Dr. Robert T. Bakker's thoughts on ID and Atheism in schools.

Faith, he's not like the evos here. He appears more in the ID camp. Plus, he is quite right in pointing out that very early on a preacher that discovered dinosaurs linked them to extinct running birds, and the atheist evos in general have been forced to follow his lead.He is not a YECer, but he is a Pentacostal preacher, believes the Bible is the infallible word of God but thinks that "day" cannot mean a 24 hour period due to the fact the sun and earth were not created until the 3rd and 4th days. I am not up on all his theology, but he's pretty critical of anti-theists like Dawkins and others in the evo-community.I suppose they have to begrudge him some respect because he has been right on different aspects of what dinosaurs are, whether an YEC, OEC, ID, or evo paradigm.

Bakker had fundamentalist parents who believed very strongly in education, as is typical and contrary to what evos on this board claim.In fact, he is himself a fundamentalist in the broader term. He believes in being born-again, getting saved, miracles, healings, etc,...Now, technically, in the religious sense of the word, he may not be a fundamentalist, but neither are most people evos and liberals label as such. Pat Robertson, for example, would be more in Bakker's camp and is not a fundamentalist, and Jerry Falwell would be an actual fundamentalist.Reconstructionists and most Dominionists are not actually fundamentalists in the narrow sense, nor are any Pentacostals, Charismatics or most Evangelicals, but for from the secularist perspective, they are alll fundies because they all believe the Bible is the word of God, or most do.So in the looser sense, Bakker is a raving fundie.Interesting how one of the leading paleontologists of the world is a raving, tongue-talking, devil-casting, Bible-toting, lay hands for healing, etc,...type of preacher, generally part of one of the most wildest and more "primitive" branches of Christianity.Guess he got that sound head for science and religion from his parents.This message has been edited by randman, 08-10-2005 09:06 PM

No. I googled him and read some articles. He is a Pentacostal preacher and serious about it. As such, he's a fundamentalist in the broader sense of the word.I found it interesting that a fundie would be so influential within paleontology. He's not a YECer, but I haven't heard his reasons on the science side for why he isn't.

Looks more to me like since he wasn't challenging the ToE overall, they were willing to be open-minded enough to listen.

Maybe he's not an IDer. I said that based on what an evo said here on this board and the fact he is a fundamentalist preacher.In terms of the evidence, I could be convinced ToE is true. It's not for this thread so I won't go into detail, but just show me an equal percentage of transitional fossils for something like the land mammal to whale evolution or reptile to mammal than the percentage of current mammal families represented in the fossil record, or a good approximation based on statistical and other analyses, and I would probably accept ToE.Since I don't see it, and due to many overstatements, etc,...evos rely on, I don't accept ToE.

Uh,....wrong there buddy. Never said that evo was closed to people of faith and never believed that. There are prominent evos that bash people of faith though.No, what I believe and have said is that evolutionists treat ToE as a faith-based ideology, and as such are not open-minded towards those that reject their evolutionist faith.In terms of starting threads, I have done so. You are basically just lying about my character without any evidence, and that's basically part of the evolutionist faith.Evos generally don't believe an open-minded, intelligent and reasonable person could reject their evolutionist faith based on the evidence, which is why people like continually lie about why others reject ToE. It is inconceivable to you that others can view the evidence as being against ToE so you don't even give them a proper hearing, and as such, evolutionists are generally very close-minded people on this subject.This message has been edited by randman, 08-15-2005 01:11 AM

Thank you for clarifying that, especially more so since you take the opposing view.

Wrong, evolutionists were the ones that originated the concept of transitionals as a prediction of Darwin even, and said if they were not found, presumably in large numbers, that the theory was wrong.Well, they weren't found, but that didn't stop you guys from claiming it was true nonetheless. Only now, you claim we don't need any transitionals and any we have are just icing on the cake, and then offer some half-baked handful of bogus examples such as labelling Pakicetus as a whale, despite it being a 4-legged, hooved creature.To top that off, all the while evos insist there are some transitionals, but hey, we don't really need them, you guys now take it one step further and say, the only reason anyone even talks about transitionals is because they don't understand ToE, which is joke considering, often, critics of evolution often understand it better than the evos do themselves (which is why some of us that used to believe in evolution quit doing so).And then, you wonder why I think it's faith-based ideology.Funny, but when I argue that evos think all species and fossils are transitional, they generally vehemently deny it, but now and then, I can get one to admit that's the way they think of it, and now and then, I can rarely get one to admit we don't see species morphing (evolving) in the fossil record, but it's rare. It's hard to get the average evolutionist to admit to a fact in a debate, or it has seemed that way to me.

Behe accepts common descent but argues for different mechanisms. Other IDers in the camp you mention hold to different positions, across the board in fact. I am unaware that they agree with evolutionist's characterization of the fossil evidence, and have heard IDers propose multiple intrusions of design or creation to account for the development of life, which is indeed more consistent with the fossil record.My own position is to actually first try to see what the data says instead of first having a theory to try to fit the data into, as evolutionists did and do, which is why they cannot offer plausible well-defined definitions of claims like the meaning of "rare" in talking about fossilization. I tried in vain to get an evo here to define "rare" but they refused.So ToE does not match up with the fossil record. That, first of all, should be obvious to any objective observer, which is why some have proposed Punctuated Equilibrium. Evos are often in the contradictory position of claiming the fossil record has always fully substantiated evolutionary models, and then PE as a model to talk about how it could have occurred, despite the fact PE is a newer model. It really doesn't matter to the evo, imo, since the fact ToE is true is a matter of faith regardless of what the facts say in the fossil record.I have tried to get into my own position to explain the data we see, and that position is not necessarily mutually exclusive with common descent, although I don't think universal common descent is really correct, but Ned particularly has threatened to ban if I try to discuss it.So I really cannot answer you. To do so would involve some physics concepts that involve a proposed ID mechanism as well as a non-static past, sort of a bleedover multi-verse concept where we not only have more than one historical time-line still possible, but we see some entangled together to a degree.I also don't think evos are properly considering the claim of convergent evolution in their models. Evos basically only say something is convergent evolution if they can rule out common ancestry. They, of course, do not realize this is evidence as well of creation and design.But more to the point here, they fail to see more and more, convergent evolution produces near exact similarity, not just in surface features, but in things like ear bones. The implication of this is that when we find some scant similarity, such as with teeth or the ear (as in whale evolutionary models), and claim a mutual ancestor for these traits, that is a completely unfounded claim since the exact same traits could arise via convergent evolution and even convergent DNA mutation patterns with or without natural selection. It could be traits arise and remain when natural selection is neutral and no selective advantage is conferred.More and more, when you break down evo analysis of the data, you see a simple-mindedness, probably the result of their faith-based approach in their ideology/theory.So imo, the first order of business is to review the assumptions going into the data, and look at this stuff, not as needing to fit into a current theory, but try to see it as it is and go from there.I don't see evolutionists doing that, and some even go as far as to claim that doing that would be wrong, that we must cling to one paradigm until another comes along, which equates with distorting the evidence and data to make it fit into one paradigm until another comes along.The paradigm or ideology is thus key and paramount, and not the facts, and this is exactly why I consider evolutionism a faith-based ideology.This message has been edited by randman, 08-22-2005 12:40 PM

That's incorrect. First off, we see abrupt appearances of very complex life forms, not simplicity to complexity.Moreover, Behe and others have shown that so-called "simple" life forms are actually very, very complex.I guess you could argue there was an approximation of this, maybe, leading up to the Cambrian explosion. I certainly don't see today's life forms as more complex than life at that time. The whole premise of simple to complex is ill-defined, based on simplistic assertions, and inconsistent with life as we know it. We haven't, for example, seen anymore complexity for millions and millions of years. Those are astonishing exceptions which I would argue make the evo argument of life not appearing from nothing a moot point. Quite simply, unless quantified and defined, the term is meaningless. Something can be rare and quite common. Fossilization is supposedly rare, but some fossils are quite "common" in certain marine deposits. A diamond is a rare gem, but it's quite common to see it on a married American woman's hand!Evos have never shown that fossilization is so rare that we should not expect to see most, if not nearly all, the transitional forms in evolutionary models. Because I have never seen an evolutionist admit in a debate that the fossil record did not support the original evo contentions of gradualistic evolution, and yet some advocate PE as a solution to the problem they say never existed. I see a problem. An answer that we don't know is better than insisting on a wrong answer because you think the alternatives are more wrong. That's what people do in politics.In fact, I think the belief and need that we must have a paradigm is highly unscientific and is a real problem tainting the process. It seems there is a need to have an explanation and a fear to admit to weakenesses in the explanation because they feel the need to have a paradigm, an explanation.