Richard Dawkins appears to be a fraud.
For many years now, he has been masquerading as both evolutionary scientist and atheist, which according to him, are two disciplines inseparable from one another. The real story: Richard Dawkins, also author of the recent best seller, The God Delusion, appears to be more of a metaphysical naturalist, dabbling in philosophy and harboring a hatred of organized religion. These are the impressions my son and I came away with after viewing Ben Stein’s latest film.
Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed is a sort-of documentary exposing the persecution of scientists who dare to cross the line from evolutionary Darwinism to Intelligent Design. This is not exactly news. With the increasing pressures to maintain the “separation of Church and state” within the sphere of public education, both in grade school and university, it is certainly not a shocking revelation to discover that Intelligent Design (which is not Creationism, by the way!) has been given the status of a new religious creed. And therefore must be crushed. No surprise.
What is surprising about this trend is the desire, indeed the animosity of the evolutionary scientific elite to squelch any possibility within academic circles introducing a theory seemingly in contradiction with Darwinism. The interesting point here: Darwinism and ID approach biological origins from two completely different points of reference. Nowhere in the Origin of the Species does Darwin preface an understanding as to how that single celled organism came into being. Nowhere. In Expelled, the evolutionary biologists and scientists whom were interviewed, offered few theories and stated emphatically and repeatedly: we don’t know. We don’t know.
And these theories? Life began on the back of crystals. Umhm. No explanation as to how “something came from nothing,” once again, the lack of an originating source. Lightning. Right… Another theory: life was “seeded” here by an alien life form. Hmm. And the origin of this life form?
Mr. Dawkins was the provider of the last scenario. In a diatribe (interestingly title Lying For Jesus…Ben Stein is Jewish!) over having been duped into giving honest answers to Mr. Stein, he attempts to “soft-shoe” his way out of several revelations regarding his theories and opinions:
*The study of evolutionary science concludes naturally with atheism. He said he should never say that, that he was being very frank, more frank than most scientists would, but that it is true.
*That he is not 100% certain that there is no God! He stated maybe 99%, but definitely over 50%. Isn’t that the qualification for being an atheist? 100%? Isn’t anything less agnosticism?
*He presented the “alien seeding” premise…then supported the possibility that the theory would indeed support ID.
A final statement from Dawkins: when asked by Ben Stein “what if you died and met God? What if he said to you, “Richard…I gave you success, a multi-million dollar salary and you wrote this book?! What were you thinking?” To which Dawkins replied, with a rather sad smile: “I would repeat what another scientist has said, when presented with the same question, “Sir…why did you keep yourself so well-hidden?”
Hidden…and yet these brilliant men will entertain any theory, any theory, other than the possibility of Intelligent Design. The don’t want to think about it. To quote another scientist: Intelligent Design is boring!
The movie was entertaining, informative and presented both sides with equanimity. I attended with my 14 year old, though I believe the film may be a bit above the understanding of anyone younger. The atheists and evolutionists are declaring foul…they say the working title of the film was presented as something entirely different, but I’m wondering how a mere title would have changed their answers. An honest answer is an honest answer.
Or at least it should be.
Is it worth seeing? Absolutely! The proponents of Intelligent Design merely want to level the playing field. This film seeks to do just that.
I am a traditional Catholic homeschooling mother of 9 children, married for 30 years to the most patient and sainted man. As converts to Catholicism in 1991, our family has only recently discovered the beauty and full expression of our beliefs in the timeless liturgy of antiquity, the Extraordinary Form also commonly referred to as the Traditional Latin Mass. An avid knitter, I also enjoy gardening, reading and immersing myself in the everyday graces of my vocation.
© All rights reserved 
Catholic Family Vignettes 
April 21, 2008 at 10:52 am
Biology is a lot bigger than Dawkins. Curiously absent from the movie are the views of scientists such as Ken Miller (Finding Darwin’s God) and Francis Collins (The Language of God), both theists who have reconciled evolution with their beliefs.
Intelligent Design has a long way to go before it can even be considered a testible hypothesis. It is a fundamentally dishonest enterprise. No one is preventing ID theorists from conducting research. They just don’t bother. They would rather cry persecution, strongarm politicians, make films and demand an unearned seat at the table than accumulate the evidence necessary to convince the scientific community.
April 21, 2008 at 11:06 am
scripto:
Thank you so much for your comment. I agree that biology is, indeed, much larger than Dawkins. Having been raised by a theist (my father) who reconciled evolution with his own beliefs, I understand your concern that all sides of the argument are not being explored. I think what is lacking is an understanding on the definition of evolution or at least an agreement on the definition. My father’s definition deviates significantly from that espoused by most evolutionary biologists.
As to ID…I’m not a scientist (obviously, check out my blog, homeschooling mom, etc.) I disagree, respectfully, with your assertion that ID is a “dishonest enterprise.” It is an enterprise lacking in funding, lacking in promotion and intelligent debate, and addresses areas which are ambiguous even in the sphere of evolutionary biology. How does one “earn” a seat at the table, if one is never even invited to the banquet? This seems more a battle of worldview rather than science…
April 21, 2008 at 4:26 pm
Er, ID has lots of funding. You just have to look at all the different organisations and such trying to pass it off as science. They even have the ability to help fund rather poor exercises such as ‘Expelled’.
But to be counted as science, first you have to come up with a hypotheses which meets the same academic standards as everyone else … which is something ID proponents have failed to do time and again.
April 21, 2008 at 6:14 pm
Welcome, Matt!
So the hypothesis of Irreducible Complexity (Darwin’s Black Box: The Biochemical Challenge to Evolution – Michael J. Behe, Ph.D) is not sufficient?
Charles Darwin:
“If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down.”
And yes, I have read Kenneth Miller’s refutation and still find Dr. Behe’s hypothesis the more compelling of the two.
That aside, I feel unqualified to debate the science behind both arguments and still fail to see why the “predominant view” (evolutionary biology) and the “non-testable hypothesis” (intelligent design) are not allowed the same rigors of debate. If you are fired, blacklisted and otherwise lose your credibility with the science community there is nothing left to prove…the researcher’s voice remains unheard and he is branded a religious fanatic. Science and faith are not mutually exclusive, no matter what Dawkins, Darwin or others may believe…they can no more prove that God doesn’t exist than I can prove that He does.
As for “lots of funding…” Please share! What major corporations, bastions of academia and respectability are signing up to support ID? As one who firmly believes in ID, I would truly love a few names so that I may support them financially!
Thank you again for your comment…I find this topic infinitely fascinating!
April 22, 2008 at 2:09 am
No, Behe’s hypothesis of Irreducible Complexity is not enough. Namely because with all the research that has been done into it, not one example has been found or (more importantly) any evidence of it being likely/possible to exist.
Which isn’t even the worst part of ID, which is that it simply is not science. It does not meet the criteria to be regarded as science (as formally established at the Dover trial for starters) and the definition of science would have to be changed to allow it.
April 22, 2008 at 7:49 am
Matt:
I’m familiar with the Dover trial and Judge Jones’ decision. I think perhaps you and I are going to have to agree to disagree. The Dover case was instigated to affirm, yet again, the separation of Church and State. It is not really about science at all. It’s about religion, or “freedom from religion.” Judge Jones is not a scientist. He is a judge. He listens to both sides of an argument and offers a judgment based on the burden of proof. Of course EB wins…we have the continued assertion that ID is nothing more than creationism disguised as science, and then one man’s opinion that it is not science at all. Reading from Judge Jone’s decision, a couple statements strike me:
“absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.” (Dr. Padian)
“just because scientists cannot explain today how biological systems evolved does not mean that they cannot, and will not, be able to explain them tomorrow” (Kenneth Miller)
I would submit that this burden is applicable to ID, and not only evolutionary biology.
I’m sure you’re familiar with Luwik Fleck who submitted:
” truth in scientific research is an unattainable ideal as different researchers are locked in thought collectives (or thought-styles).”
Evolutionary biologist want to lock everyone into their “thought collectives.” Science is scientia, or knowledge. ID can be tested with scientific evidence. Either “ID is unscientific, in which case evidence is irrelevant; or evidence can be cited against it, in which case ID is scientific.” It can’t be both…
BTW: Have you read Behe’s response to Miller, Doolittle and Robison; In Defense of the Irreducibility of the Blood Clotting Cascade? I’ve only seen Miller’s original refutation, but not a response to the 2000 paper…
April 22, 2008 at 8:15 am
Kimberly
I’m no scientist either, just an interested observer. I got involved in this issue about 30 years ago when the Institute for Creation Research brought their dog and pony show to our local high school with the intent to change the curriculum to “teach the controversy”. I see the same tactics in a slightly more sophisticated form from the ID gang.
It’s not that the ID’ers are prohibited from doing research, it’s that they don’t really try. Behe is well aware how science operates but chooses to promote his ideas in popular books. Irreducible complexity amounts to nothing but a test of what is known about evolutionary theory. The same with Dembski and his eliminative filter. How do you calculate probabilities based on what is known about evolutionary mechanisms when knowlege of those mechanisms continually changes? They refuse to propose a mechanism, a timeline or even design events. Are we to assume that something like the bacterial flagellum or the blood clotting cascade are designed and everything else evolved through natural processes? It makes no sense to me. More importantly, these guys don’t respond to their critics in an adequate fashion nor do they submit their work to the appropriate journals where they can be critiqued by those who are experts in their fields. That’s where the dishonesty comes in. Plenty of initially unpopular ideas (plate techtonics, endosymbiosis, puncuated equilibrium, relativity, etc.) have gained a measure of acceptance through following accepted protocols and doing the work. All without the services of Ben Stein and 5 marketing teams. Underneath the smoke and mirrors is an unsubstantiated, incoherent bit of fluff.
April 22, 2008 at 8:57 am
scripto:
Nice to have you back! Please tell me that you don’t think that promoting ideas by “popular books” has no part in the promotion of science…these books simply allow a greater audience and bring to the people a glimpse into the minds of science. Dawkins, Collins, Miller, and Darwin wrote popular books on theoretical ideas…why does Behe cause such consternation? Once again: Either “ID is unscientific, in which case evidence is irrelevant; or evidence can be cited against it, in which case ID is scientific.” It can’t be both…
As to submitting their works to appropriate journals…when you’ve lost tenure and reputation, what reputable journal will accept or publish your work?
Here’s the good news: we are discussing this. Both you and Matt demonstrate a fair understanding of the principles of evolutionary biology and how ID simply will not fit in with your understanding. Which leads me to assume that you are reading all of the research. Which is a very hopeful thing, indeed. This is what is called for. That information be disseminated, assessed, accepted or rejected. It is the free exchange of ideas. It remains the way that we grow in knowledge and understanding.
If supporters of EB and ID could simply acknowledge this reality, this ridiculous in-fighting and intellectual and professional jealousy would cease.
And friends…please don’t make assumptions about those of us who believe differently…we are not unintelligent. Faith and reason can and do work together. The great minds of science support this assertion…remember these guys:
Hermannus Contractus
Albertus Magnus
Roger Bacon
Thomas Bradwardine
Nicholas Copernicus
William Turner
Galileo
John Napier
Johannes Kepler
Louis Pasteur
Madame and Pierre Curie
Blaise Pascal
Robert Boyle
Sir Isaac Newton
Carrolus Linnaeus
Olinthus Gregory
Edward Hitchcock
Adam Sedgwick
Gregor Mendel
Philip Henry Gosse
George Stokes
Lord Kelvin
Pierre Duhem
Pavel Florensky
Max Planck
E. T. Whittaker
Georges Lemaitre
David Lack
Henry Eyring
Carlos Chagas Filho
Sir Robert Boyd
Michael Heller
Eric Priest
Henry F. Schaeffer, III
Francis Collins
Kenneth Miller
Just a short list, but a nice reminder…
Another reminder: Ben Stein is not a scientist. He is an entertainer. This film serves more in the realm of the free exchange of ideas and information and as a heads up against closing our minds to all the possibilities.
Just as you would wish to remain free from the constraints of what you feel is the non-scientific emotionalism of ID, so should ID remain free from the the constraints of atheistic Darwinism.
April 22, 2008 at 1:24 pm
Kimberly
You are quite right about Dawkins, et.al writing books for popular consumption. The difference is that they actually did research that passed muster with their colleagues and the popularizations were an outgrowth of that research. Dembski has admitted that he does not submit his ideas to the appropriate journels because the turn around time is too great and he wants to get his ideas out to as many “people” as possible. Please. I ask you to entertain the possibility that the work is not submitted for peer review because it is inadequate, not because of some organized effort to suppress it. I can’t imagine why Dembski would be shut out of the statistical and information theory journals which is where his work belongs. Why would the editors of these journals have a pro-evolutionary axe to grind?
I think that a little research would show you that there is more to the “persecution” of Crocker and Sternberg than is indicated in the movie. I don’t think the people behind this film and by extension the Discovery Institute are stupid. I think they are dishonest.
April 22, 2008 at 4:11 pm
Ben Stein’s goal in making Expelled (i gather) is to promote dangerously-free thought, especially more thinking about motivations that drive American academia and a lot of other behind-the-scenes worldview that we tend to take for granted.
April 22, 2008 at 4:59 pm
scripto:
What about Dr. Stephen C. Meyer? Remember this paper: “The Origin of Biological Information and the Higher Taxonomic Categories” . Isn’t this the very paper that resulted in Dr. Richard von Sternberg’s demise?
In 2004, the U.S. Office of Special Counsel (OSC) found evidence to back up Sternberg’s complaint and stated that it was “clear that a hostile work environment was created with the ultimate goal of forcing” Dr. Sternberg out of the Smithsonian.
In 2005 the case was officially taken up by a U.S. House of Representatives subcommittee. Have you read the 29 pg. report published in December 2006? I’d be happy to provide the link, it’s quite interesting.
It’s also interesting to note that NPR (National Public Radio) reported that it had “talked with 18 university professors and scientists who subscribe to intelligent design. Most would not speak on the record for fear of losing their jobs.”
It seems a bit disingenuous to assert that all of these allegations have absolutely no foundation. That everyone on the side of ID is dishonest or otherwise engaged in duplicity. I’m also quite sure that you are correct in your assertion that there is a good deal of invalid or inadequate research being done…I would submit that it exists on both sides. But all of the research on ID? I refuse to believe that.
April 22, 2008 at 6:12 pm
The Dover Case was specifically about whether or not ID could/should be taught in the classroom. The dozens of witnesses brought forth, all experts in their field (well, except for Behe as was shown) pretty much conclusively showed that ID is not science.
And yes, Jones in a Judge and not a scientist. But since ID proponents seem to refuse to listen to the scientists, the courts seem the next best place to head to get the matter sorted.
Sternberg wasn’t ‘fired’ for publishing that paper as such.
a) He had long before announced his retirement as editor and this was his parting act as he stepped down.
b) He got into trouble for not following long set down editoral procedures and guidelines.
Smithsonian? He was never employed there and still has an office, research space and 24/7 access waiting for him as his continuing role as a research associate.
But if you want some actual examples of academic discrimination, ones which have yet to be refuted, try here:
http://www.sunclipse.org/?p=626
April 22, 2008 at 7:00 pm
Matt:
I think it best to seek answers from the source, with regards to Dr. Sternberg: http://www.rsternberg.net/history.htm
Once again…quibbling over words. Separation of church and state. That’s the bottom line of Kitzmiller vs. Dover Area School District. The ruling affirmed that school board policy violated the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment.
I thank you for your contribution to this discussion…and as to the sunclipse site, I’ll let other readers chime in on their take regarding the academic discrimination of those proponents of Darwinism.
April 22, 2008 at 7:54 pm
A source which evidence shows is lying? No, thankyou. I’ll go with sites that actually produce evidence and back up what they say. Such as: http://www.expelledexposed.com/index.php/the-truth/sternberg
And why did it violate the first ammendment? Because ID wasn’t science, it was found to be more or less creationism in a silly hat. Which was just common sense, since ID doesn’t meet the requirements to be counted as science anyhow.
April 22, 2008 at 8:47 pm
Expelled Exposed? You’ve got to be kidding me…Matt…I had respected your opinion up to this point. This particular source is dubious at best…readers should trust the EB science bloggers for “the truth?” That is ludicrous, to say the least…I leave you with this quote, yet again from Ludwick Fleck:
” truth in scientific research is an unattainable ideal as different researchers are locked in thought collectives (or thought-styles).”
It is not the science that is the problem…it is the scientists. I remain unconvinced and unpersuaded.
Remember: there are those of us who want all of the available information, not just what is being spoon-fed to the general population. Eventually one must look at all sides and make a decision that is compatible with all one holds dear.
April 22, 2008 at 9:58 pm
And what, precisely, is wrong with ‘Expelled Exposed’? They have never been caught out quote mining or simply presenting falsehoods like the Discovery Institute or AiG. They seem to be doing a pretty good job of presenting evidence which backs up what they say as well.
Regardless, independent bloggers and other people did look into the Sternberg matter before EE took up the story and came to the exact same conclusions. I do find that very interesting.
April 22, 2008 at 10:34 pm
Precisely? The words “thought collective…” rather sums it up, don’t you think?
Imagine for one moment that you asked me to present you evidence supporting my position and I sent you to, say, Oral Roberts University…would you trust any of the sources quoted (no matter how seemingly reputable) and how seriously would you consider any information garnered from such a source? I am, of course, being as facetious as possible. EE belongs to the National Center For Science Education, a watchdog resource for the defense of teaching evolution in schools. Hardly an impartial resource…their sole purpose? Suppression of any and all ideas in conflict with Darwinian evolution…
April 22, 2008 at 11:10 pm
So you’d only accept evidence from sources you personally approve of, hm? No one has yet been able to refute the evidence of Sternberg’s … relaxed relationship with truth so what is not to believe? And yet you decide that what Sternberg says must be the truth even though there is a lot of evidence which very strongly indicates otherwise. Is he an unbiased source, hm?
NCSE … sole purpose to suppress? I think you’re seeing conspiracies where they don’t exist. What they do is make sure that what could be referred to as baseless bollocks doesn’t make it into science classrooms. Yes, that does include ID, Creationism, Astrology and so on.
April 23, 2008 at 7:03 am
Matt:
You’re making an assumption that is quite uncharitable.
I had been all over the EE site, long before your invitation. Hence my incredulity at your suggestion. Are you not “accepting evidence (only) from sources you approve of” by your continued assertions that this side alone possesses truth? As to refutations, you continue to insist that everyone who claims persecution, presents evidence and provides sources, is lying.
NCSE…let me see…you allude that I’m a conspiracy theorist because I believe an organization that exists solely for the promotion of evolution in the classroom is suppressing theories other than the one it is promoting. That is not a conspiracy theory. That is their goal. It would be insulting to the organizers of NCSE to consider that their purpose is to create an open forum for debate and equal dissemination of ideas.
Matt…you’re an intelligent man, obviously. You firmly believe all that you’ve been told. You hold onto this “truth” as though it is all that is preserving you. It is not my intention to anger you nor to insult you. I see too much of this in other forums. I am holding on to my “truth” as well…and you can’t dissuade me. You will brand me as ignorant and unreasoning. But your arguments still fail to convince. Nevertheless, I’ve enjoyed our discussion…it has kept me on my toes! There is nothing wrong with controversy…I love this particular quote from Archbishop Fulton Sheen:
Once there were lost islands, but most of them have been found; once there were lost causes, but many of them have been retrieved; but there is one lost art that has not been definitely recovered, and without which no civilization can long survive, and that is the art of controversy. The hardest thing to find in the world today is an argument. Because so few are thinking, naturally there are found but few to argue.
The Decline Of Controversy
April 23, 2008 at 8:03 am
Kimberly
“What about Dr. Stephen C. Meyer? Remember this paper: “The Origin of Biological Information and the Higher Taxonomic Categories” ”
Yes, I do. A good effort for a junior high biology class. Or it may have had some relevance if it was published in 1936.
It was withdrawn by the journal as inappropriate, poorly reviewed and inaccurate.
” Isn’t this the very paper that resulted in Dr. Richard von Sternberg’s demise? ”
The report of Sternberg’s demise is greatly exaggerated. Don’t you find it odd that he filed a complaint of religious discrimination? So is ID science or religion? Why it’s both! Sternberg, an unpaid reseach associate, had to turn in his master key for a keycard, had his office moved in a general reorginization, was asked to turn in his overdue library books and properly care for borrowed curated materials and he’s still there taking up space he rarely uses. Boo Hoo. If that’s persecution, give me some.
“… everyone on the side of ID is dishonest or otherwise engaged in duplicity”
That pretty much sums it up. Above is a good example of how to luskinate a quote. Anything can be taken out of context and with judicious use of ellipses, twisted to mean the opposite of the original intent.
April 23, 2008 at 8:30 am
Wow!
It looks like you’ve been gang banged. Anyhow, it sounds like a great movie and I can’t wait to see it.
Kitty
April 23, 2008 at 9:29 am
Nearly 150 years of evolutionary thought…ID is labeled by evolutionary academia as “not science” and it is not being taught in the public sector. Evolutionary theory permeates all known elementary, middle school, high school and university texts. Evolutionary scientists and biologists expound theories, conduct research, hush the opposition and still have yet to address with any certainty the origin of life.
After all this education, thought and argument, where does the average person’s belief take them? Here:
Gallup Poll – May 8-11, 2006:
“Which of the following statements comes closest to your views on the origin and development of human beings? (1) Human beings have developed over millions of years from less advanced forms of life, but God guided this process. (2) Human beings have developed over millions of years from less advanced forms of life, but God had no part in this process. (3) God created human beings pretty much in their present form at one time within the last 10,000 years or so.” Options rotated 1-3, 3-1
Guided by God: 36%
God had no part: 13%
God created in present form: 46%
Other/no opinion: 5%
Seems the most natural thing in the world is to seek a theory that would explain, or at least attempt to explain, that which current scientific thought is not answering…
April 23, 2008 at 12:18 pm
I’m a research chemist and have been so since 1953 when I was hired on in the Elecrochemical Engineering Division of Battelle Memorial Inst. here in Columbus. When time permitted I and some of my seven children and friends accompanied me on excavations for fossil dinosaur and human footprints together in TX. The team I worked with included archaeologists, geologists, a Ph.D. in geophysicist and even a cultural anthropologist. We used the scientific method which is to continually investigate our discoveries to see if we had erred in concluding that man and dinosaurs have coexisted together and that there was once a world-wide flood as noted by Moses and the prophets. We then reported our data in technical papers. Because of these fossil “pristine” human footprints with dinosaurs we radiocarbon dated dinosaur bones from Texas to Alaska, fossil wood and amber world-wide to see how old they might be. Here is a list of radiocarbon dates:
(8) 11,750 +/-150 years BP camarasaurus (WY), bioapatite, 1905 [from Carnegie Museum].
(9) 16,120 +/- 220 years BP, Allosaurus (CO), bioapatite, Hall team, 1986
(10)17,420 +/- +/-330 years BP, Camarasaurus (WY), bioapaite, 1905, [Carnegie Museum]
(11) 23,760 +/- 270 years BP, Acrocanthosaurus (TX) on AMS, bioapatite, Baugh team, 1984
(12) 25,750 +/- 280 years BP, Acrocanthosaurus (TX) on AMS, bioapatite, Baugh team,1984
(13) 31,050 + 230/-220 years BP, Hadrosaur (AK) on AMS, total organics.
We suspect that the above ages are too old because the dinos could have eaten vegetation and drank water containing “old carbon” from springs etc that could have made them appear much older than the 11,750 to 31,050 years BP. BUT please take note: There is NO, I repeat NO 65 million years between man and dinosaur. Trust Moses, Christ, and the church fathers NOT the weird ideas of man.
Evolution is a fairy tale for gullible students of all ages and anyone who claims evolution is a fact has been scammed by the evolutionists like Dawkins and those before him and the media. Also folks keep in mind Adolf Hitler believed in evolution as did Stalin, Mao and Pol pot and most members of the US supreme court of 1973 – Roe vs Wade. By all means see “Expelled” and you will understand a little lmore about how academic censorship works. I and my friends have been there and have felt their sting.
April 23, 2008 at 12:23 pm
correction please: than the 11,750 to 31,050 years BP. in the second to last paragraph
should read, “such as” the 11,750 to 31, 050 years BP.
April 23, 2008 at 12:56 pm
Welcome, Mr. Hugh Miller!
Thank you so much for your professional opinion and the interesting facts supplied regarding the “evolution fairy tale” as it pertains to radiocarbon dating. Blessings to you and your family…
April 24, 2008 at 9:41 am
“According to Robert Kalin, a specialist at the University of Arizona’s radiocarbon dating laboratory, Hugh Miller’s fossils were not bone. Like most ancient fossils, the organic portion of the bone had long ago been replaced by minerals. The young “dates” are from contamination and/or carbon-containing preservatives (Lepper 1992). “
“Also folks keep in mind Adolf Hitler believed in evolution as did Stalin, Mao and Pol pot and most members of the US supreme court of 1973 – Roe vs Wade.
Wrong about Hitler, wrong about Stalin and ultimately so what? Does not speak to the scientific accuracy of evolution.
”
By all means see “Expelled” and you will understand a little lmore about how academic censorship works. I and my friends have been there and have felt their sting.”
Doing adequate sampling and submitting your work to independent peer review would go a long ways to making that swelling go down.
<“We then reported our data in technical papers.”
Where would that be? Or does it just mean the papers contained big words?
April 24, 2008 at 9:58 am
scripto:
I’ve enjoyed reading your comments…and while I respectfully disagree with you, I must insist that you maintain charity while sharing this information.
Ladies present…I’m sure you understand. Exchanging information is accepted and even encouraged. Light bantering is quite amusing. Insults are unacceptable.
You remain an enigma which gives little credit to anything you assert, perhaps you’d like to share a bit about yourself? Mr. Miller has been more than happy to provide his name and biographical information. Perhaps you’d care to do the same? Thus far the only information that you’ve shared was a past experience regarding a creationism program at your local highschool. Is paleontology and microbiology your field of expertise? Just curious…
April 24, 2008 at 3:16 pm
[/i]”Is paleontology and microbiology your field of expertise?”[/i]
Neither. It’s truck driving. But I do know how to read.
[i]”You remain an enigma which gives little credit to anything you assert”[/i]
Look, I have a wife. Being accused of not knowing what is going on is a familar sensation. Maybe your inclination is correct and you shouldn’t believe anything I say. There is probably no reason to, and as a rank amateur I’m sure I get some things wrong (or half right anyway). But most of what I have said can be easily verified (or unverifed) and it would seem that, since we aren’t arguing this in the pages of Nature, what I said, rather than who or what I am, is the main issue.
Sorry I was mean to Hugh. I’m sure he is a very nice man and sweet to his grandkids but I am also sure that he knows, on more than one level, that his claims are nonsense.
April 24, 2008 at 6:28 pm
SCRIPTO – “According to Robert Kalin, a specialist at the University of Arizona’s radiocarbon dating laboratory, Hugh Miller’s fossils were not bone. Like most ancient fossils, the organic portion of the bone had long ago been replaced by minerals. The young “dates” are from contamination and/or carbon-containing preservatives (Lepper 1992).
HUGH MILLER – Of course you would expect Lepper {1992) and Kalin to say that the young dates are from contamination and/or carbon containing preservatives; they are parroting the old age evolutionary line. I do agree with “Kalin” however that these particular bone fragments did NOT contain bone collagen but they all contained bone apatite which is C-14 datable. Otherwise why did they date them?
#13 from Alaska (collected 1994) actually contained 6.9 mg of organics and was RC dated at a Major overseas lab. But even before 8 through 12 were submitted to UA, bone surface scrapings were tested for carbon content which varied from 3.0 to 7% carbon. Also, what they didn’t tell you is that if the bone collagen has been leached out or replaced with minerals [as with 50 mammoths in SD dated at 26,000 years BP] they will treat the tiny particles with hot dilute acetic acid. This treatment removes old or young carbonate surface contamination. [Bone apatite is carbonates that have displaced some of the bone phosphate carbonate during the life time of critter the being tested. Therefore that carbonate can be just as valid a method of dating as is dating bone collagen. We gave Lepper (1992) copies of our C-14 reports in 1991 during a scheduled meeting. He’s a state archaeologist. He was also involved in radiocarbon dating the Newark mastodon which a close friend of mine from TX, Joe Taylor, a paleontologist, spent six months making molds of the mastodon bones (1989). Joe does NOT believe in evolution. I recall recall talking with RK of UA several times. He told me there was NO bone collagen but that they could be RC dated. He was rightly disturbed that the Allosaursus bone fragment did contain a white substance in one small area. The collector, biology professor James Hall responded that he used NO preservatives on any of his bones – only “water soluble glue” to connect broken ones. This glue is NOT a contaminant because the labs use ultrasonic agitation in hot water and dilute hydrochloric acid to remove surface contamination before crushing to Bone particles. The other four dinosaurs including those from the Carnegie museum of natural history collected in the early 20th century were also free of preservatives. Also for the record when there are preservatives present the Leco furnace analyzer would have recorded over 40 % carbon content by surface scrapings. I don’t think I need respond to Scripto’s other sarcastic remarks, at least at this time as both he and I have our bias. I would suggest that you do a little reading from the church fathers and from Genesis 1-11. It make better sense than believing that we all evolved from a little rodent type critter running under the feet of dinosaurs 65 million years ago as suggested by evolutionist Carl Sagan [“The dragons of Eden.”] Do you believe that your grandparents x 10 to the 10th power were rodents?
Meanwhile you might ask why they just didn’t go out and C-14 date dinosaur bones themselves and prove our team in error. This is how science works – when someone comes up with an anomaly that does not fit the theory you’ve got to check it out. I’m sure you are aware there is plenty of organic matter in a recently discovered T-Rex. Go date the organics and write a paper and submit for publication like we have just done again [23 pages including about 50 references]. I’m not holding my breath that it will be published in the current academic climate of fear and hostility towards the search for truth. Macro-evolution taught “as a fact” is a multi-billion dollar a year business.
April 24, 2008 at 9:47 pm
I haven’t seen it and doubt I ever will. The film is way too soft on Nazis
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/?pageId=62376
April 25, 2008 at 12:15 pm
ditto
April 25, 2008 at 10:17 pm
One of the leading evolutionists that radiocarbon (RC) dated the Shroud of Turin is Dr. Henry G. Gove. His team said that the Shroud of Turin was Medieval forgery based on dates from three different labs; they obtained an “absolute” RC date of around 1250 years BP as I recall as refused to budge from that “Absolute” date. These results were shouted from every newspaper in the world at the time in 1989. Ah but listen to what this Shroud researcher wrote in 2005: In Thermochimica Acta, Rogers wrote:
REF: http://www.shroudstory.com/faq-carbon-14.htm
“The combined evidence from chemical kinetics, analytical chemistry, cotton content, and pyrolysis/ms proves that the material from the radiocarbon area of the shroud is significantly different from that of the main cloth. The radiocarbon sample was thus not part of the original cloth and is invalid for determining the age of the shroud.
Rogers doesn’t simply prove that the sample was invalid. Rogers provides alternative ways to understand that the Shroud was certainly older than the 1988 carbon 14 dating debacle implied.” Now a co-worker with Gove in April of this year has conceded maybe they were wrong. This is how evolutionists keep their irrational hypothesis alive. Every one of their “discoveries” is kept on the books sometimes for decades like Piltdown Man forgery which Jesuit Teilhard Chardin participated in so that generation after generation believes we have all evolved from “missing links.” Adolf Hitler was so convinced of evolution he actively promoted its philosophy as did the German supreme court {Wertheim, “Sign of Cain”; Willke, condensed version for pro-life believers; DeRosa, “Evolution’s Fatal Fruit”). Eugenics was even practicised in this country for a period of time when 50,000 mentally retarded people were forceably sterilized from having children thanks to Margaret Sanger et al. as I understand. British evolutionist, Sir Arthur Keith wrote in the 1940’s that: “He (Hitler) has consciously sought to make the practice of Germany conform to the theory of evolution”. more later, the boss is calling.
April 26, 2008 at 11:52 am
Dear Hugh Miller,
Salutations from a fellow Texan! We might be related.
I am agnostic about the evolution debate. I do believe that species, over the course of millions of years, have spawned new species. I accept that mutations in DNA sequences contributed to this process, but I am absolutely ambivalent to claiming whether or not the mutations are uncorrelated (random).
I object to ID theory on theological grounds. As a Thomist, I believe the theory confuses primary and secondary causes. It seems to me that ID requires God to intervene, constantly, in a miraculous way to keep life developing properly. This results in a divorce between God and His normal means of governance: natural law.
In essence, ID seems to insinuate that God is only necessary to explain certain things, while others can be described in purely naturalistic terms. It makes him into a “God-of-the-gaps” figure.
I would be happy to carry on a correspondence with you though, so that I might explore this issue further. As you appear to be a member of the movement that is now referred to as “Creationism,” our dialog will be even more profitable.
I am biased against you, and have been taught to consider everything you offer as complete rubish. Recently though, I have become more and more convinced that people, no matter their philosophy, do sincerely believe what they believe, and furthermore, they have valid reasons for their beliefs.
I no longer accept the myth that either Creationists or Darwinists are intentionally trying to deceive people. With the magnanimity befitting of a Thomist, I will assume that all people are honest and genuine, until proven otherwise.
April 26, 2008 at 10:13 pm
Good resources from TOUCHSTONE
http://www.touchstonemag.com/archives/issue.php?id=76
April 27, 2008 at 5:00 pm
Dear Mr. Geoffrey Miller:
Geoffrey says: “I am biased against you, and have been taught to consider everything you offer as complete rubish. Recently though, I have become more and more convinced that people, no matter their philosophy, do sincerely believe what they believe, and furthermore, they have valid reasons for their beliefs.
I no longer accept the myth that either Creationists or Darwinists are intentionally trying to deceive people. With the magnanimity befitting of a Thomist, I will assume that all people are honest and genuine, until proven otherwise.”
Hugh says: I can appreciate your remarks. I can also understand your bias and where it came from [I once was a “casual” believer in evolution when the radio media quoted a Jesuit priest from Georgtwon U, saying that Catholics could believe in evolution as long as they believe God infused a soul into an evolving creature].
All die hard evolutionists atheistic or theistic [self contradictory of course] automatically consider any other explantion for life on earth “as complete rubbish” as you said. Opposition to evolution is taught as “complete rubbish” in Catholic and public schools these days and in the media. “Evolution is a fact” is what our local newspaper said a few days ago in one of its many editorials on the subject of origins. Goebbels propaganda machine is still operating but under a new name.
I think a good place to start any discussion is to bring you up to speed by suggesting that you review some very interesting web sites that show with hard evidences and arguments that it is Macro-Evolution of life and those long ages needed to give it respectability that is more “rubbish” than a “scientific fact.” It is my contention that the evidences for creation and catastrophism is “written” in the rocks but evoutionists just don’t know how to read.
If after reading the book reviews etc on http://www.kolbecenter.org
and the photos and captions on
http://www.omniology.com
I will try and answer your questions as best I can from my 30 some years of experience as a lab and field researcher and recorder of that evidence in the study of origins. I of course am but one of 1000’s of scientists who have contributed to the evidences against evolution being a viable theory of origins just as there are 1000’s of scientists who have wrongly read the fossil record (note my bias). You see it’s all in the (a) interpretation of what one observes (b) plus one’s own bias and perhaps blindness to the obvious. Neither side will ever prove the other one wrong as both “Abrupt Appearance” and “Macro-Evolution” are religious and deeply held faiths as only God was there when it all happened (my bias again). Moses was told HOW it happened over a period of six days and he wrote it down in Genesis 1-11 (again my bias but more logical than assuming our great grand parents X10 to the 10th power were running under the feet of dinosaurs 65 million years ago.)
It would thus be nice however if both sides would be free to discuss ALL the evidences and arguments but alas Academia has control and Macro-Evolution is the STATE RELIGION of most nations including and in particular the USA with ACLU lawyers knowing full well how to use the courts to keep Evolution as the State Religion — something like what Catholics went through from about 1570’s on to the mid 1800’s under the Anglicans in England and Ireland. Mass was forbiden and priests were even murdered if caught saying the Catholic Mass.
Since you consider yourself a Thomistic philosopher please keep St. Thomas’s following remarks in mind regarding how we humans got here as you study the above web sites.
ST argues “that the body of man was made directly by God without the instrumentality of any creature because only God alone can produce a form in matter, without the aid of any PRECEDING material form — as Augustine says….Therefore as no pre-existing body has been formed whereby another body of the same species could be generated, the FIRST HUMAN BODY was of necessity made IMMEDIATELY BY GOD.” Rather timely for today’s Catholics.
I hope you will see the movie, “Expelled.” Stein did a great service for mankind eventhough he was unable to get all the material into the 1.5 hour presentation particularly on the Hitler, Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot connetion with Evolution. I too and several friends have felt academia’s “sting” and the swelling won’t go down that’s why I and they keep fighting for the truth.
April 27, 2008 at 5:46 pm
Excellent!
April 27, 2008 at 6:41 pm
Here is a link to the Lepper paper Hugh mentioned above. I can’t find Hugh’s original work or where it was published. Nor can I find whether his claims have been independently verified or whether Hugh has adequately answered the criticisms found in the above paper. Since the chain of evidence is so shaky for the samples “dated” I would think Hugh would want to gather his team together, excavate his own samples and submit his data for independent analysis. But, why bother? Hugh already has the answer.
April 28, 2008 at 8:50 am
We could do without the mention of Hitler every other sentence, with Stalin and Pol Pot thrown in occasionally for good measure. You might as well draw a straight line from the invention of the steam engine to Hitler. Considering the fact that Hitler believed that there existed some sort of Northern European cradle of purity for the human race, that different “races” evolved independently and instructed his archaeologists to find (or manufacture) evidences to affirm his preconceptions (sound familiar?). I doubt that the idea that all humans share common ancestry would have appealed to him. The idea that the Aryan race was destined by God to inherit the earth is more in line with God’s commandment that his chosen people slaughter the original inhabitants of his chosen land found in the Old Testament. I suppose you could blame evolution for us being the way we are, with our innate chimp-like inclination to kill all the strangers, but Darwin leading to genocide? C’mon, our experience with that goes back to the beginning of recorded history.
“”Human culture and civilization on this continent are inseparably bound up with the presence of the Aryan. If he dies out or declines, the dark veils of an age without culture will again descend on this globe. The undermining of the existence of human culture by the destruction of its bearer seems in the eyes of a folkish philosophy the most execrable crime. Anyone who dares to lay hands on the highest image of the Lord commits sacrilege against the benevolent Creator of this miracle and contributes to the expulsion from paradise.”
Adolf Hitler – Mein Kampf
April 28, 2008 at 12:22 pm
Does mentioning evolution in the same paragraph as Hitler bother You? As well it should. If it makes you feel any better it was the German Supreme Court who started it all with allowing Euthanasia in the 1930’s. Thirty mentally ill men were taken to the first gas chamber ever built in Germany and they were gassed to death. The US Supreme court did the same for the unborn by the use of false evidence, ignoring their humanity and denying their day in court. Gee doesn’t that sound familiar! Sic Heil!
I think ACLU and Margaret Sanger’s liitle PP Group had something to do abortion on demand that and since the evolutionist from Germany, Hagel I think, compared the unborn child to lower animals in the oft repeated capitulation garbage a lot of people believed it including leaders in most countries. Oh well no one can tell an evolutionist anything. They are all knowing because evolutionary science is right and the church fathers were not well educated like you are. More later alligators.
April 28, 2008 at 11:12 pm
scripto:
It’s quite clear that the connection between Hitler and Darwin exists…to ignore it is to discredit Darwin’s teachings. As I’ve been following the conversations at hand, Mr. Miller has only mentioned Hitler three times, not in every other sentence as you claim. I think it’s important that we keep our perspective. You’ve provided your quote from Hitler…how about these:
From Hitler’s Table Talk – Private Conversations
Night of 11th-12th July, 1941:
National Socialism and religion cannot exist together…. The heaviest blow that ever struck humanity was the coming of Christianity. Bolshevism is Christianity’s illegitimate child. Both are inventions of the Jew. The deliberate lie in the matter of religion was introduced into the world by Christianity…. Let it not be said that Christianity brought man the life of the soul, for that evolution was in the natural order of things. (p 6 & 7)
10th October, 1941, midday:
Christianity is a rebellion against natural law, a protest against nature. Taken to its logical extreme, Christianity would mean the systematic cultivation of the human failure. (p 43)
14th October, 1941, midday:
The best thing is to let Christianity die a natural death…. When understanding of the universe has become widespread… Christian doctrine will be convicted of absurdity…. Christianity has reached the peak of absurdity…. And that’s why someday its structure will collapse…. …the only way to get rid of Christianity is to allow it to die little by little…. Christianity [is] the liar…. We’ll see to it that the Churches cannot spread abroad teachings in conflict with the interests of the State. (p 49-52)
19th October, 1941, night:
The reason why the ancient world was so pure, light and serene was that it knew nothing of the two great scourges: the pox and Christianity.
21st October, 1941, midday:
Originally, Christianity was merely an incarnation of Bolshevism, the destroyer…. The decisive falsification of Jesus’ doctrine was the work of St. Paul. He gave himself to this work… for the purposes of personal exploitation…. Didn’t the world see, carried on right into the Middle Ages, the same old system of martyrs, tortures, faggots? Of old, it was in the name of Christianity. Today, it’s in the name of Bolshevism. Yesterday the instigator was Saul: the instigator today, Mardochai. Saul was changed into St. Paul, and Mardochai into Karl Marx. By exterminating this pest, we shall do humanity a service of which our soldiers can have no idea. (p 63-65)
13th December, 1941, midnight:
Christianity is an invention of sick brains: one could imagine nothing more senseless, nor any more indecent way of turning the idea of the Godhead into a mockery…. [here he insults people who believe transubstantiation] …. When all is said, we have no reason to wish that the Italians and Spaniards should free themselves from the drug of Christianity. Let’s be the only people who are immunised against the disease. (p 118 & 119)
14th December, 1941, midday:
Kerrl, with noblest of intentions, wanted to attempt a synthesis between National Socialism and Christianity. I don’t believe the thing’s possible, and I see the obstacle in Christianity itself…. Pure Christianity– the Christianity of the catacombs– is concerned with translating Christian doctrine into facts. It leads quite simply to the annihilation of mankind. It is merely whole-hearted Bolshevism, under a tinsel of metaphysics. (p 119 & 120)
9th April, 1942, dinner:
There is something very unhealthy about Christianity (p 339)
27th February, 1942, midday:
It would always be disagreeable for me to go down to posterity as a man who made concessions in this field. I realize that man, in his imperfection, can commit innumerable errors– but to devote myself deliberately to errors, that is something I cannot do. I shall never come personally to terms with the Christian lie. Our epoch Uin the next 200 yearse will certainly see the end of the disease of Christianity…. My regret will have been that I couldn’t… behold its demise.” p 278
Perhaps you’ll think the number of quotes I’ve included is a bit “overkill…”I don’t think so. These were Hitler’s private conversations dutifully recorded by a stenographer at his request. From the horses mouth, you might say.
Scripto, my friend…it’s an interesting thing. The people you are conversing with once believed as you do now. But no longer. We have not “dumbed down.” We are thinkers, explorers…questioners. We will not hold to the status quo. We will not be deceived any longer. Like Mr. Geoffrey Miller, I don’t believe there is malice in every case, but there has been a certain level of deception among the scientific “elite” of academia. With all the derision, disdain and cries of “not science!” I’m stunned that anyone could possibly believe that the bias and persecution of ID scientists is not real.
April 29, 2008 at 7:21 am
Kimberly
“Hence today I believe that I am acting in accordance with the will of the Almighty Creator: by defending myself against the Jew, I am fighting for the work of the Lord,”
Adolf Hitler
See? We could both quote mine all day. You ignored my main point that genocide has a long human pedigree and predates Darwin. The idea that evolutionary thinking was a necessary prerequisite for genocide is absurd. You could just as well blame Luther, Mendel and animal husbandry.
Of course, none of this speaks to the validity of evolution. It is a fundamental logical fallacy and a strawman argument designed to elicit a visceral reaction so that people will have no choice but to feel that they must ignore the evidence.
ID “scientists” are ignored more than persecuted. Taking the claims of Expelled at face value, while ignoring the existence of thousands of scientists of all cultures who have reconciled their religious beliefs with the rigors of their career doesn’t make much sense to me. The ID’ers don’t exhibit any intellectual honesty or integrity, demanding a place at the table, without doing any of the real work. A slick PR campaign just isn’t going to do it. Do a Pub Med search on Irreducible Complexity, Complex Specified Information, or any other half-baked ID “theory” you can find and contrast it with any element of evolutionary biology and find out where the work is being done. The knives are out all the time and biologists, as ego driven as anyone else, are more than happy to eviserate their collegues for sloppy research and unfounded conclusions. I think that you need to entertain the possibity that there is no ID science.
April 29, 2008 at 8:48 am
Scripto:
It is not my assertion that Darwinists are Nazis, but that Nazism was spawned by the the evolutionary mindset of Darwinism. It is just a few short steps from evolution, to eugenics, to genocide. As to ignoring your main point that genocide has a long human pedigree and predates Darwin…there is no refutation of that statement. We are not discussing the long human pedigree… We are discussing Hitler and Darwinism. Why is it so difficult to admit that Hitler, by employing his “final solution”, was simply exercising the Darwinian concept of “survival of the fittest?”
Ignoring the evidence… That’s a broad statement. Your arguments are based on insults, slights and repetitive statements…and fail to convince. And I would hardly call Expelled a slick PR campaign. Ben Stein is not a scientist, the Discovery Institute is a rather small and poorly funded endeavor and the ID scientists interviewed are not taken seriously by their peers and yet such cries of outrage from the “Darwin crowd!”
Ask yourself this, scripto: Why does the average American refuse to believe in the theory of evolution? It fills the text books and classrooms. It is in nearly every documentary and is preached by every “real” scientist and yet 82% of the population believes in a God-guided process, with more than 51% believing that we were created in our present form? Please don’t insult the intelligence of my readers by assertions that we are engaging in a visceral reaction so that people will have no choice but to feel that they must ignore the evidence.
April 29, 2008 at 6:57 pm
Eugenics and Social Darwinism existed long before Charles ever went on his boat voyage.
If you really want to see early examples of such idiotic thoughts then you skip to an earlier time to a man called Thomas Malthus, who was much more a proponent of such arguments.
April 29, 2008 at 6:58 pm
And appealing to the apparent intelligence of Americans is far from a winning or valid argument. Despite calling on several fallacies, it can be easily countered by simply mentioning the fact that you lot voted in an idiot as President. Twice.
April 29, 2008 at 7:53 pm
Matt,
A lot of us aren’t all that favorably disposed to the man, voted the other way, and sometimes even campaigned against him. But it’s really uncharitable and probably inaccurate to call Bill Clinton an idoiot.
April 29, 2008 at 8:16 pm
oops, typo! I’m an ‘idoiot’ too, of course.
On the matter at hand, I hate to get roped into a conversation that demands a more formal context for dispute, but just a couple of points:
1) It may be an interesting question as to how much influence the ideas of Charles Darwin had on the most evil men of the previous century, and on their ideologies.
But it has absolutely nothing to do with whether ‘Natural Selection’ should be the standard operating model of biological scientists. Nothing whatsover. A scientific model explains the existing evidence and makes predictions which can be verified by experiment. This process takes place in a fairly democratic and scientific community. The scientific method is, in the long run, good at getting at the truth about natural phenomenon.
Attacking a scientific model based on its misapplication in a peripheral sphere (politics) is like… attacking Christianity because it led to horrible Christian pop music.
2) Biology currently uses the model of Natural Selection as a basis for a vast amount of inquiry. Scientific models aren’t permanent, or perfect, and enough scientists understand this. Newton was overthrown in favor of Relativity.
The manner in which this is done, though, is to propose an alternative scientific model that fits the current data, and also makes predictions that can ber verified by experiment: predictions that cannot be understood with the ‘old model’. Furthermore, these predictions MUST be reproducable.
I have not seen any instance of a ‘new model’ to replace natural selection that meets the above basic criteria. ID doesn’t explain the current evidence: it just says Natural Selection DOESN’T explain it. ID doesn’t make predictions that can be verified by reproducable experiment.
ID simply isn’t a viable alternative for scientists. That doesn’t mean you have to believe Natural Selection! But you can’t expect scientists to abandon it in favor of ID.
April 29, 2008 at 10:26 pm
My goodness…what a goose I am! I’ve once again allowed my pride to rope me into a fight I never intended!
Gentlemen: I’ve enjoyed this conversation far too much! In the process, I’ve forgotten the primary purpose of this blog…to provide an oasis of support and encouragement for home educators and anyone curious about the “goings on” in a large, traditional Catholic family. I had hoped this movie review would serve that purpose, by providing a Catholic mom’s perspective on a controversial film. My views are my own, and my world perspective is most certainly colored by a deep and abiding faith in the Holy Trinity and a love for the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church.
I enjoy a good argument. The only problem is that it awakens a bit of pride in me. The desire to be right. And I’m infinitely stubborn. I’m really not listening well to the other side, because, quite simply, I’ve lived it all before and heard all of the arguments.
And I really don’t care about what a group of atheists believe about evolution.
I care about the atheist, as I would care about any other “brother.” We call this “loving (our) neighbor as (our)self.” I’ve not been very loving, I’ve nearly ceased to be friendly, and , instead have become judgmental. Please forgive me for my snide and snarky comments…though my position on ID, creationism and evolution remains unchanged.
So…I’m going to remain a lurker in the midst of this conversation from here out. As long as the dialogue remains charitable, comments remain open. You can be sure I’ll be reading each and every one…I’m insatiably curious. Remember: play fair and no low blows!
Thank you all for a most enjoyable, though time consuming, conversation!
April 30, 2008 at 10:04 am
Kimberly
Here’s one for the road (in a last desperate attempt to change your mind). From Truth Cannot Contradict Truth:
“Today, almost half a century after the publication of the encyclical, new knowledge has led to the recognition of the theory of evolution as more than a hypothesis. It is indeed remarkable that this theory has been progressively accepted by researchers, following a series of discoveries in various fields of knowledge. The convergence, neither sought nor fabricated, of the results of work that was conducted independently is in itself a significant argument in favor of this theory. “
John Paul II
April 30, 2008 at 10:40 am
Is the commenter above Catholic? ‘Cause if he is, then he’s aware that JPII’s quote is not an ex cathedra teaching and doesn’t carry the weight of infallibility.
Pope Benedict XVI has waded into the evolution debate in the United States, saying the universe was made by an “intelligent project” and criticizing those who in the name of science say its creation was without direction or order.
“How many of these people are there today? These people, ‘fooled by atheism,’ believe and try to demonstrate that it’s scientific to think that everything is free of direction and order,” Benedict said.
“With the sacred Scripture, the Lord awakens the reason that sleeps and tells us: In the beginning, there was the creative word. In the beginning, the creative word — this word that created everything and created this intelligent project that is the cosmos — is also love.”
In case you’re interested you can read the rest here:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/10007382/
May 1, 2008 at 6:09 am
Here are some reports of the many references that show that the long ages for evolution have been falsified and/or contradict the radiometric dating methods long used by evolutionists to make their case, which has been and still is the substance of my arguments. These data are well worth teaching to our children and grandchildren but are denied them by the deception and propaganda of those proponents of “St. Charles Darwin” and their constantly evolving hypothesis that they can’t even keep up with.
More later with the books and technical paper references not on the Internet. I must head off to work.
Snelling,Andrew, 2005. Radiocarbon in diamond confirmed http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/am/v2/n4/radiocarbon-in-diamonds
Snelling, Andrew 1998. Rapid rocks: granite formation http://www.answersingenesis.org/tj/v10/i2/granite.asp
Snelling, Andrew 1998. Radioisotope dating in the Grand Canyon http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v27/i3/canyon.asp
Snelling, Andrew 1997. A 165 million year old surprise http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v19/i2/surprise.asp
Snelling, Andrew, 1999 Dating dilemma: Fossil wood in ancient sandstone http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v21/i3/fossilwood.asp
Snelling, Andrew, 1999Radioactive dating failures http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v22/i1/dating.asp
Snelling, Andrew 1997. Radioactive data in conflict: Fossil wood in ancient lava yields radiocarbon. http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v20/i1/dating.asp
Snelling, Andrew, 1992, Startling Evidence for Noah’s Flood http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v15/i1/flood.asp
Snelling, Andrew, 2000. Geological conflict: Young radiocarbon date for ancient fossil wood challenges fossil dating http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v22/i2/geology.asp
May 1, 2008 at 10:26 am
Answers in Genesis is a great resource if you require your information to be completely wrong. Here is a better resource.
May 2, 2008 at 10:50 pm
Regarding Scripto’s “resource” (above which he failed to post) I would suggest it may have to do with claims by evolutionary sources to the effect that Dr. Snelling and other “creationists” are completly wrong. I suggest the articles be read in their entirety. Mostly evolutionists of any stripe ignore the research or use straw man topics and innuendo to belittle ANY research results that conflict with their “religious beliefs” in the differing evolutionary hypothesis. An example would be four legged mammels somehow evolving into whales over millions of years; they of course ignore the scientific reasons why this could not happen. Nontheless they do a great job of speculating how and pay artists for fanciful drawings. Do they also believe that our great grandparents X 10 to the nth power were “rodents” running under the feet of dinosaurs as suggested by Carl Sagan?? Sounds like the Cinderella syndrome of mice turning into horses or vice versa if you get what I mean. Add millions of years and a fairy tale turns into reality; that is the name of their game – millions and millions and millins of years.
But theistic evolutionary Catholics (TE) are committing two major errors: (1) Both Theistic evolution and the Atheistic variety are obviously self contradictory; both forms can’t be true, either God did it or nature did it but both scratch each other’s backs. (2) The TE’s also have a primary metaphysical error: They confound the period of creation when God spoke all things into existence with the period of providence in which we live. The latter is the domain of the natural scientist. The former is not. The evolutionists are confounding the Church Fathers’ opinions in regard to the natural order—the order of providence—with their teaching in regard to divine revelation about creation. This is a gross error. The Fathers were just as error-prone as modern scientists when “speculating” about the natural order of things. BUT their unanimous teaching in regard to the interpretation of Genesis 1 on creation—that God spoke all of the different kinds of creatures into existence without using any kind of NATURAL process—is authoritative.
It would be as illogical to reject the Fathers’ teaching on the miracles of Jesus on scientific grounds—because those miraculous actions do not conform to the natural order of things—as it is to reject the Fathers’ teaching on creation. In both cases, the testimony of the Word of God—as understood by all the Fathers—trumps our limited experience of the natural order. However, assuming that “Scripto” is a TE would he mind telling us how Christ “naturally” changed water into wine or raised his own body from the dead??? After Scripto has told us how that happened “naturally” perhaps he could tell us how order came out of the chaos of the “Big Bang Explosion by natural processes???
Meanwhile here are some references with my name on them along with web sites where similar information is noted which I promised to post:
Fields, W., H.R. Miller, J.Whitmore, D. Davis, G. Detwiler, J. Ditmars, R. Whitelaw, and G. Novaez, 1990, The Paluxy footprints revisited, in Walsh, Robert E. and Christopher L. Brooks, editors, Proceedings of the Second International Conference on Creationism,
Volume II, Technical Symposium Sessions and Additional Topics. Creation Science Fellowship, Pittsburgh, PA, pp. 155-175.
Miller, H. R. 2005. More failures for potassium argon dating. Creation Research Society Quarterly, Vol. 42 (3):207-211.
http://www.omniology.com/GlenKubanism.html [the debate over fossil human footprints with dinosaurs]
http://www.omniology.com/students-rights.html [1976 students and teachers rights regarding research and science by the National Academy of Science which has betrayed their own pledge when it come to open discussion on origins.
St. Lawrence of Brindisi pray for our discernment
May 4, 2008 at 5:57 pm
Here is one of the Omniology links I neglected to post at the time of the above writing.
http://www.omniology.com/ModernHumanFootprints.html
The annual excavation at the McFall site along the Paluxy River near Glen Rose TX is scheduled for July 4 2008 or thereabout. Go to http://www.creationevidence.org for details and to register. The Creation Evidences Museum new, main building hopefully will be available for tours this summer.
Last years scheduled excavation was canceled due to the flooding of the paluxy river about 10 feet over the dig site which is 8 feet above the river.
The CEM museum and about 50 volunteer excavators almost always discover a dinosaur footprint or more and an occasional human one. Over100 “pristine” human ones have been excavated with 300 or so “pristine” dinosaur footprints since the initial four or five 16 inch and four 8 inch long human ones in two trails were excavated in 1982 adjacent to a dinosaur trail.
If you viewed the other web sites that I’ve posted you will see that the main opponent has not participated in these “pristine” footprint excavations and only makes artistic drawings of how he thinks they were made in the river but NOT photos, in stating his case for the human like ones in the river NOT being human.
In 1999 the main well preserved human-like fossil footprint trail in the river was molded in its entirety during a dry spell by Joe Taylor who is the paleontologist and director of the Mt. Blanco Fossil Museum in Crosbyton TX and the subsequent cast is now located in at least one museum —
The Glendive MT Dinosaur and Fossil Museum for scientific studies.
May 11, 2008 at 9:39 pm
Dear Hugh Miller,
May I have your email address? Send it to Kimberly, the owner of this blog, if needs be. I’m looking over your evidence, but I still feel uneasy about a few things, and I would love to ask you a few questions.
Pax Christi,
Geoffrey
May 29, 2008 at 5:43 pm
Brother or very distant cousin Miller:
Sorry I did not get back to your May 11 posted request. I’ve been very busy with two part time jobs and my wife’s many health problems.
Because I’m also preparing for several possible field trips this summer and other projects I must decline your polite request for my e-mail address. It’s hovering around the servers limit of 1000. Meanwhile please feel free to ask the questions through Kimberly’s blog. I’ll check it every other day. If the questions require photos or reports I’ll try and send them to your address in Texas if you care to so supply
St Lawrence of Brindisi, pray for our discernment on origins about which you wrote so elequently in the 16th century. [St. Lawrence’s works on origins and Genesis 1-11 were translated from the Latin by a latin, Greek, Hebrew scholar at my church. I’d love to send you some of this translation. Pope John 23d made him a doctrine of the church in the late 1950’s I believe it was. ]
Hugh
June 9, 2008 at 7:45 pm
In case anyone should return to view the contents of this blog I would suggesst that they consider that main stream evolutionists think that the study of origins is a game to them that has but one rule as follows. In other words everyone must play by their rules.
BIOLOGICAL EVOLUTION ETC.
“Science, fundamentally is a game. It is a game with one overriding and defining rule. Rule No. 1: Let us see how far and to what extent we can explain the behavior of the physical and material universe in terms of purely physical and material causes, without invoking the supernatural.” Reference: The Game of Science, T.E. Dickenson (vol. 44, June ’92, p 137. Am unsure of periodical but he is a biologist.
In a debate with Gish the evolutionist, I think, Dr. Meyers a famous biologist, in a church in Evansville IN ~1984.
(I have the tape somewhere).
“You may well be right, special creation is probably the truth and evolution is wrong. Nevertheless, evolution is science, and creation is religion, so only evolution should be taught in schools.”