In the Creationism and Intelligent Design debate against evolution, one notices that the likes of Eugenie Scott from the NCSE and others play dirty. What do I mean by that? Let me give you two classic examples…
Darwinism defenders will sometimes compare creationists or intelligent design proponents to flat-earth believers. The ancients like the Greeks knew a lot about astronomy because much of the navigation purposes had to do with their variant of Baal worship.
The Greeks conducted experiments by evaluating a variety of evidences, including the earth’s shadow during a lunar eclipse and the changing sky as one travels northward and southward. Eratosthenes calculated the circumference using geometry to within 3.5% of the true value.
There is no evidence the early church widely accepted any belief in a flat Earth even Stephen Jay Gould who was a very popular Darwinist defender in his day, concluded from a study of their writings that the main goal of both Draper and White was to discredit Christians who opposed Darwinism.
Gould also noted that it wasn’t the myth about believers in a flat earth which caused religion to start a war with science, but rather it’s birth started after the creationism vs evolution conflict. In Chapter 4: The late birth of a flat earth in Dinosaur in a Haystack, Harmony Books, New York, p. 41, 1995…
“As another interesting similarity, both men [Draper and White] developed their basic model of science vs. theology in the context of a seminal and contemporary struggle all too easily viewed in this light—the battle for evolution, specifically for Darwin’s secular version based on natural selection.”
“No issue, certainly since Galileo, had so challenged traditional views of the deepest meaning of human life, and therefore so contacted a domain of religious inquiry as well. It would not be an exaggeration to say that the Darwinian revolution directly triggered this influential nineteenth-century conceptualization of Western history as a war between two taxonomic categories labeled science and religion.”
So this common ridicule heaped on creationists of all types today was artificial, or another words it was a lie and then accepted into various text books that were taught in public schools…A classic example of playing dirty.
The second example is about Sir Isaac Newton. Eugenie Scott, an anthropologist who is now working with a special interest group. Dr Scott was asked about if Newtonian physics would qualify as “science” given the fact that Newton was a creationist. Keep in mind Eugenie Scott was testifying against intelligent design. Her response was that Newton’s belief was only a doctrinal one and that he was very committed to keeping it separate from his research on physics. So she claim Newton was only going by naturalistic causes with his research.
Some say she is simply incorrect, I say she is a downright liar who has deluded herself into believing something which is not true and making good money doing it! Strong words right? Indeed, here is why…
In General Scholium which is the introduction to Principia, Newton stated this…“Though the bodies may, indeed, preserve in their obits by the mere laws of gravity, yet they could by no means have, at first, derived the regular position of the orbits themselves from those laws…Thus this most beautiful system of the sun, planets and comets could only proceed from the council and dominion of an intelligent and powerful being.”
After stating something like that would you think if Newton had been living today and was appointed by Obama would he of been still qualified under defenders of evolution rules for a science position in the White House? I don’t think so.
After reading that I cannot believe anyone can truthfully say that Newton was working hard on keeping creationism out of science. This is why I called Eugenie Scott who is considered an ‘expert’ on the subject, a liar.
So you see this is how Darwin defenders play dirty in advancing their cause which is evolution.