How Evolutionary Science Is Being Used Today

With creationism and intelligent design being at the forefront of alternative views on science other controversies have surfaced with evolution. Reporter, Suzan Mazur sums it up this way as she tells her story…

“The National Center for Science Education director Eugenie Scott told me that her organization does not support self-organization because it is confused with intelligent design “design-beyond laws” as Michael Behe, a biochemist at Lehign University describes it. NCSE also pays lucrative fees to conference speakers who keep the lid on self-organization by beat the drum of Darwinian natural selection.”

“NCSE and its cronies completely demonize the intelligent design community, even those who agree with evolution happened. Religion is not a target since even National Academy of Science embraces religion. So it seems the real target is those who fail to kneel before Darwinain theory of natural selection and prevent the further fattening of the Darwinain industry tapeworm.”

-The Alternberg 16: An Expose of the Evolution Industry, p. 132.

The philosophy of evolution which is practiced as a religion and valued enormously by those hardcore evolutionists like Dawkins that consists of the following: corner the market and control the flow of information. Is this really about origins, God vs. evolution?

Yes and no. If it was just about God being the creator, self-organization (putting necessity into evolution) would be an widely accepted long ago as an alternative that would be discussed and reported by secular media outlets and secular science journals. But according to militants, the public is not smart enough for them and fear it might sway public opinion even further away from evolution.

This is why a closed system is a problem with the advancement of science! Instead of ideas being freely given and expressed, it has a one-party system that lacks accountability, that also lacks the tough questions which are seldom asked by the media.

A one-party system that doesn’t like to discuss weaknesses in evolution that can be observed by the public because of creationism and intelligent design while hanging on to their market share. Public money is being used to pay people to control information about science while attacking the public’s Christian or religious beliefs or in some cases using religion to get people to accept evolution to a desired level and create the most expensive story that holds no relevant  knowledge, the world has ever seen. It’s in desperate need of reform!

Advertisements

13 thoughts on “How Evolutionary Science Is Being Used Today

  1. “The philosophy of evolution which is practiced as a religion …”

    What nonsense … evolutionairy theory is a scientific theory, whether you like it or not.

    But I am disgressing … there are some open questions still:

    (1) Blog readership numbers ?

    (2) Your qualifications to discuss any scientific subject, in response to the challenge to Olorin.

    (3) A substantive review of Signature in the Cell, promised for August 2009.

    (4) outstanding question from Upson Downes on mitochondrial Eve

    We’re still waiting for the answers, some of which are really, really easily given.

  2. Michael,

    I still want you to refute me on what I show about the bacterial flagellum. . . .

    . . . the flagellum IS NOT EVEN IRREDUCIBLE. — In 1988, G. Kuwajima was able to remove ONE-THIRD of the 497 amino acids from the flagellum, AND IT STILL WORKED PERFECTLY!!!!! . . . Also, we know that the L and the P-rings can be taken away from the flagellum, and it will STILL work. . . .

    Still waiting for a refutation . . . .

    And while you’re at it, answer Eelco’s challenge. . . He’s been asking you that forever. The least you can do is have the charity to answer at least ONE of his questions. . . . BE A MAN!!!

    -hums jeapordy-

  3. Michael,

    With creationism and intelligent design being at the forefront of alternative views on science other controversies have surfaced with evolution.

    Uhhh, correction, Michael. Creationism and ID are NOT alternatives to Evolution . . . “Ignorance is,” . . . as one useful quote about the issue says.

    The philosophy of evolution which is practiced as a religion and valued enormously by those hardcore evolutionists like Dawkins that consists of the following: corner the market and control the flow of information.

    Only people ignorant of evolution call it a religion. . .

    True, Dawkins is a hardcore evolutionist, but then so am I. — But Dawkins is an Atheist, and I am a Christian. . . So do not oversimplify putting us all in one tent.

    Is this really about origins, God vs. evolution?

    No, it’s not! Evolution is but another creation of God.

    Instead of ideas being freely given and expressed, it has a one-party system that lacks accountability, that also lacks the tough questions which are seldom asked by the media.

    What ideas? What has Intelligent Design ever contributed? — Nothing!! That’s what. It’s only a negative argument. You cannot build science on just negative arguments.

    A one-party system that doesn’t like to discuss weaknesses in evolution that can be observed by the public because of creationism and intelligent design while hanging on to their market share.

    If you mean by “weaknesses” that out understanding of evolution is imperfect, then scientists are fine with talking about that.

    Public money is being used to pay people to control information about science while attacking the public’s Christian or religious beliefs or in some cases using religion to get people to accept evolution to a desired level and create the most expensive story that holds no relevant knowledge, the world has ever seen. It’s in desperate need of reform!

    Science is not attacking Christianity. Evolution is not God’s enemy. It is not religious one way or the other. It is agnostic, so you are just spouting out typical Creationist anti-science.

  4. Eelco,

    I guess you could think that Michael is not answering either of our challenges to him because it would show he is unqualified to give any answer that really justifies his view, . . and you’d be right.

    But I’m starting to suspect another reason why he ignores us. . . . I think it is for the sake of getting hits on his site. The more he doesn’t respond to us, the more likely it is we will come back and boost his numbers.

    — Just my own lil conspiracy theory.

  5. @krissmith777

    hmmm, interesting theory !

    Michael, what do you make of this idea ?

    Oh, of course, Michael is not going to tell. I’ve never understood conspiracy theories very well …

  6. A one-party system that doesn’t like to discuss weaknesses in evolution that can be observed by the public because of creationism and intelligent design while hanging on to their market share.

    Exactly. Ms. Scott actually claimed that “there are no weaknesses in evolutionary theory”, a hilarious claim that was echoed by the active participants on this blog.
    Susan Mazur’s book on the Altenberg 16 exposes that lie — with great style. Watch as evolutionists refute core principles of neo-Darwinism and claim at the same time that there are “no problems” with the theory. It just needs to be “reformulated” because so many of its claims and predictions have been falsified. Classic Darwinian-doublespeak at work.

    Thus we have EES and self-organization theories which are more attempts to put band-aids on the gaping wounds in the Darwinian fairytale. And the new concepts might even be more absurd than the prior versions — thus generating more controversy among evolutionists (who are careful to cover-up their own internal disagreements).

  7. To me, one of the most interesting things about evolution is that all over the world you will find that the least complex fossils will be found in the deeper layers of the earths crust while the most complex are closer to the earths surface. This suggests that organisms become more complex over time. We are looking for answers beyond faith. Beyond that, arguing complexity isn’t evidence. At any rate, it isn’t enough, if it was the scientific community would be happy to see it as so because scientists are not coconspirators, they are competitors looking for the big discovery that will make a name for themselves. That means that for evolution to withstand almost 150 years of skepticism, it must be a pretty good theory!
    BTW: The judge who ultimately ruled against intelligent design being taught in science classes was a republican appointed by George W. Bush who had previously been an advocate for it. He was eventually convinced, by the evidence, that intelligent design wasn’t a scientific theory and should not be taught in science classes.

  8. creationbydesign . . . . . . . . . . on June 20, 2010 at 7:42 pm

    This is why a closed system is a problem with the advancement of science! Instead of ideas being freely given and expressed, it has a one-party system that lacks accountability, that also lacks the tough questions which are seldom asked by the media.

    Wow!

    Are these the same (“liberal”) scientists who design the drugs that you take for your high blood pressure? Maybe you should instead consult an exorcist to kick out your blood-pressure demon.

    Are these the same scientists who use evolutionary geology to find oil and coal deposits to power your technotoys? Maybe you should insist that oil companies hire biblical exegetes instead.

    Are these the same scientists who design GPS satellites using the constant speed of light for the past 14 billion years to keep you from getting lost? They will lead you astray; you really should instead follow revelatory commands from Heaven.

    Michael and his ilk (yes, you, creationbydesign) smugly accept the fruits of modern technology based upon theories that they deny. Now THAT is true hypocrisy.

    Michael wonders how humans could have existed for 35,000—or was it 80,000-100,000, or 850,000, or (most recently) 955,00?—years without developing so much as the iPad. Maybe it was because they were creationists.

    We were all creationists until just a couple of centuries ago. Then look what happened.

    Wow!

  9. Q: How do you know when the lies and falsehoods of evolutionists have been successfully exposed?

    A: When, instead of defending their own theory, they change the topic and start attacking creationists.

    Case in point:

    Maybe you should insist that oil companies hire biblical exegetes instead.

    you really should instead follow revelatory commands from Heaven.

    ilk … theories that they deny. Now THAT is true hypocrisy.

    Maybe it was because they were creationists.

    When defending Darwinism becomes too embarrassing, change the topic and attack creationists. It works every time!!!

  10. I might feel just a little abashed about CbD’s comment, except for one awkward fact.

    Creationists spend NONE of their time digging up evidence for their own theory. Every argument they make is an attack on mainstream science.

    If you disagree, please present any positive physical evidence that the universe was created all at once (sun, stars, earth, etc.), or that creation occurred over six earth days, or that different “kinds” of animals and plants have identifiable boundaries, or that plants were created before animals, or that there was light before the sun came into existence.

    Or maybe you could discover the source of the water for the Noachian flood, since the amount of water needed for this project is about 100 times as much as the total amount of water on the earth. Or you could discover the evidence that light did travel slower in the past, by a factor of about 100,000. Or you could conduct investigations and determine which creation day produced bacteria and viruses.

    It is truly ironic that creationism, which denies science, cannot exist except by attacking it.

  11. Creationists spend NONE of their time digging up evidence for their own theory.

    Lies and distortions exposed again — and so easily.

    http://www.biomedcentral.com/content/pdf/1471-2105-10-452.pdf

    You know it’s getting bad when evolutionists can’t even successfully attack intelligent design as a diversionary tactic. But I guess that’s better than actually trying to defend neo-Darwinism.

  12. CbD, I skimmed the paper you cited, and wonder how in the world it might constitute any evidence for a six-day creation? Or for a 6,000 year age of the earth? Or for a wold-wide flood?

    Or, more broadly, how this paper might constitute any positive evidence of creation or design in any way. Remember that I took you down for a complete lack of any positive evidence for your own theory, and charged that you only scavenge possible negative evidence against evolution from mainstream science.

    Guess what? You just did it again!

    .

    The point here is that evidence against Theory A is not evidence for Theory B. All scientists understand that, but it seems beyond the comprehension of creationists. One more reason why creationism is not science.

  13. CbD, thanks for citing the paper describing the Skittle genome visualization tool. It turns out that I once wrote a patent application for a similar tool for inherited traits in animals. Because animals used for these studies typically have large litters and complex mating histories, it is very difficult to suss out regularities from conventional genealogical trees—“TMI* as the teen-agers say; too much information. The invention simplifies the display of genealogical data to make inheritance patterns more apparent, while preserving relevant info, such as sex linkages.

Leave a Reply

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

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com 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