<

Creationism Lacks Qualified Spokespeople

David Berlinski, part of the Discovery Institute’s evolution-denial project, recently said about evolution:

That’s not a theory. That’s just a string of wet sponges on a clothesline.

Uh huh.  Here’s (1) a guy who’s not a biologist (2) criticizing a theory in biology (3) that happens to be the scientific consensus.  (4) Overwhelmingly.

Slick packaging and bypassing the scientific process to sow confusion among the public doesn’t change the fact that there’s no argument here.

Wake me up when the scientific consensus changes.  Until then, no layperson has an intellectual warrant for embracing Creationism.

About Bob Seidensticker
  • Bob Calvan

    Wow, Talk about blinded to your traditions. There are thousands of Christian, and Theist Scientist, that deny neo Darwinian micro mutational evolution..

    By the way macro evolutuion has never been observed in the history of mankind.. All theory and opinions. Nothing that has been proved using the scientific method. Evolution is a Philosophical argument, nor scientific.. In fact the Atheist worldview can not account for science..Only the Christian worldview can.

    • http://crossexaminedblog.com bobseidensticker

      Am I blind to following the facts? Show me.

      I know of two people with degrees in biology (we are critiquing biology, after all, so let’s only look at people qualified to do so) who have major issues with evolution.

      One is Jonathan Wells of the Discovery Institute. I’ve been to several of his presentations. He has publicly stated that he was told by his spiritual leader, Rev. Moon, that he should get a degree in biology, not to find the truth, but to undercut evolution. In other words, he has an agenda. I applaud the guy for putting his cards on the table, but this isn’t how science works.

      The other person, of course, is Michael Behe (of Darwin’s Black Box fame). Note, however, that he accepts common descent (that is, humans, whales, bananas, and all other life share a common ancestor). He’s hardly the typical Creationist (if he is one at all).

      Got any more?

      And, of course, that the Creationist contingent has been reduced to arguing its philosophy to the public, abandoning any arguments within the domain of science, makes it pretty evidence that they have a religious agenda. This isn’t science, this is religious propaganda. It’s Galileo all over again.

      • RandomFunction2

        To Bobs,

        Besides, another biologist who used to criticize evolution, Michael Denton, later recanted in “Nature’s Destiny” and he now accepts it. Even if creationists still quote him as an example of scientist denying evolution.

        Also, creationists claim that there is a scientific conspiracy to hide the truth. But which is more likely: a worldwide scientific conspiracy, which would include some believing scientists, or a conspiracy by religious fanatics?

      • http://crossexaminedblog.com bobseidensticker

        RF2: Great point about the likelihood of a scientific vs. a religious conspiracy.

        And the bizarre thing about the Creationist argument (which Bob C. hasn’t made) that there’s a Vast Scientific Conspiracy® behind evolution is that any biologist has a straightforward path to a Nobel Prize. Just blow the whistle on this decrepit house of cards and get into the history books.

        And yet none do that.

  • Bob Calvan

    Creationism does not lack qualified spokeperson’s? Where does Bob the Atheist come up with this? ( More presuppositions with out evidence) Read books from Dr. Thomas Barnes PH.D Physicist. Or, Dr Duane Gish PH.D BioChemist. Or, Kury Wise PH.D in Geology. Or, William Tinkle Geneticist, Zoologist.
    I could list hundreds but you get my point.

    • http://crossexaminedblog.com bobseidensticker

      You mean Thomas G. Barnes? The guy who doesn’t actually have a doctorate in physics, just an honorary one from a Baptist university?

      Kurt Wise has a PhD in Geology, but isn’t he critiquing Biology? I’m not sure he has any credentials here.

      I’d forgotten Gish. Hadn’t heard about Tinkle (that eugenics thing is unsavory, but maybe that’s what you’d expect for someone who was educated so long ago.

      No, I don’t get your point. And no, you couldn’t list hundreds of biologists (y’know–those folks with the PhDs in biology) who reject evolution. And yet how many biologists accept evolution? Tens of thousands, perhaps?

      When the scientific consensus has changed, let me know. Until then, no layperson has a warrant for rejecting evolution.

      • RandomFunction2

        to all,

        I challenge creationists to give me one example of an evolutionary biologist who became a creationist upon realizing the “emptiness” of evolutionism. Find one.

  • Bob Calvan

    Argumentum ad populum.. Illogical argument.

    For Bob and Function2

    • http://crossexaminedblog.com bobseidensticker

      Nope. The scientific consensus is hardly a poll of uninformed citizens.

      Don’t you feel a little odd accepting the scientific consensus in many areas (physics, chemistry, materials science, and so on) and objecting only in the one or two areas that step on your theological toes? Doesn’t that seem inconsistent?

  • Bob Calvan

    Sorry Bob,, Evolution is a Philosophical Argument.. Not a scientific one..Evolution has never been observed.

    • http://galileounchained.com bobseidensticker

      And yet evolution is the scientific consensus. As a layperson, I have no platform on which to reject or even challenge the scientific consensus.

      And while we’re at it, neither do you!

      • RandomFunction2

        I agree with Bob the atheist. Laypeople don’t have the authority to challenge the scientific consensus, and besides, scientists have made public in lots of popular books the main reasons they have for accepting evolution.

        And if you prefer to be skeptical of the scientific consensus, just tell me if it means that science is wrong in rejecting the claims of new age, scientology, mormons or other crazy cults? Would science be correct in rejecting other religions, but mistaken in rejecting yours? Does it make any sense?

  • Bob Calvan

    In case you are not aware we have two groups of Scientists both athesits. Arguing with each other over fossils..The neodarwinian micromutaional evolutionists who hold to small intermediate changes in the fossils from one specie to another. Are arguing with the Moderen Stephen Gould boys, who say since there are NO intermediate fossils form the millions we have seen..That the reason is “Puncuated equillibrium”.. That is why there are no missing links..So we have the old school evolutonist accusing the new school evolutionist of believing in a sudden one time change in a specie. Which is like a miracle.
    And this is all under the name of science. What a joke! LOL

    And the new School accusing the old school as being primitive to think there are slow changes over millions of years in fossils ,

    • http://galileounchained.com Bob Seidensticker

      Two groups of scientists? I’m pretty sure they’re all “evolutionary biologists.”

      Where’s the controversy? Looks like evolution is pretty secure.

  • Bob Calvan

    yup, both groups are evolutionary biologist. But the Punctuated Equilibrian group..Says there is not darwinain slow change from one species to another. There are no intermediate fossils. So they came up with the new idea, that new species just apeared . Which flies in the fae of Darwins theory..And the Darwinian evolutionist say they are heritics. they say for a new species to just appear is liken to a miracle. ( Kind of like Genesis tells). And think about it the Fossil record is the only visible empiracle record we have of the past animal records. And of the millons of fossils not one transitional form..Very embarising the Darwinist. That is why Stephen J. Gould ( the havyweight) made up this theory. And is causing an uproar! All Philosophy no science. That is all evolution is .. A philosophical theory with no empirical evidence. No science!

    • http://galileounchained.com Bob Seidensticker

      I’m still trying to figure out the difficulty. If you’re only saying that there are debates within science, well yeah. Obviously.

      But if you’re saying that evolution is “a theory in crisis” (as one author, intoxicated with wishful thinking, hilariously claimed) then you need to recheck your facts. All biologists accept evolution (with a handful of outliers). A hard pill to swallow, I can imagine, but there you have it.

      No transitional forms? Every fossil is a transitional form! Each is intermediate between what came before and what came after.

  • Bob Calvan

    No transitional forms? Every fossil is a transitional form! Each is intermediate between what came before and what came after.

    What! A rabbit fossil is still a rabbit fossil.. A Bass fossil is still a bass. A finch fossil is still a finch. No fossil has been found that shows a lizard turned into a bird! Or a reptile turned into a whale..Duh!

    That is why Stephen J Gould came up with Punctuated Equillibrum..Because of the embaressment of the most important part ( Proof) of Darwinian Evolution.

    • http://galileounchained.com Bob Seidensticker

      A rabbit is not the same as its parents. It’s a little different. Its offspring will be slightly more different. And so on. Get it? Speciation is simply that little change over and over and over. Eventually, that “rabbit” won’t be what we call a rabbit.

      And you’re avoiding the elephant in the room. The guys that know (the biologists) all accept evolution! Your imagined controversy is only in your head, not in reality.

      Case closed.

  • Bob Calvan

    A rabbit is not the same as its parents. It’s a little different. Its offspring will be slightly more different. And so on. Get it? Speciation is simply that little change over and over and over. Eventually, that “rabbit” won’t be what we call a rabbit.

    Huh Bob. No one denies that the rabbit changes to the envionment that is micro evolution..All agree on this,
    The point is the rabbit is still a rabbit.. You said eventually that rabbit will not be a rabbit. Really ? That is the point that has never been observed.. Is change from a rabbit to any species has never been observed..There are no fossils that show this..That is why Stephen J. Gould ( embarresed by the lack od scientific evidence) came up with a theory that says we don’t need fossils. How convenient.

    You just lied when you said Eventually the rabbit will no longer be a rabbit..Prove it? Where is your emperical scientfic evidence? Where is you fossil record of one specie changing into another specie?

    • http://galileounchained.com Bob Seidensticker

      We haven’t observed a rabbit changing into something else. But we have the fossil record showing the changes that preceeded the rabbit.

      You do see the bizarre nature of this conversation, I hope. We’re two non-biologists critiquing … Biology! The consensus view of those who count (y’know–the biologists, not you and me) is that evolution is our best explanation. What grounds could I have for rejecting that?

      As for Stephen J. Gould, show me that he rejected evolution. (That is what we’re talking about, right? Whether evolution is our best explanation?)

      But you don’t much care about this. I’m guessing that you’ve got your Christian preconceptions and you just pick and choose evidence that feels good. Am I close?

  • Bob Calvan

    We haven’t observed a rabbit changing into something else. But we have the fossil record showing the changes that preceeded the rabbit.

    Really? No we do not.. There are no fossils records of intermediate changes of Species..

    PROVE IT! As I asked you to do. You claiming it is irrelevant, aand I lie!
    Shame on you. The head man of Evolutiion Gould says there is no fossil eveidence.. But you say there is? Prove it! Thea is why Gould rejects Neo darwinian micromutation evoluton..And is now spreding Punctuated Equillibrium.

    • http://galileounchained.com Bob Seidensticker

      I can’t prove that evolution is true. Neither can science. Math can prove things, but science doesn’t.

      If you’re asking me to provide a good reason why you should accept evolution, it’s because Biology–that is, the discipline of science that is uniquely qualified to comment on the question of why life is the way it is–embraces evolution overwhelmingly as the best explanation.

      Stephen J. Gould isn’t the Pope of Evolution. But show me where Gould says that there is no fossil evidence for evolution.

  • Bob Calvan

    Gould is a giant of evolution and a scholar..And is training all the new evolutionist’s..Ok I will get you the quotes from Gould..It is sad you do not believe me. And by the way Microbiolgy and genetic biology have disproven Neo Darwinian micro mutaional evolution. I will get those quotes for you.

    • http://galileounchained.com Bob Seidensticker

      Gould is a giant of evolution and a scholar..And is training all the new evolutionist’s..

      Dude—get a clue. The guy has been dead for a decade!

      Anyway, there are lots of universities that train biologists.

      Ok I will get you the quotes from Gould..It is sad you do not believe me.

      Sure, I’ll agree that’s sad. But do you flatter yourself that you’ve given me useful data in the past so that I should know that you’re a reliable source?

      You already made a rather embarrassing error just in this post!

  • Bob Calvan

    brb

  • Bob Calvan

    Working on quotes! Yes I know Gould is dead> and he died of cancer. Just like when I speak of Greg Bahnsen , and speak of his students like Gary Demar I do not speak of Dr. Bahnsen in the past ..Gee! Forgive me.
    My point is Gould trained a whole new group of evolutionist who do not hold to Darwinain micro mutational evolution. In fact Gould’s punctuated equillibrium holds to creationism.. Which Gould railed against. Gould’s view on the fossil record is the same as the creationist.. Except where we say God created each species, Gould would reject with other reasons why new species would appear with out fossil transitions.
    Sorry I speak of dead people in the present..

    • http://galileounchained.com Bob Seidensticker

      Gould’s punctuated equillibrium holds to creationism.. Which Gould railed against.

      So did Gould reject evolution? I don’t think so.

      There are debates within Biology, but let’s be clear about what that debate is about. Biologists don’t reject evolution. You do. You’re out of step with the people who actually understand this stuff. That should give you pause (though I’m sure it doesn’t).

  • Bob Calvan

    Stephen J. Gould isn’t the Pope of Evolution. But show me where Gould says that there is no fossil evidence for evolution.

    I can play the same game as you.
    You should have said: Stephen J. Gould WAS NOT (past tense) the Pope of Evolution. But show me where Gould SAID ( past tense) that there is no fossil evidence.

    You sentence is present tense. Not past tense. How embarrassing error you made in your post.

  • Pingback: yellow october


CLOSE | X

HIDE | X