Negative Impacts on Society

You might want to browse over
Message 1 and then we can ask others to jump in and give examples.Guys and gals, to be fair I think we should try to stick with just quotes from the listed 'compentant' creationists, ok? I think they could go on the end of the above topic (or create a new one )I will demonstrate some modicum of discipline and avoid piling on.

First off to clarifythere are creationistsand "creatortionistas" -- a term I use for those who knowingly continue to post false information and misleading quotes taken out of context and known hoaxes as facts even after they have been shown to be false.any site that post paluxy footprints as true falls in this categoryany site that posts list of "quote mines" from scientists is also in this category.there are many examples.but you want an example of someone who "knowingly threw false information out into the open to further their cause"I give you this:
http://www.skeptics.com.au/journal/crexpose.htmEnjoy.

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist

You might find this document interesting in this context: the Pacific College curriculum on the evolution vs creationism question (from a Christian Ministries private college). 60 pages of mostly "quotes from evolutionists" - nearly every single one of which is either distorted, taken out of context, misapplied (i.e., from discussions PE vs gradualism, cladistics over traditional phylogeny, etc), or horribly outdated. An amazing compilation of the worst of the worst, apparently culled from creationist sites all over the web and especially from the first edition of the famous Quote Book (now the Revised Quote Book). Fascinating reading.

Hi everybody:Thank you all for the examples. Interesting reading.I'll be straightforward with you, I am a Christian (as you may have guessed by now) but I believe as strongly as you do that creationists should not used out-dated, known-to-be-false, or inconclusive arguments to try and sway the popular consensus. Nevertheless, I have seen falsified, misunderstood, misquoted arguements by certain evolutionists every bit as much as the some creationists. It bothers me as much as the former bothers you guys, I would assume. Ernst Mayr, for instance, misquotes the Bible in his book "What Evolution Is" on many occasions. He still uses the argument that Genesis 1 and chapter 2 are two seperate versions of the same story of creation!Thanks again!Sincerely,
Servant

It's from the preface of Dawkins "Selfish Gene". It is just from memory and it is perfectly acceptable that I mention it like this because 1. it is very annoying to bother when somebody is following you around to argue something again, and again, and again. I quoted the whole passage as in copy and paste on some other occasions. 2. it is uncontested that Dawkins wrote this, or words to that effect 3. this is an internetforum, not a publication in a book.It would be great if Darwinists had a modicum of introspection, besides having selfcorrection (or rather being corrected by the holocaust). I see that you are applying that methodological naturalism. You methodologically throw out the evidence you don't like. That's why naturally the Darwinist eugenical textbook doesn't get admitted, but the Lysenko affair does. The textbook was not intentionally bad, and Lysenko was? You have no credibility anymore with me.I'm sure physicists are laughing at you out loud for saying it's sort of ok to enter the word stupid into the formulation of a theory, and you're not the first evolutionist either. It's only the evolutionists in science who are this absurd. You should have just denied the absurdity of course. People are perfectly justified to take something like for instance an earthquake personal. There's nothing science can say about it because they can't go beyond choice, and or randomness, which is where personality comes from according to common knowledge.You can just read the introduction that highly credentialled scientists in the discipline give to see that evolution is bad science, and discard it. But what would happen under a vouchersystem is that there would be many versions of Darwinist theory to choose from. Some would be like the Hitler youth was taught, and some would be atheist like you apparently favor, and some would be more in tune with the ideal of neutrality in science.regards,
Mohammad Nor Syamsu

I have found the quote, small thanks to you ( do a google on {dawkins "we are born selfish"} and you will find it easily). It is (properly): So you have it wrong even though the meaning is similar -- for future use this is called a paraphrase, not a quote. I expect you to get it correct next time. I asked you because I was curious about the context, not because I doubted that he would say something like that. He can be very caustic in his comments.I also found The Book Jacket (click) ((correcting "use" to "us" for meaning)): Now, that gets a little too effusive if you ask me. I have always had a little trouble with this whole concept for a number of reasons.The major reason comes from the field of mathematics game theory, where it has been shown (proven) that altruism pays off better than being selfish, particularly by John F. Nash (click) and his work on equilibria in non-cooperative games (that won the Nobel Prize). To me this means that it would also have an evolutionary advantage that would tend to select for at least some altruism over pure selfishness. This explains observed altruistic behavior in several species of animals of varying intellectual capacity. Pack behavior in communal raising of young from one breeding pair is one such example. The bees mentioned above is another.A second main reason for my objection is from Dawkin's own argument that we must teach altruism. This is essentially admitting that the mind can overpower gene selection, and I would argue that if that is possible, it has already occurred. The mechanisms here are sexual selection and family selection (see pack above) rather than individual "natural selection" (survival) -- where altruistic behavior is rewarded with sexual access and where the survival of offspring is enhanced by support from other members of the family carrying the same genes but not direct ancestors. There is a lot of literature on this subject. The point about Lysenko is the same point as about "Neodarwinist" social theory -- that it is bad science that has been invalidated by later evidence. One is no better than the other. Lysenko was mentioned in the first post on this thread as an example of how bad science has a negative effect on society. Neodarwinist social theory could have been used as an equally valid example. Institutionalizing bad science is bad for society regardless whether the bad science involves a recommended healthy diet or some pseudo-science based on faith.Physicists may be getting a good chuckle out of "stupid gravity" but that it would be a chuckle of agreement, imho, that the idea of assigning lack of intellect to natural processes (whether it is weather, gravity or evolution) is silly but not a contradiction. I presume you are back on Dawkins again ... (seems like Dawkins haters just can't get off the topic of their pet peeves) even though the field of evolution is not dependant on him to be correct, especially in books written for public consumption.By this argument I could read the introduction of any one creationist book and know that the whole concept is bad science and discard it. The difference is that there isn’t anything that I can read that shows creationism to be even mediocre science.Enjoy.

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist

I totally agree with you inre bad quotes (although I think others have argued the Gen 1 & 2 case pretty exhaustively - another topic I'm sure). One of the reasons I have very little respect for many of the evilution-slayers that wander through this forum is that often their arguments devolve to little more than lists of erroneous or misleading quotes. Then they demand that their opponents either refute every single quote or admit defeat. OTOH, I greatly appreciate someone who is willing to challenge neodarwinism or even the ToE on its merits by addressing what the theory actually says, rather than what someone might have said about it.I did expend some effort once to do precisely what I despise - waste a great deal of effort and space discussing one such list right here on this forum. You might find Creationists and Quotemines a worthwhile read.

quote:

---

It would be great if Darwinists had a modicum of introspection, besides having selfcorrection...

---

So how does one self-correct without some kind of 'introspection'?

quote:

---

... (or rather being corrected by the holocaust).

---

Hunh? What are you trying to say?

quote:

---

I see that you are applying that methodological naturalism. You methodologically throw out the evidence you don't like.

---

If that is your definition of methodological naturalism, I suppose so. However, coming from a YEC, this is an interesting statement. Are you saying that you do NOT throw out evidence that you don't like?Do you have evidence of someone throwing out evidence that we can discuss? Making sweeping statements such as this are easy as long as they do not have to be supported.

quote:

---

That's why naturally the Darwinist eugenical textbook doesn't get admitted, but the Lysenko affair does. The textbook was not intentionally bad, and Lysenko was? You have no credibility anymore with me.

---

Somehow, I doubt that anyone cares.

quote:

---

I'm sure physicists are laughing at you out loud for saying it's sort of ok to enter the word stupid into the formulation of a theory, and you're not the first evolutionist either.

---

Actually, I have never heard anyone say this before. Can you document other evolutionists saying this?Perhaps you are not familiar with some of the nuances of the word 'stupid'.

quote:

---

It's only the evolutionists in science who are this absurd.

---

Yep, only the vast majority of scientists worldwide. All absurd. And you, of course, are not.

quote:

---

You should have just denied the absurdity of course. People are perfectly justified to take something like for instance an earthquake personal.

---

Hunh? Are you still making sacrifices to the volcano these days?

quote:

---

There's nothing science can say about it because they can't go beyond choice, and or randomness,

---

WEll, then, there are an awful lot of books that say nothing about volcanos even though that have various titles suggesting that they know something about volcanos. Half my library, in fact, says that volcanos are random phenomena, or governed by choice? Tooooo weird for me.

quote:

---

...which is where personality comes from according to common knowledge.

---

What common knowledge is this? Can you document this knowledge? I have never seen a post to this effect.

quote:

---

You can just read the introduction that highly credentialled scientists in the discipline give to see that evolution is bad science, and discard it.

---

Yes, that is why everyone has discarded evolution. Who are these 'highly credentialed scientists' and what discipline are you talking about?

quote:

---

But what would happen under a vouchersystem is that there would be many versions of Darwinist theory to choose from.

---

Actually, I don't know anyone that teaches 'Darwinism' these days. Your ideas regarding evolution seem quite out of date.

quote:

---

Some would be like the Hitler youth was taught, and some would be atheist like you apparently favor, and some would be more in tune with the ideal of neutrality in science.

---

Actually, evolution says nothing about politics or atheism. And though science is neutral, scientists seldom are and most are strongly biased toward evidence.

when I was in High School Biology we Learned about Evolution for 3 days only but we took a week or more for other things.... (it only lasted 3 Because I KEPT asking questions) Teachers are afraid to cover it! They Cover so little of it... its Insane! I Only Found out about Evolution to a good degree on my own(until I got to Collage)

Hi DC!Yeah, it's pretty amazing the increase of discussion of the topic of evolution when one goes from high school to college.Nevertheless, it's interesting to read quotes--and even competent scientific observations that have been documented--that deal with yet such a controversial topic. I myself believed in the ToE for most of my earlier school years (meaning up till high school). I even read books on the subject (not something that usually interests an 8th-grader).Interestingly enough, It was just a more in-depth study of science that led me to begin believing in creation. In fact, it was something as simple as looking at the observations and documented evidence through a different perspective that compelled me to question evolution (no amount of quotes BY OR AGAINST evolution was enough to make me buy into the theory of creationism... I had to see the evidence and MORE than just a Christian's INTERPRETATION of the evidence). Likewise, creation and evolution are two different interpretations of the same evidence... some evidences are more difficult for one side to explain thoroughly than the other, but it becomes easier to see BOTH sides as relatively credible in theory all depending on HOW you examine the evidence and HOW you try to explain what the observations that we observe indicate.Therefore--since this is the education forum I'll try not to continue off-topic (sorry )--my advocation is for fossils, natural processes, observable changes in life and the environment, and the quintessential elements of nature to be presented in the science classroom (and THEN to build up interpretations/conclusions to support, respectfully, evolution AND creation, regardless of which belief the students decide on in the end). Sorry if somebody disagrees heatedly on that, but THAT is the summarized version of the reason why I believe that creationism CAN seem credible from a certain point of view and should be DISCUSSED (atleast if not IMPOSED) in the science classrooms. Granted, no law should forbid--or FORCE--teaching creationism, but it should be left up to the school board of each regional district to decide which theories are to be discussed and on what level of depth.That is--ideally--the way I believe the United States education system should approach such a controversial topic that can hit home on such a personal level (I've seen students in school OFFENDED beyond reason by this issue). Now I wonder, if evolution is credible and well-documented, then why should creationism be shunned from discussion--if nothing else--in the classrooms (I mean, neoDarwinists should have nothing to fear or get angry by if they know that their theory is so well-supported that creationism won't stand up if presented in public school science classrooms)?Just a question of curiosity, really. Sorry if it sounds confrontational (I couldn't think of any other way to word the question to make it less offensive to evolutionists--which offending you guys is something that I try to avoid at all costs).Thank you, Sincerely,
Servant

---

Open minds and open hearts... seeing what the world chooses not to see... seeing what no one else sees...

quote:

---

Likewise, creation and evolution are two different interpretations of the same evidence... some evidences are more difficult for one side to explain thoroughly than the other, but it becomes easier to see BOTH sides as relatively credible in theory all depending on HOW you examine the evidence and HOW you try to explain what the observations that we observe indicate.

---

How many times have I seen this being posted? Too many to count... It gets depressing after the hundredth time."The evidence supports either, it's just how you look at it"? I'm sorry, Servant, but this is 100% bullshit. It suggests that you've never studied geology, for a start (my particular field of expertise), as geology completely falsifies young earth creationism.Ok, I might sound a bit nasty, but honestly - I'm getting tired of reading that same line over and over.The Rock Hound

Sorry to disappoint you here, but you still havent answered my question.Furthermore, you only attacked something that I said (and without supporting it with arguments... only "you word" that I was wrong).Sincereyly,
Servant

That could be true. If it were, then wouldn't you agree that it's fair to say that evolution is an interpretation based on the supposition that natural laws are sufficient to account for natural phenomena; whereas creationism is the interpretation resulting from the supposition that God is responsible for that that we can't understand?I can't think of any way to judge the veracity of these two suppositions except for examining the results. The first supposition has resulted in advanced technologies, elimination of some diseases, the prolonging of life, the opening of new frontiers, and a deep understanding of the diversity of living organisms on Earth.What results can be claimed of the second supposition? Remember that was the supposition that ruled for about 1400 years. We called that time "the Dark Ages," and it wasn't because it was cloudy out.[This message has been edited by crashfrog, 03-29-2004]

There is a whole forum on the topic of dating Dates and DatingIf you think the evidence can 'go both ways' then do show us how.

quote:

---

Sorry to disappoint you here, but you still havent answered my question.
Furthermore, you only attacked something that I said (and without supporting it with arguments... only "you word" that I was wrong).

---

Ah, but if I spend an hour or so writing up a long and detailed response, will you actually read it and not simply handwave it away? Excuse me if I'm just a little tired of having my time wasted by creationists who have no interest in learning.In retrospect I think I was being reactionary, but seeing as you seem to be one of that most rare of breeds (an open-minded creationist), I will endevour to present my case yet again.Here's a post I wrote earlier - have a read through it and I'll catch you later (I'm tired and I have work in the morning)...

quote:

---

Ok, so I was just thinking a while ago about what would be the best or most supportive evidence of evolution - a line of evidence that would be ultimately very difficult to disprove or handwave away. Then it hit me - traditionally, creationism is intrinsically bound to the 6,000 year figure, or 10,000 or whatever they've decided it is now. In any case, it cannot allow for 4.6 billion years of history. It is also fundamental that evolution (*sigh* macroevolution) requires the same long timescales - is cannot operate over the few thousand years allotted by creationism. Therefore the proof of that 4.6 billion years - geological evidence, including fossils, formations, everything - is the strongest line of evidence that cannot be refuted or ignored.

​

If creationists ever hope to have their hypotheses accepted, they must first knock away this particular cornerstone or turn it to their view - which is why the Flood comes up so often. It is the only explanation they have for the current geological record (apart from "god made it look old"), so it must be defended as far as possible.

​

Here's my take on it - how, logically, you can arrive at the theory of evolution:

​

The geological record is arranged into many, many layers and formations. These formations logically are only formed by geological processes, the parallels of which we observe today as taking a certain amount of time. Because those parallels produce very similar layers and formations to those in the geological reconrd, it is reasonable to conclude that the prehistoric processes were also similar. We therefore assume that the layers represent long periods of time - an assumption borne out by the numerous changes in environment represented, and the sheer number of layers present.

​

In the layers, we find fossils. From our earlier assumption, we now say that these fossils are very old and must have existed at the same time as the sediment in which they were found, seeing as they could not have burrowed down from later sediments laid over them (this would leave traces which are not seen). Surprisingly enough, the fossils seem to be arranged in a pattern going from oldest to youngest - that of more complex species appearing (broadly speaking, of course). New species appear, old ones die out - sometimes gradually and sometimes immediately.

​

As we delve deeper into the relationship of the fossils to the environment, we see more patterns; species seem to appear and disappear depending on the state of the environment. What could this possibly mean? Well, we are aware that natural selection occurs - we see that creatures that are better adapted to the environment have a better chance of survival than those that are not. This is observed and documented; that those less suited to the environment (i.e. not as tolerant of the temperature, more susceptible to predation) are weeded out by environmental pressures, leaving the better suited to breed.

​

So what does this mean? We know that due to NS, species are capable of changing in response to their environment. We ask ourselves - is there a limit to how much change can occur? By examining the phenomenally long geological record, we logically deduce that there is not - as long as the environment puts pressure on a species, it will induce change in that species, even up to creating a new species that is rather different from the original. So, we have an idea - over the long periods of time represented in the geological record, new species develop from earlier ones that are better and better suited to their environments, and this development is still happening today; we don't see it in general because it takes longer than many human lifespans. It seems to explain the fossils in the geological record very well. So we take this idea and test it against our evidence by examining the order of the fossils; this is a huge and fragile idea, and even a single fossil out of place will render it useless - a dinosaur in the Pre-Cambrian, a trilobite in the Quaternary, even a few spores in the wrong layer and all our work will have been for nothing. But lo and behold - it all seems to fit. Every new discovery just adds another piece to help solve the puzzle, and we end up marvelling at how well this one small idea connects so many diverse areas of science.

​

And we decided to call it evolution.

---

The Rock Hound