View Comments |
Print This Post
|
by Ben-Peter Terpstra |
October 22nd, 2007
Atheists prove their smarts by censoring opponents and hiding racist letters.
“Looking at the world at no very distant date, what an endless number of the lower races will have been eliminated by the higher civilized races throughout the world,” wrote Charles Darwin in 1881.1 Here are three more untruths:
1. Darwin’s disciples say: “Early efforts to thwart Darwin were pretty crude. Tennessee famously banned the teaching of evolution and convicted school-teacher John Scopes of violating that ban in the ‘monkey trial’ of 1925.” – Claudia Wallis, reporter, TIME.2
I’m not sure where Claudia Wallis buys her history books from. Needless to say, TIME is spotlighting Tennessee’s “pretty crude” history and burying Darwin’s “lower race” theories because . . .? If this were a line from Jay Leno’s show, it might be amusing.
And how did those long-tempered atheists treat their Christians? The Russian State Commission (headed by Alexander Yakovlev) reveals that in the 1920s and 1930s:
Most priests [approximately two hundred thousand] were shot or hanged, although other methods used by the Communist death squads included crucifying pastors on their church doors [or] leaving them to freeze to death after being stripped and soaked in water during winter.
Charming. For decades, Russia’s godless dictatorship silenced millions and famously banned Christ’s teachings. They were even crucifying believers to doors. No wonder those folks in Tennessee came to question the wisdom of atheists.
Perhaps, Christians were just following God without embarrassing monkeys. I don’t know. John Scopes, the teacher, however, was just lucky he was not a Southern Baptist living in Red Moscow – and it helps to see Tennessee as a “crucifixion-free” zone.
2. Darwin’s disciples say: “It [Bush’s view on intelligent design] sends a signal to other countries because they’re rushing to gain scientific and technological leadership and we’re getting distracted with a pseudoscientific issue . . . If I were China I’d be happy.” – Gerry Wheeler, executive director of the National Science Teachers Association (NSTA), Arlington, Virginia.3
Isn’t questioning the evolutionary theory of evolution progressive? Not anymore. In Wheeler’s books, “they’re” all just hanging onto Bush’s iniquitous words. Seriously. I wonder what Arlington’s intellects think about Islam’s young-Earth creationists and their distractive voices.
Mysteriously, atheistic teachers were never “distracted” by Mao’s killing fields. Or Stalin’s holiday camps in Serbia. Yet, talking about intelligent design, we’re informed, sends a “signal” to Red China. It might even distract scientists from trafficking in human parts. Tissues, anyone?
That said, the National Science Teachers Association’s conundrum runs deep. No doubt, those “other countries” across Africa are really “rushing to gain scientific and technological leadership” after memorizing Bush’s homilies. I can hear the savages. The NSTA members must stop those Africans getting ahead of themselves now! What gives them the right to “gain scientific and technological leadership?”
3. Darwin’s disciples say: “Our own bodies are riddled with quirks that no competent engineer would have planned but that disclose a history of trial-and-error tinkering: a retina installed backward, a seminal duct hooks over the ureter like a garden hose sagged on a tree, goose bumps that uselessly try to warm us by fluffing up long-gone fur.” – Steve Pinker, Psychology Professor, Harvard University.4
The glass is half empty. Pinker jabbers about “a retina installed backward” whereas the Christian sees God’s handiwork in her daughter’s eyes. Pinker – not an optimist, I’m sure – whines about goose bumps because, in his view, they serve no earthly purpose. Pinker loathes creation.
Yet, Leonardo da Vinci, a committed creationist, thought that humans were spiritual beings. He gave us “The Last Supper.” Pinker gives me wind. The erudite Professor cannot explain the purpose of “goose bumps” so the Almighty doesn’t exist.
In the Biblical worldview, however, God states that humans are wonderfully imperfect, but that we will be perfected in the next life. Thus, Pinker’s “clever argument” is not going to convince theologians in hurry. Or Africa. (Hey Harry, is a Harvard goof misquoting God again?)
Even so, the American Psychological Association likens those pesky bumps to “warning signs.” They can, according to the APA, alert us to our fellowman’s anger. Possibly – and I hate to sound controversial – they tell us that a crying baby is cold and needs a blanket.
In essence, a Harvard professor feels that he has “purposeless” bumps on his backside, and I have to reject God? A few decades ago, some Ivy League stars also ridiculed the Bible’s “purposeless” anti-marriage verses until – oops! – the AIDS bomb exploded in San Francisco’s dirty bathhouses (for some odd reason).
Honestly, if a baby’s face is the sign of an incompetent engineer, then give me more God. The Church of Darwin’s scribes have emphasized the so-called negatives: goose bumps, “apelike” aboriginals, Tennessee’s bible-believing Christians, Red China’s happiness. You get the picture. The Apostle Paul, on the other side, offered hope to the “useless eaters” around two thousand years ago. His famous letter to the Galatians (3:28) states: “There is neither Jew nor Greek, slave nor free, male nor female, for you are all one in Christ.”
Endnotes
1. Letters from Charles Darwin to W. Graham, 3rd July, 1881.
2. "The Evolution Wars," by Claudia Wallis, TIME Magazine, August 15, 2005, pages 54-59.
3. Ibid.
4. Ibid.
pizzatrays@yahoo.com
Visit their website at: http://pizzatraysandbeerbottles.blogspot.com
Responses to "The Church of Darwin’s War Against “Useless Eaters”"
Sure, Darwin was a racist as we'd understand the term today. So was practically everyone at the time. However, he was far more enlightened than many (most?) contemporary clergymen. He advocated the abolition of slavery long before it was fashionable, and actually argued against most of the racist positions of the day. For some actual context, one might take a look at http://home.att.net/~troybritain/articles/darwin_on_race.htm or http://rationalrevolution.net/articles/darwin_nazism.htm.
The use of the term "Darwin's disciples" when discussing the erstwhile Soviet Union is also rather surprising, considering that Stalin's regime (and Mao's) explicitly rejected evolutionary thinking and went with Lysenkoism - resulting in famine when reality didn't conform to "worker's science": http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lysenkoism
Oh, and BTW, Leonardo Da Vinci was not a creationist the way modern young-Earth creationists are. He understood that geologic evidence simply could not be reconciled with Noah's Flood. See, for example, here: http://www.colorado.edu/eeb/courses/4800armstrong/Leonardo%20on%20Fossils.pdf
Comment by Raymond Ingles | October 22, 2007
It's sad that in the 21st century there are still so many people who can only think in a religious paradigm: Any "belief system" can only be conceptualized by them if they think of it as a "church" - thus "believers" in science or evolution must be members of the "Church of Darwin."
But it is truly despicable when religious propaganda writers conflate science and evolution and Darwin with atheism and communism when they know perfectly well that's not the case. I'm surprised Ben did not mention the oft-repeated canard that Darwin was somehow responsible for the Holocaust - but he's Australian and therefore possibly a Holocaust denier like Mel Gibson's father. (Martin Luther actually bears major responsibility for the Holocaust - see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/On_the_Jews_and_Their_Lies .)
As Raymond Ingles correctly points out, science in general and "evolutionism" in particular were condemned in Soviet Russia in favor of Lysenkoism. (There are interesting parallels between the pseudosciences of Lysenkoism and intelligent design creationism.)
The NSTA and other actual scientific organizations are equally disappointed and disgusted at the continuing existence of young-earth creationism, whether at the Answers In Genesis Anti-Museum in the United States or in Adnan Oktar's “Atlas of Creation” from Turkey - but I suspect Ben already knows about that.
But Ben's screed does serve as another shining example of the methods of creationist writers, who lie and cherry-pick ancient quotes in an attempt to discredit modern science. As Judge Jones said in the 2005 Dover decision, "It is ironic that several of these individuals (sworn witnesses), who so staunchly and proudly touted their religious convictions in public, would time and again lie to cover their tracks and disguise the real purpose behind the (Intelligent Design) Policy." These religious fanatics have lied to us before, and they will continue to lie to us. Remember that.
Comment by PaulBurnett | October 22, 2007
I am not sure how articles like this are actually relevant to a conservative website. The Judeo Christian values are central to our society, and one does not have to be religious to understand their importance. Articles like the one above do nothing to propagate the conservative ideals.
If conservatives continue to pander to the religious right they will lose the votes of moderates. The democratic party will be happy to take the votes of those moderates.
Good comments by Paul Burnett and Raymond Ingles. Very well said.
Comment by Carl | October 23, 2007
Dawkins and Falwell are to the argument as Hitler and Stalin are to politics. None of the 4 are like Adam Smith and Karl Marx. Freedom and liberty are opposed to totalitarianism with the former allowing for religion and science and the later only allowing for power. The article is very relevant to today’s situation and the fight against leftists.
Comment by Ivan Ivanovich | October 23, 2007
Thanks for the article.
The left is very closed minded and intollerant of any ideas that support unalienable rights. I am sure in time they plan on a constitutional amendment to fix that nasty phrase. Then they can get on course to fine tune all of the laws so we will all love each other. Nice idea but it won't happen in this world.
Young earth, old earth, just what is the big deal. If we are supposed to be tollerant then what is the problem? One group of people see some data and form one theory and another group forms another theory. Since we don't have videos of the ancient past documented by people we can trust like Al Gore then we can't prove any theory. This falls to belief, so be it. Just who is out there actively blocking someone elses belief. Who is saying "you can't do that / say that / print that / talk about that on the radio"?
Just on the horizon a war is brewing between athiest and people of faith. Right now the pendulum has swung in support of the athiest. They are become bold and starting to organize into political lobbies. Two out comes are possible. People of faith will organize because of the gay agenda sweeping the nation, and the athiest and gays will be reduced to a powerless minority. Or the people of faith will allow the slide of America to continue towards Sodom. Then the United States will go down to a third world country in no time at all.
When the country is run by people with tunnel vision the greater good is not even on the table for discussion. This will lead to destruction.
In a country of ideas no one focused group should ever take power.
Comment by fbaginski | October 23, 2007
fbaginski,
Not "atheist." "Anti-theist" would be a more accurate term. Atheists are at least intellectually honest.
Comment by Mountain Man | October 24, 2007
Mountain Man: Speaking of "intellectually honest," the buzz is starting that "ID" doesn't stand for "Intelligent Design" creationism any more - "ID" now stands for "Intellectual Dishonesty."
(More and more ID sympathizers are forgetting the Big Lie - not to publicly acknowledge that the intelligent designer was the creator God of Genesis - but Ben Stein and Bill O'Reilly violated the Discovery Institute's rules the other night.)
Comment by PaulBurnett | October 24, 2007
Paul Burnett,
Can you provide information or a link on the violation of which you are speaking?
Many thanks
Comment by Carl | October 24, 2007
The generalization that "Atheists are at least intellectually honest" is on its face false. Some are and some are not, as with any other persuasion.
There's one way to find out if a man is honest - ask him. If he says, "Yes," you know he is a crook.
Groucho Marx
Atheism is a non-prophet organization.
George Carlin
Comment by Ivan Ivanovich | October 24, 2007
For Carl: Here are a few articles about Ben Stein and Bill O’Reilly violating the Discovery
Institute’s guidelines on "ID is not religion":
http://pandasthumb.org/archives/2007/10/bill-oreilly-jo.html#more
http://pandasthumb.org/archives/2007/10/ben-klein-expel.html
http://pandasthumb.org/archives/2007/10/bill-oreilly-ri.html
Comment by PaulBurnett | October 24, 2007
Carl - looks like I've been locked out of replying to you. Take a look at the Panda's Thumb website, which is apparently forbidden to mention here.
Comment by PaulBurnett | October 24, 2007
Carl - I'm trying an experiment here - maybe one address at a time will work:
got to http://pandasthumb.org/archives/2007/10/bill-oreilly-jo.html - Bill O’Reilly joins the liberal Darwinist media
Comment by PaulBurnett | October 24, 2007
Carl - okay, looks like it will accept one at a time - here's another one:
http://pandasthumb.org/archives/2007/10/bill-oreilly-ri.html - ID Exposed: Bill O’Reilly: Right for once, admits that ID is religious
Comment by PaulBurnett | October 24, 2007
I meant to say that at least SOME atheists are intellectually honest. Except maybe Paulburnett.
Still have that chip is still on your shoulder, I see. Can't face up to the fact that so many people believe that God created the universe, despite the continual browbeating given by you anti-theists?
Hate is a poor motivation.
Comment by Mountain Man | October 24, 2007
If I were a salesman and I had to sell atheism or faith I would have to pick faith. With atheism I would have to say when you die you cease to exist in any way. With faith I can say that you pass to another existance. Now the elites say the masses are stupid and that is why they cling to faith. They say that if they could just understand that Darwin was right they could join the elite club. We know of course that membership is more than a belief in Darwin.
I have just finished reading two books. One "The Edge of Evolution" by Behe, and the other "The God delusion" by Dawkins. One reads like a science book and the other like a New York Times editorial. Can you guess which one reads like an editorial?
I invite everyone to read both sides of the creation debate, it makes great reading. People with an open mind will read many opinions so they can form an educated view on important issues. I read this stuff before bed, sure helps me from staying up too late.
I am sure that most people who use the term ID are in fact using it to include God. I do, and see nothing wrong with it. I am sure there are others who truly separate the two. I see nothing wrong with either view. To me it is a "who cares".
This whole debate is filled with giant potholes that trap any discussion in a quagmire of terms. This is the smoke screen so people don't look at the raw data. One side lines up their experts and opinions. The other side argues with their guys. At this point the discussion takes a turn and the validity of the experts is argued. So silly. Very few new advancements in science are a sure thing, most are theories that at best seem to match the measured data. Most have data that is declared an anomaly and use the rest of the data. Of course most people don't know that.
Comment by fbaginski | October 24, 2007
Fbaganski, let's place Michael Behe in his cultural matrix. He is a Professor of Biological Science at Lehigh University in Pennsylvania. The entire remainder of the biology faculty at Lehigh is mortally embarrassed at his presence there. Here is part of their statement on Lehigh's website: “The department faculty, then, are unequivocal in their support of evolutionary theory, which has its roots in the seminal work of Charles Darwin and has been supported by findings accumulated over 140 years. The sole dissenter from this position, Prof. Michael Behe, is a well-known proponent of “intelligent design.” While we respect Prof. Behe’s right to express his views, they are his alone and are in no way endorsed by the department. It is our collective position that intelligent design has no basis in science, has not been tested experimentally, and should not be regarded as scientific.” (http://www.lehigh.edu/~inbios/news/evolution.htm)
Behe was the star witness for intelligent design creationism at the 2005 Dover trial, where he admitted under oath that to define "science" in loose enough terms to include intelligent design as science would mean that astrology could also be defined as science.
“The Edge of Evolution” has received positive reviews - but only in the religious and political media. Unfortunately, all the actual scientists who reviewed it uniformly panned it, with titles such as “Behe’s Dreadful New Book: A Review of The Edge of Evolution,” “Behe’s bad math,” “Good Virus, Bad Creationist,” “Design? Maybe. Intelligent? We have our doubts,” “Intelligent or Silly Design?”
Can you see the common thread here? Intelligent design creationism is almost solely supported by overtly and covertly religious individuals and organizations. Every scientific organization - and now the Council of Europe - says it's not science, but religion. As Judge Jones said in the 2005 Dover decision, “We have concluded that (intelligent design) is not [science], and moreover that (intelligent design) cannot uncouple itself from its creationist, and thus religious, antecedents."
Intelligent design creationism is not science. Get over it.
Comment by PaulBurnett | October 24, 2007
I think Communist intolerance of religion and Christian intolerance of heresy suggest that "true believers" can be very dangerous to civilized society, History is replete with the crimes committed by tyrants, whether religious or atheist. America's founders were intent on maintaining a secular state, completely neutral to the question of religion. Today the ultra left wants to silence religion and the ultra right impose it. Both are wrong and both positions are contrary to the Constitution. As an atheist I enjoy Christmas and find no offense or danger in my neighbors' holidays, am not offended nor threatened by a prayer said at a civic meeting. I would only fear a command to pray by a government voice. Otherwise, we have the free choice to pray, or be silent out of courtesy to the beliefs of others. Government schools are not a place to inculcate religious beliefs. That's the job for parents, churches & private schools.
We could all better behave with respect to the rights of others. Tolerance does not imply agreement, merely granting a right we demand for ourself.
Comment by Ray L Walker | October 24, 2007
Well, the word must have gone out early to the scientism crowd. I love that cute new name, "anti-theist". Did it occur to them that if it wasn't for God an atheist would just be an "a"? I suppose that means they're now just, "anti"s. And it's so good to see that the new holy writ of scientism is wickedopedia, so as to fulfill Saint Coulter's observation of the godless making up history anew each morning.
Comment by Michael Kilpatrick | October 25, 2007
For Michael Kilpatrick's information, the only reason I have for identifying myself as an atheist, or anti-theist, which is overkill, is to keep from flying under false colors, since most folks make the assumption I am in synch with them. It generally terminates unnecessary conversation about god. My view is you and I are both atheists, I just disbelieve in one more god than you do, out of the thousands history has recorded. I have no quarrel with the idea of a god or folks who disagree with me. I just want to preserve a secular state as the Constitution and its founders created, and let religion prosper in the private sector to whatever extent folks wish to support and grant me the same courtesy I grant them. This should not be a political issue. The Founders made clear there should be no religious test for public office, but the religious insist on one, contrary to the law. As Jesus was quoted, "Render unto Caesar what is Caesar's and unto god what is god's." If the Christians would just once, in a majority, follow the precepts of the Gospels, life would be saner hereabouts. Paul is a late comer add-on.
Comment by Ray L Walker | October 25, 2007
Mr. Kilpatrick - do you have any specific bones to pick with either of the Wikipedia articles pointed out here? Do you, for example, think that people didn't starve in the China and the Soviet Union due to Lysenkoism? Did Martin Luther not write a virulently anti-Semitic work entitled "On the Jews and their Lies"? I'm at a loss to understand what, exactly, you disagree with there…
Comment by Raymond Ingles | October 25, 2007
Raymond Ingles: Mr. Kilpatrick may prefer Conservapedia to Wikipedia. Conservapedia doesn't mention Lysenkoism or Lysenko, so they obviously never existed. But it does say "Historians debate the impact (Martin) Luther's writings may have had on German thought leading into the Nazi Holocaust of World War II."
(My favorite articles in Conservapedia are the ones on Kangaroos and Baraminology.)
Comment by PaulBurnett | October 25, 2007
Mr. Walker, if you insist on no religious litmus test for public office, why then is the only religion allowed to be yours? ("I just want to preserve a secular state") And, please, let's not devolve into a discussion of whether or not atheism and secularism is or is not a religion: go and read your Webster's before you crank up that particular Edsel.
The way to have a separation of church and state is not to silence the voices of 70-90 percent of the population simply because they belive in a God, but to allow all voices (Atheists, Secularist, Christian, Native American, Wiccan, Hindu and even Satanist) to have a voice heard in public places, with their own litmus tests and checks, in the running of this republic. As to your assertion that the Founders wanted a secular state and made it so in the Constitution: You need desperately to review the writings of Madison, Jefferson, Adams and Franklin again, sir. You will see that their desire (and I am NOT advocating the creation or establishment of a purely Christian state: America was created for ALL religions to flourish) was for the people to be moral and religious, in order to keep those in office from excess and tyranny.
Comment by daverock | October 26, 2007
Mr. Walker,
"My view is you and I are both atheists, I just disbelieve in one more god than you do, out of the thousands history has recorded…" This is a nonsensical statement. By way of analogy, being a heterosexual does not require me to couple with every female I possibly can. I selected one woman to marry, but my status as a heterosexual is in no way diminished.
As a monotheist I have very little in common with you theologically. Given your unpleasant, toxic anti-theism, I'm kinda glad.
Comment by Mountain Man | October 26, 2007
It's time to bring up my favorite quote from John Tyler, who succeeded William Henry Harrison as President of the United States. In 1843 he wrote:
"The United States has adventured upon a great and noble experiment, which is believed to have been hazarded in the absence of all previous precedent — that of total separation of Church and State. No religious establishment by law exists among us. The conscience is left free from all restraint and each is permitted to worship his Maker after his own judgment. The offices of the Government are open alike to all. No tithes are levied to support an established Hierarchy, nor is the fallible judgment of man set up as the sure and infallible creed of faith. The Mohammedan, if he will to come among us would have the privilege guaranteed to him by the Constitution to worship according to the Koran; and the East Indian might erect a shrine to Brahma if it so pleased him. Such is the spirit of toleration inculcated by our political institutions… The Hebrew persecuted and down trodden in other regions takes up his abode among us with none to make him afraid… and the Aegis of the government is over him to defend and protect him. Such is the great experiment which we have tried, and such are the happy fruits which have resulted from it; our system of free government would be imperfect without it."
I can't imagine today's President writing (or thinking) that. The Christian Reconstructionists and Dominionists are fomenting a climate of religious intolerance, and some True Believers are so convinced of the rightness of their cause that they accuse everybody else of heresy and blasphemy. And some of them are so proud of their ignorance that they call it a virtue, and do downright silly things like calling evolution a religion while at the same time they keep trying to pass off their religiously-motivated "Creation Museum" and intelligent design creationism as science. And that's confusing for some of them, who can't keep it straight as to whether or not you're supposed to admit in public that intelligent design creationism is or is not a code phrase for the creator God of Genesis.
Comment by PaulBurnett | October 26, 2007
If I walk down the street and step on a bug by acident do I lament the loss of the bug. I do not. I do not kill any animal for enjoyment. I try and not kill bugs even by acident. This of course if they are not in my home. I do not hold a high value to the life of a bug or a plant. I can pull up by the roots a plant and eat the carrots or potatos without a second thought. I can catch a fish skin it and roast it for dinner. I feel dominion over this earth and it's animals.
On the other hand if I were driving down a road and ran over a child that darted out in front of me I would lament the rest of my life. The value of that child is above all the animals of the earth.
We are not animals. We may be housed in flesh but we have a value beyond our coating of skin and flesh. To believe in evolution is placing us in the role of animal. No value. I for one do not believe in evolution and I find it silly that others do. To argue away one's birthright and place in the universe. If atheist all jumped off a cliff the rest of the world would lament their passing. If all believers jumped off a cliff the atheist would throw a party. Why is it that some people value life so low.
Comment by fbaginski | October 26, 2007
Even the argument about whether or not this has become a religious argument has now been fatally poisoned. Relativism and deconstructionists have rendered language meaningless, as is their purpose and desire. If there is no fixed point, all options are infinite and equal. Among the things now without meaning apart from language itself are history, philosophy, and statistics. You choose to believe in yours, and I choose to believe mine is what it's devolved into.
If that sorry state on it's own doesn't illustrate the religiosity of the debate I don't know what will. And as further illustration, the godless will now render their "anti" version of all there is left in the way of a rebuttal, "IS NOT!". There is no 'debate'. The godless and their useful idiots make statements of faith, are called on them, and then the ad homenims begin, along with one or more of the boogeymen de jour such as, aaaahhhhhhhhh!, the Dominionists are coming! This at the same time that secular humanist atheism is the exclusive State religion legally preached in all government schools (ready? wait for it…"IS NOT?").
Believe it or not, but there are actually people who believe, religiously, that this country was founded on secularism. I'm not making this up. These folks can tour hundreds of early government buildings, and read old documents, look you right in the eye, and make that case. What do you do with ideologues like that? Join them in the schoolyard romp by responding in kind with, "IS SO!"? Personally I like my heroine Ann (Satan's only daughter according to the self-anointed elites) Coulter's battle plan: mock them mercilessly, even if only for the sheer entertainment value of watching them go off like bottle rockets.
I believe, religiously, that more and more people are getting tired and fed up with hearing them whine, complain, and announce endless non-apocalypses. So, I'll continue to point out reality, work to stave off the godless left's introduction of the Endarkenment, while lighting fuses and standing back to enjoy the fireworks. Bless their hearts.
Comment by Michael Kilpatrick | October 27, 2007
Fbaganski: While you do not believe in evolution, evolution believes in you - you are the surviving end result of millions of ancestors who survived to produce you.
You do not believe in evolution for emotional reasons, not for scientific / logical reasons. You are letting your childhood beliefs in primitive creation myths (which are wholly inappropriate for a technical civilization, as the Council of Europe has recently ruled) continue into adulthood. As a species, we now know better - we have enough information to craft a better understanding of our origins.
You are ascribing behaviors and thoughts to a strawman atheist. Unfortunately this artificial construct is simply a projection of what you think you would do if you were an atheist, and you were suddenly released from all those scary stories you absorbed into your subconscious in Sunday School. You can rise above those Death Cult fairy tales of eternal punishment and do something worthwhile with your life instead of helping religious demagogues in their attempt to return to the Dark Ages of ignorance.
Comment by PaulBurnett | October 27, 2007
there is religion and there is science. adam and eve? religion. the overwhelming evidence as discovered since the enlightenment (evolution, natural history) - science.
teach adam and eve in sunday school all you want but leave science curricula to scientists…
sure, darwinian ideas have and continue to be used to prop up racist and abominable ideologies. racists like the nazis and nihilist/objectivists have both used such to promote self serving eugenics. check out the church of satan/temple of set - both philosophically based on nihilism and ayn rand's philosophy.
but then look at christianity's ugly, murderous, bigotted, and bass-ackward history as well…
so i'll go with the scientists over both cromwellian abrahamic fundyvangelists and randian nihilist satanists…
Comment by ibbleblibble | October 28, 2007
PaulBurnett:
The Liberals and Left-wingers are fomenting a climate of pseudo-religious intolerance, and some True Believers are so convinced of the rightness of their cause that they accuse everybody else of intolerance, racism, sexism, classism, and homophobia. And some of them are so proud of their ignorance that they call it a virtue, and do downright silly things like denying that evil exists, or calling it good while at the same time they keep trying to pass off their pseudo-religiously-motivated “moral relativism” and glorification of debauchery as “alternative lifestyles”. And that's confusing for some of them, who can't keep it straight as to whether or not you're supposed to admit in public that you personally believe in God of the Bible and whether it’s alright to display the Ten Commandments.
Comment by sedonaman | October 29, 2007
I'm trying to think of something I care less about than what the "Council of Europe" has to say. Possibly something from Code Pinkette or the 'National Academy of High Inquisitors, or, I mean Science', maybe…
Oh, those wicked scary murderous Christians rampaging all across the landscape, making white coated Saints of Scientism tinkle in their pantyhose and swoon! I'm shocked! Shocked I say. The temerity!
"To educate the mind without purifying the heart is but to place a sharp sword in the hands of a madman." R. L. Dabney
Science is great for what science is good at. Philosophy is not something science is good at. It cannot tell us anything about a very crucial set of characteristics, experiences and emotions that are empirically unmeasurable, unquantifiable and immaterial. Everyone can name most of them. You may ignore those universals at your own peril…sociopaths do so as a matter of course.
Would the priests of neo-religious scientism grant me the benefit of some of their exalted Reason? Where did all the 'stuff' of the universe come from? Can something come from nothing? Can there be an endless series of un-caused causes? How do entropy and 'beneficial mutations' coexist? Describe the 'evolution' of an eye without the use of magic mushrooms. Are we all nothing more than accidentally animated pieces of mobile meat inexplicably conjured out of nothing, and for no reason, by a blind pitiless, indifferent universe? Are presuppositions (e.g. that God cannot exist, or that information is an un-caused effect) scientific?
Recipe for evolution: Start with nothing. Then, by a process that is a complete mystery to you, Stuff appears. Add billions of years. The Stuff moves around and coalesces into stars, planets and such by that same mysterious process. Add more billions of years. On one backwater planet some of the Stuff gets mixed, heated, and maybe even struck by lightning, and becomes animated (alive), again (somehow) by that pesky mysterious process. Add more billions of years, and season with blind egocentric arrogance and smarmy condescension, a dash of willfully determined ignorance, smother with vitriolic censorship of all opposition and… Oila! You have succeeded in evolving a raving wild-eyed religious fanatic disguised as a scientist, who proudly insists that his family tree is full of monkeys.
The Endarkenment cometh.
Comment by Michael Kilpatrick | October 29, 2007
religion = genesis
science = evolution
that simple…
Comment by ibbleblibble | October 29, 2007
Mr. Kilpatrick:
Why do so many people assume that everything started with nothing? What evidence is there for that? So long as you're decrying 'presuppositions'… what's the justification for that one? We've seen matter and energy converted between each other, but we've never seen matter or energy created out of nothing, and neither have we ever seen it vanish into nothing. If we're avoiding presuppositions, why assume that something that meets every practical test we can devise for something 'eternal'… isn't eternal?
As I've said elsewhere, I don't think we've had the right insights to make sense of something like the origin of the universe. But many things we've thought of as inexplicable have turned out to be, well, explicable. "To surrender to ignorance and call it God has always been premature, and it remains premature today." - Isaac Asimov
If you do, in fact, doubt that the Earth is billions of years old, and doubt that the evidence shows this, I have a modest proposal for you. Take oil companies. Finding oil is a very important and high-stakes issue for them. Literally hundreds of billions of dollars are riding on it. When the chips are down and they need to find the most likely spots to drill - what kind of geology do they use? Flood geology, or mainstream? Which one actually delivers the goods?
Why don't creationists put together an investment fund, where people pay in and the stake is used as venture capital for things like oil and mineral rights? If "Flood geology" is really a better theory, then it should make better predictions about where raw materials are than standard geology does. The profits from such a venture could pay for a lot of evangelism. Why isn't anyone doing this?
Comment by Raymond Ingles | October 29, 2007
i just cant look at evolution, natural history, without being absolutely awestruck…i mean, i'm a bad buddhist/gnostic who can take or leave the idea of a personal god, but how can one look at the grand cosmic ballet and not be dumbfounded at the indescribably sublime anarchic order, ordered chaotic struggle that science has thusfar revealed? what kind limited mind must exclude "god" from such a process?
i find it miraculous that we wicked, wonderful shaved apes are descended from the simplest cells, wormlike slugs, fish, slimey amphibians, reptilelike creatures, tree rats and monkey men…who managed to survive fiery massive volcanic eruptions and apocalyptic astroid strikes - events that several times came close to eradicating all life on the planet…
but the wonderful thing about those awful horrible scientists' way of seeing the world is that you can believe it was all a cosmic accident or that its the fingerprint of "god"…as you desire.
but when some medievalist cromwellian fundyvangelist tries to shove his abrahamic mythology down everyone else's throat in pure and undeniable contradiction to science, common sense, and the constitution of the united states of america, all i can say to them is - take your kids out of school and fill their heads with all the crazy bassackward crap you want to their and our country's and our world's detriment, but cease and desist trying to force those who dont agree to share your delusions!
Comment by ibbleblibble | October 29, 2007
Not that I understand them, but I know of at least 6 different ways to interpret the Bible:
1. The Historical-Critical Method
2. New Method of Literary Analysis
3. Approaches Based on Tradition
4. Approaches that Use the Human Sciences
5. Contextual Approaches
6. Fundamentalist Interpretation method.
The Fundamentalist Interpretation method is the one satirized in Inherit the Wind. Why does everyone always focus on it?
Comment by sedonaman | October 30, 2007
Attributing evolution to left wing thinking prooves that mainstream america does not understand the theory of evolution.
Creation myths from any religion are easy to understand, whether they are from Norse mythology or any of the modern religions.
I am not an athiest. I beleive in higher powers. But I can put no more faith in an old book than I can mythology from a thousand years ago. Where is this magic? How are todays religions any more relevant than the religions of the past? They are not. Modern religion is equally relevant to the pagan religions of the past.
The success of our society is due more to technology and science than it is to religion. With all the creation myths out there it is nearly a crapshoot that the Judeo christian one is correct.
I am spiritual, certainly not religious, and I can appreciate Evolution for what it is. A tool and not a creatin myth. Maybe a higher power did create all life. Maybe the higher power is in fact the one defended here. If so, I see nothing in any religion that would say evolution could not have occured. If we were in fact created, evolution was the tool used to do it.
Literalism is far to simplistic.
Comment by Carl | October 30, 2007
I would of added this if I knew how to edit…
The theory of natural selection was completely misinterpreted and misused by Nazis and other supremacists. Stalin and Hitler understood evolution just as poorly as an indigenous person from New Guinea. They took the simplest staple of the theory and simply… ran with it.
Comment by Carl | October 30, 2007
"that simple…" ibbleblibble; indeed
Raymond Ingles: "Why do so many people assume that everything started with nothing? What evidence is there for that?"
The vast horizons of moonbattery are even more far reaching than my poor faerie dust free brain could ever hope to grasp. So…. everything has just always been here? An un-caused effect that simply IS. Well, that settles it I guess: there just can't be a God alright.
"So long as you're decrying 'presuppositions'…"
I never "decried" presuppositions. It would just be refreshing to hear a Darwiniac fundamentalist confess to having them. You have an a priori set of criteria that all answers must proceed from: atheistic materialist scientism. I have my own, and proud of it.
"As I've said elsewhere, I don't think we've had the right insights to make sense of something like the origin of the universe."
But if there's anything that can be nailed down as a dead certain fact, it's that there can be no God involved in it.
ibbleblibble: "….indescribably sublime anarchic order, ordered chaotic struggle that science has thusfar revealed"
I know a young man who went to an anarchy convention once. I wondered who organized it. His car had a chaotic struggle that left him ordering a cab. "Science" has revealed that it's pants are down in the philosophy department.
"but the wonderful thing about those awful horrible scientists' way of seeing the world is that you can believe it was all a cosmic accident or that its the fingerprint of "god"…as you desire."
Not if you're interested in research grant money, publishing, or keeping your job. They burn 'heretics' at different kind of stake these civilized days.
"but when some medievalist cromwellian fundyvangelist tries to shove his abrahamic mythology down everyone else's throat"
I'd no sooner let my children go to a public school than I'd drop them into a pit of snakes every morning. Whose religion is being legally shoved down the throat of children who are compelled to by law to attend the State indoctrination centers?
Carl: "Stalin and Hitler understood evolution just as poorly as an indigenous person from New Guinea. They took the simplest staple of the theory and simply… ran with it."
They certainly had an insightful grasp of the atheistic sub-text of it, and followed it through with murderous efficiency.
"The success of our society is due more to technology and science than it is to religion."
I'm sure that Uncle Joe, and Cousin Adolf would heartily agree. And the evidence that we're all just naturally nice to each other when we adhere to scienitistic materialism is overwhelming, at least according to scientists. They are the experts after all.
Does Carl understand the difference between micro, and macro- evolution?
Comment by Michael Kilpatrick | October 30, 2007
Paul Burnett 27, You say that I am a product of childhood indoctrination. You are of course absolutely correct. I was buried in the opinion of science. The big bang and Darwin made perfect sense to me. I held these beliefs and taught my kids the same. Then one day I picked up a book on quantum theory by Bohm. I had read many books on physics earlier in my life but I wanted to refresh my understanding of particle physics before I read the new theories on strings. As I was reading I suddenly realized that I had never understood this subject before and reality was of course more complex than I once thought. I then studied light and found a fingerprint of God. It seems that light knows if it is being observed or not. It also knows ahead of the fact if it will be observed in the future. Before this I was strictly a Newtonian determinist. This crack in the door of science allowed me to cast doubt about my basic acceptance of the theories of science. I then reviewed astrophysics and was not satisfied with the big bang, there were too many problems with it. I did not have an alternate theory I just knew what I thought I knew as fact was indeed based in something which was not based in a solid foundation. Next I went back and studied biology and then molecular biology. I found that the opinions of the science did not in fact match the data. I saw batant misrepresentation of data which of course lead me to toss all of my beliefs in the sciences. I had to find my place in the universe that science used to provide. I was adrift in a sea of bad science. For three years I studied many areas of science and always searched for the raw data. I did not trust anyone. When I tossed evolution because the mechanism of evolution cannot create life I looked at creation science to see if they had answers, they did not. But I did read the Bible for the first time in my life. I had more questions than answers and jumped into Bible research. Again more questions than answers. In time I hit a critical mass of understanding and knew that the scripture is the inspired Word of God. I don't recommend this path to belief. I have a stack of books over eight feet tall that I read to get to this point.
From a strict science point of view I can argue my beliefs on most subjects. But what I find is people who want me to believe this guy and his opinon or that guy and his opinon. I could care less about every opinon out there. I have done the basic research, I have spent the three years looking over the raw data. I have spent months investigating a single item like the redshift of distant light.
I found it funny that you thought I was brought up in a religious household. I do regret that I did not do this 35 years ago so my kids would not have endured my false teachings. I hate being the mouthpiece of bad science or any bad doctrine.
Comment by fbaginski | October 30, 2007
michael…
just not mentioning "god" is not the same as persecuting christians…is it? do christians require that all others believe in their interpretation of "god"? i have yet to take a science course where the teacher/professor who taught science/evolution said anything like "THERE IS NO GOD." thats up to the student.
is the christian's belief in god so fragile that all others must pander to him/her? or is the christian's lack of respect for those who believe differently so obnoxious that he/she must ever endeavor to force his/her religious beliefs on others and then play the poor persecuted martyr when such is denied?
guess it depends on the christians…
Comment by ibbleblibble | October 30, 2007
Carl:
"Would of"?
Comment by sedonaman | October 30, 2007
ibbleblibble:
Why is it you liberals never complain about Leftist forced beliefs on university campuses, as in http://thefire.org/index.php/article/8555.html ?
Is it because this form of "religious fundamentalism" is OK because it is the "right" and "correct" belief?
Comment by sedonaman | October 30, 2007
sedona
if the referenced article is indeed legit (and i am inclined to believe it largely is…if a bit overblown) someone should indeed be sueing. nothing like a little litigation to screw with harrassment. look…i used to post from time to time over at dailykos, but lord knows the symbionese liberation army (my pet name for lefty pc wackos) actually trigger my gag reflex quicker than the neofascists on the fringe right.
Comment by ibbleblibble | October 30, 2007
Mr. Fitzpatrick,
I understand the difference between micro and macro evolution very well. I have taken several 500 level courses on evolution…
I do not ask the question of WHERE life came from. I am confident evolution was the mechanism. I honestly do not see how this disputes a higher power.
Thank you for the correction sedonaman.
Comment by Carl | October 31, 2007
Can the article that was submitted by Sedonaman be verified with another source? I am having trouble taking this article seriously. This is not an attack on Sedonaman's credibility.
Comment by Carl | October 31, 2007
fbaginski, et al:
How did the universe get into a reduced state of entropy?
Comment by sedonaman | October 31, 2007
well, it can be a scary old life, lots of uncertainty, suffering, depressing shit. thus spirituality of some form is often adopted to soften the reality blow, reality (oservable, quantifiable) being what science is all about.
in that external, measured, quantified, rationally percieved reality, of which "evolution" is a subset, offers no comforting, easily understood, everything-gonna-be-all-rights, i guess its a natural impulse to reject outright rational objective scientific findings for comforting irrationality…
if reason and rationalism aint making me feel better…eff 'em! lol…
and when the source of irrational comfort has the force of familial tradition and thousands of years of irrational, fearful, bigotted, pre-scientific method, thought behind it…even better!
actually, however, cutting edge physics in some ways offers the possibility of a return to some form of spirituality, and the idea which seems to me inherent in evolution, that we are almost certainly still evolving into something more complex and capable of comprehending stuff we are currently incapable of comprehending, seems to suggest to me the coming of new faiths based on modern understanding that contradict abrahamic literalism as found in both christianity and islam.
in fact there is indeed an ongoing struggle since the enlightenment between literalist luddite religion, as exemplified by fundamentalist christianity and islam, and that which opposes such, be it mystical versions of the two, eastern religious beliefs, new age esotericism, or simply secular humanism, whether spiritual, agnostic, or atheistic…
the exclusionary, fundamentalist, evangelizing factions of christianity and islam are in constant conflict with everything else as well as each other and will continue to cause trouble and irritation to those who choose to leave them behind, who must ever struggle to balance their own tolerance with the need to oppose the forces of irrationalism who seek to enslave, impose, force themselves upon, and convert.
Comment by ibbleblibble | October 31, 2007
the above said aside…i have to say that i understand the consternation of some religionists in terms of the wicked and sociopathic potentialities of objective beyond good and evil belief systems. nihilism and randian objectivism (both philosophical underpinnings of modern satanism, both levay's church of satan an aquino's temple of set and the cato institute…lol) are favorites of those who wish to wreak self serving wickedness with a free concience, and are therefore not only the refuge of clever ready born/conditioned sociopaths, but a sociopath enabling and shaping sort of religion/ideology for those still possesed of the vestiges of a concience.
and since the modern neocon is philosophically a hell of a lot closer ideologically to a levayan satanist than a classic laissez faire conservative…i gotta wonder how cromwellian fundyvangelists reconcile their unholy alliance with the aforementioned…
i suppose they are not even aware…which is not to be wondered at considering any believe the world was created 6 thousand years ago and all those big funny bones we've dug up must e from nephilim of the big secular humanist satanic one world government conspiracy!
wow…that home schooling sure does keep 'em believing some crazy crap!
Comment by ibbleblibble | October 31, 2007
ibbleblibble:
If you read the article in the FIRE website, you will notice that their first step is an informal one – a letter to the college president stating the offending program as FIRE understands it, asks for clarification if it is not correct, and asks for the college to cease if what it is alleged to be doing is true. The letter also states that “FIRE is not a litigation organization.” FIRE has, however, worked with legal defense organizations to fight student censorship that it feels is unjustified. The case that comes to mind is Cal Poly’s Steve Hinkle (google).
For a broader perspective on the problems in higher ed, see the American Council of Trustees and Alumni, http://www.goacta.org . They have done a number of studies critical of higher ed, like http://www.goacta.org/whats_new/AEI%20Speech%202-14-05.htm and http://www.goacta.org/publications/Reports/accrediting.pdf
Then there is the National Association of Scholars at http://www.nas.org , specifically,
http://www.nas.org/print/print/More_Crises_than_One–SHB.pdf
“Overblown”? I don’t think so. If anything is overblown, it’s the freedom from accountability and public oversight these institutions enjoy.
Comment by sedonaman | October 31, 2007
Sedonaman,
As you know the universe is heading for heat death. So the universe is ordered today compared to tomorrow. Scripture tells us that the creation is bound by decay. The real question is how did the order happen. If you stay with science there is no mechanism which allows order to come from disorder. Evolution exist in violation of the laws of entropy. If you believe in the big bang then the bang provided the force in which order happened, order being a nonuniform distribution of energy. Of course the question is how did the bang happen. Science provides no answer. Now we can stop here and say maybe one day we will have a working theory or we can look for other answers outside of science. Lets look at scripture for a moment and see if there is something there that may help. In the creation week we see the terms evening and morning used to describe the creation day. What is odd is on the face it appears that the creation process happened at night. But going back to the original hebrew and looking at the words we find that evening (ehreb) is also in the ancient context means difficult to discern and unclear. Morning (boker) means becoming clear easier to discern. Placing these terms in entropy context instead of times of day makes the verse read as we would expect. The day starts unclear and disorganized and ends becoming clear and ordered. So a force outside of the creation ordered the parts in the creation. Once done the universe was then bound with decay. I find it amazing that Moses would write about the creation in terms that makes sense in science before science took up thermodynamics.
Comment by fbaginski | October 31, 2007
Why does anyone even bother to read ibbleblibble's posts? He spouts endless streams of quasi intellectual nonsense filled with stereotypes and sweeping generalizations. It has become clear that he doesn't know the first thing about religious people. The irony is, he exemplifies the the very traits he attributes to religionists.
This is the very kind of toxic anti-theist I was referring to in post 6. I sure he goes to bed at night satisfied that he has so elegantly refuted the arguments of theists. Right.
The think that defines ignorance is that the ignorant don't know they are.
Comment by Mountain Man | October 31, 2007
mountain man…
sweeping generalizations and stereotypes? like what? i know quite a bit about religious people. i've grown up in the bible belt and am in fact a religious person myself…
i do indeed object to those who say "religious person" yet in fact mean "christian" or "my religion" which they equate with "the only true religion".
exemplifies the very traits i attribute to religionists? because i want my science to be science and my religion to be religion?
i indeed love my christian and islamic fundamentalist brothers and sisters, but in that they do ever try to enforce their beliefs on me, screeching martyrdom when opposed, am i supposed to not oppose them? absurd.
to oppose their attempts to forcefully proselytize is…to persecute them? really?
well, thats the way they work…force their religion then screech persecution when opposed. fine…i'm persecuting by refusing to fold!
Comment by ibbleblibble | October 31, 2007
Case in point. Thanks, ibbleblibble.
Comment by Mountain Man | October 31, 2007
har har har…
happy halloween, mountain man!
Comment by ibbleblibble | October 31, 2007
Ibbleblibble:
Pardon my (accurate) stereotype; From the perspective of a Darwiniac Fundamentalist sanctimonious Barking Moonbat, what is your personal (short meta-version) of…Where did we come from (e.g. origins…)? Why are we here (e.g. soul…)? Where are we going (e.g. fertilizer…)? This would help greatly in recovering what little sense might be salvaged from your bloviations.
Just an aside; I used to try to engage in polite debate, but gave it up as an effort in futility. Now I enjoy Ann Coulter's view of dishing it back while oooing and ahhhing at the eye popping, vein bulging, spittle spraying, aneurysm causing outrage from folks who can't take it. It's just like lighting off bottle rockets. MK
"Some attempt to argue that they don't need God to have morality.
They can live a moral life even though they don't believe in a divine
being. But no one argues that an atheist can't behave in a way one might
call moral. The question is, Why ought he? Trappist monk Thomas Merton
put it this way: "In the name of whom or what do you ask me to behave?
Why should I go to the inconvenience of denying myself the satisfactions
I desire in the name of some standard that exists only in your
imagination? Why should I worship the fictions that you have imposed on
me in the name of nothing?"
A moral atheist is like someone who sits down to dinner who
doesn't believe in farmers, ranchers, fishermen, or cooks. She believes
the food just appears, with no explanation and no sufficient cause. This
is silly. Either her meal is an illusion or someone provided it. In the
same way, if morals exist, as we have argued, then some cause adequate to
explain the effect must account for them. God is the most reasonable
solution." "Relativism, Feet firmly planted in mid-air", Beckwith and Koukl
The basic dilemma here is why "ought" we to behave in any particular
manner rather than another? All arguments for cultural, philosophical,
sociological, anthropological, evolutionary, or communitarian moral
behavior rest in the end, on mere opinion. A more inadequate bulwark to
safeguard your life or liberty behind can hardly be imagined. Dirt Roads Scholar
"In the beginning were the particles and the impersonal laws of
physics. And the particles somehow became complex living stuff. And the
stuff imagined God; But then discovered evolution." Phillip Johnson,
"The Right Questions"
Comment by Michael Kilpatrick | October 31, 2007
Carl:
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=58426
Comment by sedonaman | October 31, 2007
michael
you believe we shaved apes can understand everything in a logical rational way? if so, good for you.
you are wrong.
how could i explain the color blue to one born without ocular nerves?
in terms of morality there are many speculations as to why an atheist can be moral…because you dont understand it cannot be so?
really? no pride here, eh…
perhaps you over impute your own motivation. very few people make it to the highest levels of morality, "god" or not.
where do we come from? why are we here? where are we going?
does christianity answer these questions, and if so how do you or anyone else know?
i'm a bad buddhist (rinzai zen mainly) with gnostic leanings…so those questions dont really interest me too much. but mental masturbation is fun.
i like chocolate cake. i might say chocolate cake makes me happy, but that would be wrong. if i ate two pieces of chocolate cake, would i be twice as happy as if i ate one? if i ate 50 pieces, not only would i not be 50 times happier, i would in fact be far more miserable. chocolate cake is not, therefore, a source of happiness. everything of this world is like this.
there. i hope that was sufficiently moonbatty to satisfy your preconceptions of one who believes differently than you. happy halloween!
Comment by ibbleblibble | October 31, 2007
fbaginski: Chaos wouldn't be chaos if it couldn't sometimes produce order. Indeed, sometimes chaos has to be 'ordered' to prevent the production of order: http://scienceblogs.com/goodmath/2007/07/order_from_chaos_using_graphs_1.php
Comment by Raymond Ingles | November 2, 2007
Mr. Ingles,
Nice theory. I am not sure if I can describe to you the holes in this logic if you can't see them already.
Maybe a picture will help. Draw a box. Add colored dots to the box. But you can't use any energy to add the colored dots. Pretty frustrating isn't it. This is heat death.
While the universe is running down there is a flow of energy from concentrated places to areas where there is low energy. In this environment we exist because we tap into the flow in a variety of ways. Take away the flow and all life and most things we enjoy go away. To start the cycle energy from out side the heat dead area (the universe)must separate or concentrate the energy of the system(the universe). Your graphs are cute but require outside intervention. Far from proving anything they provide at best an interesting mind game over a couple of beers. However, if you do find a way to break the laws of thermodynamics let me know. I am always looking for new cutting edge science.
Maybe another example is in order.
A guy went into his office to start his day. He found that all of the air in the office had collected in one corner of the room. His blood boiled due to the low pressure in the rest of the room. He died.
In this case the air ordered itself into a corner. If you expect me to believe this theory then I must believe this story could be true as well. Sorry, I can't accept the theory.
Comment by fbaginski | November 2, 2007
The problem is, fbaginski, that if your understanding of thermodynamics were correct, the formation of snowflakes - ordered, symmetrical shapes - would not be possible. Oh, but that comes from energy flow, you say? …then how is evolution forbidden? It's not a 'chance' process, though chance plays a part - in the same way that it's not chance that snowflakes form, though the exact shape they take is influenced by chance.
As I've always acknowledged, we don't know what happened before the 'big bang'. But we've got a fairly solid picture about what happened afterward, particularly in our corner of the universe. You are free to believe that a conscious entity organized the effects of the big bang to give rise to stars and so forth - that can't be disproven. But given stars, and Earth, and life (I don't claim at all that abiogenesis is a solved problem), evolution is inevitable, and the evidence supports it.
I recognize you don't accept that evidence having 'chucked most of modern science', in your words. That, there, is more skepticism than I can muster.
Comment by Raymond Ingles | November 2, 2007
Raymond Ingles:
"Before" the big bang? Did time exist before the big bang?
Comment by sedonaman | November 2, 2007
sedonaman - We don't even know what happened at the big bang - our models break down a few femtoseconds (or something like that) after the bang. We aren't sure what happened before that. It'll take reconciling General Relativity with Quantum Mechanics to push further back than that.
Considering our species' poor track record at guessing about things far removed from our experience and the environment we evolved in, I strongly suspect the answer - if we get to it - won't look anything like all the various theories (religious or otherwise) that have been put forth so far.
Comment by Raymond Ingles | November 3, 2007
Raymond Ingles:
OK, here's an easier one: If there was only one body in the universe, would time exist?
Comment by sedonaman | November 3, 2007
Ingles,
As heat energy flows from water it will freeze at some point. The formation of a crystal structure is not a purposeful design. It is a phase state of this particular matter. The term order changes from street language to it's use in entropy. A better term would be design from a cause. So when matter collects to form a sun this is design. The cause from an astrophysics point of view is a nonsymetrical explosion of the big bang. The cause of this nonuniform explosion is not known. The best theory for the explosion I have heard deals with gravity being repulsive in the big crunch. Science deals with cause and effect. The cause for the universe is unknown to science.
When dust collects to form life this is design. The reason this happens is a theory which is a thought. A thought on it's own is outside of entropy. Life is a collection of information and systems which cannot be reconciled with information theory or entropy. Darwin's small steps cannot be used to create the multiple nucleotide changes needed for most systems in life. You could of course prove me wrong. Post all of the steps from any life form to any other life form. Use the simplist life. And of course each step must improve the first lifeform as it changes into the new life form. If you can't show this then natural selection is nonfunctional on a single nucleotide mutation level. Of course this is impossible to do. Faced with this impossible task the Darwinist of the world unite and point to life and say it must have happened. I point to life and say God created it. Neither side has any proof so it falls to belief. I have made my choice, it looks like you have made yours as well.
Comment by fbaginski | November 3, 2007
Fbaginski wrote : "The formation of a crystal structure is not a purposeful design. … So when matter collects to form a sun this is design." How can you say that? The only difference is scale.
You later wrote: "I point to life and say God created it." That's the classic "Goddidit" response of creationists: "At my level of knowledge, with my level of technology, I can't figure out how it works - so Goddidit."
A hundred years ago or a thousand years ago or ten thousand years ago, there were a lot more miracles - because we didn't understand anything about physics or chemistry or astronomy or geology or biology and "Goddidit" was, in our species' ignorance, the only possible answer to a host of questions. Now we know how rainbows work - they aren't miracles. Now we know how stars work - they aren't miracles. Now we know (or at least some of us know) that the earth goes around the sun, not that the sun goes around the earth - that's not a miracle.
The religious apologists who bleat about the "Church of Darwin" want to put the genie back into the bottle and give up looking for answers and retreat back to the Dark Ages of scientific / technological ignorance - because they're more comfortable with miracles.
Fbaginski, in your universe your creator endowed you with a brain and intelligence - why do you want to stop using it and give up and say "Goddidit"?
Comment by PaulBurnett | November 5, 2007
fbaginski, I have to say it appears that you are using some very interesting definitions of 'design' here. First, you say, "As heat energy flows from water it will freeze at some point. The formation of a crystal structure is not a purposeful design." And then you say, "…when matter collects to form a sun this is design."
When enough matter collects into one place, gravity will compress it, and heat and pressure will induce nuclear fusion at some point. It's not 'design' any more than the formation of snowflakes is design. Sure, there were asymmetries and fluctuations in the big bang, but it's not a complete mystery. At a quantum scale, which the big bang appears to have been at the start, random fluctuations appear to be inevitable. Of course not everything's clear about what happened then (as I've repeated ad nauseam) but the picture doesn't quite fit the frame you seem to have picked out.
Comment by Raymond Ingles | November 5, 2007
e=mc^2, or written another way, m=e/c^2. Where did the e come from?
Comment by sedonaman | November 5, 2007
Moving on, fbaginski, you claim that "Life is a collection of information and systems which cannot be reconciled with information theory or entropy." Oddly enough, both of those are used in biology pretty extensively. But your main issue appears to be: "Post all of the steps from any life form to any other life form. Use the simplist life. And of course each step must improve the first lifeform as it changes into the new life form. If you can’t show this then natural selection is nonfunctional on a single nucleotide mutation level."
It's fascinating that the burden of proof is so high there. The proponents of 'design' don't seem to feel the need to meet that level of evidence. If they personally can't understand it, well, it must have been designed. Fortunately, we do have good evidence in some specific cases at that level, e.g. here: http://biology.plosjournals.org/perlserv/?request=get-document&doi=10.1371/journal.pbio.0050126
Most traits are the function of multiple genes rather than a single one, but natural selection - real-worl differential survival - can and does sort out those combinations quite well. That's why it's used for some problems in computer science, after all. And I'd like to note that not all mutations in a sequence strictly have to be positive. They can't be instantly lethal, of course, but study - and computer simulations like Avida - show that occasional 'steps backward' can make other, beneficial adaptations possible later.
And, leaving aside all of that, even if natural selection somehow turned out to be the wrong explanation for how evolution happened, we'd still know that something like the current model of biology had actually happened, quite incompatibly with a literal reading of Genesis. As I've noted before, organisms can be classified into a remarkably strict hierarchy (no lizards with fur or nipples, for example) - the exact same kind of hierarchy we find with, say, literary works that have been copied with occasional mistakes. Common descent is argued for strongly by this measure, because common descent is the only mechanism that produces such nested hierarchies. And then, when you look at the DNA level, even with introns and non-functional DNA, it also forms a nested hierarchy - and it's the same hierarchy we find with morphology. It didn't have to be that way, but it is. Life itself argues for common descent.
Comment by Raymond Ingles | November 5, 2007
Ingles,
The aphid mutation that allows for northern aphids to reproduce more than southern nonmutated aphids is exactly what I asked for. Now take a close cousin of the aphid and find the difference in DNA and track back all of the changes from one species to another. I know that science can't do this. You probably feel that one day the information will be available. I can understand that. Where we differ is that most of the system changes between one species and another require huge (100 nucleotide or more) steps in the DNA at one time. These are the systems that don't break down, the ones the ID people talk about. Now I know we have little data so it is not cut and dry for either side of this debate. But we do know that it took trillions of malaria's to produce a two nucleotide mutation that rendered a drug useless. So for multiple nucleotide steps to occur the population has to be huge or vast amounts of time must go by for the mutation to show up. In either case the numbers don't add up to support evolution.
As for common decent the evidence seems pretty good. But the assumption under this is that evolution happened. Take away evolution and you end up with a common designer. I can point to common parts in a toyota and buick and realize that they share a common design thread. The shared mistakes in DNA makes a good case for common decent but I will wait until we know more about the whole purpose of DNA before I will hang my hat on this theory. To me this is the same as the single nucleotide mutation data. We know so little.
It comes down to the steps needed in the evolutionary process. If the step is too great (irreducible complexity) then the mechanism can't make the change. The ID people show the steps they think the Darwinian mechanism can't bridge. The Darwinist say we just don't know enough to see the smaller steps. Without the data we are stopped.
Comment by fbaginski | November 5, 2007
Fbaganski, saying "Without the data we are stopped." is the coward's way out. Science keeps looking; creationists will just say "Goddidit - we can stop looking now."
Comment by PaulBurnett | November 6, 2007
Paul 69,
Actually the data so far does not support evolution. The single and double nucleotide changes are rare and require huge populations. The malaria mutation for a double nucleotide change took 1 X 10 to the 20th malaria's to show a mutation which would negate a malaria drug. A three nucleotide change would require 1 x 10 to the 40th malaria's. This means that any change that required three or more nucleotide changes at once is beyond the mechanics of evolution. At a trillion malaria's a day it would take 2.739 x 10 to the 23rd years to have enough chances to produce the mutation at a three nucleotide level. This is not some wild guess, this comes from known rates of growth and populations of malaria today.
Comment by fbaginski | November 6, 2007
Fbaginski wrote: "This is not some wild guess, this comes from known rates of growth and populations of malaria today." Unfortunately, that's not true. It is an offhand guesstimate from a creationism apologist in his latest uniformly-badly-reviewed book, who made a sloppy interpretation of a footnote in a research paper he read. See http://pandasthumb.org/archives/2007/11/science-versus-2.html for details.
When are you creationists going to learn that just because, in your ignorance (and I really do mean that in the nice way - perhaps I should say "innocence"), something that you read that sounds vaguely "sciency" or "mathy" may not be at all scientifically or mathematically valid? Read the Panda's Thumb article and let me know.
Comment by PaulBurnett | November 6, 2007
fbaginski,
You're wasting your time. PaulBurnett is so convinced of his rightness and searing intellect, nothing you can say will break through his smug superiority.
You have to remember that just to question evolution in any way automatically places you in the "ignorant religious kook" category. It's a simple and easy way to dismiss you while avoiding cognitive dissonance.
Go find someone to debate who is actually willing to treat you as an equal.
Comment by Mountain Man | November 7, 2007
To paraphrase: Never in the history of academics has so much faith been placed in so few data points as that in evolution.
Comment by sedonaman | November 7, 2007
For Sedonaman, Mountain Man and Fbaginski: Are you planning on watching the upcoming NOVA program, "Judgment Day: Intelligent Design on Trial" on November 13? The press release is available at
http://pressroom.wgbh.org/assets/txt/nova_11.13.07_release_1678.pdf - you might learn something.
Or do you automatically discredit it because it's from the "Church of Darwin"?
Sedonaman, do you have any idea of how many "data points" creationism has, compared to evolution?
Comment by PaulBurnett | November 7, 2007
PaulBurnett:
I probably will not watch it. I use to watch PBS exclusively, but have since concluded that it stands for "Pure B. S." as a result of their Islamic-sanitized "documentary", "Empire of Faith", and their heavy Left-leaning news reporting.
My "data points" comment was not a defense of creationism but a criticism of the theory of evolution which is based on an archaeological record so scant that I believe it is impossible at this time to "connect the dots", so to speak. Any other academic discipline would require much more rigorous proof than that supplied by the few existing data points of evolution. Why can’t people accept that if evolution is a fact, God used it as a tool of creation?
Comment by sedonaman | November 7, 2007
Well, PaulBurnett,
Let's see how dispassionate and objective the creators of the show are: "We felt it was important for NOVA to do this program to heighten the public understanding of what constitutes science and what does not, and therefore, what is acceptable for inclusion in the science curriculum in our public schools." "Vulcan Productions has long been committed to the subject of evolution and its teaching," remarked Vulcan Productions Executive Producer, Richard Hutton.
The producers are "committed to the subject of evolution." Yes, PaulBurnett, we are certainly going to obtain a balanced treatment of both sides of the issue, aren't we?
I will guarantee that we will NEVER see a show that critically evaluates the problems with macro-evolutionary theory, whether on PBS or on any of the "big three" dinosaur media.
Comment by Mountain Man | November 7, 2007
PaulBurnett errs in so many ways that I'm not sure where to begin. Perhaps his most fundamental error is in insisting that "evolutionists have more 'data points' than creationists."
This is absurd on its face, and it is such statements that undermine his credibility here.
Both camps have exactly the same data. The difference is not in the type of data or the amount of data, because it is precisely the same data. We both have the same geologic record. We both have the same DNA strands to examine. We both have the same populations of species with which to compute probabilities and time frames involved for random mutation and natural selection to "do its work." We both have the same nucleotides to study. We both have the same body of fossil evidence to interpret.
The difference is not in the data or the volume thereof. The difference is in how we interpret that data. For every data point you can provide, there are always competing explanations offered by the two competing models. It is the models that differ, not the data.
This is not just semantics. It is an important distinction.
Comment by Steve Sabin | November 7, 2007
PaulBurnett,
Are you honestly so naive as to think that PUBLIC broadcasting is going to present a balanced perspective on this topic? Have you ever heard of the ACLU? Are you unfamiliar with their rabid fascination with enforcing the so called "separation of church and state" and the inability to treat intelligent design as anything but religion?
By your own words you have repeatedly told us in your postings that intelligent design is simply a euphamism for religious indoctrination and should be banned from public schools not because it is bad science, but because it is religious instruction and not science at all.
You know as well as I do that anything favorable to a creationist worldview will never see the light of day on a government-funded medium like PBS. Just not gonna happen. It's about as likely as finding a nativity scene in the PBS lobby.
Comment by Steve Sabin | November 7, 2007
Sedonaman paraphrased: "Never in the history of academics has so much faith been placed in so few data points as that in evolution."
And I responded: "Sedonaman, do you have any idea of how many “data points” creationism has, compared to evolution? "
Then Steve Sabin responded perhaps my "most fundamental error is in insisting that “evolutionists have more ‘data points’ than creationists.”"
That's not what I said (see above). Steve is right: "Both camps have exactly the same data." That's what I was leading up to.
The problem is in interpretation of the data. Actual scientists want to keep looking for more data, while creationists will just say “Goddidit - we can stop looking.” (Except for Michael Behe, who will keep quote-mining actual scientists' research, as is his wont.)
Comment by PaulBurnett | November 7, 2007
Mountain Man 72,
I will never be treated like an equal by someone who has faith in evolution. If someone thinks a monkey is a distant cousin it would be very hard for me to change that world view. With an evolutionary belief comes the belief we are still evolving. By simple logic, one expands into subdivisions the human races into those more evolved than others. Once they get to this point they lose any connection to basic human rights. This falls from logic as well since we are just animals in their eyes. If one truly believes that morals are a creation of man then they evolve as well. This allows for mob rule and leads to the fruits of that environment. The slippery slope that Darwin created has not advanced science one bit. I have seen many people of faith place blinders on. They are so controlled by their tunnel vision. This applies to blind faith in scripture and blind faith in some science.
Scripture is not an easy thing to know the full meaning of any verse. Many times a verse will have multiple meanings and will only be unlocked by another verse. All of this is with human eyes and logic that can be so wrong. I tend to get a general feeling for the meaning and accept that most knowledge in scripture is beyond me. I do talk about scripture alot but always add that one should read it for themself. I also add that this is how I see it and it may not be right.
I am finishing up Richard Dawkins "The God Delusion" in it he says that anyone who does not believe in evolution is mentally ill. He says many more things about people of faith that are pretty revealing about his character. Although I don't like to read this trash he is one of the atheist activist that is forming the arguments for his side. I need to be aware of this material so I can prepare for future debates on this topic. The mindless masses who follow this guy and others like him are the useless eaters who will become cannon fodder in the next war.
Comment by fbaginski | November 7, 2007
Steve Sabin opined that I have "repeatedly told" you that intelligent design creationism "should be banned from public schools not because it is bad science, but because it is religious instruction and not science at all." The last part is certainly true, but I'm quite certain I would never have used the term "bad science" to describe something that is not science at all.
Intelligent design creationism is a pseudoscience, a "theory or speculation having the trappings of science, and presented as science, but not generally accepted as valid by the scientific community. The stated reasons for rejection usually relate to lack of observability, failure to follow the scientific method, be falsifiable, apparently lack of objectivity, or unwillingness to allow neutral outsiders to observe, test, or replicate findings." (http://www.conservapedia.com/Pseudoscience )
So does this mean you're not going to watch the NOVA special?
Comment by PaulBurnett | November 7, 2007
It's worth noting, again, that the model provided by standard geology is correct enough for people to bet tens of billions of dollars on, and win. The model provided by young-Earth creationism… not so much.
And once you grant the validity of those multiple interlocking and mutually-confirming dating methods… evolution falls out naturally, as we see changes in life over time. (Again… we never find fossil pollen in layers where the corresponding plant doesn't exist, even when those layers are a few centimeters apart.) One could presumably argue about whether natural selection is a sufficient explanation for these changes, but you have to grant that they happened, and that natural selection has an impact. (Even Behe grants that.)
Evolution takes the overlapping nested hierarchies of morphology and genetics, and makes predictions. For example, evolution predicted the range where and when fossil intermediates between cetaceans (like whales) and ungulates (like cows) would be… and they were found. Creationism doesn't - can't - make predictions like that. Every new species uncovered is a complete surprise to a creationist.
Comment by Raymond Ingles | November 7, 2007
Raymond,
The finding of oil and gas has nothing to do with evolutionary theory. Nothing. It involves seismic data and then downhole measurements using sophisticated sensors. We can call the strata anything we want and postulate how many millions of years old they are. But the reality is that finding oil is primarily an empirically driven exercise.
So kindly stop opining about how O&G exploration is all about "applied evolutionary theory."
It isn't. And I should know. I work in that business.
I took up your challenge of contacting a working geologist. Care to guess what the first words out of his mouth were?
"Evolutionary theory has yet to contribute so much as one barrell of oil or one cubic foot of gas."
Frankly, my discipline (electrical engineering) has done far more to help with the finding of oil than Darwin could ever hope to contribute. It was electrical engineers who developed spectrum analyzers, fast Fourier transforms, digital computers, nuclear sensors, and downhole tool steering devices.
These are the workhorses of contemporary O&G exploration.
Comment by Steve Sabin | November 7, 2007
No, PaulBurnett, I'm not going to watch it. Why would that be hard to understand? The producers have a foregone conclusion and an agenda.
But of course, that is typical PBS fare. And typical for evolution apologists.
And by the way, if both sides are working from the same dataset, but simply are interpreting the data differently, we have left the realm of science and entered speculation, assumption, and extrapolation. We are left with worldview interpretations of what might have happened. That's not science.
Comment by Mountain Man | November 8, 2007
Fbaginski wrote "The mindless masses who follow this guy (Richard Dawkins) and others like him are the useless eaters who will become cannon fodder in the next war."
Is that a threat or a promise? Do you have more information on the upcoming Christian Reconstructionist / Theocratic Dominionist rebellion against the people and Constitution of the United States? Please tell us what else you know about this "next war."
Comment by PaulBurnett | November 8, 2007
Raymond,
Actually, pollen spores do not always stay in the same strata as their corresponding plant.
http://www.detectingdesign.com/fossilrecord.html#Spores
(I don't usually like to just fire URLs back and forth as proof of anything, by this is a particularly well-written and meticulously documented essay with nearly 100 references cited in the bibliography.)
Flood geology provides a better model to explain what we actually observe in the fossil record, not just regarding pollen, but regarding all other aspects including foliage, vertabrates, and invertabrates. Evolutionary geology assumes that strata correspond to when certain life forms inhabited the planet chronologically. Flood geology assumes that strata corresponds to where certain life forms inhabited the planet and how they would have responded to a cataclysmic event - fleeing, herding, seeking high ground, deluged by mud and water, etc. We would expect to see With a flood model, one would not expect a perfectly uniform layering in every location, because chaotic processes were in action. And of course, this is exactly what we observe with polystrate fossils and huge variations in the so-called geologic column from one location to the next - missing layers, reversed layers, bisected layers, etc.
The fossil record is not the slam dunk for evolution that you so ardently wish it to be. In fact, it presents far more problems for evolution than it solves. Not the least of which is, "How do we explain massive fossil deposits of billions upon billions of animals and plants without catastrophic events such as floods, mudslides, volcanic eruptions, etc. that would cause mass exterminations and rapid burial?" A global deluge accounts for this quite well. Indeed, it predicts it.
Comment by Steve Sabin | November 8, 2007
Burnett,
The war of ideas has been going on for some time now. To capture the minds and souls of the population has been the goal of many ideas since the beginning of the world. The ideas in the Old and New Testament have been with us for 3500 years. The idea of evolution is slightly over 100 years old. As ideas go it is young and time will tell if it will pass the test of time. You appear to be a true believer in your cause. Have you considered what is the end game of Darwin's dangerous idea? Just how does the world look to you with everyone believing in science and the Word suppressed? Since most things in science are theories who will decide what is truth? What is truth?
I think that if the world lost scripture and no one knew the Biblical past it would resurface within a few years. Not the detail but the belief in God. Maybe not in you but I seek my creator and science does not supply a path to that understanding. If the world was science 100% the new idea would be God and the creation. It would sweep aside known science and create a spiritual space to ponder the real important questions of the universe. One has to wonder if in that world you would be an early believer in the new idea.
Comment by fbaginski | November 8, 2007
Mr. Sabin, I didn't say that finding oil depended on evolution; I said it depended on standard geology, i.e. the model of the Earth as ~4.5 billion years old. I never once claimed that finding oil depended on "applied evolutionary theory." (I'd be very interested if you can point to an example of me using those words.) You can even look back at a previous discussion where this came up: http://www.intellectualconservative.com/2007/07/24/the-frightening-specter-of-intelligent-design/
(Interestingly enough, in that previous conversation you didn't state that you worked in the O&G industry; indeed, you specifically claimed a "lack of much knowledge regarding the topic".)
There, and here, I used oil exploration to argue for an Earth drastically older than 6,000 years, not for evolution directly. What does your 'working geologist' have to say about that? You might also have him address this link: http://news-service.stanford.edu/pr/94/940804Arc4170.html
However - as I stated here, and this is a direct quote: "…once you grant the validity of those multiple interlocking and mutually-confirming dating methods… evolution falls out naturally, as we see changes in life over time."
Comment by Raymond Ingles | November 8, 2007
Mr. Sabin, that's an interesting link about pollen - I've actually learned something new, and I thank you. I'll have to do more investigation about the topic. However, I'd still like to point out some complicating factors:
http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/d0d4eea061fe1d04
http://www.skepticfiles.org/evolut/sorfos.htm
Standard geology does not propose a "perfectly uniform layering in every location", and definitely assumes that things like "floods, mudslides, volcanic eruptions" and so forth happened, often on scales far beyond what happens today. Look up the Deccan Traps sometime. What it doesn't assume is that they all happened at the same time. They couldn't have, anyway - look up what the Karoo formation would imply about population density if all the fossils in it lived at the same time.
Comment by Raymond Ingles | November 8, 2007
Mr. Ingles,
You are still persisting in the error that creationists believe in a young earth. A few do, but it is not the predominant position.
Comment by Mountain Man | November 9, 2007
Quoth Mountain Man: "You are still persisting in the error that creationists believe in a young earth. A few do, but it is not the predominant position.
Sorry, but Discovery Institute spokesman Del Ratzsch disagrees: "Although not part of 'official' IDM [Intelligent Design movement] doctrine, some among academic ID advocates, and the overwhelming bulk of lay ID advocates, accept a 'young-earth' version of creationism." (http://www.asa3.org/ASA/education/origins/design2.htm)
My recollection is also that the great majority of creationists are Young Earth Creationists. Mountain Man, do you have a literature citation saying otherwise?
Comment by PaulBurnett | November 9, 2007
Raymond,
I should not have put the words "applied evolutionary theory" in quotes. I knew that you had not penned those words. It was meant to denote skepticism, not to suggest attribution. My bad.
But I do stand by the assertion that standard geology and evolution are inextricably joined at the hip. The standard geology model posits that:
- Uniformatarian deposition is largely responsible for the earth's sedimentary layers, laid down over hundreds of millions of years (but with some acknowledgement of "episodic" cataclysmic events to describe what could not have occurred over millions of years - such as mammoths frozen whole and dinosaurs locked in tooth-to-tooth combat)
- Hydrocarbon deposits are the result of organic decay
- Only certains types of life are found in certain strata, and these strata correspond to evolutionary ages or epochs. If this is doubted, consider the nomenclature assigned to the strata - straight from the pages of the evolution textbook: "Jurrasic" "Devonian" etc.
Evolution is inextricably linked to the standard geologic model of not just an earth that is billions of years old, but of life that is approaching a billion years old on earth as well.
What I strenuously object to is your repeated insistence that standard geology somehow yields predictions about hydrocarbon deposits that are entirely different than flood geology when it comes to where oil and gas will be found (rather than when they were created) and that this is responsible for billions of dollars in revenues. The burden of proof rests with you to substantiate this assertion. And Glenn Morton does not constitute "proof."
As I pointed out, oil exploration is an empirically driven exercise. Magnetometers, gravitometers, surface topology, seismic data, and then downhole data from nuclear sensors, accelerometers, hygrometers, and other sensors are the primary tools of oil and gas exploration and exist quite independently of whether one subscribes to standard geology or flood geology. Indeed, if they did not, then they would never work in those instances in which deposits were the result of cataclysmic events, and even standard geologists are increasingly admitting that only "episodic" catastrophes can explain certain geological features.
Comment by Steve Sabin | November 9, 2007
Actually, Mountain Man, I never claimed anything - either way - about what the 'predominant position' about the age of the Earth is among creationists. However, Mr. Sabin, fbaginski, and others have discussed the age of the Earth here, and I can't see why it would be a problem to respond to them.
Comment by Raymond Ingles | November 9, 2007
Raymond,
My point was not that I personally work as an exploration geologist or in an operating energy company. My point was that I work for a company that makes the sensing equipment for downhole exploration and also the vibration measurement technology used in seismic measurement and seismic signal processing. As I began asking around to the people that actually use this equipment during the time elapsed since my previous comments, I was given an education of sorts. So, the two comments I made are not mutually exclusive.
I will look into the references you posted regarding Karoo. Give me a few days.
As always, thank you for keeping the tone here civil.
Comment by Steve Sabin | N