Comments on: How Dare You Call Them Anti-Science

By: RaiulBaztepo

RaiulBaztepo — Sun, 29 Mar 2009 00:57:08 +0000

Hello!
Very Interesting post! Thank you for such interesting resource!
PS: Sorry for my bad english, I’v just started to learn this language
See you!
Your, Raiul Baztepo

By: Monado

Monado — Thu, 19 Feb 2009 18:40:02 +0000

Hale, you’d be surprised if you ever looked at the evidence instead of taking the tired creationist lies to heart. There is no such thing as Darwinism. In the 1700s, we discovered deep time and the history of geology. We found seashells on the tops of mountains. In the 1800s we observed fossils and realized that a new population was related to the previous one in the same land. In the 1900s, we found fossil sequences. That is, evolution was observed to happen. Darwin knew nothing of genetics although he saw plenty of selective breeding for traits. Darwin provided an ecological explanation of why: all kids aren’t the same, all kids don’t have the same number of kids, conditions change, different kids are successful, so frequency of characteristics in a population changes. Much later, Gregor Mendel’s rules of inheritance (for dominant and recessive traits) were re-discovered. Other mechanisms than selection were suggested (e.g. Lamarckism) but were disproved. In the 1930s, Lowry proved that DNA, not protein, carried genetic information. In the 1940s, the theory of evolution was combined with our new knowledge of genetics to form the Modern Synthesis. In the 1960s, we found that we could trace molecular evolution from organism to organism and calculate relatedness that and by the time needed for observed genetic drift in unused genes. In the 1980s, computer analysis generally confirmed trees of life that had been based on anatomy and intuition. Our growing understanding of how genes affect growth (EVOlutionary DEVelopment) told us how changes in body parts can be coordinated. Chemical evolution was observed. Evolution was simulated in computers by selecting for traits without specifying mechanisms. Evolution has been observed in laboratories and in the field. In 150 years, no one has come up with any solid evidence that would disprove evolution. Notice something? None of this is about God. None of it is about denying that Thor throws thunderbolts. It’s just looking for the truth.

Piltdown, you’re right of course. It’s all part of a “community of faith” attitude – which means “I won’t point out your wackaloonery if you won’t point out mine.” It’s like the believers in fairies (but not ghosts) and believers in ghosts (but not fairies) agreeing that they’ll both insult a university for unfairly demanding evidence before they open a Department of Magical Biology.

By: Hale Meserow

Hale Meserow — Thu, 29 Jan 2009 23:24:30 +0000

Why the vitriol here? How can anyone be “anti-science” when scientific understanding of our world is so prevelant in society? We know quite a bit about gravity, light, water, air, and soil thanks to science. Surely we accept the science of botany and biology without necessarily getting into deep discussions about origins.

The point is that creationists (and non-theological ID-er’s)should not be characterized as “anti-science.” We’re just anti-Darwinism. In my experience, Darwinists are the most “anti” people around. They absolutely insist that THEIR theory, which has not a shred of evidence to support it and a ton of evidence against it, is the ONLY way species originated. Their dogmatic control of government school curricula and thought patterns is so complete that public school children never have an opportunity to take a serious look at the flaws in the theory and the embarrassingly fradulent nonsense the Darwinists trot out as “proof.”

I write about this in the form of a debate between a preacher and a lawyer in my new end-times novel, “Trouble in the House of Jacob.” View the web page if you wish at http://tinyurl.com/4d79yt.

By: Gordon McCabe

Gordon McCabe — Sat, 24 Jan 2009 14:00:24 +0000

British journalist Bryan Appleyard has written an article on Darwinian evolution for The Sunday Times which is straight out of the creationist textbook. The article quotes appovingly from creationists, including Answers in Genesis, and reprises the familiar creationist arguments that evolution cannot explain the eye, that there aren't enough genes to explain human complexity, and evolution caused Nazi eugenics and other social ills.

By: wyattearp

wyattearp — Thu, 01 Jan 2009 23:15:02 +0000

I once made a comment to a creationist who claimed to “have an interest in science.” I think that my response to that is actually appropriate to any creationist who makes such an absurd claim:

“A creationist claiming to have an interest in science is like Ted Bundy claiming to have an interest in women. It may be true, but it is not a healthy interest.”