Colin Patterson (1933 – 1998) Senior Palaeontologist at British Museum of Natural History
"Just as pre-Darwinian biology was carried out by people whose faith was in the Creator and His plan, post-Darwinian biology is being carried out by people whose faith is in, almost, the deity of Darwin. They've seen their task as to elaborate his theory and to fill the gaps in it, to fill the trunk and twigs of the tree. But it seems to me that the theoretical framework has very little impact on the actual progress of the work in biological research. In a way some aspects of Darwinism and of neo-Darwinism seem to me to have held back the progress of science." The Listener October 8, 1981 p.392
How about a two for Tuesday:
Michael Egnor Professor of Neurosurgery at Stony Brook
"I never use evolutionary biology in my work. Would I be a better surgeon if I assumed that the brain arose by random events? Of course not. Doctors are detectives. We look for patterns, and in the human body, patterns look very much like they were designed. Doctors know that, from the intricate structure of the human brain to the genetic code, our bodies show astonishing evidence of design. That’s why most doctors -- nearly two-thirds according to national polls -- don’t believe that human beings arose merely by chance and natural selection. Most doctors don’t accept evolutionary biology as an adequate explanation for life. Doctors see, first-hand, the design of life." Evolution News & Views: March 2007
--Patterson misquoted
ReplyDeletehttp://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/patterson.html
http://www.arn.org/docs/odesign/od171/colpat171.htm
--Michael Egnor puppet and liar
http://www.expelledexposed.com/index.php/the-truth/egnor
http://pandasthumb.org/archives/2007/03/egnorance-combo-arrogance.html
http://pandasthumb.org/archives/2007/02/dr-michael-egno.html
Interesting stuff, it's amazing the lenghs ID goes to propagate their lie.
Well according to your link Patterson, himself, said:
ReplyDelete"The specific quote you mention, from a letter to Sunderland dated 10th April 1979, is accurate as far as it goes...But I still maintain that scepticism is the scientist's duty, however much the stance may expose us to ridicule. "
It does seem that he bent to secular pressure though, thanks for that.
Attacks against Egnor is to be expected. He is, after all, a man of science against macro evolution. This is a powder keg combination. Expelled showed that. The name calling by folks, and even you, are the status quo. It has been that way for many, many years. They threw people into lion's dens, hung, and burned a great deal of Christians for their beliefs. We just take that type criticism with a grain of salt.
It does seem that he bent to secular pressure though, thanks for that.
ReplyDeleteDan...you didn't read the entire quote, did you?
And that would be the difference between doctors and scientists. Sure, if you merely look at a human, and completely disregard every living organism around it, it would "appear" to be designed. But by taking a step back, we can see that things aren't always as they appear. Just like a chimps DNA sequence is 95% homologous to humans. You wouldn't know it just by looking at it, as this doctor implies that you can.
ReplyDeleteAntzilla already showed the other citation was misquoted. If you worked in the field of biology, you would understand that everything people do is based off of evolution. There would be little understanding or progress without it. Posting quotes that completely misrepresent what evolution is in a scientific term without spending the time to understand the experimentation and data that support it is intellectually disappointing and harmful.
Seek,
ReplyDeleteDan is famously intellectually churlish and lazy.
He has no comprehension for math or science, a compltely emotional creature that believes what makes him feel warm and fuzzy.
He constantly lies and misrepresents. The only matter to me is if it is purposeful and he knows what he is doing, or if he is actually that ignorant.
@Froggie - It does appear that way. I haven't followed too many of the posts here, so I reserve my approach until I know one way or the other.
ReplyDeleteI have many theistic friends, many of whom are highly intelligent and work with me in biology. They all understand evolution. It's disappointing that theists cast evolution as a "belief", as opposed to valid scientific theory, because it is not a matter of belief. Evolution is simply the best theory we have to explain the data available to us. It is just frustrating when people rely on misguided quotes and biased information as their source of knowledge, rather than spending the time to actually understand why science relies on evolution. Posts like this clearly demonstrate the author's lack of scientific comprehension on the subject.
Seek the Truth,
ReplyDelete>>Just like a chimps DNA sequence is 95% homologous to humans.
The only thing hindering science is secular humanist scientists that push their agenda when very intelligent and reasonable people know better. Case in point, the failed presupposition that chimps and humans having the same ancestry.
I will link to ICR to frustrate people that claim I rely biased information. :7)
(http://www.icr.org/article/5292 or http://www.icr.org/article/4624/)
You are completely delusional to think that Darwin, and his concepts, have not destroyed quite a bit. They took out appendixes, tonsils, glands, etc., on the assumptions that those vital organs were vestigial at a time because of the evolutionary presuppositions, and simply have destroyed many lives.
We are cleaning up the atheistic worldview mistakes about this universe.
Don't you think that evolution is a biased concept in itself?
Now, go seek the truth.
So... your source is the institute for creation research? And you are claiming that I'm the one that biased. Did you even read the Nature article? The "conclusion" that the ICR came to was completely different than that of the authors who said:
ReplyDelete"We suggest that this renovation, involving both architecture and genetic repertoire, was propelled by a combination of factors acting in synergy. Three of these factors distinguished the evolving hominid MSY from the bulk of the genome: (1) the highly disproportionate role of MSY genes—especially ampliconic gene families—in sperm production, (2) the brisk kinetics of ectopic recombination and resultant structural change in ampliconic regions, and (3) the absence of crossing over with a homologue, which creates the opportunity for a single advantageous mutation to dictate the evolutionary fate of the MSY (‘genetic hitchhiking’)1, 3. The evolutionary effect of these three MSY features was probably multiplied by sperm competition, especially in the lineage of the modern chimpanzee, in which several males mate with the same female at each oestrus."
You merely proved yet again the ability to cite misquotations, as the ICR came to a misinformed conclusion on their own bias. The real conclusions are:
1. There is 95% or greater homology between the autosomal chromosomes, which the Y chromosome is not a part of.
2. The Y chromosome has a different evolutionary history than the other autosomal chromosomes.
2. Because the Y chromosome is a sex-determining chromosome, mutations have a vastly increased ability to influence survival over autosomal genes.
The authors explain this with great clarity. Obviously, evolution is a theory that needs refining and constant tweaking to account for new data, although refining a theory does not say that the theory is wrong. But your attempt to cite one single paper out of context to prove your point makes it all the more disappointing and less credible. Please, as a scientist, I implore you to conduct better research before you come to such opinions. Reading ICR propaganda and automatically assuming their stance as your own without doing your own research is a travesty. You can help make this world a better place.
And your assertion that vestigial organs have "destroyed many lives" is completely unfounded. How can you possibly justify such a statement? I am baffled. Please, explain.
ReplyDeleteSeek,
ReplyDelete>>So... your source is the institute for creation research? And you are claiming that I'm the one that biased.
Well that was my ironic intention.
>>Did you even read the Nature article?
Yes
>>The "conclusion" that the ICR came to was completely different than that of the authors who said:
Bingo, now why is that? Is that because they take evolution as the primer or presupposition, before the evidence?
Evolutionary theory artificially rules out a kind of cause before it has a chance to speak by the evidence. The cause of intelligence. This is why they pigeon hole themselves and scientists often wear, with pride, the title of metaphysical naturalism. Do you now see the dangers of scientists taking philosophical positions such as this?
Please I implore you, as a scientist, to conduct better research before you come to such opinions. Reading evolution propaganda and automatically assuming their stance as your own without doing your own research is a travesty. You can help make this world a better place.
Yes, you are correct. That is exactly why the ICR came to a different conclusion, because they needed to fit the data to their own creationist bias. And you claim to fight this by doing the exact same thing you rail against? Because of your "creation" bias, you seek to just contest evolution on philosophical grounds as well.
ReplyDeleteScience is based on fact, based on evidence. Evolution is a scientific theory because it's based on the information we have. There is no evidence of some "intelligent designer" because things are not very well designed.
But if you are so convinced that evolution is false, than feel free to prove it wrong. All you need is one fact, one bit of information that is irrefutable proof that evolution is false. This does not include re-interpreting data to fit your bias. That's the beauty of science - at any point one fact can upend the entire theory. But evolution is still around because there has been nothing to disprove it.
So how would you explain how this "intelligent designer" worked to produce what we have? Creation? From nothing? To what extend did he "design" life? What "proof" can you offer to show that evolution is false in favor of your scenario?
As for the direct proof in our lifetime of evolution, check out the research being done at Michigan State: http://myxo.css.msu.edu/ecoli/
Seek,
ReplyDelete>>And your assertion that vestigial organs have "destroyed many lives" is completely unfounded.
Unfounded huh? Have you ever Goggled "tonsillectomy Hodgkin’s disease"? Just the fact that 68,500 websites show up shows that there is certainly an "issue."
There have been studies that shows the link between the two.
Also, there has been panicky secular scientists that must refute it because of the evolutionary implications. Paid scientists tend to be slightly biased in their information for fear of losing funding.
Noticed my bias? I certainly have one and so do you if you are honest. Please understand that science it itself may indeed be neutral, but scientists (mankind) certainly is not.
Many organs were found to have an important role in the human body way back in the 1920's. Yet even in 1999 many Science books still label many organs as vestigial. Is that still true, are they vestigial? Does the appendix has a role to play in our immune system?
Additionally, Darwin is hailed specifically because he did not have any preconceptions as to how to explain life, other than from a creationist point of view. And yet, he still concluded that life's diversity is explained by evolution by natural selection.
ReplyDeleteIt's the same bias and basis that went into heliocentricity, the Big Bang and cosmology, as well as the rest of scientific theory. There is simply no proof of a god, and without that proof, we cannot use that as an basis of a valid scientific theory. There may very well be a god. Science cannot prove otherwise. But the existence of non-existence of a god cannot be a presumption of science, which only explains the data, information that we can access.
Seek,
ReplyDelete>> Because of your "creation" bias, you seek to just contest evolution on philosophical grounds as well.
And does that not stand true for you as a metaphysical naturalist? If you are honest that is.
After all is it not true that evolution will falsify creation? Will not creation falsify evolution? If you are honest, that is.
>>But if you are so convinced that evolution is false, than feel free to prove it wrong.
Don't worry, we are. All you need is one fact, one bit of information that is irrefutable proof that evolution is false.We need to bear in mind that anyone who claims science "proves" anything as "true" (like evolution) misunderstands the basic tenets of the scientific method. Are you sure you are a scientists as you claim that you are?
It might be time to call you out in a lie, but I will await for some evidence to the contrary of what I believe.
>>As for the direct proof in our lifetime of evolution, check out the research being done at Michigan State: http://myxo.css.msu.edu/ecoli/
I am calling you out, you student. Viruses and bacteria may indeed evolve much like dogs being of different sizes and colors. But to say that we evolved from bacteria or viruses would take some, just some, evidence of such a wild claim. Is that what you are claiming, student seek?
Well, I couldn't access the article you posted. But yes, of course I am bias. Everyone is. I just hope that you can see your bias and remain open-minded enough to consider the facts of evolution. Too often people recognize their bias only to let it prevent them from ever considering alternative theories. As for doctors and vestigial organs, yes they are people too. Science makes mistakes, doctors make mistakes. The old saying goes, today's practice is tomorrow's malpractice. But vestigial does not necessarily mean useless, although it often does. It just means that the usage has changed. So it is the doctors or researchers faulty assumption that because the appendix is a vestigial organ, that it is not useful.
ReplyDeleteAgain, intelligent design is simply not supported by data. It's merely a retooling of the creation idea, but allowing for some evolution. Unfortunately, they both rely on the presence of a "designer" or "creator" to which has never and can never be proven. It is too often the problem when you try and combine belief and physical proof. You can believe in God, but you cannot prove God's existence. Without that proof, intelligent design can never be a valid theory.
No, I never claimed that science can "prove" anything. A theory can never be proven, only disproven. And yes, I am a student. Maybe you should consider returning to school. You might learn a thing or two.
ReplyDeleteBut clearly, you know less about evolution that you claim, and I'm calling you out. Evolution does NOT claim that we came from bacteria or viruses, just like we did not come from monkeys or chimps. Make sure you actually understand what you are arguing against before you try and do so.
Student Seek,
ReplyDelete>>Additionally, Darwin is hailed specifically because he did not have any preconceptions as to how to explain life, other than from a creationist point of view.
Bwahahahaha. Are you for realz? Do you think Darwin was devastated when his daughter Annie died? Did you know that by then his faith in Christianity had dwindled, and he had stopped going to church? Ummm, your presuppositions are showing, you might want to cover that up.
>>It's the same bias and basis that went into heliocentricity...
heliocentricity is in the Bible. Just because some false religion (RCC) disagreed and persecuted people for it doesn't mean that Christianity or Creationism is false, dude.
>>the Big Bang
Dude!! You do understand that Lemaitre, the priest, who held the presupposition that there was a beginning, found the evidence of the universe having a beginning. In contrast Einstein went to his death bed not wanting to believe that fact because of the implications of a Creator. He died believing of a Steady State Universe and yet the evidence showed that it was false. Pretty powerful those presuppositions are, huh?
As for cosmology was anyone there to observe it? God was.
>>There is simply no proof of a god, and without that proof, we cannot use that as an basis of a valid scientific theory.
Again you totally misunderstand the basic tenets of the scientific method. Sad student seeking scientist.
>>There may very well be a god. Science cannot prove otherwise.
Very good point, now you are a thinking student. There is hope yet. D’Souza said "Science is an attempt to understand the natural world in a natural way. Science then in that sense is restricted to natural explanations for natural phenomena. If a natural explanation is inadequate then science stops."
So is macro evolution testable, repeatable, and verifiable? I am not talking viruses or bacteria either. If not then it is not science.
The current paradigm is evolution. Everything MUST fit into that paradigm, otherwise the paradigm must change. Until that changes the data will be lost and misinterpreted.
Seek,
ReplyDelete>>Well, I couldn't access the article you posted.
Try http://bit.ly/Evopresups
Get it? Evolution Presuppositions. I crack myself up.
>>I just hope that you can see your bias and remain open-minded enough to consider the facts of evolution.
Open minded? doubtful. Hopeful? Never.
Are you open minded about God?
>>Too often people recognize their bias only to let it prevent them from ever considering alternative theories.
Like people that claim Atheism. Got it.
>>Science makes mistakes, doctors make mistakes.
Science? Not so much. Secular Scientists? Plenty.
>>Again, intelligent design is simply not supported by data.
Sure it is, just none that you will accept.
>>It's merely a retooling of the creation idea, but allowing for some evolution.
Let's be clear, I hold true, and show evidence for, Biblical Creationism. You will not have to worry about me and semantics with "ID" like that Kitzmiller v. Dover failed trial.
>>Unfortunately, they both rely on the presence of a "designer" or "creator" to which has never and can never be proven...You can believe in God, but you cannot prove God's existence.
Never say never. It will be evidenced by you someday. I just pray that day will be during your lifetime.
>>No, I never claimed that science can "prove" anything.
"Without that proof, intelligent design can never be a valid theory."
>>A theory can never be proven, only disproven.
Maybe now you will understand why we, as creationists, are doing just that. Just admit that is why you, as an evolutionist, is doing the exact same thing. They each falsify each other. And the battle begins.
>>Maybe you should consider returning to school. You might learn a thing or two.
My education did nothing but teach me about evolution, and I was raised an Atheist. It was not until I was in my twenties did I found out the truth, that falsified evolution for me.
>>But clearly, you know less about evolution that you claim, and I'm calling you out.
Please do and keep me honest (closer to God)
>>Evolution does NOT claim that we came from bacteria or viruses, just like we did not come from monkeys or chimps.
Yes I know, you claim that we have the same "ancestry" as monkeys and chimps. Others have said that evolution is evidenced by the mutation of bacteria and viruses so I was merely circumventing that discussion. My apologies.
I do hope you understand that I am merely poking fun at you and just having a fun time. You are welcome to show me evidence that contradicts God, but just be prepared and bring your "A" game.
Dan
ReplyDeleteEvolutionary theory artificially rules out a kind of cause before it has a chance to speak by the evidence.
Baloney. Even Charles Darwin was at one point a believer in some sort of "creation". Even people before Darwin used to believe in a global flood before the evidence started accumulating against it.
Read again Ronald Number's book The Creationists for more details.
Dan
...before Darwin used The cause of intelligence. This is why they pigeon hole themselves and scientists often wear, with pride, the title of metaphysical naturalism. Do you now see the dangers of scientists taking philosophical positions such as this?
Dan, you do realize that it is not the secular scientists in general who do that, but the creationists? It is the ICR, AIG crowds who have the oaths that they must agree to beforehand before anyone can join and start their "research". Those oaths basically make them promise to never change their mind about what they already believe, even before they start.
example
By definition, no apparent, perceived or claimed evidence in any field, including history and chronology, can be valid if it contradicts the scriptural record. Of primary importance is the fact that evidence is always subject to interpretation by fallible people who do not possess all information.
On a side note, Dan, I see that you've not done any reading on vestigial organs.
A vestige is defined, independently of evolutionary theory, as a reduced and rudimentary structure compared to the same complex structure in other organisms. Vestigial characters, if functional, perform relatively simple, minor, or inessential functions using structures that were clearly designed for other complex purposes. Though many vestigial organs have no function, complete non-functionality is not a requirement for vestigiality (Crapo 1985; Culver et al. 1995; Darwin 1872, pp. 601-609; Dodson 1960, p. 44; Griffiths 1992; Hall 2003; McCabe 1912, p. 264; Merrell 1962, p. 101; Moody 1962, p. 40; Muller 2002; Naylor 1982; Strickberger 2000; Weismann 1886, pp. 9-10; Wiedersheim 1893, p. 2, p. 200, p. 205).
Note some of those dates.
That is the "Public secular school system" discussion.
ReplyDeleteReynold,
ReplyDelete>>Dan, you do realize that it is not the secular scientists in general who do that,
Oh no never the precious secular scientists with their vestigial organs, their faulty peer reviews, and their ousting the Creationists (See Expelled, the movie)
>>but the creationists? It is the ICR, AIG crowds who have the oaths that they must agree to beforehand before anyone can join and start their "research".
Ah ha! You admit now that the " ICR, AIG crowds" are indeed scientists. Great. Couldn't resist.
>> Those oaths basically make them promise to never change their mind about what they already believe, even before they start.
There is no such thing as neutral! Again see "Expelled, the movie"
>>On a side note, Dan, I see that you've not done any reading on vestigial organs. linked to a bla, bla, secular, secular website, biased, presuppositions...
What happened to neutral, you hypocrite? You know full well that Talk Origins "promises to never change their mind about what they already believe, even before they start."
You don't know anything about me. I believed in God for 20 years. But God is a belief. Not a fact. That's why they call it faith. How do you expect to prove God's existence? I think you overestimate the ability of science if you think you can prove God in our lifetime. Until you can prove God, there is no scientific basis for your claim. Therefore, no scientist can accept creation.
ReplyDeleteLook, my bias and your bias are different. You read the Bible. You believe it is true, and thus you believe God is true. Thus, you bias yourself to try and confirm the Bible as science, when it was never written as such. I believed the Bible was 100% true, but now I can't see how it could possibly be.
Thank you for clarifying what ID you subscribe to. But I don't consider ID to be creation. Creation is different. Creation is spontaneous appearance. ID is roughly God+evolution. It's kind of murky, cause I'm not sure anyone really agrees.
All I'm saying is there is a different between science and belief. No scientist can ever consider God unless there is proof. If you manage to prove God, then the whole world will be turned upside down.
And if you do, props to you. If you don't, then it remains in the realm of philosophical belief, not science.
Seek,
ReplyDelete>>Until you can prove God, there is no scientific basis for your claim. Therefore, no scientist can accept creation.
By far the saddest thing I have heard in a while. Did you even read a recent post of mine?
Remember what I said, Faith is a loyalty or allegiance to God. That is what the water baptism is for, to show your covenant you have made with God. You just broke that covenant that you promised not to. You broke your promises. He did not.
>>Thus, you bias yourself to try and confirm the Bible as science, when it was never written as such.
I agree it is written as a historical narrative but it certainly is scientifically accurate.
>>I believed the Bible was 100% true, but now I can't see how it could possibly be.
Sucks to be such a flaky you. How do you know that you are 100% certain now? Science? Science has been wrong in the past and I can assure you that it will be wrong in the future. That is what makes science, science and not the dogma that Atheists proclaim it to be. You do understand that evolution could indeed be proven wrong. Then where will you be? Stuck with a worldview that does not makes sense. That is OK though, as long as you are alive you can find God again. Are you 100% certain that you will not die tomorrow? You see that is why this conversation/subject is so important.
>>If you manage to prove God, then the whole world will be turned upside down.
And it will indeed. Have patience and hope God does also. I don't believe I will show proof of God but you never know. Moses sure thought he was the wrong guy. (Exodus 4:10)
Remember as of now, this minute, it's not too late...
I broke a promise that was made for me. I did not have a choice in what religion I was raised. No, there is no certainty in this life. And no, I assure you it does not suck to be me. For the first time in my life I am at peace with my place in the universe. I appreciate your concern though. But tell me, which creation story of the Bible to you ascribe to? The one from Genesis chapter 1 or from chapter 2? They are not the same. No, I didn't need science to tell me the Bible wasn't 100% true. I simply read it.
ReplyDeleteAnd it seems quite arrogant of you to assume that your Christian version of creation is the correct one. There are many more than your version, as I'm sure that any Muslim, Hindu, Buddhist, or Navajo could tell you. The fact that it requires you to ascribe to a certain faith leads you to search for a physical truth based on a philosophical concept.
Without proof of God, how can you be so sure of his existence? If you are being honest, you would admit that you cannot know.
And yes, I read the other post. How is that a surprise or revelation? Yes, people believed in God merely because they had no other viable alternative. This is clearly seen with the evolution of religion over time. The concept of God has always been used to explain what we didn't know. There wasn't a good explanation of our existence until the advent of cosmology and evolution. Only now are we finally at the point where we don't need to rely on belief as the sole method of explanation.
I am not trying to convince you of my point. Clearly, you have your beliefs and I have mine with no foreseeable middle ground. But I simply cannot grasp why you would consider a story written 2500 years ago as modern day evidence of our existence. You are simply taking a historical story out of context. To say that the Bible is scientifically accurate is impossible to concede, because modern science wasn't around then.
It's honestly a shame we couldn't have this conversation in person. I think it would be far more effective and engaging, but this back and forth commenting isn't really conducive to debating effectively. So I won't be bothering to respond further on this post; I think I've said everything I wish to say given the format. I appreciate your patience and thought, not withstanding the several unnecessary personal interjections. You may want to keep those to yourself next time.
Dan
ReplyDeleteWhat happened to neutral, you hypocrite? You know full well that Talk Origins "promises to never change their mind about what they already believe, even before they start."
Back up that accusation now. Show the quote or oath or whatever where the TO people say that, please. Or admit that you're just full of it.
I note that other than making a stupid joke about me calling creationists "scientists" which I never did, you had nothing to refute that fact that those people make up their mind before they are allowed to do any "research". Yet you're the one talking about the "evolutionist" presuppositions?
If you're going to be a hypocrite Dan, you could at least not also be stupid about it.
As for "Expelled", that movie has been shown to be pure bullshit, especially when they (a side note, I know) talk about antisemitism.
Reynold,
ReplyDeleteYou know full well that Talk Origins "promises to never change their mind about what they already believe, even before they start.
>>Back up that accusation now. Show the quote or oath or whatever where the TO people say that, please. Or admit that you're just full of it.
That is easy. First, I can show the percentage of positive creation verses positive evolution articles. Not all scientists believe in evolution but they take it upon themselves to defend it. If the articles are over 50 percent favoring evolution they hold the presupposition of evolution as being truth. Otherwise the percentages would say otherwise. Go to AiG and count the percentage as a fine example.
The quick links in TO for the very first three are, Evidence for Evolution, Human Evolution, and An Index to Creationist Claims.
Notice the almost second-person narrative of the last one. Might as well of said "Index to those Creationists Claims." Their opening statement is:
"Creationist claims are numerous and varied, so it is often difficult to track down information on any given claim. Plus, creationists constantly come up with new claims which need addressing. "
Again, notice the second-person type of narrative as "those Creationists" instead of a more neutral third person narrative. Be honest here. We are adults.
Second, showing of the bias is the section of the organizations that they support. The "Supporting Science Education" section of their website. The list includes links to some 13 states with links to their very biased organizations against Christianity and Creationism. Here is the very first one as a case in point. You are completely intelectually dishonest if you cannot see the bias of these supported organizations.
Now admit that you're just full of it. Or be ridiculed for your hypocrisy.
Dan:
ReplyDeleteYou know full well that Talk Origins "promises to never change their mind about what they already believe, even before they start.
Me asking Dan to prove it:
Back up that accusation now. Show the quote or oath or whatever where the TO people say that, please. Or admit that you're just full of it.
That is easy. First, I can show the percentage of positive creation verses positive evolution articles. Not all scientists believe in evolution but they take it upon themselves to defend it. If the articles are over 50 percent favoring evolution they hold the presupposition of evolution as being truth. Otherwise the percentages would say otherwise.
Maybe it's because evolution has the evidence on their side?
You refused to do what I asked: I asked you to:
"Show the quote or oath or whatever where the TO people say that, please"
Dan
Go to AiG and count the percentage as a fine example.
It's NOT the percentage, Dan. They have an actual oath that they must adhere to before they even start research. TO does not. How's that for "presuppositions"?
At least some TO writers, like Glen Morton used to be YECs themselves. Others like Steven Schimmrich are christian. Whereas places like ICR, AIG, etc only hire christians. You have to be their particular kind of christian before you're allowed to join. Does any science organization have that?
Dan
Again, notice the second-person type of narrative as "those Creationists" instead of a more neutral third person narrative. Be honest here. We are adults.
What would be more "neutral"? Good grief. Those guys are just telling the truth. The people whose claims they're dealing with are creationists, while they are not.
Dan
Second, showing of the bias is the section of the organizations that they support. The "Supporting Science Education" section of their website. The list includes links to some 13 states with links to their very biased organizations against Christianity and Creationism. Here is the very first one as a case in point.
Dan, did you bother to actually read what that site says? You claimed that they were "against Christianity"?
Well, let's look:
CCFS is not an anti-religious organization. In fact, many of our members are people of faith. All of its members do believe, however, that science is the only way that humanity can understand the natural world.
As I pointed out earlier, even TO has believers as well. Additionally, they have links to creationist sites. I've yet to see a creationist site reciprocate as much.
Also, in their articles, they have links to what the creationists say about what the TO people just wrote.
Dan
Now admit that you're just full of it. Or be ridiculed for your hypocrisy.
I've said before Dan, if you're going to be a hypocrite, you could at least try not to be stupid about it.
Reynold,
ReplyDelete>>Dan, did you bother to actually read what that site says? You claimed that they were "against Christianity"?
That is what I said. Anyone can claim Christianity but to be a Christian, by definition, they must meet the criteria of the Bible. If someone says they are Christian and in the same breath doesn't believe that God created the universe (creationism, The belief that existing things were called into being by God's command) is not a Christian.
I know that you get my point and and I get yours. Discussing TO will only get a stalemate. My bias towards TO can be noted for the record. Moving on?
Dan
ReplyDeleteThat is what I said.
And you have yet to back it up. All you do here is say that they're not christian.
I never said that they all were. Some are, some aren't. Even if they don't believe in a literal Genesis. Neither, supposedly, do the theocons in the Discovery Institute, but no one would say that they are not christian. You know, people like Philip Johnson?
He doesn't believe in a literal genesis either.
Anyone can claim Christianity but to be a Christian, by definition, they must meet the criteria of the Bible. If someone says they are Christian and in the same breath doesn't believe that God created the universe (creationism, The belief that existing things were called into being by God's command) is not a Christian.
And here you show that you missed my point. I was refuting your charge that TO was anti-christian.
I was not trying to say that they were a christian organization.
Got it?
Great finds, Dan!
ReplyDelete