Creation vs. Evolution is not a valid opposition.

Hi Mr. H,
Very glad to see you are still hanging out here. Feliz ano nuevo to you as well.In principle, Behe and co are less confused than your average creationist as to the actual debate that should be taking place. Whereas this website is Evolution versus creationism, the real source of the debate is not about evolution at all but rather Abiogenesis versus creation ex nihilo by any one of a pantheon of gods. That ID is linked with the standard creationist movement is mostly because many run of the mill creationists jumped on board when they saw that Behe has a Ph.D. and thus thought it would give them the credibility that the Hovinds of the world do not have. As we have mentioned often enough, ID lacks scientific merit as a hypothesis because it is niether testable nor falsifiable. But, it is focused on a different aspect of the debate as it argues that the origin, not the evolution of life is impossible without divine intervention.While research is being funded which studies the issue of abiogenesis, it is not nearly as well devloped or advanced as a field like evolutionary science. It is this percieved weakness that causes the creationist zealots to continuously try to equate evolution and abiogenesis in a vain attempt to discredit evolution by linking it with an independent field. More extreme examples are those who say that since one cannot determine the exact parameters of the big bang, evolution is false or another favorite of mine, that evolution has nothing to do with population genetics.[This message has been edited by Mammuthus, 01-09-2004]

Mammuthus,Cmo est, hermano? No cambia nada en el mundo loco, s?I agree that standard-issue creationists are misguided in their efforts to equate the independent concepts of species evolution and abiogenesis. I also concur that their efforts stem as much from ignorance of the distinction between the two fields as from a willful attempt to obscure the distinction.I'm more suspicious of the ease with which the Behes of the intelligent design creationist movement claim to accept the evidence of species evolution, then deny that the same methodology of empirical evidential inquiry is valid when applied to systems like the BacFlag or DNA. It's like they're saying that they accept that milk is a product of natural processes, but cows are miraculous.If this is their way of saying that design-with-no-designer is not scientifically valid at all unless it's valid at all levels, then ironically enough I agree with them. Darwin's theory is revolutionary precisely because it shows biological order emerging without purpose. Creationists ever since have been seeking the opportunity to reintroduce this notion of purpose into nature. Unfortunately for them, nature itself doesn't seem to require the notion on any level.

---

The dark nursery of evolution is very dark indeed.
Brad McFall

quote:

---

It's like they're saying that they accept that milk is a product of natural processes, but cows are miraculous.

---

LOL! I will have to tell my wife that one ...except when my Hindu colleagues are nearby.I think the ease for Behe comes from being a theistic evolutionist who tends to overemphasize his theism or gravitate towards it. He would not likely put forth a biochemistry paper in a journal like Nucleic Acids Research where he has previously published, with a methods and materials section which states : Don't know how it works, intelligent designer responsible for all observations. Yet in his books, this is exactly what he does when it comes to evolution (in his none peer reviewed books). He stops being a scientists and appeals to pseudoscience. The hangers on and the run of the mill creationists see a guy with a Ph.D. in biochemistry and think that they can attach any nonsense they want to what he says and claim it disproves evolution and is credible..and at least his Ph.D. is valid as opposed to some of the more illustrious Patriot U alumni....However, Behe is still the pied piper of the ignorant."EVilution is wrong because my cat did not give birth to a rhino, the tornado that ripped up my trailer home did not create an airplane, you were not present during the big bang and most of all because Dr. Mikey said so..."

You said:
But Creationism is against Geology, Astronomy, Cosmology, and every other branch of science. This is the real issue - 'Creationism versus Science'!Is it really true that Creationism is against science??The branches of science you mention are dominated by the traditions and doctrines created by a few individuals== Lyell, Darwin, Eddington etc.When these men wrote their bibles they new nothing of DNA (which incidently cannot be created spontaneously). Lyell seems unaware of the formation of Mars which appears to have happened without the slow weathering action of water. Eddington does not seem to have performed any experiments in developing his atomic theory of stars. Just maths on paper.If you search the internet further, then you can find copious non-creationist scientists who are even more vehement in their attacks on Orthodox Science than are creationists.Their basic contention is that these beliefs do not square with the facts.A search under ELECTRIC UNIVERSE will show some web sites. These sites are not Creationist. They are 100% secular. They are at odds with Lyell, Eddington, Sagan and NASA.

It is this percieved weakness that causes the creationist zealots to continuously try toAre Creationists really zealots? Are they really fired up? Are they really fanatical in their attempts to prove their points? Do they clutch at any piece of information to prove their case? Do they spend their whole lives digging in the ground for evidence? Do they run contrary to what can be observed with their eyes?Who are the real zealots?

Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Plus they lie, misquote, and distort the truth. No, that'd involve actually looking at the evidence. Yes.

If you wish to argue some specifics please present your case. You might do well to read the forum guidelines and this post for starters. Suggestions for CreationistsYour assertions about what what copious scientists have to say will have to be backed up in your own words with the details and good references to evidence. Otherwise they are just words that aren't going to have any particular influence.Since you claim that among others the theory of evolution does not "square with the facts" you shouldn't have any trouble presenting those facts and your logic behind your disagreements.( you might also want to note that you aren't the first to make such assertions. The usual pattern is to make a bunch of them and then run for the hills when they can't be supported. )

Hmm, I predict the mis-named FREETHINKER will either bail immediately or post a long looooong out of context list of quotes by alleged non-creationists and "antidarwinian scientists" culled from a randomly chosen creationist website that correlates closely with every other such list we've seen. A suggestion for Percy would be to start collecting them into a reference page so we can just point the individual concerned to it with the caveat "If you find your quote on this page - don't bother."

I have noticed that pattern too NosyNed.
"*****Outlandish statement..*****insainly long list of creationist quotes 20 to 30 year old quotes....****more creationist links***insainly long list of quotes." and then.Rubuttal from Mammanthus....CrashFrog...Dan...NosyNed..et al.Then Silence.

Don't forget appeals to emotion, the evil atheist conspiracy, and the eugenics movement. Somehow not wanting to have a common ancestor with apes is evidence enough to discount the theory of evolution. Oh, and evilutionists only use the theory to escape God's judgement. Somehow ignoring the Koran is not considered escaping from Islamic laws, but we will let that slide for now.It seems that when the evidence starts to stack up against young earth creationism, the creationist will always fall back on non-scientific arguments. Funny how that happens.

you might also want to note that you aren't the first to make such assertions. The usual pattern is to make a bunch of them and then run for the hills when they can't be supported. )Why can't you look for yourself? Why do you Evolutionists like other people to do your thinking for you?Don't be lazy and narrow minded and locked into your religious belief. Be free and not afraid to explore other ideas and alternatives. Read books. Read internet pages. Read or listen to something other than that which only confirms your presuppositions.It is not my place to do this for you.

Freethinker, I did exactly that. I used to be a creationist, but upon learning more about the theory of evolution, and science in general, I came to the conclusion that a literal reading of Genesis cannot explain the world we live in.Now I notice that you didn't actually address anything in NosyNed's post. Would you actually like to engage in a discussion of evidence?

So Mr Jack as one who is obviously not a zealot but has nevertheless arrived at the truth through only scientific observation and fact, please explain the creation of DNA and how it mutates in a successful way to produce the variety of life we see today. Or failing that, explain how DNA is able to mutate to create various functioning organs in the body--the eye would be a good place to start. Explain how it could come into existence.No doubt you have been asked such a question before, and no doubt with your superior understanding can explain it to me.

Hmm, I predict the mis-named FREETHINKER will either bail immediately or post a long looooong out of context list of quotes by alleged non-creationists and "antidarwinian scientists" culled from a randomly chosen creationist website that correlates closely with every other such list we've seen. A suggestion for Percy would be to start collecting them into a reference page so we can just point the individual concerned to it with the caveat "If you find your quote on this page - don't bother."Think again!Or just think!

Now I notice that you didn't actually address anything in NosyNed's post. Would you actually like to engage in a discussion of evidence?There is nothing to reply to. Let's just consider for a second that you boys have been arguing the toss for ages. You believe that Lyell and Darwin are correct. You see dead bones and you see various strata. You see varied life forms. To you this means evolution. And you are very strong in your beliefs.No amount of arguing about these data is going to persuade you otherwise. What I would like to see from you orthodox evolutionists is less religiousness in your approach and more of an open minded scientific approach. By that I mean gather all possible evidence and try to weigh it up, rather than impose a belief system upon selected evidence.By the way, I don't become worried by any high handedness, sarcasm, brainless criticism. bullying or any other standard tactic of evolutionists.As I long as I have time I will try to correspond.Incidently, I keep abreast of all up to date literature regarding these issues. I don't need to quote from some Creationist web site.I can think for myself--make my own judgements--perhaps get some things right and perhaps get some things wrong.