How Darwin Defenders Play Dirty In Advancing Their Cause

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…

Gould states…

“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.


21 thoughts on “How Darwin Defenders Play Dirty In Advancing Their Cause

  1. Today’s reading comes from the Book of Darwin: The Origin of Species.

    Chapter VII: Miscellaneous Objections to the Theory of Natural Selection

    We read:

    “I will devote this chapter to the consideration of various miscellaneous objections which have been advanced against my views, as some of the previous discussions may thus be made clearer; but it would be useless to discuss all of them, as many have been made by writers who have not taken the trouble to understand the subject. Thus a distinguished German naturalist has asserted that the weakest part of my theory is, that I consider all organic beings as imperfect: what I have really said is, that all are not as perfect as they might have been in relation to their conditions, and this is shown to be the case by so many native forms in many quarters of the world having yielded their places to intruding foreigners. Nor can organic beings, even if they were at any one time perfectly adapted to their conditions of life, have remained so, when their conditions changed, unless they themselves likewise changed; and no one will dispute that the physical conditions of each country, as well as the numbers and kinds of its inhabitants, have undergone many mutations.”

    Amen. Darwin be with you.

  2. Hey Michael, sorry for leading zunedita to your blog. He has resorted to not commenting just posting quotes from his holy books. A real testament to the evolutionist cause.

  3. zunedita373: “Today’s reading comes from the Book of Darwin: The Origin of Species. Chapter VII: Miscellaneous Objections to the Theory of Natural Selection”

    Sheesh, Zune, you gave chapter, but no verse number. Howm I supposed to find the quote?

    And you specified no version of On the Origin. Are you quoting from the King J—I mean the First Edition, Sixth Edition, or what?

    Thanks be to Darwin.

  4. Michael, Poe’s Law strikes again!

    Zune’s parody was answered by another parody of an appropriate medieval philosopher.

    And, speaking of Poe’s Law, don’t feel singled out by being called a “flat earther.” This pejorative is commonly applied to anyone who sedulously avoids new knowledge in any field. It is not confined to biblical literalists, even though this was the source.

    It’s a case of a favored theory gone bad, like “dunce.” This epithet was taken from the name of philosopher Duns Scotus, by those who disagreed with his theology. The high conical cap that he habitually wore is now called a “dunce cap.”

  5. Or “April Fool.” Same story. Those who were left behind when the start of the new year was switched from April to January were “April Fools.”

  6. Does anyone actually read Darwin’s books still ? What’s the point ? The theory of evolution has moved on quite a bit in 150 years … and Darwin’s books are only read by historians of science.
    Like Newton’s works. Like Einstein’s original papers.

  7. Darwin’s books are eminently readable. They are written in an open, accessible style, avoiding jargon. They includes many general insights, pithy observations, and quotable turns of phrase. And the basic ideas hold, despite 150 years of extension, modification, and partial obsolescence.

    Would that modern scientists wrote their original research as well.

    Although Einstein himself did write a couple of popularized books later. Then there is Steven Hawking and Brian Greene on cosmology. Sean B. Carroll and Neil Shubin in biology. The reason I enjoy reading Scientific American every month for the past 54 years is that the articles are written by the scientists who actually did the work.—sometimes I go back and read articles from decades earlier.

  8. Of course the original books are very readable, and often well-written (as in the case of Darwin), but they are not the up-to-date versions of the theory of evolution. For that you should indeed read Carroll or Shubin, those are also well-written (like Darwin’s books), but have the benefit of being very up-to-date.

  9. My favorite books to recommend for creationists are “Your Inner Fish” (paleontology), “Relics of Eden” (genetics), and “The Making of the Fittest” (selection). All written by eminent scientists.

  10. I’ve just read Carroll’s “The Making of the Fittest”: very good !
    Donald Prothero’s book on Evolution (inluding the evidence from fossils) is also quite nice.

  11. Michael, thank you for your thought-provoking comment.

    I give you books and I give you books, and still you eat the covers.

  12. What’s not working, Michael ? Books ? You want clips on MTV or something ? YouTube ?

  13. not to happy about William Dembski directing his students to go out and find out what opponents of intelligent design belief, and defend their viewpoints about ID. Posting in various hostile websites is a good idea. Now I do disagree with Dembski on this statement, “These sites provide a forum and, ostensibly, encourage discussion.” If he’s talking about Dawkins forum or PZ Myers. They have a tactical approach in censoring a discussion as outlined here by DonaldM who posted in Uncommon Descent

    “Its worth noting that on the banner head at Richard it says “A Clear Thinking Oasis”. Hogwash! I’ve spent quite a bit of time reading through discussion threads there, and even participated in a few. The minute I challenge a materialistic assumption using logic and reason alone (no bible or theology, just logic and reason), the responses I get are usually (though to be fair not every time) over the top ad hominems. In other words, they can’t refute the argument, or defend theirs, so they start calling you names. I mean, why use logic and reason when a good ad hom will do the trick, right?”

    It’s true, that can’t refute the argument, however what Donald has experienced is a tactical ploy to discourage him and others from speaking their minds. This is what PZ Myers advocates in his blog. If you go in there and attack evolution, or defend creationism or intelligent design, most people in there will attack you in the same way Donald M had experienced. But Myers does break his own rule, and tries from time to time to refute an argument. But overall, I don’t see his blog open to everyone.

  14. Michael: ” If he’s talking about Dawkins forum or PZ Myers. They have a tactical approach in censoring a discussion as outlined here by DonaldM who posted in Uncommon Descent…”

    As opposed to, say, Uncommon Dissent, where Dembski recently cut off comments on a post describing his new “peer-reviewed” paper. When his own followers produced specific instances of the paper’s errors, he said the commenters were becoming “tiresome,” and shut them down after only 7 entries, all negative. And then there is the Discovery Institute’s “Evolution News and Views.” Well, only “News” since August 2007, when they shut down comments entirely. (I was there, Charlie.)

  15. Olorin,

    I was mainly referring to Donald in particular not Uncommon Dissent as a whole. I have posted in the past on PZ Myers blog. However, I have been unable to post anything in Uncommon Dissent. I signed up and still was unable to post. I find it really strange. I know they are careful on whom they allow, because their are some who would like disrupt the blog. PZ Myers has his own polices on subject matter that can be posted in his blog. But what I was dealing with, wasn’t policies we see in blogs in general, but people’s behavior, namely militants who are against creationism or intelligent design.

  16. Michael: “But what I was dealing with, wasn’t policies we see in blogs in general, but people’s behavior, namely militants who are against creationism or intelligent design.”

    People in general tend to behave that way on blogs. I’ve been on the internet since 1982, through conference disks, Usenet, Gopher, bulletin boards, Compuserve, AOL, Yahoo groups, and blogs. The format and the remote character of the medium attracts extreme views and invective. If you think evolution/creationism is ad hominem, dial into discussions between Nikon lovers and crazed crackhead Canon devils sometime.

    I have associated professionally with academic and industrial research scientists for almost half a century. Most of them are nice people on a face-to-face basis—PZ Myers is easy to get along with in person, from several encounters. But many are opinionated. Lord Kelvin slashed his opponents mercilessly.[1] And many do not suffer fools lightly. Having followed Panda’s Thumb, Pharyngula and TalkOrigins,[2] for some time, I can say that raptor commenters descend especially quickly on people who continue to repeat the same argument, and who fail to address criticisms of their arguments. Creationist blogs, although sometimes not so slaveringly rapacious, are worse about deep-sixing contrary arguments, either ignoring them or banning the commenter.[3]

    I myself have no problems with creationism as a belief system among consenting adults. What I object to is trying to pass it off as science, especially to children. Why must science corroborate your beliefs? Are the beliefs that weak? Must you denigrate science to prop up your worldview?

    This is a major factor in the contumely heaped upon creationists, in science blogs and elsewhere: the attempts—especially by the intelligent-design crowd–to pass off religious beliefs as science. The goal of creationist sites is faith, not understanding. For scientists, whose goal is understanding, this is extremely irksome.[4][5]

    (I’ll save for another time the reasons why creationism arose and why it feels obligated to attack science as an institution. Right now, on a cool Sunday afternoon, Mozart’s 41st symphony calls. Some of the fingering in the ornamentation will require more work than anticipated..)

    [1] When someone told him that Welsh was not a scientific language, that there was no word in Welsh for “galvanometer,” he shot back, “What is th English word for it?”

    [2] In the early days, on Usenet.

    [3] Two years ago,m a commenter on UD showed that natural selection fully met Dembski’s definition of “intelligence.” After a couple of exchanges, Dembski banned her and erased all her comments. I had a similar experience when I questioned AiG about a “rock” they presented with a toy car embedded in it, as “proof” that rocks didn’t necessarily take millions of years to form. After ignoring several requests for the provenance of the rok, and the opinion of the geologist they claimed to have had examine it, they just tossed me overboard.

    [4] As religious believers find Dawkins’ and Myers’ use of science to deny the existence of God and to denigrate religious belief. I do, anyway.

    [5] A comment to a later post presented evidence as to why scientists tend to be disbelievers in greater numbers than in the general population.

  17. Sorry, that should have been Olorin on the previous comment. Blasted split personalities.

    == Chick & Gordon Bleu

  18. Nice post, Socrates Puppette.

    It won’t make any difference to Michael’s way of blogging (one-way, repetitive, copy-and-paste), but it’s always worth trying.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s