5 Crucial Reasons to Teach Creationism in Public Schools

Should creationism be taught alongside evolution?  Is it fair to give students only one theory to believe?  Is it legal to do so in the public schools?

There are No Criticisms of Evolution

There are no criticisms of the theory of evolution in any of the textbooks or course materials, despite the fact that evolution cannot be stated as a scientific law and remains, for well over a century, a theory.  For one thing, evolution cannot be validated to be factual because it cannot be proven through scientific testing.  How can evolution ever be established to be conclusive by empirical scientific methods?  Can evolution be observed in a laboratory?  Is evolution repeatable?  Is it predictable as to what will mankind look like in a million years from now?  How can it be falsified?  The classic historical structure of having scientific beliefs pass from theory to law is by having something be observed, repeated, to make predictions based upon those observations and have a repeated outcome and then falsify that the results.

Evolution is a historically based theory based upon assumptions from what took place millions of years ago.  What are missing are the gaps of transitional fossils that establish one specie evolving into another, new specie.  When there is yet another claim that a missing link has been found, the question arises, where is the chain in the first place?  How can we claim to have found a missing link while there isn’t even a chain?  Maybe you’ve seen the images or pictures of man evolving from apes in textbooks.  What are missing are transitional fossils between the ape and man so educators have to depend upon images and drawings to try and establish a connection.  Why?  It’s because there are no fossils that they can take pictures of to display as proof.  Scientists have at their disposal, hundreds of millions of fossils and fossil samples, yet not one set of transitional fossils revealing specie evolving into another has ever been found.  Despite untold millions of categorized fossils their remains no set that establish a new life form evolving from another.  This fact was not lost by Darwin who said that he was troubled by the lack of fossil evidence showing that new species arose from previous ones.

Critical Thinking Skills

It seems that public schools value critical thinking skills yet they are cramming an unproven theory down the student’s throats and so it appears that they won’t even consider other possibilities.  These educators are like dictators who essentially spout “It’s my way or the highway.”  Since educational leadership want students to think “outside the box” in the other disciplines, why aren’t they allowed to do so regarding the theory of evolution.  They say that they want the students to use their minds to solve problems, analyze issues, to critique thesis’s, but how can a student do this if they are taught that the theory of evolution has no alternatives.  There are no other options, no other possibilities. They are taught that there are no exceptions to the theory of evolution.  Even the educational textbooks are silent on the problematic areas of evolution.  For example, evolution does not address the question of where did the universe come from.  How did the universe come into existence?  How did life arise since we know for a fact that life cannot arise spontaneously?  The theory of evolution is like coming into a movie that is half way through to the end.  What happened before life got here?  How was non-living, inorganic matter able to come to life?  The theory of evolution only deals with the fact that life had already existed and that life forms evolve into new species.  It seems to me that they are leaving out some crucial components.  It doesn’t address the cause of these effects, how a universe from a singular point began or what forces were involved and necessary to have that first spark of life occur. What about the Cambrian Explosion, a layer where almost every single life form is found in fossil form with few ancestral fossils before it or no new life fossil life forms above it?  This sounds more like a philosophy than it does a science. Children should be at least exposed to or taught other views and be allowed to make their own decisions based upon the information or the lack of information that they have.

I believe that students should have the option of stating their own beliefs and base them upon what findings they gain in their education. Former President George Bush once said that “Both sides ought to be properly taught so people can understand what the debate is about. Part of education is to expose people to different schools of thought [and] people ought to be exposed to different ideas.”

Give Parents What They Want

A 1991 Gallop Poll (Nov 28th, 1991), which was the last time a comprehensive polling results on a national scale was undertaken, indicated that 47% of Americans believe in creation over evolution and 40% believe that God used evolution as a process of creating life.  A few had no opinion and so that left only 9% of Americans who believe that God was not involved and that only naturalistic means were the cause of the origin of life.  Since almost 9 out of every 10 Americans believe that God was involved in creation and just under half of those believed that the origin of life was not naturalistically caused, why do almost 100% of college professors and staff teach that evolution is the only option possible?  These professors and the colleges seem to be in the minority, yet they do not tolerate differences of opinion or belief, even though the theory of evolution has never been comprehensively established as a fact.   Why not let people choose what they want their children to learn?  Don’t these professors and colleges work for the students who pay their salaries or the parents who educate their children?  Why is there no tolerance for those who differ in opinions and hold to a different belief than an unproven, untested theory?  Good question.  Children should be taught that evolution is only a theory and to see that a theory is not the same as a scientific law like Newton’s Three Laws of Motion.

Freedom of Speech

I believe that students should have the option of stating their own beliefs and base them upon what findings they gain in their education.  Former President George Bush once said that “Both sides ought to be properly taught so people can understand what the debate is about. Part of education is to expose people to different schools of thought [and] people ought to be exposed to different ideas.”  Academic freedom is what brought the theory of evolution to the classrooms in the first place and so what is wrong with the idea of allowing others to provide their views on how life came into being and if it did evolve or didn’t evolve.  Shouldn’t we let them freely express what they believe and provide the reasons for why they believe what they do believe?  Good science has always allowed for controversy in the classroom and so educators should allow for rational scientific discussion and criticisms of the theory of evolution.  By the way, educators should not state that evidence for Darwinian evolution is overwhelming and indisputable.

Evolution is Bad Science

Mankind used to believe that the earth was flat and that if a ship sailed too far it would end up falling off the edge of the earth.  That is because we believed only with our eyes.  The theory of evolution is much like this in that a theory or belief is taught as scientific fact because of what they perceive even though nothing could be further from the truth.  Teaching evolution as fact is just plain bad science.  Evolution is closer to a philosophy than it is a science.  One example is that mutations are a good thing.  I heard about a dairy farmer who had a dairy cow that gave birth to a calf with two heads.  That is a mutation.  The problem was that the calf died since it was sending different signals to its digestive system and survived for only a few days.   If you had asked the dairy farmer if that mutation was an advantage, he would have said no because the calf died.  I have never seen or heard of a mutation where it helped the specie propagate or survive and become a better organism.  If you asked biologists if mutations are a good thing, they might give you a funny look because mutations are basically a change that takes place in the nucleotide sequence within the genome of an organism.  These mutations are the result of DNA or DNA genomes that were unrepaired and will lead to errors in the replication process of additional cells.  Even so, evolutionists claim that mutations are how life forms eventually evolve into a new life form.  Evolution requires positive mutations, which are so rare that scientists have problems finding them in nature.  What they do find are mutations that are extremely harmful and sometimes fatal to the organism.  In order for evolution to work it needs an increase in information by means of positive mutations.  The only problem is they can’t find where this occurs by natural means.

Another good example of bad science in the theory of evolution is that they keep claiming to find missing links and that these links are the “smoking gun” of evidence in the fossil layer.  The only roaring evidence is the roaring silence in the fossil record.  This was exactly the reason that Darwin had great doubts in his theory because he couldn’t find any transitional fossils showing evidence that specie evolved into other life forms.  And how do they explain the Cambrian explosion or the Cambrian rock, where there are exceedingly few fossils that come before the Cambrian layers. There are primarily only three such fossils and they lay adjacent to the Cambrian layer, as close in fact as to almost appear in that layer. One example is the Cloudina and Namacalathus mineral tubular fossils.  Despite the claim that they are millions of years old they remain virtually unchanged today from when they first appeared! Then there are the Mollusc-like Kimberella and its trace fossils (also unchanged as of today) and then the Mollusc-like Kimberella and its trace fossils. Needless to say, these too have not changed at all.  Why haven’t they evolved or changed by increased information as a result of “positive mutations?” Incidentally, the Cloudina are the oldest known evidence in the fossil record of the calcified skeletal formation in metazoans, a prominent feature in animals appearing in the Early Cambrian and not before.  There is also good fossil evidence that exists for the appearance of gastropods, cephalopods and bivalves which are classified as Mollusc-like Kimberella and its trace fossils, which by the way, are also found in the Cambrian period.

Recently, the fossil record of the earliest animals from the Ediacaran to the Cambrian was made but the dating and interpretation of these remain controversial. As Wikipedia has stated, “The long-running puzzlement about the appearance of the Cambrian fauna, seemingly abruptly and from nowhere, centers on three key points: whether there really was a mass diversification of complex organisms over a relatively short period of time during the early Cambrian; what might have caused such rapid change; and what it would imply about the origin and evolution of animals. Interpretation is difficult due to a limited supply of evidence, based mainly on an incomplete fossil record and chemical signatures remaining in Cambrian rocks.” So, it is not only up to interpretation but this interpretation is difficult “due to a limited supply of evidence” and it is “based mainly on incomplete fossil records and chemical signatures remaining in Cambrian rocks.” The words “interpretation” and the fact that there is a “limited supply of evidence…due to an incomplete fossil record” sound highly speculative and subjective at best.

Conclusion

Part of the reason that creationism or at least, intelligent design should be allowed to be discussed in the classroom is because evolution presents a world view without God and that there is only “survival of the fittest” and that there is no real purpose for mankind other than “eat, drink, and be merry for tomorrow we die.”  The theory of evolution portrays mankind as only a collection of molecules as a result of blind, accidental chance with the only reason we were born was to survive.  God did create us for a purpose and it wasn’t to be moved up to the highest order on the food chain.  It was to glorify God and to enjoy Him forever.  We have a purpose in life and God’s will is that we believe in the Son of God.  To reject God as Creator is to imply that God did not create except by random chance or blind occurrences by way of evolution or that there is no Creator at all which denies reality (Rom 1:20’ Psalm 19:1).  Creationism should be taught but it should begin at home.  Those who claim that God used evolution to complete His creation are robbing God of glory and God will not ever share His glory with another (Isaiah 42:8).

Jack Wellman is Senior Writer at What Christians Want to Know whose mission is to equip, encourage, and energize Christians and to address questions about the believer’s daily walk with God and the Bible. You can follow Jack on Google Plus or check out his book Blind Chance or Intelligent Design

photo credit: www.audio-luci-store.it via photopin cc

About Jack Wellman
  • Paul Burnett

    I fully agree that all students should be fully acquainted with the scientific illiteracy and willful ignorance of creationism, including its latest disguise as the religiously-inspired pseudoscience of “intelligent design” creationism.

    Jack quoted former President George Bush who once said that “Both sides ought to be properly taught so people can understand what the debate is about. Part of education is to expose people to different schools of thought [and] people ought to be exposed to different ideas.”

    What Jack left out of the conversation was the reply to President Bush’s mis-statement by White House science advisor John H. Marburger III who told The Chronicle of Higher Education, “Evolution is a cornerstone of modern biology” and “much of the work supported by the National Institutes of Health depends heavily on the concepts of evolution.” And in a speech Marburger said, “Intelligent design is not a scientific theory. I don’t regard intelligent design as a scientific topic.”

    Evolution is indeed the very foundation of biological science, so much so that essentially all actual science organizations in the United States have issued position statements supporting evolution and roundly criticizing intelligent design creationism. Here are a very few examples:

    The American Association for the Advancement of Science: “The lack
    of scientific warrant for so-called ‘intelligent design theory’ makes it
    improper to include as a part of science education.”

    The American Astronomical Society: “‘Intelligent design’ isn’t even part
    of science – it is a religious idea that doesn’t have a place in the science
    curriculum.”

    The American Geophysical Union: “Advocates of intelligent design believe
    that life on Earth is too complex to have evolved on its own and must therefore
    be the work of a designer. That is an untestable belief and, therefore, cannot
    qualify as a scientific theory.”

    The National Association of Biology Teachers: “Scientists have firmly
    established evolution as an important natural process. … Explanations or ways
    of knowing that invoke metaphysical, non-naturalistic or supernatural
    mechanisms, whether called “creation science,” “scientific creationism,” “intelligent design theory,” “young earth theory,” or similar designations, are outside the scope of science and therefore are not part of a valid science curriculum.”

    The United States National Academy of Sciences: “Creationism, Intelligent
    Design, and other claims of supernatural intervention in the origin of life or
    of species are not science.”

  • Skeptic NY

    Wow!!

    1) There are No Criticisms of Evolution. WRONG! Every theory in science is “criticized” – that’s what science does, that’s what science is. Evolution has withstood over 150 years of ignorant “criticism”. It is the most well established theory in all of science – stronger than the theory of Gravity.

    2) Critical Thinking Skills. The essence of critical thinking is Science. That’s why Creationism is rejected. That’s why the courts have ruled that creationism ID is NOT science.

    3) Give Parents What They Want. NO!! If the parents were Hindus should we teach their creation story too? How about a flat-earth if the parents wanted that? What a stupid statement.

    4) Freedom of Speech. You have your freedom speech. What does this have to do with science? Should we teach Holocaust Denial in History class. Freedom of speech right?

    5) Evolution is Bad Science. Wow! Evolution is the foundation of all of Biology and is established science. The strongest theory in all of science. If anyone had any evidence suggesting that Biological Evolution is wrong it would establish that person as History’s greatest thinker and scientist. Bigger than a Nobel Prize. More famous than Einstein or Newton. World fame & money. What a stupid statement.

    Conclusion: You are an dishonest anti-science nut-case.

    • Guest

      No, YOU are the nutcase ignorant of science. Anyone who thinks that
      Darwinism is stronger than the theory of gravity knows next to nothing
      about science. Gravity can be demonstrated at any time. Creationist
      levels of evolution (from species to family level), can be seen fairly
      easily but even they can’t be seen as often as gravity is. Universal
      common descent has never ever been seen. If it ever is, even at
      microbial levels, even beyond family levels, that person will win the
      Nobel prize. No one has yet.

      Dr Marc Kirschner,
      founding chair of the Department of Systems Biology at Harvard Medical School
      stated:

      “In fact, over the last 100 years, almost all of
      biology has proceeded independent of evolution, except evolutionary biology
      itself. Molecular biology, biochemistry, physiology, have not taken evolution
      into account at all.” (he’s lamenting this
      fact and calling for other fields of biology to use common descent ideas more).
      Quoted in the Boston Globe, 23 October 2005.

      There’s a vast difference in
      the public understanding of Darwinism and what’s going on in the scientific
      community. So much of what Darwin
      claimed has been falsified and the problems have become much greater

      Pasteur wrote, “Posterity will
      one day laugh at the foolishness of modern materialistic philosophers. The more
      I study nature, the more I stand amazed at the work of the Creator. I pray
      while I am engaged at my work in the laboratory.” The Literary Digest (18
      October 1902)

      Some have mocked him for
      getting it wrong, but actually, his predictions have been fulfilled and keep on
      being fulfilled. Lamarckism, pangenesis,
      transmutationism, recapitulation (Haeckel’s “Ontogeny recapitulates phylogeny”),
      orthogenesis, xenogenesis and other explanations for universal common descent
      have all been falsified. Saltational evolution and punctuated equilibrium are
      interesting hypotheses, but almost completely based on claims about processes that
      have left little if any physical evidence to test. Thus they are not really
      that falsifiable. There is an elephant in the room that DOES match the
      scientific evidence much better. That elephant is one that Darwinians do not
      want to talk about, creation science.

      So, Pasteur was right. The
      only problem is that every time evolution gets falsified, it evolves a new
      version to fit materialist assumptions, esp. the a priori fallacy of
      methodological naturalism.

      Consider what even leading
      Darwinians are saying about the modern synthesis (note that they are NOT
      creationists, they are searching about for any materialist concept that can
      avoid following the evidence to creation science)

      Dr. Stephen Gould, longtime
      professor of evolutionary biology and paleontology at Harvard probably one of
      the top 5 or 10 Darwinians in the world while he was alive:

      1) “I well remember how
      the synthetic theory beguiled me with its unifying power when I was a graduate
      student in the mid-1960′s. Since then I have been watching it slowly unravel as
      a universal description of evolution. The molecular assault came first,
      followed quickly by renewed attention to unorthodox theories of speciation and
      by challenges at the level of macroevolution itself. I have been reluctant to
      admit it — since beguiling is often forever — but if Mayr’s characterization of
      the synthetic theory is accurate, then that theory, as a general proposition,
      is effectively dead, despite its persistence as textbook orthodoxy.”

      Gould, S.J. 1980. Is a new and
      general theory of evolution emerging? Paleobiology 6: 119-130

      and

      2) Eugene Koonin, senior
      investigator at the National Center for Biotechnology Information, National
      Library of Medicine, and National Institutes of Health in Bethesda, Maryland,
      has published two essays on the current status of the “modern evolutionary
      synthesis”:

      The Origin at 150: Is a new
      evolutionary synthesis in sight?, Trends in Genetics, 25(11), November 2009,
      pp. 473-475.

      http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2784144/

      Abstract: The 200th anniversary
      of Charles Darwin and the 150th jubilee of the On the Origin of Species could
      prompt a new look at evolutionary biology. The 1959 Origin centennial was
      marked by the consolidation of the modern synthesis. The edifice of the modern
      synthesis has crumbled, apparently, beyond repair. The hallmark of the
      Darwinian discourse of 2009 is the plurality of evolutionary processes and
      patterns. Nevertheless, glimpses of a new synthesis might be discernible in
      emerging universals of evolution.

      3) “…Darwinism in its
      current scientific incarnation has pretty much reached the end of its rope

      …it is largely because
      Lamarckism, saltationist (sudden) mutationism, and inner-driven orthogenesis,
      to name the most enduring alternative traditions in evolutionary biology,
      failed to become mathematized empirical sciences with at least a foothold on
      value-neutrality that Darwinism still rules the evolutionary roost”

      http://www.springerlink.com/content/845x02v03g3t7002/

      4) The Fate of Darwinism:
      Evolution After the Modern Synthesis

      David J. Depew and Bruce H.
      Weber, Nov 8, 2011, BIOLOGICAL THEORY, Volume 6, Number 1, 89-102, DOI:
      10.1007/s13752-011-0007-1

      “We trace the history of
      the Modern Evolutionary Synthesis, and of genetic Darwinism generally, with a
      view to showing why, even in its current versions, it can no longer serve as a
      general framework for evolutionary theory. The main reason is empirical.
      Genetical Darwinism cannot accommodate the role of development (and of genes in
      development) in many evolutionary processes. We go on to discuss two conceptual
      issues: whether natural selection can be the “creative factor” in a new, more
      general framework for evolutionary theorizing; and whether in such a framework
      organisms must be conceived as self-organizing systems embedded in
      self-organizing ecological systems.

      The predictions and
      requirements of Darwinians on the fossil record, vestigial
      organs, junkDNA, and quite a number of concepts have been conclusively falsified (and their excuse of 2nd
      functions existing is pure blind hope without evidence) and the claims of
      creation science have been solidly vindicated in MANY areas.

      These
      are only some of the major Darwinian concepts that have been
      falsified and doesn’t even touch the myriad of smaller concepts that have been
      falsified and abandoned even by Darwinians.

      http://darwinconspiracy.com/ & http://www.darwinspredictions.com

      • wfraser11

        nice quote mine

        • theot58

          Excellent points – completely agree that Darwinian/Macro evolution is a dying theory being killed by recent scientific advances.
          The evolutionists response of always claiming that “this is precisely what evolution would predict” is seing for what it is – a pathetic attempt to distort science and prop up this philosophical position.
          When are the educators going to wake up and start removing the lies and deception in the curricula. If the scientific evidence clearly indicates that Darwinian/Macro evolution is condemned by the scientific evidence – when will the plain truth be shown instead of the propaganda?

        • Bryan Bissell

          No quote mine was used. You’re just using false claims to deny objective science. Read the whole article. There was no quote mine. You don’t even know how to use the term properly.

          • http://roguemedic.com/ Rogue Medic

            Bryan Bissell,

            No quote mine was used. You’re just using false claims to deny objective science. Read the whole article. There was no quote mine. You don’t even know how to use the term properly.

            You posted a list of quotes.

            Taking quotes out of context to pretend that the person supports your scam is a logical fallacy.

            The name of that logical fallacy is quote mining.

            The Quote Mine Project is a response to the creationist tactic of quoting scientists as “evidence” against evolution. It is a group effort of many participants of the talk.origins newsgroup which documents what is wrong with how the creationists present their “evolution quotes.” See the introduction for details.

            http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/quotes/mine/evolution.html

            You were criticized for quote mining and rather than admit it, you denied it,

            The evidence is right there in the comment thread for anyone to see how dishonest you are.

            .

          • Bryan Bissell

            There was no taking quotes out of context period. I lecture university students ON NOT using quote mining. YOU don’t even know how to identify it properly at all.

          • http://roguemedic.com/ Rogue Medic

            Bryan Bissell,

            I lecture university students ON NOT using quote mining.

            Then you should be fired for incompetence.

            .

          • Bryan Bissell

            Bigotry against creationists is on full display by Roger here. You have some basic English and science comprehension fails. Quote mining involves chopping sentences in half, removing key words and things like that (and can possibly include not giving references or wrong ones). I did no such thing of any kind. I also gave links/references so people can check more context if they wish. If I had made it look like Kirschner or Gould were creationists or something, THAT would be quote mining. I did no such thing.

            Now here IS a real example of quote mining, done by a Darwinian scientist I know, Lyle Z. He wrote:
            “Here’s a founding father for you: ‘It does me no injury for
            my neighbor to say there are twenty gods or no God. It neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg.’ ~Thomas Jefferson, Notes on Virginia, 1782n

            But, this is serious misrepresentation of Jefferson’s views, lopping off context, making it looks like he thought there was an agnostic or atheist, when he most definitely was not (He wrote the Declaration of Independence that saying that all men were endowed with rights by their Creator). A fuller context shows the lie of this Darwinian atheist scientist, esp. note the ** parts.:

            “The error seems not sufficiently eradicated, that the
            operations of the mind, as well as the acts of the body, are subject to the coercion of the laws. But our rulers can have authority over such natural rights only as we have submitted to them. The rights of conscience we never
            submitted, we could not submit. ***We are answerable for them to our God.*** The legitimate powers of government extend to such acts only as are injurious to others. But it does me no injury for my neighbour to say there are twenty gods, or no god. It neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg. If it be said, his testimony in a court of justice cannot be relied on, reject it then, and be
            the stigma on him. Constraint may make him worse by making him a hypocrite, but it will never make him a truer man. It may fix him obstinately in his errors,
            but will not cure them.

            ***Reason and free enquiry are the only effectual agents
            against error. Give a loose to them, they will support the true religion, by bringing every false one to their tribunal, to the test of their investigation. They are the natural enemies of error, and of error only. Had not the Roman
            government permitted free enquiry, Christianity could never have been introduced. Had not free enquiry been indulged, at the aera of the reformation, the corruptions of Christianity could not have been purged away.*** If it be
            restrained now, the present corruptions will be protected, and new ones encouraged.”

          • http://roguemedic.com/ Rogue Medic

            The correct misspelling is Rouge.

            As Dr. Hurd points out, you have provided examples of out of context use of quotes.

            Your quote mining is an old Creationist tactic and not relevant.

            Evidence of weaknesses in evolution is not evidence of Creationism.

            Creationism is just the big I don’t get it!

            Where is the evidence that any God did anything that would not have occurred without that intervention?

            Where is the Creator of that God?

            Where is the Creator of the Creator of that God?

            Creationism is just assigning the name God to I don’t understand, but only taking it to one level because of that lack of understanding.

            .

          • GubbaBumpkin

            (He (Jefferson) wrote the Declaration of Independence that saying that all men were endowed with rights by their Creator).

            Oddly, he didn’t identify that Creator as the Christian God. And elsewhere in the same document, he referred to “the Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God.” That’s very strange wording.

            And that quote by Lyle Z shows Jefferson to be a secularist, not an atheist/agnostic (and the word agnostic hadn’t even been invented at that time). It is an accurate quote, sourced, with no word excised or added. So your claim that Lyle Z was quote mining looks pretty shabby.

            It is unfortunate that you do not adhere to a religion that forbids the bearing of false witness.

          • http://stonesnbones.blogspot.com/ Dr. GS Hurd

            Of course these are “quote mines.” The Steve Gould “quote” is a prime example of an out of context that you presented as a “proof” that evolutionary theory was rejected by scientists. Gould had a very long and obscure argument with Ernst Mayr over four points; the definition of species from gross attributes, hierarchical taxonomy versus cladistics, and synpatric versus allotropic evolution, gradualism versus Gould’s “punctuated equilibrium.”

            In context, Gould is trashing Mayr’s position and banging the drum for his own. The reality 33 years later is that the differences between them were minor, and the daily use of massive genetic databases makes their loud and long arguments pointless. This dispute is nearly as dead as the protagonists.

          • David Eriol Hickman

            And may the gods help your students, because I fear u aint, mate.

            And if u are an educator then your students are doomed.

      • theot58

        Excellent points – completely agree that Darwinian/Macro evolution is a dying theory being killed by recent scientific advances.

        The evolutionists response of always claiming that “this is precisely what evolution would predict” is seing for what it is – a pathetic attempt to distort science and prop up this philosophical position.
        When are the educators going to wake up and start removing the lies and deception in the curricula. If the scientific evidence clearly indicates that Darwinian/Macro evolution is condemned by the scientific evidence – when will the plain truth be shown instead of the propaganda?

        Dr John Sanford (Geneticist and inventor of the GeneGun) said :

        “The bottom line is that the primary axiom [of Darwinian/Macro evolution] is categorically false, you can’t create information with misspellings, not even if you use natural selection.”

        • GubbaBumpkin

          Dr John Sanford (Geneticist and inventor of the GeneGun) said :
          “The bottom line is that the primary axiom [of Darwinian/Macro evolution]…

          Natural selection and evolution are not axioms. They are testable ideas, and they have been tested. Calling it an axiom was Sanford’s dishonest way of not dealing with the evidence.

    • Guest

      Wrong. Your post shows dire ignorance of objective science, agreed to by leading scientists on BOTH sides, and is a textbook case of indoctrination. This delusion that you had the audacity to post, is precisely why we need OBJECTIVE education, instead of the delusional education you received that failed to educate you about the facts of history, that so many aspects of Darwinism/universal common descent evolution have been conclusively debunked and abandoned BY ALL scientists on ALL scientists. That you don’t know this proves you’ve been indoctrinate. This claim of yours is pure fiction.

      “Evolution has withstood over 150 years of ignorant “criticism”. It is the most well established theory in all of science”

      Anyone who thinks that Darwinism is stronger than the theory of gravity knows next to nothing about science. Gravity can be demonstrated at any time. Creationist levels of evolution (from species to family level), can be seen fairly easily but even they can’t be seen as often as gravity is. Universal common descent has never ever been seen. If it ever is, even at microbial levels, even beyond family levels, that person will win the
      Nobel prize. No one has yet.

      Dr Marc Kirschner, founding chair of the Department of Systems Biology at Harvard Medical School stated:

      “In fact, over the last 100 years, almost all of biology has proceeded independent of evolution, except evolutionary biology itself. Molecular biology, biochemistry, physiology, have not taken evolution into account at all.” (he’s lamenting this fact and calling for other fields of biology to use common descent ideas more). Quoted in the Boston Globe, 23 October 2005.

      There’s a vast difference in the public understanding of Darwinism and what’s going on in the scientific community. So much of what Darwin
      claimed has been falsified and the problems have become much greater

      Pasteur wrote, “Posterity will one day laugh at the foolishness of modern materialistic philosophers. The more I study nature, the more I stand amazed at the work of the Creator. I pray while I am engaged at my work in the laboratory.” The Literary Digest (18 October 1902)

      Some have mocked him for getting it wrong, but actually, his predictions have been fulfilled and keep on being fulfilled. Lamarckism, pangenesis,
      transmutationism, recapitulation (Haeckel’s “Ontogeny recapitulates phylogeny”), orthogenesis, xenogenesis and other explanations for universal common descent have all been falsified. Saltational evolution and punctuated equilibrium are interesting hypotheses, but almost completely based on claims about processes that have left little if any physical evidence to test. Thus they are not really that falsifiable. There is an elephant in the room that DOES match the scientific evidence much better. That elephant is one that Darwinians do not want to talk about, creation science.

      So, Pasteur was right. The only problem is that every time evolution gets falsified, it evolves a new version to fit materialist assumptions, esp. the a priori fallacy of methodological naturalism.

      Consider what even leading Darwinians are saying about the modern synthesis (note that they are NOT creationists, they are searching about for any materialist concept that can avoid following the evidence to creation science)

      Dr. Stephen Gould, longtime professor of evolutionary biology and paleontology at Harvard probably one of the top 5 or 10 Darwinians in the world while he was alive:

      1) “I well remember how the synthetic theory beguiled me with its unifying power when I was a graduate student in the mid-1960′s. Since then I have been watching it slowly unravel as a universal description of evolution. The molecular assault came first, followed quickly by renewed attention to unorthodox theories of speciation and by challenges at the level of macroevolution itself. I have been reluctant to
      admit it — since beguiling is often forever — but if Mayr’s characterization of the synthetic theory is accurate, then that theory, as a general proposition, is effectively dead, despite its persistence as textbook orthodoxy.” Gould, S.J. 1980. Is a new and general theory of evolution emerging? Paleobiology 6: 119-130

      and

      2) Eugene Koonin, senior investigator at the National Center for Biotechnology Information, National Library of Medicine, and National Institutes of Health in Bethesda, Maryland, has published two essays on the current status of the “modern evolutionary synthesis”:

      The Origin at 150: Is a new evolutionary synthesis in sight?, Trends in Genetics, 25(11), November 2009, pp. 473-475.
      http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2784144/

      Abstract: The 200th anniversary of Charles Darwin and the 150th jubilee of the On the Origin of Species could prompt a new look at evolutionary biology. The 1959 Origin centennial was marked by the consolidation of the modern synthesis. The edifice of the modern synthesis has crumbled, apparently, beyond repair. The hallmark of the Darwinian discourse of 2009 is the plurality of evolutionary processes and patterns. Nevertheless, glimpses of a new synthesis might be discernible in
      emerging universals of evolution.

      3) “…Darwinism in its current scientific incarnation has pretty much reached the end of its rope..it is largely because Lamarckism, saltationist (sudden) mutationism, and inner-driven orthogenesis, to name the most enduring alternative traditions in evolutionary biology, failed to become mathematized empirical sciences with at least a foothold on value-neutrality that Darwinism still rules the evolutionary roost”
      http://www.springerlink.com/content/845x02v03g3t7002/

      4) The Fate of Darwinism: Evolution After the Modern Synthesis
      David J. Depew and Bruce H.
      Weber, Nov 8, 2011, BIOLOGICAL THEORY, Volume 6, Number 1, 89-102, DOI:10.1007/s13752-011-0007-1

      “We trace the history of the Modern Evolutionary Synthesis, and of genetic Darwinism generally, with a view to showing why, even in its current versions, it can no longer serve as a general framework for evolutionary theory. The main reason is empirical. Genetical Darwinism cannot accommodate the role of development (and of genes in
      development) in many evolutionary processes. We go on to discuss two conceptual issues: whether natural selection can be the “creative factor” in a new, more general framework for evolutionary theorizing; and whether in such a framework organisms must be conceived as self-organizing systems embedded in self-organizing ecological systems.

      The predictions and requirements of Darwinians on the fossil record, vestigial organs, junkDNA, and quite a number of concepts have been conclusively falsified (and their excuse of 2nd functions existing is pure blind hope without evidence) and the claims of creation science have been solidly vindicated in MANY areas.

      These are only some of the major Darwinian concepts that have been
      falsified and doesn’t even touch the myriad of smaller concepts that have been falsified and abandoned even by Darwinians.

      http://darwinconspiracy.com/ & http://www.darwinspredictions.com

      • wfraser11

        There is no such thing as creation science. There is only creation “science” guest. No? Fine. Who is the intelligent designer? What is his or her technology? Where are the science reviews in Science or Nature? Where are the university science departments teaching ID as science. Where are the endorsements of creationism from mainstream Christian denominations? Where is the legal support?
        There is none. Get help.

      • http://roguemedic.com/ Rogue Medic

        Wrong. Your post shows dire ignorance of objective science, agreed to by leading scientists on BOTH sides, and is a textbook case of indoctrination.

        A lack of understanding of science is what you demonstrate.

        Objective science seems to be redundant.

        Science is the objective examination of the world.

        Subjective science seems as if could be a description of something with no evidence to support it, such as Creationism, telekinesis, ghost hunting, alien abduction, et cetera.

        BOTH sides of what.

        Both sides of macroevolution vs. microevolution?

        As if God set up a magic line that evolution may not cross – and he double dog dares any species to do it.

        That kind of schoolyard BOTH sides?

        There is science (evolution) and there is science denialism (Creationism in all of its silly flavors).

        You should read a science book and learn about the real world.

        .

        • Bryan Bissell

          You haven’t shown a spec of objective scientific reasoning so far. Just assert before checking facts that the conclusions must be atheistic/materialistic, then deny all objective scientific evidence to the contrary, and dance around claiming “I win, I win”. There isn’t a shred of objectivity in that.

          Both sides of course means Darwinism vs. creation science theory.

          I’ve read numerous science books (Thomas Kuhn’s “The Structure of Scientific Revolutions”, Neil Shubin’s “Your Inner Fish”, Steven Hawkings, “The Grand Design”, Denton’s “Evolution: A Theory in Crisis”, and so many others.

          BOTH sides have evidence. This is an objective fact. Anyone who denies this is either:
          1) ignorant of the objective evidence
          2) Doesn’t know what evidence is in science or
          3) A liar.

          But, much Darwinian evidence is based on fallacies, and also a good deal of theft from prior creation scientists (such as all speciation up to about the family level, which creationists were writing on for literally centuries before Darwin as part of creation science theory based on Genesis)

          YOU need to learn about the real world. I’ve lived on 3 continents, lived in 4 countries, traveled to dozens. Started 2 businesses in foreign countries (one that became one of the biggest in its city), and have taught at 3 universities (1 secular) and had several other jobs before that. You?

          • http://www.patheos.com/blogs/exploringourmatrix/ James F. McGrath

            I have yet to encounter any “objective evidence” of a young earth which does not turn out, after fact checking, to be just more young-earth creationist lies. The extent of the young-earth creationists’ dishonesty is such that, even if there turned out to be some actual objective evidence, their persistent dishonesty has rendered the entire edifice untrustworthy, and brought the Christian faith into disrepute through association.

            That is an objective fact. But I still unfortunately expect most young-earth creationists to respond to the fact with spin and damage control rather than repentance.

          • Bryan Bissell

            Your first problem is evaluating dishonesty. You assume the current scientific establishment and esp. methodological naturalism is infallible and that anything that conflicts with it must be false. This is simply not true. Methodological naturalism is an a priori fallacy and I’ve never seen any scientist yet be able to show how it or all forms of Darwinism could be falsified once methodological naturalism is accepted. If it can’t be falsified, it’s not science, is it.
            ?

            Darwinism doesn’t even begin to compete with even the
            physical evidence listed in these links alone and much of the evidence that Darwinism DOES claim is plagiarized from creationists (Edward Blyth, Patrick
            Matthews, John Wilkins and many others were publishing on natural selection, mutations, and many ideas on evolution up to about the family level, LONG
            before Darwin, based on Genesis and observations of nature).

            Be VERY clear that like other scientists, creationists have never claimed to be infallible themselves. They are using the minds God has given like anyone else to gather and analyze evidence and come to truth. MANY leading creationists with Ph.Ds. in science used to be atheists and Darwinians, some were even teaching Darwinsm at the university level. The evidence for creation was just a lot stronger though and it converted them to change to be creationists. They don’t claim to
            know everything or know the answers to all questions yet. But, the weight of evidence in science is far more on the side of creation science overall than materialist origins. Here are just a few examples of this.

            1) Dr. Carl Werner received his undergraduate degree in biology, with distinction, at the University of Missouri, graduating summa cum laude. He received his doctoral degree in medicine at the age of 23. He was the
            recipient of the Norman D. Jones Science Award. Dr. Werner was a convinced Darwinian, but then a
            friend asked him 3 hard questions about atheism/evolution/Darwinism.

            a) How do you form matter out of nothingness for the universe?

            b) How did life form from chemicals, even though we know DNA, proteins and
            functional cell membranes doesn’t form naturally from chemicals

            c) Why are there so many gaps in the fossil record, with no clear lines of transitional fossils existing?

            He spent 30+ years investigating these questions and found that most of the claimed evidence for Darwinism simply did not exist in the fossils or was drastically exaggerated beyond the actual physical evidence and
            that the fossil record actually points very persuasively to creation science and against Darwinism. He and his wife Debbie:
            – traveled over 100,000 miles (160,000 km) and visited numerous major museums (and had much more access than most of the public does),
            –visited many of the major fossil dig sites and took ~60,000 photographs and videos of the physical evidence, showing that fossils of nearly all phyla have been found in the same locations as dinosaur fossils, something that on its own almost
            totally debunks Darwinism and can’t be explained)
            –interviewed over 60 leading Darwinians, many agreeing that they just don’t see the
            ancestors of most biological forms in the fossils and some claims about Darwinism in textbooks and museums do not have physical evidence supporting
            them.

            Eventually, they developed series
            Evolution: The Grand Experiment, showing that the fossil record is full of many types of fossils and a fossil order that should exist if creation science is true and should NOT exist if Darwinism is true.

            Dr. Werner says,
            “Living fossils provided me a simple way to test evolution. If…all of the animals and plants were created at one time and lived together (humans, dinosaurs, oak trees, roses, cats, wolves, etc), then one should be able to find fossils of at least some modern animals
            and modern plants alongside dinosaurs in the rock layers. I set out to test this idea without any foreknowledge of any modern organisms in the rock layers. My results (as laid out in the book & video Living Fossils) showed that many modern animals and plants are found with dinosaurs—far more than I ever
            expected to find.” (note though that because of the flood, we also expect a significant amount of sorting has happened due to many geological factors as
            well as which animals were more mobile and could escape to higher ground)….”

            “Paleontologists have found 432 mammal species in the dinosaur layers….But where are these fossils? We visited 60 museums but did not see a single complete mammal skeleton from the dinosaur layers displayed at any of these museums.3″

            http://www.icr.org/article/dinosaur-fossil-wasnt-supposed-be-there/

            Dr. Werner is interviewed on this creation science program (which has many other good programs as well) and shows highlights of his film “The Grand
            Experiment”.

            Origins – Evolution – The Grand Experiment – Part 1 with Dr. Carl Werner:
            http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XIqto00mf3w (at least watch
            13:00-~28:00, but the whole thing is good)

            Origins – Evolution – The Grand Experiment – Part 2 with Dr. Carl Werner:

            http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Cf9CTrvEeE0

            Origins – Evolution – The Grand Experiment – Part 3 with Dr. Carl Werner: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZNO3_SorHDM

            The actual physical evidence from the fossils in nearly all cases lines up very well with what we would expect if God created the orld and a lot of it, such as the Cambrian explosion, falsifies Darwinian expectations. We have lots of fossils of dinosaurs, 1000+ complete one and many more partial ones. But, they can almost
            all be easily categorized into specific families. They do not form transitional lines to a common ancestors. They don’t even have certainty about where to put
            Tyrannasaurus Rex in the line of common descent.

            2) The Case for the Creator by Lee Strobel. Lee Strobel converted to Darwinism and then atheism while very
            young. But, after his wife converted to Christianity, he decided to check and see if there were good scientific reasons for creation science or not. He found
            many scientists who agree that creation has very powerful evidence. He talks with some of them about the evidence for creation in this very good 1 hour
            introduction to creation science.

            The Case for the Creator
            https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tYLHxcqJmoM

            3) Dr. Werner Gitt was director and Professor at the Federal Physical-Technical Institute in Brunswick
            (Braunschweig, Germany) for almost 25 years until his retirement in 2002. He lists ~95 scientific lines of evidence that support creation science and falsify
            Darwinism in short paragraphs on each one and then a page with more references.
            http://www.0095.info/en/index_thesesen.html

            A page with each line of evidence summarized in one sentence is here:

            http://www.0095.info/en/index_thesesen_95onesentencethesesagainste.html

            4) Dr. John Sanford, long time professor and pioneer of genetics at Cornell (http://hort.cals.cornell.edu/people/john-sanford) published a very sophisticated scientific book on genetic entropy and shows from peer reviewed articles by major scientists how the rate of decay of the human genome makes it impossible for genomes to even be 1 million years, let alone billions. This is powerful evidence for the Bible’s timescale for human history. This is only one of many indisputable evidences that science can and DOES in some cases produce
            strong evidence that points to the supernatural.

            http://web29.streamhoster.com/rod_tv/creation/bdtv_creation_science_school/day5_830pmjohnsanford.m4v

            He lectures here:
            BIOLOGICAL INFORMATION – the Signature of Life – Dr. John Sanford http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2xBRcY0bBkE

            And a couple short ones here:
            Dr. John Sanford “Genetic Entropy and the Mystery of the Genome

            http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pJ-4umGkgos

            “How Evolution Hurts Science” Dr John Sanford
            http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uCQQkOWZbLY

          • http://www.patheos.com/blogs/exploringourmatrix/ James F. McGrath

            I have yet to find one of the alleged “finds that overturns mainstream biology” that pans out when fact-checked. It would be Nobel prizewinning stuff if true, and so the fact that those involved never publish mainstream peer-reviewed articles, never mind more than that, ought to make you suspicious.

            On an equally fundamental level, why does the fact that these individuals have relevant degrees seem important to you, and yet not the fact that almost all the other people with comparable degrees do not find their finds authentic, to say nothing of persuasive? Young-earth creationists want to cash in on credentials when they can and yet ignore them when it is convenient to do so.

            You can find scientists who have proposed just about every idea imaginable. Proposing it is not enough. It has to be checked and double-checked and evaluated. That is why picking and choosing individual scientists the way YEC pick and choose Bible verses is never going to be a satisfactory approach. It is so obviously self-serving spin doctoring. You need to look at the scientific consensus, until such time as it is overturned by scientific research.

          • Bryan Bissell

            Your investigation skills are pitiful then. How could anything that conflicts with methodological naturalism get published in journals that are based on MN, let alone win a Nobel prize? You don’t have any clue about the levels of censorship that go on, in many areas, not just religious ones. Typical of the brainwashing that goes on…just follow the establishment whatever it says, don’t question it, be a good dutiful little sheep.

            Dr. Werner has 60,000 photographs of evidence, but you just handwave hard scientific evidence away without even giving it a minutes investigation, as if it’s nothing. Don’t think I’ll waste much time with someone who is such an incredible science ignorer/denier.

          • http://www.patheos.com/blogs/exploringourmatrix/ James F. McGrath

            There is also photographic evidence, supposedly, of the Roswell aliens and of Bigfoot. Everyone claims to have photos when they are trying to scam the gullible.

            I work at a university for a living. The allegations of censorship and persecution are almost entirely conservative Christians projecting onto secular universities what actually happens at their institutions, with people being required to agree in advance not to reach certain conclusions and people being fired when they don’t toe the party line. Sure, people scoff frequently at new ideas, but what separates geniuses from crackpots is that the former actually produce evidence and arguments to show they are right, while the latter insist they are geniuses who are being treated unfairly.

          • http://roguemedic.com/ Rogue Medic

            Bryan Bissell,

            You don’t have any clue about the levels of censorship that go on, in many areas, not just religious ones.

            Science does discriminate against science denialism because science is biased toward valid evidence obtained in unbiased ways.

            Science denialism (such as Creationism) is opposed to evidence that is unbiased.

            Science denialism (such as Creationism) relies on claims of problems with science, rather than providing valid evidence to support claims.

            Science denialism (such as Creationism) is fraud.

            .

          • jon

            darwinism?

            You mean evolution?

          • theot58

            “Evolution” is a vague word.
            The main definitions in the text books are:

            1) “change over time”, this is silly as it is stating the flaming obvious.

            2) Micro evolution is minor changes within a species, this is real and observable and uncontested.

            3) Darwinian/Macro evolution (where the conflict is) which asserts that:

            a) All living things had a common ancestor. This implies that your great….. great grandfather was a self replicating molecule.

            b) The observable world has come into existence by totally natural, unguided processes and specifically WITHOUT the involvement of an intelligent designer.

            Have a look at this link for details http://youtu.be/fQ_h-S7IuaM

          • http://roguemedic.com/ Rogue Medic

            theot58,

            2) Micro evolution is minor changes within a species, this is real and observable and uncontested.

            A lot of Creationists contest this.

            There are many flavors of Creationist, but none of them seem to wonder who designed the designer.

            Logical inconsistency appears to be the most consistent part of Creationism.

            .

          • jon

            you state “Evolution is a vague word.”
            But it isn’t; here you go: http://talkorigins.org/faqs/evolution-definition.html

            glad to be of help

          • http://roguemedic.com/ Rogue Medic

            Bryan Bissell,

            You assume the current scientific establishment and esp. methodological naturalism is infallible and that anything that conflicts with it must be false.

            Where did the infallible claim come from?

            Only Creationists and science denialists use terms like infallible.

            Superstition is based on claims of infallibility.

            Science demonstrates that claims of infallibility are lies.

            .

          • http://stonesnbones.blogspot.com/ Dr. GS Hurd

            Kuhn was a philosopher writing about science, and grossly overstated his position; Denton has repudiated his former creationist ideas (and added different ones); Shubin’s book was really very good.

            You want to impress us with your experience? If we believe you, you have some business experience, and move around a lot. I lived in small village mud huts, and in major cities. I spoke five languages (I can still speak 3 adequately). I have had industrial and academic science experience, earning awards for teaching and scientific research. I was one of the earliest forensic scientists to be certified in taxonomy (literally in the first dozen). I taught at 3 universities, and 5 colleges. Three of the colleges were private, all 8 campuses were secular. I have retired to the beach in southern California with a paid-for house. I cannot think of what else I need add to overwhelm your pretentious boasting.

            I can confidently say that I have read more creationists’ books than you have. I have over 6 feet of additional books on biblical languages, and exegesis. I can confidently state that you don’t understand what you are spouting off about. All you have are fake quotes, and muddled thinking.

          • Bryan Bissell

            Full kudos to you for your research and work, and esp. reading some books outside your own view. I highly doubt you’ve read/watched anything close to what I have from creationist Ph.D. scientists.

            But, wow, what a lot of ridiculous straw men there as most of your accusations have been. I’ve been an educator for 20 years (started 2 private schools, one which grew to be the largest in a medium sized
            city), taught at 3 universities, 1 secular. My experience/qualifications
            aren’t that important tho. Neither are yours. You should have the decency to dialogue with someone with whom you disagree based on facts and evidence, not fallacies (which is what you’ve been using almost exclusively so far). It’s the evidence that matters with using NO fallacies, which are unfortunately the foundation of your reasoning (methodological naturalism being the first fallacy).

            Dr. Donald Prothero agrees that:
            “[Y]ou don’t need a Ph.D. to do good science, and not all people who have Ph.D.s are good scientists either. As those of us who have gone through the ordeal know, a
            Ph.D. only proves that you can survive a grueling test of endurance in doing research and writing a dissertation on a very narrow topic. It doesn’t prove that you are smarter than anyone else or more qualified to render an opinion than anyone else.” (Evolution: What the Fossils Say and Why It Matters, p. 16)

            Denton? He never was a creationist to my knowledge. Shubin’s book was good in some parts, but like all Darwinians:
            1) He starts off with methodological naturalism, so he doesn’t even consider conclusions outside materialism.

            2) He uses double standards. There’s an overwhelming amount of evidence for Design as even many atheists like Dawkins agree. That’s profound evidence for God. Darwinians though, through that evidence in the garbage, in favor of the far inferior inference to common ancestry.

            3) Tiktaalik WAS a valid prediction for Darwinism (I didn’t say there were none for Darwinism).But, it counts for very little if anything now. Why? Well, because we have
            found tetrapods (vertebrates with limbs rather than paired fins for any who don’t know) sort of like crocodiles in the fossils at least 18 million years before Tiktaalik. Which is easier, to have mammals descending from a tetrapod or Tiktaalik? The answer should be obvious to any objective person. By Occam’s razor, this eliminates Tiktaalik as the ancestor of mammals completely or
            pretty close to it. So, most of Shubin’s book is now moot.

            This tetrapod fossil is not something minor. It’s turned the world of paleontology upside down. You can see this from some of the comments on it.

            “They force a radical reassessment of the timing, ecology and environmental setting of the fish-tetrapod transition, as well as the completeness of the body fossil record.”
            Niedzwiedzki, G., Szrek, P., Narkiewicz, K., Narkiewicz, M. and Ahlberg, P., Tetrapod trackways from the early Middle Devonian period of Poland, Nature
            463(7227):43–48, 2010;
            nature.com/nature/journal/v463/n7277/pdf/nature08623.pdf.

            “[It] will cause a significant reappraisal of our understanding of tetrapod origins.” Editor’s Summary, Four feet in the past: trackways pre-date earliest
            body fossils, Nature 463(7227), 2010;
            nature.com/nature/journal/v463/n7277/edsumm/e100107-01.html.

            “[They] could lead to significant shifts in our knowledge of the timing and ecological setting of early tetrapod evolution.” Roach, J., Oldest land-walker
            tracks found—pushes back evolution, National Geographic News, nationalgeographic.com/news/2010/01/100106-tetrapod-tracks-oldest-footprints-nature-evolution-walking-land.html,
            6 January 2010.

            “We thought we’d pinned down the origin of limbed tetrapods. We have to rethink the whole thing.” Palaeontologist Jenifer Clack, University of Cambridge, UK; in: Curry, M., Ancient four-legged beasts leave their mark, ScienceNOW Daily
            News, sciencenow.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/2010/106/2, 6 January 2010.

            “That’s surprising, but this is what the fossil evidence tells us.” Palaentologist Philippe Janvier from the National Museum of Natural History,
            Paris, France; in: Amos, J., Fossil tracks record ‘oldest land-walkers’, BBC
            News, news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/8443879.stm 6 January 2010.

            “These results force us to reconsider our whole picture of the transition from fish to land animals.” Palaentologist Per Ahlberg of Uppsala University, Sweden; in: Fossil Footprints Give Land Vertebrates a Much Longer History,
            ScienceDaily, sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/01/100107114420.htm, 8 January
            2010

          • http://roguemedic.com/ Rogue Medic

            Bryan Bissell,

            You are claiming that creation science is not an oxymoron.

            Provide valid peer reviewed evidence.

            .

          • GubbaBumpkin

            There’s an overwhelming amount of evidence for Design as even many atheists like Dawkins agree.

            Not at all. Dawkins says there is appearance of design, not evidence for.

          • http://roguemedic.com/ Rogue Medic

            Bryan Bissell,

            Both sides of course means Darwinism vs. creation science theory.

            Darwinism would be taught in a class on the history of science.

            Evolution is taught in science classes.

            Please explain the nonsense term of creation science theory.

            Why should science present any of the anti-science claims of Creationists in a science class?

            Science is what should be taught in science classes.

            We should have science address the claims of religion, if we want to be fair to any claim of BOTH sides.

            .

          • D. Slemmons

            The United States National Academy of Sciences states that “creation science is in fact not science and should not be presented as such.” and that “the claims of creation science lack empirical support and cannot be meaningfully tested.” According to Skeptic magazine, the “creation ‘science’ movement gains much of its strength through the use of distortion and scientifically unethical tactics” and “seriously misrepresents the theory of evolution.”

            Creationism is not science and is not objective. It is a religious theory formed at a time when people believed that the Earth was flat, witches were real, and doctors shouldn’t wash their hands between surgeries. So unless you can convince the USNAS that creationism is a science, it might be hard to convince anyone else

      • Skeptic NY

        Ok – well then what’s your contact info so we can let the Nobel committee know.

        • Bryan Bissell

          When anyone demonstrates macro-evolution, even at the bacterial level, they’ll win a Nobel prize. No one has so far. Many Christians and also creationists have won Nobel prizes. The science is very strong on the side of creation science.

          • http://roguemedic.com/ Rogue Medic

            Are you claiming that there has been a Nobel Prize for Creationism?

            No.

            You are just providing misleading information, because that is what you do.

            Even Isaac Newton fell for the I don’t know, therefore God did it logical fallacy, so claiming that a scientist who wins a Nobel Prize for one thing, but falls for Creationism, is support for Creationism is nonsense.

            That is the kind of logical fallacy that Creationism depends on.

            There is no science to support Creationism, but only criticism of evolution.

            Even if evolution were demonstrated to be completely wrong, that would not be evidence for Creationism.

            Creationism is not science.

            Creationism is just using the ignorance of God did it, rather than using science.

            .

          • Bryan Bissell

            Yes, Nobel prizes have been given for scientific areas that have long been a part of creation science theory. The Christian scientist Norman Borlaug for example won a Nobel prize for his work in hybridization of crops which saved a billion lives and falls entirely under creationist levels of speciation based on Genesis, and which many creation scientists were publishing on long before Darwinism. Quite a number of others like him.

            Newton did NOT reason on the I don’t know, therefore God argument. That claim of atheists is always a straw man and extremely dishonest. If you want to understand how Newton actually DID reason, here’s a primer (hint, it was inferences from observations, the same kind of science upon which the Big Bang rests).
            http://www.uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/newton-on-intelligent-design/

            If assertions like yours are all it takes, hey cool. I can make them too. Darwinism isn’t science. Darwinism is just Darwindidit, ignoring all science. Since I asserted it like you did, guess that makes it a fact.

            Try using objective reason and truth seeking instead of science denying fallacies sometime. You’ll learn a lot.

          • http://roguemedic.com/ Rogue Medic

            Bryan Bissell,

            The Christian scientist Norman Borlaug for example won a Nobel prize for his work in hybridization of crops which saved a billion lives and falls entirely under creationist levels of speciation based on Genesis,

            Please provide some links to this evidence of acceptance of evolution by Creation scientists.

            Provide a link to the articles published in the field of Creation science.

            You seem to be trying to claim that papers on evolution are part of this field of Creation science.

            .

          • Bryan Bissell

            Here’s John Wilkins of the Darwinian NCSE. Even he knows this basic fact of history:

            “The idea that species were universally thought to be
            fixed prior to Darwin is simply wrong — many creationist thinkers of the classical period through to the 19th century thought that species could change. The issue of evolution was, in fact, impossible to suggest until the claim was made that species were fixed, and as soon as it was suggested, so too was evolution. There has been a longstanding vagueness about living “kinds” that goes back to the classical era and that follows from good observation. What is more, nothing in the biblical or theological traditions requires that species are fixed, only that kinds exist, which
            neither evolutionists nor traditional creationists ever denied. ncse.com/rncse/26/4/species-kinds-evolution

          • http://roguemedic.com/ Rogue Medic

            Bryan Bissell,

            There are many flavors of Creationism, just as there are many flavors of any pseudoscience.

            There were many scientists studying how life changed before Darwin.

            Darwin used the work of these scientists to demonstrate that evolution is real.

            If their work was Creation science, why does it support evolution.

            The simple answer is the field of Creation science is a fraud.

            Misrepresenting the work of others is what frauds do.

            .

          • GubbaBumpkin

            … and falls entirely under creationist levels of speciation based on Genesis…

            You mean like in Genesis 30, where it says you can breed livestock with stripes and speckles by putting sticks near their watering trough?

            The Christian scientist Norman Borlaug for example won a Nobel prize for his work in hybridization of crops which saved a billion lives…

            This is true. It was a Nobel peace prize, not a science prize.

            I cannot find any confirmation that Borlaug was a Creationist. Please provide a reliable source for that claim.

            Here and elsewhere, you seem to be making the implicit assumption that Christian = Creationist. This is seriously in error.

          • GubbaBumpkin

            Yes, Nobel prizes have been given for scientific areas that have long
            been a part of creation science theory. The Christian scientist Norman
            Borlaug for example won a Nobel prize for his work in hybridization of
            crops which saved a billion lives and falls entirely under creationist
            levels of speciation based on Genesis…

            Borlaug won a Nobel peace prize, not a science prize. So the awarding of a Nobel peace prize to Borlaug is in no way a validation of “creation science.” And if you think Borlaug was a Creationist you need to supply evidence for that.

          • http://stonesnbones.blogspot.com/ Dr. GS Hurd

            There are dozens of directly observed speciation events published in “Emergence of New Species.” Some were published over a century ago.

            http://stonesnbones.blogspot.com/2009/03/emergence-of-new-species.html

          • Bryan Bissell

            Um, speciation up to the family level is exclusively part of creation science theory based on Genesis and this has been published on LONG before Darwin by creationists like John Wilkins (co-founder of the Royal Society), Edward Blyth, Patrick Matthews and others.

            As usual, Darwinians have not done due diligence to actually know what they’re talking about in regard to creation science theory. I’ve never met even 1 out of 1000s I’ve asked who can list the main pillars of its hypothesis. Can you? If not, you have no business even trying to judge it.

          • Sven2547

            I’ve yet to meet a creationist who can list the pillars of Creationism without moving the goalposts whenever one is refuted.

          • http://roguemedic.com/ Rogue Medic

            Bryan Bissell,

            I’ve never met even 1 out of 1000s I’ve asked who can list the main pillars of its hypothesis.

            Go ahead and tell us what this mystical science is and how it demonstrates that there is a creator.

            I admit that there is no reason for me to read fairy tale science, such as the homeopathy hypothesis.

            The memory of water combined with dilution to the point of insignificance, while magically hitting the water to make it remember and become more potent with each dilution.

            Homeopathy is so powerful and the dilution effect is so powerful that I overdose by not taking any homeopathic product.

            Does understanding that silliness make it science?

            No.

            Now you can present your evidence that God did it, or whatever it is that you claim that this imaginary science claims.

            .

          • Bryan Bissell

            Darwinism doesn’t even begin to compete with even the
            physical evidence listed in these links alone and much of the evidence that
            Darwinism DOES claim is plagiarized from creationists (Edward Blyth, Patrick
            Matthews, John Wilkins and many others were publishing on natural selection,
            mutations, and many ideas on evolution up to about the family level, LONG
            before Darwin, based on Genesis and observations of nature).

            1) Dr. Carl Werner received his undergraduate degree in
            biology, with distinction, at the University of Missouri, graduating summa cum
            laude. He received his doctoral degree in medicine at the age of 23. He was the
            recipient of the Norman D. Jones Science Award. Dr. Werner
            was a convinced Darwinian, but then a
            friend asked him 3 hard questions about atheism/evolution/Darwinism.

            a) How do you form matter out of nothingness for the universe?

            b) How did life form from chemicals, even though we know DNA, proteins and
            functional cell membranes doesn’t form naturally from chemicals

            c) Why are there so many gaps in the fossil record, with no clear lines of
            transitional fossils existing?

            He spent 30+ years investigating these questions and found
            that most of the claimed evidence for Darwinism simply did not exist in the
            fossils or was drastically exaggerated beyond the actual physical evidence and
            that the fossil record actually points very persuasively to creation science
            and against Darwinism. He and his wife Debbie:

            ·
            traveled
            over 100,000 miles (160,000 km) and visited numerous major museums (and had
            much more access than most of the public does),

            ·
            visited
            many of the major fossil dig sites and took ~60,000 photographs and videos of
            the physical evidence, showing that fossils of nearly all phyla have been found
            in the same locations as dinosaur fossils, something that on its own almost
            totally debunks Darwinism and can’t be explained)

            ·
            interviewed
            over 60 leading Darwinians, many agreeing that they just don’t see the
            ancestors of most biological forms in the fossils and some claims about
            Darwinism in textbooks and museums do not have physical evidence supporting
            them.

            Eventually, they developed series
            Evolution: The Grand Experiment, showing that the fossil record is full of many
            types of fossils and a fossil order that should exist if creation science is
            true and should NOT exist if Darwinism is true.

            Dr. Werner says,

            “Living fossils provided me a simple
            way to test evolution. If…all of the animals and plants were created at one
            time and lived together (humans, dinosaurs, oak trees, roses, cats, wolves,
            etc), then one should be able to find fossils of at least some modern animals
            and modern plants alongside dinosaurs in the rock layers. I set out to test
            this idea without any foreknowledge of any modern organisms in the rock layers.
            My results (as laid out in the book & video Living Fossils) showed that
            many modern animals and plants are found with dinosaurs—far more than I ever
            expected to find.” (note though that because of the flood, we also expect a
            significant amount of sorting has happened due to many geological factors as
            well as which animals were more mobile and could escape to higher ground)….”

            “Paleontologists have found 432
            mammal species in the dinosaur layers….But where are these fossils? We visited
            60 museums but did not see a single complete mammal skeleton from the dinosaur
            layers displayed at any of these museums.3″

            http://www.icr.org/article/dinosaur-fossil-wasnt-supposed-be-there/

            Dr. Werner is interviewed on this creation science program (which has many
            other good programs as well) and shows highlights of his film “The Grand
            Experiment”.

            Origins – Evolution – The Grand Experiment – Part 1 with Dr. Carl Werner:

            http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XIqto00mf3w (at least watch
            13:00-~28:00, but the whole thing is good)

            Origins – Evolution – The Grand Experiment – Part 2 with Dr. Carl Werner:

            http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Cf9CTrvEeE0

            Origins – Evolution – The Grand Experiment – Part 3 with Dr. Carl Werner: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZNO3_SorHDM

            The actual physical
            evidence from the fossils in nearly all cases lines up very well with what we
            would expect if God created the orld and a lot of it, such as the Cambrian
            explosion, falsifies Darwinian expectations. We have lots of fossils of
            dinosaurs, 1000+ complete one and many more partial ones. But, they can almost
            all be easily categorized into specific families. They do not form transitional
            lines to a common ancestors. They don’t even have certainty about where to put
            Tyrannasaurus Rex in the line of common descent.

            2) The Case for the Creator
            by Lee Strobel. Lee Strobel converted to Darwinism and then atheism while very
            young. But, after his wife converted to Christianity, he decided to check and
            see if there were good scientific reasons for creation science or not. He found
            many scientists who agree that creation has very powerful evidence. He talks
            with some of them about the evidence for creation in this very good 1 hour
            introduction to creation science.

            The Case for the Creator

            https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tYLHxcqJmoM

            3) Dr. Werner Gitt was director and
            Professor at the Federal Physical-Technical Institute in Brunswick
            (Braunschweig, Germany) for almost 25 years until his retirement in 2002. He
            lists ~95 scientific lines of evidence that support creation science and falsify
            Darwinism in short paragraphs on each one and then a page with more references.

            http://www.0095.info/en/index_thesesen.html

            4) Dr. John Sanford, long time professor and pioneer of genetics at Cornell (http://hort.cals.cornell.edu/people/john-sanford)
            published a very sophisticated scientific book on genetic entropy and shows from peer reviewed articles by major scientists how the
            rate of decay of the human genome makes it impossible for genomes to even be 1
            million years, let alone billions. This is powerful evidence for the Bible’s
            timescale for human history. This is only one of
            many indisputable evidences that science can and DOES in some cases produce
            strong evidence that points to the supernatural.

            http://web29.streamhoster.com/rod_tv/creation/bdtv_creation_science_school/day5_830pmjohnsanford.m4v

            He lectures here:

            BIOLOGICAL INFORMATION – the Signature of Life – Dr. John Sanford http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2xBRcY0bBkE

            And a couple short ones here:

            Dr. John Sanford “Genetic Entropy and the Mystery of the Genome

            http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pJ-4umGkgos

            “How Evolution Hurts Science” Dr John Sanford

            http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uCQQkOWZbLY

          • http://roguemedic.com/ Rogue Medic

            Bryan Bissell,

            much of the evidence that Darwinism DOES claim is plagiarized from creationists

            Scientists cite the evidence that supports, or detracts from, their research.

            That is not plagiarism.

            Science is cumulative.

            a) How do you form matter out of nothingness for the universe?

            How do you form God out of nothingness?

            Why is your God incapable of using evolution?

            b is just a restatement of a.

            c) Why are there so many gaps in the fossil record, with no clear lines of transitional fossils existing?

            Darwin explained that clearly in On the Origin of Species. You should read it to understand the origins of evolution.

            Here are links to peer reviewed papers on transitional fossils catalogued by the National Library of Medicine – the source of science information for all of the life sciences, not just evolution.

            If you want to claim they are conspiring to create a science that is a fraud, then your conspiracy theory is too big to take seriously.

            https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21796204

            https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19816582

            https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/10618588

            https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15306808

            https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16598249

            https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16323697

            https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18615083

            https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15514154

            https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20027787

            -

            If your God is not capable of using evolution to produce the diversity of life, then your God is too small to be taken seriously.

            .

          • Bryan Bissell

            Citing other scientists is fine. STEALING other scientists ideas and calling them your own is illegal and a severe violation of all professional ethics. Darwin was caught doing that by his contemporaries.

            God is the prime mover who always existed. Those who think He was created in any way, show that they don’t even begin to understand Christianity.

            God COULD have created all life by evolution. But, He clearly stated MANY times that He created all life at the beginning, but then allowed adaptation by the life forms that he created up to the kind level (there were no taxonomical categories at that time, so that’s the maximum specificity human language allowed).

            Wow..you have about a dozen “transitional fossils”. You should have millions and billions easily if Darwinism were true. And many that are cited there, have been easily fit into creation science theory.

            And many transitional fossils have been falsified by science, such as Tiktaalik:
            Tiktaalik?
            Well, that was a valid prediction (I didn’t say there were none for Darwinism). But, it counts for very little if anything now. Why? Well, because we have found tetrapods (vertebrates with limbs rather than
            paired fins for any who don’t know) sort of like crocodiles in the fossils at least 18 million years before Tiktaalik. Which is easier, to have mammals descending from a tetrapod or Tiktaalik? The answer should
            be obvious to any objective person. By Occam’s razor, this eliminates Tiktaalik as the ancestor of mammals completely or pretty close to it.

            This tetrapod fossil is not something minor. It’s turned the world of paleontology upside down. You can see this from some of the comments on it.

            “They force a radical reassessment of the timing, ecology and environmental setting of the fish-tetrapod transition, as well as the completeness of the body fossil record.” Niedzwiedzki, G., Szrek, P., Narkiewicz, K., Narkiewicz, M. and Ahlberg, P., Tetrapod trackways from the early Middle Devonian period of Poland, Nature 463(7227):43–48, 2010; nature.com/nature/journal/v463/n7277/pdf/nature08623.pdf.

            “[It] will cause a significant reappraisal of our understanding of tetrapod origins.” Editor’s Summary, Four feet in the past: trackways pre-date
            earliest body fossils, Nature 463(7227), 2010;
            nature.com/nature/journal/v463/n7277/edsumm/e100107-01.html.

            “[They] could lead to significant shifts in our knowledge of the timing and ecological setting of early tetrapod evolution.” Roach, J., Oldest land-walker tracks found—pushes back evolution, National Geographic
            News, nationalgeographic.com/news/2010/01/100106-tetrapod-tracks-oldest-footprints-nature-evolution-walking-land.html, 6 January 2010.

            “We thought we’d pinned down the origin of limbed tetrapods. We have to rethink the whole thing.” Palaeontologist Jenifer Clack, University of
            Cambridge, UK; in: Curry, M., Ancient four-legged beasts leave their mark, ScienceNOW Daily News,
            sciencenow.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/2010/106/2, 6 January 2010.

            “That’s surprising, but this is what the fossil evidence tells us.” Palaentologist Philippe Janvier from the National Museum of Natural History, Paris, France; in: Amos, J., Fossil tracks record ‘oldest land-walkers’, BBC News, news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/8443879.stm 6 January 2010.

            “These results force us to reconsider our whole picture of the transition from fish to land animals.” Palaentologist Per Ahlberg of Uppsala University, Sweden; in: Fossil Footprints Give Land Vertebrates a Much Longer History, ScienceDaily, sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/01/100107114420.htm, 8 January 2010

          • http://roguemedic.com/ Rogue Medic

            Bryan Bissell,

            Citing other scientists is fine. STEALING other scientists ideas and calling them your own is illegal and a severe violation of all professional ethics. Darwin was caught doing that by his contemporaries.

            You cannot steal science.

            Science is openly published for all of the world to see.

            If you read what Darwin wrote, it is full of references to other scientists.

            -

            And many that are cited there, have been easily fit into creation science theory.

            Creation science is not even a workable hypothesis.

            All you can do is spend your time criticizing your misrepresentation of evolution.

            .

          • guest

            “Wow..you have about a dozen “transitional fossils”. You should have millions and billions easily if Darwinism were true.”

            Only a dozen cases of transitional fossils?

            “Macro-evolution (changes such as the addition of major new structures that didn’t exist in a genus/family before or past the family level have never ever ONCE been seen by anyone.”

            Transitional fossils (changes such as the addition of major new structures that didn’t exist in a genus/family before) have never ever ONCE been seen?

            A dozen cases is much more than never ever ONCE been seen.

            “And many transitional fossils have been falsified by science, such as Tiktaalik:”

            To anticipate your ridiculous objection, this does NOT challenge the theory of evolution (what you dogmatically refer to as darwinism). This causes the theory of evolution to be refined. This is the way science works. Einstein did not repeal gravity. Einstein refined gravity.

            “Discovery of New Tiktaalik Roseae Fossils Reveals Key Link in Evolution of Hind Limbs

            Jan. 13, 2014 — The discovery of well-preserved pelves and a partial pelvic fin from Tiktaalik roseae, a 375 million-year-old transitional species between fish and the first legged animals, reveals that the evolution of hind legs actually began as enhanced hind fins. This challenges existing theory that large, mobile hind appendages were developed only after vertebrates transitioned to land. The fossils are described by scientists in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, online on Jan. 13.”

            http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2014/01/140113154211.htm

          • http://roguemedic.com/ Rogue Medic

            God is the prime mover who always existed.

            If you repeat this spontaneous generation story enough times, maybe someone will believe it.

            This way you don’t have to understand probability and the ridiculous improbability of the creation of your God.

            He clearly stated MANY times that He created all life at the beginning

            Please provide some quotes, since this might be relevant, unlike your quote mining.

            (there were no taxonomical categories at that time, so that’s the maximum specificity human language allowed).

            And it would have been bad for your God to tell anyone about taxonomy, because of the Prime Directive?

            STEALING other scientists ideas and calling them your own is illegal and a severe violation of all professional ethics.

            Like stealing Saturnalia and renaming it after your god?

            .

          • jon

            darwinians?
            I don’t know if you’ve noticed, but this is the 21st century; we’ve come a *long* way since Darwin.

            And the one main pillar of creation ‘science’ is obvious: delusion.

          • jon

            what *is* macro-evolution?
            Why should you differentiate between macro- and micro evolution?

            You do not seem to understand what evolution is.

          • Bryan Bissell

            You don’t seem to understand what creation is. I’ve know what Darwinism is for decades VERY well, due to listening/reading Dawkins, Gould, Shubin and many others.

            Mutations are almost always negative. Natural selection selects among these. Negative mutations accumulate. Once in a while a loss of genetic information can be helpful. THOSE are micro-evolution. Macro-evolution (changes such as the addition of major new structures that didn’t exist in a genus/family before or past the family level have never ever ONCE been seen by anyone. PERIOD.

          • http://roguemedic.com/ Rogue Medic

            Bryan Bissell,

            I’ve know what Darwinism is for decades VERY well

            We are discussing the fraud that is Creation science and whether it should be taught as something it isn’t – science.

            Evolution is real.

            You are ignorant of evolution and you are dishonest.

            What you call macro-evolution is just the accumulation of changes that you call microevolution.

            You assume that there is some stop sign preventing the continuation of these changes. That is nonsense.

            .

          • jon

            humanity has learned quite a bit more since Darwin, you know….

            http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/section5.html#morphological_change

            and let’s throw all evidence aside, even if ALL THE EVIDENCE simply wasn’t there, whatever evidence have you for your god. None whatsoever.
            There are absolutely no reasons to even assume any deities exist, let alone the bully that christians worship.

            But hey, who needs evidence, ey?

          • http://roguemedic.com/ Rogue Medic

            jon,

            That is the way pseudoscience works.

            We don’t know everything, therefore Aliens!

            We don’t know everything, therefore Psychic Powers!

            We don’t know everything, therefore Alternative Medicine!

            We don’t know everything, therefore Conspiracy!

            We don’t know everything, therefore Gods!

            We don’t know everything, therefore Jesus rode a unicorn in the Gay Pride Parade in Jerusalem! and that is the real reason he was killed.

            All the stuff in the Bible is just an attempt to cover up Gods’ disgust at having a gay son and sending him off to be killed to cover up his embarrassment. But that is a different story, possibly NC17, but with the right director and the right star, it could be bigger than all of the God movies so far (to borrow from Lennon).

            Bryan Bissell makes it clear that evidence is not needed to support a fairy tale. If he does not play by the rules, why should anyone else?

            ;-)

          • Bryan Bissell

            You’re just a liar. Christianity has always played by objective rules of evidence. Atheism NEVER EVER EVER does. PERIOD. It always uses denials of evidence, a priori fallacies, double standards galore. It does not and never has played by objective rules. And it often makes its adherents brain dead to even recognize what objective evidence is as academics have agreed upon for centuries and millenia. SMH.

            The delusions are truly deep.

          • http://roguemedic.com/ Rogue Medic

            Bryan Bissell,

            You’re just a liar. Christianity has always played by objective rules of evidence.

            But you are a Creationist and most Christians are evolutionists.

            Most Christians understand that evolution is real because it is based on valid evidence.

            You, and your Jewish, Hindu, Muslim, Christian, and other religious Creationist sects, are the ones who ignore valid evidence.

            You have repeatedly refused to provide citations for valid evidence of any scientific theory that is opposed to evolution.

            You do not represent Christianity.

            You represent those who hold Christianity back.

            You would be opposing Galileo and his evidence because of a literal misinterpretation of the Bible.

            Your delusional literalism is a rejection of science.

            Most Christians are too intelligent for that.

            .

          • jon

            according to your ramblings, no one understands what creation is but god.

            I wonder why you hate christianity that much that you want to deliberately *not* follow it that fervently.

          • Sven2547

            “macro-evolution” (which is really the same kind of evolution, but over a longer period of time) has been thoroughly proven by the fossil record, the entire field of genetics, the entire field of morphology, and even in human history.

          • Bryan Bissell

            Nope. Not even close to factual. Mutations are almost always negative. Natural selection selects among these. Negative mutations accumulate. Once in a while a loss of genetic information can be helpful. THOSE are
            micro-evolution. Macro-evolution (changes such as the addition of major new structures that didn’t exist in a genus/family before or past the family level have never ever ONCE been seen by anyone.

            .

          • Sven2547

            Macro-evolution (changes such as the addition of major new structures that didn’t exist in a genus/family before or past the family level have never ever ONCE been seen by anyone.

            As I already said, the fossil record is replete with transitional forms of ancestral lines undergoing major morphological changes. Invertebrates to vertebrates, jawless fish to jawed vertebrates, acanthodians to sharks, primitive jawed fish to bony fish, fish to amphibians, primitive amphibians to modern amphibians, amphibians to reptiles, early reptiles to turtles, early reptiles to diapsids, reptiles to mammals, dinosaurs to birds, primates to humans, and mammals to cetaceans.

            Even beyond the robust fossil record, genetics can easily trace the shared ancestry of multiple families of animals and plants. Your refusal to look at the evidence is not the same as a lack of evidence.

          • http://roguemedic.com/ Rogue Medic

            Natural selection selects among these. Negative mutations accumulate.

            You contradict yourself.

            Natural selection prevents the accumulation of negative mutations, so what method do you claim causes the accumulation of negative mutations?

            Your misrepresentation of evolution is another example of why Creationism is not science.

            .

    • Bryan Bissell

      Wrong. Your post shows dire ignorance of objective science, agreed to by leading scientists on BOTH sides, and is a textbook case of indoctrination. The delusional education you received that failed to educate you about the facts of history, that so many aspects of Darwinism/universal common descent evolution have been conclusively debunked and abandoned BY ALL scientists on ALL sides (see websites at the end). That you don’t know this proves you’ve been indoctrinated.

      This delusion that you had the audacity to post, is precisely why we need OBJECTIVE education, that teaches students facts instead of this pure fiction.

      “Evolution has withstood over 150 years of ignorant “criticism”. It is the most well established theory in all of science”

      Anyone who thinks that Darwinism is stronger than the theory of gravity knows next to nothing about science. Gravity can be demonstrated at any time. So can biogenesis, the speed of light, photosynthesis and 100s of other scientific theories. In contrast, no one has ever seen or demonstrated Darwinian levels of evolution, Creationist levels of evolution (from species to family level), can be seen fairly easily but even they can’t be seen as often as gravity is. Universal common descent has never ever been seen. If it ever is, even at microbial levels, even beyond family levels, that person will win the Nobel prize. No one has yet.

      Dr Marc Kirschner, founding chair of the Department of Systems Biology at Harvard Medical School stated:
      “In fact, over the last 100 years, almost all of biology has
      proceeded independent of evolution, except evolutionary biology itself.
      Molecular biology, biochemistry, physiology, have not taken evolution
      into account at all.” (he’s lamenting this fact and calling for other
      fields of biology to use common descent ideas more). Quoted in the
      Boston Globe, 23 October 2005.

      There’s a vast difference in the public understanding of Darwinism
      and what’s going on in the scientific community. So much of what Darwin
      claimed has been falsified and the problems have become much greater

      Pasteur wrote, “Posterity will one day laugh at the foolishness of
      modern materialistic philosophers. The more I study nature, the more I
      stand amazed at the work of the Creator. I pray while I am engaged at my
      work in the laboratory.” The Literary Digest (18 October 1902)

      Some have mocked him for getting it wrong, but actually, his
      predictions have been fulfilled and keep on being fulfilled.
      Lamarckism, pangenesis, transmutationism, recapitulation (Haeckel’s
      “Ontogeny recapitulates phylogeny”), orthogenesis, xenogenesis and other explanations for universal common descent have all been falsified.
      Saltational evolution and punctuated equilibrium are interesting
      hypotheses, but almost completely based on claims about processes that
      have left little if any physical evidence to test. Thus they are not
      really that falsifiable. There is an elephant in the room that DOES
      match the scientific evidence much better. That elephant is one that
      Darwinians do not want to talk about, creation science.

      So, Pasteur was right. The only problem is that every time evolution
      gets falsified, it evolves a new version to fit materialist assumptions,
      esp. the a priori fallacy of methodological naturalism.

      Consider what even leading Darwinians are saying about the modern
      synthesis (note that they are NOT creationists, they are searching about
      for any materialist concept that can avoid following the evidence to
      creation science)

      Dr. Stephen Gould, longtime professor of evolutionary biology
      and paleontology at Harvard probably one of the top 5 or 10 Darwinians
      in the world while he was alive:

      1) “I well remember how the synthetic theory beguiled me with its
      unifying power when I was a graduate student in the mid-1960′s. Since
      then I have been watching it slowly unravel as a universal description
      of evolution. The molecular assault came first, followed quickly by
      renewed attention to unorthodox theories of speciation and by challenges at the level of macroevolution itself. I have been reluctant to
      admit it — since beguiling is often forever — but if Mayr’s characterization
      of the synthetic theory is accurate, then that theory, as a general
      proposition, is effectively dead, despite its persistence as textbook
      orthodoxy.” Gould, S.J. 1980. Is a new and general theory of evolution
      emerging? Paleobiology 6: 119-130

      and

      2) Eugene Koonin, senior investigator at the National
      Center for Biotechnology Information, National Library of Medicine, and
      National Institutes of Health in Bethesda, Maryland, has published two
      essays on the current status of the “modern evolutionary synthesis”:

      The Origin at 150: Is a new evolutionary synthesis in sight?, Trends in Genetics, 25(11), November 2009, pp. 473-475.
      http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2784144/

      Abstract: The 200th anniversary of Charles Darwin and the 150th
      jubilee of the On the Origin of Species could prompt a new look at
      evolutionary biology. The 1959 Origin centennial was marked by the
      consolidation of the modern synthesis. The edifice of the modern
      synthesis has crumbled, apparently, beyond repair. The hallmark of the
      Darwinian discourse of 2009 is the plurality of evolutionary processes
      and patterns. Nevertheless, glimpses of a new synthesis might be
      discernible in emerging universals of evolution.

      3) “…Darwinism in its current scientific incarnation has pretty
      much reached the end of its rope..it is largely because Lamarckism,
      saltationist (sudden) mutationism, and inner-driven orthogenesis, to
      name the most enduring alternative traditions in evolutionary biology,
      failed to become mathematized empirical sciences with at least a
      foothold on value-neutrality that Darwinism still rules the evolutionary
      roost”
      http://www.springerlink.com/content/845x02v03g3t7002/

      4) The Fate of Darwinism: Evolution After the Modern Synthesis
      David J. Depew and Bruce H.
      Weber, Nov 8, 2011, BIOLOGICAL THEORY, Volume 6, Number 1, 89-102, DOI:10.1007/s13752-011-0007-1

      “We trace the history of the Modern Evolutionary Synthesis, and of
      genetic Darwinism generally, with a view to showing why, even in its
      current versions, it can no longer serve as a general framework for
      evolutionary theory. The main reason is empirical. Genetical Darwinism
      cannot accommodate the role of development (and of genes in
      development) in many evolutionary processes. We go on to discuss two conceptual issues: whether natural selection can be the “creative factor” in a new, more general framework for evolutionary theorizing; and whether in such a framework organisms must be conceived as self-organizing systems embedded in self-organizing ecological systems.”

      The predictions and requirements of Darwinians on the fossil record,
      vestigial organs, junkDNA, and quite a number of concepts have been
      conclusively falsified (and their excuse of 2nd functions existing is
      pure blind hope without evidence) and the claims of creation science
      have been solidly vindicated in MANY areas.

      These are only some of the major Darwinian concepts that have been
      falsified and doesn’t even touch the myriad of smaller concepts that have been falsified and abandoned even by Darwinians.

      http://darwinconspiracy.com/ & http://www.darwinspredictions.com

      • Dorfl

        I’ll leave a detailed debunking to an actual biologist. This claim by darwinconspiracy.com jumped out at me though:

        So called “gene duplication” is not evidence that organisms can create new genes. Although bacteria can duplicate existing genes by mistake through “gene duplication,” this only occurs in single sex bacteria and this is not evidence that apes and humans can create new genes with new functions.

        First of all, gene duplication by definition creates new genes. That’s what duplication of genes means.

        Second, gene duplication is not only found in single sex bacteria. Plants are very prone to gene duplication. Dandelions are famously prone to being polyploid.

        In short, they seem to just be making up claims that would be useful to their argument if they were true.

        ps. The page darwinspredictions.com seems to be dead.

        • Dorfl

          According to Disqus your post is not active, so I’ll have to post this as a response to myself.

          The term duplicate refers to “Identically copied from an original”. Duplicating gene A and getting a second gene A is not the same as creation an entirely new gene B, which is a very key point.

          Exactly. No evolutionary biologist thinks unique functional genes suddenly pop out of nowhere. Instead we get duplication of existing genes, giving us two identical functioning genes. Mutation and natural selection can then act on these genes separately, after which we end up with two quite different genes A and B.

      • Dorfl

        This one was interesting too:

        “Ape to human evolution” theory asserts that the Chimpanzee Y chromosome (top one) evolved into the human Y chromosome (the lower one) and few changes were necessary.

        The theory states that humans and chimpanzees have a common ancestor. It most emphatically does not state that humans evolved from chimpanzees.

        • Ploss1957

          You’d think that creationists would at least read the theory of evolution before criticizing it and making asses of themselves. They don’t have a clue.

          • Dorfl

            I think the big problem is that there is no pressing reason for them to get a clue. If a person who understands the theory of evolution reads a creationist attempt at rebutting it, they will see that the arguments are terrible no matter what. So the intended audience for things like darwinconspiracy.com are people who do not have that basic understanding; people who just want to be reassured that their science denialism is justified, and maybe have a ready list of arguments to cut&paste. To them, it makes no difference if the arguments given are just a long series of lies and non-sequiturs, so the authors may as well not waste the effort that would be needed to understand the theory.

          • Ploss1957

            What it comes down to – You can’t reason a man out of a position that he did not reach through reason. The problem is that very often their ignorance is not innocent – they know they are being dishonest but think lying is OK to advance their agenda.

          • Bryan Bissell

            “You can’t reason a man out of a position that he did not reach through reason.”
            This is precisely why it’s so difficult to reason people out of atheism and Darwinism. These ideologies are not based on reason. They start from the beginning on fallacies, esp. the fallacy of methodological naturalism, which is the death of any objective search for truth in science, at the worldview level at least.

            Christianity in contrast has from the start been based on objective methods of reasoning and has no use for fallacies and lying. Men and women of God died for what they personally saw and experienced rather than lie about it and live.

            Most creationists who have science Ph.Ds. know Darwinism VERY well, and can explain it quickly and accurately. Many used to be Darwinians themselves. The REAL problem is that most Darwinians have never read about the theory of creation science and can’t even define it accurately. Can you? I’ve never met one so far who can.

          • Dorfl

            Will you address the fact that the page you referred us to turned out to be a long collection of lies?

            Or will you just move on to the next talking point on your list – which apparently is methodological naturalism?

          • Bryan Bissell

            Dorfl,
            You may have found some mistakes in a website. If so, good job and thanks. I haven’t had time to check your claims as well as I want to before responding. But, to call mistakes lies is not honest itself. Scientists on ALL sides make mistakes in their efforts to understand nature and figure out which hypothesis/theory makes the best sense of the evidence.

            Please read a dictionary about what constitutes lies (such as Merriam Webster). Basically, you can only legitimately allege a lie when you prove that someone knows something is true and intentionally makes false claims about it.

            Here’s an example of a REALLY egregious intentional lie by Richard Dawkins:
            http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nsjDFdSOJY4

            People on all sides make mistakes..and if I can just cherry pick a few mistakes on your side and dismiss all others evidence, Darwinism is already dead.

            I’ll try to get time to check your claims in more detail, but had a lot of responsibilities this weekend, and also many people are asking questions, and some of my responses have been deleted for some reason.

            Contrary to the atheist delusion, Christians and creationists OFTEN admit error and correct themselves. I have many times. The more I do that, the more accurate I become. But, there’s always more to correct.

          • Dorfl

            I agree that we shouldn’t be too quick to conclude that an incorrect statement is necessarily a deliberate lie. However, the assumption of good faith can be abused and there is such a thing as due diligence.

            Finding the errors in darwinconspiracy.com was easy enough that at best, they cannot have put any effort into finding out whether the claims they were making were actually true or not. I know that some people believe there is a moral difference between “saying things known to probably be false, with the intention of making the audience believe them” and “saying things not known to probably be true, with the intention of making the audience believe them”, and that only the former should be considered ‘lying’. I do not; In both cases the speaker have shown that they have little interest in the both the truth, and the listeners’ right to know the truth.

            [...] some of my responses have been deleted for some reason.

            The person authorised to moderate Jack Wellman’s blog is Jack Wellman. Unless you think he is deleting your things you have probably triggered a spam filter. They tend to react to people whose posts are too similar to one another, or contain too much material taken from elsewhere on the internet.

          • http://roguemedic.com/ Rogue Medic

            Bryan Bissell,

            You were confronted with evidence of your quote mining.

            You continued to lie about quote mining.

            You repeatedly demonstrate that you are a liar and just throwing out nonsense.

            You claim to teach about quote mining and claim that what you are doing does not qualify.

            Your writing is an example of the kind of fraud that Creationists spew forth on a regular basis.

            Your creation science is a fraud.

            .

          • Bryan Bissell

            Wrong. You ASSERTED quote mining, but did NOTHING, ZIP, NADA to prove it (at least I’ve not seen any of it, but this website comment section is frustrating and convoluted, so it’s possible I might have missed something). As Hitchens said, what can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence, which is pretty much all your claims. Your assertions are fraud. I have documentation even from hostile experts. You have assertions.

            You also don’t use the term lie correctly at all. Read a dictionary sometime. I never lie. PERIOD. And I HAVE admitted errors as do many scientists of integrity on both sides. Stop lying about others.

          • http://roguemedic.com/ Rogue Medic

            Bryan Bissell,

            I never lie. PERIOD.

            Here are examples of some of your lies.

            Earlier you wrote this about your quote mining –

            No quote mine was used. You’re just using false claims to deny objective science. Read the whole article. There was no quote mine. You don’t even know how to use the term properly.

            You wrote –

            There was no taking quotes out of context period. I lecture university students ON NOT using quote mining. YOU don’t even know how to identify it properly at all.

            Dr. Hurd has also pointed out that you are taking quotes out of context.

            http://www.patheos.com/blogs/christiancrier/2013/12/26/5-crucial-reasons-to-teach-creationism-in-public-schools/#comment-1184292913

            You posted a list of quotes taken out of the context of the full statements.

            Taking quotes out of context to pretend that the person supports your scam is a logical fallacy.

            The name of that logical fallacy is quote mining.

            The Quote Mine Project is a response to the creationist tactic of quoting scientists as “evidence” against evolution. It is a group effort of many participants of the talk.origins newsgroup which documents what is wrong with how the creationists present their “evolution quotes.” See the introduction for details.

            http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/quotes/mine/evolution.html

            You were criticized for quote mining and rather than admit it, you denied it.

            The evidence is right there in the comment thread for anyone to see how dishonest you are.

            .

          • Ploss1957

            Creationists have long been known to be dishonest when attempting to support their “theory” with quotations. I really find your fumbling attempts at supporting it tiresome and nothing more than a waste of time. Get with the program, man. Creationism has been exposed as fraud and you’re making a fool of yourself by beating a dead horse.

          • guest

            “Wrong. You ASSERTED quote mining, but did NOTHING, ZIP, NADA to prove it (at least I’ve not seen any of it, but this website comment section is frustrating and convoluted, so it’s possible I might have missed something).”

            You can’t prove I was quote mining, because I refuse to see the proof?/s

            Is that supposed to convince anyone? You are a con man and your defense is mere misdirection to mislead readers.

            Fess up.

          • jon

            “I never lie”

            that is a lie

          • jon

            you cannot accurately define something as being ‘science’ when it is not.

          • http://roguemedic.com/ Rogue Medic

            Bryan Bissell,

            This is an example of the fraud of Creationism.

            Many Christians understand evolution and recognize the lies of Creationists for what they are.

            If your God is so frail that he evaporates in the presence of science, then your problem is not with science.

            Your problem is with your inadequate God.

            .

          • Bryan Bissell

            Oh my stars. God has never evaporated in the presence of science. He is the giver and foundation of science. Your argument is like saying that because we see a kid playing and can explain how he runs, that he needs no parents. SMH.

            Explanation does NOTHING to explain origin. A person could explain how a car engine works for example, but that does absolutely nothing to explain how it originated. Same for nature. Explaining how it works does nothing to prove how all the systems and amazingly complex processes got started. The fact is that in terms
            of how life got started and quite a few other areas, ALL the evidence we have, yes, ALL, is on the side of creation science and intelligent design. There is not even one particle of evidence of any kind showing that inert chemicals can form into cells with 100,000 kinesins, etc. carrying nutrients to specific locations without intelligence no matter how much time or steps you wish to give it. NONE. ALL the evidence is on the side of creation science. Abiogenesis is pure blind
            faith. So is much of Darwinism.

          • http://roguemedic.com/ Rogue Medic

            Bryan Bissell,

            The fact is that in terms of how life got started and quite a few other areas, ALL the evidence we have, yes, ALL, is on the side of creation science and intelligent design.

            Provide evidence of the creation of God.

            Abiogenesis is pure blindfaith.

            The creation of God is abiogenesis.

            Why are you opposing what you claim (Creationism)?

            .

          • Ploss1957

            Take your blinders off, Bryan. The faults you find with “Darwinism” shoud be directed at creationism and this has NOTHING to do wit atheism. You should know better. Many of the leading scientists on the planet are not atheist – they’re just not ignorant enough to accept the nonsensical “theory” of creationism.

          • Surprise123

            THAT’s not fair. There is no reason to assume that Bryan Bissell, or any of the other conservative Christian posters on this board (or in general society) don’t authentically believe in what they’re saying.
            No need to make ad hominem attacks against people’s integrity on this point.

          • http://roguemedic.com/ Rogue Medic

            Surprise123,

            If Bryan Bissell didn’t repeat statements, after those statements have been demonstrated to be false, then you would have a valid point.

            Bryan Bissell has repeatedly lied here.

            The evidence is right in this thread.

            .

          • Ploss1957

            It’s not ad hominem and I’m not saying that any poster doesn’t believe what they’re saying. What I AM saying is that they came to thei9r conclusion based on belief and not on the facts so using facts to reason with them won’t make a dent. There is an element of dishonesty in their behavior but that is not ad hominem, that is just an observation based on what they have posted here.

          • Guest

            Pretty much all who have science Ph.Ds. and many used to be Darwinians themselves. The REAL problem is that most Darwinians have never read about the theory of creation science and can’t even define it accurately. Can you? I’ve never met one so far who can.

          • http://roguemedic.com/ Rogue Medic

            Bryan Bissell,

            The REAL problem is that most Darwinians have never read about the theory of creation science and can’t even define it accurately.

            You cannot even use the term evolution correctly in a sentence.

            Why should anyone think that you can grasp any science?

            .

          • Bryan Bissell

            That’s a lie.

          • http://roguemedic.com/ Rogue Medic

            Bryan Bissell,

            You have repeatedly demonstrated a failure to use evolution correctly in sentences.

            You substitute Darwinism, apparently out of ignorance of the topic being discussed.

            Creationism is a fraud perpetrated by those who do not understand science.

            You have provided excellent examples.

            Evolution is science and understood to be correct by many religious people – Christians, Muslims, Jews, Hindus, . . .

            Only some fanatical sects reject evolution.

            You are trying to present a religious doctrine debate as a debate about science.

            There is no science in your religious doctrine.

            .

          • Ploss1957

            That is their basic problem. That and stubbornness. They have a death grip on their “theory”

          • Ploss1957

            That’s precisely because creationism can not qualify as science and will never qualify as science. When will you people get this simple fact through your thick skulls?

      • Dorfl

        And this one:

        Darwinians claim that 1 in 1000 human babies have a “fused chromosome” but this is an out and out lie. They are actually referring to Robertsonian Translocations, which are “translocations” and not fused chromosomes and does not result in a change in the chromosome number.

        We look this up on wikipedia…

        http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robertsonian_Translocation

        …and it turns out that a Robertsonian translocation is in fact a fusion of different chromosomes:

        Most people with Robertsonian translocations have only 45 chromosomes in each of their cells, yet all essential genetic material is present, and they appear normal.

        • happy

          Good luck with it. If he admits one goof-up then he has to keep on admitting the next goof-up and the next and the next…

          He would be here all day using his brain and admitting mistakes instead of pasting quotes all day out the wazoo.

      • lance Geologist

        interesting use of “quote mining”.You take quotes out of context and post as if the person making the statement is doubtful or against evolutionary theory.Your methodology is dishonest. A quick example is Dr Mark Kirschner.

        “Kirschner has interests in the evolutionary origins of the vertebrate body plan, and in particular the origins of the chordate nervous system.”(wikipedia).

        Dr Kkirschner investigates aspects of EVOLUTION!

        • Bryan Bissell

          Nope, there was no quote mining, no taking out of context at all. As usually you have made false allegations and misused the term quote mining badly. YOU are dishonest. Of course Dr. Kirschner believes in Darwinism. THAT is the point. He’s a hostile witness, NOT a creationist, but still admits that Darwinism has not been used in most of biology AT ALL. Why would he say that, unless it’s a fact? He’s trying to persuade people to use it more, but admits facts, which you don’t, which is dishonest.

      • http://stonesnbones.blogspot.com/ Dr. GS Hurd

        Mr. Bissell, what is the “theory of gravity?” Gravity can be demonstrated to exist. Evolution can be demonstrated to exist.

        The entire notion of a “theory” is that of an expanding explanation. We have a well functioning theory of evolution. There is no adequate theory of gravity.

        I took the time to investigate your background a bit. For we do need to be interested in the sources of people’s ideas. It happens that Mr. Bissell is a Seventh Day Adventist. This dooms day cult is the source of our current young earth creationist plague. I recommend reading “The Creationists” by Prof. R. Numbers.

        • Bryan Bissell

          With all due respect Dr. Hurd for your knowledge and skill in science which I always respect, no matter how much I disagree,
          A) SDAs are NOT a doomsday cult. They just believe that Jesus will come someday as all Christians do based on many Bible prophecies. Your research on this point is pathetic. Furthermore, they are directly responsible for much of the health and longevity you and the entire world now enjoys, along with other Christians (Florence Nightingale, Lister, Semmelweis, Norman Borlaug and numerous others). Start investigating some actual facts at this secular science site which sites leading scientists in several countries on how much you benefit from Adventists.
          http://www.worldlifeexpectancy.com/what-adventists-mean-to-you

          See also Dan Buettner of the secular Blue Zones foundation here: http://www.ted.com/talks/dan_buettner_how_to_live_to_be_100.html (esp. 11:30+).

          B) Yes, I know that we can demonstrate gravity, but the theory still has many difficulties in understanding how it works. It’s almost the same with Darwinism (a term which pubmed and Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy use to refers to Darwin’s original idea and all subsequent derivations of it)

          There are ~6 different kinds of evolution. Darwin didn’t even use the word “evolution” at all in the first edition of “Origin of the Species” because “the few pre-Darwinian English citations of genealogical change as “evolution” all employ the word as a synonym for predictable progress…We must then…ask how “evolution” achieved its coup in becoming the name for Darwini’s process–a takeover so complete that the word has now almost…lost its original English meaning of unfolding, and has transmuted…into an effective synonym for biological change through time?.. Darwin never used the “E” word extensively in his writings, but he did capitulate to a developing consensus by referring to his
          process as “evolution” for the first time in The Descent of Man, published in 1871.” Stephen Gould, I Have Landed: The End of a Beginning in Natural History, “The Dreaded “E” Word http://www.amazon.com/Have-Landed-Beginning-Natural-History/dp/0674061624#reader_0674061624

          Actually, the term evolution basically just means change over time, but there are at least 6 kinds of scientific evolution. It is precisely because there are so many kinds of evolution that it is linguistically incompetent, irrational
          and useless, an ambiguous conflation, to call Darwinism just evolution.

          a) Cosmic evolution: This refers to the origin of time, space, and matter from nothing in the Big bang which
          confirms the Bible’s prediction of creation ex nihilo in several ways.
          https://www.cfa.harvard.edu/~ejchaisson/cosmic_evolution/docs/splash.html

          b) Chemical evolution: This refers to the origin of all the elements.
          en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chemical_evolution

          c) Stellar evolution: This refers
          to the origin of stars and planets (from gas clouds)
          en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stellar_evolution

          d) Organic evolution/abiogenesis:
          This refers to the hypothesis of life beginning from inanimate matter, a scientific impossibility, and all forms have been debunked by science or failed. ALL. This leaves only the creationist theory of biogenesis pioneered by the creationist Pasteur as the only legitimate theory of life origins.
          en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abiogenesis
          http://www.trueorigin.org/abio.asp

          e) On micro/macro evolution,
          these are NOT only creationist terms as some Darwinians love to claim. That’s a fallacy. This is what most leading creationists mean by the term..and links to
          Darwinian sites, which may differ some, but not by much.

          Micro-evolution: Variations form within “kinds” Most creationists think that these variations can extend up
          to the genus or family level. This is the kind that creationists such as Edward Blyth, John Wilkins, Patrick Matthews, Alfred Wallace (more of an ID pioneer)
          and others pioneered long before Darwin. But, these variations almost always happen by loss of information.
          evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/article/evo_36

          Macro-evolution: This refers to the hypothesis that animals and plants can evolve from one species into
          other orders, classes, phyla, kingdoms, domain, etc. over long periods of time.Some Darwinians like to claim that it is anything above speciation. This is not a meaningful distinction at all, since creationist evolution, goes up to ~the family level. Macro evolution requires miraculous levels of the addition of genetic information that have never ever been seen by anyone (more miraculous
          than all the miracles in the Bible COMBINED). It does have some evidence tho, esp. inferential and a few confirmations of predictions. But, creation science has much more and there are ~10 scientific reasons that make macro-evolution impossible.
          evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/article/evo_47

          In order to confuse people and astrononomically lower the bar of evidence to make it look like their hypothesis has strong evidence when it doesn’t, Darwinians love to cite speciation, which has for millennia been part of
          creation science theory based on Genesis and published by creation scientists long before Darwin (John Wilkins, Patrick Matthews, Edward Blyth, etc.), as something we can observe and a fact. This is true and one scientific confirms of creation science theory . But, then Darwinians claim that evolution (meaning universal common descent) can be observed and has been proven and is a theory,
          etc. This is the fallacy of equivocation/bait and switch and has nothing to do with fair, reasonable or objective science. This is one reason why they want to use the term evolution to refer to Darwinism. If you call evolution just “change in in allele frequency within a population over time.”

          It doesn’t do anything to provide a spec of evidence for universal common descent beyond highly speculative extrapolations akin to seeing a fetus grow and expecting it to continue to grow at the same rate forever, till it’s 100s
          of kilometers tall.

          • Bryan Bissell

            I would suggest Dr. Hurd, that you become objective about science and actually listen to what leading creationists have to say and the vast science that they have shown supports the many creation science
            hypotheses and predictions. Creation science has NEVER at any time been just “God did it” anymore than Darwinism is “Darwindidit”. Here are 3 to start with:

            1) Dr. John Sanford, long time professor and
            pioneer of genetics at Cornell (http://hort.cals.cornell.edu/people/john-sanford) has over 100 published papers, 32 patents and started 2 successful biotech companies and was a significant pioneer in genetics, esp. planet genetics (and also a committed Darwinian and atheist for many years). He changed based on the scientific evidence though and published a very sophisticated scientific book on genetic entropy and shows from peer
            reviewed articles by major scientists (population geneticists pioneered the whole concept of genetic entropy and there are quite a few peer reviewed papers on it from Darwinians which I can cite if you wish) how
            the rate of decay of the human genome makes it impossible for genomes to even be 1 million years, let alone billions. This is powerful evidence for the Bible’s
            timescale for human history. This is only one of
            many indisputable evidences that science can and DOES in some cases produce strong evidence that points to the supernatural.

            He lectures here:
            http://web29.streamhoster.com/rod_tv/creation/bdtv_creation_science_school/day5_830pmjohnsanford.m4v

            BIOLOGICAL INFORMATION – the Signature of Life – Dr. John Sanford http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2xBRcY0bBkE

            And a couple shorter ones here:
            Dr. John Sanford “Genetic Entropy and the Mystery of the Genome http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pJ-4umGkgos

            “How Evolution Hurts Science” Dr John Sanford
            http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uCQQkOWZbLY

            2) Dr. Walter Veith was a former hardcore militant atheist professor with a Ph.D. in zoology. He chaired a department of zoology and was one of only 5
            scientists in South Africa given grants from the Royal Society and has many published papers. But, he converted to creation science after studying the evidence for it in depth (it is not possible to make a rational judgement unless you study the evidence on both sides of an issue in similar depth).

            http://amazingdiscoveries.tv/media/629/951-interview-with-walter-veith-1/

            Here’s his series “The Genesis Conflict” with many in depth scientific reasons why creation science theory is has the best evidence overall.
            amazingdiscoveries.tv/c/10/The_Genesis_Conflict_-_English/

            3) Also check out Dr. Stephen Meyer’s 2 books, “Signature in the Cell” and “Darwin’s Doubt” which have won accolades from even leading Darwinians and worldclass scientists on all sides.

          • http://roguemedic.com/ Rogue Medic

            This is powerful evidence for the Bible’s timescale for human history. This is only one of many indisputable evidences that science can and DOES in some cases produce strong evidence that points to the supernatural.

            Even if this were valid evidence for a short timescale, that would not be evidence for Creationism.

            That would only be evidence that evolution does not do a good job of explaining that one part of the theory.

            Crop circles are not evidence of aliens.

            Creating doubt about evolution is not evidence of supernatural origins of life.

            The concept of Intelligent Design is ridiculous.

            We are as horribly flawed as would be expected with evolution, but not with Intelligent Design.

            The correct term is Incompetent Design.

            Any supernatural influence on the development of life could only have come from an Incompetent Designer.

            .

          • Bryan Bissell

            Wrong on every single point. A short time scale would most definitely confirm creation’s claim about a young earth. You fail to understand even the most elementary basics of how science works. A bit of a refresher on science for you.

            Science basically works by gathering evidence and then the theory that has the most and best evidence is considered true. Two of the most important
            kinds of evidence for past events that we can’t repeat are inferences and finding confirmations of predictions that you have made based on a hypothesis. These are solid evidence in science and used to determine what is true to the best of our knowledge. If you are not aware of his, I suggest you read these 2 sites about how 2 predictions of Einstein were confirmed by Gravity Probe B and that greatly increased our confidence that his concepts about relativity are true.

            http://einstein.stanford.edu/MISSION/mission1.html

            and http://einstein.stanford.edu

          • http://roguemedic.com/ Rogue Medic

            Bryan Bissell,

            Wrong on every single point.

            Coming from you, that is absolutely meaningless.

            A short time scale would mean that the explanations of evolution that depend on long time periods need to be revised.

            This would not be evidence that Jimmy Hoffa created the universe.

            Jimmy Hoffa would not have had a lot of time, so it may seem that it would be evidence that he created the universe, but this is just a misunderstanding on your part.

            The two are unrelated.

            Creating doubt about evolution is not evidence of supernatural origins of life.

            Any supernatural influence on the development of life could only have come from an Incompetent Designer.

            .

          • jon

            you fail to show how and why it is ‘wrong on every single point’

          • GubbaBumpkin

            1) Dr. John Sanford, long time professor and
            pioneer of genetics at Cornell (http://hort.cals.cornell.edu/p… …
            He changed based on the scientific evidence though…

            I doubt it.

            and published a very
            sophisticated scientific book on genetic entropy and shows from peer reviewed
            articles by major scientists (population geneticists pioneered the whole concept of genetic entropy and there are quite a few peer reviewed
            papers on it from Darwinians which I can cite if you wish) how the
            rate of decay of the human genome makes it impossible for genomes to
            even be 1 million years, let alone billions. This is powerful evidence
            for the Bible’s timescale for human history.

            I have read Sanford’s book, Genetic Entropy & the Mystery of the Genome. It is not very good, and shows Sanford to be dishonest. He does not engage, or even mention, the best opposing arguments. He flubs almost every example in the book. The book is not peer-reviewed. His experience is in 1) inventing gadgets and 2) plant breeding. He does not have a reputation in theoretical population genetics. The book includes nothing that would display any mastery of that topic; for ex ample there are no equations involving diploid genomes or sex.

            Although Sanford is on the record as believing that the Earth is less than 100,000 years old and possibly less than 10,000 years old, Sanford never engages the evidence against this. So when he freaks out that the human genome has been decaying for ~ 10,000 years, it looks pretty ridiculous to anyone who understands the evidence that our genome has been evolving for 3+ billion years.

            In 2011, Sanford and his Creationist cohorts held a conference in a hotel on the Cornell University campus. This was not an official Cornell event, but Sanford and friends have been trying to pass it off as one. That is not honest.

          • GubbaBumpkin

            3) Also check out Dr. Stephen Meyer’s 2 books, “Signature in the Cell”
            and “Darwin’s Doubt” which have won accolades from even leading
            Darwinians and worldclass scientists on all sides.

            No they haven’t. They have received mostly very negative reviews from actual scientists.

          • http://roguemedic.com/ Rogue Medic

            SDAs are NOT a doomsday cult.

            The Great Disappointment – doomsday predictions of the Millerites – led to the SDAs and contributed to the explanation of cognitive dissonance.

            https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Millerite_disappointment

            .

          • Bryan Bissell

            SMH. No, Adventists are NOT Millerites. Millerites existed decades
            before Adventists did. Certain Millerites became Adventists as did
            people from many churches. Many did not. You fail to understand history.

          • http://roguemedic.com/ Rogue Medic

            SMH. No, Adventists are NOT Millerites. Millerites existed decades before Adventists did.

            Millerites are the evolutionary ancestors of SDAs.

            .

          • Bryan Bissell

            So..in your view, fish are your evolutionary ancestors. Does that make you a fish? Hardly.

          • http://roguemedic.com/ Rogue Medic

            Bryan Bissell,

            So..in your view, fish are your evolutionary ancestors. Does that make you a fish? Hardly.

            That is a valid point.

            The ancestors of SDAs are a doomsday cult.

            I am not familiar with the positions of current SDAs on the end of the world.

            .

          • GubbaBumpkin

            So..in your view, fish are your evolutionary ancestors. Does that make you a fish?

            Cladistically speaking – yes.

          • Bryan Bissell

            ROFL. Guess the cognitive dissonance is why I got SAT and ACT scholarships and scored in the top 1-5% in the nation all through school. And seems to help most students in Adventist schools as well since they score above the average in almost all subjects in research done by secular companies that evaluate schools.
            http://cognitivegenesis.org/

          • jon

            argument. of. authority.

          • http://roguemedic.com/ Rogue Medic

            Bryan Bissell,

            ROFL. Guess the cognitive dissonance is why I got SAT and ACT scholarships and scored in the top 1-5% in the nation all through school.

            In what way would cognitive dissonance prevent you from scoring well on standardized tests?

            One of the problems with those evaluations is that the private schools are able to select for the best students, while public schools do not.

          • jon

            argument of authority

          • http://stonesnbones.blogspot.com/ Dr. GS Hurd

            You are merely spamming the board with repeated posts.

          • Bryan Bissell

            Wrong. This is my first time here, and I made some mistakes posting at first. I tried to delete a couple, but they were posted as a guest by mistake. But, I’m not doing that now (unless different posters make the same false accusations).

          • jon

            wait what?

            You’re not doing something, UNLESS other people make ‘false’ accusations? (I’ve quoted the word false to show that I’m using your definition of false)

          • http://stonesnbones.blogspot.com/ Dr. GS Hurd

            The Adventists are one of the remnant Millerites as reinterpreted by Ellen White. Read Ronald Numbers, Prophetess of Health: A Study of Ellen G. White (Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 2008), The Creationists: From Scientific Creationism to Intelligent Design (Expanded Edition) (Harvard University Press, 2008).

            As for the creationist’s practice of obscuring the reality of evolutionary biology by conflating it with other sciences, your “six kinds of evolution” is an old trick. I dissect it in “Big Daddy is Dead: Frame 7″

            http://bigdaddydies.blogspot.com/2013/04/frame-7.html

          • Bryan Bissell

            SMH. No, Adventists are NOT Millerites. Millerites existed decades before Adventists did. Certain Millerites became Adventists as did people from many churches. Many did not. You fail to understand history.

            There is no trick in 6 kinds of evolution. There are academic references for all 6. You fail in both linguistics and science.

          • David Eriol Hickman

            >>The Adventists are one of the remnant Millerites

            >> Adventists are NOT Millerites

            He said they were descended from. (After the Great Disappointment)

            As you go on to admit

            > Certain Millerites became Adventists

            You fool none of us who can read English

          • jon

            of course…. adventists were followers of the teachings of william miller, who first shared publicly his belief in the coming Second Advent of Jesus Christ. Those followers are called Millerites.

            Only they’re not.
            Got it.

        • theot58

          Dr Hurd you are exchibiting poor science. The strength of the scientific arguement has nothing to do with the person making it. Attacking the messenger instead of the message is an indication that your points are weak. This is the standard Evolutionists tactic – I get it all the time.
          If the scientific evidence for Darwinian/Macro evolution was strong, you would not need to be scooping to this low level.
          Recent scientific discoveries have put Darwinian/Macro evolution on its death bed where it belongs – let it die a natural death.

          • http://roguemedic.com/ Rogue Medic

            theot58,

            If the scientific evidence for Darwinian/Macro evolution was strong, you would not need to be scooping to this low level.

            The evidence for evolution is posted in peer-reviewed science journals.

            The evidence for Creationism/Intelligent Design is claiming that evolution could not work.

            That is not valid evidence.

            Why is there no valid evidence for Creationism/ID?

            Creationism/ID is based on ignorance, not on evidence.

            .

          • http://stonesnbones.blogspot.com/ Dr. GS Hurd

            Theo-Bot

            All you have is list of creatobotic responses to rational discussions. You have been exposed as a fraud and a liar for years, yet you never vary from your disgusting frauds.

          • theot58

            Scoffing and sarcasm is a poor substitute for scientific evidence. Attacking the messenger instead of the message indicate that your points are weak.

            What evidence is there, which proves (beyond reasonable doubt) that our great.….….…. Great grandfather was as self replicating molecule?

          • http://www.patheos.com/blogs/exploringourmatrix/ James F. McGrath

            Why should anyone try to prove beyond reasonable doubt a claim that no one makes except in your imagination?

            If you want clear evidence of common ancestry shared between humans and chimpanzees, human chromosome 2 provides this.

          • http://roguemedic.com/ Rogue Medic

            theot58,

            Scoffing and sarcasm is a poor substitute for scientific evidence.

            You have been presented with plenty of valid evidence.

            You have ignored the valid evidence and made excuses that are not valid.

            You have earned scoffing and sarcasm.

            .

          • theot58

            I have not been presented with ANY credible scientific evidence supporting Darwinian/macro evolution. All that there exists is INTERPRETATIONS of the observable evidence.

            The scientific evidence CONDEMNS Darwinian/Macro evolution.

            Consider just a small number of fundamental scientific problems with Darwinian/Macro evolution which expose its fallacy

            1) Where did the information come from to build the DNA molecule?
            – it contains over 4 Gigabits of programming data; we have never observed natural forces creating programming data
            - a building is proof of a builder, a program is proof of a programmer, a design is proof of a designer

            2) How did genders “evolve” from asexual organisms?
            - Consider some of the challenges, have a look at this video http://youtu.be/Ab1VWQEnnwM

            3) How do you explain symbiotic relationships while holding to gradual “evolution”?
            - e.g.. The bees need the flowers, the flowers need the bees – they both MUST exist together, how could this occur slowly or gradually
            - What came first the Chicken or the egg? Did a single chicken “evolve” the ability to lay an egg?

            4) Where are all the myriad of transition fossils that Darwin predicted?
            - They were missing then and they are missing now.
            How can the Cambrian explosion of millions of fully formed organism appearing abruptly be explained by Evolution?

            5) Which “evolved” first, the vagina or the penis?
            - how did one “evolve” from the other?

          • http://www.patheos.com/blogs/exploringourmatrix/ James F. McGrath

            Your copying and pasting the comment over and over despite being given answers to your questions shows only that you suffer some sort of unfortunate mental illness. It has no bearing on science. Of course, if you copied and pasted less silly questions, you would get even more satisfactory answers.

          • http://roguemedic.com/ Rogue Medic

            theot58,

            I have not been presented with ANY credible scientific evidence supporting Darwinian/macro evolution.

            You claimed that there was no evidence of transitional fossils.

            I provided valid scientific evidence.

            http://www.patheos.com/blogs/christiancrier/2013/12/26/5-crucial-reasons-to-teach-creationism-in-public-schools/#comment-1184033261

            You claim that there is no way life could have formed.

            1) Where did the information come from to build the DNA molecule?

            Where did the information come from to build God?

            2) How did genders “evolve” from asexual organisms?

            How did God’s gender evolve?

            Why does God have a gender?

            3 and 4 have already been answered. 4 is the transitional fossils that I have answered above that you do not understand.

            5) Which “evolved” first, the vagina or the penis?

            Which “evolved” first, God’s vagina or God’s penis?

            Why does God have a penis and/or a vagina?

            Why does God have an excretory system?

            .

          • http://roguemedic.com/ Rogue Medic

            theot58,

            I have not been presented with ANY credible scientific evidence supporting Darwinian/macro evolution.

            You have.

            You just lie about it.

            You are arguing for the beliefs of a particular religious sect and claiming that you are arguing science.

            What you advocate has been described elsewhere as –

            Bad theology and bad science.

            That is actually giving it too much credit.

            You are denying science.

            Your claims are not science.

            .

          • jon

            (generally accepted) proof for your claims would be nice.

      • Seems Legit

        My question for you would be, would you rather teach creationism to our children? Let’s say for a minute evolution is a ‘conspiracy’; are you suggesting we teach our children “god did it?” I don’t see how one could absolutely deny ANY theory, and at the same time say “god did it.”

        • Ploss1957

          Creationists think that if they tear down evolution that creationism has to be the default explanation without supporting creationism. That is not how science works but then again they have demonstrated numerous times that they don’t understand science. All they have to offer are misquotes and outright lies.

        • Bryan Bissell

          I would suggest that you become objective about science and actually listen to what leading creationists have to say and the vast science that they have shown supports the many creation science hypotheses and predictions. Creation science has NEVER at any time been just “God did it” anymore than Darwinism is “Darwindidit”. SMH.

          Here are 3 to start with:

          1) Dr. John Sanford, long time professor and
          pioneer of genetics at Cornell (http://hort.cals.cornell.edu/people/john-sanford) has over 100 published papers, 32 patents and started 2 successful biotech companies and was a significant pioneer in genetics, esp. planet genetics (and also a committed Darwinian and atheist for many years). He changed based on the scientific evidence though and published a very sophisticated scientific book on genetic entropy and shows from peer
          reviewed articles by major scientists (population geneticists pioneered the whole concept of genetic entropy and there are quite a few peer reviewed papers on it from Darwinians which I can cite if you wish) how
          the rate of decay of the human genome makes it impossible for genomes to even be 1 million years, let alone billions. This is powerful evidence for the Bible’s
          timescale for human history. This is only one of
          many indisputable evidences that science can and DOES in some cases produce strong evidence that points to the supernatural.

          He lectures here:
          http://web29.streamhoster.com/rod_tv/creation/bdtv_creation_science_school/day5_830pmjohnsanford.m4v

          And a couple short ones here:
          BIOLOGICAL INFORMATION – the Signature of Life – Dr. John Sanford http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2xBRcY0bBkE

          Dr. John Sanford “Genetic Entropy and the Mystery of the Genome http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pJ-4umGkgos

          “How Evolution Hurts Science” Dr John Sanford
          http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uCQQkOWZbLY

          2) Dr. Walter Veith was a former hardcore militant atheist professor with a Ph.D. in zoology. He chaired a department of zoology and was one of only 5
          scientists in South Africa given grants from the Royal Society and has many published papers. But, he converted to creation science after studying the evidence for it in depth (it is not possible to make a rational judgement unless you study the evidence on both sides of an issue in similar depth).

          http://amazingdiscoveries.tv/media/629/951-interview-with-walter-veith-1/

          Here’s his series “The Genesis Conflict” with many in depth scientific reasons why creation science theory is has the best evidence overall.
          amazingdiscoveries.tv/c/10/The_Genesis_Conflict_-_English/

          3) Also check out Dr. Stephen Meyer’s 2 books, “Signature in the Cell” and “Darwin’s Doubt” which have won accolades from even leading Darwinians and worldclass scientists on all sides.

          • http://roguemedic.com/ Rogue Medic

            Creation science has NEVER at any time been just “God did it” anymore than Darwinism is “Darwindidit”. SMH.

            The old SMH evidence.

            Why didn’t I think of that?

            You suggest that Creation science is not an oxymoron.

            You claim that it has NEVER (because Caps Lock is the key of truth) at any time been just “God did it”.

            Then you provide evidence that you claim casts doubt on evolution.

            That is not evidence for Creationism.

            If I provide evidence that the world is not flat, that does not prove that the world is square.

            You need to provide scientific evidence of some sort of intelligent designer.

            Your failure to understand this does not suggest any confidence in anything else you write.

            .

          • happy

            Creation science has NEVER at any time been just “God did it” anymore than Darwinism is “Darwindidit”. SMH.

            Quoted for logical shortcut taking! Unless maybe it was a joke. In which case, pretty funny then. Sometimes humor is lost in comments.

          • http://stonesnbones.blogspot.com/ Dr. GS Hurd

            Your last “expert” first;

            Meyer has a doctorate in philosophy. His books did not “win accolades” from any creditable scientists, although they were hyped by his employer the “Discovery Institute.” There are many 5 star reviews for these books on the Amazon dot com site that were written by Meyer’s fellow disco-tutes.

            Here was mine:
            http://www.amazon.com/gp/cdp/member-reviews/AYBDZQISGOPTK/ref=cm_pdp_rev_title_2?ie=UTF8&sort_by=MostRecentReview#R3EB6OA6FIXK3S

            Paleontologist Don Prothero dispatches the geology, and paleontology frauds presented by Meyer’s “Darwin’s Doubt,” http://www.amazon.com/gp/cdp/member-reviews/A3V6H96IXYPPKD/ref=cm_pdp_rev_title_1?ie=UTF8&sort_by=MostRecentReview#R2HNOHERF138DU

            Biologist Nick Matzke addressed the failures of Meyer to understand, or honestly present phylogenetics in general, and the physical record of the pre-Cambrian, and Cambrian eras; http://pandasthumb.org/archives/2013/06/meyers-hopeless-2.html

          • Bryan Bissell

            So, deleting my posts and referenced evidence I see. I guess it’s circle the wagons, censor all facts and deny objective science in favor of the idol of Darwinism. SMH. Darwinism has no love of objective science at all. It can’t survive on an objective contest on a fair playing field, so it has to censor and lie about all rival evidence. Pathetic.

          • http://roguemedic.com/ Rogue Medic

            Bryan Bissell,

            So, deleting my posts and referenced evidence I see.

            Accusing someone of deleting your posts is pretty desperate.

            Did you hand out your password to everyone?

            If you did, why accuse anyone in particular?

            Considering the logic of what you write, it is much more likely that you have deleted your own posts.

            Criticizing evolution does not provide any evidence that your superstition is real.

            If I prove that there are no fairies at the bottom of a garden, does that mean that something is is true?

            No.

            You are the one who should take a course in science.

            :-)

          • http://stonesnbones.blogspot.com/ Dr. GS Hurd

            I have had two or three posts disappear. I suspect software error and not any sort of moderation. In fact, this is a pro-creationism blog.

            PS: Since all you have been doing is copying creatocrap from websites like the Disco-tute’s “Evolution News,” I don’t see what you are whining about anyway. If you think that anyone is fooled by this, you are wrong.

          • Bryan Bissell

            To claim I’ve only been copying is dishonest and an irrelevant ad hominem. Facts are facts whether one has observed them or is citing others who have (that’s the correct term, not copying).

          • http://stonesnbones.blogspot.com/ Dr. GS Hurd

            I Googled big chunks from your posts and found the creationist websites you copied from. You had not cited your sources.

          • jon

            aaah, yeah……. citing others…..
            that thing you say you disparage, a few posts above

            but when *you* do it, it is okay?

          • http://stonesnbones.blogspot.com/ Dr. GS Hurd

            Paranoid nitwit. All you are doing is copying from creationist websites. Who cares?

            Copy them all again. We are not fooled.

          • http://roguemedic.com/ Rogue Medic

            It’s not paranoia when I, Bryan Bissell, do it.

            It’s not quote mining when I, Bryan Bissell, do it.

            It’s not incompetence when I, Bryan Bissell, do it.

            It’s not ridiculous when I, Bryan Bissell, do it.
            ;-)

          • Bryan Bissell

            Maybe it’s a site err, but several times I’ve gotten this response “comment is awaiting moderation.” and my comment never shows up. Somebody is deleting things. I don’t know who. I sent an e-mail to you actually with the comment, but don’t know if it’s your current one.

            Facts are facts whether copied or summarized or whatever. Since NO one can do the personal research themselves on all topics, all scientists quote and cite others who have. To disparage that (which is what I’m doing) is to condemn science and any genuine investigation into scientific truth.

          • jon

            yeah, all those pesky facts tend to get in the way of creation

          • Bryan Bissell

            As for Prothero’s review, it’s almost as bad. He uses ad hominems and other fallacies galore.

            “Prothero’s first complaint is that Meyer’s Ph.D. is in the history and philosophy of science which, according to Prothero “give[s] him absolutely no background to talk about molecular evolution.” Yes that’s a lame
            objection (it’s called the genetic fallacy). Indeed, Meyer’s
            undergraduate degree is in geology and physics, and he worked as a geophysicist for four years, giving him formal training on geology-related issues — the primary issues Prothero raises in his review. Prothero, however, has already undercut his own complaint, as he admitted:

            [Y]ou don’t need a Ph.D. to do good science, and not all people who have Ph.D.s are good scientists either. As those of us who have gone through the ordeal know, a Ph.D. only proves that you can survive a grueling test of endurance in doing research and writing a dissertation on a very narrow topic. It doesn’t prove that you are smarter than anyone else or more qualified to render an opinion
            than anyone else. (Evolution: What the Fossils Say and Why It Matters, p. 16)

            Prothero’sreview later complains that creationists “love to flaunt their Ph.D.’s on their book covers.” I guess that means Meyer isn’t a “creationist,” since Prothero failed to notice that Meyer doesn’t mention his Ph.D. on
            the cover of Darwin’s Doubt. (And isn’t it a bit ironic that Prothero touts his own Ph.D. in his bio over at Skepticblog?)

            In any case, Prothero’s second complaint is that “Almost every page of this book is riddled by errors of fact or interpretation that could only result from someone writing in a subject way over his head, abetted by the creationist tendency to pluck facts out of context and get their
            meaning completely backwards.” Of course Prothero doesn’t list examples from “almost every page,” but at least this time he tries to give one.

            He claims “we now know that the ‘explosion’ now takes place over an 80 m.y. time framework.” Perhaps Prothero didn’t notice that Meyer specifically discusses Prothero’s own view on this in Darwin’s Doubt, and refutes it (see Chapter 3). I refuted the same argument in my recent response to Nick Matzke, which cited numerous articles from the mainstream technical literature stating that the Cambrian explosion took no more than 10 million years.

            Prothero’s review goes on.

            He states that Meyer “dismisses the Ediacara fauna as not clearly related to living phyla,” even though that’s in fact the consensus view (see pp. 81-86, and
            accompanying endnotes).

            He charges that Meyer “confuses crown-groups with stem-groups” (giving no examples), when in fact Meyer
            explains this distinction (see pp. 419-420).

            He wrongly charges that ID is a “god of the gaps” argument, one that invokes the “supernatural,” when of course ID does no such thing, and Meyer rebuts this charge decisively in chapters 17 and 19 of Signature in the Cell.

            He bizarrely misrepresents Meyer as saying Niles Eldredge and Stephen Jay Gould “are arguing that evolution doesn’t occur” when Meyer said
            absolutely nothing of the kind. Thus, a pattern in Prothero’s review is that he puts words in Meyer’s mouth, while failing to engage Meyer’s actual arguments. As another example, Prothero writes:

            Meyer deliberately and dishonestly distorts the story by implying that these soft-bodied animals appeared all at once, when he knows that this is an artifact of preservation. It’s just an accident that there are no
            extraordinary soft-bodied faunas preserved before Chengjiang, so we simply have no fossils demonstrating their true first appearance, which occurred much earlier based on molecular evidence.

            Of course Meyer never says the Cambrian animals appeared “all at once.” And did Prothero miss Chapter 5 of Darwin’s Doubt, where Meyer discusses in great detail the “molecular evidence” mentioned by Prothero, meticulously critiques the molecular clock hypothesis, and clarifies why it doesn’t account for the absence of evolutionary precursors in the Precambrian? Or what about Chapters 2 and3, where Meyer explores the artifact hypothesis in much detail, and makes clear why many Cambrian experts feel it doesn’t explain away the Cambrian explosion?

            As Meyer observes, the Cambrian fossil record is full of soft-bodied organisms, making it difficult to argue that the lack of fossils from a particular group simply means they were too “soft-bodied” to have been preserved (see pp. 62-64). So it’s not as if Meyer doesn’t engage and discuss these objections in great detail; indeed Meyer cites many authorities to show why these objections don’t
            resolve the Cambrian explosion. Prothero complains a lot, but neither engages with nor mentions any of these discussions.

            See much more debunking of “Dr. Prothero” at: http://www.evolutionnews.org/2013/07/darwin_defender_1074791.html#sthash.HU1Y56nJ.dpuf

          • GubbaBumpkin

            “give[s] him absolutely no background to talk about molecular evolution.” Yes that’s a lame objection (it’s called the genetic fallacy).

            The flip side of that is where you list the credentials of someone like Sanford and claim that this makes his Creationist writing respectable. Yet when Sanford was inventing those useful tools and writing most of those peer-reviewed papers on plant breeding, he was part of that time an atheist, and those peer-reviewed papers did not include any creationism.

          • http://stonesnbones.blogspot.com/ Dr. GS Hurd

            I have known Nick Matzke for over a decade. I know that he is a very smart, honest, and hard working young man. I have no such impression of you.

            Since Meyer recycles his arguments so often, and rarely even bothers to update is bibliography, it doesn’t take long to read his garbage. I think “Signature in Cell” took me two days. But, I would become so angry at his lies and misrepresentations that I had to take frequent breaks. I am not at all surprised that Nick could read Darwin’s Doubt, and draft a reply in a day. He could probably have drafted his review at the same time he read the book. Young people are very clever that way.

          • jon

            the only way creation scientist can show their ‘vast science’ is when that science is not ‘creation science’

            There is no such thing a creation science. You’d like it to be, but that is not enough for it to qualify as being science.

      • theot58

        Many excellent points which convincingly leads to the conclusion that the Darwinian/macro evolution myth is on its death bed where it belongs. It is devoid of scientific support – it is propagated only with mass propaganda in the school system and media.

        The evolution battle is often MISrepresented as science against religion – this is baloney!

        The real battle is between good science and Darwinism. When Darwinian/Macro evolution is scrutinised using the scientific method, it crumbles.

        The scientific method demands: observation, measurement, repeatability. Darwinian/Macro evolution has none of these, all it has is circumstantial evidence which is open to interpretation. Ask yourself: What evidence is there that our great …. Great grandfather was a self replicating molecule?

        • http://roguemedic.com/ Rogue Medic

          theot58,

          The evolution battle is often MISrepresented as science against religion – this is baloney!

          Feel free to provide some objective evidence for Creationism/Intelligent Design.

          Finding flaws, or just alleged flaws with parts of evolution is not finding evidence of Creationism/ID.

          Scientists regularly criticize the flaws of science, but that does not mean that their alternative is superstition.

          The alternative to imperfect science is better science.

          Superstition is the big cop out.

          I don’t understand is not a legitimate excuse to claim God did it, but just a Creationist version of a child throwing a tantrum.

          .

          • theot58

            Please let me correct you on a number of errors in your post.
            1) I am not throwing a tantrum – you seem to be
            - I am simply digusted that we are deceiving students by representing Darwininian/Macro evolution as a scientific fact when the evidence CONDEMNS IT.

            2) Why are you bringing God into this scientific discussion
            - this common distraction is only to compensate for poor evidence for evolution
            - I agree that disproving evolution does NOT proove Intelligent Design; but we should stop teaching propaganda in the science class. If we do not know we should say so.
            - The scientific evidence should be presented honestly and not exagerated or misrepresented to support a philosophical position.
            -
            WE SHOULD STOP DECEIVING STUDENTS WITH THE DARWINIAN/MACRO EVOLUTION MYTH.

          • http://roguemedic.com/ Rogue Medic

            theot58,

            - I agree that disproving evolution does NOT proove Intelligent Design; but . . .

            I am throwing a tantrum because I have no evidence to support Creationism/ID.

            I do not understand science, so tantrums are what I do.

            That seems to sum up what you write.

            There is no evidence for any alternative to evolution.

            Any alternative to evolution needs to be supported by valid evidence.

            Evolution is not perfect.

            That is not news or even an important criticism.

            Any scientist will tell you that.

            Science is not perfect.

            That is not news or even an important criticism.

            Any scientist will tell you that.

            .

      • Dorfl

        Since the comment by you that I want to reply to seems to be stuck in moderation, I’ll reply here.

        You read a page that I was not intending to be read on that site. I was referring to the 3 fatal flaws page (seems they’ve reorganized it a bit since I checked last).

        Fair enough. I’ll take a look at the three fatal flaws:

        If a theory has, in the eyes of science, been proven, the theory then gets a promotion, and rises to the level of being deemed to be a law and not just a theory. In short, a scientific law is regarded by science to be a fact, whereas a theory may or may not be true at all.

        Again, no. If a law has little empirical support and many known exceptions, it’s still a law. If a theory has passed every test thrown at it, it’s still a theory. Laws and theories are different things, not different ranks of the same thing.

        In order for bacteria to evolve into man, organisms would have to be able to add genes. But there is no genetic mechanism that adds a gene.

        Genetic duplications gives you a second identical gene. Mutation and natural selection change that gene. The end result is two different genes.

        The Theory of Evolution in a nutshell is “Survival of the fittest.” But most mammals and birds give birth to helpless babies – instead of strong and fit ones. Neither Darwinism nor Neo-Darwinism can explain infantile helplessness. Every baby that is born contradicts Evolution Theory and this is a fatal flaw.

        “Survival of the fittest” is a misleading phrase that sadly persists in the popular understanding of evolution. It does not reflect how natural selection actually works, but sounds so snappy that people keep repeating it.

        ETA: As usual, wikipedia has a good article discussing the phrase:

        http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Survival_of_the_fittest

      • GubbaBumpkin

        Anyone who thinks that Darwinism is stronger than the theory of gravity
        knows next to nothing about science. Gravity can be demonstrated at any
        time.

        What is the current theory of gravity?

  • http://youtube.com/user/BowmanFarm Brian Bowman

    An Index to Creationist Claims
    talkorigins.org/indexcc/list.html

  • http://stonesnbones.blogspot.com/ Dr. GS Hurd

    The First Amendment protects the religious faith of American citizens by preventing government power from dictating religious instruction. This prevents creationists from injecting their nonsense and frauds into public schools. At the same time it prevents science teachers from fully exposing these same frauds for what they are.

    Mr. Wellman provides and excellent example of what should not be taught. His first argument is that textbooks lack criticisms for evolutionary biology. This is factually untrue. Even at the high schools where the goal is to teach the best established material largely as background for later study, the areas of active research are well presented. The so-called weaknesses that Mr. Wellman offered as potential criticisms of evolutionary biology are textbook worthy examples of ignorance.

    First he is ignorant of the distinctions between facts, theory and “law” in science. I have a short item I wrote some while ago to disentangle this for creationists. http://stonesnbones.blogspot.com/2013/05/scientific-fact-theory-and-law.html

    Contrary to Wellman’s misunderstanding, a scientific theory is the goal of all scientific research. It is not the lame guess, or supposition that he has claimed. And evolution has been integrated with genetics since the 1930s making the population genetics version of the Hardy-Weinberg Equilibrium equation the equivalent of the “Law” of evolution. The core Darwinian concepts still retained after 150 years of critical testing are the common descent of organisms (speciation), and that this is the result of heritable variation acted on by natural selection. We can, and have validated this experimentally in both laboratory, and natural settings. This has been true for nearly a century, yet Mr. Wellman is ignorant of this fact. I have compiled a list with dozens of known examples of new species emerging from older ones, “The Emergence of New Species.” http://stonesnbones.blogspot.com/2009/03/emergence-of-new-species.html

  • http://stonesnbones.blogspot.com/ Dr. GS Hurd

    Mr. Wellman follows his unfounded assertions with the charge that scientists are “are cramming an unproven theory down the student’s throats.” As a former professor of psychiatry, I cannot ignore the sexual undertone of Mr. Wellman’s imagined scenario.

    Mr. Wellman does not know what “critical thinking” is. He presented this as if it were an exercise in illogic. He wrote, “For example, evolution does not address the question of where did the universe come from. How did the universe come into existence? How did life arise since we know for a fact that life cannot arise spontaneously?” He is correct that “evolution” does not address the origin of the universe. That study is called Cosmology, and is a branch of physics, and not biology.There is no reason for biology to address the origin of the universe. He then demanded that biologists show him the origin of life. Charles Darwin wrote in a letter to the American botanist Joseph Hooker regarding evolutionary theory and these other issues, “It is mere rubbish thinking at present of the origin of life; one might as well think of the origin of matter.” That was true 140 years ago, and true today.

    Regarding the origin of matter, I can recommend two books regarding the current science on the origin of the universe; 2009, “A Universe From Nothing,” by Lawrence Krauss, and 2006 “A cosmic Landscape: String Theory and the Illusion of Intelligent Design,” by Lenard Susskind.

    It is difficult to tell if Mr. Wellman’s false assertion that “we know for a fact that life cannot arise spontaneously,” is the product of ignorance, or delusion. Regarding the origin of life, I recommend Iris Fry, 2000 “The Emergence of Life on Earth: A Historical and Scientific Overview” (Rutgers University Press) as an excellent general reader book available on the topic. A bit more technical is J. William Schopf (editor), 2002 “Life’s Origin: The Beginnings of Biological Evolution” (University of California Press), but it is well worth the effort. The best recent book I recommend is David Deamer’s “First Life “(UC Press, June 2011).

    After reading these books, I would want to hear how Mr. Wellman proposes to present their results to a high school biology class.

    • Bryan Bissell

      The author of this article unfortunately is not very well versed in
      science and does not use terms like “theory” in scientific ways. That
      being said, Darwinism in all versions rests on fallacies and denies the
      weight of objective scientific evidence, even though it does like many
      other falsified concepts in history have some evidence.

      Quite a number of scientists and leading intellectuals are realizing
      that objective rational thought is mutually irreconcilable with the a priori
      fallacy of methodological naturalism and the
      double standard of requiring extraordinary evidence for God. Here’s one:

      Bradley Monton has a Ph.D.
      in philosophy from Princeton and specializes in the area of the
      philosophy of science (www.colorado.edu/philosophy/fac_monton.shtml).
      He writes about this issue in reference to the infamous Dover case:
      “If science really is permanently committed to methodological naturalism, it follows that the aim of science is not generating true theories. Instead, the aim of science would be something like: generating the best theories that can be formulated subject to the restriction that the theories are naturalistic. More and more evidence could come in suggesting that a supernatural being exists, but scientific theories wouldn’t be allowed to acknowledge that possibility. In the Dover case, Jones seems aware of the fact that his demarcation criteria entail that the aim of science is not truth. He writes that “while ID arguments may be true, a proposition on which the Court takes no position, ID is not science” (p. 64). But if science is not a pursuit of truth, science has the potential to be marginalized, as an irrelevant social practice…I maintain that science is
      better off without being shackled by methodological naturalism.”

      http://philsci-archive.pitt.edu/2592/1/Methodological_Naturalism_Dover_3.doc

      The view of science as only materialistic as above is NOT just one person unfortunately. It’s the view of nearly all atheists and Darwinians at the highest levels. It was also the main reason by FAR why the judge in the infamous Dover case ruled against ID. But, this brings up a serious problem as some scientists are recognizing (including even a few atheists as well) that if methodological naturalism is accepted, you have thrown objectivity out the window and are no longer looking for truth
      overall, but only evidence to confirm your a priori bias of naturalism.

      All of these ideas below are exclusively a priori fallacies that completely destroy an objective search for truth. There could still be evidence for them…but all a priori commitments are violently opposed to objective and rational thought. Look at these examples below. They all follow the same exact pattern. We all I think accept that most are invalid and harmful to truth and objective science/history/rational thought. Why isn’t the 1st invalid for the same reason?

      ================

      EX A: (Darwinian) ‘Even if all the data point to an intelligent designer,
      such an hypothesis is excluded from science because it is not naturalistic.’ Kansas State University immunologist Scott Todd, correspondence to Nature 401(6752):423, 30 Sept. 1999.

      But, use some critical thinking skills. Replace the nouns with others. Are these objective at all?

      EX B: “Even if all the data points to Koreans inventing the first ironclad ships/best alphabet in history, that hypothesis is excluded because it’s not Eurocentric.”

      EX C: “Even if all the data points to atheism,
      that hypothesis is excluded because it’s not theistic.”

      EX D: “Even if all the data points to a heliocentric solar system, that hypothesis is excluded because it’s not geocentric.”

      EX E: “Even if all the data points to Darwinism/universal common descent, that hypothesis is excluded because it’s not creationist.”

      EX F: “Even if all the data points to atheism, that
      hypothesis is excluded because it isn’t voodoo. ”

      EX G: “Even if all the data points to sophisticated ancients in the past (building things like Baalbek), that hypothesis is excluded because it doesn’t match the status quo view ancients being dumb cavemen. ”

      EX H: “Even if all the data points to another author of MacBeth, that hypothesis is excluded because it’s not Shakespearean.”

      EX I: Even if all data points to Jefferson being the author of the Declaration of Independence, that hypothesis is excluded because it doesn’t point to Franklin.”

      EX J: Even if all data points to you being a nice person, that hypothesis is
      excluded because it doesn’t agree with your worst enemy’s/ex lover’s view.
      ===============

      There is not the slightest bit of a chance that even Einstein could make a reasoned, informed decision with a priori assumptions excluding other rival hypotheses like the above and a VERY high chance that any conclusion he did make using those processes would be wrong and
      against the actual evidence. Critical thought becomes basically impossible. It is sort of like if these dolphins in this cartoon were to a priori decide that the only reality that existed was the ocean and all else was unintelligent/materialistic or if babies decided that what they had never seen could not exist. A priori biases and exclusions of politically or ideologically incorrect evidence destroy the critical thought process completely.

      • Bryan Bissell

        As Dr. DeYoung (Ph.D. in Physics from Iowa State University) says: “there is no secular origin theory, since every idea is based on preexisting matter or energy.” The Bible is the only real comprehensive worldview theory that explains the most important questions in life, why we are here, our purpose in life, the best values and human rights for high quality living, as well as much in science, history and other aspects of life. See this article
        for small intro:
        http://creation.com/theory-of-everything

        Krauss is ridiculous. He redefines the word nothing until it loses all meaning. He does NOT use the term nothing in the sense of really nothing. He assumes that all the laws of science exist and preexisting material as well. His concepts are useless in terms of a scientific explanation of a beginning to the universe from true nothing. Dr. William Craig debated Krauss on this and Krauss lost badly in the debate:
        http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mqdkK0vbA68

        The only scientific theory in this area at present is creation science theory. This is just a tiny intro to it.

        CLAIM/HYPOTHESIS #1: ORIGIN & AGE OF THE UNIVERSE: Matter, energy, the universe and its natural laws were created by God and since that initial creation have been expanding (in my view for many reasons, theological and scientific, for at least 250 billion and possible more than a trillion years). At least the initial aspects of this must have been ex nihilo. The main alternatives to ex nihilo are steady state or a dozen other ancient cosmologies (debunked and abandoned by science) and infinite
        regression (untestable and unanswerable scientifically or logically). Creation at present has beaten all other ancient competitors in this area and current cosmology is building on this foundation(even if they want to sweep that fact under the rug due to bias against creation science). Keep in mind that Even ONE
        claim or prediction that is confirmed is evidence. This is just a basic understanding of science. The weight of evidence overall determines what is true to the best of our ability.

        There are major 5 lines of scientific evidence, denoted by the acronym SURGE,
        that point to the definite beginning of the space-time continuum They are:

        S–The Second Law of Thermodynamics,

        U–The Expanding Universe,

        R–The Radiation Afterglow from the Big Bang Explosion,

        G–The Great galaxy seeds in the Radiation Afterglow, and

        E–Einstein’s Theory of General Relativity.”

        Dr. Jastrow, director of the Mount Wilson observatory once led by Edwin Hubble, was personally agnostic about ‘religious matters,”. But, he reviewed some of the SURGE evidence and concluded,

        “Now we see how the astronomical evidence leads to a biblical view of the origin of the world…the details differ, but the essential elements in the astronomical and biblical accounts of Genesis are the same: the chain of events leading to man commenced suddenly and sharply at a definite moment in time, in
        a flash of light and energy.” God and the Astronomers, p. 14 http://www.amazon.com/God-Astronomers-Robert-Jastrow/dp/0393850056/ref=sr_1_2?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1379220679&sr=1-2&keywords=God+and+the+Astronomers#reader_0393850056

        In an interview with Christianity Today, Jastrow said “Astronomers now find they have painted themselves into a corner because they have proven, by their own methods, that the world began abruptly in an act of creation to which you can trace the seeds of every star, every planet, every living thing in this cosmos and on the earth. And they have found that all this happened as a
        product of forces they cannot hope to discover. That there are what I or anyone would call supernatural forces at work is now, I think, a scientifically proven fact.”[2] “A Scientist Caught Between Two Faiths: Interview With Robert Jastrow,” Christianity Today, August 6, 1982

        Why did he say these things? Well, science basically works by gathering evidence and then the theory that has the
        most and best evidence is considered true. Tow of the most important kinds of evidence for past events that we can’t repeat are inferences and finding confirmations of predictions that you have made based on a hypothesis. These are solid evidence in science and used to determine what is true to the best of our knowledge. If you are not aware of his, I suggest you read these 2 sites about how 2 predictions of Einstein were confirmed by Gravity Probe B and that greatly increased our confidence that his concepts about relativity are true.

        http://einstein.stanford.edu/MISSION/mission1.html

        and http://einstein.stanford.edu

        BACKGROUND:
        1st, check out the ~20 different cosmologies that existed in
        history, esp. the ones ~2-3,000 years ago and compare them to the Bible’s model:
        –the shape of the universe was like a man
        (Jainists)
        –The Earth and the Heavens form a unit within
        infinite “waters of chaos”; the earth is flat and circular,
        (Babylonian)
        –At the center of the Universe is a central fire,
        around which the Earth, Sun, Moon and planets revolve uniformly. (Pythagorean)
        –Universe exists unchanged throughout eternity.
        (Aristotlean)
        and others.

        http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cosmology#Historical_cosmologies (note that the description of biblical cosmology there has been copied and pasted from the Babylonian one there and biased people won’t allow the facts below to be listed
        for Biblical cosmology, using double standards)

        BIBLICAL MODEL OF COSMOLOGY
        [The Bible] (c.2000 BC-100 AD)
        A created universe with subsequent expansion and a round/spherical earth hanging on nothing.

        Biblical cosmology speaks of God creating the universe (Hebrews 1:2) the movement of the stars after that beginning (Job 38:31), ~15 verses speak of an expansion stretching from that beginning (Isaiah 44:24, Isaiah 42:5; Isaiah 45:12; Isaiah 51:13, etc.) and a number of stars comparable to the grains of sand, but finite (Psalms 147:4, Genesis 22:17) and a round/spherical earth
        resting/hanging on nothing (Isaiah 40:22, Job 26:7).

        1) The Universe had a beginning:
        Hebrews 1:2 says, “through the Son He (God) created the universe.”. This is a strong statement for a beginning.

        2) Science describes the universe in ~5 terms:
        time, space, matter, power, and motion. Genesis was written ~1450 BC. Genesis 1:1,2 and all these aspects were included from the very beginning.:

        “In the beginning [time] God created [power] the heaven [space] and the earth [matter] . . . And the Spirit of God moved [motion] upon the face of the waters.”

        3) God created many things through the power of His word. Logically, at least some aspects of creation had to come into being out of nothing (ex nihilo).

        “The Lord merely spoke, and the heavens were created. He breathed the word,and all the stars were born.” Psalm 33:6
        “…for he (God) issued his command, and they came into being.” Psalm 148:5

        4) God speaks of the movement of the stars:
        ““Can you direct the movement of the stars—
        binding the cluster of the Pleiades or loosening the cords of Orion?” Job 38:31

        5) ~15 verses in the Bible also speak of a stretching of the universe.
        “This is what the Lord says—your Redeemer and Creator: “I am the Lord, who made all things. I alone
        stretched out the heavens. Who was with me when I made the earth?” Isaiah 44:24 (see
        also: Isaiah 42:5; Isaiah 45:12; Isaiah 51:13, etc.).

        6) The number of stars is incredibly large (like sand), but, finite since they can be counted and are named.

        “I will multiply your descendants[a] beyond number, like the stars in the sky and the sand on the seashore.”Genesis 22:17

        “He counts the stars and calls them all by name. Psalm 147:4

        7) The earth hangs on nothing.
        “He stretches out the north over the void and hangs the earth on nothing.” Job 26:7

        In regard to how these support an expansion of the universe, consider:

        a) The term stretching is linguistically about the same as expanding, considering translation from a different language/culture, the ancient minds and simplified language God had to use to make it understandable for them.

        b) The term heavens, shamayim (שָׁמַיִם), is used to refer to both
        the earthly sky and the universe.

        3) To get from a universe with a beginning to what human beings have been able to see, an expansion is required. This is simple logic and this concept was not at all foreign to the Hebrew mind.

        We have a beginning to the universe and movement of stars and stretching concepts as above and observations of a very large number of stars and constellations and more. These all together require that the biblical cosmology believes in a universe with a beginning and an expansion from that.

        For 3,000+ years, while the brightest intellectuals taught dozens of ideas about cosmology, the Bible gave a model that is incredibly close our modern concept.

        SUMMARY OF THE EVIDENCE: Many scientists have done research providing evidence of a universe with a beginning and an expansion. The red shift, cosmic background radiation, movement of galaxies, many aspects of the The Big Bang theory and more all confirm a beginning to the universe and a subsequent expansion. Arno Penzias, co-discoverer of the microwave background radiation and 1978 Nobel Prize recipient in physics, stated
        “The best data we have (concerning the big bang) are exactly what I would have predicted, had I nothing to go on but the
        five books of Moses, the Psalms, the Bible as a whole.” New York Times, March 12, 1978. http://www.newcollege.unsw.edu.au/lecture_pdf/1099874611879bb_hawk.NCL.pdf:

        In a subsequent radio interview, Penzias was asked
        what there was before the Big Bang:

        “We don’t know, but we can reasonably say that there was nothing.” An upset listener called immediately, accusing Penzias of being an atheist. He wisely replied: “Madame, I believe you are not aware of the consequences of what I just said. Before the Big Bang there was nothing of what now exists. Had there been something, the question could be: where did it come from?”
        He continued commenting that if there was nothing and suddenly things began to appear, that was sign that Somebody had taken them from nothing, and concluded saying that his discovery could bring about the overcoming of the historic enmity between science and religion.”
        http://www.miradaglobal.com/index.asp?id=religion&principal=180503&idioma=en

        “Perhaps the best argument…that the Big Bang supports theism is the obvious unease with which it is greeted by some atheist physicists. At times this has led to scientific ideas…being advanced with a tenacity which so exceeds their intrinsic worth that one can only suspect the operation of psychological forces lying very much deeper than the usual academic desire of a theorist to support his or her theory.” –Imperial College of London astrophysicist C.J. Isham.

        The Bible’s model was conclusively confirmed by Lemaitre, Hubble and the work of others, refuting the dominant model, steady state that had reigned for ~2,000+ years as well as many other models.

        This is a STUNNING and EXTREMELY strong piece of
        evidence, vindicating creation science…and there are literally 100s and 1000s more cases like it with overall trillions of confirmations.

        If you call this just an opinion, and not hard scientific evidence, then you simply do not care about objective science at all. The fallacy of methodological naturalism is far more important to you than science and truth is and you are denying the basic objective way science works and might as well join the flat earth club to be consistent. Of course evidence does not always equal truth. But, anyone who denies that creation theory has profound scientific evidence is objectively a science denier with no concern in this topic at least for the weight of evidence.

        • http://roguemedic.com/ Rogue Medic

          The Bible is the only real comprehensive worldview theory that explains the most important questions in life, why we are here, our purpose in life, the best values and human rights for high quality living, as well as much in science, history and other aspects of life.

          Why we are here?

          To worship an imaginary creature possessing all of the flaws of the humans who created him.

          Our purpose in life?

          To worship an imaginary creature possessing all of the flaws of the humans who created him.

          The best values and human rights for high quality living?

          Following orders to rape, enslave, murder, and commit genocide.

          I am glad that we have those questions answered. Please explain about as well as much in science, history and other aspects of life.

          In order to come up with some purpose in life, you have accepted immorality as the answer.

          You shall be an object lesson to moral people.

          .

          • Bryan Bissell

            ———————————————————————————-
            Ancient “morals” regarding the value of life.
            ———————————————————————————-
            Frederic Farrar states that “infanticide was infamously universal among the Greeks and Romans during the early years of Christianity esp if they were deformed or frail. The Early Days of Christianity (New York: A. L. Burt Publishers, 1882), 71.

            Plutarch reports that the Carthaginians, “offered up their own children, and those who had no children would buy little ones from poor people and cut their throats as if they were so many lambs or young birds; meanwhile the mother stood by without a tear or moan” (Moralia 2.171D) Cicero justified infanticide (De Legibus 3.8). Even Seneca, a statesman/philosopher with higher wisdom and morals than most, said “We drown children who at birth are weakly and abnormal.” (De Ira 1.15) Research shows that infanticide was common around the world in places such as India, China, Japan, among Brazilian jungles, the Eskimos, was common in Africa, among the Indians of North and South America before Europeans came, and others (Susan C. M. Scrimshaw, “Infanticide in Human Populations: Societal and Individual Concerns, “ in Infanticide: Comparative and Evolutionary Perspectives, ed. Glenn Hausfater and Sarah Hrdy (New York: Aldine Publishing, 1984), 439., James S. Dennis, Social Evils of the Non-Christian World (New York: Fleming H. Revell, 1898), 69-70.)

            Oedipus, Ion of Ionia and other Greek heroes were abandoned as infants. You find little if any feelings of guilt among the Romans or Greeks for infanticide.

            ———————————————————————————-
            Biblical morals in regard to the value of life
            ———————————————————————————-

            In addition to the 6th commandment that forbade murder, the Bible in contrast to nearly all other cultures strictly forbade infanticide and sacrificing children in many verses. Here are just a few:
            • “The people of Judah have sinned before my very eyes,” says the LORD…. They have built pagan shrines at Topheth, the garbage dump in the valley of Ben-Hinnom, and there they burn their sons and daughters in the fire. I have never commanded such a horrible deed; it never even crossed my mind to command such a thing!” Jeremiah 7:30-31
            • “Do not permit any of your children to be offered as a sacrifice to Molech, for you must not bring shame on the name of your God. I am the Lord.” Leviticus 18:21
            • “Give the people of Israel these instructions, which apply both to native Israelites and to the foreigners living in Israel. “If any of them offer their children as a sacrifice to Molech, they must be put to death. The people of the community must stone them to death. 10 Then the king defiled the altar of Topheth in the valley of Ben-Hinnom, so no one could ever again use it to sacrifice a son or daughter in the fire[b] as an offering to Molech. 2 Kings 23:10
            • “Then the king [Josiah] defiled the altar of Topheth in the valley of Ben-Hinnom, so no one could ever again use it to sacrifice a son or daughter in the fire[b] as an offering to Molech….25 Never before had there been a king like Josiah, who turned to the Lord with all his heart and soul and strength, obeying all the laws of Moses.” 2 Kings 23:10, 25

            The Didache commands Christians “[T]hou shalt not…commit infanticide.” Infanticide was also condemned in the Epistle of Barnabas and was something early Christians continually opposed wherever they encountered it. Christianity’s strong opposition to infanticide resulted in Emperor Valentinian outlawing it in 374 and criminalizing child abandonment (Code of Justinian 8.52.2). This spread eventually to all of Europe and other countries as Christian influence spread.

            This same thing happened in other areas of life where Christianity transformed culture by also discouraging abortion, outlawing human sacrifices/gladiator games (390s/early 400s AD) and condemning suicide, (which was even extolled by some Greek poets and philosophers).

            Afra of Augsburg (late 3rd century) was a pagan prostitute, but after becoming a Christian, she “developed a ministry to abandoned children of prisoners, thieves, smugglers, pirates, runaway slaves, and brigands.” There are numerous examples in historical writings of Christians adopting throw away children.

            Judeo Christians based on direct instructions from God were the ones who pioneered the vast majority of human rights and values that our world considers moral. Secularists are engaging in communist level propaganda to mangle the facts of history and follow deceptions and emotions instead of evidence and truth. The tragic thing is that God has much higher human rights goals for us to achieve. But, secularism cripples these efforts in many ways.

            There are 1000s and 1000s of verses in the Bible about all sorts of human rights advances that God wanted people to understand and follow so that Israel could demonstrate a better way to the world. He promised that through Abraham the entire world would be blessed/improved. This has been fulfilled and is now a reality. But, there is much more to do as well, largely because some/much of the world embraced the deceptions of communism, atheism/secularism, Darwinism abusive capitalism, materialism, etc. This is not an accident. The ideologies that have duped people into becoming atheists/materialists were carefully planned by communists like Antonia Gramscii. ALL atheists are benefiting in the most incredible ways from Judeo-Christianity, but have swallowed the deceptions of materialism, which is basically like swallowing some deception that your parents never did anything good for you and giving all honor and thanks for what you have in life to enemies of your parents. Tragic and extremely irresponsible and unethical.

          • Bryan Bissell

            Much more and easier to read here:
            http://www.truth-is-life.org/GoodLifeEvidence.html

            Also, it’s base propaganda that God condoned rape, slavery, genocide. Those are lies of atheism. You can read about why God allows evil here tho:
            http://questions.truth-is-life.org/IsGodEvil.html

          • Bryan Bissell

            Also, there are a wide variety of atheist
            individuals, from smart to foolish, from kind to very mean (overall 100s of scientific studies, even by atheists have shown that Christianity greatly increases moral behaviour, but there are many causes of immorality/morality and
            there are definitely some moral atheists. But, there Christians have significantly higher morals on average according to many studies). But in contrast to the individual level, as an ideology with state power or academic power, atheism has almost always been severely harmful, intolerant and completely
            against free thought and rational objective evidence from science and history for God, due to its a priori commitment to materialism.

            When states have been officially atheist (~22 cases in history), they have been BY far the most intolerant state power in history, annihilating free thought as
            much as possible. So, if you want to oppose something, that should be #1 on your list, if human freedom and progress is your concern.

            Professor R.J. Rummel is professor
            emeritus of political science at the University of Hawaii and talks on how “free thinkers”/atheists have caused the most harm in all history of any ideology (doing the math from the research on his site shows that atheism
            has been involved in killing ~30 times more than all religions in all history, even counting ALL the most absurd and falsest ones, COMBINED).

            “Q: Haven’t established religions
            been the greatest killers?

            A: Most contemporary democide, far
            greater than any historical cases, has been by free thinkers, i.e., those who believe that the established religions are superstitions, and one should be
            scientific, objective, rational, etc. Communism is a case in point, where out of the 174,000,000 murder 1900 to 1999, about 110,000,000 were by communists,
            who are professed atheists.

            Q: Do you feel that countries with a
            secular government generally have a better way of life compared to countries
            ruled by religion?

            A: Historically, secular governments
            have also been very repressive and murderous. All communist and fascist governments (Hitler, Mao, Stalin, etc) have been secular, and also murderous.
            The worst of all such governments have been atheistic and communist, and murdered overall around 110,000,000 people in the 20th Century.”

            http://www.hawaii.edu/powerkills/QA.V2.HTML

          • http://roguemedic.com/ Rogue Medic

            The morality in Christianity comes not from the bible, but from the person reading the Bible.

            If you want to find justification for rape, slavery, murder, genocide – the Bible will give you that justification.

            If you want to find justification for selfless behavior, the Bible will give you that justification.

            It is the morality of the reader that determines whether the reader ignores the immorality that is rampant in the Bible.

            .

          • http://roguemedic.com/ Rogue Medic

            I guess God just lied in those parts of the Bible.

            .

          • http://roguemedic.com/ Rogue Medic

            The good God orders rape, slavery, murder, and even genocide. Here is just one example.

            Kill everyone, no exception for infants, because that’s the kind of God he is.

            3 Next we turned and went up along the road toward Bashan, and Og king of Bashan with his whole army marched out to meet us in battle at Edrei. 2 The Lord said to me, “Do not be afraid of him, for I have delivered him into your hands, along with his whole army and his land. Do to him what you did to Sihon king of the Amorites, who reigned in Heshbon.”

            3 So the Lord our God also gave into our hands Og king of Bashan and all his army. We struck them down, leaving no survivors. 4 At that time we took all his cities. There was not one of the sixty cities that we did not take from them—the whole region of Argob, Og’s kingdom in Bashan. 5 All these cities were fortified with high walls and with gates and bars, and there were also a great many unwalled villages. 6 We completely destroyed[a] them, as we had done with Sihon king of Heshbon, destroying[b] every city—men, women and children.7 But all the livestock and the plunder from their cities we carried off for ourselves.

            God brags about genocide in other places.

            This is an immoral God.

            If God were to see the errors of his ways, maybe he could become as moral as a bonobo, or some other non-human animal that is much more moral than God..

            .

          • David Eriol Hickman

            Mr Medic, if you are on facebook, I would like to be friends. And thanks in advance to Bryan Bissell for my potential new friend.

          • http://roguemedic.com/ Rogue Medic

            I am occasionally on Facebook. I won’t be able on again until Monday.

        • Ted Cikowski

          You have made several errors here. First you said that William Lane Craig beat Krauss in that debate? Then you are as misinformed about cosmology as Craig is, Krauss has written several peer reviewed papers on cosmology….Craig has his last three papers rejected. He also quote mines Alexander Vilenkin. WLC’s Kalam Argument is opposed by almost everyone who studies the philosophy of time, he even resorted to defending it by invoking ether…seriously. William Lane Craig, Matt Slick and countless other Christian apologists have jumped on….actually cherry picked and quote mine the Borde, Guth, Vilenkin theorem as they claim it states that there is a definite beginning to the Universe and helps things like the Cosmological Argument. Funny how they accept science that they think fits their Biblical views but reject those that don’t. Craig and Slick even argues that the theorem rules out the Multiverse.

          But does the B,G, V theorem say the Universe has a definite beginning? Well…here is Alan Guth himself:

          “”There is of course no conclusion that an eternally inflating model must have a unique beginning, and no conclusion that there is an upper bound on the length of all backwards-going geodesics from a given point. There may be models with regions of contraction embedded within the expanding region that could evade our theorem.” Source: http://arxiv.org/pdf/hep-th/0702178v1.pdf and then gives two examples potential examples of a Universe without a beginning: 1. http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0111191 and 2. http://arxiv.org/abs/gr-qc/0301042

          Does the theorem rule out the Multiverse? Not according to Vilenkin, he actually makes the case for the Multiverse here:

          http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=multiverse-the-case-for-parallel-universe

          So is Vilenkin worth defending or not?

          And sorry but there has never been a peer reviewed paper supporting anything supernatural. If there was then maybe more biologists would believe your creation myth, but they don’t http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Level_of_support_for_evolution

          as for naturalism, nice quote mining. But the majority of scientists disagree with you. Nice try though. Come up with a peer reviewed paper and maybe you will change the mind of scientists.

          “The Big Bang could’ve occurred as a result of just the laws of physics being there, With the laws of physics, you can get universes.” – astrophysicist Alex Filippenko of the University of California, Berkeley
          http://www.space.com/16281-big-bang-god-intervention-science.html#sthash.fxyZqWud.dpuf

          “Quantum mechanical fluctuations can produce the cosmos,” -Seth Shostak, a senior astronomer at the non-profit Search for Extraterrestrial Intelligence (SETI) Institute http://www.space.com/16281-big-bang-god-intervention-science.html#sthash.8WgBGGyF.dpuf

          “Most modern cosmologists are convinced that conventional scientific progress will ultimately result in a self-contained understanding of the origin and evolution of the universe, without the need to invoke God or any other supernatural involvement. This conviction necessarily falls short of a proof, but it is backed up by good reasons”
          -Sean Carroll, California Institute of Technology http://preposterousuniverse.com/writings/dtung/

          “Because there is a law such as gravity, the universe can and will create itself from nothing. Spontaneous creation is the reason there is something rather than nothing, why the universe exists, why we exist. It is not necessary to invoke God to light the blue touch paper and set the universe going.” – Stephen Hawking
          http://edinburghcreationgroup.org/home/article/1

          “And we don’t yet know the true origin of life, but we think we’ll understand it by chemistry, and what we’re discovering is that in fact physics has suggested that maybe the same is true for the whole universe, that we don’t need a creator.” – Lawrence Krauss, Physicist, Arizona State University
          http://www.npr.org/2012/01/13/145175263/lawrence-krauss-on-a-universe-from-nothing

          “our universe could have arisen naturally without violating any known laws of physics, this has been well known for a quarter century” – Victor Stenger, Physicist, University of Hawaii

          “I do not believe in God . It is past time that the human race should grow up, enjoying what is good in life, including the pleasure of learning how the world works, and freeing ourselves altogether from supernatural silliness in facing the real problems and tragedies of our lives.” – Steven Weinberg (nobel prize-winning physicist)

          http://sparrowsandsandcastles.wordpress.com/tag/why-sir-roger-penrose-does-not-believe-in-god/

          “thinking of God as a benevolent creator is particularly misleading, as is made clear, in my opinion, by the problem of the existence of evil – or natural, indiscriminate calamity.

          If “God” is to be a sentient being of some sort, I also find that incredible. A conscious being would have to be one that I could just about imagine myself being. I certainly cannot imagine myself being “God”!

          - Sir Roger Penrose ”

          http://sparrowsandsandcastles.wordpress.com/tag/why-sir-roger-penrose-does-not-believe-in-god/

          “God was invented to explain mystery. God is always invented to explain those things that you do not understand.Now, when you finally discover how something works, you get some laws which you’re taking away from God; you don’t need him anymore. But you need him for the other mysteries. So therefore you leave him to create the universe because we haven’t figured that out yet; you need him for understanding those things which you don’t believe the laws will explain, such as consciousness, or why you only live to a certain length of time — life and death — stuff like that. God is always associated with those things that you do not understand. Therefore I don’t think that the laws can be considered to be like God because they have been figured out.”
          - Richard Feynman, Physicist

          http://www.goodreads.com/author/quotes/1429989.Richard_P_Feynman

          ” Wired: But isn’t there still a beginning?

          Turok: Imagine you have a room full of air, with all these molecules banging around. The vast majority of time, these molecules spread uniformly — but once in a trillion trillion years, they all end up in the corner of the room. If you look at the room and run the clock forward, they’ll eventually make themselves uniform: But it would reverse, and you’d watch them flying into the corner. Then they’d fly out again.
          If this is right, it means that time runs forward for a while. Then there’s a random state without an arrow of time, then time runs backwards, and then time runs forward again. That’s the bigger picture: We’re still very far away from understanding it, but that would be my bet.
          But my main interest is the problem of the singularity. If we can’t understand what happened at the singularity we came out of, then we don’t seem to have any understanding of the laws of particle physics. I’d be very happy just to understand the last singularity and leave the other ones to future generations.”
          -Neil Turock, Physicist, Cambridge University
          http://www.wired.com/science/discoveries/news/2008/02/qa_turok?currentPage=all

          “Yes, the Universe might be infinite”
          - Alan Guth (Of the BGV theorem that Christians love to misquote so much)
          http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rfeJhzPq3jQ

        • Ted Cikowski

          And by the way, William Lane Craig himself has said that young earth creationism is an embarassment and when flat out asked if he believed in evolution he said yes. By the, sources that most philosophers disagree with Craig on the matter of time, which of course does not mean the majority is correct, but it does mean that his and your arguments are so weak they failed to convince anyone. http://philpapers.org/surveys/results.pl

        • Ted Cikowski

          Also, I am pretty sure I just shredded all your arguments but using creation.com as a source? That is laughable. They do not submit papers to real science journals.

      • Bryan Bissell

        See also:
        Dr. Craig Eastwooding Dr. Dawkins (very powerful
        evidence for the beginning to the universe, which requires a Beginner, God.)

        http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7Y4znlARl08

        • Bryan Bissell

          Many modern scientists deny the nonsense of abiogenesis can ever be demonstrated. There are alots of fairy tale assertions, but mostly speculations on this front. And it will never have as much evidence as biogenesis does. THAT does have the weight of scientific evidence, that abiogenesis will never be able to over come. So, objectively we must infer from that that the origin of life, came from a prior higher intelligence.

          This is a good article summarizing many scientists views on this:
          http://blogs.timesofisrael.com/atheism-of-the-gap/

      • lance Geologist

        Your premise is flawed to start with.The scientific method uses a hypothesis to start an investigation.Facts are observed or examined and the hypothesis is either confirmed or not. The basic process is to try to find evidence against a hypothesis, if the evidence tends to confirm the hypothesis and the hypothesis can not be denied,then the hypothesis might be valid.If evidence is in conflict with the hypothesis ,then the hypothesis can be modified.

        To uses the scientific method to examine God one must try to find evidence against “God did it” .Since the belief in God is based on faith, how then can we test God?There is no evidence that there is or is not an intelligent designer or God.Instead of trying to disprove God, why not believe and examine the wonders of the changes that have occurred to life on this Earth and the changes of the Earth itself?That these changes have occurred is available for all to “see”, one only need to look.

        • Guest

          Theists did not use a priori fallacies in their reasoning at all for millenia. That’s what atheists and Darwinians pioneered, using the unrivaled a
          priori fallacy of methodological naturalism. Neither is it true in any
          way that we can’t test supernatural claims. Scientists throughout
          history have done exactly that. And they more and more debunk all forms
          of universal common descent as time goes by.

          A tiny bit more depth on methodological naturalism.

          Quite a number of scientists are realizing
          that objective rational thought is mutually irreconcilable with the a priori
          fallacy of methodological naturalism and the
          double standard of requiring extraordinary evidence for God.

          All of these ideas below are exclusively a priori
          fallacies that completely destroy an objective search for truth. There could
          still be evidence for them…but all a priori commitments are violently opposed
          to objective and rational thought.

          Look at these examples below. They all follow the same exact pattern. We
          all I think accept that 6 are invalid and harmful to truth
          and objective science/history/rational thought.
          Why isn’t the 1st invalid for the same reason?

          ================

          EX A: (Darwinian) ‘Even if all the data point to an intelligent designer,
          such an hypothesis is excluded from science because it is not naturalistic.’
          Kansas State University immunologist Scott Todd, correspondence to Nature
          401(6752):423, 30 Sept. 1999.

          But, use some critical thinking skills.
          Replace the nouns with others. Are these objective at all?

          EX B: “Even if all the data points
          to Koreans inventing the first ironclad ships/best alphabet in history,
          that hypothesis is excluded because it’s not Eurocentric.”

          EX C: “Even if all the data points
          to atheism,
          that hypothesis is excluded because it’s not theistic.”

          EX D: “Even if all the data
          points to a heliocentric solar system, that hypothesis is excluded
          because it’s not geocentric.”

          EX E: “Even if all the data points
          to Darwinism/universal common descent, that hypothesis is excluded
          because it’s not creationist.”

          EX F: “Even if all the data points to atheism,
          that hypothesis is excluded because it isn’t voodoo. ”

          EX G: “Even if all the data points to sophisticated ancients in the past
          (building things like Baalbek), that hypothesis is excluded because it doesn’t match
          the status quo view ancients being dumb cavemen. ”

          EX H: “Even if all the data points to another author of MacBeth,
          that hypothesis is excluded because it’s not Shakespearean.”

          EX I: Even if all data points to Jefferson being the author of the Declaration
          of Independence, that hypothesis is excluded because it doesn’t point to
          Franklin.”

          EX J: Even if all data points to you being a nice person, that hypothesis is
          excluded because it doesn’t agree with your worst enemy’s/ex lover’s view.

          ===============

          To make it simple:

          OBJECTIVE SCIENCE SAYS: Follow the evidence WHEREVER it leads (see diagram).

          METHODOLOGICAL NATURALISM: DO NOT follow
          the evidence wherever it leads if it points away from naturalism.

          The scientific method and methodological naturalism could not be worse enemies.

          There is not the slightest bit of a chance that even Einstein could make a
          reasoned, informed decision with a priori assumptions excluding other rival
          hypotheses like the above and a VERY high chance that any conclusion he did
          make using those processes would be wrong and against the actual evidence. Critical
          thought becomes basically impossible. It is sort of like if these dolphins in
          this cartoon were to a priori decide that the only reality that existed was the
          ocean and all else was unintelligent/materialistic or if babies decided that
          what they had never seen could not exist. A priori biases and exclusions of
          politically or ideologically incorrect evidence destroy the critical thought
          process completely.

          • Bryan Bissell

            Your first paragraph is mostly right, except that science does not only try to find evidence against a hypothesis. Objective science tries to find evidence both for and against a hypothesis.

            Your 2nd paragraph is total nonsense, but not your fault. Biblical faith has always been the conclusion of the evidence. It is not and never has been
            a priori assumption. Bible authors repeatedly instructed people to testeverything, check evidence, follow truth.
            “Test everything that is said. Hold on to what is good.” 1 Thessalonians 5:21

            “The gullible believe anything they are told, but clever people know to question every step.” Proverbs 14:15

            “When we apostles told you about the powerful coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, we didn’t base our message
            on clever myths that we made up. Rather, we witnessed his majesty with our own eyes.” 2 Peter 1:16

            “Always be prepared to give an answer to everyone who asks you to give the reason for the hope that you have.” 1 Peter 3:15

            “Dear brothers and sisters, I want you to understand that the gospel message I preach is not based on mere human reasoning. I received my message from
            no human source, and no one taught me. Instead, I received it by direct revelation from Jesus Christ.” Galatians 1:11-12

            Hebrews2:3-4 So what makes us think we can escape if we ignore this great salvation that was first announced by the Lord Jesus himself and then delivered to us by those who heard him speak? 4 And God confirmed the
            message by giving signs and wonders and various miracles and gifts of the Holy Spirit whenever he chose.

            “Now search all of history, from the time God created people on the earth until now, and search from one end of the heavens to the other. Has anything as great as this ever been seen or heard before? Has any nation
            ever heard the voice of God speaking from fire—as you did—and survived? Has any other god dared to take a nation for himself out of another nation by means of trials, miraculous signs, wonders, war, a strong hand, a powerful arm, and terrifying acts? Yet that is what the Lord your God did for you in Egypt, right before your eyes.

            He showed you these things so you would know that the Lord is God and there is no other. 36 He let you hear his voice from heaven so he could instruct you. He let you see his great fire here on earth so he could speak to you from it. Because he loved your ancestors, he chose to bless their descendants, and he personally brought you out of Egypt with a great display of power. He drove out nations far greater than you, so he could bring you in and give you their land as your special possession, as it
            is today.

            So remember this and keep it firmly in mind: The Lord
            is God both in heaven and on earth, and there is no other. 40 If you obey all the decrees and commands I am giving you today, all will be well with you and your children. I am giving you these instructions so
            you will enjoy a long life in the land the Lord your God is giving you for all time.” Deuteronomy 4:32-40

            “I searched everywhere, determined to find wisdom and to understand the reason for things.” Ecclesiastes 7:25

            It wasn’t just Israelis that connected faith to evidence. Romans and Greeks did too:

            “Some modern thinkers have insisted that genuine faith is incompatible with evidence. Yet there is a significant tendency in ancient Greek literature, not least in Jewish & Christian writings from the periodof Christian origins, to use pistis precisely in the sense of “pledge” or “evidence” on which subjective confidence or belief my appropriately
            be based…Aeschylus says that the credibility (pistis) of an oath hinges on the integrity of the one who swears it (frg. 394 [222])…One might speak of sense data in general or of a particular empirical observation as constituting pistis in the sense of “evidence” (Democritus frg. 125; Polybius 7.13.5; 8.2.1; 10.47.6; Epictetus Disc. 1.28.3; Vettius Valens 7.5.29-30; Diogenes Laertius 10.63 [Epicurus]).
            Lawyers describe eyewitness reports as “conclusive proof” of their assertions (Antipho 6.28)…Plutarch, however, describes an Epicurean who doubts that events really offer confirmation (pistis) of prophecy (Or. Delph. 398F). Appian reports that Antony construed Brutus’s refusal to fight as clear proof (pistis) of defeat & cowardice (Bell Civ. 4,1119).

            Pistis as “Ground for Faith” in Hellenized Judaism & Paul, http://www.jstor.org/stable/3267114

            See much more here:
            http://www.truth-is-life.org/GoodFaithNeedsEvidence.html

          • http://roguemedic.com/ Rogue Medic

            You leave out the prohibition on testing God.

            God is a hypocrite.

            OK, that is not true.

            The people who created God are hypocrites.

            They do not appear to believe in honesty and seem to be be aware of how badly their God would fail any test.

            14 You shall not follow other gods, any of the gods of the peoples who surround you, 15 for the Lord your God in the midst of you is a jealous God; otherwise the anger of the Lord your God will be kindled against you, and He will [g]wipe you off the face of the earth.

            16 “You shall not put the Lord your God to the test, as you tested Him at Massah.

            Deuteronomy 6:14-16

            The other Gods are just as fake as your God, but that means that they are just as real.

            God is far from perfect. God is a jealous fool and easily angered.

            Some future writer will claim that a natural disaster was God attacking indiscriminately to wipe out a subset of the people killed, because people who are superstitious about disasters believe that kind of nonsense.

            Gods should be afraid of being tested.

            It is by a priori assumptions that people believe in Gods.

            .

          • http://roguemedic.com/ Rogue Medic

            EX A: (Darwinian) ‘Even if all the data point to an intelligent designer,such an hypothesis is excluded from science because it is not naturalistic.’

            That appears to be a sarcastic statement.

            There is no evidence that points to an intelligent designer.

            If there is any designer, it is clear that it is an incompetent designer.

            Calling us intelligently designed demonstrates tremendous ignorance.

            What idiot would claim that humans are a good design?

            This is the same designer who Created Satan – according to your Bible.

            Who designed this Incompetent Designer?

            .

      • http://roguemedic.com/ Rogue Medic

        Quite a number of scientists and leading intellectuals are realizing that objective rational thought is mutually irreconcilable with the a priori fallacy of methodological naturalism and the double standard of requiring extraordinary evidence for God.

        The a priori fallacy is that a supernatural being is required for any creation.

        This fallacy appears to be older than the Bible, since all religions seem to have creation myths.

        Why do so many people feel the need to create a creator?

        Magic can explain a lot of ignorance.

        .

        • Bryan Bissell

          Sorry, but the Bible never uses a priori reasoning. That’s what atheists and Darwinians use (methodological naturalism).

          See this link for much documentation of this:
          http://www.truth-is-life.org/GoodFaithNeedsEvidence.html

          A Creator is by far the best explanation of the scientific evidence, as well as the inspiration for the development of modern science, the inspiration for the progress of most human rights in history and so much more (see this link for more on this: http://www.truth-is-life.org/GoodLifeEvidence.html)

          • http://roguemedic.com/ Rogue Medic

            Who created the creator?

            How is belief in a creator not a priori reasoning?

            This must have been created is a priori.

            God was used to explain the weather, but most people now realize that weather does not need a creator to explain it, so that a priori reasoning is less common than it used to be.

            There are still people who use the a priori assumption of Intelligent Design to try to explain evolution.

            This a priori creator assumption is foolish, but it is demonstrated right here.

            .

  • http://stonesnbones.blogspot.com/ Dr. GS Hurd

    Give Parents What They Want

    There is the obvious problem with this; parents often want very bad things.

    Parents wanted racist segregation. So called “Christian Schools” sprang up all over the South in the 1960s to preserve racist traditions. They are still active today. They are also the centers for creationist pseudoscience even today. These ‘schools’ are organized as religious organizations because they are then able to avoid any requirements to have qualified teachers, or a fact based curriculum.

    And of course, Mr. Wellman cannot miss an opportunity to make a factually false claim. He wrote that a, “1991 Gallop Poll (Nov 28th, 1991),” “was the last time a comprehensive polling results on a national scale was undertaken.”

    I cannot imagine how he missed so many other Gallop Poll results on this very topic unless he is willfully ignorant. The most recent being 2012. An analysis of the historical trends, and the decline in support for creationist dogmas, is available in the following link;
    http://www.gallup.com/poll/21814/evolution-creationism-intelligent-design.aspx

    • http://stonesnbones.blogspot.com/ Dr. GS Hurd

      There is a new Pew Research poll out that showed that support for creationism is falling even among the right-wing. It remained well supported by evangelical Christians without any education beyond 12th grade.

      Pew Research: “Public’s Views on Human Evolution”
      http://www.pewforum.org/2013/12/30/publics-views-on-human-evolution/

      • http://roguemedic.com/ Rogue Medic

        The survey showed that support for Creationism increased among Republicans, which is not good for politics.

        I do not want the Democrats to have only increasingly ignorant opposition.

        I am not fond of either party, but the trend toward greater ignorance is not a good one.

        If antibiotic resistant bacteria becomes a much more deadly problem, it will be harder for Creationists to deny that evolution is real and is affecting them directly.

        The same is true for climate change.

        In a decade, will anyone be able to pretend that we have not given the average global temperature a shot of amphetamine?

        The desire to make opposition to science a central part of the platform of any political party is not good for America.

        .

        • http://stonesnbones.blogspot.com/ Dr. GS Hurd

          The religious will merely insist that the increasingly common disasters are God’s displeasure at the sinful scientists.

          • http://roguemedic.com/ Rogue Medic

            I thought the tornadoes in Oklahoma were God’s punishment for misinterpreting the bible and opposing same sex marriage.

            If God didn’t like homosexuals, why did he make so many?

            If God opposed same sex marriage, he could easily stop it.

            since the Bible can be interpreted to support just about everything, natural disasters can also be interpreted to be God’s disapproval for anything.

            Of course, since natural disasters are explained by natural laws and God is not necessary to explain natural laws, God did it is just ignorance hiding behind a lame excuse.

            .

        • Ploss1957

          I don’t think more Republicans decided to accept Creationism. I think intelligent people just got fed up and left the party so those left remaining constitute a higher percentage.

  • Dorfl

    [...] evolution cannot be stated as a scientific law and remains, for well over a century, a theory.

    [...] evolution is only a theory and to see that a theory is not the same as a scientific law like Newton’s Three Laws of Motion.

    The assumption that laws somehow outrank theories is a very common misconception. I understand why people assume that, since in everyday speech the word ‘law’ implies something solid that everything has to follow, but ‘theory’ implies something like an educated guess. But in reality, no such hierarchy exists. This is just another place where scientific terminology happens to differ from common usage in a potentially confusing way.

    For example the theory of classical electrodynamics is essentially “Maxwell’s laws, plus whatever you can derive from them”. In other words, that theory is equivalent to a small set of laws. If you accept the laws, you accept the theory. If you accept the theory, you accept the laws.

    As another example, Newton’s laws are technically incorrect. Reality deviates from them somewhat, with the deviation growing as relative speeds approach the speed of light. This does not cause the laws to be downgraded to theories or hypotheses, because again, theories and laws are different things, not different ranks of the same thing.

    Despite untold millions of categorized fossils their remains no set that establish a new life form evolving from another. This fact was not lost by Darwin who said that he was troubled by the lack of fossil evidence showing that new species arose from previous ones.

    Another good example of bad science in the theory of evolution is that they keep claiming to find missing links and that these links are the “smoking gun” of evidence in the fossil layer. The only roaring evidence is the roaring silence in the fossil record.

    In other words, fossils of life evolving into other forms have been found and more are constantly found, but for some reason you have decided to ignore them.

    For example, evolution does not address the question of where did the universe come from. How did the universe come into existence?

    This is technically true. The theory of evolution is – surprisingly – about evolution. It does not address unrelated questions in other fields. If you want to know where the universe came from you should study cosmology.

    How did life arise since we know for a fact that life cannot arise spontaneously?

    You can’t both complain about evolution being speculative, and then assert random speculations as known facts.

    Why not let people choose what they want their children to learn? Don’t these professors and colleges work for the students who pay their salaries or the parents who educate their children?

    Because reality isn’t optional, and no teacher worthy of the name will teach things they know to be false, whatever the salary.

    One example is that mutations are a good thing.

    Nobody thinks that. We do think that beneficial mutations exist, but noone would claim that mutations are, in general, a good thing.

    I have never seen or heard of a mutation where it helped the specie propagate or survive and become a better organism. [...] The only problem is they can’t find where this occurs by natural means.

    If you haven’t heard of beneficial mutations you have not paid attention. I suggest you start reading about the Lenski experiment:

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/E._coli_long-term_evolution_experiment

    Also take the time to read about the evolution of nylonase:

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nylon-eating_bacteria

    Why haven’t they evolved or changed by increased information as a result of “positive mutations?”

    If a species works fine the way it is, it’s not going to change very much. Species don’t evolve just as a hobby, they evolve because their current form is not at a local optimum – usually because changes in the environment moved that optimum.

  • Graham Dull

    You asked: “Should creationism be taught alongside evolution?”

    Yes, I should think so.

    Claims of Cosmic Evolution
    These are the tenants of Evolution
    Sir Terry Pratchett stated it clearly: “In the beginning there was nothing, and it exploded”
    “…the universe, and time itself, had a beginning in the Big Bang, about 15 billion
    years ago.” Stephen Hawking

    a. Nothing became something — 13.798 ± 0.037 billion years ago
    b. Non-living substance came to life — 3.6 billion years ago
    c. Prokaryotic cells (bacteria) became eukaryotic cells (these cells contain a
    nucleus and mitochondria like the cells in our bodies) — 2 billion years ago
    d. Consciousness arose — 2nd Nov 1948

    I can personally vouch for Point ‘d’ — but all the rest I find fanciful indeed.

    Caution Needed
    We owe it to ourselves to seriously reconsider the above
    When and how did nothing become something?
    When and how did non-living matter come to life?
    When and how did consciousness arise?

    Our own life’s experience comes about because we are alive, we are conscious, and we are able to interact with the world around us. Our very existence poses so many questions — such as.

    Why does anything actually exist at all?
    Did everything just happen for no reason?
    Is God the creator of all things including life?
    How did God himself get here? Where did He come from?
    Is there a greater purpose to life?

    The origin of Evolution: “In the beginning there was nothing — and it exploded”
    The origin of Creation: “In the beginning there was God.”
    Graham

    • Megan Wesolowski

      Like the author, you sorely misunderstand the tenants of evolution. Cosmic evolution has nothing to do with biological evolution, they are based on totally different concepts. In addition, evolution has nothing to do with the origins of life, only how it changes over time. The same goes for conscience, it has no comments on the origin of self-awareness. This is a common Hovind talking point with no substance.

      • http://www.facebook.com/people/John-Pieret/100000023960330 John Pieret

        Some would quibble with the statement that “evolution has nothing to do with the origins of life,” inasmuch as the earliest pre-biotic replicators probably did “evolve” by becoming better replicators but the general sense of your comment is correct. What interests me is that Graham Dull’s misstatement of evolutionary theory, “In the beginning there was nothing — and it exploded,” explains, scientifically or otherwise, the origin of “life, the universe and everything” to the exact same degree as “In the beginning there was God.”
        Both just say “and then something happened.”

        • Megan Wesolowski

          Exactly, it is a strawman argument. I could just as easily say that “in the beginning, a chubby pink dragon named Farley did a polka, and the cosmos were born”. That statement holds the exact same amount of water as “there was God”, so shouldn’t that be taught with evolution, too?

          And yes, I agree, early chemical evolution bears a resemblance to biological evolution in the sense of a natural selection of sorts. However, I am sticking to biological evolution since that is the main focus of the article and is what the article author is ineffectually arguing against.

      • Graham Dull

        Megan: Regarding Cosmic Evolution
        Eric J. Chaisson gives this overview and definition of Cosmic Evolution.

        Cosmic Evolution [TITLE]
        Of central importance, we can now trace a chain of knowledge–a loose continuity along an impressive hierarchy—sequentially linking:
        the evolution of primal energy into elementary particles and atoms
        the evolution of those atoms into galaxies and stars
        the evolution of stars into heavy elements
        the evolution of those elements into the molecular building blocks of life
        the evolution of those molecules into life itself
        the evolution of advanced life forms into intelligence
        the evolution of intelligent life into a cultured and technological civilization.
        http://www.physicscentral.com/explore/writers/chaisson.cfm

        As you can see Chaisson includes ‘abiogenesis and ‘biological evolution’ within the context of Cosmic Evolution.

        Also regarding Eric Chaisson “He is noted for (among other things) his leadership in improving science education nationally and internationally.
        http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eric_Chaisson

        As a prominent educator, Eric Chaisson regards abiogenesis and biological evolution as a legitimate part of Cosmic Evolution and he clearly sees no problem in speaking about their reliance one on the other. Being a prominent educator he presents it like this because this is how he sees it.
        And he’s not the only one. School and university textbooks, plus numerous BBC documentaries follow the same line.

        Why then is it believed to be a sin if Christians present these things with the same unity?

        Graham

        • Megan Wesolowski

          True, Chaisson is highly regarded, but his view is expressly stated as “interdisciplinary”, meaning across the sciences. He may mention them in one statement, but that does not automatically mean they are the same, especially for someone in an interdisciplinary study. In addition, your argument as a whole is fallicious, it is an argument from authority. This is like saying, since Newton believed in alchemy, it must be true.

          • Graham Dull

            Megan
            There are Creationists who ignore half of what Evolutionists teach. Likewise there are Evolutionists who willingly ignore half of what Creationists teach. To be honest with each other the first thing we ought to do is acknowledge where the other is at.

            Darwin put forward the view that species evolved into other diverse species. But his views went much further than that.

            He believed that there was a definite starting point. He did not believe that certain original species have existed eternally. Neither did he believe that animals with consciousness have always existed. These he believed evolved from simpler organisms by natural selection and without the aid of God. He accepted not only the evolution of species but also the evolution of consciousness in a creature that did not possess consciousness, the evolution of gills in a creature that did not possess gills, the evolution of fins in a creature that did not possess fins, the evolution of lungs, eyes, ears, etc in a creature that did not possess lungs, eyes, ears, etc.
            Likewise he accepted a beginning at some point in time of the first biological organism/s.
            Where did Darwin believe life originated?
            Megan, where do you believe life originated?

            Graham

          • http://stonesnbones.blogspot.com/ Dr. GS Hurd

            Functionally, scientists should ignore all of what any creationist says about anything.

            A creationist is demonstrably wrong about the most basic facts of biology, geology, chemistry, and physics. WHY pay them any attention? The only reason I can imagine, and one that motivated me for nearly 20 years, is that these religious fanatics are a danger to our civilization. If not opposed, they will return society to the Dark Age of witch burnings, and worse.

          • Graham Dull

            Dr. GS Hurd: You stated “Functionally, scientists should ignore all of what any creationist says about anything. A creationist is demonstrably wrong about the most basic facts of… geology,…”
            Dr Hurd, I’ll address some facts regarding the earth sciences. The Theory of Biological Evolution depends immensely on fossil deposits found in the rocks. Our interpretation of these finds depends on our understanding of (among other things) Plate Tectonics.
            It will be agreed that the process of Plate Tectonics has hugely affected the deposition of sediments in which the bulk of fossil remains are now found. One scientific discipline relies on the correctness of the other. For true science, they are interrelated. Holding an erroneous view of one will likely distort ones view of the other.
            Plate Tectonics
            Just like a woman bearing the scars of unfortunate stretch marks developed during pregnancy, so the earth bears weaknesses and scars in its crust. How did the earth receive these scars? Our children are taught at school and university that dissipation of heat from the mantle is the original source of energy driving plate tectonics. Convection currents in the mantle carry heat from the interior of the Earth to the surface. These currents then flow beneath the earth’s crust and carry the crust with them.

            While scientists no longer believe this, the same is taught to our children, and regularly presented to the wider audience in BBC documentaries. Why not just tell us what is observed, and tell us also that we have no explanation as to why it is?
            Below I list the three reasons that this mechanism is now
            widely rejected.
            (1) Scientists rightly expected that we would find huge
            amounts of heat at the extensive areas above these upwellings. This find would not only confirm the theory, but provide a huge economic advantage as a clean and efficient source of energy. As the result of extensive searching, there is no evidence of anything even remotely akin to what is so vividly described in books.
            (2) With our nowadays extensive understanding of materials flow, we appreciate how gasses, liquids and semi-solids reduce surface friction at the edge of their flow. What is true regarding glacial flow is also true of magma flow. Magma will flow in a manner to minimise friction, so is not going to carry continental plates with it against the rigidity which exists.
            (3) The pattern of earthquake shock waves traveling through the earth helps us to identify horizontal boundaries within the earth. These are horizontal boundaries only, and there is no evidence found of hot mantle plumes as generally described.
            We ought to keep our children up to date. We should tell our children that the theory is wrong. This will produce positive results. It will give them the greater opportunity to ‘perhaps themselves’ present a view that might well give a correct and acceptable answer. Be honest with our children or science too may create a new dark age.
            Graham

          • lance Geologist

            “Convection currents in the mantle carry heat from the interior of theEarth to the surface. These currents then flow beneath the earth’s crust and carry the crust with them.While scientists no longer believe this” THIS is an outright LIE. If ignorance be bliss than MR Dull is very happy.

            You only need to Google ” what causes tectonic plates to move” to enlighten oneself.

            # 1 try looking at Japan, Indonesia, US Rockies,etc. His statement is False.

            # 2 My Grandchildren would speak with more authority than this.The oldest is 7.

            # 3 above is a great reason why people like him should have NO say in education. Go to aapg.org and look in the bookstore. You can order books or even a short paper( $3.00)on the Gulf coast or other areas. The paper shows seismic cross-sections of the gulf, they are not horizontal.Neither are any other cross sections of any continental or oceanic area.

            Plate tectonics was largely reintroduced by researchers at Lamont observatory in the late 1960′s. Their work involved magnetic mapping( originally to find submarines). Later work with gravity and seismic,as well as deep sea cores ,confirmed the many bands of rock coming outward from the midatlantic ridge(similar process on other plate boundaries). These bands of rock are like tree rings and show the growth of the spread of the seafloor.I could go on but I won’t. The information is available to anyone who chooses to use their mind and eyes to read and “see”.I don’t expect that Mr Dull wants to be educated or he would not make such false statements.

            “It will be agreed that the process of Plate Tectonics has hugely affected the deposition of sediments in which the bulk of fossil remains are now found” Most sediments are deposited in Delta’s and have little to do with plate tectonics,except that they are found on the plates which do move.Basins within plates do subside and sediments do fill the basins.

          • http://stonesnbones.blogspot.com/ Dr. GS Hurd

            What is the most disappointing aspect of discussing reality with a creationist is that there is little, or no chance that they will let reality into their minds.

            Mr. Dull’s remark regarding geology is a classic of its sort. His presentation of what “scientists believe” is nonsense. Worse are his so-called facts. In the graphic linked to below, we see the temperature mapping of raising, and descending magma plumes. This takes down all of Mr. Dull’s “facts.” The link is to a short piece I wrote from my lecture notes, “Dismissing Catastrophic Plate Tectonics.” http://stonesnbones.blogspot.com/2011/11/dismissing-catastrophic-plate-tectonics.html

          • Graham Dull

            Dr. Hurd
            Where is science currently at regarding the ‘driving forces of tectonic plate motion?’ In your own mind, how correct is the summary below?
            “Driving forces of plate motion
            Plate tectonics is basically a kinematic phenomenon: Earth scientists agree on the observation and deduction that the plates have moved with respect to one another, and debate and find agreements as to how and when.
            But still, a major question remains as to what the motor behind this movement is – the geodynamic mechanism – and here science diverges in different theories.
            How mantle convection relates directly and indirectly to the motion of the plates is a matter of ongoing study and discussion in geodynamics. Somehow, this energy must be transferred to the lithosphere for tectonic plates to move. There are essentially two types of forces that are thought to influence…”
            http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plate_tectonics

            “…a major question remains…”
            What question? A major question.

            “…here science diverges in different theories…”
            How many theories do you want? For example, what if there were six completely different theories of evolution?

            “Somehow, this energy must be transferred…”
            How?

            “…that are thought…”
            People including scientists have a lot of thoughts, often conflicting.

            Personally, I’m not sure that all this sounds very convincing! Different thoughts, different theories, different ideas?

            I don’t have any trouble with the observations, but like others, I question the motor movement behind it.

            We’re often told in these debates to read high school textbooks before commenting. Don’t read high school textbooks. Get some real books, like “Principles of Sedimentology and Stratigraphy” by Sam Boggs, Jr.
            Graham

          • http://stonesnbones.blogspot.com/ Dr. GS Hurd

            (Actually, the Wikipedia article is quite good. They could use some more citations, and a few other illustrations. A link to serpentine formation would be a good addition, too).

            There are two sorts of deep mantle volcanism, marine ridges on spreading zones, and deep plume mid-oceanic island arcs. They vary significantly in chemistry, and dynamics. The spreading ridges are contributing to plate movement, and at the same time along some segments the bisected plates are pulling the fault apart.

            This later feature is produced by the distant lateral edge being subducted and dragging the plate down. (Somewhere I have a great illustration of that, and how the subducted plate margin shears. Oh well).

            PS: Until you are able to read “real books,” you should stick to high school textbooks.

            PPS: That text book you recommended is a long time standard. What does sedimentology have to do with your question about plate tectonics?

          • lance Geologist

            Ahhhhhh I see your problem. The article is quite good, commenting on many aspects of plate tectonics. The problem probable is that you don’t understand the terminology. I understand what is being said,but it is a bit technical. You seem to want to pick and choose words that are written without understanding all that is written. If you want to, you have time in life to educate yourself. Until then spewing only shows ignorance. :) Lance

          • David Eriol Hickman

            If reality conflicts with the bible, it must be reality that is wrong.

            /sarcasm, though that is essentially what they are saying.

          • Megan Wesolowski

            I’m not even sure what the argument was there. Did he accept a scientific or supernatural origin of life? I’d like to see your source. However, regardless of his belief, it does not make his personal belief anymore true. Only hard evidence makes something true.

            As for my belief, I have absolutely no clue how life originated, and don’t claim to. I will go where the evidence points. This is probably a question that will never be fully answered, and science will honestly admit this.

          • Graham Dull

            Megan
            Regarding Charles Darwin, early in his life he studied medicine briefly at Edinburgh University, then theology at Christ’s College, University of Cambridge. In later life he called himself an agnostic refusing to be drawn by some atheistic friends to declare himself an outright atheist. As he ceased to practice his Christian faith in later life, his life would seem to indicate that he viewed evolution to have occurred solely by naturalistic means, as his writings also indicate.
            “The Darwin Legend” written by James Richard Moore appears to give a well balanced view of the man’s life and views.
            Be that as it may, I did ask the question here solely to learn your own position. I thank you for your honest answer.
            To get right to the heart of biological evolution, Charles Darwin believed the simple organism evolved into the more complex. Forget Darwin, how do you yourself relate to the evolution of consciousness, etc? I’ve reprinted my earlier statement below.
            “He accepted not only the evolution of species but also the evolution of consciousness in a creature that did not possess consciousness, the evolution of gills in a creature that did not possess gills, the evolution of fins in a creature that did not possess fins, the evolution of lungs, eyes, ears, etc in a creature that did not possess lungs, eyes, ears, etc.”
            Graham

    • http://roguemedic.com/ Rogue Medic

      When and how did nothing become something?

      What is nothing?

      -

      It is interesting that you cited a novelist as your source of information about evolution. If you want to discuss the origins of life, we need to change your prerequisites a bit.

      The origin of Evolution: “In the beginning there was nothing — and it exploded in imperfection.
      The origin of Creation: “In the beginning there was God(s) and it/they exploded in imperfection.

      Creationism/ID claims that man is designed in God’s image.

      Why does a perfect being have an excretory system?

      Why does a perfect being have so many imperfections in design?

      Imperfections are consistent with a lack of design.

      Imperfections are consistent with a flawed design.

      Imperfection are not consistent with a perfect designer.

      .

      • http://flickr.com/photos/sedary_raymaker/ Naked Bunny with a Whip

        A humor novelist, no less, whose best known series takes place in a cosmos that even the characters are aware is ridiculous.

        • http://stonesnbones.blogspot.com/ Dr. GS Hurd

          Pratchett makes better sense than most creationists do. If we do consider the multiverse as a real thing, we need to ask if there is a limit to the variation of universes?

          There are. They do have greater flexibility that the creationists welcome. My colleague Victor Stringer has shown that if the so-called “anthropic constants” vary independently, the “anthropic principle” falls apart.

      • Graham Dull

        Rogue Medic: You wrote, “It is interesting that you cited a novelist as your source of information about evolution. If you want to discuss the origins of life, we need to change your prerequisites a bit.”
        Rogue Medic, I did quote Sir Terry Pratchett — because he was poking fun at evolution when he said “In the beginning there was nothing, and it exploded”
        I also quoted Stephen Hawking, “…the universe, and time itself, had a beginning in the Big Bang, about 15 billion years ago.”
        Do you regard Stephen Hawking in the same light as Sir Terry Pratchett? Or would you now care to respond to his statement which says the same thing.
        Graham

        • http://roguemedic.com/ Rogue Medic

          Graham Dull,

          I also quoted Stephen Hawking, “…the universe, and time itself, had a beginning in the Big Bang, about 15 billion years ago.”
          Do you regard Stephen Hawking in the same light as Sir Terry Pratchett? Or would you now care to respond to his statement which says the same thing.

          I don’t see it in the comment .

          The topic is evolution, so what does the The Big Bang have to do with it?

          This is a discussion of evolution, but you apparently cannot find anything to criticize, so you change the subject.

          Brilliant!

          The topic is evolution.

          Maybe if you stick to the topic, you can learn what evolution is. That would be better than creating straw men to attack.

          .

        • http://stonesnbones.blogspot.com/ Dr. GS Hurd

          Actually the visible universe began with a bang 13.8 billion years ago.

          Google the cosmic microwave background radiation, and ignore creationist websites.

  • http://stonesnbones.blogspot.com/ Dr. GS Hurd

    I must highlight what I consider the most gross falsehood of Mr. Wellman’s long litany of falsehoods: That his dogma of creationism is in any way Christian.

    I have found nearly no differences in the anti-science piffle promoted by Young Earth Creationists who are Christian, Muslim, or Jews. In fact, there is little difference between them and the Neopagan, or Hindo variaty of creationists. I invite anyone to read those creationists, and try to differentiate their frauds from ID creationism. Here are examples;

    HARD CORE CREATIONISTS

    Muslim
    Harun Yahya (Adnan Okbar)
    2007 “Atlas Of Creation” Istanbul: Global Publishing

    “Darwin Theory of Evolution failed(sic)” 3:08 min video clip from “Shahadah Project, Peace Television” Dr. Zakir Naik 2009

    “it’s a plain fact that what the Darwin theory wants to prove runs in sharp contrast to the divine teachings of Islam, and even to all the teachings of all heavenly revealed religion.”

    (Zakir Naik spouts Classic Creatocrap- Evolution is just a theory; exaggerated the Galapagos finches beaks as Darwin’s sole evidence: in fact never mentioned in “Origin of Species;” Thomas Thompson letter? does not exist; Garbled human paleo: Australopithecus, Neanderthal, Cro-Magnon are the only “prehumans” and they have no intermediate; Hansis Gray “expert in molecular biology” said “it is absurd to assume based on DNA that our ancestors were apes;” “Darwin’s theory has been proved wrong years ago … these are just hypothesis(sic);”

    (Watch this if you have a few minutes to waste, and want direct evidence that the YEC dogmas fit any fundamentalism)
    http://youtu.be/vB3_hnuqWN0

    Hindu
    Michael A Cremo, Richard L. Thompson
    1998 “Forbidden Archeology: The Hidden History of the Human Race” Bhaktivedanta Book Publishing

    Neo-pagan/Native American
    Deloria, Vine Jr.
    1997 “Red Earth, White Lies” Golden Colorado: Fulcrum Publishing

  • http://stonesnbones.blogspot.com/ Dr. GS Hurd

    Creationists making false statements about the actual creation are not a new problem for Christians. I have found serious Christian theologians have warned against this for over one thousand years just as they do today. I have sketched out the key remarks of these wise Christians for the use of anyone confronted with the false teachings of creationists like Mr. Wellman. The link below is to my article directed to a Rev. Miller, but is equally appropriate to Mr. Wellman.

    http://stonesnbones.blogspot.com/2011/07/adrian-miller-part-3-what-wiser.html

    • Rick Hartzog

      Worth the read. Thanks, Gary.

  • Alexander Simples

    It’s hard to know where to start on such an ill-informed article. Confusion abounds on the scientific aspects. The author seems to think that only laws in science are ‘proven’ so much for 90% of science then. unproven so shouldn’t be taught.

    Let me put this simply for the author as critical thinking and complrx thought seems to be a bit of a struggle.

    Laws describe, theories explain and one does not become the other. The laws of gravity describe how gravity acts, they do not explain what causes gravity. Also, laws generally tend to be associated with physics. There are few laws in biology and those that do exist are not ‘generally without exception’.

    The above addresses just one element of a badly composed predictable aytack on science. I really cannot be bothered to correct the rest of the rubbish written here.

    • http://stonesnbones.blogspot.com/ Dr. GS Hurd

      “Laws describe, theories explain and one does not become the other”

      That is expressed far better than I have done. Bravo!

    • Bryan Bissell

      Good points on laws and theories Alexander!

  • Silverback

    There is nothing accurate inths article. Sad. This is poor theology and poor science.

  • lance Geologist

    There are so many fallacious statements it is hard to know where to begin. Fortunately Mr Burnett Dr Hurd have done a great job in explaining the false statements.
    Concerning the Cambrian explosion, this is the time when fossil remains were preserved. The Burgess shale was the first, however even older fossils have been found in China.The Cambrian lasted from about 485 to about 540 MILLION years ago. This is a period of about 55 MILLION years. Not exactly a blip in time. Earlier forms of organisms lacks hard parts and thus were difficult to preserve.
    Concerning the false misunderstanding of scientific terms and the scientific method—- hypothesis ( common language- a guess) is
    proposed. Hypothesis-” Cryonoids change through time”. Test- Look at
    Ordovician, Devonian,Mississippian rocks and observe what has happened
    (observation of evidence does count as repeated testing). Look in today’s oceans and observe Cryonoids.They are still around and have changed. Hypothesis confirmed. Hypothesis -” Whales once lived on the land and changed to become aquatic creature”. Test- look at the modern Whales and observe fossil evidence of changes in the features of whales.There are observable evidence of this. Hypothesis confirmed. Hypothesis- “Humans lived during the Devonian”. Test- observe extensive collections of Devonian fossils and look for evidence of Humans.No evidence found. Hypothesis not confirmed and the preponderance of evidence indicates that it probably is false. One tries to disprove a hypothesis. If there is no evidence to support it, it probably is
    not true.The hypothesis is not proven false with lack of evidence,but if
    extensive observations are available and still no evidence exists to support
    the hypothesis, then it probably is false.

  • Megan Wesolowski

    Oh dear, it appears someone here is very ill_informed. You clearly misunderstand some of the basic tenants of science itself.

    First off, the scientific definition of the word “theory” is a hypothesis that is well supported by testable evidence. You take the word akin to the common definition, which would be more akin to a “hypothesis”, which is a proposed explanation for a natural phenomenon. In addition, a “law” does not supersede a “theory”, it is the other way around. Laws state facts, like “an object in motion stays in motion”, etc. Theories incorporate these laws into a testable, supportable explanation for a phenomenon. For example, the “theory” of general relativity incorporates the “laws” of motion as part of its explanation.

    Your understanding of the driving force behind evolution is also supremely flawed. Yes, it is true that mutations do play a part in evolutionary change. Errors in gene replication and transfer do occur, and they may impart traits that are advantageous or disadvantageous in that particular environment. However, they are not the exclusive driving force behind evolution. Natural variations within a species’s phenotype occur, and at any given time, one particular phenotype may be advantageous within a particular environment. Let’s say a species of bison has a natural variation in hair length from 2 to 3 inches. The local winters become colder over several years, and the bison with shorter hair will not survive as often. The bison with the longer hair can stay warmer, and survive until spring to mate and pass on their genes. As a result, the subsequent generations of bison will have longer hair than their predecessors and be more suited to the colder winters. Stack these changes over billions of years, and tah-dah, there’s evolution! Mutations may occur that lend negative changes to an organism, but these organisms will not survive to pass on their genes, filtering the bad gene out of the population. This still fits into natural selection.

    Of course, you had to bring up transitional fossils as well. There have been thousands of these found. Just look at any science book about human evolution and the evidence is clear. No explanation needed.

    As for why a species is still around after millions of years? This is because they haven’t needed to evolve! Evolution is based on changes in the environment, and species adapting to them over time. Sharks, for example, have existed in their current form for hundreds of millions of years. They’re predatory superiority means they haven’t had to change to adapt to food sources over time, they’ve been able to take advantage of it as is.

    And as for interpretation being “speculative and subjective”? Of course there are gaps in the theory! The Standard Model of Physics still has gaps in it, too (like not being able to incorporate gravity). However, we do not go and reject the entire Standard Model just because it has a missing piece or two. Evolution is the same way. The theory is constantly updating itself with new information, discarding the bad information and incorporating the new to fit with ever increasing base of knowledge we humans possess. In addition, at least science is honest. When we don’t understand something, we admit it. Like no, we don’t understand exactly where the universe came from, and may never know. We don’t simply give up and say “God did it”.

    You need to do more research before writing an article critiquing a scientific theory as well-grounded as evolution. Come back and try again once you’ve read a science book or two. Good day to you.

    • http://stonesnbones.blogspot.com/ Dr. GS Hurd

      I would offer an editorial suggestion that “mutations are not the exclusive driving force of evolution” is a bit more accurate statement. Your description of population variation acted on by positive selection is fine, but there were minor allelic variations initially due to mutation even in your example.

      • Megan Wesolowski

        I actually had that added initially, my post was already getting long as it was! Good suggestion.

    • John of Indiana

      Wellman uses the more popular (among FAUX NOIZ watchers) definition for “Theory”, which is “Sumptin them aig-haids pulled outta thar arses thet Ah cayn’t unnerstan”…

      • theot58

        Scoffing and sarcasm is a poor substitute for scientific evidence.

        What evidence is there, which proves (beyond reasonable doubt) that our great.….….…. Great grandfather was as self replicating molecule?

        The scientific method demands scrutiny of the evidence, not blind acceptance. Debates are a good way to scrutinze the evidence.

        Do a search on YouTube on “debates on evolution” to scrutinize the evidence. Try http://www.fishdontwalk.com/ or http://youtu.be/KH4Xu8bcvQg for a start.

        Professon Louis T More, University of Cincinnati said

        “The more one studies the paleontological record, the more certain one becomes that evolution is based on faith alone”

        • http://roguemedic.com/ Rogue Medic

          theot58,

          Scoffing and sarcasm is a poor substitute for scientific evidence.

          That is true, but you have been provided with scientific evidence and ignore science.

          You claim that a book that demonstrates ignorance of something so simple as germ theory is a science book.

          Why didn’t your God know about germ theory?

          Do you also claim that germ theory is not true?

          When it comes to science, the Bible is consistently wrong.

          Germ theory and the theory of evolution are both real and supported by valid evidence. Both are condemned by science denialists.

          Science denialists, whether Creationists or germ theory denialists deserve scoffing and sarcasm.

          .

          • theot58

            Why are you asking such ridiculous and irrelevant questions?
            The pertinent question is: Is there sufficient scientific evidence supporting Darwinian/Macro evolution to warrant teaching it as a scientific fact in the science classroom?

            I had been hearing about the “mountains of evidence” proving Evolution for years; I thought it was rock solid science.
            One day I started scrutinizing the so called “mountains of evidence” and to my utter disgust I found that it was actually mountains of cow dung.
            There are mountains of ambit claims in the big print but when I analysed the small print I discovered that I was conned.
            The deception starts with a vague and changing definition of evolution; if they do not define what the word means than the evidence they provide does not have to prove anything in particular. (see link for details http://youtu.be/fQ_h-S7IuaM). The evolutionists provide countless examples of micro evolution (adaptation) and INFER that this somehow proves Macro evolution (development of new body parts). This is typical “bait and switch” advertising.

            My conclusion: THE SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE CONDEMNS DARWINIAN/MACRO EVOLUTION – BIG TIME.

          • http://www.patheos.com/blogs/exploringourmatrix/ James F. McGrath

            I thought the pertinent question was why you are so dishonest. Do you really think that in this internet age no one is going to Google your mined quotes and see that you are twisting the words of scientists in an attempt to deceive them? And do you not care what harm your falsehood does to the reputation of the religion you claim to be associated with?

          • theot58

            James; I disagree with your comments.

            1) “Mine Quotes”

            -My points and quotes are suitable and appropriate to expose the Darwinian/Macro evolution myth by the application of scientific principles.

            - I make no apology for them

            2) falsehoods and “Repution of the religion”

            - What falsehood are you referring to?

            - I do not mention God in my posts because this is a scientific question – why are you bringing religion into it?

            - Truth is not negotiable – if the scientific evidence CONDEMNS Darwinian/macro evolution, why are you supporting a dying myth?

            -

            Go to http://www.worldscientific.com/worldscibooks/10.1142/8818 to read peer reviewed scientific journals which show the implausibility of Darwinian/Macro evolution.

            Inspite of the dogmatic evolutionist’s attempts to suppress dissent, growing numbers of scientists are courageously standing up and expressing dissent.

          • http://www.patheos.com/blogs/exploringourmatrix/ James F. McGrath

            I wish you would actually learn something about this topic. The claim that evolutionary ideas are on their way out and will soon be abandoned can be traced back even to before the time of Darwin.

          • http://roguemedic.com/ Rogue Medic

            theot58,

            Why didn’t your God know about germ theory?

            Why are you asking such ridiculous and irrelevant questions?

            This is a thread about the fraud of teaching Creationism in science classrooms.

            You claim that there is something wrong with the science of evolution, for which you can’t even use the correct term.

            You are demonstrating a complete failure to communicate.

            Asking some questions seems to be the best way to explore the level of your ignorance.

            -

            One day I started scrutinizing the so called “mountains of evidence” and to my utter disgust I found that it was actually mountains of cow dung.

            You appear to be claiming that there are gaps in the cow dung evidence.

            That is your God of the gaps – cow dung.

            -

            The evolutionists provide countless examples of micro evolution (adaptation) and INFER that this somehow proves Macro evolution (development of new body parts).

            The different flavors of Creationist deny different parts of evolution. Many deny that any evolution is possible.

            Others try to explain the silliness of the Ark with evolution within families or genera.

            One species can evolve into another species, but there cannot be evolution from one genus to another, or there cannot be evolution from one family to another.

            We are supposed to believe that there is some magic barrier that stops evolution from one genus to another, or from one family to another.

            The justification for this appears to be a lack of understanding that a body part can have more than one use and that the use in one period of evolution can be different from the use in another period of evolution.

            This prejudice that causes Michael Behe to be misinformed about evolution.

            Michael Behe also fails to read the work of those in the field of evolution. He had to admit this, because he was testifying that a bunch of papers were flawed, but he had never read the papers. He seems to have just used his psychic powers to divine the contents without going to the trouble of reading them. This appears to be your approach, as well.

            Science does not work that way.

            There is some work involved, such as reading, and there are some big words that you may need explained, but you can do it.

            .

  • http://godofevolution.com/ Tyler Francke

    I’m a big supporter of Patheos and its Christian bloggers in particular. I don’t always agree with them on this or that, of course, but by and large I find their work well-written, well-argued and thought-provoking in its own way.

    But this, pure and simple, is shameful. I don’t even know where to begin in responding to such ill-informed, poorly reasoned, completely out-of-touch-with-reality schlock. Rather than trying, I’d really just like to put out there that I’m a Christian and the only thing I don’t disagree with in this article is that the author does indeed make five “points.”

    I hope people reading this know that not all Christians are raving lunatics who think the truth is whatever they want it to be.

    • http://youcallthisculture.blogspot.com/ VinnyJH

      I’m a Christian and the only thing I don’t disagree with in this article is that the author does indeed make five “points.”

      I’m not even sure of that. As Dr. McGrath points out, #5 isn’t much different from #1.

      • http://godofevolution.com/ Tyler Francke

        Alas! You are quite right. So I guess there’s nothing I agree with in this article.

        • Mark

          Well, you agree that he makes “points”

          • http://godofevolution.com/ Tyler Francke

            Well, technically, he thinks he has given reasons, and all I’m willing to conceded is that he made “points.” But yeah, I suppose that’s something :)

    • Mick

      What about the Christians who think:

      * Mary was a virgin
      * a fish gave money to Peter
      * Lazarus rose from the dead
      * Jesus walked on water
      * dead people climbed out of their graves and walked around Jerusalem
      * blindness can be healed with spit
      * demons went out of a man into a herd of suicidal pigs.
      * Jesus was resurrected from the dead
      * and then ascended into heaven.

      Could they not also be described as “raving lunatics who think the truth is whatever they want it to be” ?

      • http://godofevolution.com/ Tyler Francke

        No. Don’t you think there’s a pretty big difference between personally believing in a miracle for which there exists no empirical evidence for or against its occurrence (which would include the events you referenced correctly in your above post), and believing in a miracle for which there exists mountains of evidence that directly refutes it (which would include Mr. Jack Wellman’s belief that animal “kinds” share no common ancestry and appeared ex nihilo a few thousand years ago, along with the earth and the rest of the universe) — to the point that one insists one’s belief is taught in public school science classes as “a possible theory”?

        • happy

          So all someone has to do is write once that dead people climbed out of their graves and walked around Jerusalem, one time, no corroboration anywhere, and that’s good enough for you, and good enough evidence to send us all to hell if we don’t believe it, mister fancy scientific evidence person.

          • http://godofevolution.com/ Tyler Francke

            Nope, I never said that. If you liked to discuss my actual views, I’d be happy to, but if you’d rather spar with a straw man of your own construction then you’ll have to continue without my involvement.

          • happy

            That’s okay Tyler Francke I knew I was going to be wrong when I made the comment and I knew you weren’t going to tell me where I was wrong. I been around a lot and the one thing I know is, I’m always going to be wrong. So there isn’t any point because whatever I say I’m going to be wrong any way. Someone is always wrong on the internet and it’s always the other guy that’s wrong, lol.

          • http://godofevolution.com/ Tyler Francke

            Yeah? Well, it’s pretty easy to be wrong when you presuppose that, just because I’m a Christian, I believe that rejecting the truth of two verses in Matthew is enough for a person to be condemned to hell.

          • happy

            Yeah my point exactly. And it’s practically impossible to be right, except maybe on a totally lucky wild random guess. Because everyone “believes” something different. And there is no way to know what they are going to believe. Because there is no way to know ahead of time. Because they believe ridiculous things for no good reason at all. There is no way to check and see if they are right. Could be anything at all. So if someone says something, chances are pretty good they are going to be wrong. And they are going to have to pry it out of the other guy. Otherwise the other guy would never have any time to preemptively move their goalposts when they see something coming.

          • http://godofevolution.com/ Tyler Francke

            Yeah, or maybe you could try just asking people what they believe, and then challenging them on that? Sounds crazy, I know, but it will probably be more effective for you than taking blind shots in the dark with the most ridiculous things you can think of. Cheers.

          • happy

            Yes how totally ridiculous that I would think that a Christian would think that if someone doesn’t believe a story in the Bible then they are condemned to hell. How could I be so stupid! How utterly ridiculous of a thing for me to to say! Anyway have a good year. Cheers and happiness.

    • theot58

      Do you accept Darwinian/Macro evolution as a scientific fact/

      Let me define my terms:

      “Evolution” is a vague word. The main definitions in the text books are:

      1) “change over time”, this is silly as it is stating the flaming obvious.

      2) Micro evolution is minor changes within a species, this is real and observable and uncontested.

      3) Darwinian/Macro evolution (where the conflict is) which asserts that:
      a) All living things had a common ancestor. This implies that your great….. great grandfather was a self replicating molecule.
      b) The observable world has come into existence by totally natural, unguided processes and specifically WITHOUT the involvement of an intelligent designer.

      Have a look at this link for details http://youtu.be/fQ_h-S7IuaM

      • http://roguemedic.com/ Rogue Medic

        theot58,

        “Evolution” is a vague word. The main definitions in the text books are:

        1) “change over time”, this is silly as it is stating the flaming obvious.

        Once it is explained, evolution is pretty obvious.

        The exception is the cognitive dissonance of science denialists.

        -

        2) Micro evolution is minor changes within a species, this is real and observable and uncontested.

        There are plenty of Creationists who contest what you call micro evolution. Don’t pretend that you are less ignorant than they are just because you draw your God did it line closer to reality – although still very far into the fantasy world of Creationism.

        Where is this wall that distinguishes between a change within a species and a change that results in a different species?

        Why does that even matter?

        There are some Creationists who define this line as being at the genus or family level, so that they can account for Noah being able to fit animals on the boat in that heartwarming genocide and back to incest all over again story.

        You admit that there is evidence of this evolution, but you ignore the absence of evidence for any flavor of Creationism/Intelligent Design.

        -

        3) Darwinian/Macro evolution (where the conflict is) which asserts that:

        No.

        Creationists come in a variety of flavors and all have their own reasons for believing their excuses, but they are not based on science.

        Creationist = science denialist.

        There is no evidence for Creationism – no matter which kind of Creationism you prefer.

        -

        a) All living things had a common ancestor. This implies that your great….. great grandfather was a self replicating molecule.

        Why is that confuse you?

        Does a God fantasy make you feel better about life?

        Does it make sense?

        Who Created God(s)?

        -

        b) The observable world has come into existence by totally natural, unguided processes and specifically WITHOUT the involvement of an intelligent designer.

        Calling us intelligently designed demonstrates tremendous ignorance.

        What idiot would claim that humans are a good design?

        This is the same designer who Created Satan – according to your Bible.

        Who designed this Incompetent Designer?

        The Incompetent Designer (your God) has come into existence by totally natural, unguided processes and specifically WITHOUT the involvement of an intelligent designer.

        Why does make sense to you?

        Where is the evidence that this Creationism is real?

        Why do so many Christians reject your Creationism fantasy and recognize evolution as the only explanation that is supported by evidence?

        .

      • http://godofevolution.com/ Tyler Francke

        Yes, I accept the vast evidence for large-scale evolutionary changes over millions of years and common descent.

        • theot58

          Consider just a small number of fundamental scientific problems with Darwinian/Macro evolution

          1) Where did the information come from to build the DNA molecule?
          – it contains over 4 Gigabits of programming data; we have never observed natural forces creating programming data
          - a building is proof of a builder, a program is proof of a programmer, a design is proof of a designer

          2) How did genders “evolve” from asexual organisms?
          - Consider some of the challenges, have a look at this video http://youtu.be/Ab1VWQEnnwM

          3) How do you explain symbiotic relationships while holding to gradual “evolution”?

          - eg. The bees need the flowers, the flowers need the bees – they both MUST exist together, how could this occur slowly or gradually
          - What came first the Chicken or the egg?

          4) Where are all the myriad of transition fossils that Darwin predicted?
          - They were missing then and they are missing now.
          - How can the Cambrian explosion of millions of fully formed organism appearing abruptly be explained by Evolution?

          5) Which “evolved” first, the vagina or the penis?
          - how did one “evolve” from the other?

          Dr Ben Carson; Director of Pediatric Neurosurgery at one of the world’s greatest hospitals (Johns Hopkins), a groundbreaking surgeon, best-selling author, and recipient of the Presidential Medal of Freedom said”

          “I think one of the most damning pieces of evidence against evolution is the human genome.

          You can see that you have very complex, sophisticated coding mechanisms for different amino acids, and various sequences that give you millions of different genetic instructions — very much like computer programming, which uses a series of zeros and ones in different sequences, but gives you very specific information about what that computer is to do.”

          • http://roguemedic.com/ Rogue Medic

            theot58,

            1) Where did the information come from to build the DNA molecule?

            1) Where did the information come from to build God?

            -

            2) How did genders “evolve” from asexual organisms?

            2) How did God’s genders “evolve” from when he was an asexual organism?

            -

            3) How do you explain symbiotic relationships while holding to gradual “evolution”?

            3) How do you explain the symbiotic relationship with other Gods (El, Elohim, YHWH, Baal, Ishtar, Yarih, et cetera, while evolving to one true God?

            -

            4) Where are all the myriad of transition fossils that Darwin predicted?
            - They were missing then and they are missing now.
            - How can the Cambrian explosion of millions of fully formed organism appearing abruptly be explained by Evolution?

            They are still there.

            You have been provided with evidence before, but you continue to pretend that it does not exist.

            You are a liar.

            Here is a link to Wikipedia, which links to other sources.

            https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transitional_fossil

            Why do you need to lie to promote your fraud?

            Silly question. Because it is a fraud.

            -

            5) Which “evolved” first, the vagina or the penis?
            - how did one “evolve” from the other?

            5) Which “evolved” first, God’s vagina or God’s penis?
            - how did one “evolve” from the other?

            -

            Dr Ben Carson; Director of Pediatric Neurosurgery at one of the world’s greatest hospitals (Johns Hopkins), a groundbreaking surgeon, best-selling author, and recipient of the Presidential Medal of Freedom said”

            “I think one of the most damning pieces of evidence against evolution is the human genome.

            A surgeon does not understand genetics?

            Stop the world for that shocker.

            Surgeons are people who cut and sew – even when it is intricate brain surgery.

            A lack of understanding of evolution is only an impediment while still in school.

            Famous people who do not understand evolution are not evidence that Creationism is real.

            .

          • theot58

            I disagree with your points. Especially “You have been provided with evidence before, but you continue to pretend that it does not exist.”

            I have not been provided with evidence – only propaganda that is devoid of scientific merrit. Just because evolutionists say it does not make it true. The number of evolutionist exagerations, deceptions and outright frauds is HUGE. Google Ernst Haeckelt as an example.

            If you think surgeons are unqualified to comment, then how about this one.

            Dr John Sanford (Geneticist and inventor of the GeneGun) said :

            “The bottom line is that the primary axiom [of Darwinian/Macro evolution] is categorically false,
            you can’t create information with misspellings, not even if you use natural selection.”

          • http://roguemedic.com/ Rogue Medic

            theot58,

            I have not been provided with evidence – only propaganda that is devoid of scientific merrit.

            Here are links to peer reviewed papers catalogued by the National Library of Medicine – the source of science information for all of the life sciences, not just evolution.

            If you want to claim they are conspiring to create a science that is a fraud, then your conspiracy theory is too big to take seriously.

            https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21796204

            https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19816582

            https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/10618588

            https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15306808

            https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16598249

            https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16323697

            https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18615083

            https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15514154

            https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20027787

            -

            Famous people who do not understand evolution are not evidence that Creationism is real.

            .

          • http://godofevolution.com/ Tyler Francke

            Most of these “problems” have perfectly reasonable, evidence-based scientific explanations that you have chosen to ignore. However, the fact remains that even if all of them were as difficult as you declare, it would not sink the theory of evolution. Theories are developed based on the evidence, not on their ability to answer every possible question that may be concocted in reference to it.

            Imagine that a bank was robbed. Security footage shows the robbers entering the bank and leaving a few minutes later with the goods, even though the vault was locked the night before and was still locked the next day, with no sign of forced entry. Now let me ask you this: Does the fact that the police and bank officials are baffled as to how the robbery was conducted mean it would be right to presume the bank wasn’t actually robbed at all? Of course not. The evidence is irrefutable, and just because it’s unknown how the robbery was conducted does not change the fact that it was.

            In the same way, the evidence of common descent is widespread and undeniable. Even if we didn’t have a clue how this specific feature or that feature evolved, it wouldn’t change the fact that it did.

  • Rick Hartzog

    Well, one should of course have a thorough understanding of a subject before deciding how to best teach that subject matter to others. I can hardly think of a more effective argument *against* teaching creationism alongside of science than the results of that approach we see demonstrated in this very article. A few more years of high school science for you, sir! And try to learn something this time…

  • http://www.patheos.com/blogs/exploringourmatrix/ James F. McGrath

    As a Patheos blogger myself, I felt that this utterly dishonest and deceitful post required a response, and so I have offered one here: http://www.patheos.com/blogs/exploringourmatrix/2013/12/five-awful-reasons-to-teach-creationism-in-schools.html

  • A Quantum Computer

    Some hardcore ignorance and idiocy on display in this article.

  • Roger Morris

    Truly pathetic.

  • http://youcallthisculture.blogspot.com/ VinnyJH

    If the majority of Americans believe that Saddam Hussein was behind the 911 attacks, would we teach that in our history classes? Do we really want to determine the content of the curriculum based on public opinion polls?

  • http://irrco.wordpress.com/ Ian

    Is this not supposed to be satire? Posing such abysmal misunderstandings under headings like “Critical Thinking Skills”, the litany of pre-ID talking points, and the continual references to ‘specie’ as a singular of species, seems like it is an joke intended to satirise creationist cluelessness to me. Maybe I’m just optimistic that nobody could really be this stupid and be a functioning human being.

    • http://irrco.wordpress.com/ Ian

      Actually looking around the rest of the blog, it seems he really does believe this kind of idiocy. Wow. A walking advert for the cancer at the heart of modern Christendom. Very sad.

  • wfraser11

    Hi Jack. Scientific theories are supported by observations and data. There are millions of facts and mountains of data revealing that life forms have changed through time on the earth. Your criticisms in the first paragraph of your rant reveal you are a scientific illiterate. In other words, all the accredited university science departments in America, all the accredited science organizations in America and the US courts (Kitzmiller vs Dover 2005 and Aguiard vs La 1987) AND most mainstream Christian National Church Councils(who support science and evolution in particular while denouncing creationist “scientific” fraud like you pathetic article, disagree with your opening premise. Got that? You already have huge denominational, scientific and legal problems with your attacks on basic science and your bearing of false witness and attempts to mislead and deceive others about established science.
    Lets move on to your paragraph 2 and see how low you are willing to go in your attempts to pit religious faith against the scientific methodd, which you obviously hate. As a Christian, I think you need to be aware that lying about science in order to control others and support your decidedly bizarre viewpoint on modern established science is very much a non Christian behavior.
    Ok paragraph 2 of this load of manure you’ve written.
    Apparently you feel you can overturn the science of paleontology and by extension, geology, which both haver millions of peer reviewed research papers in the Library of Congresses catalog revealing hundreds of thousands of data points supporting and explaining evolution and how life changes through time. Why you haven’t bothered to read them is , well, quite revealing isn’t it?
    Paleontology and geology both have fallible, testable observations that can be made and have been for well over two hundred years of science. So, your science attack is just more ignorance deceit and rhetoric with zero data or research to back hop your claims. But, lets be fair here Jack. If you do have data or research disproving evolution or providing ANY credible scientific theory that does a better job of explaining how life has changed through time on earth, the science community would LOVE to hear about that. I’d write it all down, send it into Science or Nature and collect your Nobel Prize. I look forward to seeing that Wellman. Show us your data. Wellman, it is the BIBLE that taught people the earth was flat wasn’t it? Even the ancient greeks knew the earth was a sphere. No?
    Then you might explain why Genesis specifically says the earth is flat and resting on pillars. I’d go on Jack, but your article is loaded with such an incredible armload of giraffe dung its hard to know whee to start. Im mostly interested in what educational system you came out of and why you’re trying to get people to believe that science has anything to do with your religious beliefs.
    You are the penultimate con man, science illiterate, deceiver, rhetorical fraud and non Christian drag on mankind I have ever had the good fortune to observe!
    Well done and thanks. Charles darwin appreciates your support for his work by showing why the ignorant and unwilling to learn keep losing ground.
    NCSE website church statements, science organization statements, court statements. Epic fail Jack. Epic fail.
    Dinwit.

  • frankhpns

    Just what we need, the dark ages again. What’s next, witch trials?

  • beau_quilter

    What abject idiocy! A man who doesn’t even understand a junior high level definition of scientific law and theory attempting to expound on the pseudoscience of creationism.

  • theot58

    Excellent article; agree that Darwinian/Macro evolution is largely taught as dogma in science and has no place to be there. The scientific method demands observation, measurement, repeatability – Darwinian/Macro evolution has none of these.

    Dr John Sanford (Geneticist and inventor of the GeneGun) said :

    “The bottom line is that the primary axiom [of Darwinian/Macro evolution] is categorically false, you can’t create information with misspellings, not even if you use natural selection.”

    • lance Geologist

      Theo, still using the same exact quote! Still using your false understanding of the scientific method! The facts have been explained to you before. Why do you choose to not learn?

      • theot58

        Your arrogance and stupidity is really annoying.

        Your totally false assertion about facts being explained is the typical deception used by evolutionists to prevent honest examination of the evidence.

        Your explanations are NOT explanations at all but rather statements of blind faith and dogma.

        Consider just a small number of fundamental scientific problems with Darwinian/Macro evolution

        1) Where did the information come from to build the DNA molecule?
        – it contains over 4 Gigabits of programming data; we have never observed natural forces creating programming data
        - a building is proof of a builder, a program is proof of a programmer, a design is proof of a designer

        2) How did genders “evolve” from asexual organisms?
        - Consider some of the challenges, have a look at this video http://youtu.be/Ab1VWQEnnwM

        3) How do you explain symbiotic relationships while holding to gradual “evolution”?
        - eg. The bees need the flowers, the flowers need the bees – they both MUST exist together, how could this occur slowly or gradually
        - What came first the Chicken or the egg?

        4) Where are all the myriad of transition fossils that Darwin predicted?
        - They were missing then and they are missing now.
        - How can the Cambrian explosion of millions of fully formed organism appearing abruptly be explained by Evolution?

        5) Which “evolved” first, the vagina or the penis?
        - how did one “evolve” from the other?

        • http://www.patheos.com/blogs/exploringourmatrix/ James F. McGrath

          You asked similar questions on my blog a long time ago, and it was pointed out that your questions about the evolution of sexual reproduction and sex organs show beyond any doubt that you are not familiar with what the scientific theory of evolution actually is and says. The fact that you have not informed yourself since then exposes the full extent of your dishonesty.

          If you think that it is possible to be a liar of this sort and yet still on the side of truth, I assure you that you are very much mistaken.

          • theot58

            Typical evolutionists response – you don’t like the message so you attack the messenger.

            Your silly assertions that I am “ignorant” and “uneducation on evolution” is the typical crap that evolutionist regurgitate to hide from the fact that the Darwinian/Macro evolution myth is condemned by the observable scientific evidence.

            I say again. Which came first the vagina or the penis?

            Its time Evolutionists stop repeating the following UNscientific mantras hoping the masses will believe them,

            1) “There are mountains of evidence supporting evolution”
            2) “Noting makes sense in biology apart from evolution”
            3) “Anyone who doesn’t believe in evolution is a religious extremist”
            4) “The DNA proves evolution”
            5) “You can see evolution everywhere”
            6) “Only evolution is real science, Intelligent Design is only a myth”
            7) “All real scientists believe in evolution, those that don’t are religious nuts”

          • http://www.patheos.com/blogs/exploringourmatrix/ James F. McGrath

            Pointing out your ignorance is not attacking the messenger. Can you show me any mainstream biologist who thinks that a penis or vagina of the modern sort appeared and then slowly turned into the other? Where do you get this nonsense? Why won’t you talk about the facts, instead of making up your own ridiculous ideas and then attacking them as though they were what scientists say?

            It is time for amtievolutionists to stop ignoring the evidence and claiming that it is scientists rather than themselves that are offering mantras instead of evidence and reasoned arguments.

          • http://roguemedic.com/ Rogue Medic

            theot58,

            I say again. Which came first the vagina or the penis?

            Which came first, God’s vagina or God’s penis?

            Why does a perfect being have these pieces of anatomy?

            If God has a penis, whom does he use it on?

            If God has a vagina, who inseminates it?

            This idea of being made “in God’s image” points out the absurdity of Creationism.

            Why do Intelligent Designers (Gods) need dust to make man?

            Why do Intelligent Designers (Gods) need a rib to make a woman?

            Why is the design so horribly flawed?

            Why are the Gods replicating such a flawed design?

            Who designed the Gods and why are they designed as incompetently as humans are design?

            Creationists are the ones repeating UNscientific mantras hoping the masses will believe them,

            If there is going to be any discussion of flaws in the science classroom, it should be the flaws of the Bible.

            It would be wrong to suggest that there are not enough flaws in the Bible to fill several semesters.

            If Creationists want their Holy Penises spanked in science classrooms, we can spank their Holy Penises with their own Holy Penis-Spanking Bible.

            Fair is fair.

            Do unto others as you would have others do unto you.

            .

          • http://roguemedic.com/ Rogue Medic

            theot58,

            You started your comment with –

            Your arrogance and stupidity is really annoying.

            It was pointed out that you had all of your questions answered.

            You responded with –

            Typical evolutionists response – you don’t like the message so you attack the messenger.

            Can you provide a comment without dishonesty and misrepresentation?

            Is this part of the strategy of telling lies for God?

            .

        • Dorfl

          Where did the information come from to build the DNA molecule?

          Mutation and natural selection.

          How did genders “evolve” from asexual organisms?

          This I admit I don’t know. According to wikipedia, it actually isn’t known yet:

          http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution_of_sexual_reproduction

          How do you explain symbiotic relationships while holding to gradual “evolution”?

          The symbiotic species started out able to survive independently, and gradually became more dependent on one another.

          Where are all the myriad of transition fossils that Darwin predicted?

          In museums, among other places. As you’d see if you bothered to look, instead of just asserting that they are missing.

          Which “evolved” first, the vagina or the penis?

          Either the vagina or neither, depending on how broadly you want to define ‘vagina’. Animals had cloaca long before anything we’d recognise as a penis evolved. If you want to define a vagina as something that receives a penis, then they evolved simultaneously.

          ps. Scare quotes are a crime against language.

        • lance Geologist

          ” a building is proof of a builder, a program is proof of a programmer, a design is proof of a designer” the roof leaks, the plumbing is inefficient and prone to break down,the parts break or change to destroy the house. The program turns on itself, it changes all the time and results in a new program. The design is messed up and has millions, no billions of different patterns.
          If this is the result of a guiding “hand” then the “hand” did a poor job.
          Science does not measure a soul. “God did it” is a poor answer because it tests God.

        • lance Geologist

          “bees need the flowers, the flowers need the bees – they both MUST exist together, how could this occur slowly or gradually” The answer is being looked into but probably is the bees, in that they fed on other plants first and adapted to “flowers” “This new evidence suggests it was probably the other way around, and
          that insects like bees and wasps may have facilitated the evolution and
          diversification of angiosperms,” said Stephen T. Hasiotis, a
          paleobiologist at the United States Geological Survey in Denver and a
          doctoral student in geology at the University of Colorado at Boulder.(http://www.nytimes.com/1995/05/23/science/which-came-first-bees-or-flowers-find-points-to-bees.html?pagewanted=all&src=pm)

        • http://roguemedic.com/ Rogue Medic

          theot58,

          1) Where did the information come from to build the DNA molecule?

          Where did the information come from to build God(s)?

          -

          - it contains over 4 Gigabits of programming data; we have never observed natural forces creating programming data

          God(s) would require more information in order to be omniscient, omnipotent, . . . .

          Who programmed God(s)?

          -

          - a building is proof of a builder, a program is proof of a programmer, a design is proof of a designer

          Who designed God(s)?

          Are you suggesting that only simple things require builders, programmers, and designers, but that the most fantastic creation imagined does not?

          You expect to be taken seriously as an advocate of Creationism with this?

          .

  • Danny Klopovic

    Sadly it is Christians like this writer that bring the Christian faith into disrepute

  • wfraser11

    Jack ! The article is truly an ark load of information about “science”. Thanks !

  • http://roguemedic.com/ Rogue Medic

    Should creationism be taught alongside evolution?

    Does the hypothesis of Creationism have any scientific validity?

    Please cite valid evidence.

    In the absence of valid evidence, the answer is No.

    -

    Is it fair to give students only one theory to believe?

    Science does not make progress by being fair to beliefs, but science does make progress.

    The great tragedy of Science — the slaying of a beautiful hypothesis by an ugly fact. - Thomas Henry Huxley.

    -

    Is it legal to do so in the public schools?

    Kitzmiller v Dover made that clear –

    The proper application of both the endorsement and Lemon tests to the facts of this case makes it abundantly clear that the Board’s ID Policy violates the Establishment Clause. In making this determination, we have addressed the seminal question of whether ID is science. We have concluded that it is not, and moreover that ID cannot uncouple itself from its creationist, and thus religious, antecedents.

    Both Defendants and many of the leading proponents of ID make a bedrock assumption which is utterly false. Their presupposition is that evolutionary theory is antithetical to a belief in the existence of a supreme being and to religion in general. Repeatedly in this trial, Plaintiffs’ scientific experts testified that the theory of evolution represents good science, is overwhelmingly accepted by the scientific community, and that it in no way conflicts with, nor does it deny, the existence of a divine creator.

    To be sure, Darwin’s theory of evolution is imperfect. However, the that a scientific theory cannot yet render an explanation on every point should not be used as a pretext to thrust an untestable alternative hypothesis grounded in religion into the science classroom or to misrepresent well-established scientific propositions.

    http://web.archive.org/web/20051221144316/http://www.pamd.uscourts.gov/kitzmiller/kitzmiller_342.pdf

    .

  • theot58

    This article makes good sense.

    Darwinian/Macro evolution is being taught as a dogma in most schools and text books. Questioning this dying myth is actively discouraged and even scientist who question it are bullied and their jobs are in jeapardy (See movie “Expelled – no intelligence allowed” for details).

    The evolution battle is often MISrepresented as science against religion – this is baloney!

    The real battle is between good science and Darwinism. When Darwinian/Macro evolution is scrutinised using the scientific method, it crumbles.

    The scientific method demands: observation, measurement, repeatability. Darwinian/Macro evolution has none of these, all it has is circumstantial evidence which is open to interpretation. Ask yourself: What evidence is there that our great …. Great grandfather was a self replicating molecule?

    BRUCE SIMAT, Ph.D., expressed his frustration that Evolution is shielded from scrutiny when he said:
    “all things should be available for challenging. That has been part of my anger with science is that nothing is sacred is the norm for all other disciplines except evolution and all of a sudden it becomes the sacred cow.”

    Dr John Sanford (Geneticist and inventor of the GeneGun) said :
    “The bottom line is that the primary axiom [of Darwinian/Macro evolution] is categorically false, you can’t create information with misspellings, not even if you use natural selection.”

    It’s time to let this Darwinian/Macro evolution myth die a natural death – modern science has exposed it as a historical accident.

    • http://www.patheos.com/blogs/exploringourmatrix/ James F. McGrath

      This seems to be a self-replicating comment. As if the lies in the original post were not egregious enough, you add troll spamming in their support. It is as though you want to make sure this stance looks as unworthy of credence as possible. Well done!

    • lance Geologist

      Theo, do you ever have an original thought. Most of the other posts here have some thought involved. ALL you do is paste the exact old comments. Stop trolling and spamming.

  • Lamont Cranston

    Liars burn in hell, Wellman. Turn or burn!

  • Konrad Crist

    I note this observation from Mr. Wellman’s second paragraph where he states a series of questions about the scientific standing or validity of evolution (or lack of it):
    Perhaps he should substitute “creationism” everywhere “evolution” is questioned and see how well creationism fares in its place. If he wants a level playing field for creationism in the public schools, he must also lay creationism open to the same critical standards. If so, I wonder how he feels about the Biblical injunction against testing God?

  • Erik Griffiths

    getting real tired of this BS, creationism isn’t even a science.

  • Harek Asheim

    Come on. Creationism can’t answer even its own questions.
    Everytime anyone questions preachers, pastors, missionaries and every other bible-thumping dolt, they get all angry and refuse to answer any questions.
    It’s a childish and useless mythology still stuck in the 18th century.

    No thank you, I rather have SCIENCE, because SCIENCE makes the future happen.

  • Seems Legit

    The examples below offer a good rebuttal of the authors obvious lack of scientific knowledge. Instead of adding to that, I will propose what the author would offer as a counter proposal to teaching our children (creationism).
    ‘God’ created man out of dirt, and woman out of man’s rib. Okay this is getting interesting… Then one day after ‘god’ told the man and woman not to eat from the ‘magic-tree’, the woman was convinced by a ‘talking snake’ to eat an apple from said tree. Seems Legit! Now, seeing as there was only two people and those two people had seven children (over a period of 930 years:) -only two of the offspring were women- those siblings all had incestuous sex which eventually populated the Earth.
    I will stop there. I will only ask the author, who clearly points out evolution as only an unsubstantiated theory, to offer up any evidence to backup the claims made in Genesis…… Didn’t think so! Now why don’t you go crawl under a rock, because what you are suggesting is that we poison the minds of our children. Grow up!

  • Edward Nims

    The article is supposed to be about why one SHOULD teach creationism, but focuses on why one should NOT teach evolution (with all the mistakes and ignorance many others have noted).

    Apparently the article’s author sides with ex-(thank god)-President Bush in believing there are only two choices. Nor has it occurred to him that discrediting evolution (at which he utterly failed) would not, in fact, advance his creation ‘science.’

    Next time he wants to spout off, perhaps he should include some actual, you know, SUPPORT for creationism. That is, if he can find any…

    • http://roguemedic.com/ Rogue Medic

      Edward Nims,

      Ignoring the complete absence of evidence to support Creationism is part of the logical fallacy of Creationism.

      For them a lack of perfect knowledge is the same as proof of God did it.

      We should be addressing the abundant flaws of Creationism as much as we explain the evidence of evolution.

      .

  • tubi11

    As many others have noted, this: “despite the fact that evolution cannot be stated as a scientific law and remains, for well over a century, a theory.” invalidates everything else that follows.

    If you can’t get a simple concept through your head such as what constitutes a scientific theory, there’s really no point in responding to any of the other, highly specious claims. Nice try, though.

  • geazer

    What a bunch of hooey.

  • Mike De Fleuriot

    It the creationists can explain how species changed over time, or even how their god did the work they claim him to have done, then we might be willing to listen to what they are talking about. Until then creationism is just a guess nothing more.

  • Tim Wolfe

    You fail right from the start. It’s obvious you don’t have a clue as to what evolution is or a scientific theory. There is only one verifiable, observable explanation for our being here, and that is evolution.

  • Ploss1957

    The ignorance and/or dishonesty demonstrated in this article is mind boggling. If you want to dumb down your own kids and turn them into intellectual cripples, unfortunately that is your right, but you will NOT teach this juvenile nonsense in a public science class.

  • happy

    Former President George Bush once said

    Former President George Bush, the only President ever that wasn’t a demagogue. Great guy to quote in support of stuff. Quoting a non-scientist President on a demagogic non-scientific issue such as creationism lends a great amount of credibility to this blog post. At least he ran a clean campaign, the true measure of a man’s integrity. And sincerity.

    • http://stonesnbones.blogspot.com/ Dr. GS Hurd

      Satire and Irony are often hard to see clearly on the Intertubes.

      Also.

  • happy

    Jack Wellman is Senior Writer at What Christians Want to Know

    Great guy speaking for all Christians. Must be a wonderful fella. Totally not dishonestly “forgetting” that he can’t possibly speak for people who don’t want him to speak for them.

    • http://stonesnbones.blogspot.com/ Dr. GS Hurd

      I was amused that ‘pastor’ Jack cashed out on what Christians “want” to know, but not what they “need” to know.

      The Christ part of Christian is always missing from these creationist websites.

      • http://roguemedic.com/ Rogue Medic

        Not always missing.

        The reasonable ones appear to be much more comfortable with stating That’s what I believe and we will have to agree to disagree, rather than using the scams that many Creationists employ.

        .

  • M_J_Murcott

    Some corrections, the easiest one : Evolution is bad science. No the scientific theory of evolution is probably the most tested and scrutinized theory of all time Creationism is not a scientific theory, a scientific theory summarizes a hypothesis or group of hypotheses that have been supported with repeated testing creationism fails this basic test.

    Freedom of speech anyone can say what they want within the bounds of free speech that doesn’t mean that any random theory without any evidence should be taught in schools.

    Give parents what they want in schools – no of course not that is just a way of sustaining prejudice, schools are about education and enlightenment.
    Critical thinking and criticisms of evolution, yes all logical and scientific arguments about or relating to evolution should be taught in schools but this of course doesn’t include Creationism as this has nothing to do with science or education.

  • http://stonesnbones.blogspot.com/ Dr. GS Hurd

    Bryan Bissell has taken to sending me emails which I find particularly irritating. We are posting to a public discussion. I have no interest in holding a private one-on-one tutorial for a very unlikely student.

    • http://roguemedic.com/ Rogue Medic

      I find that when people switch to disagreeing by private emails, during a public discussion, it is to protect themselves from more public humiliation.

      .

  • Danny Getchell

    The young-Earth, Genesis literalists have had amazing results in causing thinking people to be repelled by Christianity. Surely Dawkins, Dennett, Harris et al. are envious!!

    • David Eriol Hickman

      It is true that these types of Christians do far more damage to their religion than legions of atheists could ever hope to do.

  • happy

    One example is that mutations are a good thing. I heard about a dairy farmer who had a dairy cow that gave birth to a calf with two heads. That is a mutation.

    Etc..

    That and the rest of it is so incredibly ridiculous. I can’t believe how silly that is. It’s an example supposedly of why evolution is bad science but it turns around on its head and becomes a hilarious parody of itself. Shakespeare himself couldn’t have written this scene any better. It’s one of those things that makes you feel bad for the writer for not being very “studious” on the subject he presumes to write. On the other hand he could be a total con artist who relies on that sort of sympathy. You never know. He relies on the Old Testament book of Isaiah for a description of what the New Testament Jesus physically looked like, so we know he’s capable of some high quality research, lol. (Apparently Jesus was an average looking guy.)

  • happy

    I’m sorry but this is just a stupid article. It can only do more harm than good for your religion. And look at all the mumbo jumbo religious nonsense in there too. Listen to how stupid this sounds: “It was to glorify God and to enjoy Him forever. We have a purpose in life and God’s will is that we believe in the Son of God.” What the hell kind of stupid sense is that supposed to make? Keep on saying these mumbo jumbo things. Keep on sounding silly and keep on not looking up the most basic of things with a plain simple google search. Brilliant idea.

  • David Eriol Hickman

    >>scientific beliefs pass from theory to law

    Stopped reading at that point. Clearly the author has no clue.

  • bob42

    I kept trying to convince myself that this was satire. Sigh…

  • John of Indiana

    You know, Jack,(and the rest of you daydream believers) when you go to the doctor because some “bug” is starting to make your fingers turn black, and he says “Oh, my, looks like what you have is resistant to Z-Pak, we need to try something else.”, That’s Evolution in Action. The bacteria has evolved resistance to Z-pak, and hopefully the doctor has something it hasn’t seen yet.
    Or you COULD pray to your invisible sky wizard and hope you don’t find yourself in the majority who have “Sometimes, Gawd’s answer is ‘No.’…” intoned at their funeral.
    Checkmate, gawd-botherers.

  • happy

    answersingenesis says evolution is such crappy science that it isn’t even a theory. http://www.answersingenesis.org/get-answers/features/evolution-not-even-theory .

    Jack should have read that hokey creationist page before he read the other hokey creationist pages where he got all the hokey ideas from. Those ones are even hokier than the answersingenesis people. He needs to step up his hokey game a notch. At least he doesn’t hate/deny evolution so much that he refuses to call it a theory like the spoiled little brat answersingenesis people. “Wahhhh I won’t call it a theory you can’t make me, wahhhh.”

    I wonder if Jack will ever acknowledge the existence of all of these comments. He probably thinks he’s being attacked by the devil or something. Great defense mechanism.

    • http://roguemedic.com/ Rogue Medic

      Creationism is a hokey.

      :-)

      • http://stonesnbones.blogspot.com/ Dr. GS Hurd

        Do the hokey pokey and …

  • GubbaBumpkin

    Can evolution be observed in a laboratory?

    Was that supposed to be a rhetorical question? Because the answer is definitely yes. There are many examples, but probably the most impressive one is the work of Richard Lenski.

    • http://roguemedic.com/ Rogue Medic

      The Lenski affair is a great example of this.

      Creationist Andrew Schlafly make a fool of himself with his attempts to criticize Dr. Richard Lenski’s research.

      http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Lenski_affair

      Get comfortable, grab some popcorn, and do not sip beverages while reading. Dr. Lenski has an amusing way of presenting himself and Andrew Schlafly is a glutton for punishment.

      Dr. Lenski has recently started an excellent blog.

      http://telliamedrevisited.wordpress.com/

      Creationism cannot be demonstrated in a laboratory, but Creation scientists are hard at work being sciencey. ;-)

      .

  • GubbaBumpkin

    I heard about a dairy farmer who had a dairy cow that gave birth to a calf with two heads. That is a mutation.

    Quite possibly not. It sounds more like a developmental abnormality than a genetic mutation.

    Should someone with your poor knowledge of biology be determining science education policy?

  • MNb

    Six reasons why the Flat Earth Theory should be taugh in schools – but only religious American ones.

    1. There are no criticisms of spherical earth theories.
    2. Critical skills requires questioning spherical earth theories.
    3. Give parents who accept FET what they want.
    4. Freedom of speech.
    5. Spherical Earth Theory is bad science like Evolution Theory because founded on exactly the same “scientific” principles. Teaching spherical earth theorie as fact is just plain bad science.

    6. Rejecting Evolution Theory and Spherical Earth Theory is inspired by certain belief systems.

  • Nemo

    If I’m an “evolutionist” because I accept the scientific consensus that evolution is responsible for the diversity of life, am I also a gravitationist for accepting that stars and planets form via gravity? I mean, nobody has demonstrated macrogravity in real time directly, so it must be fake. Intelligent falling is the best explanation for why things stay on the ground.

  • GubbaBumpkin

    Give Parents What They Want

    Are you pro-life? When do you think “personhood” begins?

    I ask because I have noticed an odd thing: many of the people who insist that fetuses have rights and that personhood begins at conception seem to think that children who have actually been born are the property of their parents, and that their parents should have a free hand to raise them as they see fit. This seems inconsistent to me. Don’t children have a right to a good education, regardless of the parent’s inclinations?

  • Bryan Bissell

    This is a very thoroughly done overview by Dr. William Lane Craig of the scientific evidence for God from cosmology and some from philosophy as the Creator of the Universe (he’s presented some of this at prestigious international scientific conferences on physics). It describes in detail how atheists like Dawkins are either unaware of or lying about some very elementary and solidly documented facts in those fields. It shows how the New atheists are simply incompetent at doing any objective science in those areas in most of the arguments that they make.

    The New Atheism and Five Arguments for God by William Lane Craig
    http://www.reasonablefaith.org/the-new-atheism-and-five-arguments-for-god

    Atheism at its core adopts the a priori fallacy of methodological
    naturalism that out of hand rejects following the evidence where it
    leads (nearly all atheists adopt this..probably ~95% or more). Thus atheism has committed itself to be anti-objective science almost from
    the very beginning. This is why leading atheists habitually make false claims about the actual views of Christians and creationists.

    Here’s a very egregious example of Dawkins lying in outrageous ways about the views of Christians:
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nsjDFdSOJY4

    • http://www.patheos.com/blogs/exploringourmatrix/ James F. McGrath

      How can you cite William Lane Craig as a reliable authority in support of your stance, when he rejects young-earth creationism?

      http://www.reasonablefaith.org/will-gods-judgement-be-more-tolerable-for-atheists-than-for-young-earth

      • Bryan Bissell

        Um, have you read any peer reviewed papers AT ALL? Scientists routinely cite other scientists on topics they agree with, but disagree on others. I don’t know hardly anyone on the planet that I agree with 100%, whether they be scientists, pastors, my father (a pastor) or anyone. My family is a bit famous with people we know for having some pretty rigorous debates. If I or scientists have to agree 100% with everyone we cite, well, that’d be the end of a LOT of science. A LOT. LOL.

        • http://www.patheos.com/blogs/exploringourmatrix/ James F. McGrath

          When scientists interact with scientists whose conclusions they disagree with, they do so explicitly and explain why, as a rule. No one is suggesting that scientists must agree. That is precisely what makes young-earth creationism bogus. It ignores the consensus, and happily picks and chooses scientists and other authorities to quote when it suits them, without addressing the underlying matter of how science works. If science doesn’t work, then quoting those scientists does nothing to help fringe quacks. And if science does work, then ignoring the scientific consensus simply exposes your status as a crank.

        • http://roguemedic.com/ Rogue Medic

          OK.

          You keep misrepresenting the work of others to suggest that it supports your claim of Creation science.

          You are not citing science.

          You are just citing opinion – and only when you think it supports your opinion.

          Why don’t you cite evidence that supports your claim that Creation science is not a fraud?

          .

      • Bryan Bissell

        Dr. Craig has written a slam dunk in the area of philosophy and cosmology, where he is a recognized expert. But, he has clearly not read very much on the strong science behind young earth creation science. he is NOT an expert on geology (like the Harvard educated Dr. Kurt Wise, Ph.D. in geology), or zoology (like Dr. Veith) or a geneticist (like Dr. John Sanford, pioneering geneticist from Cornell). I btw, believe it’s very likely the universe is ~200 billion-1 trillion years old based on Bible logic and scientific evidence. But, there IS most definitely evidence for a young universe as well, even though that’s not my view. And the vast weight of evidence is strongly on the side of a young age for life and this earth and good

        Science is supposed to follow the weight of evidence, NOT the least evidence. But, atheism and Darwinism habitually refuse to do that. For example we have 100 methods point age for
        life on earth and life. There are ~40 that point to an old age (and many of these are debunked by soft tissue in dinosaur fossils). What do atheists/Darwinans do? Of course,
        like all good anti-scientists, they ignore the weight of evidence and follow the least evidence.

        1) A summary of 100+ methods for laymen pointing to a young age for life and the earth
        http://creation.com/age-of-the-earth

        2) Techniques That Argue for an Old Earth Are Either Illogical or Based on Unreasonable Assumptions.
        http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/AstroPhysicalSciences24.html#wp3303729

        3) Most Scientific Dating Techniques Indicate That the Earth, Solar System, and Universe Are Young.
        http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/AstroPhysicalSciences33.html#wp2534183

        4) Many technical papers on dating methods that support a young earth are here (and I have other cites as well, but most of the scientists here have degrees from
        secular universities and do quite good work):
        http://www.answersingenesis.org/get-answers/topic/radiometric-dating

        5) Scientists on dating methods pointing to a young earth.
        http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YKbaHoINReA&feature=related

        6) Problems with the Evolutionary Geological column
        Chapter 6: Geologic Column
        http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/ee2/geologic-column

        7) Polonium Halos have long been a problem for evolutionists. Dr. Gentry has a standing challenge to any scientist about synthesizing granite that has gone unanswered for ~3 decades and counting…even though in that very meeting some
        evolutionist professor claimed he could do it in a week. See
        http://www.halos.com/videos/index.htm
        (the video with the University of Tennessee Geology Professor)

        Again we now have MANY cases of soft tissue found in fossils starting with dinosaur ones. Even leading evolutionists say that nothing in science can explain them being over 100,000 years old. See my 3 videos of them here: http://www.youtube.com/view_play_list?p=648C2EAD205F397C
        (see esp. video #2)

        I also saw the very famous dino scientist Dr. Jack Horner on TED saying that there IS soft tissue in the bones for certain here:
        http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0QVXdEOiCw8&feature=feedu

        But, already the evolution propaganda machine is moving to sweep this falsification under the rug and soon no evolutionist will ever admit that they used to think that soft tissue could last only 100,000 years. This kind of dishonesty has happened too many times to count.

        • http://www.patheos.com/blogs/exploringourmatrix/ James F. McGrath

          If you only read crank websites, they can start to sound plausible. But linking to garbage as though it were scientific research does not make your claims seem any more plausible.

        • http://roguemedic.com/ Rogue Medic

          Dr. Craig has written a slam dunk in the area of philosophy and cosmology, where he is a recognized expert.

          Those have nothing to do with evolution.

          You can’t even stay on topic, so I do not expect you to ever produce any citation of what you call Creation science.

          .

        • GubbaBumpkin

          William Lane Craig is not an expert on cosmology. He is a religious apologist. In cosmology, he cherry-picks things he agrees with and ignores the parts he doesn’t agree with.

          His grasp of mathematics is poor, he has said some monstrously stupid things about probability and infinity, for example.

          Debunking the Kalam Cosmological Argument

          In February 2014, religious apologist William Lane Craig will debate cosmologist Sean Carroll.

          God & Cosmology

      • Bryan Bissell

        Here’s
        a short summary of evidence from genetics that the genes are decaying and how it’s impossible for human genes to be over 100,000 years old. It’s by Dr John Sanford (a former atheist/Darwinianand long time professor of genetics at Cornell, renowned pioneer in genetics with ~100 published papers (referenced here: http://hort.cals.cornell.edu/people/john-sanford) who invented the famous gene gun, has 30
        patents in genetics and also founded 2 genetics companies). :

        “My recent book resulted from many years of intense study. This involved a complete re-evaluation of everything I thought I knew about evolutionary genetic theory. It systematically examines the problems underlying classic neo-Darwinian theory. The bottom line is that Darwinian theory
        fails on every level. It fails because:
        1) mutations arise faster than selection can eliminate them;
        2) mutations are overwhelmingly too subtle to be “selectable”;
        3) “biological noise” and “survival of the luckiest” overwhelm selection;
        4) bad mutations are physically linked to good mutations, so that they cannot be separated in inheritance (to get rid of the bad and keep the good). The result is that all higher genomes must clearly degenerate.

        This is exactly what we would expect in light of Scripture—with the Fall—and is consistent with the declining life expectancies after the Flood that the Bible records.”

        ‘The problem of genetic entropy (genomes are all degenerating), is powerful evidence that life and mankind must be young. Genetic entropy is probably also the fundamental underlying mechanism explaining the extinction process. Extinctions in the past and in the present can best
        be understood, not in terms of environmental change, but in terms of mutation accumulation. All this is consistent with a miraculous beginning, a young earth, and a perishing earth—which “will wear out like a garment” (Hebrews 1:11).

        ‘Mutations are word-processing errors in the cell’s instruction manual. Mutations systematically destroy genetic information—even as word processing errors destroy written information. While there are some rare beneficial
        mutations (even as there are rare beneficial misspellings), bad
        mutations outnumber them—perhaps by a million to one. So even allowing for beneficial mutations, the net effect of mutation is overwhelmingly deleterious. The more the mutations, the less the information. This is fundamental to the mutation process.’

        Does natural selection help?
        Dr Sanford: ‘Selection does help. Selection gets rid of the worst mutations. This slows mutational degeneration.

        ‘Additionally, very rarely a beneficial mutation arises that has enough effect to be selected for—resulting in some adaptive variation, or some degree of fine-tuning. This also helps slow degeneration. But selection only eliminates a very small fraction of the bad mutations. The overwhelming majority of bad mutations accumulate relentlessly, being much too subtle—of too small an effect—to significantly affect their persistence.
        On the flip side, almost all beneficials (to the extent they occur) are immune to the selective process—because they invariably cause only tiny increases in biological functionality.

        ‘So most beneficials drift out of the population and are lost—even in the presence of intense selection. This raises the question—since most information-bearing nucleotides [DNA ‘letters’] make an infinitesimally small contribution to the genome—how did they get there, and how do they
        stay there through “deep time”?

        ‘Selection slows mutational degeneration, but does not even begin to actually stop it. So even with intense selection, evolution is going the wrong way—toward extinction!’
        creation.com/geneticist-evolution-impossible

        The problem is that
        A) The changes are FAR more destructive than beneficial. FAR MORE. That is the opposite of what UCD needs.
        B) The rates at which the genome is decaying at a rate that makes it impossible that genomes could have survived for millions of years. If you deny extrapolating from observed rates of change, then you destroy the foundation of all dating methods and cannot say ANYTHING about the
        age of the earth, life, universe. PERIOD.

        Another scientist writes:
        “A simple analogy would be rust slowly spreading throughout a car over time. Each little bit of rust (akin to a single mutation in an organism) is almost inconsequential on its own, but if the rusting process cannot be stopped it will eventually destroy the car. A more accurate analogy would be to imagine a copy of Encyclopedia Britannica on a computer that has a virus that randomly swaps, switches, deletes, and inverts letters
        over time. For a while there would be almost no noticeable effect, but over time the text would contain more and more errors, until it became meaningless gibberish. In biological terms, ‘mutational meltdown’ would have occurred.” Robert Carter

        It is frequently argued that mutation rates are optimized by natural selection to enhance the long-term rate of adaptive change (e.g., Wilke et al. 2001; André and Godelle 2006; Denamur and Matic 2006). However, the logic underlying this view applies mainly to asexual populations, where beneficial mutations remain permanently linked to the backgrounds
        in which they arise (Johnson 1999a; Sniegowski et al. 2000). For sexual populations, it has proved difficult to avoid the conclusion that mutation rates are predominantly driven downward by transient linkage of mutator alleles to their deleterious side effects (Sturtevant 1937; Leigh 1970, 1973; Johnson 1999b). http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2567392/

        In addition to Dr. Stanford’s in depth book on Genetic Entropy, see these short overviews of how genetics strongly agrees with the flood. Dr. Sanford can go toe to toe with ANY genetics here with GREAT EASE in more detail that you may not see in these simple articles for laymen.

        From ape to man via genetic meltdown: a theory in crisis
        A review of Genetic Entropy & The Mystery of the Genome by Dr. John C. Sanford which presents powerful evidence for creation.
        creation.com/from-ape-to-man-via-genetic-meltdown-a-theory-in-crisis

        Dr.John Sanford (pioneer in genetics with 100 published papers, long time prof of genetics at Cornell, former atheist and Darwinian) writes in regard to genetic entropy, a backbreaker for Darwinism:
        “This book cost me a great deal. I basically laid down my reputation and my career in order to say what I believe to be the truth. I believe the real deception is clearly the Primary Axiom. I am still convinced I can persuade any impartial person that the Primary Axiom is indefensible (if they will listen). So why would I lie? I am a sincere orthodox Christian, I believe God will judge me in a very literal sense, and I consider lying is a very serious sin. I am distinguished in my field and I greatly value my integrity as an honest scientist. Yet my integrity as a Christian is much more important to me than my scientific standing. That is why I have been willing to defend what I believe to be true, even knowing that attacking this sacred cow (the Primary Axiom) would bring slander and scorn. Why would I write a book that would ruin a very good scientific reputation knowing it would make me a liar before God? ”
        (Dr John Sanford, Critic ignores reality of Genetic Entropy, The author of a landmark book on genomic decay responds to unsustainable criticisms, 7 March 2013)
        http://creation.com/genetic-entropy#txtRef4

        This site also has a good deal of information on how detrimental mutations accumulate in the genomes and cause genetic decay.
        http://www.detectingdesign.com/dnamutationrates.html

        Someone has said:
        “The greatest insult to nature is that random mutations and a non-creative ‘force’ like natural selection are credited with being responsible for all of it.” Anonymous

        That’s so true, esp. when one understands the scientific evidence well.

        • http://www.patheos.com/blogs/exploringourmatrix/ James F. McGrath

          No one was disputing your ability to copy and paste from young-earth creationist websites. You can copy and paste the same false claims all over the internet, the way other charlatans do. But it doesn’t change the conclusions of those who do actual scientific research which follows the evidence where it leads. The fact that you behave as though it did does not credit to your stance.

          • Bryan Bissell

            And I won’t dispute your ability to handwave all science that disagrees with your emotions away. Dr. Sanford spent ~30 years at Cornell teaching genetics. He has 100 published papers. You can check the link above for that. He’s spent 1000s of hours doing scientific research, which you clearly have no clue about at all.

            If you can just handwave away sites which have many scientific references/citations just because you don’t agree with them, without even reading them to be an objective and critical thinker, your reasoning ENDS all objective discussion and truth seeking completely and is a traitor even to Darwin himself who said:
            “A fair result can be obtained only by fully stating and balancing the facts and arguments on both sides of each question” Charles Darwin,1859, Introduction to Origin of Species, p. 2

            To mock research at any level is a trait of science and truth deniers, which is what you are doing.

          • http://www.patheos.com/blogs/exploringourmatrix/ James F. McGrath

            That someone has done research only supports their claim about a matter if the research was actually related to the claim in question. And even then, ignoring the consensus is mocking the entire scientific enterprise. Just picking a scientist who agrees with you when the overwhelming majority of other researchers have shown problems with his claims is self-serving ideologically-driven spin, not science reporting.

          • http://roguemedic.com/ Rogue Medic

            Bryan Bissell,

            And I won’t dispute your ability to handwave all science that disagrees with your emotions away.

            You would need to provide some science first.

            Provide valid peer reviewed evidence.

            .

          • GubbaBumpkin

            Dr. Sanford spent ~30 years at Cornell teaching genetics. He has 100
            published papers. You can check the link above for that. He’s spent
            1000s of hours doing scientific research, which you clearly have no clue
            about at all.

            He is identified on the cover of his 2005 book as “Dr. J.C. Sanford.” A scientist calling himself “doctor” is what is known as a “dick move.” Richard Dawkins doesn’t do it. Stephen Jay Gould never did it.

            All that legitimate work he did at Cornell, and for his companies does not support his recent claims of genomic deterioration. He has experience and accomplishments a) inventing gadgets and b) doing plant breeding, but he has never been considered a leading light of theoretical population genetics. None of his many legitimate peer-reviewed publications in plant breeding support his current argument, and his book is most certainly not peer-reviewed.

            Just because a book or a web site cites peer-reviewed papers does not make that book or web site peer-reviewed. Part of peer review is making sure that the author has cited the relevant works and properly interpreted the results of those papers. Another part is evaluating the techniques used to collect any new data, and making sure that the conclusions drawn are justified by that data. (This bit is relevant only for papers reporting new experimental work, not for reviews). Your creationist web sites have not been through this process.

          • Bryan Bissell

            Great red herring and misrepresentation. Plenty of scientists on both sides refer to themselves as “doctor”. Some don’t tho it’s true.

            I didn’t claim he was a leading light in population genetics. Straw man. He is a leader in plant genetics/applied genetics. He invented concepts such as the gene-gun that were
            crucial and very useful in his field and as such is most definitely a pioneer plant genetics (it’s not just breeding like a farmer, quit demeaning science).

            It’s true he was not the first to think of genetic entropy. A number of population geneticists before him had published on it and seen serious problems for Darwinism.

            Kondrashov for example published this article:
            Contamination of the genome by very slightly deleterious mutations: why have we not died 100 times over? http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/7475094

            Dr. Sanford summarizes his research that helped him realize that Darwinism just cannot be true scientifically:

            —-

            In retrospect, I realize that I have wasted so much of my life arguing about things that don’t really matter. It is my sincere hope that this book can actually address something that really does matter. The issue
            of who we are, where we came from, and where we are going seem to me to be of enormous importance. This is the real subject of this book.

            Modern Darwinism is built on what I will be calling “The Primary Axiom”. The Primary Axiom is that man is merely the product of random mutations plus natural selection. Within our society’s academia, the Primary Axiom is universally taught, and almost universally accepted. It is the constantly mouthed mantra,
            repeated endlessly on every college campus. It is very difficult to find any professor on any college campus who would even consider (or should I
            say dare) to question the Primary Axiom.

            Late in my career, I did something which for a Cornell professor would seem unthinkable. I began to question the Primary Axiom. I did this with great fear and trepidation. By doing this, I knew I would be
            at odds with the most “sacred cow” of modern academia. Among other things, it might even result in my expulsion from the academic world.

            Although I had achieved considerable success and notoriety within my own particular specialty (applied genetics),it would mean I would have to be stepping out of the safety of my own little niche. I would have to begin to explore some very big things, including aspects of theoretical genetics which I had always accepted by faith alone. I felt compelled to do all this, but I must confess I fully expected to simply hit a brick wall. To my own amazement, I gradually realized that the seemingly “great and unassailable fortress”
            which has been built up around the primary axiom is really a house of cards. The Primary Axiom is actually an extremely vulnerable theory, in fact it is essentially indefensible. Its apparent invincibility derives mostly from bluster, smoke, and mirrors. A large part of what keeps the Axiom standing is an almost mystical faith, which the true-believers have in the omnipotence of natural selection. Furthermore, I began to
            see that this deep-seated faith in natural selection was typically coupled with a degree of ideological commitment which can only be described as religious. I started to realize (again with trepidation)
            that I might be offending a lot of people’s religion!

            To question the Primary Axiom required me to re-examine virtually everything I thought I knew about genetics. This was probably the most difficult intellectual endeavor of my life. Deeply entrenched thought pattern only change very slowly (and I must add — painfully). What I eventually experienced was a complete overthrow of my previous understandings. Several years of personal struggle resulted in a new
            understanding, and a very strong conviction that the Primary Axiom was most definitely wrong. More importantly, I became convinced that the Axiom could be shown to be wrong to any reasonable and
            open-minded individual. This realization was exhilarating, but again frightening. I realized that I had a moral obligation to openly challenge this most sacred of cows. In doing this, I realized I would earn for myself the most intense disdain of most of my colleagues in
            academia not to mention very intense opposition and anger from other high places.

            What should I do? It has become my conviction that the Primary Axiom is insidious on the highest level, having catastrophic impact on countless human lives. Furthermore, every form of objective analysis I
            have performed has convinced me that the Axiom is clearly false. So now,regardless of the consequences, I have to say it out loud: the Emperor has no clothes!

            To the extent that the Primary Axiom can be shown to be false, it should have a major impact on your own life and on the world at large. For this reason, I have dared to write this humble little book which some will receive as blasphemous treason, and others revelation.

            If the Primary Axiom is wrong, then there is a surprising and very practical consequence. When subjected only to natural forces, the human genome must irrevocably degenerate over time. Such a sober realization
            should have more than just intellectual or historical significance. It should rightfully cause us to personally reconsider where we should rationally be placing our hope for the future.

            John Sanford
            .http://www.uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/respected-cornell-geneticist-rejects-darwinism-in-his-recent-book/

          • Bryan Bissell

            I have dozens of peer reviewed papers on this I can cite, by many scientists on both sides. Here are just a couple more, which unfortunately contributes to people not thinking critically or rigorously about the claims of Darwinism and makes it easier for them to accept pseudo-scientific reasoning, esp. the a priori fallacy of methodological naturalism:

            Geneticist Gerald R. Crabtree reviews evidence showing genomic mutations are degrading the 2000 to 5000 genes needed for our intellectual and emotional
            function:

            “New developments in genetics, anthropology, and neurobiology predict that a very large number of genes underlie our intellectual and emotional abilities…The
            argument that I will make is that new developments in genetics, anthropology and neurobiology make a clear prediction about our historical past as a species
            and our possible intellectual fate. The message is simple: our intellectual and emotional abilities are genetically surprising fragile.

            Between 2000 and 5000 genes are needed for intellectual and emotional function.
            . . .
            A recent study of the Online Mendelian Inheritance in Man (OMIM) database, although incomplete, indicates that about half of all human genetic diseases
            have a neurologic component, [6], frequently including some aspect of [intellectual deficiency], consistent with the notion that many genes are required for intellectual and emotional function. The reported mutations have
            been severe alleles, often de novo mutations that reduce fecundity. However, each of these genes will also be subject to dozens if not hundreds of weaker mutations that lead to reduced function, but would not significantly impair fecundity, and hence could accumulate with time. . . .

            It is very likely that within 3000 years (~120 generations) we have all sustained two or more mutations harmful to our intellectual or emotional stability. Recent human genome studies revealed that there are, per generation,
            about 60 new mutations per genome and about 100 hetrozygous mutations per genome that are predicted to produce a loss of function [7], some of which are likely to affect genes involved in human intellect. . . .we, as a species, are surprisingly intellectually fragile and perhaps reached a peak 2000-6000 years ago…”

            Our fragile intellect. Part I Gerald R. Crabtree , Trends in Genetics Volume
            29, Issue 1, January 2013, Pages 1–3

            http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0168952512001588
            or
            http://www.cell.com/trends/genetics//retrieve/pii/S0168952512001588?_returnURL=http://linkinghub.elsevier.com/retrieve/pii/S0168952512001588?showall=true

            Full text here:
            http://fc08.deviantart.net/fs71/f/2012/334/4/c/for_stardusk_by_the_wandering_kid-d5mlyaq.pdf

            4) Here’s another one by Dr. Crabtree:
            If indeed 2,000 to 5,000 genes are necessary for our intellectual and emotional stability then about one child in 20 to 50 should suffer a new mutation effecting intellectual function. Another way to state the same information is that every twenty to fifty g enerations we should sustain a deleterious mutation. Within 3000 years or about 120 generations we have all very likely
            sustained two or more mutations harmful to our intellectual or emotional stability. A test of this estimated frequency of deleterious heterozygous mutations was recently published.
            Full text here: bmi205.stanford.edu/_media/crabtree-2.pdf

          • Dorfl

            Crabtree’s argument is that the selection pressure for intelligence in humans is not as strong as it was in the past. As a result, we should expect to see some drop in intelligence over time, until it is balanced by the selection pressure that still exists.

            This argument is made sometimes, and it may or may not be true. Either way it’s not an argument against the theory of evolution, and I don’t understand why you seem to think it is.

          • GubbaBumpkin

            His most common lie: “The Primary Axiom.” Axioms are untestable. Evolution by means of natural selection is testable, and has been tested.

            Among other things, it might even result in my expulsion from the academic world.

            Which hasn’t happened. Meanwhile, Karl Giberson is still looking for a job because he had the courage to teach the science of evolution at a religious college.

            After the stunt Sanford and friends pulled in 2011, it appears that he is deliberately seeking expulsion so that he can claim he is being persecuted.
            In May-June of 2011, Sanford and his Creationist friends rented a meeting room in a hotel on the Cornell University campus. They held a Creationist symposium, then got Spring to agree to publish the proceedings. When Springer figured out what was going on, they pulled out. The proceedings were published instead by World Scientific Publishing. The copy on the publisher’s web site plays up the Cornell connection even though it was not an official Cornell event. Why is it that Christians like Sanford make such a habit of bearing false witness?

          • GubbaBumpkin

            I consider your not addressing my detailed comments on Sanford’s book (below) while repeating material you have already posted to be a form of spamming.

        • http://roguemedic.com/ Rogue Medic

          Bryan Bissell,

          You are claiming that creation science is not an oxymoron.

          Provide valid peer reviewed evidence.

          .

        • GubbaBumpkin

          It’s by Dr John Sanford…

          You have posted about Sanford earlier in this same thread, but have made no response to the criticisms I made. I find it implausible that you are known for “rigorous” anything.

          • http://roguemedic.com/ Rogue Medic

            Rigorous scamming.

            .

        • GubbaBumpkin

          In addition to Dr. Stanford’s in depth book on Genetic Entropy

          I have read it. It is a very poor piece of work. Sanford makes careless mistakes in nearly every example. He presents metaphors that are so convoluted they do nothing to enlighten the original topic. He cites some legitimate work in population genetics, but bungles badly his interpretation of it, particularly the neutral theory of Motoo Kimura. He gets his numbers wrong. He soft-peddles weaknesses in his arguments by hiding them in the appendices, if he ever gets around to mentioning them at all. He consistently fails to engage opposing evidence.

          He refers to “The Primary Axiom is that man is merely the product of random mutations plus natural selection.” where axiom is an untestable assumption. In this way he completely fails to deal with the fact that evolution and natural selection are testable, and have been tested.

          He fails completely to deal with, or even acknowledge, evidence that the earth is billions of years old and that all life on Earth, including humans, shares common ancestry. Although, quite oddly, he cites works which are thoroughly based on this finding.

          He mentions the usual and stupid Creationist arguments, such as the second law of thermodynamics, attempts to tie eugenics to evolution (completely failing of course to mention Creationist and eugenecist William J. Tinkle). He makes crackpot criticism of Dawkin’s computer models of selection.

          Whenever he gets stuck and can’t come up with a genetic argument he invokes “information,” without ever defining it or explaining how to calculate it.

      • http://roguemedic.com/ Rogue Medic

        Because Bryan Bissell changes his position like a weather vane, as long as he thinks it makes evolution look bad.

        .

    • http://roguemedic.com/ Rogue Medic

      Bryan Bissell,

      This is a very thoroughly done overview of the scientific evidence for God from cosmology and some from philosophy as the Creator of the Universe.

      Provide valid evidence.

      Without evidence, your Creation science remains an oxymoron.

      .

      • Bryan Bissell

        There is a PLETHORA of valid evidence from scientists on ALL sides in many things I have cited AND the links. You’re just choosing to be illiterate about scientifically documented facts.

        • http://www.patheos.com/blogs/exploringourmatrix/ James F. McGrath

          Valid evidence doesn’t mean claims made on web sites, especially when those claims contradict the actual evidence which is studied by those who do actual research in labs.

          • Bryan Bissell

            Valid evidence doesn’t mean being as you are choosing to be. There are 100s of citations to peer reviewed scientific journals in the posts and links I’ve posted, both secular (a LOT in Dr. Craig’s article) and Christian. BOTH count. Creationists have done so much actual research in labs. It’s a despicable atheistic lie that they have not. Atheism so often has no morals and no concern with documented facts of reality. It is one of the most egregious deniers of scientific and historical evidence in the entire history of mankind.
            There are some decent and ethical atheists to be sure. But, people like Dawkins and P.Z. Meyers and many others like them could not be more dishonest in their portrayal of the facts of science and history in
            regard to Christianity and creation science.

            If you can just handwave away sites you don’t agree with without even reading them to be an objective and critical thinker, then you can’t blame others when they do the same thing for sites you like that they disagree with. Your reasoning ENDS all objective discussion and truth seeking completely and is a traitor even to Darwin himself who said:
            “A fair result can be obtained only by fully stating and balancing the facts and arguments on both sides of each question” Charles Darwin,1859, Introduction to Origin of Species, p. 2

          • http://www.patheos.com/blogs/exploringourmatrix/ James F. McGrath

            This is not about atheism, any more that meteorology is. It is about the study of the natural world – the created order. Some creationists have certainly done research in labs, but if they told you that their research supports young-earth creationism, then they were lying.

            I discussed that popular mined quote from Darwin at a conference recently. It is amazing the way people are happy to ignore context in order to try to deceive people.

            They question is why, as a Christian, you choose to follow liars and charlatans and to repeat their false claims without doing due diligence to fact check them against reputable sources.

          • http://roguemedic.com/ Rogue Medic

            James F. McGrath,

            He returns to quote mining.

            He repeatedly lied about not quote mining.

            He still does not provide evidence to support his claim that Creation science is valid.

            When will he ever stop changing the subject and provide evidence that there is any valid Creation science outside of his fantasy world?

            Bryan Bissell is just another fraud.

            He relies on people not checking reputable sources.

            .

          • http://roguemedic.com/ Rogue Medic

            Bryan Bissell,

            Creationists have done so much actual research in labs. It’s a despicable atheistic lie that they have not.

            Then you should have no problem providing links to the research.

            Provide valid peer reviewed evidence.

            .

        • http://roguemedic.com/ Rogue Medic

          Bryan Bissell,

          Provide valid science or admit that you are a liar.

          Do not provide links to Creationist web sites.

          Do not provide links to opinion pieces.

          Do not provide links to minor disagreements among real scientists.

          Just provide links to what you claim is Creation science.

          .

        • GubbaBumpkin

          There is a PLETHORA of valid evidence from scientists on ALL sides in many things I have cited AND the links

          The book by John Sanford you cited is most definitely not peer-reviewed.

  • GubbaBumpkin

    … the Mollusc-like Kimberella and its trace fossils. Needless to say,
    these too have not changed at all. Why haven’t they evolved or changed
    by increased information as a result of “positive mutations?”

    How would you know how much information those 500+ million year old Kimberella had in their genomes before they were fossilized?

    Do you understand that evolution is about survival, not about increasing information? In some situations, increasing information may be one path to survival, but not the only one. There are plenty of examples of populations losing information along their evolutionary path; blind cave fish, for example.

  • GubbaBumpkin

    I believe that students should have the option of stating their own
    beliefs and base them upon what findings they gain in their education.

    So if a student believes that 2 + 2 = 5, they should be free to state that?
    OK.

    Do you think they should be given a passing grade for that?
    Not OK.

  • joe

    This article is so retarded, I can’t even begin where to correct it. The first point, that there are no “transitional fossils” is just flat out false. There have been thousands of fossils discovered that lie somewhere between “homo sapien” (modern man) and the ancient ancestors from which we came. Suggesting that “no single transitional fossil” exists is actually true, since if you laid 1,000 variations of skulls along the breeding line of a wolf becoming a chihuahua, which “one” would you point to as the transitional one? The fact is that yes, they are constantly finding skulls that fit somewhere between two previously discovered skulls, but this hardly debunks, but rather strengthens, the proof for evolution. “Critical Thinking Skills”…lol, nice try but I grew up in church and critical thinking is not a skill that’s encouraged in religions. “Let the parents have what they want”…yes, and most parents want their children actually educated when they go to school. Tax dollars should not go for teaching the bible, the Koran, or the Torah. That’s for Sundays. “Freedom of Speech”…ugh, a wise man once said, you can have your own opinion, but you can’t have your own facts. School is for facts. Evolution is supported by actual research across multiple disciplines of science. “Creationism” is not. “Evolution is bad science”…because you say so? At least evolution has thousands of fossil records, carbon dating, DNA sequencing, and anthropological records to back it up. Creationism has…a two thousand year old manuscript translated five times and edited together by corrupt politicians in the Medieval Ages? And……….

  • Brandon Roberts

    look creationisim should be taught in schools. because it’s fair and your always saying christians are brainwashed (only to the atheists that say that) but isn’t it the same thing if kids are only being taught evoloution they’ll believe it soley because it’s what they were taught to. and let’s look at what atheistic evoloution means (sorry not trying to bully anyone so atheists you may wanna take this with a grain of salt) that life is dumb luck and an accident and that we’re not special the only goal of life is death and that we’re all tiny little specks in the universe. so yeah that’s a good message for kids. also you can’t disprove god this is true i apologize if i offended anyone. and yeah i’m pretty sure i’ll get some mad replies. oh well make them good bye.

    • http://roguemedic.com/ Rogue Medic

      Should we also teach other anti-science beliefs?

      How much of a handicap do we want to give to bad ideas?

      Should we also teach that washing our hands is a bad idea, because Jesus opposed hand washing.

      We should explain to students why Jesus did not understand germ theory.

      Poor ignorant Jesus. Probably educated in a Creationist school.

      Or we could stick to teaching science in science classrooms.

      Why do so many Christians lie to promote Creationism?

      Is Christianity opposed to honesty?

      .

      • Brandon Roberts

        good questions i’ll answer them as tactfully and respectfully as possible
        1.no
        2. no you have to understand the only water available at the time was probaly unsanitary
        3. well fair enough
        4.of course evoloution was not a theory till at least 1800s
        5. ok but still should not the kids at least be allowed to ask questions
        6. i don’t know why why do atheists lie to promote atheisim (sorry i couldn’t help myself)
        7. no god has not and cannot be disproven many historians agree jesus existed yes there were jesus stories in mythology but they all came after jesus. so thank you for making it a good angry reply

        • http://roguemedic.com/ Rogue Medic

          Brandon Roberts,

          good questions i’ll answer them as tactfully and respectfully as possible

          Should we also teach that washing our hands is a bad idea, because Jesus opposed hand washing.

          2. no you have to understand the only water available at the time was probaly unsanitary

          You are suggesting that there was illness spread by those who washed their hands?

          Please provide evidence.

          4.of course evoloution was not a theory till at least 1800s

          Germ theory was not a theory until the 1800s.

          Germ theory is a part of the theory of evolution.

          5. ok but still should not the kids at least be allowed to ask questions

          There is a big difference between asking questions about ideas that are scientifically unsupportable and encouraging teachers to preach religious ideas that are scientifically unsupportable.

          Why have teachers pretend to be preachers.

          7. no god has not and cannot be disproven many historians agree jesus existed yes there were jesus stories in mythology but they all came after jesus. so thank you for making it a good angry reply

          None of the Gods have been disproven.

          None of the many different versions of Jesus have been disproven.

          The Gun toting Jesus of conservapedia is just as valid as any other Jesus, such as the Jesus who preached the Sermon on the Mount.

          There is no evidence that any God(s) is superior to any other God(s).

          Belief in Gods does not appear to be a rational matter, regardless of how much Pascal wanted to convince people that it was all a matter of faking it.

          .

          • Brandon Roberts

            good answers by creationisim i meant teaching kids both theories and not saying the christian god but a higher power may have created the universe in school and if evoloutions been proven than why not teach kids creationisim as well i’m not trying to bully you or undermine your theories(and i’m not accusing you of doing that with me) but kids have the right to know the two main leading theories and if we do teach one religon we should teach them all but i’m not talking about teaching religon to kids i’m just talking about teaching kids alternatives to evoloution

          • http://roguemedic.com/ Rogue Medic

            Brabdon Roberts,

            by creationisim i meant teaching kids both theories

            but kids have the right to know the two main leading theories

            Creationism is definitely not a theory.

            Creationism is not even at the level of hypothesis.

            Evolution is the only theory of how life has developed from organisms with single cells to the diversity of life we see on Earth.

            i’m just talking about teaching kids alternatives to evoloution

            There are not any valid alternatives to germ theory, but why not teach some alternative?

            There are not any valid alternatives to relativity, but why not teach some alternative?

            There are not any valid alternatives to plate tectonics, but why not teach some alternative?

            There are not any valid alternatives to aerodynamics, but why not teach some alternative?

            Why mislead students with unsupportable alternatives?

            .

          • Brandon Roberts

            fine your point but i’m not going to argue this with you have a happy life

  • Traitor The Last Antichrist

    Does that mean, that evolution can be tauhgt in churches?


CLOSE | X

HIDE | X