No Evolutionist has yet intelligently answered my challenge. [Previously noted in the original post If Evolutionists Were Smart]
I’m not surprised.
My challenge was thus: If the evidence for evolution is so strong, why has Big Science left off evidence-based arguments in favor of:
- Using censorship to keep any criticism of evolutionism out of public school textbooks.
- Using deception, using slippery, shifting definitions to get across the Big Idea of evolution to indoctrinate school children.
- Using indoctrination, presenting children with a rosy view of evolutionism that ignores any of its problems and teaches it as established fact.
- Using endorsements, pointing to religious leaders who compromised Creationism with evolutionism, saying, “Look, if your preacher thinks evolution is OK, it must be true.”
- Using ridicule, ad hominem attacks and mockery of the other guy’s position without ever addressing his arguments.
- Using denialism, saying that the opposition simply isn’t science, but never address whether it is true.
- Using straw men of their opposition’s actual views, equating OEC with YEC and ID with Creationism in general. They counter and ridicule arguments that no one in the opposition’s camp uses.
- Using outrage, claiming we’re wasting their precious time with things that are obviously pseudoscience since they are not evolutionism. This strained protest reminds me of debaters who claim that there are sooo many errors on our side that are soooo easy to refute, but they don’t want to waste their time with something sooo obvious. Weak.
- Using a tight-fisted control of expressive venues, keeping the opposition voice to a fringe minimum, all the while conveniently accusing them of being a fringe minority. [The whole, “They’re not peer-reviewed!” objection, ignoring the fact that they keep dissent out of peer-reviewed journals.] Ask Sternberg what happens if you allow the opposition a chance to voice their position.
- Using extortion and intimidation, denying jobs, tenure, grants and visibility to those who show disloyalty to the Darwin Party.
- Using expertism and credentialism to try to cow the masses into just accepting their dictums without question, dissent or criticism. Because the rest of us are just too dumb to get it, right?
There has been quite a bit of moving the goalposts, but no one, not one, single solitary evolutionist has dared to explain to me why they use such tactics if their case is so ironclad. Certainly, no one tried to justify it.
They prefer instead to ignore it, to pretend it doesn’t exist, to walk around the dragon no matter how far out of the way they have to travel.
They dare not attempt to slay it. They know they will only get burned.
And this to me, and to every other rational mind, suggests that evolution is bunk.
–Sirius Knott
Defending Genesis 
I could not agree more.
— “Using censorship to keep any criticism of evolutionism out of public school textbooks. ”
NCSE calls it ‘protecting science’, and that allowing reasoned discussions would lead to the teaching of astrology and alchemy. Could it be the other way around? …
— “Using deception, using slippery, shifting definitions to get across the Big Idea of evolution to indoctrinate school children.”
One deception is making the claim, an unproven extrapoltion, that macro evolution is merely microevolution extended. Adaption leads to novelty? Sure, given millions of years.
— “Using indoctrination, presenting children with a rosy view of evolutionism that ignores any of its problems and teaches it as established fact.”
They gloss over the minor details of how a complex organ can form, and any other known conundrums brought up. Don’t think outside the box, if you want to pass.the course.
— “Using endorsements, pointing to religious leaders who compromised Creationism with evolutionism, saying, “Look, if your preacher thinks evolution is OK, it must be true.”
The Clergy Project Letter, singned by mostly liberal preachers, and for political reasons comes to mind. And now, due mainly from societal pressures (NCSE, AAAS, Dover v. Kitzmiller decision, et al), the Catholic diocese is following suit.
— “Using ridicule, ad hominem attacks and mockery of the other guy’s position without ever addressing his arguments. ”
Just peruse the ‘science blogs’, and LA and NY Times’ editorials if you doubt that!
— “Using denialism, saying that the opposition simply isn’t science, but never address whether it is true. ”
Supernaturality is a favorite term, and of course the ‘multiverse’ solves all dilemmas!
— “Using straw men of their opposition’s actual views, equating OEC with YEC and ID with Creationism in general. They counter and ridicule arguments that no one in the opposition’s camp uses.”
Combining the term Intelligent Design and Creationism is a favorite tactic.
— “Using outrage, claiming we’re wasting their precious time with things that are obviously pseudoscience since they are not evolutionism. This strained protest reminds me of debaters who claim that there are sooo many errors on our side that are soooo easy to refute, but they don’t want to waste their time with something sooo obvious. Weak.”
They’ll argue, “Evolutionary Theory is supported by ‘overwhelming’ evidence, and is thusly a ‘proven fact’. Nuff said.
— “Using a tight-fisted control of expressive venues, keeping the opposition voice to a fringe minimum, all the while conveniently accusing them of being a fringe minority. [The whole, “They’re not peer-reviewed!” objection, ignoring the fact that they keep dissent out of peer-reviewed journals.] Ask Sternberg what happens if you allow the opposition a chance to voice their position. ”
Fringe minority? Yess, they still claim that 95% of scientists support evolution without question. And yes, the peer review arg is one of their favorites.
— “Using extortion and intimidation, denying jobs, tenure, grants and visibility to those who show disloyalty to the Darwin Party.”
Their stanuch and unflinching allegiance to the still held and time worn Darwinian tenets is laughable, rather than laudable, and this year will be its epoch. Deny it to any degree will essentially end your career. That is the Darwinists’ pre-indictment edict, a position Mussolini would have been proud to hold.
— “Using expertism and credentialism to try to cow the masses into just accepting their dictums without question, dissent or criticism. Because the rest of us are just too dumb to get it, right?”
Sadly, it seems to be working. But power is not truth, and all fascist regimes are destined to fall. And who will be the conquerors? Those in the best position to turn the tide are today reside today in middle schools and high schools.
I predict that wth the self-enlightenment possible via the Internet, most will refuse indocrination by the culturally depleted, but will rather bring a new enlightenment to the world of science.”
Spoken by someone that clearly has NO experience in the field of science or academia.
Lee, please, shine some light on these “fascist regimes”. Who are the “they” you refer to so much and how are “they” able to control sooo much?
You really know how to make an air-tight argument with statements like, “They’ll argue, “Evolutionary Theory is supported by ‘overwhelming’ evidence, and is thusly a ‘proven fact’. Nuff said.”
Mm-hmm. I’m impressed.
Why not make an actual case instead of ’nuff said’ and ‘couldn’t agree more’? Lay it all out. Show us where we’ve gone so wrong.
Better yet, forget about evolution and scientifically prove creation or god for that matter. The evidence should be everywhere. So, JUST PROVE IT, already. Nuff said……
Blind,
Lee was refering to fascist regimes like Hitler’s and Mussolini’s [which he actually mentioned had you read the post instead of skimming it] and was then comparing Big Science to these actual, historical regimes.
Try to keep up, sir.
Lee was also noting that they simply blather that the evidence is “overwhelming” without actually producing any, agrreing with my assessment.
Y’know, you might actually try disagreeing with someone after you’ve bothered to comprehend their argument. Just a thought.
As for the case for God, it’s been amply made over the centuries. I doubt you’re honestly searching so much as looking for reasons to justify your unbelief. But if I’m wrong about you, might The Evidence That Demands a Verdict by Josh McDowell or The Case for the Creator by Lee Strobel?
-Sirius Knott
I did read the entire post and I DO comprehend it. Why not let Lee respond, Tony??
I actually own a copy of ‘case for a creator’. The ‘evidence’ of a creator is nonexistent and NO ‘case’ is ever made. I have lots thoughts on it if you want to start a thread/make a post regarding the book. I can’t believe THATS the book you would recommend. Plus, the font is about 50, making it look like a book written for a third grader or a 90 year old that lost their glasses. It should be about 15 pages of normal size font instead of the almost 600 pages.
Finally, I ask again, why not give Lee a chance to respond? Is this how you run your blog?
@Blind:
So you have a chance to show us the sort of critique you might aim at Lee Strobel’s book and you go for bear against the publisher’s chosen font? In short, you choose a cheap ad hominem. Y’know. I may just have to take you up on that challenge…
In any case, I run my blog however I bloody well please, sir. It is, after all, MY blog and not an open, public forum. I reserve the right to comment upon anything I see fit and to edit this site as it suits me. Keep in mind also that Lee may well be a drive-by and therefore may not respond at all. ever.
-Sirius Knott
Wow. You’re angry, huh?
I commented on the font to show that I do own the book and to illustrate the point that ‘case for a creator’ is NOT a serious or academic book worthy of being reference material. Thats all. You can feel free to read in any other sort of aspect of my character you like but just because you say it don’t make it so.
The rest of your rant has me a little embarrassed for you, so I’ll refrain from saying any more about the ‘its my blog and I’ll do what I want’ routine.
Why don’t we get back on subject. When will you change the title to this blog post, since Gunnar has met your ‘challenge’?
Also, do you have any examples to back up these points?
a)Using deception, using slippery, shifting definitions to get across the Big Idea of evolution to indoctrinate school children.
b)Using indoctrination, presenting children with a rosy view of evolutionism that ignores any of its problems and teaches it as established fact.
@Blind:
wow. again, what does the font have to do with, well, ANYthing. You do realize that arguments aren’t built upon typesetting, but rather evidence and reason, right?
I’m not mad. If I were angry, I’d just delete your comment and be done with you.
I’ll change the title when somebody does a better job of attempting to rebut my article than Gunnar’s littany of sweeping generalizations and unqualified denials. He’s hardly met my challenge. He’s done his best to skirt the issues and engage the my thesis as little as possible. I’ll be answering his “replies” within the next few days. [My schedule’s a bit busy and I like to give thoughtful responses rather than the knee-jerk parroted screed my Darbot opponents typically dish out.
I do have examples to back up all of my points, which I’ll be happy to provide when I respond to Gunnar’s objections.
-Sirius.
PS You might want to read my Rules of Engagement.
Hmm. When you say Gunnar’s argument is a “littany of sweeping generalizations and unqualified denials”, don’t you see that the exact same can be said of your ‘article’?
Seriously, your ‘thesis’ uses NO supporting evidence or examples. In fact, its nothing more than opinion and conjecture of a highly self-righteous order until you DO support it. Gunnar, answered each point with the SAME level of logic and WITH evidence, which it appears you DELETED.
Maybe you should take a step back, Tony, and reconsider your statement saying “he’s hardly met my challenge”. I think you’ll loose any respect you currently hold by not, at the least, acknowledging that Gunnar HAS met your challenge, even if you don’t like it.
Then, you both can debate the actual points of your ‘thesis’.
@Blind:
Due respect, sir, but read my Rules of Engagement, asI’ve asked you to do before. On this site, we’re interested in actual independent thought, so I require that commenter’s make an actual argument before linking to another site for more information. And of course, TalkOrigins simply isn’t allowed, whether you like that or not. Of course, I’m sure there are other sites you darbots could be bothered to find to marshal an argument FOR you since you’re not in the habit of thinking for yourselves.
Also, you’ll note that the title of the article includes the qualifier “redux.” In this case, this word denotes that it’s merely a summary of a much fuller article, as I allude to in the introduction you apparently skimmed rather than read.
-Sirius
My statements were summary statements, without going into any of the details for substantiation, but since you have raised some questions regarding specific issues, let me elaborate.
“… please, shine some light on these “fascist regimes”. Who are the “they” you refer to so much and how are “they” able to control sooo much?”
A fascist regime is by definition a ruling authority that imposes fascism, which is by definition:
” [the] centralization of authority under a dictator, stringent socioeconomic controls, suppression of the opposition through terror and censorship, and typically a policy of belligerent nationalism and racism.”
The second descriptor applies here, i.e. the supression of the ‘opposition through terror and censorship’. The authorities are academic curriculum definers, scientific funding entities, and employers, including tenure granting councils. These groups are highly influenced by organizations that set and enforce the standards, and the AAAS minces no words in its ‘authoratorian’ position:
Alan Leshner, CEO of AAAS states, “There is no scientific debate about evolution. The evidence accumulated during the past 150 years—from dinosaur fossils to the latest discoveries about our own genetic coding—proves that evolution is the only plausible explanation for how life has unfolded over millions of years.”
This amounts to not only a dictate regarding the prohibition of teleological investigations within science, but a closed minded position regarding its validity. Natural processes (natural selection) as the sole means of speciation is effectively *mandated* as the only acceptable hypothesis for the method of evolutionary novelty beyond simple adaptation (microevolution).
The primary justification is that any other causation (interventionary, teleological) would require supernaturality (God), and is thus ouside of science. The Dover v Kitzmiller decision is cited in AAAS’s literature as a central justification of its position.
Briefly, ID does NOT specify supernarality, a mischaracterization by AAAS, as well as the Dover ruling. Supernaturality has at least several definitions.
– Able to violate natural laws at will, sometimes referred to as the ‘poof scenario’, a religious concept of creative events.
– Outside the natural universe.
– Within the universe, but consisting of non matter.
– Omnicient, omnipresent, omnibenevolent, etc.
All of the above are merely tentative, and are not a requisite of ID, since the design interactions could well be genetic coding alterations by a capable acting intelligence, which IS empiracally demonstratable (we have done it in the lab), and is thus acceptable science, by definition.
AAAS’s prime positional justification is merely that ID is religion, thus supernatural by definition, and therefore outside of science by definition. But that is blatently false, since intervention in the embryo programming does NOT require a supernatural agency, a religious concept.
And finally, to discount the legal arguments against it, ID does indeed have a secular purpose, which is to advance science. The mere fact that some religious groups have other agendas (Dover School Board), and that some have coopted the ID terminology to further that end (Dover School Board et al), do not make them integral to the pursuits of design theorists, but merely ancillary; a sub group.
Other false statements are that ID seeks to abolish evolutionary theory. While some extremest religionists (YECs primarily) may so seek, design theorists accept phylogenetic progressions (evolution), but make the prediction that genetic interventions have occurred, simply a modified mechanistic ‘hypothesis’, rather than a whole new ‘theory’. The above false claims against ID are the straw men that constitude the fraudulent and fascist constraints I have cited, and constitute the *true* science stopper.
If the above points are valid, and the evidence stronly supports ‘directed’ causations in part, along with natural processes (the software & hardware to procreate), then the authorative position of AAAS is a fascist (imposted) constraint on scientific investigations. Due to its trickly down effect, virtually all of secular academia and the science industries are therefore, of necessity, so disposed.
Nuff said?
So, Lee, when you quoted “There is no scientific debate about evolution. The evidence accumulated during the past 150 years….” you left out the first two words “In fact, there is no scientific debate…..”. You also left out the fact that the quote is NOT a ruling by the ‘dictator of science’, as you would have us believe, but rather a statement clarifying ‘there is no internal debate within the MASS MAJORITY of the scientific community about the validity of the ToE’. Polls support this, showing the OVERWHELMING percentage of professional scientist agree with the ToE. Alan Leshner is answering a CLAIM made by ID proponents that academia is less-than-unified with regards to ToE. Which it is not.
You’ve not even come close to showing this ‘central authority’ that you CLAIM exists. Try again.
As I scan these pages, all I see are “good Christians,” including one who calls himself a Reverend, being incredibly rude and insulting– how is it following in Christ’s footsteps to call others stupid and “trolls?” In the meantime, these posts are attacking the theory of evolution for being lacking in evidence– even though there are piles upon piles of different studies, multitudes of evidence that agree with one another and make logical sense….this compared to the creationists evidence: one book. You’re taking someone’s word for your entire belief system– and please don’t try to deny this, because that is exactly what faith is.
If you want to refute evolution, that is fine. But don’t base your argument on who has more evidence; it just plain doesn’t make sense– you’ll always come out on the losing side of that one. Just because you don’t understand the science involved in the theory and the evidence supporting it doesn’t make it invalid. I’ve studied theology, perhaps you could study some actual biology– and I don’t mean propaganda like what you’ll find on this site.
If you don’t want to believe in evolution, that is fine. But to be arrogant and insulting in the name of Christ is out of line.
gl,
It’s obvious that you have not actually “scanned” these pages, or else you would know that this site does not attck the theory of evolution for being lacking in evidence. We do suppose anything of the sort.
You see, the origins argument isn’t about evidence. Some folks suppose that evolutionists have their piles of evidence while creationists have theirs; however, Both evolutionists and creationists have exactly the same facts – the same fossils, the same rocks, the same animals, the same Earth, the same universe, the same facts. But we have different interpretations of those facts. Unfortunately, those who who do not understand this will often look at the fact that evolutionists give an evolutionist interpretation of all the evidence and erroneously suppose that creationists have no evidence of their own!
…Which is why you could come to the erroneous conclusion that creationists only have the Bible to rely on.
Amazingly enough, you’ve only proven the one of the points of the article you’re commenting on, specifically the one that notes that evolutionists are guilty of:
How else could you take me to task for allegedly basing my argument “on who has more evidence,” something I never did? It seems you have disagreed with me long before you examined my arguments. And you followed it up by telling me I “don’t understand the science involved” nor “the evidence supporting it,” but I do despite your insult to my intelligence. I’ve studied both theology and biology [biology as taught by committed evolutionists, for the record] and I still reject microbes-to-man evolution.
I would submit that if you find it a sin to be rude and arrogant that you should refrain from being rude and insulting in your own comments. For that matter, if you wish to comment further on this site, you should consult our Rules of Engagement.
-revTony
P.S. – It should noted that the term “troll” has a specific meaning online, as commonly used by all bloggers. It refers to someone who comes onto a site simply to mock and insult. For those who wonder at a Christian’s use of insult, please consult Are Christians Too Nice?
Claim1:
Using censorship to keep any criticism of evolutionism out of public school textbooks.
Reply:
There is no conspiracy, only a demand for evidence for opposing views. Which is why there is no scientific alternative.
Claim2:
Using deception, using slippery, shifting definitions to get across the Big Idea of evolution to indoctrinate school children.
Reply:
Indoctrinate? The ToE is based in millions of pieces of evidence and is the best tested theories we have. Every single piece of evidence in all fields of science all converge and points to the ToE being correct.
Anyone wanting consensus for another theory are free to do the hard work the scientific way, by research and testing.
Claim3:
Using indoctrination, presenting children with a rosy view of evolutionism that ignores any of its problems and teaches it as established fact.
Reply:
There are no problems with the theory, but we do acknowledge that we don’t have every single step along the way. We do have more than enough though.
It’s taught as a scientific theory, greatly supported by evidence.
Claim4:
Using endorsements, pointing to religious leaders who compromised Creationism with evolutionism, saying,“Look, if your preacher thinks evolution is OK, it must be true.”
Reply:
It does show that you don’t have to choose between believing in a deity and accepting sound science.
Claim5:
Using ridicule, ad hominem attacks and mockery of the other guy’s position without ever addressing his arguments.
Reply:
People do this on both sides, regrettably. But if you read this thread I have responded to all points, politely and fairly. Which I can say that my main “opponent” also have done most of the time.
Claim6:
Using denialism, saying that the opposition simply isn’t science, but never address whether it is true.
Reply:
If we are to have a scientific debate, we should back up our side with scientific evidence. Anyone can make claims, but they are nothing more than just that, claims.
And extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.
Claim7:
Using straw men of their opposition’s actual views, equating OEC with YEC and ID with Creationism in general. They counter and ridicule arguments that no one in the opposition’s camp uses.
Reply:
Straw man arguments are most seen at the Creationists side. ID is the same as Creationism, just the word ‘God’ replaced by ‘intelligent designer’. This was comically shown at the Dover trial.
Claim8:
Using outrage, claiming we’re wasting their precious time with things that are obviously pseudoscience since they are not evolutionism. This strained protest reminds me of debaters who claim that there are sooo many errors on our side that are soooo easy to refute, but they don’t want to waste their time with something sooo obvious. Weak.
Reply:
They are not nonsense because they are not ‘evolutionism’, they are nonsense because they are not science. Use the scientific method is the way to go.
Claim9:
Using a tight-fisted control of expressive venues, keeping the opposition voice to a fringe minimum, all the while conveniently accusing them of being a fringe minority.[The whole, “They’re not peer-reviewed!” objection, ignoring the fact that they keep dissent out of peer-reviewed journals.] Ask Sternberg what happens if you allow the opposition a chance to voice their position.
Reply:
The peer-review process is open to anyone, and some ID-papers have been peer-reviewed. Read here for more:
Claim 10:
Using extortion and intimidation, denying jobs, tenure, grants and visibility to those who show disloyalty to the Darwin Party.
Reply:
Again, there is no conspiracy. No one are punished for going against the stream, unless they do so without cause. Evidence is the first thing required within the scientific community.
Claim 11:
Using expertism and credentialism to try to cow the masses into just accepting their dictums without question, dissent or criticism. Because the rest of us are just too dumb to get it, right?
Reply:
There is plenty of questioning within the scientific community, this is how science works. Bad science is weeded out, by the very nature of science. No one wants to waste time studying things that are wrong, which is why science is always willing and able to adjust to new evidence should they show the current views as wrong.
It happens all the time.
[Sirius comments: Links removed.]
“There is no conspiracy, only a demand for evidence for opposing views. Which is why there is no scientific alternative.”
The ‘conspiratorial’ premise is substantiated well here. If you don’t care to get the book, read the reviews at Amazon for a nice overview.
“Slaughter of the Dissidents” by Jerry Bergman
“The ToE is based in millions of pieces of evidence and is the best tested theories we have. Every single piece of evidence in all fields of science all converge and points to the ToE being correct.”
Sure, and virtually the SAME evidence(s) (data) substantiate ID, which doesn’t deny phylogenetic progressions (common descent), but predicts an altered hypothesis of causation. Remember, ID accepts evolution in modified form.
“There are no problems with the theory, but we do acknowledge that we don’t have every single step along the way. We do have more than enough though.”
There are *substantial* problems with the theory, eg: that natural selection of junk alterations produced novelty and complexity. If you disagree, cite an example of random mutations proven to build novelty (new body plan) or complexity (complex organ). These are more than ‘minor’ details.
“Straw man arguments are most seen at the Creationists side. ID is the same as Creationism, just the word ‘God’ replaced by ‘intelligent designer’. This was comically shown at the Dover trial.”
ID is NOT the same as Creationism, and was not demonstrated to be so at the trial. As you may know, neither the judge nor the school board were even familiar with the term ID prior to the trial. Jones has admitted as much in interviews. And the Pandas book cut and paste was an isolated incident, done to conform to the Aguillard ruling.
“The peer-review process is open to anyone, and some ID-papers have been peer-reviewed.”
This is a false statement. While a few ID articles have been peer reviewed and published, even those few have been challenged and discredited. Read in the Bergman’s book about what will happen to a ‘peer reviewer’ if he reviews and certifies for publication any paper supporting ID.
“There is plenty of questioning within the scientific community, this is how science works. Bad science is weeded out, by the very nature of science. No one wants to waste time studying things that are wrong, which is why science is always willing and able to adjust to new evidence should they show the current views as wrong.”
Exactly, and when ID papers are accepted for peer reviewed publication, that may finally happen.
As a creationist one needs to remember that the Theory of Evolution is just about how life forms changed over time (evolved) and NOT about how the origins of life.
How life stared is another scientific theory called Abiogenesis.
Abiogenesis is also refered to as chemical evolution, which is why it was included.
You can use the term ‘evolve’ on a lot of things, but they may not have anything to do with the Theory of Evolution. It’s important to separate these things to avoid confusion, which you here show they can.
Abiogenesis is a separate scientific theory to the “Theory of Evolution” and should not be included when talking about ToE.
Respectfully, I happen to agree with maudlin mockstar PZ Meyers on this point, though we diverge over whether abiogenesis is possible. Evolution in a greater sense extends beyond biology to cosmic, stellar, planetary and chemical evolution and, yes, a biogenesis. I agree with PZ that it is simply a cop-out to try to pretend that material evolutionary philosophy does not extend beyond biology to explain our entire origins and not simply the diversity of life on this planet.
Yet to clarify, I usually use the term Darwinism or biological evolution when speaking of the classical ToE.
‘Darwinism’ is a bad choice, since no one worships Darwin, and today’s ToE has been modified on many areas since Darwin’s time.
@Gunnar:
I suppose you think Marxism refers to the worship of Marx? Darwinism is all-too-appropriate, whether we’re talking specifically of classic darwinism, neo-darwinism [the modern synthesis] or the soon to be announced post-darwinism [the extended evolutionary synthesis, EES, slated to be unveiled in November 2009] because darwinism is the general idea of the common descent with modification of all creatures from a single ancestor – no matter the mechanisms specified.
-Sirius Knott
PS Stop nit picking