Let me tell you what you should think, thought police

Choice of words

I love how people choose their language carefully and phrase their statements in such a way that by default you make people to feel inferior. For some time, few of my friends have tied to persuade me that the reluctance by the British to acknowledge that Darwin is very difficult to prove comes from the fact that this brings great national pride that we have given the world this enlightenment and as usual we lead the way.

Why do we support Evolution in UK?

I have always rejected this view as I do believe that this is not how scientific community operates, however  this becomes very difficult to defend when looking at how our journalism works.  We love to push our “enlightenment”  and rave about how we are better than the “backward”  Americans.

I think its about time we all learn the first lesson of any good self defense class, and that is “don’t underestimate your opponents but at the same time do not overestimate their ability”. In other words get to truly understand where they come from, don’t over commit as they can use your attack against you very effectively.

“The revelation that US vice-presidential candidate Sarah Palin says creationism should be taught in schools has raised few eyebrows in the US. An estimated 47% of Americans reject outright Charles Darwin’s theory of evolution, accepting instead the Bible’s account of the creation of the universe – as laid out in the first chapter of Genesis.

But in Britain, where a portrait of Darwin appears on the back of the £10 note, his theory of life evolving from primitive to complex structures by means of natural selection appears to be unchallenged orthodoxy.”

Talk about the political incorrectness

We should not forget that in order to maintain fairness we need to hear both sides of the argument, this does not mean that this has to go on indefinitely, difficulty of the subject will determine time that is needed in order to master subject in question.

Its very good to hear that BBC does from time to time allow some “air time” to the “Problem of creationism”, we all know that this will destroy the fabric of our society, and make us all stupid,  bring our financial institutions down, and increase violence, drunkenness, sexually transmitted disease etc. etc. cynicism a side at least we are not completely ignoring what the rest of the world is thinking.

Creationism Idiotic or plausible

On the point that some people are raising that we should not teach Creationism and Intelligent Design in our schools and that this is anti science and is a child abuse, let me just ask this question.

What do you call deliberate suppression of information that there are thousands of scientist (Both religions and agnostic) who have problem with the theory of evolution. I

s this not “brain washing” and thought control. It’s not that I object to being called stupid,because I question Darwinism. It’s the fact that others try to make themselves intelligent especially when you discover that many skeptics of the theory of evolution in dead understand the subject in far more details then the many proponents and are therefore able to pick holes in the presuppositions that are portrayed as “scientific fact”.

“Creationism is anti-science,” says Mr Porteous Wood. “Teaching it to children is a form of intellectual child abuse, because it gives them the wrong facts about life.” His passionate views echo those of Prof Dawkins, who last month accused teachers of “bending over backwards” to respect “prejudices” that children have been brought up with at home.

“All we are saying is that it is not unreasonable to present an alternative explanation of how life began,” he says.

Most of all we should learn to just be more civilized and agree that real education should not shy away from difficult questions but endeavor to find answers. That we should not alienate parents by saying your mum or dad is ignorant as they disagree with Evolution. There are not many people today who would argue that we don’t evolve, it’s just that many skeptics including myself find this to be negative rather than positive influence on biological life on this planet. One could almost rename this to De-evolution, this fits perfectly with the 2nd law of thermodynamics that everything tends to deterioration.

One other article in BBC news today by Pallab Ghosh

Warning sounded on web’s future

By Pallab Ghosh
Science correspondent, BBC News

Here we find further evidence that there are those who would like to stop others from polluting the minds of others by only vetted and approved articles should be published by the internet or create ratings which will tell readers if they can trust the articles being published.

Is this not precisely what stops people from understanding the issues? Are we not finding that even “Scientific dogma” can and will be challenged and amended from time to time?

Sir Tim told BBC News that there needed to be new systems that would give websites a label for trustworthiness once they had been proved reliable sources.

“On the web the thinking of cults can spread very rapidly and suddenly a cult which was 12 people who had some deep personal issues suddenly find a formula which is very believable,” he said. “A sort of conspiracy theory of sorts and which you can imagine spreading to thousands of people and being deeply damaging.”

Sir Tim Berners-Lee and colleagues at the World Wide Web consortium had looked at simple ways of branding websites – but concluded that a whole variety of different mechanisms was needed.

Tim Berners-Lee (AFP/Getty)

Sir Tim wants to help get the web to people who are cut off from it.

“I’m not a fan of giving a website a simple number like an IQ rating because like people they can vary in all kinds of different ways,” he said. “So I’d be interested in different organisations labelling websites in different ways”.

Sir Tim spoke to the BBC to publicise the launch of his World Wide Web Foundation which aims to improve the web’s accessibility.

Alongside this role it will aim to make it easier for people to get online. Currently only 20% of the world’s population have access to the web

Difference in approach is all it takes to bring people on board

In my book we should be able to debunk, nonsensical ignorance not ban it, rating it, or ridicule it.  If we only spend more time with people trying to explain why they are wrong rather than telling them off because we think that they are idiots. We would enjoy greater success and promote greater analytical discussions than simply demanding that they come to our way of thinking.

Think back to your childhood and then answer this question, how did you respond to someone who questioned you on why you believe something and then again if someone else told you that you are moron for not listening to their view point. I.e. “Only moron would disagree with this fact”

We should stay away from Intellectual superiority complexes; stop patronizing and labeling people this only serves to inflame opinions and engage with people, as only this truly shows that you care about individual and not simply to prove that you are right.

I Hope to see more of an open minded approach from all of us. For more information on closed minds see the very end of this blog entitles “Creationism biologist quits job”

Kind regards

Defend the Word

Page last updated at 10:45 GMT, Monday, 15 September 2008 11:45 UK

Who are the British creationists?

Adam and Eve

By Julian Joyce
BBC News

Widely believed in the United States, creationism – the belief that God created the earth and man in six days – is enjoying a resurgence of support in the UK, say its believers and its critics.At first glance the Genesis Expo museum, in the naval town of Portsmouth, looks like any other repository of natural history exhibits: fossils of dinosaurs and unusual rock formations.

But focus on the narrative of the information panels alongside them, and you start to realise this is a museum with a difference – one dedicated to the theory of creationism.

The revelation that US vice-presidential candidate Sarah Palin says creationism should be taught in schools has raised few eyebrows in the US. An estimated 47% of Americans reject outright Charles Darwin’s theory of evolution, accepting instead the Bible’s account of the creation of the universe – as laid out in the first chapter of Genesis.

If we came from nothing and go into nothing… that encourages people to lead reckless and materialistic lifestyles
Rev Greg Haslam, Westminster Chapel, London

But in Britain, where a portrait of Darwin appears on the back of the £10 note, his theory of life evolving from primitive to complex structures by means of natural selection appears to be unchallenged orthodoxy.

Not so, say those on both sides of the creationist divide – a point amply proved by the existence of the Genesis Expo museum, to date Britain’s only creationist museum. The museum is the work of Britain’s oldest creationist group, the Creation Science Movement, which has built Genesis Expo to visibly challenge the theory of evolution .

In its walk-through display, fossils in glass cases purport to show that ancient animals – including man – did not evolve from lower creatures but were instead divinely created “after their kind” (Genesis Chapter 1, verse 21).

A picture of a landslide-causing volcano is used to counter the scientific understanding that rock strata took millions of years to build up.

And throughout the display are scattered examples of “intelligent design” – complex creatures that “could not have evolved” as the result of natural selection.

Gravestone exhibit

Leading British scientist and author Dr Richard Dawkins has warned of creationist “brainwashing” in the UK – spurred on by an unwillingness of the authorities to offend religious sensibilities. His creationist adversaries say their ideas are beginning to gain wider acceptance within these shores as dissatisfaction grows with “materialist” evolutionary explanations of how life began.

£10 note

The pocket evolutionist – Charles Darwin, on the back of a £10 note

Museum curator Ross Rosevear describes himself as a “Young Earth” creationist, who believes that the earth was created in six days “less than 10,000 years ago.”

Standing before the museum’s prize exhibit – a mock gravestone inscribed: “Here lies the Theory of Evolution” – he rejects as “unreliable” the scientific tests that fix the age of the earth at more than four billion years. While he concedes his convictions are intimately connected with his Christian faith, he insists the evidence presented in the displays could convince even non-believers of the “fatal flaws” in Darwin’s theory of evolution.

“All we are saying is that it is not unreasonable to present an alternative explanation of how life began,” he says.

For some, it’s an explanation that has gained a surprisingly wide acceptance in the UK.

A 2006 survey for the BBC found that more than a fifth of those polled were convinced by the creationist argument. Less than half – 48% – chose evolution.

And while the Church of England this week issues a formal apology to Charles Darwin, after initially denying his theory, other churches – mostly on the evangelical Christian wing – adhere to old beliefs.

Growing support

Justin Thacker, head of theology for the Evangelical Alliance, says research in 1998 found one third of the Alliance church members were “literal six-day creationists.” The other two thirds embraced evolutionary theory to a “greater or lesser degree” he says.

Ross Rosevear

British creationist and curator of Genesis Expo, Ross Rosevear

“Since that survey was done, I’d say fewer of our members are out-and-out creationists – it has become more acceptable to embrace some form of Darwinism,” he says.

But Keith Porteous Wood of the Secular Society is unconvinced.

“There is no question that creationism is growing,” he says. “It is increasingly well funded, and well organised.”

The society says Britain is beginning to follow the lead of the US where supporters and opponents of creationism have joined battle – in the school classroom. Two years ago the government sought to clarify the rules on creationist teaching, following revelations that the head of science at one of its new academies was the director of an anti-evolution pressure group.

A spokeswoman for the Department for Children, Schools and Families says creationism is not included in the science curriculum because “it has no scientific basis… but it can be discussed in [religious education] lessons”.

Creationist schools

But that ruling was questioned last week by an influential figure. The Rev Professor Michael Reiss, director of education at the Royal Society, says science teachers ought to be willing to talk about creationism if students bring the subject up.

He told the British Association Festival of Science in Liverpool that while making clear creationism is not accepted by the scientific community, teachers should convey a message of respect that does not “denigrate or ridicule” children’s beliefs.

Charles Darwin – 200 years from your birth (1809) the Church of England owes you an apology for misunderstanding you
Rev Dr Malcolm Brown, of CofE’s mission and public affairs department

It’s a sentiment that inflames the anti-creationist lobby, which sees any compromises in the classroom as a betrayal of children’s interests.

“Creationism is anti-science,” says Mr Porteous Wood. “Teaching it to children is a form of intellectual child abuse, because it gives them the wrong facts about life.” His passionate views echo those of Prof Dawkins, who last month accused teachers of “bending over backwards” to respect “prejudices” that children have been brought up with at home.

And secular groups also point out that while state school pupils are “protected” from creationist teaching, similar guidelines do not exist to cover children who attend private religious schools – Christian, Jewish and Muslim.

One such school that teaches creationism as a science is the respected Islamic Karimia Institute in Nottingham.

“We teach what it says in the Koran, that God created Adam and Eve, and from them came the rest of humanity,” says institute director Dr Musharraf Hussain. “We do not teach that man is descended from a lower animal – we say that God created the different species on their own.”

This shared belief in the origins of man – and the universe – is uniting unlikely bedfellows in the anti-evolution cause.

The Rev Greg Haslam, who preaches the creationist Christian creed to his 400-strong congregation at Westminster Chapel in London, welcomes the determination of Muslims to impart a religious-based view of the world.

“Science does not have to be taught in conflict with faith or religion,” he says. “I believe the current debate over creationism versus evolution is beginning to draw more and people over to our side of the argument

“The materialist explanation of the creation has nothing to offer – if we came from nothing and go into nothing, then that encourages people to lead reckless and materialistic lifestyles.

“Evolution is a world-view that leads to futility. It’s no wonder people are dissatisfied with it.”

Page last updated at 16:28 GMT, Tuesday, 16 September 2008 17:28 UK

‘Creationism’ biologist quits job

Dinosaur fossil

Evolution and creationism could both be examined, Prof Reiss said

Professor Michael Reiss has quit as director of education at the Royal Society following the controversy over his recent comments on creationism.

Last week Prof Reiss – a Church of England minister – said creationism should be discussed in science lessons if pupils raised the issue.

He was criticised by other scientists – though misquoted as saying creationism should be “taught” in science classes.

The society said some of his comments had been “open to misinterpretation”.

This had damaged its reputation.

‘Not scientific’

“As a result, Professor Reiss and the Royal Society have agreed that, in the best interests of the society, he will step down immediately as director of education – a part-time post he held on secondment,” it said in a statement.

“He is to return, full time, to his position as professor of science education at the Institute of Education.”

The Royal Society’ reiterated that its position was that creationism had no scientific basis and should not be part of the science curriculum.

“However, if a young person raises creationism in a science class, teachers should be in a position to explain why evolution is a sound scientific theory and why creationism is not, in any way, scientific.”

It added that the society greatly appreciated the efforts of Prof Reiss, a biologist, in furthering its work in the important field of science education over the past two years and wished him well for the future.

Creationists take a literal interpretation of the Bible’s description of the origin of life and reject the Darwinian concept of evolution.

Prof Reiss, speaking at the British Association Festival of Science at the University of Liverpool, estimated that about one in 10 children was from a family which supported a creationist rather than evolutionary viewpoint.

Reaction

He said his experience had led him to believe it was more effective to include discussion about creationism alongside scientific theories such as the Big Bang and evolution – rather than simply giving the impression that such children were wrong.

Reacting to his stepping down, Lord Robert Winston, professor of science and society at Imperial College London, said: “I fear that in this action the Royal Society may have only diminished itself.

“This is not a good day for the reputation of science or scientists.

“This individual was arguing that we should engage with and address public misconceptions about science – something that the Royal Society should applaud.”

Advertisements

About defendtheword

To contact us please send e-mail to defend.theword@ntlworld.com
This entry was posted in Evolution. Bookmark the permalink.

24 Responses to Let me tell you what you should think, thought police

  1. Harry says:

    Yeah thousands of scientists might disagree with evolution (where you get that number by the way?) But Hundreds of thousands stand firmly behind it. Creationists use a technique called teach the controversy, a controversy they themselves have created.

    In the end, science is not based on popular support, it is based on evidence and even if they convince all of non-scientific population. We Scientists will always know…well, not know, just be 99.99% sure;)

  2. adel says:

    Only one word I want to say which is ;Darwin was a big donkey as his theory stated.He deceived millions by his stupid and ignorant theory and he lead millions into eternal fire with satan.God created the whole world as it is written in the bible.I hate that person who brain-washed millions to live like animals without the holy spirit.

  3. adel says:

    The bible is the word of God given to mankind to lead humanity into the right path of peace and love.Jesus Chist is the king of peace .He is the king of kings and the lord of lords.

  4. Most motorists are cynical about their purpose and think they are just there to generate revenue for the police. Paige Culture

  5. Thanks Harry

    Thank you for both giving the question and then answering it at the same time. This is precisely what you find again and again with evolutionists. They make statement then make another statement that completely destroys their first presupposition. I.e. Your question where I find data about many skeptics shows high emotion and disbelief, then you very kindly build my defense by rightly saying that truth does not depend on democratically selected beliefs or popular support.

    As for the “fact” that scientist will always have 99.99% certainty of knowing the truth, if this is the statement which you relate to evolution and you make this as a scientist, then I would hate to see your arguments you put forward for your field of research.

    There are big question marks over this theory, and many honest proponents of this theory freely admit this. Whilst I agree that evolution is plausible when it’s the only theory around, however if there is a second proposal which will be “just as questionable”, (to non believers) then in my book both would require serious consideration.

    Both Scientific world and Bible postulate that earth was created out of nothing one says it’s Big Bang and second claims that it was a work of God. However one could also argue that the first simply only serves to confirm the second. Fact that material started from immaterial is remarkable whether you are scientist or Christian only leads to same conclusion.

    My last point I will make here is this, regardless of who you are you still have to make judgment on the information that is put in front of you, all you have is data and analysis but your judgment will be driven by your ideology. If you are Christian like me science will make you praise God for his marvelous work, and if you are atheist then you will use every available opportunity given to you to dismantle, disprove or ridicule anyone who believes that laws of nature are put together by the almighty God.

    It’s all about the worldview that one holds, I sometimes wish that things are as simple as you put it i.e. about 99.99% of certainty, life would be so much simpler, but then again would that be challenging enough for all of us?

    Why is it that science changes and evolves it’s because we learn new things and accordingly amend our theories, we should therefore continue to question everything that continues to have big question marks hanging above it.

    I believe that this theory continues to be both endorsed and promoted not because it’s proven but because it removes the need for God, and elevates man above everything else. Man can therefore tell to himself that it’s OK to do whatever our heart desires as there are no consequences. However this materialistic view is on it’s way out, and I’m glad to say that this is true even amongst the highly intelligent, well educated scientists.

    Kind regards

    Defend the word

  6. David Buckna says:

    In a 2006 gubernatorial debate, Sarah Palin said evolution and creationism should both be taught in public schools. But in an interview the following day with the Anchorage Daily News, Palin said:

    http://dwb.adn.com/news/politics/elections/story/8347904p-8243554c.html

    ***
    In an interview Thursday, Palin said she meant only to say that discussion of alternative views should be allowed to arise in Alaska classrooms:

    “I don’t think there should be a prohibition against debate if it comes up in class. It doesn’t have to be part of the curriculum.”

    She added that, if elected, she would not push the state Board of
    Education to add such creation-based alternatives to the state’s required curriculum.
    ***
    ===============================================
    Teaching Evolution – Is There a Better Way?
    http://www.creationmoments.net/articles/article.php?a=21

    Should Evolution Be Immune From Critical Analysis?
    http://www.rae.org/critanl.html

    Teaching Origins in Public Schools
    by David Menton
    http://emporium.turnpike.net/C/cs/teach.htm
    ==============================================
    David Menton bio:

    * Biomedical research technician at Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minnesota in the Department of Dermatology (1960-62)
    * Associate Professor of Anatomy at Washington University School of Medicine, St. Louis, Missouri (1966-2000)
    * Associate Professor Emeritus of Anatomy at Washington University School of Medicine (July 2000)
    ===============================================
    http://www.rae.org/critanl.html

    [snip]

    Dr. David N. Menton is a former Associate Professor of Anatomy, Washington University School of Medicine in St. Louis, now retired. In his September 1995 address (“Evolution: Is a scientific critique possible?”) at the Abbey Arts Centre in Abbotsford, British Columbia, Menton commented:

    “What I’m suggesting in the classroom is: not teaching creation. What I’m suggesting you consider in the classroom is: teach evolution the way your Minister of Education says you ought to–teach the curriculum the way they say you ought to. I believe in obeying the laws. I didn’t come here to tell you to get yourself thrown out of a job or anything like that…Do what you’re asked to do.”

    “But there isn’t anyone that’s going to stop you from presenting critical evidence against evolution. No one.”

    “I eagerly look forward to the first test case in court, where they drag a teacher kicking and screaming into the courts who has done the job they’re supposed to do. They’ve taught evolution–they’ve covered the curriculum–they’ve covered the points in the book–but they also presented scientific evidence that is critical of these evolutionary views–evidence generated by other evolutionists themselves. I’m waiting for the court case when they take that person in the school and say: ‘You have no right presenting scientific evidence from evolutionists critical of evolution.'”

    “I’ll tell you–the approach that is being taken here guarantees one
    thing…you’re guaranteeing this course is going to be boring–you’re
    going to teach evolution as a ‘Just So Story’. Anyone with dissenting
    points of view is going to get crushed. They’re either going to go along with the evolutionary paradigm, or be told that they can’t speak out; they’re not going to win that round, and neither will you. You’re going to bore your kids silly.”

    [snip]
    ===============================================
    The following suggested Origins of Life policy, which first appeared in the Buckna/Laidlaw article, “Should evolution be immune from critical analysis in the science classroom?” (http://www.icr.org/article/411/) is a realistic, practical and legal way for local and state school boards to achieve a win-win with regard to evolution teaching. Even the ACLU, the NCSE, and Americans United for the Separation of Church and State should find the policy acceptable:

    “As no theory in science is immune from critical examination and
    evaluation, and recognizing that evolutionary theory is the only approved theory of origins that can be taught in the [province/state] science curriculum: whenever evolutionary theory is taught, students and teachers are encouraged to discuss the scientific information that supports and questions evolution and its underlying assumptions, in order to promote the development of critical thinking skills. This discussion would include only the scientific evidence/information for and against evolutionary theory, as it seeks to explain the origin of the universe and the diversity of life on our planet.”

  7. Thank you very much David.

    It’s good to see that there are still people who prefer to be open even when view they may hold is still very firm.

    Problem in any debate is when you are given “facts” and when you ask for the source of the fact you then discover that maybe they are again giving you more of a conclusion which is based on information rather than strictly speaking a actual fact. Then after you share your view about the presented “Fact” then you end up being ridiculed as inept in rational thinking / analysis.

    I do however approve highly of your view that we should continue to hold civilized communication on the issue, and especially fight “educationisam” this is I admit a made up word (by me) and is meant to explain the way there is a discrimination in our schools and universities i.e. like sexism, Racism there can also be an elitist “we are better” view held by some who believe they hold all the answers and this only serves to widen the gap rather than truly help people who continue to have questions.

    I have always been a man who stood by the motto “we have to agree to disagree” from time to time, but this fact of life does not mean its the end of the world.

    Note for example that I believe that one can be real Christian and still believe in theory of evolution. This is not essential requirements for passage to heaven. Only reason I still bother with it, is that there are plenty of people who use this theory to push their atheistic views, I.e. this removes the need for God and therefore “God does not exist”.

    I do agree that I hold my view, due to the fact that I find it in the Bible. I.e. world is created and not evolved, but also note that there are many forms of creationist, there are some who believe that God used evolution, that God gradually created the earth, this allows long age of the earth and there are others who believe in young earth.

    What I’m trying to say on this side of the debate there are many views and yet we continue to hold civilized debate and my only wish is for that to continue. I don’t expect to convert anybody, in fact that would be contrary to the Bible, that is the job of God, my role is limited to simply disseminating this information, I may offer my view but that is as far as I go.

    Kind regards

    Defend the word

  8. Harry says:

    Defend the word

    I never gave you a question

    You have been suckered in by teach the controversy. There are no big question marks over evolution any more, and quote me any scientist who believes in evolution that says there are large problems with it. Come on now, look at the facts, the wedge document proves its a political farce pushed by the Discovery institute, ‘put a theory in education before they even have evidence for it’ yes thats right. In the pushers plans ID was to be put in schools before the research on it was complete. Anyway, me do not care.

    There is no debate, only in the US, which the whole civilised world is laughing at. If you want to debate evolution, do it with a better theory, not the one evolution replaced in the first place (because they first one does not hold water!)

  9. Harry says:

    Oh yeah and David Buckna, if you can give me any evidence against evolution as Dr Menton claims that has not been easily disproven, (before you post any do yourself a favour and do a google search on it and find a good source, or I wont bother answering).

    Problem is Dr Menton’s comment, is that it will be a teacher with a fundementalist background will teach problems that some creationist nut job told them

    ‘Hyuck, second law forbids evolution…WE CLEVER!!’

  10. Harry here is some evidence you obviously did not like in the first place, also note that if you stand for evolution, your PhD Is In evolution you are not about to risk loosing it all by publicly criticising this theory are you? You don’t have to be rocket scientist to work that one out.

    Secondly my friend I don’t teach controversy it’s not controversy to me, if you find that controversial I’m shocked, Creationism does not stand for terrorism, sexism, or abuse of any kind, its a worldview and in the free world one would hope this not to be a problem.

    Lastly I debate, I question I may even share but as for the teaching I leave this to others, this is almost impossible task over the net and as there is so much out there I prefer simply to direct people to right places, links and books.

    Note that your last point about evolution replacing creationism this is again very subjective, this may have happened to you, your friends and family but does not mean that this is true everywhere, in fact even here in Britain we known that there is a growing disappointment with the “Materialistic Evolution” that is because it does not account for so many things that are ignored and unanswered by it’s philosophy.

    Kind regards

    Defend the word

    Taken from http://www.reviewevolution.com/press/pressRelease_NCSECampaign.php

    Discovery Institutes critique National Center for Science Education’s Shrill Campaign in Defense of “Evolution”

    SEATTLE–The National Center for Science Education (NCSE), a lobbying group whose self-described mission is to “defend evolution,” has responded to scholarly criticism of the recent public television series “Evolution” with a series of shrill web postings that rely largely on mudslinging rather than science.

    “Scholars have raised significant objections to the scientific accuracy of the one-sided ‘Evolution’ series,” says philosopher of science Stephen Meyer, director of Discovery Institute’s Center for the Renewal of Science and Culture. “These objections have been amply documented from the relevant scientific literature. Unfortunately, instead of engaging in a discussion of the merits of the criticisms raised, the NCSE has for the most part responded with red herrings and ad hominems.”

    “The negative tactics of the NCSE seem more like a political campaign than a science discussion,” adds Discovery Institute President Bruce Chapman. “Far from alleviating fears about the credibility of ‘Evolution,’ the NCSE’s approach merely reinforces our concerns that the ‘Evolution’ series is aimed more at championing a pre-determined agenda than impartially exploring evolutionary biology.”

    On its website the NCSE repeatedly claims that Discovery Institute and its scholars have misquoted or misrepresented various evolutionary biologists in their effort to critique the “Evolution” series.

    “The NCSE’s ‘misquotation’ claim is a strategy often used to protect Darwinian orthodoxy from scientific criticism,” responds biologist Jonathan Wells, a Discovery Institute Senior Fellow who holds a Ph.D. in molecular and cell biology from the University of California at Berkeley. “All scientific theories–including Darwin’s theory of evolution–must be

    compared with the evidence. Darwinian biologists themselves frequently acknowledge that there are problems with the evidence for various aspects of evolutionary theory. Dogmatic Darwinists, however, believe in the theory so fervently that they don’t like critics to quote their candid assessments of the evidence. So they claim that they have been misquoted, when in fact they have been quoted correctly.

    “Apparently,” Wells says, “the NCSE thinks that if the charge of misquotation is repeated often enough, people will eventually believe it. But anyone who looks at the original context of the quotations will see that it is the NCSE–not Discovery Institute–that has been engaging in a pattern of misrepresentation. It is true that the evolutionary biologists we quoted believe in Darwin’s theory, but we never claimed otherwise. On the contrary, we were highlighting the fact that even Darwinian biologists often disagree sharply about what the evidence shows. The utter failure to cover these disagreements constitutes one of the ‘Evolution’ series’ greatest flaws, since it is ultimately the evidence that determines whether Darwin’s theory is true or not.”

    The NCSE’s alleged “misquotations” by Discovery Institute include:

    ***Quotations from science writer Henry Gee pointing out the serious problems that exist for anyone trying to reconstruct the story of human ancestry from fossil evidence.

    Writing in his recent book “In Search of Deep Time” (Free Press, 1999), Gee argues that conventional theories of the origin and development of human beings are “a completely human invention created after the fact, shaped to accord with human prejudices.” Indeed, such theories carry “the same validity as a bedtime story–amusing, perhaps even instructive, but not scientific.”

    In an NCSE web posting, Gee reiterates his skepticism of attempts to trace ancestor/descendant lineages from the fossil record. “That it is impossible to trace direct lineages of ancestry and descent from the fossil record should be self-evident,” he says, adding that “unfortunately, many paleontologists believe that ancestor/descendent [sic] lineages can be traced from the fossil record, and my book is intended to debunk this view.” Gee goes on to say that his book was intended to show “that old-style, traditional evolutionary biology–the type that feels it must tell a story, and is therefore more appealing to news reporters and makers of documentaries–is unscientific.”

    “That is precisely the point we were trying to make about the ‘Evolution’ series,” says biologist Jonathan Wells. “When it comes to human evolution, the ‘Evolution’ series was so intent on telling a pre-determined story that it neglected to include evolutionists like Gee who point out the difficulties in trying to reconstruct evolutionary history from the fossil record. This isn’t good science education.”

    While confirming the essential accuracy of Discovery’s quotations by his new statements, Gee inexplicably lashes out at those affiliated with Discovery Institute as “religious fundamentalists… who live by dictatorial fiat” and who “fail to understand that scientific disagreement is a mark of health rather than decay.” He goes on to label Discovery Institute’s “opinions” as “regressive, repressive, divisive, [and] sectarian…,” but he provides no evidence for these assertions, and he fails to identify the alleged opinions to which he refers.

    “We don’t know where Mr. Gee gets his information about Discovery Institute, but it is not a religious organization, nor is it run by ‘religious fundamentalists,'” says Discovery President Bruce Chapman. “In fact, scholars affiliated with our Center for the Renewal of Science and Culture come from a wide variety of religious–and non-religious–backgrounds, including Jewish, Episcopalian, Roman Catholic, Orthodox, Presbyterian, and agnostic. As for not understanding that scientific disagreements are healthy, Mr. Gee seems unaware that we agree wholeheartedly that such disagreements are healthy for science. That is why we were so disturbed when the ‘Evolution’ series neglected to discuss the views of evolutionists like Mr. Gee who raise important criticisms of some claims made by paleontologists. We think it is important for the public to learn about such legitimate disagreements among evolutionary scientists. Unfortunately, Mr. Gee seems to be thoroughly misinformed about who we are.”

    ***Quotations from evolutionary biologist Jerry Coyne that criticize the controversial field known as “evolutionary psychology.”

    In a press release criticizing “Evolution’s” one-sided coverage of the field of evolutionary psychology, Discovery Institute quoted several biologists who are sharply critical of this field of research, including biologist Jerry Coyne. According to Coyne, evolutionary psychologists “deal in their own dogmas, and not in propositions of science” and “evolutionary psychology suffers from the scientific equivalent of megalomania.”

    “The point of quoting Coyne and other critics of evolutionary psychology was to show just how one-sided the ‘Evolution’ series is even in highly disputed areas of evolutionary biology,” says Discovery Institute Senior Fellow John West. “As we noted in our original press release, although the ‘Evolution’ series glancingly admits that evolutionary psychology is ‘controversial’ it never bothers to supply air-time to any of the critics of evolutionary psychology. We find this omission indefensible.”

    In an NCSE web posting, Coyne castigates Discovery Institute for trying to “sow doubt about the fact of evolution simply because scientists do not know every detail about how evolution occurred,” even while admitting that he has been “a strong critic” of evolutionary psychology “…because I feel that its practitioners often hold low standards of evidence and because it is difficult to test theories about behaviors that evolved millions of years ago.” Coyne goes on to suggest that he is satisfied by the coverage of evolutionary psychology in the “Evolution” series because some of his criticisms are quoted in the series’ companion book.

    “That doesn’t change the fact that the documentary itself (which is what we criticized) is blatantly one-sided and gives no air-time to the critics of evolutionary psychology,” says West. “And despite the fact that Mr. Coyne attacks Discovery Institute, he has confirmed that we quoted him accurately by reiterating yet again his strong criticisms of the ‘low standards of evidence’ held by many evolutionary psychologists.”

    ***Quotations from anthropologist Geoffrey Clark that criticize the field of paleoanthropology.

    In a 1997 article Geoffrey Clark declared that “we select among alternative sets of research conclusions in accordance with our biases and preconceptions–a process that is, at once, both political and subjective,” and that paleoanthropology “has the form but not the substance of a science.”

    “We quoted Clark to show how superficial the coverage of human evolution was in ‘Evolution,'” says biologist Jonathan Wells. “Viewers were given the impression that the evidence for human origins is straightforward and unambiguous. They were never told that experts in the field acknowledge that their often-conflicting interpretations of the evidence are strongly influenced by subjective biases and philosophical preconceptions.”

    Asked by the NCSE to comment on Discovery Institute’s citation of his statement, Clark alleged that his remarks had been “taken completely out of context.”

    “Perhaps Clark no longer wishes to defend the views he held in 1997, but we certainly quoted the views he expressed in his original article accurately,” responds Wells. A more detailed description of Clark’s original article and its context can be found here.

    “We encourage people to read Clark’s original article for themselves,” says Discovery Institute spokesman Mark Edwards. “We are confident that if they do so, they will see that we accurately described what Clark said, contrary to assertions by the NSCE.”

    “If the NCSE expects to be taken seriously, it should stop making unfounded charges of ‘misquotation,'” adds Edwards. “If the NCSE wants to do something useful, it could explain why it continues to defend a documentary series that is so obviously one-sided.”

    Founded in 1990, Discovery Institute is a non-profit, non-partisan public policy center for national and international affairs. Its programs deal with a range of issues, including science, technology, regional development, environment, and defense. More information about the Institute and its activities can be found at http://www.discovery.org/.

  11. Harry says:

    I am not even going to read it in full as it was published by the discovery institute, who have admitted to in a private document leaked that they want to undermine evolution with a theory they know does not even make sense and want topperpetrate before they even have evidence for it.

    http://www.antievolution.org/features/wedge.html

    The discovery institute is one of the most corrupt scientific organisations in america, their evolutionary policy exists to spread false information in order to bring people back to teheir world view.

    The above document states that they want to spread Intellegent design before completely gathering evidence for it, a strange scientific study indeed, unless of course your sole aim is to dupe the masses. Which thank god, the courts have so far succedded in stopping.

    I find it comical you believe scientists tout evolution despite lack of evidence because it removes the need for a god. Of course, the fact that tons of evidence exist for evolution and their job is to follow the evidence and not what creationists say about them does not come into it at all

  12. Harry says:

    the NCSE’s approach merely reinforces our concerns that the ‘Evolution’ series is aimed more at championing a pre-determined agenda than impartially exploring evolutionary biology.”

    Sorry I had to quote this

    It is incredible to me DI accuses the entire scientific world of doing this when that is the only thing they have EVER done with ID, as the above document shows. The hypocrisy of it makes me sick with giggles and sadness.

    The document I have shown you is authentic, the DI admitted it. Give me some real evidence against evolution instead of the evolution the DI claims exists but never puts forward

  13. Harry says:

    Harry here is some evidence you obviously did not like in the first place, also note that if you stand for evolution, your PhD Is In evolution you are not about to risk loosing it all by publicly criticising this theory are you? You don’t have to be rocket scientist to work that one out.

    THe Discovery Institutes opinions are not evidence, if thats the best you can do, ha.

    Note that your last point about evolution replacing creationism this is again very subjective, this may have happened to you, your friends and family but does not mean that this is true everywhere, in fact even here in Britain we known that there is a growing disappointment with the “Materialistic Evolution” that is because it does not account for so many things that are ignored and unanswered by it’s philosophy.

    Like I said, it does not matter what people feel dissapointed with, science is not based on what people feel dissapointed by. Sorry, its not growing, the increase in belief in creationism is from immigrint Muslims. Church attendance and christianity is down. It looks like we won’t be following america into the dark ages after all. Sorry to dissapoint you.

  14. Hi Harry

    In your reply you forgot to say, nah, nah, nah, nah. Whilst you are happy with the decline of Christianity in UK remember that this is our heritage.

    On top of that let me reassure that actually Bible believing conservative Christianity is actually only form of Christian faith that is on the increase, that is beside the Islam which you rightly pointed out, so you will only have more of the questioning coming in the future and not less. Note that I don’t get either easily offended, disappointed or disillusioned. I have passed that long time ago. 🙂

    Maybe you should read the entire reply, it states in there that they are quoting from the original source, that is good enough for me.

    Besides if you take into account all the differences within the proponents of evolution you do find that it’s not all clear sealing. I’m sure you remember Neanderthal debate i.e.

    Now to quote Washington Post so you don’t think I’m making it up

    Fossils Rekindle Neanderthal Debate
    Age of Bones Calls Into Question How Early Humans Died

    By Guy Gugliotta
    Washington Post Staff Writer
    Thursday, May 19, 2005; Page A03

    For decades, scientists have argued over the disappearance of Neanderthals from prehistoric Europe about 30,000 years ago. Did they die from some mysterious disease? Or did modern humans simply supplant them, either by obliterating them or by interbreeding?

    In research reported today in the journal Nature, an Austrian-led team has added fuel to the debate, confirming that fossil remains from a famous archaeological site in the Czech Republic are 31,000 years old — putting them at the period when Neanderthals vanished.

    Fossils found in the Czech Republic are the only known remains in Europe that date to the period when Neanderthals are thought to have become extinct. The skulls are considered
    Fossils found in the Czech Republic are the only known remains in Europe that date to the period when Neanderthals are thought to have become extinct. The skulls are considered “modern” but have “archaic” features. (Wolfgang Reichmann)
    Free E-mail Newsletters

    The bones from the Mladec Caves represent the only known remains in Europe that can be linked directly to “Aurignacian” stone and bone tools, ornaments, and other artifacts made 30,000 to 40,000 years ago, when humans first began to fashion objects with aesthetic as well as utilitarian purposes.

    While the bones — from six individuals found in the caves — are generally regarded as “modern,” some of the fossil skulls show “archaic” features, among them heavy brow ridges and protruding bone in the back of the head, that are more associated with Neanderthals.

    “These characteristics could be explained by interbreeding, or seen as Neanderthal ancestry,” team leader Eva Maria Wild of the University of Vienna said in an e-mail. “The finds are essential in the ongoing debate over the emergence of modern humans in Europe. The discussions will continue.”

    For further information go to
    http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/05/18/AR2005051802147.html

    Back to my comments

    Things like evolutionary tree is not the only thing either many scientist are still puzzled by the sudden emergence (species explosion) of animals many have therefore concluded that “evolution” happens sometimes much faster than statistician scientist would like.

    Do we invoke a miracle for this process in order for this to work i.e. to accommodate our understanding on how this is supposed to happen, as we known that for evolution to work according to evolution we need loads of time to pass so we don’t have to struggle with the big jumps in the process of evolving.

    Finally note that I did say that one could both believe in Theory of Evolution and be real unadulterated Christian.

    Note that faith and science are not at war in fact two sides of the argument continue to coexist quite happily, my main objection to this theory is that so far from our history it was used to further fallacious ideology.

    Hitler
    Making Germany Aryan Nation which is more evolved than the rest of the world. He subdivided the world into how well they evolved.

    Stalin
    Believed that we are justified in killing, in order to purify the available stock, like other aggressive atheists he used this argument to suppress and obliterate if at all possible all who were religious.

    Apartheid in South Africa
    With whites ruling over the less evolved black

    Even in England
    Great British Empire stood for the same principle of greater superiority – this was also used to justify slavery.

    Atheism
    Falsely assumes that if evolution is correct then there is no God.

    Sexism
    Even our friend Charley Darwin believed that women are less evolved, their brains and physique were substandard when comparing it to the man.

    And finally I object to some scientist calling evolution science as it is still a theory, note that we have no way of repeatedly testing historical data, we have information and with that we just have to make best sense out of that data available.

    I also note that some of the web pages that you included have been also accused of deliberate misinformation.

    I think this comes down to that same old game that “if you say if often enough and sound convincing enough people will buy any old rubbish.” Note that I don’t call evolution rubbish it’s only used here to demonstrate idea. I do acknowledge that this theory as it stands (and yes it has been modified countless times) is very complected and required considerable knowledge in order to be understood correctly.

    However there are many other things in life that are just down right incorrect, regardless of the complected methodology they may use. Look at Scientology, and many other self help staff that you find on the net.

    Defend the Word

  15. Harry says:

    Defend the word

    Ok I’ll pull it back a little, and be a little more polite. I just find most creationists so far gone they care little for real discussion.

    Evolution has very very little to do with the massacres of the 21st century. Civilisations have always been at war and always said their race was better. Eg fanatical muslims and infidels has very little to do with evolution (They do not believe in it)

    I could also point to the pure carnage that religion has helped cause across the globe for the past oodles of years, but I don’t because I know its just one factor, and an ignorant statement at best (yet there is more truth to it than this evolution causes massacres lark, get that from Ben Stein by the way?)

    Now to the science. I assume you are an old earth creationist since you seem to readily accept the earth is atleast 30,000 years old. Scientists of course debate the course evolution has taken us on, but there is no debate on whether or not it happened. For example, scientists still debate the nature of quantum physics and E=mc^2, trying to reconcile them and tryining to find the ‘ultimate theory’. This is very different from saying they do not exist.

    The problem with this is that the Discovery institute warps these debates to fit their own ends, making it look like evolution is under attack and in doubt, when really the debate within it regarding its nature only strengthens it continuously. One major problem that many Christians I engage in debate with have problems understanding (they do not want to ussualy out of will full ignorance) can not accept that Intelligent Design is 90% a political tool and a farce of a science artificially generated to promote a controversy that does not really exist.

    Saying their are problems with evolution because we are debating neanderthol man only bolsters my position, as it shows scientists moved beyond accepting evolution long ago and are now onto applying it. There is an excellent documentary on the discovery channel at the moment that involves re activating dormant crocodile genes in chickens (they have them because of their common ancestory over 280 million years ago). Application has also recently involved monitoring lizards legs get longer in a population after ground dwelling predators were introduced.

    And Finally

    And finally I object to some scientist calling evolution science as it is still a theory, note that we have no way of repeatedly testing historical data, we have information and with that we just have to make best sense out of that data available.

    This shows you have a fundamental lack of understanding of the scientific process and the evidence for evolution all together.

    You have probably hears this before but
    Theory of gravity, Theory of electricity, theory of combustion

    We only have a handful of scientific laws. What makes evolutionary theory so substantial is that it is not just a theory, it is a scientific theory. Which is why it is called a science.

    I mocked you because in your original article you seem to be on the same path as every other creationist. Y
    ou feel your beliefs slipping away in a society that seems to no longer need them. Since creationists feel they are under attack from scientists instead of trying to reconcile the two they dig themselves into a trench and fail to budge on their stance at all (Through out history religion has always had to change to accomodate science)

    Ironically many creationists believe that they are standing firm for Christianity and believe that it will rise again, when really it is they who are contributing to the religions demise as they make it seem increasingly out of touch with the mordern world.

    If you would like you can pose some questions to me about the nature of evolutionary theory with which you are having problems and I will show you relevant evidence. Post them here and I will reply to you in an email (you can email me your address if you do not want it on a public board at me06hcb@brunel.ac.uk). I do not expect you to take this offer, but it is always there as I am active in evolutionary education in my region and I am always more than willing to help. I realise this seems silly considering my earlier oppurtunity, but if you truly are open to reviewing the real evidence and not the garbage that is forced down the american populations throat for the Discovery Institute and other organisations, I can be really quite reasonable;)

  16. Harry says:

    One more thing. Atheism, not mine anyway points to evolution as evidence of no god. God could very easily have created the universe and let it tick away so well set up that he knew how evolution would occure (To me that is far more fitting and deserving of an omnipotetent being than poof adam and eve. I know a christian who would not give your ‘evolution is spiritually empty and are dissapointedc with its materialistic outlook’ a second look as he sees it as a true testament to god.

    Yes there are many viewpoints to evolution as you say. But if they are not scientifically founded, they do not belong in a science debate, as scientists and courts have shown again and again. People should believe what they want, but just as creationism does not belong in scientific debates, it does not belong in our science classrooms.

  17. Thanks Harry

    I do enjoy your input, believe me I can see both your honesty and willingness to help. And without any pretension I can say that I am very grateful for your offer. You will have probably noticed that like you I find this subject extremely interesting, but let me just clarify my stand on this issue.

    I’m not on a defense in fact I consider this to be non important subject until I find that it’s being used to further additional ideology.

    You rightly point out that theory does not need to lead to mass murder, however as per earlier conversation it can and it has as we see from the history. As for the Christianity doing just the same as atheism, may I actually agree with you on this, with little caveat, that it’s often related to sectarianism as it was in Northern Ireland. And anyone who actually focuses on the Bible would realize that many kingdoms used religion to unite people in order to mobilize their armies. All the teachings of Jesus show that we should love our enemies not kill etc etc.

    This however does not mean that they were true to the Christian faith only that they have used human tendency to prefer living in a group rather than on their own, i.e. safety over independence etc. Football hooliganism amply demonstrates this principal of safety in numbers.

    Also just to clarify additional point “Christianity” that is in decline, as I said earlier is from the liberal churches (does not take Bible to be authoritative as much as conservative Christians do).

    Many conservative Bible believing Christians are actually on the increase. However this does not mean that one will necessarily be against evolution as I said many who believe Bible to be accurate do also believe in the process of Evolution.

    As for the theory issue, there is a big difference when one can test the theory, and all of this applies to Theory of gravity, Theory of electricity, theory of combustion. And as I often joke “unless we invent time traveling we are just going to have to rely on our analytical skills”.

    I will also agree with you that wrong attitude of superiority and inadequate understanding has created very bad feelings between many evolutionary scientists and Christians. However as I pointed out there is a significant variation within Christian community which is very good for a debate.

    as for the e-mail address it’s defendthe.word@ntlworld.com
    Feel free to send any material that you think may be helpful to me. And just for the record I do enjoy our blog exchange
    as I strongly believe that we must question everything we believe and should endeavor to understand.

    I may not be persuaded by your argument or you may find my views to be “limited” but what is important is that we continue to attempt to understand each other. Your last comment about science and creationism leads me to believe that there is very little room for our debate in fact, I’m kind of surprised that here we are debating the whole issue.

    It just shows that we have that common desire to understand, explain and continue to learn. I certainly hope that the future comments are as interesting and insightful.

    Thank you again

    Defend the word

  18. Harry says:

    I have emailed to that address and also

    defendtheword@ntlworld.com, not sure if the decimal was intentional.

    If you dont get it, and are still interested, post a reply and I will email you again.

  19. David Buckna says:

    Harry writes:

    “Oh yeah and David Buckna, if you can give me any evidence against evolution as Dr Menton claims that has not been easily disproven, (before you post any do yourself a favour and do a google search on it and find a good source, or I wont bother answering). ”
    ————————————————————————

    Well, for starters… from the field of zoology:

    “Both the origin of life and the origin of the major groups of animals remains unknown.” – A.G. Fisher, Grolier Multimedia Encyclopedia fossil section, 2003
    The following quotes are from Hickman, Roberts & Larson, Zoology W.C. Brown, 1997 –
    “The origin of the ciliates [e.g. the paramecium] is somewhat obscure.” – p. 235
    “Unraveling the origin of the multicellular animals (metazoans) has presented many problems for zoologists.” – p. 240
    “. . . one of the most intriguing questions is the place of mesozoans [a phylum of
    animals containing only one organ, a gonad] in the evolutionary picture.” – p. 242
    “The origin of the cnidarians and ctenophores [comb jellies] is obscure.” – p. 275
    “Any ancestral or other related groups that would shed a clue to the [evolutionary]
    relationships of the Acanthocephala is probably long since extinct.” – p. 317
    “The primitive ancestral mollusc was probably a more or less wormlike organism . .
    .” – p. 346
    “No truly satisfactory explanation has yet been given for the origins of metamerism
    and the coelom, although the subject has stimulated much speculation and debate over
    the years.” – p. 365
    “What can we infer about the common ancestor of the annelids? This has been the
    subject of a long and continuing debate.” – p. 365
    “Controversy on phylogeny within the Chelicerata also exists . . .” – p. 379
    “The relationship of the crustaceans to other arthropods has long been a puzzle.” –
    p. 399
    “The evolutionary origin of insect wings has long been a puzzle.” – p. 429
    “The phylogenetic affinities of the Pentastomida are uncertain. – p. 439
    “The phylogenetic position of the lophophorates has been the subject of much
    controversy and debate.” – p. 447
    “Despite the excellent fossil record, the origin and early evolution of the
    echinoderms are still obscure.” – p. 450
    “Despite the existence of an extensive fossil record, there have been numerous
    contesting hypotheses on echinoderm phylogeny.” – p. 465
    “Hemichordate phylogeny has long been puzzling.” – p. 476
    “However, the exact phylogenetic position of the chordates within the animal kingdom
    is unclear.” – p. 480
    ” . . zoologists have debated the question of vertebrate origins. It has been very
    difficult to reconstruct lines of descent because the earliest protochordates were
    in all probability soft-bodied creatures that stood little chance of being preserved
    as fossils even under the most ideal conditions.” – p. 485 [In other words, there is no evidence for their evolution]
    “The fishes are of ancient ancestry, having descended from an unknown free-swimming
    protochordate [a tunicate or lancelet] ancestor.” – p. 499
    “To the cladist, however, the statement that humans evolved from apes says
    essentially that humans evolved from something that they are not, a trivial
    statement that contains no useful information.” – p. 204 (phylogenetic systematics =
    cladistics)
    “Our concepts of species have become more sophisticated, but the diversity of different concepts and the disagreements surrounding their use are as
    evident now as they were in Darwin’s time.” – p. 205
    =======================================
    The onus is on the Darwinist to show how hydrogen came from nothing – and then went
    on to produce people by time + random mutations and NO Creator/Designer. (BTW –
    beneficial mutations don’t seem to exist. If they do they’re a million-to-one.
    Gerrish & Lenski, 1998. The actual rate of “beneficial mutations” is so extremely
    low as to thwart any measurement. Bataillon, 2000; Elena et al., 1998). Years ago,
    Alan Wilson of Berkeley identified what is perhaps the most damaging research
    finding: statistically, point mutations and macroevolution seem to have nothing to
    do with each other.

    “Because mutations are random relative to need and because organisms generally fit
    well into their environments, mutations normally are either neutral or harmful; only
    very rarely are they helpful – just as a random change made by poking a screwdriver
    into the guts of your computer will rarely improve its performance.” – Paul Ehrlich,
    Human Natures Island Press, 2000, p. 21

    “But just how such diversity of form could arise out of evolution’s mess of random
    genetic mutations – how a functional wing could sprout where none had grown before,
    or how flowers could blossom in what had been a flowerless world – has remained one
    of the most fascinating and intractable questions in evolutionary biology.” – CAROL
    KAESUK YOON, NY Times, June 26, 2007

    “When we consider the complexity of living things, the wonder is not that mutations
    are usually harmful, but that any mutation is ever advantageous.” – Villee, Claude
    A., Eldra P. Solomon, and P. William Davis. 1985. Biology. Philadelphia: Saunders
    College Publishing, p. 988

    “One of the oldest problems in evolutionary biology remains largely unsolved. Which
    mutations generate evolutionarily relevant phenotypic variations? What kinds of
    molecular changes do they entail? What are the phenotypic magnitudes, frequencies of
    origins, and pleiotropic effects on such mutations?” – Stern, David L. 2000.
    Evolution, 54:1079-1091

    Bacteria are not immune to medicines because of MACROevolution. Our drugs are just
    killing off all the ones that aren’t already immune. So what’s left? The already
    immune ones. That’s called “natural selection”. Speaking of natural selection, it doesn’t help
    MACROevolutionary theory, “Natural selection can act only on those biological
    properties that already exist; it cannot create properties in order to meet
    adaptational needs.” – Noble, Noble, Schad, MacInnes, Parasitology: The Biology of
    Animal Parasites, Lea & Febiger, 1989, p. 516. Natural selection: yes; MACROevolution: no.

    Darwin never addressed the origin of species in his infamous book of 1859.
    “The origin of animals is almost as much a mystery as the origin of life itself” –
    P.C.J. Donoghue, Nature (News & Views), v. 445, Jan. ’07, p. 155.

    “How life began remains an open question” David Deamer, Nature v. 454, July 2008

    Evolutionists can’t derive either invertebrates from single-celled life, or
    vertebrates (fish) from invertebrates. I have a copy of Levinton’s 2nd edition
    entitled ‘Macroevolution’ – I cannot see where he addresses this.
    “. . . zoologists have debated the question of vertebrate origins. It has been very
    difficult to reconstruct lines of descent because the earliest protochordates were
    in all probability soft-bodied creatures that stood little chance of being
    preserved as fossils even under the most ideal conditions.” – p. 485 of Zoology,
    W.C. Brown, 1997. [In other words, there is no evidence for their evolution]

    Biologists understand there is no set, clear definition of species (and therefore
    speciation). “Darwin’s concept of species was a vague one” (Palmer, 1999, p. 130).
    John Dupre discusses species in a theoretical context (Keller & Lloyd, ’92, p. 312).
    In an excellent essay, Mary B. Williams discusses current usages of species. The
    Quarterly Review of Biology (v. 79, p. 162) says, “Despite this importance, the very
    term “species” is deeply ambiguous” and evolutionist Guy Bush said, “It is really
    the process of speciation that concerns us, and that is what we know least about.”
    Peter F. Stevens has an essay about the historical perspectives of ‘species’ (Keller
    & Lloyd, ’92, p. 302). Ignorance & contention is what species & speciation is all
    about (e.g. see Tregenza & Butlin in Nature, v. 400 where they discuss speciation
    wi/o isolation)

    It would seem the best the Darwinists can do is chant, “Evolution is a
    fact, fact, FACT !” – Michael Ruse, Darwinism Defended, 1982, Addison-Wesley:
    Reading MA, p. 58. No evidence of MACROevolution here, just a very emotional, faith-based statement.

    “With all deference to the sensibilities of religious people, the idea that man was created in the image of God can surely be put aside.”
    Evolution and the brain, Nature 447:753 (14 June 2007). This too, is not evidence for MACROevolution.

  20. Harry says:

    If you would like to structure your arguments instead of just quoting people out of context with no explanation I would be happy to address the issues. Half of the things you have bought up on the surface appear advanced questions, but even me as an amateur biologist can answer nearly all of them with solid evidence. Half of the things you sent me contradicted themselves, such as genetic mutation cant ever be good as its akin to sticking a screw driver in a pc, yet in another point you say genetic drift can only occur in mutations that have already occured like in bacteria.

    So, structure your argument and feel free to take this further if you wish. I will not try to alter your beliefs, just force you to base your beliefs in honest intellectualism.

    You can email me at me06hcb@brunel.ac.uk, if you wish,

    You did not give me one piece of evidence against evolution, just things evolution is having problems dealing with. Or things that regard the origins of life. AS I suspected it shows you do not know that evolutionary theory DOES NOT deal with the origin of life.

    “Because mutations are random relative to need and because organisms generally fit
    well into their environments, mutations normally are either neutral or harmful; only
    very rarely are they helpful – just as a random change made by poking a screwdriver
    into the guts of your computer will rarely improve its performance.” – Paul Ehrlich,
    Human Natures Island Press, 2000, p. 21

    Good grief, The STUPIDIST thing I have ever read. The analogy is so poor it makes me ill, worse than the one defend the word sent me about dead plants.

  21. Hi Harry

    Can I ask you and I will do this only once, as I will not tolerate rood behavior. Please use intellectual language, as you try so hard to point to your Intellectual credentials. So if you want us to believe you and to have meaningful conversation then do this like a grown up not as a childish school boy bully.

    Remember if you are going to use persuasive argument, then do so but nobody needs to be insulted in the process of it. You don’t hear me bragging about my high IQ or number of books that I have read or in fact patronizing others, I only tend to do this when I’m defending others, so help me here.

    I do not wish to point out that David Buckna has done exactly what you asked him you just have tendency to twist things, you say give me examples and he goes back does his homework and then delivers.

    He is not being personal, he is not calling anyone names. Simple quotations as in his opinion this is enough to persuade most readers. Whilst like you I would agree that yes mutation will on occasion be beneficial however 99 times out of the 100 this brings negative results. This is not the way to make things work only badly organized projects run like that.

    On the other hand, I think it is clear that David had read significant amount of material, don’t be surprised if he actually does bring strong counter arguments. Finally remember we are not talking observable testing here as that is impossible. In the same way I hear you make statements, we just have to be careful what we say and how we put this across.

    You are not forced to read or agree with anything that you find here, we live in a free, civilized world. I found his quotations very beneficial. Secondly I did not find his argument for anything else, in which case he is simply pointing out the issues and there are significant number of them.

    And yes your favorite 2nd Law of thermodynamics whilst we know that life is possible on this earth, as anyone reading this would simple say “did you just discover this” we also know that there is so much that is problematic with this loss of energy and deterioration that happens in the physical world that we live in. That this in fact points to the creator, there had to be a cleaver designer out there who had to make sure that things are put in the right place with all the right ingredients before life can be started.

    So lets be civilized and as you often say give me the argument not just regurgitated information, no abuse, bullying etc. We don’t know what kind of person David is so lets not necessarily come to premature conclusions, we known he reads processes his information pretty well, but he may not succumb to abuse this may only make him more upset and less receptive to your arguments. This same principle applies to all of us.

    Defend the word

  22. Harry says:

    I pointed out that he did not bring evidence again evolution.

    The quotes were out of context, I merely said it bluntly

    What I called stupid was the quote, not the poster himself, I apologise for any offence.

    I think the poster himself would admit that he had very little of his own stuff in there so me asking him to structure his comments is only trying to facilitate conversation.

    I have not once discarded anyones views, but you bring up the 2nd law again in reference to the origins, which I have said I do not address, I am reducing this down to evolution.

    ‘That this in fact points to the creator’

    You can not say this in ‘fact’ points to a creator, you are being equally forceful as I am. I regret it, but only when one takes a degree in this subject I believe one can completely understand the 2nd law, and how one can not use it to back up their faith.

  23. Harry says:

    Since you can merge these anyway.

    I once again apologise, but I think when it is read from how I have explained hopefully it will be clear I meant no offence to the poster.

    One of the reasons I have asked him to contact me is to show him observable evidence of evolution. As I showed you in our correspondance if you checked out the national geographic links I showed you.

  24. Thanks Harry

    Note that I said to you before, on my 100 page read that I tasked myself to better understand your point that most of that staff was from the evolutionist point of view. I have tried to understand and to my mind I believe that eventually I got there. I appreciate your qualifications but remember that I am not disqualified by being the amateur researcher. How do you think our science got developed? I would also appreciate if you do the same and visit some of the links on my Blog that will take you to some web pages with loads of highly qualifies people that hold to same world views that I have. Secondly my point about the plant that you mentioned before is quite simple to understand, it means and this is now in plain Englishman. You can not simply chuck loads of energy and hope that this will result in things spontaneously coming into existence and that on top of that this “non existent” brain would then instruct simple organisms to progress to more complex and advance stage. There had to be programmed and guided instructions when this first happened and this is massive evidence for God in my humble opinion.

    This self starting simply does not happen we know from Science that mutation will mostly mean destruction and loss of information,

    Yes it does bring very rear advantage to the organism that goes trough this transition but note that it always leads to loss and not gain of the net gain of information.

    I will come back to this when I get more time and information to attend to this blog.

    In the meantime thanks again for your input, your comments are always welcomed.

    Kind regards

    Defend the word

Comments are closed.