This is the 1st of a 3-part series on the Evolving Post-Darwin Evolutionism
Evolutionists have dubbed 2009 the Year of Darwin, to commemorate both the 200th birthday of Charles Darwin and the 150th anniversary of his book, The Origin of the Species. As one might well have guessed at the outset, Darwinists were very encouraged by this supernatural alignment of the heavens and have gone out of their way to praise Darwin and to push their evolution agenda more boldly and more zealously [and one can’t help but think, more desperately]. This past year the public has been absolutely soaked by their evolution-praising saturation of the airwaves, major media, the Internet and even our pulpits. They have filled the world with their cry:
“There is no science but naturalism and Darwin is its Prophet!”
And now the year is over. And so is the party. As we take a moment to reflect upon what they accomplished or hoped to accomplish by this hue and noise, something occurs to us:
They still got nothing more than they had back in December 2008.
They turned up the volume for a bit there, but it was the same old song we’ve been hearing. Honestly, I’ve never been impressed the guys who think they can win an argument by shoutng the other fellow down. They haven’t won the argument. They’ve stopped the argument; but not won it. Nobody can hear any other side of the debate but theirs; but that says nothing to the point of whether their side of the argument was right or not.
I’ll speak plainly: The origins argument cannot be won by dint of volume alone. People won’t put up with it for long before they start to suspect that the reason you don’t want anyone to even listen to the other guy’s side is because you can’t answer it. Neither is truth – even science – a popularity contest. It’s not up for a vote. It never has been. It doesn’t matter at all whether or not the latest consensus of science affirms evolution. We laugh at the past consensus of science as a consensus of nonsense. Geocentrism. Phlogiston. Humors. Bleeding a patient. Lamarckism. And I firmly believe that once the High Wall of Protection that Big Science has placed around the theory of evolution is torn down, Darwinism will be at long last added to that long list of consensus nonsense.
In a way, it already has been. But we’ll get to that in Part 2 of this series.
These guys aren’t even willing to debate the issue anymore. It’s all, “Darwin said it. I believe it. That settles it,” as it were. They demur that they don’t want to give anyone the impression that Creationism is at all credible. They’re afraid that the very word “debate” might erroneously imply that anyone seriously objects to the Party position or that any noteworthy scientific objections to evolution exist at all. In fact, it has been noted that the late Stephen Jay Gould refused several times to debate Dr. John Morris simply because Morris was a scientist not a preacher – and Gould wanted to make sure the audience retained a false impression of the debate in terms of a dichotomous religion versus science canard.
Their alleged “rottweiler,” Richard Dawkins, is bold enough to snarl from the safety of printed word and the insulation of a sympathetic media, but Darwin’s Weiner Dog [for what rottweiler would act so?] will not champion his beliefs against an informed opponent. He’s content to yap boldly from the safety of his fenced yard, feigning supremecy in his dominance of his territory, forgetting all the while that if someone took away his protective hedge, if he dared step outside and face his rivals, they’d make a pretty sweet chew toy out of him.
You see, I suspect these evolutionists, they’re simply cowards.
The fact is, when you get right down to the nuts and bolts of science, this appeal to authority they’re hiding behind [for that’s what they do when they say the issue is settled or that there is no debate], and similar things things like credentialism, popularity or consensus, well, at best it’s unscientific – and it’s antiscience at worst! Consensus science doesn’t want investigation. Not if it questions the Establishment. It discourages skepticism of the norm, which in turn discourages innovation and progress. Consensus science doesn’t want honest scientific inquiry and open debate. No, it simply wants to browbeat us into submission.
“Stop thinking, you fool! We’ve already thought it all out for you! And we’re much smarter than you. Besides you’ll encourage those filthy Creationists. Now eat your dogma or you can stay at the kid’s table. It’s for your own good, of course…”
When free inquiry is thus suppressed and generally discouraged, science is barely possible. Of course, consensus science – and here’s a dity little secret the darwinists don’t want you dwelling on – isn’t really science at all. It’s simply a power grab. Real science always occurs when we question the established base of knowledge. Real science tests the boundaries for weaknesses for new areas to explore. It colors well outside the lines.
The good news is that the new consensus eventually supplants the old regime and assigns its predecessor the uneviable status of antiquated pseudoscience. Passing heresy. Scientific fad.
The bad news is that science really isn’t self-correcting, not in the way we’re led to believe anyhow. Most of us picture a stalwart young scientist [Let’s call him Larry Labcoat] who makes a new discovery which modifies or completely falsifies an existing theory; Larry’s discovery is investigated by other scientists and then quickly accepted by his peers because, well, it’s science, right? We imagine lots of these little Larry Labcoats constantly doing science and causing existing theories to be in a progressive state of revision, refinement, modification, falsification. We call it progress.
But it’s now been acknowledged the reigning consensus or paradigm is not replaced in this manner. Instead, young scientists grow up under the influence of a new heresy that is fought tooth and nail by the Old Guard. Larry Labcoat doesn’t correct science by careful and patient research, but rather by attrition. The Old Guard dies and its cherished dogma with it and is replaced by a younger generation that thinks Larry had it right. Their heresy becomes the new dogma.
But only if the Old Guard fails to influence the new generation instead of Larry.
Darwinists realize this. Right now, Big Science is evangelizing the next generation with an aggressiveness not before seen. They are determined that Darwin should outlive them, to pass the torch, so they are using Big Lies, mockery, persecution of dissenters and outright propaganda to try to convince the next generation that Larry labcoat is completely full of coprolites! We’re seeing the rise of the mockstar. They’ve sicced Richard Dawkins [Darwin’s Weiner Dog], Sam Harris [Darwin’s Meaner Weiner], Christopher Hitchens and Daniel Dennet [who together are supposed to be the ‘Four Horsemen’], a pretentious pack I shall dub instead Darwin’s Dauchsands of Doom, and a mangy lot of lesser mongrels [PZ “Whackaloon” Myers, Eugenie Scott and all the sordid rest] and Angry Atheists to rail entertainingly against Christendom in general and Creationism specifically. They’re not really into evidence these days. Oh they recycle the same tired arguments and diligently impart them to their disciples, but they’re relying heavily upon a cult of personality, bold mockery and overconfident swagger. It’s a bold PR program.
Unfortunately, its the sort of strategy that smacks of a weak argument. It reminds one of the old joke about the preacher’s sermon outline, which read: “Pound pulpit here! Point weak.” They’re like those loud-mouthed fellows we all recall from the schoolyard. They talk big, threaten boldly and mock confidently and flagrantly, but they carefully avoid actually engaging their foes. They beg off that it’s simply beneath them and a total waste of everyone’s time and, well, people will think they’re legitimate if we give them the time of day and we don’t want that! They’re those guys who always boasted that they could take you if they reeeeally wanted to but they didn’t want to waste their time, right? Such bravado is almost always false. A blustering cover for a glass chin.
Note that they don’t say, “Hey, let’s challenge these Creationist to a debate and show everybody they’re illegitimate with that massive amount of evidence we’re always boasting vaguely about!” Why is that?
Oh, I almost forgot. It’s because they almost always LOSE any real debates. They almost always come away looking really BAD. That’s the real reason they don’t want to debate the origins issue. And I truly adore their excuses for losing: We Creationists are wrong; we’re just better at argument and rhetorical tricks, but the evolutionists still have the better argument. They simply can’t seem to convincingly marshall said superior argument on the debate floor. How embarrassing! In short, they accuse us of duping and tricking a gullible, uninformed audience into thinking we’ve won when they should have! Do they know what the point of a debate is? Don’t they know THEY were supposed to inform that uniformed audience? Why can’t they manage it?
We know the reason, of course. They can bluster and yap and mock and make all of the sorry excuses they want from behind that white picket fence they’re hiding behind. We know the moment that Darwin’s Weiner Dog or one of those other insufferable Dachsunds of Doom “condescend” step out of their pampered yards into the streets of debate and free inquiry, these overglorified mockstars become chewtoys.
And they know it too.
-Sirius Knott
:: Read Part 2: Climbing Mount Absurdity
Defending Genesis 
HahaHahaHahaHahaHahaHahaHahaHahaHahaHahaHahaHahaHahaHahaHahaHahaHahaHahaHahaHahaHahaHahaHahaHahaHahaHahaHahaHahaHahaHahaHahaHahaHahaHahaHahaHahaHahaHahaHahaHahaHahaHahaHahaHahaHahaHahaHaha…
Wow. But thank you for underscoring my point about how evos and atheists have abandoned all argument in favor of insipid mockery.
-Sirius Knott
Since when is the public debate format a path to truth? Even in *book* form, it can take a while to deconstruct false arguments.
Sarfati’s ‘Refuting Evolution’ is a testament to how many mendacious tricks can be packed into every page, if not every paragraph. It takes a while to cotton on to which turns out to be an equivocation fallacy, why an older source is used, what the full context of the quote they used actually said, where they are going wrong with their metaphors, how they are jumping between colloquial and scientific terms like ‘theory’ and ‘information’ and how they are managing to avoid defining what they mean in the stead of making fun of what other people do not *actually* mean, or whether the scientist they are quoting approvingly has ever had their pet hypothesis validated (like Feduccia and birds, for example).
It takes a bloody lot of research to track down the source of everything on just a few pages of a book like that. How much worse an hour-or-less debate with NO research tools?
Debating creationists is not a matter of presenting the evidence for evolution. Endogenous retrovirus sequencing and the chromosome 2 fusion are two of the best indications of the common ancestry of the great apes, including humans. That does not play nearly as well as paranoia, rehashed hoaxes, “never-seen-a-dog-birth-a-cat” sound bites that make the audience giggle but are complete misrepresentations of the scientific position.
It takes someone who not only knows the science, but *everything* a creationist might come up with, to debate under those conditions.
How well it plays to an audience also does not indicate the truth value, which can be deconstructed after the fact. Just because Gish can spew things out quickly and leave his opponent stunned does not means that he is in any way *right*.
Darwin was smart, and he anticipated a lot more than he is typically credited with, but he didn’t even know about DNA, meiosis, repetitive seflish ALU segments or any applicability of his Theory to microbes. “He said it, that settles it” is pretty far from the case.
The thing I find the most strange about the creationist case is that creationists are free to go on and set up their own research and labs NOW. Sarfati has made the “common toolbox” claim as to why some organisms share similar DNA. Well, go find creatures with those “tools” that violate the evolutionary phylogenetic tree that do not have viral markers nearby. That would prove scientists wrong. Why not try?
(I’m not talking about some of the crap that people pull with Dembski and Axe’s research by claiming that they support things that they clearly do not, like Dembski’s NFL algorithm which he claims an evolutionary algorithm would require, but which it would most certainly not!)
Why all the paranoia about biologists without trying to even just replicate the most *basic* evolutionary research with an eye to seeing if scientists are being “willing deceivers”?
Phlogiston was not repudiated by mere armchair speculation.
@Ritchie:
I’ll just be honest. It took me the space of three minutes just to get past this first sentence. It made me wonder whether there were any point at all in reading the rest of this novella.
“Since when is the public debate format a path to truth?” you ask. How about ever since the Greeks? Ever heard of Socrates? Plato? Public debates are a time-honored forum to disseminate ideas and help weed out poorly supported ones. It’s the ultimate peer review.
The irony is that you mention Sarfati and he has reservations about the usefulness of public debates. He thinks they’re more about personalities than arguments – but there he’s only half-right. Debates are about personalities. And also about arguments. Our champions marshal their best weapons and defenses to demonstrate the superiority of our respective kingdoms, as it were.
Of course if by “path to truth” you mean to ask when has public debate ever determined truth, that’s just a red herring. We all know that sometimes the audience determines a victor based on popularity or perceptions rather than sorting the evidence. Sometimes the loser should have won by all rights. But that’s the exception rather than the rule.
Ugh. You’re right. Slow-witted people should not engage in debate. It does require one to be quick on one’s feet. But your argument against public debate based on this characteristic of the forum is reductionist. The Greeks who debated in public forum knew that books were a fuller, more formalized version of their arguments, but they valued both formats of argument.
Let’s see… ah, yes. Next, you take a go at Dr Sarfati and Creationists in general:
That was a mouth-full.
Firstly, I happen to agree with Dr Sarfati’s assessment of evolution.
Secondly, I haven’t seen the word mendacious used in a while, so I’m somewhat pleased with the construction of that first sentence if not its actual message obviously.
Thirdly, um, back at you. Evolutionists equivocate all the time. How about when you guys call Intelligent Design theory Intelligenty Design Creationism, when both camps acknowledge we are completely disctinct. Wonder why you’d purposely misrepresent that distinction? Most notoriously, Eugenie Scott advocates the definition of evolution as “change over time” though that definition is most certainly void for vagueness simply because this equivocation is useful to indoctrinate kids in the big idea of evolution. Evolutionists also conflate observable horizontal changes within a kind of animal via natural selection and speciation which Creationists affirm with unobserved [ever] vertical flu-to-you evolution where one kind of animal changes into another [vis. dinosaurs to birds]. This equivocation is so prevalent that it is perhaps excusable that Gary Hurd committed his own variant of Berra’ Blunder by saying that the macroevolution/microevolution distinction was a purely Creationist invention [Hurd’s Turd?] when Theodosius Dobzhansky [one of the architects of the neo-Darwin sythesis] specifically stated that evos would have to presume mic-evo was sufficient to account for mac-evo. Would you like the quote? I assure you it’s in perfect context. Evolutionists misquote Creationists all the time and then howl in outrage when we quote them saying things good evolutionists shouldn’t in context. You huys howl that it’s quote mining, of course, even when it’s in context, on the grounds that they’re evolutionists and they still believe in evolution after all. Bully for them and their inconsistencies then. They let the cat out of the bag. Go castigate them. I should add that the age of a quote has no bearing on its truth. And evolutionists are absolutely the worst for dodging concrete definitions [of words like evolution for example] and thatching together strawmen Creationist arguments or worse parroting someone else’s strawman without having the foggiest idea what we creationists actually profess.
As to your last point, it’s trite and facetious and altogether misleading. So the dino-to-bird fascists won’t validate his “pet” theory [who’ making fun now?] that they are completely full of coprolites! You expect them to? I’m sure Jack Horner would be more than happy to validate and endorse the theory that completely crushes his own “pet” theory. Stop playing politics. Ugh. Mendel’s laws of heredity weren’t validated until after his death. Why? Because everyone had bought into Darwin’s imagineered gemmules and, having found their answer, had no need of research-based alternative explanations. btw, Feduccia is being proven more and more correct based on biology alone. You want to go a few rounds about that?
I’m beginning to understand. You suck at debate, don’t you? No, no, I’m not just mocking. There’s an example right here in this statement. The object of a debate is to make your point, yes, but also to anticipate the other fellow’s argument and probable rebuttals. Which means you would do your research BEFORE you came to the bloody debate. You would be prepared BEFOREhand. You would actually know what you believed and [and I’ll admit I would simply be blessed if I came across this phenomenon in blog debates] you would actually know what your opponent believes rather than what you think he believes because actual comprehension of your opponent’s real position would be key to whether you won or lost the thing. Nothing deepsinks a debater as effectively as the moment when his audience realizes that he has only the foggiest notion or even an erroneous notion as to what he objects to!
So you’re comparing apples to oranges, mate. It’s a different format from arguing from the relative safety of a book.
Wow. Yeah, Dr G Charles jackson of Creation Truth Foundation absolutely stomped Abbie Smith in a debate last year. Guess what they discussed? ERVs and that chromosone 2 fusion as alleged evidence of common ancestry.
btw, I’m not a great ape or even a lesser one. Maybe you’ve convinced yourself of that. maybe you’ve convinced yourself you’re really Napoleon. But we’re both human and were never anything else.
Back at you. Better yet, I’ll elucidate:
Paranoia: Yeah, I never hear evolutionists raving, “Intelligent Design is Creationism! They want to teach Creationism in our schools!”
Rehashed hoaxes: Yeah, you guys never bring up Ron Wyatt’s wild claims.While not really a hoax, you’re certainly fond of throwing Hovind’s incarceration for charges unrelated to Creationism in our faces. I could mentiona few others.
Rehashed Soundbites: um, yeah, pretty much everything that comes out of an evolutionists’ mouth.
Dude, are you a Poe?
Firstly, you’ve attributed with nearly god-like powers of deception that a mere expert in his field could never be expected to challenge. Darn those wiley Creationists and their Jedi mind tricks!
Secondly, you’re insinuating that the audience is just plain stupid and cannot help but be duped by Creationist tricks of rhetoric.
Thirdly, you’re saying that well-known evolutionists like Dawkins are not up to snuff to debate us because they’re ignorant of our actual arguments [it might help if you guys stopped conflating the positions of Old earth Creationism, Young Earth Creationism and Intelligent Design] and they’d have to bone up on what that might be instead of beating upon established straw men from the safety of fandom.
Lastly… Waitaminute! You’re proving my point again. Were you trying to? You’re saying they think their argument’s right they just can’t argue it very well or well enough. Are you trying to prove my point for me? I said these guys have got nothing. I meant it. You seem to be agreeing with me. You’ve certainly insulted all parties involved [Creationists, the audience, and evolutionists] to the highest degree.
Ach! What are they teaching these kids? Look, no one ever said that the discussion ought to be confined to the debate any more than it ought to be confined to books. But to refuse the debate on the grounds that it might give your opponent credibility is cowardice, presumption and arrogance. Dawkins, PZ and the whole lot don’t debate because they don’t want to be held to the same scrutiny of a post-debate deconstruction. They know that in a debate, they might be careless enough to let something slip. They might let the cat oout of the bag. They might admit that if intelligent design ever became undeniable they’d attribute it to evolved aliens rather than a Creator.
Why in Sam Hill do you keep placing asterisks about certain words? Am I in a manga novel? Ugh. Yes, yes, I know you guys hate the Gish Gallup. You accuse him of elephant hurling. But if there were an evolutionist debater who held equal mastery of his subject [and there ISN’T any such critter], you’d applaud him and crow about how he crushes Creationists with machine gun salvos. Sour grapes, bro.
[Sirius hit brakes hard. Stares at sentence in stunned disbelief. Resists urge to put asterisks, cutie hearts and a series of XOXOXOs around this phrase on Ritchie’s behalf.]
Nice dodge. But you tossed us a red herring. This post is about the Evolving post-darwin Evolutionism. This one concentrates on evolving methods of evolutionists. I’m fully aware that Dawin 1.0 has been falsified. Certainly, there is no such thing as a gemmule as he proposed.
When I say, “Darwin said it. I believe it. That settles it,” I am not speaking of Darwin 1.0 specifically so kindly unthatch that straw man and stop pretending as if you cannot comprehend that I meant it in the generally accepted usage. Microbes-to-Marty McFly evolution ala common descent is generally refered to as Darwinism, whether we’re refering to his original theory or the modern synthesis.
Having settled upon a common definition, you’ll see that Darwin said, that settles it is pretty much the norm rather than being pretty far from the case.
Why not ask Sarfati?
And we do set up our own research labs. I realize you may not know that. These things seem not to get past the fishbowl of the average Darbot’s interests. ICR has several research labes. Look up the RATE project for example.
OK, so let me ask you this? Are you simply going to disagree with anything we come up with if it threatens your “pet” theory of evolution?
PS Dembski is not a Creationist. He’s an ID advocate. You can’t even keep the players straight. No wonder you can’t keep up with our arguments and alleged rhetorical tricks. It must be all voodoo and Jedi mind tricks if you can’t make sense of it, right?
Well, the rub of it is that there’s really no such thing as evolutionary research. There’s research that’s been given an evolutionary explanation, but its all rather tacked on ad hoc. Creationists often do the same research and give the self-same datum a Biblical explanation. We have the same facts, but facts require interpretation.
I must also object to your use of the word paranoia. It will strike you as heresy, but we Creationists have biologists and microbiologists with PhDs from secular universities in the field. Most of the staff with a doctorate at Answers in Genesis qualifies. We’re not paranoid about biology. We’re outraged that the field is being grossly misinterpreted to fit the expectations a “pet” theory. A just-so story called evolution.
But that paradigm was replaced by attrition as well. And open debate helped give it a well-deserved and eventual funeral.
PS. Who ever said anything about “armchair speculation?” What does armchair speculation have to do with the usefulness of debate and the cowardice of darwinin debate dodgers?
-sirius Knott
I agree that Abbie did not do well in the debate. Even still, I Jackson did not answer how the same ERVs could have found the same loci. Certain ERVs may have a preference toward certain types of genes, but nothing like the laser-guidance system required to hit the same loci in a 3-billion base pair gene sequence. In my opinion, the ERVs beat down the “same genes, same designer” argument since not only are the genes mainly the same among apes and humans, but they have the same history of viral insertions, which has nothing to do with the original genes (the originals also have vestigial info for tails and stuff as evolution would predict and Dr. Jackson gave no answer for.) Even still, he is a skilled debater, a sharp guy, and he won the debate. That didn’t mean he won me over on any level with his weak example of two lemurs being infected by similar viruses, but at different loci. This was discovered and accurately understood by mainstream scientists, and revealed nothing. I’m glad he acknowledged the 2nd chromosome fusion – Islamic creationists still say it was made that way, as well as some conservative Christians. He admits early man must have had 48, which is the only possible number for evolutionary scenario. This fact says nothing about Intelligent Design since the Designer could have chosen any number. God could have arbitrarily chosen to use 48 chromosomes, so it in itself doesn’t take away from the mystery of design since it can be whatever it is, but it was a solid prediction evolution was forced to make so they deserve a point for that regardless of how one debater framed the argument to one AIDs researcher. Abbie’s gone back to helping to find a cure for people who are dying, and her science works in that field. I’m sure you and I can both appreciate what she does, and I don’t think Dr. Jackson or any other critic of evolution has any input which would better help her understand the nature of viruses and how to research them.
modsynth,
You’ve essentially underscored my point. Evos always claim they have better arguments, but they don’t seem equipped to articulate them! Instead of whining about how you always ought to have won, why not hone your debate skills? (Novel idea, I know)
While I’m glad Abbie has found productive pursuits, you’re digging at an irrelevant thesis. Dr J has gone on to productive pursuits in his own field. But since you brought it up, Dr Georgia Purdom of Answers in Genesis conducts research on a similar bent. You can read her bio at: http://www.answersingenesis.org/outreach/speakers/georgia-purdom/bio/
-SK
Note to my Readers:
Ritchie Annand did respond to my last comment, but it was a bloody novel, thus violating Rule #4 of my Rules of Engagement.
In all fairness, my last comment was rather long, but in the interests of not killing the conversation, I can’t approve the whole thing. It’s just too much.
Sirius,
You decided not to publish Ritchie Annand’s last comment. You said it was too long. But, he was taking you on in a logical, thoughtful manner. As you said, your last comment was rather long. How do you expect him to respond briefly to what you said at length? That doesn’t seem fair.
You said you did it in the interest of not killing the conversation. But, by not publishing his response, you did kill the conversation. It seems rather contradictory.
Also, there’s now an appearance of ulterior motives.
@Thaddeus,
[sigh] I suppose I’m not being clear. What I meant is that rediculously long posts tend to discourage anyone ELSE from posting, therefore killing the overall dialogue. Sure, one person may be interested in continuing a battle o’ book-sized arguments, but the rest of humanity looks elsewhere. It really isn’t fair to everyone else to monopololize the discussion like that, hence the rule.
A few quick notes:
1. You presume that his next comment [unpublished] was taking me on in a logical, thoughtful manner. You could be wrong. It could just be bean-counting dissembling nitpickery.
2. My blog. My rules. My message. This has never been anyone’s soapbox but mine, though I’m perfectly willing to defend my arguments.
3. You would have no case if I hadn’t admitted that my response was also long.
4. You wouldn’t even have known he responded were it not for my sense of fairplay.
5. Answering his novel thoughtfully will take up a lot of my valuable time and will likely require that start another post to carry on a topic that I’m truly interested in.
6. You’ve absolutely nothing to say on the topic at hand. Nada. Zip. Zero. You’re merely nitpicking about my methods, which you’ve done before if memory serves me.
7. What specific ulterior motives are you refering to since I didn’t even have to let anyone know he’d even bothered to reply?
-Sirius Knott
Why should science bother debating creationism? Its as valid a theory as geocentric theory.
Poor Loaded Revolver has been doing his dead level best to get his mocking comments on this site, but he keeps violating the Rules of Engagement. I approved this one (a rather typical example of his short-and-sweet hit-and-run comments) to demonstrate how evolutionists resort to logical fallacies to try to make their case.
First, he commits the fallacy of reification (Why should science bother…?). Science wouldn’t. Science can’t. Science is an investigative discipline. Scientists on the other hand can bother debating.
Second, he commits the fallacy of equivocation (Why should science bother debating creationism?) He’s conflated evolutionism with science. Of course, that would mean that all scientists are evolutionists, which is demonstrably not the case. Science can be conducted via either worldview. He might have asked why should evolutionists both debating creationists. That would have at least been more accurate.
Lastly, his entire comment begs the question. He’s saying Creationism is as valid as geocentrism. We’re saying the same thing about evolutionism. The point is: evolutionists don’t want this thing debated and I have every right to wonder why that it.
Still curious as I haven’t found it on any other websites, but WHAT scientific background do you have?
I can equivocate science with a pro-evolutionary view. It is the majority view. Aside from Ham and his creation nuts, I think you’d be hard-pressed to find more than a handful creation “scientists” with jobs.
I ask this…. in absence of your Bible…. WHAT would lead you to interpret modern evidence toward a creationist beginning over an evolutionary one?
As for the rest of it… you know you’re argument doesn’t hold water outside of the minds of you and your delusional friends. Argue logical fallacy and semantics all you like. The fact will remain the same… creationism will continue to slowly fade out (thanks to delusional zealots like yourself) and evolution will continue to grow and flourish as the foundational theory of biology.
Leave you with a challenge… call up Marshall, WVU, and WV State and try to get some speaking time during their spring research days…. let us all know how that goes.
LD,
I’ve purposely left out that information (and will continue to do so) because credentialism and expertism is a crutch for those who cannot answer another person’s argument.
By that logic, you would have had the world stick with geocentrism and labeled Galileo and all other non-majority scientists as unscientific. Besides, it’s simply poor logic to equivocate science with a theory within science. A and notA cannot be equivocated without being logically fallacious. Or don’t they teach simple logic in evo circles?
Sigh. The associative ad hominem comes standard issue for the knee-jerk evo. Look. Being Creationists does not disqualify them from being scientists. You owe the discovery of a planet or two to Bible-affirming Creationist scientists. Do your homework next time.
Sigh. The entire question is whether the God’s Word is true or whether the truth can be determined by human reason alone, so why would I give up my starting point? You DO comprehend the nature of the debate, right?
With your weak grasp of the mechanics and significance of logic, I’ve no doubt that you also possess sufficient prophetic gifts to back those predictions.
Leave you with a challenge: Next time, try actually engaging the debate rather than making drive-by insults.
-Sirius Knott
Not that you have many “evolutionist intelligentsia” on your blog, but I thought you might appreciate this quote, if you’ve never seen it: “The consensus of the intelligentsia is not necessarily correct, no matter how many believe it, or for how many years the belief is held. It may still be wrong. In fact, it may be very wrong. And we must never forget it. Because it will happen again. And indeed it has.” This was an opinion written about burning witches at the stake but, with evolutionism…….it has happened again.