Evolutionists Confounded That Creationism and ID Will Not Die

Militant evolutionists have worked hard in attempt to get rid of creationism and intelligent design and they so naively thought that the Dover case back in 2005, was the nail on the coffin. But this has not been the case rather it has confounded them to the utter most with great concern.

For those who are not familiar with the Dover case, the whole point was not about teaching alternative theories in the classroom but instead it was about allowing students to hear a brief message that other material supporting intelligent design was available in case they were interested. By the way, intelligent design is not the same as creationism. Those there some areas of agreement but overall it’s not the same. A critical analysis of it was written here.

New Scientist, John Farrell puts points his finger at the Discovery Institute which he gives most of the blame…

“None of this means that the Discovery Institute, the Seattle-based think tank that promotes intelligent design, has been idle. The institute helped the conservative Louisiana Family Forum (LFF), headed by Christian minister Gene Mills, to pass a state education act in 2008 that allows local boards to teach intelligent design alongside evolution under the guise of “academic freedom”.

Really John? Where in the school’s textbooks are you seeing this? Is the school teaching about intelligent agents providing information to DNA for the origin of life? Barbara Forrest, philosopher who is a long-time activist with the NCSE makes an absurd claim that Louisiana is going to start teaching intelligent design next year. All this means is, Forest is very worried that children will have access to creationist materials (if they desire them) and the focus of her troops that normally fight for her cause have shifted elsewhere in a troubling year popular wise for her preferred political party.

This same Barbara Forrest believes that self-organization and self-assembly which are non-Darwinian mechanisms with naturalistic origins would lead the public towards creationism or intelligent design. The fact of the matter is, the American public is already there! This is the same Barbara Forrest who believes showing weaknesses in evolutionary theories is intelligent design. The fact of the matter is, science theories have weaknesses and it depends upon the pattern of those weaknesses and how that affects the theory. The establishment is stacked and under the influence of grant money which holds to faith in evolutionary theory.

A friend of mine son who is in his first year of college, who has been home schooled prior to that, who was also given evolutionary biology as an easy “A” class by his counsellor has found out that his University biology textbook the previous year was openly making anti-religion comments. So much so that students complained about the textbook which prompt the school to replace it this year with a more traditional textbook which claims evolution is an indisputable fact.

So creationism and intelligent design have confounded evolutionists who thought or were hoping that creationism and intelligent design would have died at the hands of a state judge who ruled what was science and what was not, and what the students could be told and what they couldn’t be told. In the end, both are alive and well!

Advertisements

21 thoughts on “Evolutionists Confounded That Creationism and ID Will Not Die

  1. “… which holds to faith in evolutionary theory.”

    Nobody holds faith in a theory. That is not what science does. You still do not even get the basic methodology of the scientific method: it does not involve faith.

    “… which claims evolution is an indisputable fact.”

    Which it is. Michael, please remember that there are the facts of evolution (the observations) as well as the theory of evolution.

  2. Why should we be confounded by creationism still being around? I certainly am not. Of course willfull ignorance will always exist.

    A friend of mine son who is in his first year of college, who has been home schooled prior to that, who was also given evolutionary biology as an easy “A” class by his counsellor has found out that his University biology textbook the previous year was openly making anti-religion comments.

    If the book is anti-creationism, then it is NOT anti-religion. — IF the book goes into rhetoric against Jesus, then let’s talk.

  3. Yes, why are creationism, and its illegitimate offspring, ID, still around?

    You might try reading the 2002 book by Michael Shermer and Stephen Jay Gould, “Why People Believe Weird Things: Pseudoscience, Superstition, and Other Confusions of Our Times.”

    Then you might ask yourself, why did all those people drink Jim Jones’s Kool-Aid? And you might begin to appreciate the things people will do under the influence of an irrational belief.

  4. Creationism won’t die, but it has given up on scientists. They are no longer an audience to be won over, but only The Enemy, to be jeered and impugned. Phillip Johnson in particular hoped to publish papers and books that would convince evolutionary biologists to cede a place for a creative intelligence outside natural law. That effort fell flat.

    The Discovery Institute maintains a nominal “laboratory,” but it produces and publishes no research. Answers in Genesis and the Creation Research Institute pretend to publish journals whose papers seem to be reviewed only by the editor, or even by the authors themselves. Their style is designed only to dazzle laymen; their content is too elementary to be of any use to actual scientists.

    Along that line, Eelco may get a laugh from a paper in Answers Research Journal dated 22 September 2010.

    Azulno, the speed of light has always vexed creationists. But now, creationist luminary Jason Lisle has overcome this stumbling block, making the cosmos once again safe for the Bible. Dr. Lisle focuses upon the definition of simultaneity in his paper “Anisotropic Synchrony Convention—A Solution to the Distant Starlight Problem” Dr. Lisle contends that everyone accepts Einstein’s choice of simultaneity, which assumes that the speed of light is the same in all directions. However, there are other self-consistent possibilities, and Einstein himself, Lisle contends, considered an “asymmetric” convention, wherein light speed is infinite in one direction and slower than c in the opposite direction.

    While neither of these conventions can be tested or falsified, Lisle claims that his asymmetric convention accords with the biblical account, and is therefore to be preferred.[1] That is, he claims that Genesis uses this convention.

    While we need Eelco’s help in assessing the darker corners of this hypothesis, a layman such as myself (or Michael?) might make an observation. Ahem: If both conventions are merely assumptions, and neither can be tested, then, while we can’t demonstrate that the Einstein convention is “correct,” the creationists can’t show that their convention fits “reality” either. Or that is is more than merely one of an infinity of noses of wax that can be bent to fit any desired hypothesis. So what? Seems to me it’s similar to the geocentrist crowd devising a consistent coordinate system in which the universe does revolve around the Earth. However, such a system leads to problems beyond its mathematical complexity, such as the orbital speed of Pluto exceeding the speed of light.

    Now, Lisle does advert to possible criticisms, but he claims that there is other evidence. Eelco may be interested in some of these points. For example, Lisle claims that blue giants have such short lifetimes that they could not have existed billions of years ago, and that spiral galaxies could not last for anywhere near a billion years without wrapping their arms into their cores and sputtering out.[2]

    So, dig in and let us know. That is, if you can take the time away from real science.

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

    [1] Even though he admits that the Einstein convention has simpler math, and is to be preferred fro calculations. Lisle compares this to preferring metric measurements over English—both are valid, but one is easier in calculations.

    [2] He also trots out the standard canards about the young rings of Saturn, the moons that spout plumes into space, etc.

  5. So why did the connection never hit me until I read this AiG paper on the starlight problem??

    For months I’d wondered why Michael finds the idea of dark matter so repulsive.[1] But of course! One of the chief creationist evidences against an old universe is that spiral galaxies cannot maintain their shape for more than a few hundred million years,[2] but astronomers claim some of them are billions of years old.

    The refutation of this claim involves dark matter. Dark matter is what allows the spiral galaxies to age so gracefully, and prevent their collapse.

    Why did Michael not yield up the reason for the dark-matter antipathy? Probably because he is too ignorant of this—or any other—field of science to realize what the reason actually is.</strong? He is merely blindly relying on his creationist sources, who tell him that dark matter is of the Devil … because, after all, it's dark.

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

    [1] Sorry; the pun was assuredly intended.

    [2] Which is still 100,000 times as long as their time scale, but what is five orders of magnitude among friends?

  6. This same Barbara Forrest believes that self-organization and self-assembly which are non-Darwinian mechanisms with naturalistic origins would lead the public towards creationism or intelligent design.

    Michael, Michael! Self-organization and self-assembly are “non-Darwinian” only in the sense that atomic energy is non-Darwinian. That is, they have nothing to do with heritable variation or with natural selection.

    And why would Prof. Forrest—or anyone else, for that matter—believe that self-organization or self-assembly would lead people toward creationism? Especially if they are “natural” in essence. This is contradictory on its face.

    Of course, self-organization and self-assembly are not natural forces. They are not forces of any kind. Michael again seems not to have the slightest idea what a “force” is.

  7. … evolutionists who thought or were hoping that creationism and intelligent design would have died at the hands of a state judge who ruled what was science and what was not,…

    Oops. Michael again displays a tenuous grasp of the facts. The judge who presided over the Dover trial was a federal judge, not a state judge.

    And it dioes seem rather ironic that Judge Jones was appointed by George W. Bush, with the full backing of Senator Rick Santorum. Yes, the same Sen. Santorum who inserted the infamous creationist language into the comments on the No Child Left Behind Act. And who was praised by none other than William Dembski as the perfect judge to hear the Dover case, because of his impeccable views. And who confessed afterward that he himself went into the trial with a slight bias toward intelligent design.

    In Judge Jones we have an exemplar of the persuasiveness of the evidence for evolution, and the utter lack of qualifications of ID as science. And, by the way, of its inescapable connection to creationism.

    .

    Michael’s second mistake in the above snippet is in saying that the Dover trial held that creationism was not science. That decision had been made much earlier, by the Supreme Court of the United States, in Edwards v Aguillard (1987). While Michael may cavil that ID is legally not science only in one region, he must know that creationism is not science everywhere in the whole country. (Although everyone—including the Discovery Institute—believes that, after the thorough thrashing that ID received in Judge Jones’ opinion, there is zero chance that any court will ever disagree with its verdict.)

  8. Olorin said, “Oops. Michael again displays a tenuous grasp of the facts. The judge who presided over the Dover trial was a federal judge, not a state judge.”True, but his ruling was local. Opps Olorin, you don’t have your facts straight, the case was not over teaching ID in the public school but rather “a statement promoting intelligent design (saying a book was available in the library) was to be read aloud in ninth-grade science classes when evolution was taught.”So if it’s over a positive message of a book rather than the actual teachings of it, why would Judge Jones have to rule on whether ID is a science or not? Can’t you find Roman and Greek mythology in a public school library? Those are religions, wouldn’t that be in violation of your church and state or do they have to make a positive message about it first and then connect to a science class?

  9. Olorin said, “Oops. Michael again displays a tenuous grasp of the facts. The judge who presided over the Dover trial was a federal judge, not a state judge.”True, but his ruling was local. Opps Olorin, you don’t have your facts straight, the case was not over teaching ID in the public school …

    The fact remains that Michael said that Jones was a state judge, which was wrong. Michael also claims I said that the case was about teaching ID in a public school. Michael, please find the place in my comment where I said that. Again, Michael has his facts wrong.

    Dover was not about teaching ID in a public school. Dover was about introducing ID into a science class.

    Can’t you find Roman and Greek mythology in a public school library? Those are religions, wouldn’t that be in violation of your church and state or do they have to make a positive message about it first and then connect to a science class?

    Michael again demionstrates his misunderstanding of the case. Roman and Greek mythology are indeed taught in schools—buut not in science class. Even Michael would object if the physics teacher referenced a book on Zeus in a unit studying the cause of thunder. Just so, the Dover decuision does not proscribe teaching intelligent design—or creationism—in a course on mythology.

    What Dover does enjoin is the use of ID as a scientific explanation in a science class. Michael seems not to have noticed that the offending statement[1] was to be read only in a biology class, and therefore offered ID as science. The decision in Dover was that ID is a religious belief, without scientific credibuility, and therefore is prohibited in a science class as a violation of the Constitution.[2] The Constitution does not, of course, prohibit teaching a scientific theory that may have religious implications; this is why the Dover decision was required to demonstrate that ID is not science.

    Yet another subject in which Michael seems to be considerablty less than fluent.

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

    [1] Read the actual statement. Then tell me with a straight face that it does not propose ID as a scientific theory.

    The Pennsylvania Academic Standards require students to learn about Darwin’s Theory of Evolution and eventually to take a standardized test of which evolution is a part. Because Darwin’s Theory is a theory, it continues to be tested as new evidence is discovered. The Theory is not a fact. Gaps in the Theory exist for which there is no evidence. A theory is defined as a well-tested explanation that unifies a broad range of
    observations.

    Intelligent Design is an explanation of the origin of life that differs from Darwin’s view. The reference book, Of Pandas and People, is available for students who might be interested in gaining an understanding of what Intelligent Design actually involves. With respect to any theory, students are encouraged to keep an open mind. The school leaves the discussion of the Origins of Life to individual students and their families. As a Standards-driven district, class instruction focuses upon preparing students to achieve proficiency on Standards-based assessments.

    [2] Specifically, the First Amemndment’s establishment clause, under the Supreme Court’s test in Lemon v Kurtzman, 493US602 (1971). (Curiously, this case also arose in Pennsylvania.)

  10. Olorin,

    “Dover was not about teaching ID in a public school. Dover was about introducing ID into a science class.”Referring to one book and not discussing it, is really a very vague introduction. My history teacher introduced me to Jesus when he mentioned Him (as we were going through all the history periods but didn’t discuss any further) now was that a violation of your church and state? Shouldn’t have been a court case on whether or not Jesus actually existed to make the introduction into a history lesson?

    “Intelligent Design is an explanation of the origin of life that differs from Darwin’s view. The reference book, Of Pandas and People, is available for students who might be interested in gaining an understanding of what Intelligent Design actually involves.”

    That statement doesn’t actually endorse ID as a theory, the wording is watered down and is introduced as a “explanation” which opposes Darwin’s view and then refers them to a book if they want to know what it involves and that’s as far as they go. That’s not in violation of any law. M-theory for example, is not really a theory but has been elevated to one, it’s several different ideas but no evidence exists for it which would agree with the statement below…

    “A theory is defined as a well-tested explanation that unifies a broad range of observations…Because Darwin’s Theory is a theory, it continues to be tested as new evidence is discovered. The Theory is not a fact.”

    This statement could have been more clearer with defining soft science and hard science. The statement suggests evolution is soft science. There has been a broad array of falsifications among it’s predictions, for example, one-cell animals are not simple creatures but highly complex, junk dna is not junk after all, defenders of evolution call this progress, all it does is place them back to square one.

    Other weaknesses that make evolution into the soft science side…

    Lack of specifics- For example, variation. Variation to what exactly? A recent study reported in Nature on fruit flies was conducted. Scientists were able to force the fruit flies into producing variation 20 percent times more than normal. After 35 years of this experiment, the fruit flies lived shorter lives, weighed less, and were more prone to starvation than previous generations. There were numerous mutations created but none of them caught on while the experiment was running into variation limitations rather than unlimited ones!

    Lack of specifics even with better data that is unable to confirm it, holds no practical purpose especially if it’s considered a theory!

    The church and state ruling back in the 1940s was not something the original founders of this country intended. They intended no state church, and freedom of speech and religion. On Oct 18, 1780 there was a proclamation issued for a Day of Public Thanksgiving and Prayer…

    “Whereas it hath pleased Almighty God, the Father of all mercies, amisdst the vicissitudes and calamities of war, to bestow blessings on the people of these states…”

    Wouldn’t that be a violation of your church and state clause? How would you react if President Obama or congress declared another Prayer day for the nation? Congress is able insert public prayer as a day of thanksgiving, then mentioning intelligent design in a public school classroom as an explanation that differs from Darwinian evolution is lawful.

  11. Michael, the “blockquote” html tag is farschimmelt in your new format. It just nulls out. Did you remember to define it?

  12. Michael, you approach the Dover case in the same way you approach the Bible: Just the literal words, without any context, without any milieu, without any deeper meaning or effect.

    The clear aim of the school board was to eliminate evolution from the biology education, because it offended their religious beliefs.. You should read the testimony of the board members, exposing their motivations.[1] The ID statement was only the most visible manifestation of the overall scheme.[2]

    You still have not the slightest idea what thiis case was about.

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

    [1] You should also note the outright lies of the ID supporters. The school board members lied about their intent. They lied about the source of the funds for the ID books. The publisher of Pandas & People lied about the nature of his business and about the history of the book. One of the board members vilified a reported whose video interview exposed her testimony as a perjury. Then there’s Dembski and Meyer repudiating their contracts to testify at the last minute—while keeping their witness fees.

    [2] Michael: “That statement doesn’t actually endorse ID as a theory,…” It proposes ID as a scientific theory, an alternative to another scientific theory. This is sufficient.

    Michael: “M-theory for example, is not really a theory …” Whether it rises to the status of a theory or remains a lesser hypothesis is beside the point. M-theory is a scientific concept, and this therefore appropriate in a science class. ID is a religious belief, and does not belong.

    Michael: “This statement could have been more clearer [sic] with defining soft science and hard science.” Any such putative distinction is moot for the purpose of this case. The only relevant distinction is between science and religion.

    Do you still not understand this simple concept? Introducing religion into a science class is unconstitutional.

  13. The 2005 Dover decision is binding only upon the middle district of Pennsylvania. However, the overwhelming consensus is that the extensive testimony (40 days of trial!) and the thoroughness of the opinion will not allow ID to win any court case in the future, anywhere in the country.

    This view is summarized in a 2996 paper written for the Forum on Public Policy, “The Dover Question: will Kitzmiller v Dover affect the status of Intelligent Design Theory in the same way as McLean v. Arkansas affected Creation Science?” The conclusion reads—

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

    The Kitzmiller case presented information, reminiscent of McLean; therefore, I believe that Kitzmillerr will contribute extensively to the foundation of any future U.S. Supreme Court decisions involving the constitutionally of Intelligent Design Theory. I would argue that it is reasonable to assert that a U.S. Supreme Court considering the validity of Intelligent Design as a scientific theory would engage the testimony, research, and definitions made available by the U.S. District Court of Middle Pennsylvania.

    Regardless of the political makeup of the U.S. Supreme Court it would be unconscionable that any sitting U.S. Supreme Court justice would adjudicate in favor of a pseudoscientific theory which demands that the discipline of science incorporate the concept of astrology into its conceptual framework.37 Judge Jones is considered a political conservative;38 nevertheless, he ruled uncompromisingly and vigorously against Intelligent Design Theory as a legitimate scientific hypothesis.39

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

  14. Test of html tag. The following should appear as a block quote—

    “When people thought the earth was flat, they were wrong. When people thought the earth was spherical, they were wrong. But if you think that thinking the earth is spherical is just as wrong as thinking the earth is flat. then your view is wronger than both of them put together.”

    — Isaac Asimov

  15. Negatory. Does not work. Remember that the blockquote tag is different from the blockquote-cite tag, which does appear in the list of allowable tags. If WordPress doesn’t provide a default definition, you may have to define your own blockquote tag..

    Wait. Lemme try the blockquote-cite tag with a dummy citation:

    “When two opposite points of view are expressed with equal intensity, the truth does not necessarily lie halfway between them. It is possible for one side to be simply wrong.”

  16. Olorin,

    Here is a better one…

    “The advance of science can be measured by the rate at which exceptions to previously held laws accumulate.

    Corollaries:

    1. Exceptions always outnumber rules.
    2. There are always exceptions to established exceptions.
    3. By the time one masters the exceptions, no one recalls the rules to which they apply.”

  17. Never mind; I found it.

    “First Law of Scientific Progress” The Complete Murphy’s Law by Arthur Bloch. Published by Price Stern Sloan. Page 130

    While looking that up, I did note a Granville Sewell quote in your “About” section that bears refuting, viz—

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

    To those who dismiss intelligent design as “not science”, I would like to pose the same question again, 30 years later: why is it science to attribute the major steps of evolution to creativeness in the genes themselves, but not science to attribute them to creativeness originating outside the genes? That is the only difference between Jean Rostand’s theory and the theory of intelligent design.

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

    Sewell sets up a strawman. What ID does is not merely go “outside the genes” for creativeness. ID goes outside nature for creativeness. This has been a scientific no-no ever since Adelard of Bath formulated the principle 900 years ago. It did not originate with a Federal judge in 2005, as Michael supposes.

  18. “Evolutionists Confounded That Creationism and ID Will Not Die”

    And creationists are even more confounded that evolution will not die.

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