Big Bang people are saying concerning the beginning of the Universe. For all the actual evidence they use, they may as well be kindergartners at recess making up stories.

The Solar System is far too young for Darwinist concepts. Can we find a clock on Jupiter that reads something like "6,300 years old?" No. Red digital readouts are for movies. But we can observe the planets and moons and discern both design and magnetic fields, heat sources, volcanic activity and other evidences that make the planets more likely to be thousands than hundreds of years old.

Oh, the magnetic field of the Earth has been measured since, what, around 1500 AD? It tells us that we could not be on this planet even 30,000 years, right? Plus the Carbon 12/14 ratio in the atmosphere should be at equilibrium if the atmosphere is at least 25,000 years old and it is not. Plus we find flesh remains in fossils. Plus the living frogs found encased in Devonian coal formations buried far down in the Earth?

Not enough room in the comments thread for some of this stuff. But yes, the knowledge of a Deity and genealogical records of peoples around the globe tracing back to Ham or Shem or Japheth, and the worldwide flood mythology and the oddity of people all over the world building pyramids or ziggurats or tall mounds all stand as evidence for one people descended from the family of Noah who were scattered after the Tower of Babel just as the Bible says.

The Bible is the only reliable history book for the world before Jesus Christ made his appearance in Judea. A Creator God who made sure history was recorded versus a made up explosion by a bunch of cosmologists with no actual evidence? I will stick with God.

Now look at the sedimentary rocks, the fossils and organisms and you see a world-wide flood and sophisticated design, respectively.

Darwinism is all fairy tales minus the fairy. Unexplained explosions and mistakes and chance events with no cause or power or reason are the foundation of Scientism. You all might as well be Pagans and dance around trees!

Anonymous said...

It appears you left the Law of Biogenesis and the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics out of your laundry list.

radar said...

The Law of Biogenesis states that life comes only from life. Therefore for life to have been formed on Earth, it requires a supernatural event. Creationists point to the supernatural God as the source for life and there is historical documentation for this.

Noah's grandfather was alive when Adam was still living and so it is very probable that the family of Adam passed down a genealogical and historical record to Noah, who made it available to his family as they began to repopulate the Earth after the Flood. It was the line of Shem that produced Abraham and eventually the Israelites, who were once a great a powerful people.

But famine struck the lands of the Middle East and the children of Israel sought aid from Egypt, where Joseph had gone from being an unfairly imprisoned servant to having command over all of Egypt, answerable only to Pharaoh. The Jews had their own portion of Egypt where they prospered and became a source of angst for a later Pharaoh who did not remember the story of Joseph nor how he saved Egypt from famine and gave the nation the wisdom to store grain in seasons of plenty and then dole it out in exchange for riches and lands in the years of famine. The Jews were made into slaves...

radar said...

There is archaeological evidence for the various peoples mentioned by the Bible and also the existence of the Jews in Israel and even a probable description of Joseph himself. The story of Moses and his successful quest to lead the Jews away from Egypt was of course negative to Egyptian historians so it is not found except in some indirect and cryptic ways. However, buildings made with brick with stubble rather than straw have been found, supporting the Biblical account and there are Egyptian references to some of the plagues sent by God to Egypt.

Moses was ordered by God to write the first five books of the Bible, which include the history of pre-diluvial mankind from the point of view of the lineage of Noah as descended from Adam and Eve as well as the history of the events following the Flood, some of which are also related in less coherent ways in other cultures all over the world.

So many cultures have an original couple and original sin. Virtually all of them include a world-wide flood and an event similar to the Tower of Babel. Virtually all cultures list one of the three sons of Noah as ancestor and often converted into a god in a pantheon of gods who were once simply ancestors.

We find the first traces of written languages extant in the Middle East from Semitic peoples. We find that language experts have traced languages back to a starting point back to the approximate time of the Babel event. We also find all sorts of peoples who apparently made smaller replicas of the tower in the form of pyramids and ziggurats and mounds.

Anonymous said...

"Oh, the magnetic field of the Earth has been measured since, what, around 1500 AD? It tells us that we could not be on this planet even 30,000 years, right?"

Perhaps in a similar way to the way population statistics tell us rabbits were created wholesale in the 19th century, something like that?

Anonymous said...

"The Law of Biogenesis states that life comes only from life. Therefore for life to have been formed on Earth, it requires a supernatural event."

Nope. The Law of Biogenesis states that complex life only comes from complex life, so your conclusion is flawed. Complex life can also have evolved from simpler life, and since self-replicating molecules can form naturally, setting a process of reproduction with variation in motion, a natural path of evolution is possible. None of this requires a supernatural event.

radar said...

There are many, many posts on this blog concerning genealogical records and ancient histories of mankind that include a record of the Flood and many evidences of man-dinosaur interactions. In fact, studying artwork of mankind yields myriad depictions of dinosaurs, some much more accurate than that of our modern scientists even well into the 20th Century.

Anyway, concerning the Laws of Thermodynamics which are specifically about heat. We can translate them into general statements about existence in that everything is running downhill. Just as a rock will roll downhill, so energy is converted into entropy over time. But we can bring work into the equation. For instance, someone can pick up the rock and carry it uphill. But that requires more energy and also intelligence. A mind needs to decide to carry the rock up the hill and also how to do it (lug it, use a wheelbarrow, use a backpack,whatever). The rock will not roll itself uphill.

Evolution is the equivalent of billions upon billions of rocks rolling uphill with no mind deciding to move them and no force available to accomplish it. Reproduction, whether sexual or asexual, involves a sophisticated and synchronized set of processes that have to operate in order for life to be passed along. There is nothing random about it, actually, other than the odds of particular traits being passed along to offspring. Mendel found a pattern to to the passing on of traits in peas and began what would become the science of genetics.

Blyth identified Natural Selection as part of the conservation of kinds. The created kinds of organisms possess genetic information in abundance, allowing for a great deal of variation. In this way the kind is able to survive great changes in environment. This is why we have bears that can live in the equatorial regions of the Earth and bears that live in the Arctic and bears that live in the regions in between. This is how man has been able to breed dogs of all sizes and shapes and features. The original created kinds had lots of genetic information.

Organisms that do not have sufficient resources to survive certain situations may well go extinct. Mankind has certainly killed off all sorts of organisms, probably being the primary predator of dinosaurs (to be fair, dinosaurs were not good neighbors) and other dangerous animals. But we also nearly wiped out the Bison and certainly killed off the Dodo and the Passenger Pigeon.

What I find amusing is that people who believe in evolution often also seem to be very focused on "saving" obscure varieties of created kinds, such as a spotted owl or a snail darter. You guys claim to believe in the survival of the fittest and want to frustrate the process?

The survival of the fittest is actually programmed into organisms. Darwin's famous finches adjust their beak sizes and shapes back and forth depending on conditions. It is all about speciation and totally not evolution at all. What we observe is devolution, just as the LOT would predict.

radar said...

Anonymous has left a new comment on your post "An Intelligent Design scientist, A Creation scient...":

"Oh, the magnetic field of the Earth has been measured since, what, around 1500 AD? It tells us that we could not be on this planet even 30,000 years, right?" (me)

Perhaps in a similar way to the way population statistics tell us rabbits were created wholesale in the 19th century, something like that?

Okay, so you either have absolutely no idea at all of what you are talking about, thereby saying nothing at all.

Otherwise you are attempting to sidestep population science and deny that the standard sigmoidal curve applies to the human population despite the fact that our estimates of the population of the past fit into the curve and the now-rather accurate numbers concerning human population growth are right on the curve as expected.

When Darwinists find established science disagrees with their hypothesis they deny the established science and make up a term for it. You may be attempting to use the "Bunnie Blunder Fallacy" which is in itself a fallacy.

For those unaware, the population of the Earth charts back to a starting point about 4,000 some-odd years ago according to the population records we have available and the counts we have been able to make with accuracy for several generations. This would be around the time the Ark opened up and Noah's family walked out. The population growth follows the standard sigmoidal curve with near perfection and said curve has turned the corner, so to speak, and has begun to level out a bit, also as expected. But, hey, I am just going on evidence so sorry if it steps on mythological toes.

Anonymous said...

Anyone who believes that there was nothing and nothing happened to nothing and a magic guy just popped in and said a couple of words(who even recorded what he said?) and the word was made, is an idiot. there is scientific and proven evidence of the big bang... its upsetting to see how many people still cant see the fact that proof is proof.furthermore there is no evidence of divine intervention. the bible is stories and just that. they could have been laughing like "hahaha the future people are actually going to believe this.
i have one final thing to say. if all science and religion was removed from the earth science would come back in the exact same way but religion would be completely different. the stories, the god(s) and the prophets would all be different if they even made those. science would still be the same because it has evidence that will always exist and can never be destroyed. stories, once forgotten are lost forever. science can always be rediscovered.