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.
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?"
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.
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.