Evolution vs. Creation

Evolution vs. Creation

There are 223384 comments on the Best of New Orleans story from Jan 6, 2011, titled Evolution vs. Creation. In it, Best of New Orleans reports that:

High school senior Zack Kopplin is leading the fight to repeal the Louisiana Science Education Act of 2008.

Join the discussion below, or Read more at Best of New Orleans.

Gillette

Fairfield, IA

#107868 Jan 6, 2014
lightbeamrider wrote:
<quoted text> You did not answer my question. Was Origin of Species peer reviewed?
There were no peer-reviewed scientific journals extent in the mid-19th century.

But Darwin's book WAS peer-reviewed in the sense that its principles were debated and researched by scientists all over the world and HAVE been for the past 150 years, and Darwin has been shown to be almost completely CORRECT in his original ideas.

And as Darwin's work was verified, the loser in all this, of course, was fundamentalist Christian Bible Creationism. It became clear early on, for example, that because of the evolution of species, there never could have been two distinct "first humans" Adam and Eve, as humanity gradually evolved out of earlier, proto-human species.
lightbeamrider wrote:
<quoted text> They have the credentials and simply come to different conclusions.
False. Your Jesus Freak scientists may have degrees, but they don't CONCLUDE anything. Instead they BEGIN with the a priori RELIGIOUS BELIEF that the Bible's Genesis creation myth is actual, factual history, then they try to shoehorn the scientific evidence into that little shoe box. Whatever doesn't fit into the box (99% of the data, actually) they just dismiss or ignore.

You aren't doing science when you start with a conclusion then reject everything that doesn't fit it. You're doing RELIGIOUS APOLOGETICS.

Check out the Answers in Genesis "Statement of Faith" page:
http://www.answersingenesis.org/about/faith

Scroll to the very bottom, where you read:

"6. No apparent, perceived or claimed evidence in any field, including history and chronology, can be valid if it contradicts the Scriptural record."

In other words, "our strict interpretation of the Bible trumps science, no matter what the scientific evidence says."

Like I said: NOT science, but religious apologetics.
Gillette

Fairfield, IA

#107869 Jan 6, 2014
lightbeamrider wrote:
<quoted text> And you speak for all working scientists?.
I'm repeating to you what I've read on numerous science bogs and university websites, i.e.

Should Scientists Debate Creationists?
http://news.discovery.com/earth/should-scient...

Excerpts:

Eugenie Scott, Executive Director of the non-profit educational organization The National Center for Science Education, discourages scientists from debating creationists, but often advises them as to the most effective approaches if they wish to do so.

In an interview with Discovery News Scott explained that “Creationist ‘scientific” claims must be answered, of course, but the format of a formal debate is not the way to do it.

Creationists specialize in the what’s called the Gish gallop — a rapid-fire listing of supposed weaknesses of evolution that, in a limited-time format of a debate, cannot all be properly answered.This leaves the audience with the incorrect impression that evolution is shaky science.

Debate is a sport, not the way we decide scientifically how the world works.” And there are other concerns.

........

Is There a Debate?

By putting a scientist and a non-scientist on the same stage together, there is a real danger of legitimizing creationism and giving the appearance that both sides are equally valid.

CNN would be widely ridiculed if they invited a member of the Flat Earth Society to debate astrophysicist Neil deGrasse Tyson about whether our planet is round.

This is not an issue of censorship. Anyone is free to hold whatever beliefs or opinions they like, no matter how unscientific or false. But there is no obligation to portray both sides as having equally strong or valid scientific arguments, when by any measure they do not.

Level 2

Since: Jun 12

Location hidden

#107870 Jan 6, 2014
Gillette wrote:
<quoted text>
There were no peer-reviewed scientific journals extent in the mid-19th century.
But Darwin's book WAS peer-reviewed in the sense that its principles were debated and researched by scientists all over the world and HAVE been for the past 150 years, and Darwin has been shown to be almost completely CORRECT in his original ideas.
And as Darwin's work was verified, the loser in all this, of course, was fundamentalist Christian Bible Creationism. It became clear early on, for example, that because of the evolution of species, there never could have been two distinct "first humans" Adam and Eve, as humanity gradually evolved out of earlier, proto-human species.
<quoted text>
False. Your Jesus Freak scientists may have degrees, but they don't CONCLUDE anything. Instead they BEGIN with the a priori RELIGIOUS BELIEF that the Bible's Genesis creation myth is actual, factual history, then they try to shoehorn the scientific evidence into that little shoe box. Whatever doesn't fit into the box (99% of the data, actually) they just dismiss or ignore.
You aren't doing science when you start with a conclusion then reject everything that doesn't fit it. You're doing RELIGIOUS APOLOGETICS.
Check out the Answers in Genesis "Statement of Faith" page:
http://www.answersingenesis.org/about/faith
Scroll to the very bottom, where you read:
"6. No apparent, perceived or claimed evidence in any field, including history and chronology, can be valid if it contradicts the Scriptural record."
In other words, "our strict interpretation of the Bible trumps science, no matter what the scientific evidence says."
Like I said: NOT science, but religious apologetics.
I do not recall referencing anything from answers in Genesis. So why are you bringing that up? Intelligent Design simply means Intelligence as opposed to blind chance.

http://dennisdjones.wordpress.com/2011/07/12/...

“Nihil curo de ista tua stulta ”

Since: May 08

Orlando

#107871 Jan 6, 2014
lightbeamrider wrote:
<quoted text> I do not recall referencing anything from answers in Genesis. So why are you bringing that up? Intelligent Design simply means Intelligence as opposed to blind chance.
http://dennisdjones.wordpress.com/2011/07/12/...
Then please provide clear, unambiguous scientific evidence for this "intelligence".

Then collect your Nobel prize.
Gillette

Fairfield, IA

#107872 Jan 6, 2014
lightbeamrider wrote:
<quoted text> I do not recall referencing anything from answers in Genesis. So why are you bringing that up? Intelligent Design simply means Intelligence as opposed to blind chance.
It means the Christ of the Bible who created everything. DI people have admitted that in unguarded moments. If there were no Christianity, there would be no ID movement.

And ID proponents admit that ID is NOT a scientific theory.

It's nothing but an assertion at this point.

And NO ONE is doing actual research at the moment (according to Michael Behe).
lightbeamrider wrote:
This page simply asserts that it's a scientific theory that things look designed and that therefore there must be a designer.

An assertion like that is NOT a theory, which is "a grand unifying explanation of a large number of facts and data."

The Theory of Evolution, for example, gives us the MECHANISMS (which can be researched and tested), namely genetic modification by means of gene mutation, sexual recombination and genetic drift, PLUS the filtering action of natural selection.

So an actual scientific theory tells us what the mechanisms are and how they work.

Your page just tells us that things look designed, so they must be. How do you (or they) propose testing that?

Level 6

Since: Mar 12

Location hidden

#107873 Jan 6, 2014
lightbeamrider wrote:
<quoted text> Peer review is riddled with all kinds of problem. Most papers are submitted to true believers. Its not like evos are going to submit papers to IDers for peer review or vice versa. It seems you are holding out a double standard in that you discredit IDers for doing the exact same thing evos do. If your case is so strong then i would think you would relish the opportunity to engage IDers on a public forum. Point out the errors of their ways. The site i referenced earlier are actual scientists philosophers etc. Not wannabes or pretenders. By the way was Origin of Species peer reviewed?
http://www.discovery.org/a/2640
http://www.livescience.com/25750-science-jour...
<quoted text>
Imperfections in peer review are acknowledged. But eventually any errors that slip through come to light, especially if the paper in question is one that comes to be frequently referenced by other researchers. Scientists do not expect perfection in a human enterprise.

Virtually every aspect of Darwin's theory HAS been raked over the coals and examined from every angle. There is nothing a scientist loves more than to overturn some current paradigm and show why its wrong. That is an assurance of fame within the science world. Which is why prominence has come to biologists who have managed to force some or other modification to the theory. Gould (who really just explored an issue Darwin had alluded to, PE), Margullis (symbiosis of bacteria instead of competition creating the first eukaryotes), Haldane (population genetics), Kimura (genetic drift rather than NS causing significant changes)- these are giants in biology for this reason.

However, I have seen the sorry state of "peer review" in ID circles. Where are the IDers pointing out Sanfords, Behe's, Snelling's, and other ID/Creationists OBVIOUS ERRORS??? You would think that if they really wanted to create a robust challenge to evolution, they would be as hard on themselves and each other as evolutionists are. Well yes, that WOULD be the case if their target audience was "biological scientists".

But that is NOT their target. Their goals are clearly political and not scientific, and they rely on merely creating something that sounds sciency enough to convince the layman to support their political (and financial) goals. Biologists laugh at this junk, then find themselves thrown into public forums where they are supposed to defend complex science against five minute throwaway lines aimed at public persuasion, not scientific truth.

Frankly, most of what passes for science in ID circles is a con and they know it. But they think they are doing the right thing because Joe-dumb-masses cannot handle the Truth! That is their arrogant view. They think they are defending society. But they sure are not defending science.

But nobody has been

“Be strong ...”

Level 6

Since: Nov 10

...I whispered to my coffee

#107874 Jan 7, 2014
Charles Idemi wrote:
<quoted text> wWho created your very first ancestors?
Go to college and learn about evolution.

As to how abiogenesis occurred I have no idea and neither do you.

The difference is that I admit I have no idea and I admit that science is working to find an answer.

Whereas you will not admit you have no idea and so you guess that your goddidit out of nothing (read the babble) by magic one Thursday afternoon just over 6000years ago because that what a bunch of bronze age escaped slaves said.

“Be strong ...”

Level 6

Since: Nov 10

...I whispered to my coffee

#107875 Jan 7, 2014
Charles Idemi wrote:
<quoted text> In everything there must be a first, who then created that first man and woman?
See above

As an aside, I love the way godbots put an emphasis on the word “must” because they can see no other explanation

Why must? What must? Why not change? Why not adaptation?

Why not the scientific explanations that in the story of this world and universe right back to 10^-32 of a second after the event of the BB is,(bar for a relatively few as yet not understood developments) mostly known, can be demonstrated and is complete understood.

But you prefer to put your faith in complete lack of evidence and bronze age guesswork and therefore insist on “must”
well I be

Westerville, OH

#107876 Jan 7, 2014
ChristineM wrote:
<quoted text>

As to how abiogenesis occurred I have no idea and neither do you.
The difference is that I admit I have no idea and I admit that science is working to find an answer.
.
So, you have no clue, and have faith in some people that in turn, cannot answer your own questions. Now that is "babble".
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

#107877 Jan 7, 2014
lightbeamrider wrote:
<quoted text> I do not recall referencing anything from answers in Genesis.
That's because you're stupid. I found them so why couldn't you? Therefore:

1 - You already knew your BS was creationist apologetics and are therefore lying to us.

2 - As well as being every bit as clueless as we expected, you're FAR more clueless than even you expected. And that's saying something.
lightbeamrider wrote:
So why are you bringing that up? Intelligent Design simply means Intelligence as opposed to blind chance.
No, ID means Goddidit with magic instead of natural forces, which are always fallaciously equated by you guys as "random chance".
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

#107878 Jan 7, 2014
lightbeamrider wrote:
Note the issue is with open access as opposed to closed access journals (like many in biology), so it appears you are missing their point.
lightbeamrider wrote:
Here is a link to another site where those in Science fields are debating the issue. To contribute there has to be civility and one has to join which involves signing up.
http://forums.catholic.com/showthread.php...
I didn't see anything there where scientists were debating the issue at all. Only something about a poll over which religious nuts reject biology and which don't.(shrug)
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

#107879 Jan 7, 2014
lightbeamrider wrote:
<quoted text> Peer review is riddled with all kinds of problem. Most papers are submitted to true believers. Its not like evos are going to submit papers to IDers for peer review or vice versa. It seems you are holding out a double standard in that you discredit IDers for doing the exact same thing evos do. If your case is so strong then i would think you would relish the opportunity to engage IDers on a public forum. Point out the errors of their ways.
They often do. That's why the rare times ID papers get submitted they're retracted or rejected.

However that doesn't stop the DI from doing their OWN research and publishing in their OWN journals. Like ISCID.

Haven't published anything in 8 years.

Might have something to do with the fact of all the "science" they aren't even doing.

“Be strong ...”

Level 6

Since: Nov 10

...I whispered to my coffee

#107880 Jan 7, 2014
well I be wrote:
<quoted text>
So, you have no clue, and have faith in some people that in turn, cannot answer your own questions. Now that is "babble".
Do you? Or do you put your faith in bronze age guesswork?

Honey it’s not my question, it was chas’s question and I answered it with FACT, do you have a problem with FACT?
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

#107881 Jan 7, 2014
lightbeamrider wrote:
<quoted text> Ah the voice of experience.
<quoted text> Assuming you are correct one can lose all the battles and still win the war. Vietnam proved that. Truth always wins in the end.
Translation: "Satan will get you when you're DEAD!"

Truth is you fundies have been lying for thousands of years.(shrug)
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

#107882 Jan 7, 2014
Unsurprisingly Lightbeam's linky to Dennis Jones (who?) is the usual copy-paste of IDcreationist apologetics:

"SCIENTIFIC THEORY: Intelligent Design Theory in Biology is the scientific theory that artificial intervention is a universally necessary condition of the first initiation of life, development of the first cell, and increasing information in the genome of a population leading to greater complexity evidenced by the generation of original biochemical structures."

So what they're saying is that intelligence created life before there was intelligent life.

Now I'm just guessing, but I theorize this paradox is only solved via the application of an invisible Jew wizard.

Level 2

Since: Jun 12

Location hidden

#107883 Jan 7, 2014
The Dude wrote:
<quoted text>
They often do. That's why the rare times ID papers get submitted they're retracted or rejected.
However that doesn't stop the DI from doing their OWN research and publishing in their OWN journals. Like ISCID.
Haven't published anything in 8 years.
Might have something to do with the fact of all the "science" they aren't even doing.
http://www.discovery.org/a/2640

“Merry Christmas”

Level 9

Since: Jan 11

Location hidden

#107884 Jan 7, 2014
lightbeamrider wrote:
They publish science in peer-reviewed science journals, but they don't publish their ID religious speculation in these same journals. They don't even submit the ID speculation to these journals. It would be rejected.

The ID and creationist journals don't offer legitimate peer review, because they reject anything that goes against dogma and the agenda.

Level 2

Since: Jun 12

Location hidden

#107885 Jan 7, 2014
DanFromSmithville wrote:
<quoted text>They publish science in peer-reviewed science journals, but they don't publish their ID religious speculation in these same journals. They don't even submit the ID speculation to these journals. It would be rejected.
The ID and creationist journals don't offer legitimate peer review, because they reject anything that goes against dogma and the agenda.
A little fuzzy on your last sentence. What dogma and agenda are you referring to? A lot of your Iders are not Christian. There is an atheist who defends intelligent design. A lot of evos are christian. They just leave God out of the mix when doing their work. Either way, from an outsiders POV there appears to be a cold war going on which is unusual since most of us put aside our differences to do our jobs and work together. Some even become friends in spite of our differences. The animosity between the two camps is disturbing. Hopefully it is mostly cosmetic.

http://www.examiner.com/article/atheist-defen...

Since: Mar 11

St. Croix valley

#107886 Jan 7, 2014
lightbeamrider wrote:
<quoted text> A little fuzzy on your last sentence. What dogma and agenda are you referring to? A lot of your Iders are not Christian. There is an atheist who defends intelligent design. A lot of evos are christian. They just leave God out of the mix when doing their work. Either way, from an outsiders POV there appears to be a cold war going on which is unusual since most of us put aside our differences to do our jobs and work together. Some even become friends in spite of our differences. The animosity between the two camps is disturbing. Hopefully it is mostly cosmetic.
http://www.examiner.com/article/atheist-defen...
yes, there are stupid atheists...for the most part they tend to be intelligent.

how can an atheist even consider a designer of the universe? seems he's not an atheist...
Gillette

Fairfield, IA

#107887 Jan 7, 2014
lightbeamrider wrote:
<quoted text> A little fuzzy on your last sentence. What dogma and agenda are you referring to? A lot of your Iders are not Christian.
False. 99% are Protestant evangelicals. There may be one Catholic and a Moonie (Jonathan Wells) for variety.

Read the Wedge Document from the Discovery Institute and you will see why I say that there would be no ID movement if there were no Christianity. They are on a crusade to get Bible Christianity back in the schools, basically, by whatever deceptive strategies they can employ.
lightbeamrider wrote:
<quoted text> A lot of evos are christian. They just leave God out of the mix when doing their work.
Yes, that means they are SCIENTISTS DOING SCIENCE, whatever their personal religious or philosophical beliefs. Get the point?

Contrast that to your ID and Creationists who start with a religious premise and twist everything around to try and fit that. These folks are NOT doing science.
lightbeamrider wrote:
<quoted text>Either way, from an outsiders POV there appears to be a cold war going on which is unusual since most of us put aside our differences to do our jobs and work together.
The reason there is a "cold war" is that the Christians involved have, for decades, try to deceptively invade the science classes of our public schools with their religion and have been beaten back repeatedly by our Supreme and District courts,a s well as by scientists and science organizations all around the nation.
lightbeamrider wrote:
<quoted text> The animosity between the two camps is disturbing. Hopefully it is mostly cosmetic.
No, it runs very deeply, and justifiably so.

If you are an established scientist in biology like Stephen Jay Gould was, for example, how could you ever "work together" with evangelical Christians who ignorantly criticize science by quote-mining your published papers and public comments and try and dishonestly make it seem as if you actually DISPUTE evolution, when instead you are one of the leading lights of evolutions science?

Why would real scientists "work together" with religious apologists who are trying to tear down 150 years of established science in order to further and publicly promote their backward Bible beliefs?

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Evolution Debate Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
Are Asians/whites more evolved? (Sep '07) 25 min THOUGHTS 1,879
Beauty is the Lord's Golden Section 36 min Simon 24
Souls have weight .. 21 grams Experiment 52 min Simon 20
News "Science vs. Religion: What Scientists Really T... (Jan '12) 10 hr candlesmell 95,413
News It's the Darwin crowd that lacks the facts in e... (Mar '09) 12 hr 15th Dalai Lama 170,078
Can the universe be God's brain? (Jun '07) 16 hr Dogen 116
SEX did not EVOLVE (Nov '17) 16 hr Dogen 268