Creationists and evolutionists have been gathering across all 50 states in the days leading up to Charles Darwin’s birthday to examine and debate the compatibility of science and religion.
-
(Photo: AP Images / Sayyid Azim)Samuel Muteti, a research scientist at Kenya National Museum in Nairobi display the replica of the Turkana Boy , Thursday, Feb. 1, 2007. He is 1.6 million years old and one of the world's most famous fossil finds.
“The goal of Evolution Weekend is to demonstrate that those outspoken fundamentalists who assert that people have to choose between religion and science are not speaking for the majority of religious leaders and religious persons,” said the Rev. Charles Ortman last week to his congregation in Montclair, N.J.
For two years now, educators and members of the clergy have been working together to bridge the gap between science and religion by organizing an annual teach-in, timed to coincide with the Feb. 12 anniversary of Darwin's birth. The event, which began in 2006 as Evolution Sunday, was the product of the 2004 Clergy Letter Project – an open letter organized by biologist and college dean Michael Zimmerman after a Wisconsin school board aimed to pass anti-evolution measures.
The letter, challenging what Zimmerman calls “biblical literalism,” states: “We believe that the theory of evolution is a foundational scientific truth, one that has stood up to rigorous scrutiny and upon which much of human knowledge and achievement rests.”
As of December 2007, over 11,000 American clergy have signed the Clergy Letter Project, and some clergy like Ortman of Montclair, have glowingly spoken of the annual pro-evolution event, which this year has been changed to Evolution Weekend "in an attempt to be more welcoming to members of all religions."
“Science can help us understand questions about religion, just as religion can answer questions about science,” Ortman said last week.
Not all clergy, however, view Evolution Weekend as a celebration.
The Rev. Clenard Childress, pastor of The New Calvary Baptist Deliverance Outreach Church, is among many who have called evolution a “farce.”
“The only credible theory of how the world began is in the first two chapters of Genesis. The Bible and science agree,” he stated.
Rob Crowther of the Seattle-based Discovery Institute, the nation's leading think tank on the concept of intelligent design, has also been a critic of Evolution Weekend and The Clergy Letter Project.
“Can you imagine if the Discovery Institute issued a list of clergy opposing Darwinism? We don’t think there is anything religious at all to the theory of intelligent design,” he stated in a 2006 interview, referring to the idea that the creation of life and the universe are results of an intelligent “designer” and not by chance as evolution theory suggests.
More recently, Ken Ham, evolution critic and President of Answers in Genesis USA, opened a 60,000 square-foot museum that features the Bible’s literal account of Creation as aligned with natural history.
The Creation Museum, located in Petersburg, Ky., just outside of Cincinnati, has attracted over 300,000 visitors since its opening in May and is packed with high-tech exhibits that include animatronic dinosaurs and a huge wooden ark. The museum’s founder, like many other Young Earth creationists, believes dinosaurs appeared on the same day God created other land animals.
“The argument we make is this: When you believe in millions of years of evolution and add it to the Bible, you actually have to change what the Bible clearly says,” explained Ham in a past interview with The Christian Post. “You have to reinterpret it. That unlocks the door to say that you don’t take this as written. You reinterpret it from outside influences, which means that you tell the next generation that you can’t take the Bible as written. So you just undermine biblical authority.” Continue >>
RSS
something else: a scientific dissent from darwinism.
check this out: http://www.discovery.org/articleFiles/PDFs/100ScientistsAd.pdf
and if you really search for truth, Lee Strobels series on youtube:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zw-_rDZ76Z0&feature=related
"...these are seperate theories all together. "
Big Bang explains its believers where the material came from that is supposed to be evoluted afterwards. To me this relation is quite clear, even though the theories don´t match, they have a common ground. No God needed, or allowed.
I can only repeat myself, why do you fight here for your thoughts?
What is it that drives you, engaging for this topic? Educating stupid Christians? There is no hope, I fear. All of these EvoBanging-Theories lack of proof. There is much to much lying and false or half information around it. But clear minded I can only reject all these theories.
Again, if I am wrong, who cares, but if you are you lose life.
Hey maybe you want to check out this christian research page. Take some of the information and check it with non believing information.
http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/nab/does-c14-disprove-the-bible
Do you know Ravi Zacharias? Check him and his teachings as well. A brilliand mind.
You owe this to yourself.
"All comes together the question where all came from (big bang) and the question how we got it this way today and where this all will go - how can someone seperate these questions?"
The big bang explains the expanding of our universe and as such falls into the realm of Cosmolgoy, while evolution with only deals with biological living systems falls into mostly biology, genetics, paleontology. these are seperate theories all together.
I made a stupid mistake, by really thinking my words would apply to a change in someones thinking. Would make a change in someone opening his eyes to see what is right before one eyes. I neglected that this discussion is going for years and years now and will ever go on untill that day we all will know.
Especially when talking about the origin of the bible and just taking the predictions pointing towards Jesus and Jerusalem, I find it overwelming that it is true.
When looking at all Creation on this planet, this huge amount of diversity, the accuracy things run and the fact that human kind is about to ruin it all - besides the nature itself that runs out of time - I can not believe how someone sees truth in things evoluting.
All comes together the question where all came from (big bang) and the question how we got it this way today and where this all will go - how can someone seperate these questions?
This is all just trying to deny the God of the bible, also a thing that was predicted more then 2000 Years ago.
The bible says about itself to be foolish to the non believer and life for the believer so my words wont make a change, only God can make this change.
To me the Bible is 100 % accurate and becomes more and more true to me dayly, the more I ask for God the more I get into things. Even though there are plenty of things I don´t understand and can not explain.
Ever heard of expelledthemovie.com? It´s not only christians questioning...also some "blind" non believing cientists...
“I´m interested in sites for C14 and other methods, that show that these methods can reach far behind 4-5000 years.“
Got to Wikipedia, or the Online Brittanica. - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_dating
“If first is true, I don´t care about the second. If second is true, I don´t care about first, because this would say the bible lies.”
Well, hate to break it to you, but the bible is hardly 100% accurate with regards to what Science shows, so perhaps you should be more apologetic in that regard and consider from whence the bible came from (3000 YO) and over how many centuries it was written, re-written, edited and compiled before assuming such things. The science we have describes how the universe has expanded (big bang) and how life changes over time (evolution). These are two totally different realms of science entirely and don’t negate the concept of god at all.
"The "proof" that is there is missinterpretated. This is what I strongly believe. God made creature, each of it´s kind. And they did develop and change, yes. But now creature chenged it´s kind. There is no proof. "
Well, like i said consider whece the bible came from and who wrote it and why before assumiing it's some defacto word of imutable truth.
"Why they died out, even though there is a Creator?
Because this earth is just a slight shadow of what is was like when God made it."
Nice rationalization. First you argue all living things are intelligently designed and when I point out how 99% of them are dead you appeal to some notion of a 'fallen world' from your religion.
"From icr.org - Institute for Creation Research "
Oh great. ICR, AIG, Dr. Dino (kent hovind) and the like, oddly enough NONE of them publish any of their work under scientific peer review and yet many of you so easily lap up their work.
Two more things I found for the willing reader.
From icr.org - Institute for Creation Research
There are so many strong and clear evidences of the perfect and unique truth of Christianity that those who remain skeptical were said by the great Apostle Peter to be "willingly ignorant" (II Peter 3:5), and by the Apostle Paul to be "without excuse" (Romans 1:20). The great king David concluded that only "The fool hath said in his heart, There is no God" (Psalm 53:1), and wise king Solomon asserted that, "The fear of the Lord" is the very "beginning of knowledge" and "wisdom" (Proverbs 1:7; 9:10).
In adition to these claims of the bible you can get deeper into things with this article, from the same source:
http://www.icr.org/home/resources/resources_tracts_scientificcaseagainstevolution/
There´s nothing more I can say to that and no doubt left in my head, Jesus is the way and the truth.
I don´t have that many videos, but this is an interesting one
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wr6uvUNJLww
Thanks for this big answer agent.
I´m interested in sites for C14 and other methods, that show that these methods can reach far behind 4-5000 years. Obviously ou know more then any scientist I´ve herad before.
I will also check the vids you gave me.
To me evo and big bang relates a lot. If first is true, I don´t care about the second. If second is true, I don´t care about first, because this would say the bible lies.
The bible reveals itself to me to be true. How it was put together, how loads of prediction got fullfilled, especially about Jesus Christ our Saviour and last becasue God reveals himself to the seeker personally as he did to me.
So the only answer I can give is, there are two believe systrems that collide and only one can be true. There can me no mixture, absolutely impossible, for God does not lie.
I´m no educated scientist and I guess you are the same, sorry if I discredit you in this.
The "proof" that is there is missinterpretated. This is what I strongly believe. God made creature, each of it´s kind. And they did develop and change, yes. But now creature chenged it´s kind. There is no proof. They take the proof out of fossiles of creatures they don´t have today and say look here are the gap fillings.
Why they died out, even though there is a Creator?
Because this earth is just a slight shadow of what is was like when God made it.
We destroy it dayly and He will fullfill this destruction totally and rebuild it all perfectly for eternity for those who love and trust him.
This is my believe system and I know, that I don´t represent the majority.
You can mail me more infos about the obove mentioned topics if you like, prodriver[at]email.de - thx in advance
prodriver,
"All Evo-Theorie is based on 1 thing that cause the so called "big bang" and if you want to take that away now, go ahead.”
Noooo. Evolutionary theory only deals with living organics, biologically systems. While the Big Bang is a theory explaining only the evidence that demonstrates the expansion of the our Universe. Two totoally unrelated realms of sciene and both have their own evidence for themselves and will succed or fail based on said evidence. One deals strictly with biology, while the other only deals with cosmology, how hard is that to comprehend?
Science is anything that can be physically tested, using hypothesis based on evidence and using confirming evidence to conform to a given theory. (see Scientific Method) So how does Evolution not work in an evidence based manner?
“C14 can not be used correctly after a period of time longer than approx 4-5000 years, this is fact.”
Actually carbon dating (C-14) is accurate up to about 55,000 years, (however a newer version of Carbon dating will raise that to 75,000 years shortly) however it alone is not precise and is best used alongside other radio metric dating methods. We have nearly 4 dozen dating methods for dating material, so carbon dating is hardly the only method. I will site my claims if you'd like and I would expect you to do the same for yours.
“What was there before anything was able to evolute? Where did it come from?”
Well evolution only deals with life changing over time, it doesn’t deal with origins of life, nor does it deal with the origins of the universe. No wonder you don’t understand it. Where did it come from…well ultimately all matter, it all came from the same source post Big bang.
“EVERYTHING points to a desingner. It simply doesn´t many any senSe why there is this diversity of creatures in this world, knowing that most of creature already died out.”
Ok, well then explain why some 99% of all species have gone extinct, to me that’s not intelligent design at all. When 99% of all the things one could make fail, that’s not proof of any designer that's proof of ineptness. You do realize in Dover in 2005 ID was deemed not a Science right?
Try me, what do you find so hard to understand regarding evolution?
Here are only 2 pieces of evidence out of millions that support evolution. It will help if you have a basic understanding in biology to comprehend these vids, alas educate yourself.
Evidence of Common Ancestry: ERVs
www.youtube.com/watch?v=De-OkzTUDVA
Evidence of Common Ancestry: human Chromosome 2 fusion
www.youtube.com/watch?v=x-WAHpC0Ah0
Ken Miller on Human Evolution as it relates to the Dover trilal.
http://youtube.com/watch?v=zi8FfMBYCkk
I have posted many other links on evidence for evolution on this thread, feel free to go back a page or pages and refer to them and then try to tell me no evidence for evolution exists.
my friend, thanks for the english lesson for free. Well there is life for free, sponsord by Jesus Christ, but I guess you don´t accept that as much as I did your lesson...
All Evo-Theorie is based on 1 thing that cause the so called "big bang" and if you want to take that away now, go ahead.
Sience is what you can see, reproduce and examine. Evolution doesn´t belong to that.
C14 can not be used correctly after a period of time longer than approx 4-5000 years, this is fact.
What was there before anything was able to evolute? Where did it come from?
EVERYTHING points to a desingner. It simply doesn´t many any senSe why there is this diversity of creatures in this world, knowing that most of creature already died out.
Believe what you want - to me it is obvious that true scientific evidence is interpreted falsely when you conclude to evolution. But this is just me
"All the rest of evolution doesn´t make any sence to me. "
Like what? fyi , it's sense, not sence.
"All material erose from nothing."
Where in Evolutionary theory is this uses? Nowhere! Besides, it sounds like you're getting the origins of the universe confused with evolution, which are after all 2 totally different realms of science.
"All this diversity came from 1 non existing thing."
Uh, no. Scientists actaully have evidence for a YUCA that existed some 3.85 billion years ago. so that firt life form was certainly existing.
Yes you are right. This is what I believe. Well there are others that believe different and I can stand that, but the bible that is truth to me says abput 6000 years.
All the rest of evolution doesn´t make any sence to me.
All material erose from nothing. All this diversity came from 1 non existing thing.
Evolutionists explain everything with time - Creationists explain everything with God - and my brain says the God story is the only reasonable to find.
But I can live with you believing different.
prodriver,
WHY can't the age be true? what...let me guess, you think the earth/universe are only 6000 years young right?
"He is 1.6 million years old..." well, this can hardly be true but even here on Christianpost we are already told this stuff.
notw06,
Ok, it's cited well done....but what does this quote prove in terms of supporting your view that evolution is false?
You didn't follow it up with anything, you just cited a small quote, that's about just as meaningless as not citing it at all.
Could you reply to my past links below on such instances of fossils please.
Your citing shows that ordinary DNA cell duplication invariably, but relatively rarely has copying errors....so what? How does this negate evolution? We've known for decades that DNA undergoes regular copying errors (mutations) and this is exactly how new genetic information is added as Hox Genes.
Mutation rates vary greatly between phyla and are affected by environment. Scientifically evaluating whether a mutation is generically harmful or beneficial is going to be almost impossible in the lab except in relation to the environment that the organism is being cultured in. Bacteria seem to come out at around 0.004 mutations per genome per replication.
In bacteria it has been proven that it is possible to stimulate a mutation to protect against predation in around 5-10 days (Gillot 1993 or Van den Ende 1973). Boraas 1998 has demonstrated such adaptions in the green alga Chlorella vulgaris after 100 generations.
Stability of the cultures in the lab certainly indicates that the rate of deleterious mutations is not high enough to damage the long term viability of the species.
So overall analysis of against total numbers of mutations have to rely on comparisons of DNA.
Estimate of the mutation rate per nucleotide in humans
Nachman and Crowell (2000)
175 mutations per diploid genome per generation. Deleterious mutations per generation 3, 1.72%. I've seen a figure of 98% of human mutations being neutral, so maybe 0.28% are beneficial.
"Generation after generation, through countless cell divisions, the genetic heritage of living things is scrupulously preserved in DNA ... All of life depends on the accurate transmission of information. As genetic messages are passed through generations of dividing cells, even small mistakes can be life-threatening ... if mistakes were as rare as one in a million, 3000 mistakes would be made during each duplication of the human genome. Since the genome replicates about a million billion times in the course of building a human being from a single fertilised egg, it is unlikely that the human organism could tolerate such a high rate of error. In fact, the actual rate of mistakes is more like one in 10 billion."
(Miroslav Radman and Robert Wagner, The High Fidelity of DNA Duplication... Scientific America. Vol. 299, No 2 (August 1988, pp 40-44. Quote is from page 24))
atheist notice--the previous quote is meticulously cited
agent--is it only legit if if comes from the web? is information only legit if it comes from the mouths of atheists who would rather have faith in aliens and accidents that require greater faith than proposed by any religion?
I know what logos means relax. Again the orgins or how life got here doesn't negate what occurs after it's here. Regardless how it got here it can and does evolve and that's all evolution deals with, it doesn't cover the origins of life.
Well I do agree a little bit that adding some of the clay or what not to produce a skull seems wierd, but it's for representational purposes only. I just wanted to point out that the fossils are there it just requires people to take the effort to recongnize them and understand how they fit in with the theory in the big scheme of things.
Sorry, misuse of Logos. II forgot my greek and I am still drawing a blank. So, substitute "origin" for "logos." I do apologize for being a bit belligerent. I am frustrated, no excuse, so I really do appreciate everyone's help in finding some answers to my questions. There are far too many misrepresentation on web resources, academic or elsewise.
My bad. Now, as for the slavery discussion.
Christians Believe Jesus IS God in Flesh. The Bible is the Word of God. Now, IF Jesus is God, THEN every He says must be given precedence over every other command. Now, If the "Love your neighbor as yourself" verse is taken one step further, and contrasted to earlier passages, then you see slavery not condoned, For a little support for this stance, check out what God has to say to Israel when she demands a human king to be like their neighbors. The arguement becomes moot if you remove "love your neighbor" and is even more muddled when not 'tempered by faith. Not very objective in the secular view, I'll grant you, but we're discussing theological ethics, and theology implies faith.
Now, when I looked at the fossils called "transitional",(I'm not sure where our miscommunication lies but I'll assume it is my fault), I find that the fossils that were discovered and deemed so were missing skeletal parts. The missing skeletal parts were conjectured- they were added to complete the fossil. I know that this is common practice, but one that has bitten paleotologists and arthropologists.often enough you know where.
s_vawter,
I will say in that in the abstract of the bible it’s not for or really against slavery, but there are points that express either side so it's more a mixed bag rather than a well defined qualitative answer. The passages that refer to slavery are easy to see that they condone it, while others later like ‘love your neighbor like yourself’ negate it, thus the mixed bag.
If these don’t demonstrate "transitional fossils" what are they then?
Hominids
www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-transitional.html
www.talkorigins.org/faqs/homs/
www.theistic-evolution.com/transitional.html
http://darwiniana.org/hominid.htm
www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/hominids.html
www.becominghuman.org/
Whales
www.talkorigins.org/features/whales/
www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CC/CC216_1.html
www.nsf.gov/od/lpa/news/02/pr0235.htm
www.pbs.org/wgbh/evolution/library/11/2/e_s_3.html
www.pbs.org/wgbh/evolution/
www.ucmp.berkeley.edu/mammal/cetacea/cetacean.html
www-personal.umich.edu/~gingeric/PDGwhales/Whales.htm
http://ngm.nationalgeographic.com/ngm/data/2001/11/01/html/ft_20011101.4.html
www.tolweb.org/Cetacea/15977
“Evolution, as an atheistic account for logos, falls flat on it's face. It requires, at some point, life from lifelessness.”
Actually no, it doesn’t. I’ve said this many times and no offense, many Christians misterpit evolution as meaning the origins of life, but evolution doesn’t deal with origins for life at all. Evolution only deals with life changing over time and that’s all. Regardless if god poofed life here or if aliens engineered it, or if life naturally arose via chemical bonding processes doesn’t negate the fact that once life exists it changes and evolves over time. How life began is another realm of Science, abiogensis.
“but it is a near-impossibility for life from nothing”
Well no scientists are claim life came from ‘nothing’, rather they argue that the chemical bonding process of organic molecules that occur naturally were enough to form the first base amino acids and nucleotide chains required to build RNA and DNA.
The most influential passage, in nice Red letters, spoken by God Himself- "Love your neighbor as you would love yourself." (Mt 22:37) There is no modifier for neighbor, with regards to anything (gender, faith, color, sexual preference, et cetera). Disiplinary Laws apply only to those within the "camp," or for modern world, the "Church." The rules for the "Church" to love everybody, including enemies, makes everyone neighbors to the Christian.
Utilizing what we like to call to logic, if you are to love your neighbor as you love yourself, and you aren't willing to subject yourself to slavery , then you aren't willing to subject anyone (neghbors) to slavery. Doing otherwise, ie enslaving someone, is a sin.
I flagged myself
I do apologize for my trusting declared ID sites to factually representing ID, BTW. I guess many of those sites are consdered "literal creationist" but are labled as ID.
Agent Orange- are you going to hide behind your "pre-emptive" statement WRT your blatant quote mining? Or, are you going to hide and also redirect by blasting someone else? It is actually really hard to justify your position irt the "slavery is biblically sound" statement- because you failed to take any of those passages in context. It is easy for me to say the "transitional fossils" are mostly lacking, because the skeletal parts that make many to be such aren't present, they are conjectural, either partly or wholly. Evolution, as an atheistic account for logos, falls flat on it's face. It requires, at some point, life from lifelessness. Until someone throws together a periodic table hodge podge into a vaccuum, and then finds a lifeform emerge from some chemical and physical process, then the theistic view cannot be discounted. The math has already been done on that, and I will endeavor to cite it, but it is a near-impossibility for life from nothing. Therefore, because the Atheistic view relies heavily on faith IRT genesis, it is not a valid scientific worldview, but rightly becomes a sort of theolgy.
Slacker,
“Slavery is NOT condoned when you take quotes in context”
It mentions selling your daughter as a slave, the prices to charge for slaves based on the age and sex of the person, how to ethically beat your slave and how you will be judged if you kill them within 2 days, it cites when to take slaves after vanquishing an enemy that doesn’t submit to you, and so on. These are not passages against the very act of slavery. Where are the messages that say the very act of slavery is ungodly or wrong?
notw06,
Look who's back, the famous spamming quote miner who never cites his sources. Glad your back.
Are you going to cite any evidence instead of meaningless quotes?
'Is this taken out of context? Hmmm... "
it's hard to know as you won't provide original source..
Also, Mr. Parker is a writer for AIG, hardly a scientifically peer reviewed journal such as Nature or National Geographic, but o well. This guy you're quoting publishes work that isn't scientifically peer reviewed either, what a surprise..
Strangely accord the NCSE he’s never published anything under scientific peer review either (real shocker).
To AgentOrange
"In the case of the bible, the points where it mentions slavery as an example are hard to quote out of context to make it appear like it doesn’t condone slavery. That said, if I were to post the verses where it mentions slavery, even if someone were to read the parts in which the quotes are taken from it would be clear that the bible, in terms of ethics has no qualms with the principle act of slavery and so it’s hard to quote mine it to deliberately make it appear as it the bible doesn’t support slavery. "
By not reading the entire context of the passage is falsely giving testimony to the Word of God, which is taking it out of context. Just as Slave owners have done to justify the slave trade from the Bible which is false.
Uhm, Agent Orange, you are now quote mining. Slavery is NOT condoned when you take quotes in context. The quotes pertaining to slaves in OT can be framed in such a way as to give appearance of an "Godly greenlight," however, when taken in context to "love your neighbor as you would love yourself" (YHWH OT,Jesus/ Yeshua NT), and the passage where Paul of Taursas admonishes a slave owner for not having freed his servant, then the statement of slave owning as being ok loses it's credibility. Furthermore, the two Laws deemed greatest by God in Flesh, Yeshua (Jesus), seem to prohibit slave owning as an ethical,/ permissable practice for all believers.
All paraphrases, summaries. and quotes come either directly or indirectly from the NIV and/ or NKJV translations.
Hello notw06
"The intelligent layman has long suspected circular reasoning in the use of rocks to date fossils and fossils to date rocks. The geologist has never bothered to think of a good reply."
(J.O'Rourke in the American Journal of Science)
Actually what the fossils allow geologists to do is "relatively" date rocks in that it can be said a particular strata was deposited before another one and of course vice versa ie If a strata contains Trilobites it must be at least permian or before, in much the same sense that a strata with a chilled margin under a sill must have been deposited before the sill was intruded. Hope that cleas up the circuler reasoning myth. Regards, Steve
"In most people's minds, fossils and Evolution go hand in hand. In reality, fossils are a great embarrassment to Evolutionary theory and offer strong support for the concept of Creation. If Evolution were true, we should find literally millions of fossils that show how one kind of life slowly and gradually changed to another kind of life. But missing links are the trade secret, in a sense, of palaeontology. The point is, the links are still missing. What we really find are gaps that sharpen up the boundaries between kinds. It's those gaps which provide us with the evidence of Creation of separate kinds. As a matter of fact, there are gaps between each of the major kinds of plants and animals. Transition forms are missing by the millions. What we do find are separate and complex kinds, pointing to Creation."
(Dr Gary Parker Biologist/palaeontologist and former ardent Evolutionist.)
Is this taken out of context? Hmmm...
"The intelligent layman has long suspected circular reasoning in the use of rocks to date fossils and fossils to date rocks. The geologist has never bothered to think of a good reply."
(J.O'Rourke in the American Journal of Science)
"The fossil record pertaining to man is still so sparsely known that those who insist on positive declarations can do nothing more than jump from one hazardous surmise to another and hope that the next dramatic discovery does not make them utter fools ... Clearly some refuse to learn from this. As we have seen, there are numerous scientists and popularizers today who have the temerity to tell us that there is 'no doubt' how man originated: if only they had the evidence..."
(William R Fix, The Bone Pedlars, New York: Macmillan Publishing Company, 1984, p.150)
"Not one change of species into another is on record ... we cannot prove that a single species has been changed."
(Charles Darwin, My Life & Letters)
"The more scientists have searched for the transitional forms that lie between species, the more they have been frustrated."
(John Adler with John Carey: Is Man a Subtle Accident, Newsweek, Vol.96, No.18 (November 3, 1980, p.95)
"The fact that a theory so vague, so insufficiently verifiable, and so far from the criteria otherwise applied in 'hard' science has become a dogma can only be explained on sociological grounds."
(Ludwig von Bertalanffy, biologist)
"Micromutations do occur, but the theory that these alone can account for evolutionary change is either falsified, or else it is an unfalsifiable, hence metaphysical theory. I suppose that nobody will deny that it is a great misfortune if an entire branch of science becomes addicted to a false theory. But this is what has happened in biology: ... I believe that one day the Darwinian myth will be ranked the greatest deceit in the history of science. When this happens many people will pose the question: How did this ever happen?"
(S Lovtrup, Darwinism: The Refutation of a Myth (London:Croom Helm, p.422))
please note citation
"Generation after generation, through countless cell divisions, the genetic heritage of living things is scrupulously preserved in DNA ... All of life depends on the accurate transmission of information. As genetic messages are passed through generations of dividing cells, even small mistakes can be life-threatening ... if mistakes were as rare as one in a million, 3000 mistakes would be made during each duplication of the human genome. Since the genome replicates about a million billion times in the course of building a human being from a single fertilised egg, it is unlikely that the human organism could tolerate such a high rate of error. In fact, the actual rate of mistakes is more like one in 10 billion."
(Miroslav Radman and Robert Wagner, The High Fidelity of DNA Duplication... Scientific America. Vol. 299, No 2 (August 1988, pp 40-44. Quote is from page 24))
atheist notice--the previous quote is meticulously cited
Slacker,
This is why sources are key so they can establish the veracity, and this is why notw06 likely source his quotes as he realizes that I or someone else will verify them and in turn this would perhaps embarrass him again. Using quotes to support a proposition isn’t very convincing anyway; to support or destroy a proposition requires evidence.
Yes, about anything can be quoted out of context. However, it’s important to note that when taking short quotes out of larger bodied text, unless the end meaning that is quoted is contradictory to the intentioned meaning of the larger bodies text, than it’s not a quote mine.
It’s only a quote mine if it’s contradictory to the actual meaning of said body of text.
In the case of the bible, the points where it mentions slavery as an example are hard to quote out of context to make it appear like it doesn’t condone slavery. That said, if I were to post the verses where it mentions slavery, even if someone were to read the parts in which the quotes are taken from it would be clear that the bible, in terms of ethics has no qualms with the principle act of slavery and so it’s hard to quote mine it to deliberately make it appear as it the bible doesn’t support slavery.
Seedplanter,
Dembski has said in his own book the Intelligent Designer is god, this is why he holds an except of common descent to man. The only main difference between creationism and ID is that creationism adheres mostly to the literal interpolation of the bible, while ID doesn’t. The main reason for this is even the ID folk realize how horrid the arguments are for creationism and considering it’s been repeatedly shot down in court and deemed unscientific it can’t be taught in schools.
The ID folk know the science behind all other realms of evolution regarding dating and such that refute creationism are solid and well tested, so they opt for a realm where less is known and in sake of ignorance deem anything IC is the result of a designer.
Seedplanter, do you find hurricanes an example of increased complexity?
"Quote mining is intentionally cherry picked bits and pieces of writings, taken out of context to miislead and make it a appear the person being quaoted is against what generally they believe or support."
Really, sounds alot like what most people do to the bible to support some rediculus claim against it or to support some argument against christians....
Creationism vs. Evolution
http://polemos.net/Creationism.html
s_vawter: “ID hasn't helped itself a whole lot by it's young earth claims.”
Allow me to correct your common misunderstanding. IDers do not make a young earth claim. They do not call into question modern scientific methods of determining the age of the earth. As a matter of fact Michael Behe himself actually adheres to complete common decent (evolution of man). William Dembski adheres to common decent with the exception of man. There is a difference between creationism and ID. I am currently reading The Evolution Controversy: A Survey of Competing Theories in which Thomas B. Fowler and Daniel Kuebler explain the different points of view on origins. ID is very much in line with the National Academy of Science, except for recognizing that life is not the consequences of natural phenomena and that its complexity infers a designer.
As for quote mining, that's not really true IRT academia- natural science's may have that tendancy, but socialogist's, philosopher's, and literary critic's do not. In fact, most writers attacking some societal norm or taboo set up "straw man" quotes in order to burn them, a la Christopher Hitchinson. Though I may be loathe to call him "academic," his works have quite often made their way into college campuses. There are many other authors I could list, but I honestly have better things to do at this point, and I believe you get my point.Can anyone tell me why there is a green hyper link in one of my earlier posts? Is that something this site does? Thanks again, I've work to do!
Yeah, there is a huge amount of ID groups that claim a 6,000 year old earth. They really don't help the theistic argument. In addition to the bad math, they teach an earth of simultaneous habitation of humans and dinosaurs. As for talk origins- Tell me, how does one declare "transitional fossil" because it contains conjectural pedal components- a la sea cow. I am by no means anti-evolution, as I stated before- evolution and Christianity aren't mutually exclusive. Any help in finding some objective data is appreciated, and I will view some of those sites you listed, Agent Orange. Thanks! God Bless you all!
"Quote mining? please define that, because if we cite a quote, it is a practice ALL academics use when writing "
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quote_mining
Quote mining is intentionally cherry picked bits and pieces of writings, taken out of context to miislead and make it a appear the person being quaoted is against what generally they believe or support.
Academics use quotes but refer to them and cite them in their works. no one writes a book qouting someone and then doesn't cite the source as to do so lends to notion that the source isn't reptuable or the quote is wrong to begin with.
Academics generally wont quote people when attempting to prove a proposition, instead they refer to evidence or tests that demonstrate a theory in action. This is something notw06 doesn't do. When he did try to, he made a big mistake by saying all mutations are bad and that they always kill the host, but I know science well enough to smell it for what it was and cited where he was wrong and after that all he has done since has been useless quotemines with no sources attached.
s_vawter,
since you conclude that it's all conjecture on talkorigins part, i invite you and others to research them for yourself. This is hardly a full listing.
Hominids
www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-transitional.html
www.talkorigins.org/faqs/homs/
www.theistic-evolution.com/transitional.html
http://darwiniana.org/hominid.htm
www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/hominids.html
www.becominghuman.org/
Whales
www.talkorigins.org/features/whales/
www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CC/CC216_1.html
www.nsf.gov/od/lpa/news/02/pr0235.htm
www.pbs.org/wgbh/evolution/library/11/2/e_s_3.html
www.pbs.org/wgbh/evolution/
www.ucmp.berkeley.edu/mammal/cetacea/cetacean.html
www-personal.umich.edu/~gingeric/PDGwhales/Whales.htm
http://ngm.nationalgeographic.com/ngm/data/2001/11/01/html/ft_20011101.4.html
www.tolweb.org/Cetacea/15977
"Aside from the whole "spontaneous generation" need for evoluton to have had happened"
this one too now.sheesh. how many times must this be said, evolution isn't negated by HOW life got here. evolution only deals with life evolving over time. Regardless if god poofed it here, or it aliens genetically engineered it, or if it was the result of chemical bonding processes doesn't negate that once life is around it adapts and evolves.
jesus4me,
"I see an awful lot of flagging done to seedplanter"
Didn't you see where seedplanter said he flagged himself? "(I flagged myself) "
Only bobx2x was flagging anyone and he also flagged me b/c I told him to stop as I was responding to notw and embarssing him for proclaiming all mutations are harmfull.
s_vawter
I apologise in advance if I am wrong but I am not aware that the ID movement makes claims about a young Earth, as far as I know they are quite happy (and rightly so) with a 4.5 Ga Earth. I hold no truckwith the ID movement but I don't like to see people misrepresented.
Regards, Steve
why are all the really angry atheists flagging the born again Christians? Could it be that they just can't handle the truth of the Word of God?????? Of course it is. Please give people the courtesy not to flag them just cause you don't agree with what they are saying please. I see an awful lot of flagging done to seedplanter, and I have read his views before, and he is right on.
I wonder- Do you really think God cares all that much about whether or not we think He made us gradually, or all at once? That was the crux of C.S. Lewis statements in Mere Christianity, and are still true today- I am willing to bank on His lack of care in that arena. If the God I know is the Almightty One True LORD, He cares more that we obey those little red letters, then take the rest in context to those. As for the neo-naturalists, if one was to visit talk origins, and then trace back their "transitional" fossils, you would see that a great deal many of them contain "conjectural" components. They merely "made them up" in order to have that skeleton fit their theory! If memory serves, this practice caused a great deal of embarassment in the early 20th century, when they based a "missing link" discovery on a abnormal pig's jaw. Aside from the whole "spontaneous generation" need for evoluton to have had happened, and the need to make up evidence, ID hasn't helped itself a whole lot by it's young earth claims. Quote mining? please define that, because if we cite a quote, it is a practice ALL academics use when writing
seedplanter, I wasn't refering to you, moreso notw and his quotes and that is all he does. he hasn't gotten into the ring with me and never mentions evidence for anything so he's harmless.
seedplanter, why anyone can quote mine. what do mined quotes prove?
AgentOrnery, you should be careful hanging around here so much or you’ll be next on my list of former atheists.
(I flagged myself)
Prodriver: “When we say there was (and is) evolution, we say the bible is a book full of lies. There is no way around this fact.”
Prodriver , I think that John Polkinghorne and his fellow colleagues would disagree with you.
Francis Collins - Geneticist who was an atheist until age 27, but then converted to Christianity. He is the director of the National Human Genome Research Institute (NHGRI) and author of The Language of God: A Scientist Presents Evidence for Belief, in which he defends evolution.
Alister McGrath - Biochemist and Christian theologian. Founder of 'Scientific theology' and critic of Richard Dawkins in books like Dawkins' God: Genes, Memes, and the Meaning of Life and The Dawkins Delusion? I’m guessing that McGrath adheres to evolution, although I can’t be sure.
C. S. Lewis - writer who became an atheist as a young man but returned to Christianity and wrote many books about his faith. C. S. Lewis has been criticized by Ken Ham for advocating evolution in Mere Christianity.
notw06,
nice, more quotes. are you ever going to cite them?
Ever?
are you ever going to provide actual evidence against evolution instead of useless spamming of quotes mined from some creationist site?
"In most people's minds, fossils and Evolution go hand in hand. In reality, fossils are a great embarrassment to Evolutionary theory and offer strong support for the concept of Creation. If Evolution were true, we should find literally millions of fossils that show how one kind of life slowly and gradually changed to another kind of life. But missing links are the trade secret, in a sense, of palaeontology. The point is, the links are still missing. What we really find are gaps that sharpen up the boundaries between kinds. It's those gaps which provide us with the evidence of Creation of separate kinds. As a matter of fact, there are gaps between each of the major kinds of plants and animals. Transition forms are missing by the millions. What we do find are separate and complex kinds, pointing to Creation."
(Dr Gary Parker Biologist/palaeontologist and former ardent Evolutionist.)
"Fossils are a great embarrassment to Evolutionary theory and offer strong support for the concept of Creation."
(Gary Parker, Ph.D., biologist/palaeontologist and former evolutionist)
"It cannot be denied that from a strictly philosophical standpoint, geologists are here arguing in a circle. The succession of organisms has been determined by the study of their remains imbedded in the rocks, and the relative ages of the rocks are determined by the remains of the organisms they contain."
(R H Rastall, Lecturer in Economic Geology, Cambridge University: Encyclopaedia Britannica, Vol.10 (Chicago: William Benton, Publisher, 1956, p.168)
"The chance that useful DNA molecules would develop without a Designer are apparently zero. Then let me conclude by asking which came first - the DNA (which is essential for the synthesis of proteins) or the protein enzyme (DNA-polymerase) without which DNA synthesis is nil? ... there is virtually no chance that chemical 'letters' would spontaneously produce coherent DNA and protein 'words.'"
(George Howe, expert in biology sciences)
"...An intelligible communication via radio signal from some distant galaxy would be widely hailed as evidence of an intelligent source. Why then doesn't the message sequence on the DNA molecule also constitute prima facie evidence for an intelligent source? After all, DNA information is not just analogous to a message sequence such as Morse code, it is such a message sequence."
(Charles B Thaxton, Walter L Bradley and Robert L Olsen: The Mystery of Life's Origin, Reassessing Current Theories (New York Philosophical Library 1984) pp 211-212)
"Generation after generation, through countless cell divisions, the genetic heritage of living things is scrupulously preserved in DNA ... All of life depends on the accurate transmission of information. As genetic messages are passed through generations of dividing cells, even small mistakes can be life-threatening ... if mistakes were as rare as one in a million, 3000 mistakes would be made during each duplication of the human genome. Since the genome replicates about a million billion times in the course of building a human being from a single fertilised egg, it is unlikely that the human organism could tolerate such a high rate of error. In fact, the actual rate of mistakes is more like one in 10 billion."
(Miroslav Radman and Robert Wagner, The High Fidelity of DNA Duplication... Scientific America. Vol. 299, No 2 (August 1988, pp 40-44. Quote is from page 24))
"Evolution lacks a scientifically acceptable explanation of the source of the precisely planned codes within cells without which there can be no specific proteins and hence, no life."
(David A Kaufman, Ph.D., University of Florida, Gainsesville)
"Any suppression which undermines and destroys that very foundation on which scientific methodology and research was erected, evolutionist or otherwise, cannot and must not be allowed to flourish ... It is a confrontation between scientific objectivity and ingrained prejudice - between logic and emotion - between fact and fiction ... In the final analysis, objective scientific logic has to prevail - no matter what the final result is - no matter how many time-honoured idols have to be discarded in the process ... After all, it is not the duty of science to defend the theory of evolution and stick by it to the bitter end -no matter what illogical and unsupported conclusions it offers ... If in the process of impartial scientific logic, they find that creation by outside intelligence is the solution to our quandary, then let's cut the umbilical chord that tied us down to Darwin for such a long time. It is choking us and holding us back ... Every single concept advanced by the theory of evolution (and amended thereafter) is imaginary as it is not supported by the scientifically established probability concepts. Darwin was wrong... The theory of evolution may be the worst mistake made in science."
(I L Cohen, Darwin Was Wrong - A Study in Probabilities PO Box 231, Greenvale, New York 11548: New Research Publications, Inc. pp 6-8, 209-210, 214-215. I.L.Cohen, Member of the New York Academy of Sciences and Officer of the Archaeological Institute of America).
"steveh20, find a bunny fossil in the cambrian and evolution is done. but we don't find that. =) "
Yeah, brillaint isn't it.....and never shall we
Steve
ProfessorX,
iIs that all you can do. cite a link and leave? ya, like a BLOG site is a place for science accuracy and has authority in the matter. nice try. people, if you want science use sites like PBS, National geopgrahic, national history museum, etc. Don't go to nonsense like a blog site where someone can purposely mislead.
I swear you're just as bas as notw06.
Happy Darwin Day by the way everyone!
DARWINISM AND ATHEISM REMAINS UNSCIENTIFIC AND MYTHICAL
http://www.evolutionfacts.blogspot.com
survivaloftheunfit,
Since you’re fond of Kent Hovind, a college of mine took the liberty of creating some vids on his work and boy Hovind doesn’t look so smart now. You do realize Hovind got his degree from a diploma mill, yes?
www.youtube.com/watch?v=BdEZTdOlGss
www.youtube.com/watch?v=vjFeVwuJB7I
www.youtube.com/watch?v=uvprBLhJx_o
www.youtube.com/watch?v=YKdfeP1sGIg
www.youtube.com/watch?v=l6_o1GxgNMQ
www.youtube.com/watch?v=lw80oduQckM
Evolutionists are bluffing when they say their beliefs are scientific. Be sure to look at the list of evolutionists who refuse the debate challenge from Dr. Joseph Mastropaolo. See the list at http://www.lifescienceprize.org/.
"It's by Kent Hovind, a well known creation scientist and I highly recommend it.
P.S. as in my last comment - I don't know how Darwin gets called a scientist these days when the only degree he had was in theology. "
ya, Kent hovind, the guy tha'ts in jail for 10 years for numerous counts of tax evasion. no thanks, he has no authority on science at all. I wil post some vids in which a college of mine debunks many arguements put forth by kent hovind. it's funny you attack a guy who was a theology major or all things, and you compare him to Kent hovind who got his degree at a diplom mill.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kent_Hovind
I'm not sure how or why my comment was flagged as inappropriate - but if anyone would like to see a well reasoned argument against darwin and evolution, search for "lies in the textbooks" on video google. It's by Kent Hovind, a well known creation scientist and I highly recommend it.
P.S. as in my last comment - I don't know how Darwin gets called a scientist these days when the only degree he had was in theology.
steveh20,
find a bunny fossil in the cambrian and evolution is done. but we don't find that. =)
notw06,
I can't see why bob or anyone besides notw06 would flag this comment I had below. he can't cite his nonsense he spouts and in response flags all his stuff.
b/c it was flagged, I'll repost it.
“And again agent--
care to ever just answer to one of those quotes? Why is that so hard for you?”
And again I will say I will reply to them IF you cite them. it should be WHY is that so hard for you? and not What is that so hard, but o well.
There is one thing that would absolutely kill the explantion of evolution for the bio diversity that we see on this panet stone cold dead and all evolutionists are aware of this, and that is fossils found out of order in the bio stratigraphic column. All it would take is for (the sake of arguament) Silurian organisms to be found in Cambrian strata or Triassic in Devonian, and yet it has never happened. Bring on the name calling, bring on the lists of scientists who have doubts about evolution. It matters not one bit.....
notw06, I asked YOU weeks ago to explain the 2 pieces of evidence I gave for evolution and you've never even tried. I think the it's on you to respectfully try to answer said evidence before I bend over backwards it refuting your quote mines. bring evidence against evolution, not qoutes that are mined purposely to mislead.
notw06,
"All populations that have this genetic marker share a common ancestor period."
agent--you mean like Adam?”
No, only people with BLUE EYES share this specific genetic marker that is either switched on or off for an offspring to have blue eyes .
I guess if Adam lived over 10,000 years ago in a small group of Europeans then ok. Nice try. =) The oldest mtDNA for H.Sapiens dates back to 195,000 years to Africa.
‘And nothing that you pointed out would lead me to accept that mutations lead to more highly evolved creatures.”
Notw06 you clearly stated that ALL mutations are bad and kill the host species, I showed that isn’t true, thus I think it’s clear to all that you have no idea what you’re talking about with regards to biology.
"The pathetic thing is that we have scientists who are trying to prove evolution which no scientist can ever prove."
Robert A. Millikan, Nobel prize-winning physicist
"The reason we scientists all jumped at The Origin of Species was because the idea of God interfered with our sexual mores."
Sir Julian Huxley, British scientist, first director of UNESCO, grandson of Thomas Henry Huxley (known as Darwin's bulldog due to his tenacious defense of Darwin's propositions, wrote of a "Great Chain of Being" with black Africans at the bottom and white Europeans at the top,) brother of Aldous Huxley (author of Brave New World) and a leading proponent of evolution prior to his passing in 1975
Christianity makes no distinction of race or of color; it seeks to break down all racial barriers. In this respect the hand of Christianity is against that of Nature, for are not the races of mankind the evolutionary harvest which Nature has toiled through long ages to produce? May we not say, then, that Christianity is anti-evolutionary in its aim?"
Ernst Haeckel, German evolutionist and scientific advisor to Nazi Germany
"All populations that have this genetic marker share a common ancestor period."
agent--you mean like Adam?
And nothing that you pointed out would lead me to accept that mutations lead to more highly evolved creatures. Unless you intended to point out that maybe male pattern baldness is the next rung on the ladder for us "great apes"? Or are you backing Hitler's aryan race theories?
Blacksho89
"Darwin is dead.
Jesus lives.
That's all the evidence I need."
AMEN!
Darwin is dead.
Jesus lives.
That's all the evidence I need.
"Real intelligent" (design?)
:-))))
Why is it that when someone doesn't like the way the conversation is going, they begin personal attacks? I see this often in debates on creation vs evolution. When evolutionists can't respond to a question raised the personal attacks begin. Real intelligent.
Notw06,
Here’s where I embarrass you.
“The mutation changes are random, unpredictable errors that cause crippling diseases, loss of function and the destruction of the host person or animal. Mutations destroy the species. They do not improve the species. Mutations never lead to a new species as falsely claimed by evolutionists”
Oh, so mutations are always bad huh, and they always kill the host species huh?
Hmmm, well you should know that most mutations are in fact benign and neither aid or hurt the species at all. A recent study was done in genetics where we found the gene responsible for blue eye pigments and this relatively new gene is a genetic marker that is identifiable in populations with blue eyes. All populations that have this genetic marker share a common ancestor period. it's just like a paternity test where they identify genetic markers amongst populations to identify relationship.
www.livescience.com/health/080131-blue-eyes.html
www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/01/080130170343.htm
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eye_color
Male pattern baldness, freckles, white skin from reduced melanin in the skin, different eye color pigments from reduced melanin, etc. all benign MUTATIONS...... in just H.Sapiens mind you.
care to cite your source already ?
notw06 and everyone else, I took the liberty to do a random google search on some of his quotes and found this site to be the author - http://emporium.turnpike.net/C/cs/evid8.htm
not very reputable if you ask me, it's a personal site and the references pages are so old is pathetic. - http://emporium.turnpike.net/C/cs/refer.htm#Ref4
care to site those sources yet notw06?
“The Rev. Clenard Childress, pastor of The New Calvary Baptist Deliverance Outreach Church, is among many who have called evolution a “farce.”.
Okie dokie Rev, whatever you say.
Rev then adds:
“…that the creation of life and the universe are results of an intelligent “designer” and not by chance as evolution theory suggests.”
Well that’s just it Rev, evolution in no way deals with the ORIGINS or LIFE, nor does it deal at all with the ORIGINS of the Universe. Evolution explains the processes of life changing over time and nothing more.
Ol Rev would do himself well to familiarize himself with what evolution really deals with and perhaps he’d come to the same conclusion the current and previous Catholic popes have in regards to evolution.
The only reason why such events as this are necessary is b/c of the lack of utter basic understanding in biology, genetics, paleontology and other realms of science that are needed to be understood well to grasp evolutionary theory.
Thoughts.....anyone?
well, notw06 or bob do either of you have anything to add instead of flagging me?
so sad. so utterly pathetic that I am silenced.
could whoever is flagging please stop!!!!!!! If you don't wish to have a civil dialogue, then don't post on the board. It's as simple as that!
agentorange, you just made a mistake.
agent--
Checked out your info. Interesting. But still does not negate the existence of God, our Creator. "Data are just as often molded to fit preferred conclusions." Roger Lewin, pro-evolutionist. You wrote, "so it’s at least possible that aliens could have created the first DNA strands." Aliens? You would rather express faith in little green men from space than in God? What a leap of faith. "Evolution is unproved and unprovable. We believe it only because the only alternative is special creation which is unthinkable." Arthur Keith. I know you hate these quotes--sorry--but maybe that is because you cannnot answer them. You can quote scientific "fact" as well as I can quote fulfilled, historically proven Biblical prophecy--we will have to agree to disagree.
Evolutionists just throw up their hands at the question of the origin of matter because they know something cannot evolve from nothing. They stick their heads in the sand and ignore the problem.
"The pathetic thing is that we have scientists who are trying to prove evolution which no scientist can ever prove."
Robert A. Millikan, Nobel prize-winning physicist
"Darwin's theory of natural selection has never had any proof . . . yet it has been universally accepted."
Dr. Richard Goldschmidt, professor of zoology at the University of California
agent
I did answer you.
Isn't our Creator amazing!
So are you saying that these scientists did not say these things?
Look up each name--you can find it.
Still you refuse to refute or accept what they say.
And what about that giraffe?
Wrong answer notw06.
notw06: "Hey, bob--" "O, little man,"
Tell me why I shouldn't censor all of your comments.
agent
look at the names after the quotes
can you not answer to what they say?
."Why not consider the possibility that life is what it so evidently seems to be, the product of creative intelligence? Science would not come to an end, because the task would remain of deciphering the languages in which genetic information is communicated, and in general finding out how the whole system works. What scientists would lose is not an inspiring research program, but the illusion of total mastery of nature. They would have to face the possibility that beyond the natural world there is a further reality which transcends science." "We (evolutionists) have been telling our students for years not to accept any statement on its face value but to examine the evidence, and, therefore, it is rather a shock to discover that we have failed to follow our own sound advice." John T, Bonner "We Paleontologists have said that the history of life supports (the story of gradual adaptive change), all the while really knowing that it does not." Miles Eldredge, pro-evolution "...the philosophy of evolution is based upon assumptions that cannot be scientifically verified...whatever evidence can be assembled for evolution is both limited and circumstantial in nature." G.A. Kerkut, pro-evolution "It is, in fact, a common fantasy, promulgated mostly by the scientific profession itself, that in the search for objective truth, data dictate conclusions." "Data are just as often molded to fit preferred conclusions." Roger Lewin, pro-evolutionist "We do not see things the way they are; we see them the way we are." David Pilbeam, pro-evolution "The more one studies paleontology, the more certain one becomes that evolution is based on faith alone." T.L. Moor, pro-evolution
Mutations, DNA replication errors, are the result of DNA that is replicated with damage that passes on to the offspring. Mutations are very rare because of DNA checking and repair. However, one in every ten million duplications of a DNA molecule can result in a mutation (error). The mutation changes are random, unpredictable errors that cause crippling diseases, loss of function and the destruction of the host person or animal. Mutations destroy the species. They do not improve the species. Mutations never lead to a new species as falsely claimed by evolutionists.
Hewy notw06 - your condescension and ignorance is offensive.
it doesn´t matter if you believe in a God or not when talking about evolution.
When we say there was (and is) evolution, we say the bible is a book full of lies. There is no way around this fact.
Next thing we say is, that we are really funny people on this planet to believe that this amout of chance occured.
Check out: getexpelled.com and use your brain folks.
TWPeck has it wrong. Evolution is a religion. It's a religion which has considerably less evidence that Christianity does, and one that would be harder to believe in if the actual scientific method was still being followed.
What is most telling about this is the continued drive to separate "science" and "religion", as if the two were NOT intertwined. What is really the issue the seeking of truth and the sorting of facts and how to interpret those facts since neither evolution nor a religious belief can be demonstrated in a "scientific" manner - they both use a combination of fact and and interpretation of those facts.
Science is objective, but not the ones interpreting the information.
"Atheist" scientist
That's very bad. I never talk about scientists that way. Look at Ken Miller and Richard Dawkins. One's a theist, the other is an atheist. Who cares? They both love evolution. Neither one of them calls it theistic evolution or atheistic evolution. Evolution has absolutely nothing to do with the existence or non-existence of cosmic magicians. Evolution is science. Religious scientists don't call themselves "theistic scientists". They call themselves "scientists". Religious scientists know their religious beliefs have absolutely nothing to do with science. Science explains the natural world. Invoking magic (god) is totally against the scientific method. Imagine a scientist who said during a presentation of his hypothesis "Here a miracle occurs". That never happens for the obvious reason invoking magic could never solve any problem.
The idea there's a difference between an atheist scientist and a theist scientist is as dumb as calling a garbage man an atheistic garbage man or a theist garbage man. Atheism and theism have nothing to do with garbage collection or science.
Bob, when we say something like, "Atheist" scientist, we mean a scientist who takes their views from an atheistic perspective. Science is not 100% objective, in fact, its interpretations are largely based upon what a person believes about the nature of the world. For instance, say we are observing the exactness of the laws governing this universe. Science tells us what the laws are, but an atheist would say, "Oh well they are random" a Christian would say, "This points to a creator" They both took exactly the same evidence, they both interpreted it in a different way. Sure, the evidence is the same either way, the resultant ideas are based upon the ideology.
there will never be any scientist to proof that the bible doesn´t tell the truth.
all that is pure theory, trying to show ther is no God - how poor to think.
what does thet bible say to leader to misslead one of the liddle, or to take away or ad to Gods word.
all this only shows the times we are in, Jesus will return so very soon and we run around blindly telling that he personally lied, when he said that earth was created in 6 days.
How can the world be so blind?
Correction:
"They both understand religion has absolutely nothing to do with any religion."
should be
"They both understand science has absolutely nothing to do with any religion."
jesus4me "Ben Stein is coming up with a true documentary on how the scientific community is shunning scientists who start having doubts about evolution as fact, and not a theory. I urge you to look out for it, it should be coming out in theaters in April. Maybe it will let you open you eyes to the lying conspiracy of evolution and the fear that the secular media and others have about intelligent design getting more credibility than what secular scientists want to admit it has."
"intelligent design getting more credibility than what secular scientists want to admit it has."
The word "scientist" does not need any adjectives, especially not the adjective "secular". There is no difference between a competent religious scientist and a competent non-religious scientist. They both understand religion has absolutely nothing to do with any religion. Competent religious scientists might believe there's a god, but they never invoke god to explain anything in the natural world. They know invoking god is not scientific. Invoking intelligent design equals invoking god. Intelligent design is just another word for god. Religious scientists know invoking intelligent design (god) is not science, and that's why competent religious scientists are strongly against intelligent design creationism. The 11,000 American clergy this thread is about also understand why god has nothing to do with science, so they are also strongly against intelligent design creationism.
Your "evolution as fact, and not a theory" tells me you really need to educate yourself. You don't even understand the definition of a scientific theory. Look it up if you're interested.
Ben Stein is an actor, not a biologist, and he is not qualified to say anything about the cornerstone of biology, evolution. Besides being uneducated, Ben Stein is a liar. I have seen his blog and just like the Discovery Institute, everything he says is a lie.
Flat-earthers who deny the science of evolution are incompetent and have never contributed anything to biology. If an incompetent fake scientist complains about being laughed at, who cares? If anyone could provide any evidence for their intelligent design magic, scientists would look at it. But the ID proponents have nothing but their constant lying.
Seedplanter: Continue to speak the truth in love. Continue, for the truth needs to be heard even by really angry atheists.
btw bob2X2: Ben Stein is coming up with a true documentary on how the scientific community is shunning scientists who start having doubts about evolution as fact, and not a theory. I urge you to look out for it, it should be coming out in theaters in April. Maybe it will let you open you eyes to the lying conspiracy of evolution and the fear that the secular media and others have about intelligent design getting more credibility than what secular scientists want to admit it has.
p.s. - please don't flag my post. if you do not have the courage to endure good, honest dialogue, then get off the post and go to the PBS website and rant and rave all you want. Thanks.
bob 2X2; there are others who enjoy seed planters deep, and insightful proofs against evolution. If you do not like it, what is it to you? What is so threatening to you about his post? Then again, if you do not believe God exists, what is so threatening to you about a "God who does not exist" in your mind of a atheist? Could it be that there is more to God, and Creation than what you are willfully trying to deny? I think so, but let's move on. If you are bent on believing that you are a mass of matter that is no more different in Creation than a rock, then you have a right to believe it, but if you as an atheist come to a Christian site to read, and post, then be prepared to have a little challenging facts about your religeion of Darwinism. Futhermore, I think it was you who on another article said that the Bible was a book of fairy tales. I have to say that you may believe and say what you want, but the proof is in the pudding - The Bible, God's infallible, inherrent, Truth for mankind is the number one book printed, written, translated and sold in all of human history. Sounds like it's because it's God's Word and not a fairy tail my friend. It is you who believes in a fairy tale. One of man being descended from a monkey, or a rock, etc.
.
John 1 (New King James Version)
New King James Version (NKJV)
Copyright © 1982 by Thomas Nelson, Inc.
John 1
The Eternal Word
1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. 2 He was in the beginning with God. 3 All things were made through Him, and without Him nothing was made that was made. 4 In Him was life, and the life was the light of men. 5 And the light shines in the darkness, and the darkness did not comprehend[a] it.
John 14:6 (New King James Version)
New King James Version (NKJV)
Copyright © 1982 by Thomas Nelson, Inc
6 Jesus said to him, “I am the way, the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through Me.
Well bob I think you need to go to your neighborhood humanist convention and meditate on some atoms before you embark upon your next attempt at a rational discussion. Goodnight, sweetdreams.
The former atheists that I listed are all Christians. There are also numerous X-atheists who lost their hard skepticism for other theistic beliefs, such as Albert Einstein & the more recent Antony Flew to name a few.
More former atheists:
•Steve Beren - Former member of the Socialist Workers Party (United States) who became a Christian conservative politician.
•Anders Borg - Sweden's Minister for Finance.
•Francis Collins - Geneticist who was an atheist until age 27
•T. S. Eliot - Poet who converted from atheism to Anglicanism in 1927, aged thirty-nine.
•André Frossard - French journalist who was atheist, but converted to Catholicism in 1935.
•Joy Gresham - Poet and wife of C. S. Lewis.
•Anna Haycraft - Raised in Auguste Comte's atheistic "church of humanity"
•Ignace Lepp - French psychiatrist whose parents were freethinkers and who joined the Communist party at age fifteen. He broke with the party in 1937 and eventually became a priest.
•Félix Leseur - Doctor turned priest. His conversion, in part, came by efforts of his wife who was declared a Servant of God by the Catholic Church.
•Alister McGrath - Biochemist and Christian theologian. Founder of 'Scientific theology' and critic of Richard Dawkins in books like Dawkins' God: Genes, Memes, and the Meaning of Life and The Dawkins Delusion?
•Lacey Mosley - Vocalist and lyricist for Alternative metal band Flyleaf.
•William J. Murray - Son of Madalyn Murray O'Hair who became a Born again preacher.
•Marvin Olasky - Former Marxist turned Christian conservative, he edits the Christian World (magazine).
•Enoch Powell - Conservative Party (UK) member who converted to Anglicanism.
•George R. Price - Geneticist who became an Evangelical Christian and wrote about the New Testament. Later he moderated his evangelistic tendencies and switched from religious writing to working with the homeless.
•Gerald Priestland - News correspondent who discusses having once been the "school atheist" in Something Understood: An Autobiography. He became a Quaker after an emotional breakdown.
•Dame Cicely Saunders - Templeton Prize and Conrad N. Hilton Humanitarian Prize winning nurse known for palliative care. She converted to Christianity as a young woman.
•Edith Stein - Phenomenologist philosopher who converted to Catholicism and became a Discalced Carmelite nun; declared a saint by John Paul II.
•Peter Steele - Lead singer of Type O Negative.
•Fay Weldon - British novelist and feminist.
•John C. Wright - Science fiction author.
continued...
DR. KEITH B. MILLER professor of geology at Kansas State Univ
He edited, Perspectives on an Evolving Creation, (William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 2003) that included essays by the following Christians:
Terry Gray (Colorado State)
James Hurd (Bethel College)
Ted Davis (Messiah College)
Robin Collins (Messiah College)
David Wilcox (Eastern College)
Mark Noll (Wheaton College)
Jeff Greenberg (Wheaton College)
Laurie Braaten (Judson College)
John Munday, Jr. (Regent Univ.)
Loren Haarsma (Calvin College)
Howard Van Till (Calvin College)
Deborah Haarsma (Calvin College)
Warren Brown (Fuller Theological)
David Campbell (University of Alabama)
Jennifer Wiseman (Johns Hopkins Univ.)
Conrad Hyers (Gustavus Adolphus College) George Murphy (Trinity Lutheran Seminary) Bob Russell (Center for Theology and Natural Sciences)
There is said to be over 5,000 Prominent Christian Evolutionists
DR. JOHN POLKINGHORNE Anglican priest, former Cambridge professor of theoretical physics
DR. FRANCIS COLLINS Director of the Human Genome Project
DR. RICHARD G. COLLING chair of Biology at a fundamentalist Christian college, and also author of Random Designer: Created From Chaos To Connect With Creator
DR. DAVID N. LIVINGSTONE author of, Darwin’s Forgotten Defenders
DR. HOWARD J. VAN TILL Professor of Astronomy at Calvin College
DR. DAVID L. WILCOX Ph.D. in Population Genetics, and is Professor of Biology at Eastern College, St. David's, PA
LARRY ARNHARDT Christian and also Professor of Political Science at Northern Illinois University
DR. DONALD NIELD Professor of Engineering Science at Auckland University
DR. GRAEME FINLAY Cell Biologist who lectures in General Pathology in the Department of Molecular Medicine and Pathology at Auckland University
DR. DENIS EDWARDS author of The God of Evolution
DR. JOHN F. HAUGHT author of God After Darwin: A Theology of Evolution
DR. STANLEY L. JAKI Benedictine priest with doctorates in both theology and physics, and the author of Genesis 1 Through the Ages
Rev. Dr. Francisco Ayala, an ordained priest and scientist
Arthur Peacocke, Prof Simon Conway Morris FRS
Dennis Alexander author of Rebuilding the Matrix
Karl Schmitz-Moormann, author of Theology of Creation in an Evolutionary World
Gayle E. Woloschak, Ph. D. Professor, Department of Radiology, Department of Cell and Molecular Biology Feinberg School of Medicine Chicago, IL
Dr Caroline Berry geneticists and her husband Prof. Sam Berry
Prof Gareth Jones, who is a structural biologist
Warren Judd PhD lectured in molecular biology for several years in the University of Auckland, and is currently editor of the NZ Geographic
Graham O'Brien PhD is a molecular geneticist who is training for the ministry. He is a member of the Inter-Cchurch Bioethics Council
Ross Prestidge PhD, a biochemist, is a Senior Staff Scientist at the Genesis Research and Development Corporation Ltd., Auckland
Andrew Shelling PhD a molecular biologist, lectures in Reproductive Science at the University of Auckland, and is currently President of the Human Genetics Society of Australasia (NZ Branch)
DR. DENIS O. LAMOUREUX biologist /evolutionist and Evangelical Christian
DR. KENNETH MILLER author of Finding Darwin's God: A Scientist's Search for Common Ground Between God and Evolution
DR. KEITH B. MILLER professor of geology at Kansas State Univ
bobx2x2, your response drips with religious fervor, aren’t you capable of having an honest conversation? You still have not answered my question; Are you an atheist, agnostic, deist, theistic-evolutionist or just a make-your-own-god kind of guy?
I don't understand how scientists pass Darwin off as a "scientist" when the only degree he ever recieved was a degree in theology.
Kent Hovind explains better than anyone, check this out.. entitled "lies in the textbooks":
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=3954156199145885147
continued...
Bruce Evans: Assoc. Prof. of Biology: Huntington College • Jim Gibson: PhD Biology-Loma Linda U. • David Ness: PhD Anthropology-Temple U. • Bijan Nemati: Senior Engineer: Jet Propulsion Lab (NASA) • Edward T. Peltzer: Senior Research Specialist: Monterey Bay Research Institute • Stan E. Lennard: Clinical Assoc. Prof. of Surgery: U. of Washington • Rafe Payne: Prof. & Chair, Biola Dept. of Biological Sciences: Biola U. • Phillip Savage: Prof. of Chemical Engineering: U. of Michigan • Pattle Pun: Prof. of Biology: Wheaton College • Jed Macosko: Postdoctoral Researcher-Molecular Biology: U. of California, Berkeley • Daniel Dix: Assoc. Prof. of Mathematics: U. of South Carolina • Ed Karlow: Chair, Dept. of Physics: LaSierra U. • James Harbrecht: Clinical Assoc. Prof.: U. of Kansas Medical Center • Robert W. Smith: Prof. of Chemistry: U. of Nebraska, Omaha • Robert DiSilvestro: PhD Biochemistry-Texas A & M U., Professor, Human Nutrition, Ohio State University • David Prentice: Prof., Dept. of Life Sciences: Indiana State U. • Walt Stangl: Assoc. Prof. of Mathematics: Biola U. • Jonathan Wells: PhD Molecular & Cell Biology-U. of California, Berkeley: • James Tour: Chao Prof. of Chemistry: Rice U. • Todd Watson: Asst. Prof. of Urban & Community Forestry: Texas A & M U. • Robert Waltzer: Assoc. Prof. of Biology: Belhaven College • Vincente Villa: Prof. of Biology: Southwestern U. • Richard Sternberg: Pstdoctoral Fellow, Invertebrate Biology: Smithsonian Institute • James Tumlin: Assoc. Prof. of Medicine: Emory U. Charles Thaxton: PhD Physical Chemistry-Iowa State U.
continued...
James Graham: Professional Geologist, Sr. Program Manager: National Environmental Consulting Firm • John Baumgardner: Technical Staff, Theoretical Division: Los Alamos National Laboratory • Fred Skiff: Prof. of Physics: U. of Iowa • Paul Kuld: Assoc. Prof., Biological Science: Biola U. • Yongsoon Park: Senior Research Scientist: St. Luke's Hospital, Kansas City • Moorad Alexanian: Prof. of Physics: U. of North Carolina, Wilmington • Donald Ewert: Director of Research Administration: Wistar Institute • Joseph W. Francis: Assoc. Prof. of Biology: Cedarville U. • Thomas Saleska: Prof. of Biology: Concordia U. • Ralph W. Seelke: Prof. & Chair of Dept. of Biology & Earth Sciences: U. of Wisconsin, Superior • James G. Harman: Assoc. Chair, Dept. of Chemistry & Biochemistry: Texas Tech U. • Lennart Moller: Prof. of Environmental Medicine, Karolinska Institute: U. of Stockholm • Raymond G. Bohlin: PhD Molecular & Cell Biology-U. of Texas: • Fazale R. Rana: PhD Chemistry-Ohio U. • Michael Atchison: Prof. of Biochemistry: U. of Pennsylvania, Vet School • William S. Harris: Prof. of Basic Medical Sciences: U. of Missouri, Kansas City • Rebecca W. Keller: Research Prof., Dept. of Chemistry: U. of New Mexico • Terry Morrison: PhD Chemistry-Syracuse U. • Robert F. DeHaan: PhD Human Development-U. of Chicago • Matti Lesola: Prof., Laboratory of Bioprocess Engineering: Helsinki U. of Technology •
continued....
Lawrence H. Johnston: Emeritus Prof. of Physics: U. of Idaho • Scott Minnich: Prof., Dept of Microbiology, Molecular Biology & Biochem: U. of Idaho • David A. DeWitt: PhD Neuroscience-Case Western U. • Theodor Liss: PhD Chemistry-M.I.T. • Braxton Alfred: Emeritus Prof. of Anthropology: U. of British Columbia • Walter Bradley: Prof. Emeritus of Mechanical Engineering: Texas A & M • Paul D. Brown: Asst. Prof. of Environmental Studies: Trinity Western U. (Canada) • Marvin Fritzler: Prof. of Biochemistry & Molecular Biology: U. of Calgary, Medical School • Theodore Saito: Project Manager: Lawrence Livermore Laboratories • Muzaffar Iqbal: PhD Chemistry-U. of Saskatchewan: Center for Theology the Natural Sciences • William S. Pelletier: Emeritus Distinguished Prof. of Chemistry: U. of Georgia, Athens • Keith Delaplane: Prof. of Entomology: U. of Georgia • Ken Smith: Prof. of Mathematics: Central Michigan U. • Clarence Fouche: Prof. of Biology: Virginia Intermont College • Thomas Milner: Asst. Prof. of Biomedical Engineering: U. of Texas, Austin • Brian J.Miller: PhD Physics-Duke U. • Paul Nesselroade: Assoc. Prof. of Psychology: Simpson College • Donald F.Calbreath: Prof. of Chemistry: Whitworth College • William P. Purcell: PhD Physical Chemistry-Princeton U. • Wesley Allen: Prof. of Computational Quantum Chemistry: U. of Georgia • Jeanne Drisko: Asst. Prof., Kansas Medical Center: U. of Kansas, School of Medicine • Chris Grace: Assoc. Prof. of Psychology: Biola U. • Wolfgang Smith: Prof. Emeritus-Mathematics: Oregon State U. • Rosalind Picard: Assoc. Prof. Computer Science: M.I.T. • Garrick Little: Senior Scientist, Li-Cor: Li-Cor • John L. Omdahl: Prof. of Biochemistry & Molecular Biology: U. of New Mexico • Martin Poenie: Assoc. Prof. of Molecular Cell & Developmental Bio: U. of Texas, Austin • Russell W.Carlson: Prof. of Biochemistry & Molecular Biology: U. of Georgia • Hugh Nutley: Prof. Emeritus of Physics & Engineering: Seattle Pacific U. • David Berlinski: PhD Philosophy-Princeton: Mathematician, Author • Neil Broom: Assoc. Prof., Chemical & Materials Engineeering: U. of Auckland • John Bloom: Assoc. Prof., Physics: Biola U. •
A Scientific Dissent on Darwinism
"I am skeptical of claims for the ability of random mutation and natural selection to account for the complexity of life. Careful examination of the evidence for Darwinian theory should be encouraged."
Henry F.Schaefer: Director, Center for Computational Quantum Chemistry: U. of Georgia • Fred Sigworth: Prof. of Cellular & Molecular Physiology- Grad. School: Yale U. • Philip S. Skell: Emeritus Prof. Of Chemistry: NAS member • Frank Tipler: Prof. of Mathematical Physics: Tulane U. • Robert Kaita: Plasma Physics Lab: Princeton U. • Michael Behe: Prof. of Biological Science: Lehigh U. • Walter Hearn: PhD Biochemistry-U of Illinois • Tony Mega: Assoc. Prof. of Chemistry: Whitworth College • Dean Kenyon: Prof. Emeritus of Biology: San Francisco State U. • Marko Horb: Researcher, Dept. of Biology & Biochemistry: U. of Bath, UK • Daniel Kubler: Asst. Prof. of Biology: Franciscan U. of Steubenville • David Keller: Assoc. Prof. of Chemistry: U. of New Mexico • James Keesling: Prof. of Mathematics: U. of Florida • Roland F. Hirsch: PhD Analytical Chemistry-U. of Michigan • Robert Newman: PhD Astrophysics-Cornell U. • Carl Koval: Prof., Chemistry & Biochemistry: U. of Colorado, Boulder • Tony Jelsma: Prof. of Biology: Dordt College • William A.Dembski: PhD Mathematics-U. of Chicago: • George Lebo: Assoc. Prof. of Astronomy: U. of Florida • Timothy G. Standish: PhD Environmental Biology-George Mason U. • James Keener: Prof. of Mathematics & Adjunct of Bioengineering: U. of Utah • Robert J. Marks: Prof. of Signal & Image Processing: U. of Washington • Carl Poppe: Senior Fellow: Lawrence Livermore Laboratories • Siegfried Scherer: Prof. of Microbial Ecology: Technische Universitaet Muenchen • Gregory Shearer: Internal Medicine, Research: U. of California, Davis • Joseph Atkinson: PhD Organic Chemistry-M.I.T.: American Chemical Society, member •
bobx2x2,
I can understand why you where flagged. Don’t worry I won’t bother. Your comments are pretty far out there. I understand that people take things out of context and mislead people whether knowingly or not. Often times it is done to emphasize certain points, just as you are attempting to do right now in your attacks against free-thinking scientists. When you demand a platform to be heard under the pretense of patriotism to sound off erroneous allegations, don’t expect to be taken seriously. You have the freedom of speech, but so do those who disagree with you. I have read enough anti-Christian bigotry on Christian Post, that it’s a wonder it is not called something else like the Christian-bashing Forum. My only hope is that you and other skeptics here will have a close-encounter with the King of kings and the Lord of lords, as numerous others have had. A few former atheists that come to mind include:
Alister McGrath
Hugh Ross
C.S. Lewis
Frank Turek
Ralph O. Muncaster
William J. Murray
Lee Strobel
Patrick Glynn
Josh McDowell
bobx2x2, citsonga are you atheists or what?
song2vs4 "There are plently of scientists who were evolutionist until they began their own investigation of the "facts"."
Citsonga: “How about some names of those scientists”
Allow me to get a little more specific, do you want non-evolutionists who are scientists? Only those who have crossed over from “natural evolution”? or Christian scientists in general who do not subscribe to atheism?
Personal attacks are included in the definition of an inappropriate comment. Clearly, I have been unable to see all of the comments that you (bobx2x2) have made. However, if the comments below are reflective of some that were left earlier, then it is very clear to me that you have no problem using personal attacks to try and illustrate your points. If you have something to say, then say it! We have no problem with truth... but your statements are statements of your own personal opinion about the character of Christians. If your comments have actual intelligent content, then you should have no need to use personal attacks to try and add validity to your point. I think more people would be willing to listen to you if you were to come into a discussion without your hypothetical "guns blazing." Try using a little tact.
Let us suppose for the sake or arguament that Darwin was an out and out racist, that the theory of evolution lead to the holacaust, that everything Ken Ham writes is true ( and all of which I disagree with), what has it got to do with whether the theory of evolution is correct, It has nothing at all, evolution still stands as the best explanation for bio diversity on this planet. When my children where youger I noticed they started name calling when they lost the arguament. Steve
song2vs4 "There are plently of scientists who were evolutionist until they began their own investigation of the "facts"."
How about some names of those scientists
"It's also interesting to note that many of the so called evidences of evolution have been proven hoaxes and perpetuated lies supported by the scientific community."
And those hoaxes would be? .......
You might want to check your facts first before making sweeping statements that only supporters of id are religious organizations. There are plently of scientists who were evolutionist until they began their own investigation of the "facts". It's also interesting to note that many of the so called evidences of evolution have been proven hoaxes and perpetuated lies supported by the scientific community. You might hold your own opinion until you've done your own research instead of just blindly following others.
Evolution Weekend is an attempt to educate the public about actual science. Evolution Weekend is opposed to the deliberate ignorance and distortion of evolution, biology and all of science by creationists such as Answers In Genesis and the Discovery Institute, purveyors of intelligent design creationism.
Unfortunately the creationists are shooting holes in the boat as fast as actual science can patch them. Local school boards in Florida are passing "Voluntary Ignorance Resolutions," trying to keep the state from implementing a new teaching standard that actually includes the word "evolution." A science curriculum advisor in Texas was forced to resign for daring to publicize a lecture about evolution versus creationism. A creationist "professor" tried to persuade the South Carolina textbook committee not to buy new biology textbooks supporting evolution. An astronomer professor complained of discrimination after being denied tenure, when his only book published was a religious apologia thinly disguised as astronomy.
It is revealing that essentialy every actual scientific society and association has endorsed evolution and condemned intelligent creationism, while the only supporters of intelligent design creationism are overtly or covertly religious organizations. There's a clue there, folks.