Thursday, October 8, 2009

Is Evolution Science?

I: Evolution ~ Philosophical Metaphysical Naturalism



"May not a future generation well ask how any scientist, in full possession of his intellectual faculties and with adequate knowledge of information theory could ever execute the feat of cognitive acrobatics necessary to sincerely believe that a (supremely complex) machine system of information, storage and retrieval, servicing millions of cells, diagnosing defects and them repairing them in a teleonomic Von Newman machine manner, arose in randomness-the antipole of information"~Dr. A.E. Wilder-Smith (Triple Doctorate) Huxley Memorial Lecture at the Oxford Union, Oxford University 2/14/1986

Dover, PA. 2005 Definition Of Science:

In the case where Intelligent Design (ID) was being taught in Public schools as science, the court held that the school board violated the establishment clause and that ID was no  more than  creationism repackaged. The court also held to the  validity of science according to the standards of the National Academy of Science's definition and said the following:

"As the National Academy of Sciences (hereinafter "NAS") was recognized by experts for both parties as the "most prestigious" scientific association in this country, we will accordingly cite to its opinion where appropriate. (1:94, 160-61 (Miller); 14:72 (Alters); 37:31 (Minnich)). NAS is in agreement that science is limited to empirical, observable and ultimately testable data: "Science is a particular way of knowing about the world. In science, explanations are restricted to those that can be inferred from the confirmable data – the results obtained through observations and experiments that can be substantiated by other scientists. Anything that can be observed or measured is amenable to scientific investigation. Explanations that cannot be based upon empirical evidence are not part of science." ( P-649 at 27)."


That was a most interesting definition. Did you notice what constitutes as science however? Here's the summary:

1- Science is LIMITED to empirical, observable, and ultimately testable data

2- Explanations are RESTRICTED to those which can be inferred from confirmable data.

3- Only has results that can be obtained through observation and experiments

4- Those results must be able to be  substantiated by other scientists.

5- Anything that can be observed or measured is "amenable" to scientific investigation

6- Explanations that are not empirical cannot be a part of science.
The amazing thing  about this is that evolution fails  under 5 of the 6 constructs. How?

1- Evolution  in the sense of Macroevolution has never been witnessed nor observed.

2- No data can be confirmed regarding evolution therefore any explanations for  it  cannot  be restricted to the available data. It has to be made to fit.

3- Evolution only occurs when species are made to show variation. there has been no new phyla created as evolution states. Only varying species and  most with severe limitations such as fruit  flies.

4- Evolution cannot be measured as postulations  take significant millions of  years for  cycles to reveal themselves. Secondly, the fossil  record is lacking and only consistent with  the biological explosion of the Precambrian era. there is no gradualism in the record.

5- There are no empirical explanations for  Macroevolutionary process. This is the overarching premise or process by which man is said to have descended along with primates from a common ancestor. There are no  empirical facts to back those assertions.

Can That Possibly Be Science?

Let's see, we have a system called "evolutionary science", that  has only been observed on a microevolutionary scale by which merely restricted variation has developed and some by laboratory design. We have plants and certain seeds that have been scientifically manipulated  for which scientists claim evolution, but  no evidence of similar biochemical process among any living thing.  There is no evidence of Macroevolutionary change creating new phyla and that has never been observed in any  known species, and  what claims that  exist  for such are refuted when studied more in depth. There is no fossil record to confirm historical macroevolutionary change, in  fact the  fossil record is consistent with sudden appearance of life forms and  creatures being made to be the way they are whereas evolution teaches gradualism, the evidence does not indicate such. Where is  the science of evolution? Is it in the peer groups or associations of the scientists themselves, the classrooms of the students, the books that they write. Where is it? Because it's certainly NOT in the scientific evidence.

I'm sorry my evolutionist friends, your dogma is what I call philosophical metaphysical naturalism. I believe this materialistic approach to science has caused the damage that we currently see played out in our children, families and social environments. Is evolution the ONLY cause? ABSOLUTELY NOT! but it is a cause. How is this so?

You have told people for generations that they are mere animals and except for the purpose they determine are without a higher purpose. You've told them that they were created by process of random chance and mutations. A mere accident of a spark called life. The effect is that they have been deceived into becoming animals and acting with the animalistic behaviour that you have encouraged through an empty worldview. They are  destroying themselves and our communities with murder, lust, greed, materialism, intellectualism, drugs and such the like and lending themselves to self directed relativistic morality or amoralism.

STOP The Madness!

I want my community back. My neighborhood back. My schools back, and my colleges back, and the future of my children back as well. The only way to do that is to insure that YOU either place your philosophical metaphysical naturalism, (which falls short of science under most definitions that  you postulate) in the guise of what you call science, onto the trash heap of history or exit the campuses and schools in which you pollute the minds of the young and vulnerable.

I ask every Christian to commit themselves to doing their part to make sure it is so.


II: Let's Take Another Look:


What has Dr. Michael Behe found that our local philosophical naturalist scientists say means nothing? Well, he can't be blamed for this one::

Nature publishes paper on the edge of evolution, Part 1

First Post Conclusions:

A number of points can be drawn from this fine work:
  • The central point of The Edge of Evolution was tat if several amino acids of a protein must be changed before a certain selective effect is available, then that is effectively beyond the reach of Darwinian processes. Bridgham et al (2009) confirm that conclusion. (As an aside, it would make a good project for a sociologist of science to ask why the same conclusion is met with howls of protest when presented by a Darwinian skeptic such as myself, but garners praise when presented by someone else.)

  • There is no reason to think the protein studied by Bridgham et al (2009) is unusual in its difficulty of developing a binding site for even a relatively closely-related substance. In fact, in the absence of strong opposing data, that should be the default, reasonable assumption.

  • That same reasonable assumption counts strongly against any two unrelated proteins easily developing a binding site for each other.

  • That reasonable assumption therefore negates all woolly Darwinian evolutionary scenarios where critical protein binding sites are assumed without justification to pop up when needed (such as, say, in the building of multiprotein structures like the cilium or flagellum).

  • Thus the work strongly supports the conclusion of Edge that Darwinian processes are highly unlikely to have built the complex molecular machinery of the cell.

Second Post:

Nature publishes paper on the edge of evolution, Part 2

Nature has recently published an interesting paper which places severe limits on Darwinian evolution. The manuscript, from the laboratory of Joseph Thornton at the University of Oregon, is entitled “An epistatic ratchet constrains the direction of glucocorticoid receptor evolution”. ( http://tinyurl.com/yeq2cy8 ) The work is interpreted by its authors within a standard Darwinian framework, but the results line up very well with arguments I made in The Edge of Evolution. ( http://tinyurl.com/yba6vba )This is the second of several posts discussing it.

Using clever synthetic and analytical techniques, Bridgham et al (2009) show that the more recent hormone receptor protein that they synthesized, a GR-like protein, can’t easily revert to the ancestral structure and activity of an MR-like protein because its structure has been adjusted by selection to its present evolutionary task, and multiple amino acid changes would be needed to switch it back. That is a very general, extremely important point that deserves much more emphasis. In all cases — not just this one — natural selection is expected to hone a protein to suit its current activity, not to suit some future, alternate function. And that is a very strong reason why we should not expect a protein performing one function in a cell to easily be able to evolve another, different function by Darwinian means. In fact, the great work of Bridgham et al (2009) shows that it may not be do-able for Darwinian processes even to produce a protein performing a function very similar to that of a homologous protein.

Before reading their paper even I would have happily conceded for the sake of argument that random mutation plus selection could convert an MR-like protein to a GR-like protein and back again, as many times as necessary. Now, thanks to the work of Bridgham et al (2009), even such apparently minor switches in structure and function are shown to be quite problematic. It seems Darwinian processes can’t manage to do even as much as I had thought.

(As an aside into the circus world of popular-level debates on Darwinism, the work of Bridgham et al (2009) nicely shows the fallacy of the anti-ID retort that, say, a mousetrap is not irreducibly complex because, if the catch and holding bar are removed, parts of it can still be used as a tie clip. The same principle that holds for cellular machinery would hold for all machinery. Something that was shaped by selection to work as a tie clip would not look like an ancestor of a mousetrap, or easily be converted to one by random changes plus selection. If you look at images of tie clips on the internet, none of them resemble mousetraps — except for those purposely designed by folks who were arguing against irreducible complexity.)

Another point worth driving home in this post concerns the frequently encountered argument that, well, just because one kind of protein can’t develop a useful binding site or selectable property easily doesn’t mean that some other kind of cellular protein can’t. (In keeping with their Darwinian framework, Bridgham et al (2009) seem to allude to this.) After all, there are thousands to tens of thousands of kinds of proteins in a typical cell. If one of them is ruled out, the reasoning goes, many more possibilities remain.

This argument, however, is specious. For any given evolutionary task, the number of proteins in the cell which are candidates for helpful mutations is almost always very limited. For example, as I discussed in EOE, out of thousands of malaria proteins, mutations in only a handful are helpful to the parasite in its fight against chloroquine, and only one is really effective — the mutations in the PfCRT protein. Ditto for the human proteins that can mutate to help resist malaria — there’s just a handful. In the case of the hormone receptors discussed by Bridgham et al (2006), one can note that, out of ten thousand vertebrate proteins, the one that gave rise to a new steroid hormone receptor was an already-existing steroid hormone receptor. This should be quite surprising to folks who believe the many-proteins argument, because the steroid receptor was outnumbered 10,000 to 1 by other protein genes, yet it won the race to duplicate and form a new functional receptor. If all things were equal, we should be very surprised by that. But of course not all things are equal. The reason the receptor duplicated to give rise to a closely-related receptor is because no other protein in the cell is likely to be able to do so in a reasonable amount of evolutionary time.

The bottom line is that, for a given evolutionary task, at best only a handful of proteins will likely be helpful to evolve, at worst none may help. To calculate the probability of, say, a helpful protein-protein interaction developing in response to any particular selective pressure, it’s mistaken to gratuitously multiply odds by the total number of proteins in a cell. Combined with the point made by Bridgham et al (2009), that even tiny structural/functional changes may not be achievable by random mutation/ selection, these considerations pretty much squelch the likelihood of Darwinian processes doing much of significance during evolution.

References

Bridgham,J.T., Ortlund,E.A., and Thornton,J.W. 2009. An epistatic ratchet constrains the direction of glucocorticoid receptor evolution. Nature 461:515-519.

Bridgham,J.T., Carroll,S.M., and Thornton,J.W. 2006. Evolution of hormone-receptor complexity by molecular exploitation. Science 312:97-101.

By the way...is evolution science?

"Evolutionary philosophy has indeed become a state of mind, one might almost say a kind of mental prison  rather than a scientific attitude. To equate one particular interpretation of the data with the data itself  is evidence of mental confusion. The theory of evolution...is detrimental to ordinary intelligence and warps judgement." ~ Dr. Arthur C. Custance" Evolution: An Irrational Faith" in Evolution or Creation Vol. 4-The Doorway Papers(Grand Rapids, Zond.1976)pg. 173-174

I'd say NOT!

Blessed!

284 comments:

  1. Evolutionary Science

    Matter + Energy = Life

    That only Worked in Frankenstien and even he was a monster who died.

    What is the the one that real science tells us and that we observe daily that works?

    Matter + Engergy + Concept(Instruction) = LIFE

    Works everyday and under every circumstance.

    ReplyDelete
  2. In addition based on that one concept, it's easy to see the difference between biological life and other forms of material...

    The only diffence is at the level of information that has been received.

    Man receives functional information at a microbiological level telling it how to react to the energy it has been given, whereas rocks can't and don't react in any manner.

    This statement is ridiculous but drives the point home: Why do evolutionists continue to believe and promote that man is simply like an electrocharged rock?

    ReplyDelete
  3. “We didn’t see it happen, we can’t make it happen again, and we can't show you that it ever happened,
    but it must have happened!”
    is not science.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Richard Dawkins was on the 'OReilly Factor tonight. Bill asked him 3 times why ID shouldn't be taught in schools, and Dawkins answer is so revealing - you got to see it if you missed it. On again at 10:00 pm or will show up on youtube soon.

    Pastor, I emailed you so it's not spam when you see it.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Can you imagine how different our world would look today if science had embraced intelligent design? Just think how hampered scientific theory and research have been over the last 150 years, forcing a round peg into a square hole.

    I've always loved this quote from Robert Jastrow - Astronomer, Physicist, Cosmologist:

    "For the scientist who has lived by his faith in the power of reason, the story ends like a bad dream. He has scaled the mountains of ignorance; he is about to conquer the highest peak; as he pulls himself over the final rock, he is greeted by a band of theologians who have been sitting there for centuries."

    ReplyDelete
  6. Pt. 3
    For those who don't know I'm discussing the video that Scott asked me to view at:
    Ken Miller


    Scott,

    Dr miller does his fused chromosome bit also but here are the fact on that:

    "Evidence for Fusion in a Human Chromosome Tells you LITTLE TO NOTHING about whether Humans Share a Common Ancestor with Living Apes
    Usually Darwinists argue for human-ape common ancestry based upon alleged "shared errors" in human DNA and ape DNA. But the chromosomal fusion evidence is not a “shared error” argument for human / ape common ancestry, because apes do not have a fused chromosome. The human chromosomal fusion argument focuses on a fusion event that is specific to the human line, and therefore provides a highly limited form of evidence for human / ape common ancestry.


    All Miller has done is documented direct empirical evidence of a chromosomal fusion event in the human line. But evidence for a chromosomal fusion event is not evidence for when that event took place, nor is it evidence for the ancestry prior to that event.

    Further:

    Under Neo-Darwinism, genetic mutation events (including chromosomal aberrations) are generally assumed to be random and unguided. Miller's Cold-Fusion tale becomes more suspicious when one starts to ask harder questions like "how could a fusion event get fixed into a population via random and unguided processes, or how could it result in viable offspring?" Miller's account must overcome two potential obstacles:
    (1) In most of our experience, individuals with randomly-fused chromosomes or extra chromosomes can be normal, but it is very likely that their offspring will ultimately have a genetic disease. A classic example of such is a cause of Down syndrome, where an individual has an extra chromosome #21.

    (2) One way around the problem in
    (1) is to find a mate that also had an identical chromosomal fusion event or chromosomal splitting event. But this would require a rare mutant finding a mate with identical traits. Valentine and Erwin explain that the odds of rare-mutants finding mates with identical traits are highly unlikely:"[T]he chance of two identical rare mutant individuals arising in sufficient propinquity to produce offspring seems too small to consider as a significant evolutionary event."...(Erwin, D..H., and Valentine, J.W. "'Hopeful monsters,' transposons, and the Metazoan radiation", Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci USA, 81:5482-5483, Sept 1984)
    In other words, Miller has to explain why a random chromosomal fusion event which, in our experience ultimately results in offspring with genetic diseases, didn’t result in a genetic disease and was thus advantageous enough to get fixed into the entire population of our ancestors. Given the lack of empirical evidence that random chromosomal fusion events are not disadvantageous, perhaps the presence of a chromosomal fusion event is not good evidence for a Neo-Darwinian history for humans...Miller may have found good empirical evidence for a chromosomal fusion event. But our experience with mammalian genetics tells us that such a chromosomal aberration could have created a non-viable mutant, or a normal individual who could not produce viable offspring. Thus, Neo-Darwinism has a hard time explaining why such a random fusion event was somehow advantageous...If it were to turn out that the fusion of two chromosomes can only result in a viable individual if the fusion event takes place in a highly unlikely and highly specified manner, then we may actually be looking at a case for a non-Darwinian intelligent design event in the history of the human genus.


    That can be found: HERE

    ReplyDelete
  7. Part 4

    Scott,

    His refutation of Behe's argument leaves something to be desired when you get the angle he was pushing...In fact he failed to adress Behe's argument and recreated and repackaged Behe's argument setting his own set of standards in place. Here's the refutation:

    "Thus, According to Darwin, evolution requires that a system, or its sub-parts, be functional along each small step of their evolution to the final system. Yet one could find a sub-part that could be useful outside of the final system, and yet the total system would still face many points along an "evolutionary pathway" where it could not remain functional along "numerous, successive, slight modifications" that would be necessary for its gradual evolution...Miller thus mischaracterizes Behe's argument as one which focuses on the non-functionality of sub-parts, while Behe looks at the ability of the entire system to ultimately assemble, even if sub-parts can have functions outside of the final system...To understand how Miller's test fails to accurately apply to Behe's formulation of irreducible complexity, consider the example of a car engine and a metal bolt. Under Miller's logic, if a vital bolt in my car's engine might also used as a lugnut, then my car's whole engine is not irreducibly complex. But such an argument is fallacious. In the discussion of the irreducible complexity of an engine, then you have to focus on the function of the engine itself, and not on the functionality of a sub-part that might operate elsewhere. Of course one could use a bolt out of my engine for some other purpose in my car--perhaps as a something like a lugnut. But this observation does not explain how many complex parts such as the pistons, cylinders, camshaft, valves, crankshaft, sparkplugs, distributor cap, and wiring came together in the appropriate configuration to make a functional car engine. Even if each part could perform some other function in the car, how were these parts assembled properly to construct a functional engine? The answer will require intelligent design...Behe says a system is irreducibly complex if the system stops functioning if one part is removed. This is the appropriate test of Darwin’s theory because it asks the question, “is there a minimal level of complexity which is required for functionality of this system.” Clearly my car’s engine has a core set of parts necessary in order for it to function. The ability of an engine bolt to also serve as a lugnut does not refute the irreducibly complex arrangement of parts necessary to make the final engine-system function. Behe does not say that subsystems cannot play some other role in the cell—but that evolution requires that the macrosystem must be built up in a slight, step-by-step fashion, where each step is functional...Miller has built a straw-test for refuting irreducible complexity. The test is not “can one small part of the macrosystem be used to do something else,” as Miller says it is, but rather it is “can the system as a whole be built in a step-by-step fashion which does not require any ‘non-slight’ modifications to gain the final target function.” Even if Miller could find that every part of the flagellum existed somewhere else in bacteria (which he cannot—he only accounts for the basal body, which constitutes less than 1/3 of the total flagellar proteins), Miller is no where close to explaining the evolution of the flagellum until he can explain how all of those parts came together to produce a functional bacterial flagellum.

    That can be found: HERE

    ReplyDelete
  8. Part 5:

    Scott,

    Also this:

    "What now? Has Miller disproved Behe's notion of irreducible complexity? It sure seems like he has - at first glance anyway. However, what Miller seemingly fails to consider is that the function of flagellar motility is still irreducibly complex regardless of other subsystems functions are or are not maintained with various flagellar system reductions. Without a sizable number of specifically arranged protein parts the function of flagellar motility cannot exist. In fact, all systems of function are irreducibly complex. It doesn't matter if subsystem function is maintained. This is like arguing that the motility function of an automobile is not irreducibly complex because the lights still work even if the engine or tires or drive shaft are removed."

    And let's not forget:

    "Occasionally evolutionary mechanisms produce higher level functions where a few hundred loosely specified amino acid residues are required (lactase, nylonase, etc). However, there are no observable examples of evolution in action produce any novel system of function that requires over 1,000 specifically arranged amino acid residues working together at the same time. There's not one example of evolution beyond this level in all of scientific literature - not one example."~The Steppingstone Problem: And the Limits of Evolutionary Potential by Sean D. Pitman, M.D. March 2004.

    That can be found HERE

    Once again none of this looks too good for Miller as he is zealous but his conclusions are not founded and hinge upon some misrepresentation of fact.

    ReplyDelete
  9. Part 6:

    Scott,

    Miller also presented evidence of the Puffer fish's blood clottability etc and misrepresented Behe again...Now I heard him for my self on this vide and i invite others to listen and read along with each refutation. He claimed that Behe says that in the absence of any components of that "blood doesn't clot and the system fails" that's what he said:

    Here's the refutation:

    "In short, the purported knockout experiments (in the form comparative biochemistry) that Ken Miller cited to Judge Jones, where the blood-clotting cascade still worked in the absence of certain factors, dealt entirely with factors that Behe specifically did not claim were part of the irreducibly complex core of the blood-clotting cascade. Behe explained this problem in Miller's argument to Judge Jones, but apparently Behe's testimony fell on deaf ears."

    That can be found HERE

    This was an ACTIVIST judge...he wasn't going to rule in favor of the school board no matter what...He was afraid of the establishment clause as he ruled...WOW...the more I hear and read...

    The ONE area I agree is the religious aspect within the classromm, because that's an open door to anyone and anything that I wouldn't want...however since evolution is based on metaphysical naturalistic bias and presupposition it becomes an anti-religious concept which I don't believe is appropriate either.

    I also clearly see it's naturalistic religious view where man replaces God.

    ReplyDelete
  10. Harvey wrote:Miller also presented evidence of the Puffer fish's blood clottability etc and misrepresented Behe again…

    Please see here.

    This was an ACTIVIST judge...he wasn't going to rule in favor of the school board no matter what...He was afraid of the establishment clause as he ruled...WOW...the more I hear and read…

    Harvey, you seem to have forgotten (or did not realize in the first place) that Jones was vetted by both Rick Santorum and George Bush. That you are repeating this kind of information leads me to believe you're merely repeating bad arguments out of desperation.

    ReplyDelete
  11. Here is a link to a fun (and short) vid about evolution: Alan Watts' Appling
    "http://zenbullets.com/blog/?p=107"

    ReplyDelete
  12. From the old thread: An Darwin WAS a racist and also qualified as a white supremacist...If everyone was "lower" than whites according to him what doe sthat make him? Now YOU be honest my friend.

    If you want to send it to me offline, feel free -- I can find zero support for these claims. It's not in Darwin's writings.

    I think it's not good form to call a guy who opposed racism, who jeopardized his job by challenging his boss who favored racism, who wrote in defense of people of all races being supressed, a racist, especially without any documentation.

    I know there are others who share your unsupported view. They are wrong, too, and that they share your view doesn't make them, or you, correct.

    http://timpanogos.wordpress.com/2008/01/21/shame-on-you-tony-campolo-darwin-was-not-racist/

    ReplyDelete
  13. Evidence for Fusion in a Human Chromosome Tells you LITTLE TO NOTHING about whether Humans Share a Common Ancestor with Living Apes

    Harvey,

    This is post is clearly misrepresenting Miller's statement. I'm sorry if you can't see this, but this is another failed attempt by Luskin to attack Miller and evolution in general.

    Evolution is a theory which makes predictions. Should we not have not found this chromosome in our DNA we could not have shared a common ancestor with great apes and the theory would be wrong.

    Had this prediction failed, people like Luskin would be touting this as proof that evolution was false. (and rightfully so) So, this is clearly very relevant. To deny this is ridiculous.

    Nor was this a vague prediction. It's incredibly specific, which leaves little room for error. This was a particularly elaborate test which evolution must pass in specific detail.

    Unlike ID, evolutionary theory has applications and can be tested.

    Can you not see the pattern here? Why is it that the Discovery Institute is almost exclusively the source of this kind of misinformation? Is the rest of the scientific community simply clueless?

    ReplyDelete
  14. Murfyn said...

    Very Zen, Murfyn.

    It begs the question, why teach evolution AT ALL?

    Kid: "Where did we come from and how did life originate?"

    Teacher: "We don't know".

    Kid grows up to win the Nobel Peace Prize.

    ReplyDelete
  15. Ah, I just cracked myself up! Pictured a room full of anti-christian dawkins types wringing their hands saying "We've got to step up the propaganda! Eventually, someone is going to ask 'why teach evolution at all?'"

    ReplyDelete
  16. Ed,

    I'm not going to go back and forth with you o this in this thread if you simply READ the older post you'll see that Darwin not only espoused racism he also espoused bias against women as he felt that all were less superior to whites...

    Now STOP THE MADNESS on the issue, it's dead it is what it is and there's NOTHING you and your Darwin loving self can do to change it...

    Since you remember what I said before REMEMBER I said YOU TOO can be banned!

    Keep right on movin' we're asking is EVEOLUTION SCIENCE in this posting...

    THANK YA VERY MURRCH!

    (and I didn't misspell that one)

    ReplyDelete
  17. In other words, Miller has to explain why a random chromosomal fusion event which, in our experience ultimately results in offspring with genetic diseases, didn’t result in a genetic disease and was thus advantageous enough to get fixed into the entire population of our ancestors.

    No he doesn't. We're a living example of a organism that has a fused chromosome, but does not suffer from an extra-ordinary number of genetic diseases. The only alternative is that we were intentionally created with a fused chromosome. Essentially, "God made us that way." for some mysterious reason.

    ReplyDelete
  18. Back to common sense...

    "...evolution is not a formulation of true scientific method. They [scientists] realize [that, in effect] evolution means the initial formulation of unknown organisms from unknown chemicals produced in an atmosphere or ocean of unknown composition under unknown conditions, which organisms have then climbed an unknown evolutionary ladder by an unknown process leaving unknown evidence."~Dr. R.L. Wysong, 'The Creation Evolution Controversy'(East Lansing, MI: Inquiry Press, 1976 pg. 40-41

    The observation is that ID was excluded from being science in part was because God or design was an untestable proposition. The question is then how can evolution be considered purely scientific when it is also untestable and thee are so many additional unknowns that exist?

    Now I admit just because something is unknown doesn't mean that it can't be science, but that axe works both ways...

    If evolution under it's curent neo-Darwinian construct can be admitted and it has more ambiguous parts than a few, ID should be admitted under the same construct.

    Now strip ID of the religious aspects and you still have science at work. Strip evolution of it's anti-religious assertions and presuppositions and you have NOTHING!

    Only a philosophical methaphysical construct exists.

    ReplyDelete
  19. Also see here.

    As a spokesperson for the Discovery Institute's Center for the Renewal of Science and Culture, Casey Luskin is charged with the task of convincing the public that there are serious debates amongst scientists concerning the scientific validity of evolution and that Intelligent Design (ID) offers an viable scientific alternative. Since there are no such debates, Luskin's job requires him to constantly swim upstream against an ever-rising deluge of scientific data.

    ReplyDelete
  20. Scott,

    You stated:"Can you not see the pattern here? Why is it that the Discovery Institute is almost exclusively the source of this kind of misinformation? Is the rest of the scientific community simply clueless?"

    I AGREE Scott and think that a better system should be in place to look at address and settle issues such as this...other than that we have one side who is excluded from presenting their ideas and getting traction, and the other side who says, you're wrong because you're not popular enough, then the other side simply writes books generates public sentiment creates a great following and the other side says, none of you know what you're talking about.

    My question is WHO will be honest enough to humble themselves, put aside egos and "good ole boy" associations and say let's take and honest look based on the best of what we know know and continue to review that until we come up with a reasonable postulation or theory that addresses and accounts for all contingencies?

    When we loose the radical naturalism and the desire to preach through the text book, I think that balance can be gained.

    The problem i have with Miller also, is that he is NOT only interested for the education of the children...he is SELLING BOOKS and these school systems use and could use his books...He makes tons of money for the University and himself with book sales...to say that he is unbiased is a definite misnomer.

    He's a salesman and I can identify him a MILE away. I've been one for over 20 years and I've studied all major sales techniques, most of which I decry. To confirm, look in the video, he only critiques his OPPONENTS material and the changes it's undergone...he never mentions any inadequacies in his.

    That my friend is a RED FLAG!

    ReplyDelete
  21. Aside from what Behe observed, which I guess evolutionists are still coming to grips with, Meyer has been getting some support in the academic community.

    "Signature in the Cell has just entered its third printing according to publisher HarperOne, an imprint of Harper Collins, and has been endorsed by scientists around the world, including leading British geneticist Dr. Norman Nevin, Alastair Noble, Ph.D. chemistry, formerly Her Majesty’s Inspector of Schools for Science, Scotland, and Dr. Philip Skell, a member of the U.S. National Academy of Sciences"

    It would seem that a growing number of scientists in general are gravitating toward taking Meyers theories very seriously to say the least.

    I don't think ID can be relegated to something that "nobody educated" agrees with. For too many educated people who are taking a second look.

    ReplyDelete
  22. Harvey wrote:The observation is that ID was excluded from being science in part was because God or design was an untestable proposition. The question is then how can evolution be considered purely scientific when it is also untestable and thee are so many additional unknowns that exist?

    Harvey,

    ID is essentially repackaged creationism. The NOVA special presented evidence that ID was a direct response to the 1987 Supreme Court decision that rules teaching creationism in public schools violated the Establishment Clause.

    The book in question during the trial, Of Pandas and People, showed signs of wholesale replacement from an earlier edition where the word creationism was replaced with intelligent design. From two additions of the book...

    Creation means that the various forms of life began abruptly through the agency of an intelligent creator with their distinctive features already intact. Fish with fins and scales, birds with feathers, beaks, and wings, etc.[18]

    vs.

    Intelligent design means that various forms of life began abruptly through an intelligent agency, with their distinctive features already intact. Fish with fins and scales, birds with feathers, beaks, wings, etc.[18]

    However, they did a poor job.

    The term "creationists" was changed to "design proponents", but in one case the beginning and end of the original word "creationists" were accidentally retained, so that "creationists" became "cdesign proponentsists".

    Please see Of Pandas and People on Wikipedia.

    Clearly, this is a disingenuous attempt to pass creationism off as science.

    Here's a version of the NOVA special broken down into 12 chapters.

    You can also watch the entire video in one segment here.

    ReplyDelete
  23. The question is then how can evolution be considered purely scientific when it is also untestable and thee are so many additional unknowns that exist?

    There is no operation necessary to evolution which has not been observed in nature or tested in the lab. Every step of evolution has been tested in the lab and observed in the wild, in real time.

    No operation of intelligent design has been observed in the wild or tested in a lab. ID proponents, like the Discovery Institute, admit they have nothing to teach in high schools, nothing done in research, nothing published.

    ReplyDelete
  24. Laura said: “We didn’t see it happen, we can’t make it happen again, and we can't show you that it ever happened,
    but it must have happened!”
    is not science.


    That's right. And since that's what ID advocates say about ID, that's why it's not taught in science class.

    On the other hand, we have seen evolution happen, we can manipulate evolution with human interference, and it's well documented in real time and historically, especially in fossils, evolution is science.

    ReplyDelete
  25. Harvey wrote: I AGREE Scott and think that a better system should be in place to look at address and settle issues such as this...other than that we have one side who is excluded from presenting their ideas and getting traction, …

    FALSE.

    This other side is NOT excluding from presenting their ideas. Should proof arise, the community would have no choice but to accept ID as science. But no such proof has been presented. Instead, ID has been continual refuted by science.

    Furthermore, Behe testified that his definition of a scientific theory would also include "theories" such as Astrology! Do you want Astrology presented in schools? These subjects excluded for a reason. They are NOT science.

    Casey seems to forget — or to ignore — the fact that Behe has never even attempted to do any scientific research to show that he is right. He ignores the fact that ID’s critics have produced a boatload of research showing Behe to be wrong while Behe himself has done no research on the system that might support Luskin. As a result, his attempts at rehabilitating the clotting cascade as an “icon” of ID are a complete failure. So, for the umpteenth time, let’s go through this again.

    Last, ID had it's chance in court and withdrew five out of eight witnesses. Why would they give up this chance to "present their ideas?" What were they afraid of?

    .. and the other side who says, you're wrong because you're not popular enough, then the other side simply writes books generates public sentiment creates a great following and the other side says, none of you know what you're talking about.

    Again, FALSE.

    Harvey, I've just referenced several responses to so called refutations by the Discovery Institute. These people are not stupid. They know exactly what they are doing. They are just misrepresenting their views on ID as an obvious ploy to inject religion into the field of science.

    Finally, If you think evolution is the cause of your problems and it's acceptance would destroy the value of your entire existence, then you'll never ever accept it. There would be nothing worse, including the ridicule caused by public rejection of every scientific claim ever made.

    ReplyDelete
  26. Ed said "Every step of evolution has been tested in the lab and observed in the wild, in real time."

    Do you really think that by saying this, it will make it true? I've never heard so many lies about evolution as I've read from your posts on these two discussions. And I've got to hand it to Pastor Harvey for his patience and persistence to set the record straight every time you spout another untruth, that seems to run about three to a post.

    So I'll ask you again, name one species that has been proven to have evolved into another species, and I'll notify the press of your great find.

    ReplyDelete
  27. Ed, you say you're a christian. Do you believe in the virgin birth?

    ReplyDelete
  28. Laura said: I've always loved this quote from Robert Jastrow - Astronomer, Physicist, Cosmologist:

    But of course, Jastrow didn't say that evolution doesn't work. If you love a quote from him, think how much you'll love an entire book from the guy.

    Might I recommend Red Giants and White Dwarfs? You'll especially find useful chapter 17, "Ascent of Man," where Jastrow wrote:

    In the course of 3 billion years, life on the earth evolved from a soup of organic moleculres to the carnival of animals that now plays across the face of the planet. Among these animals is man. By what sequence of events did he arise out of a broth of DNA and protein? What circumstances guided the course of evolution from the first primitive organisms to the highest expression of life in the form of the human being?

    The history of these events probably began with the appearance of the first self-copying molecules in the waters of the Earth. . . .
    * * * * * * * *
    [Jastrow details what was then known about evolution ]
    By this chain of evidence and theory, the distinguishing characteristic of the human condition -- intelligence -- may be traced back to the accidental circumstance of a tree-dwelling ancestry.

    The path of evolution stretches further back into time -- from the tree-dwelling forebears of man to the first mammal; then to a doglike reptile of a kind that no longer exists; to the first vertebrate; from the vertebrates to a succession of soft-bodied animals lost in the sands of history; then across the threshold of life into the world of nonliving matter; and finally, many billions of years ago, long before the solar system existed, into the parent cloud of hydrogen.


    Fittingly, Jastrow ends that chapter and that book quoting from the last paragraph Darwin wrote in Origin of Species:

    There is grandeur in this view of life, with its several powers having originally been breathed by the Creator innto a few forms or into one; and that, whilst this planet has gone cycling as according to the fixed laws of gravity, from so simple a beginning endless forms most beautiful and most wonderful have been and are being evolved.

    I think we should make sure people know where Jastrow stood on the issue of evolution. You'd find the book most interesting, Laura.

    ReplyDelete
  29. Laura said:
    Do you really think that by saying this, it will make it true? I've never heard so many lies about evolution as I've read from your posts on these two discussions. And I've got to hand it to Pastor Harvey for his patience and persistence to set the record straight every time you spout another untruth, that seems to run about three to a post.


    I resent that, Laura. It's a false charge. You have not, and you cannot, point out any place I've told an untruth.

    If you are unwilling to study, just say so. But please do not accuse those who have knowledge of lying, when the information is simply information you wish were not so.

    That's not lying; that's teaching.

    Of course, teaching is a one-way street. As the old saying goes, the teacher can only open the door; the student must walk through

    The door is open, Laura. You can walk through it any time.

    Telling false tales on people, making false accusations, is not half so rewarding as learning a new, life-saving idea.

    ReplyDelete
  30. BTW, that Jastrow quote set comes from page 248, and pages 254 and 255 of Red Giants and White Dwarfs (Warner Books, 1979 edition).

    ReplyDelete
  31. This was an ACTIVIST judge...he wasn't going to rule in favor of the school board no matter what...He was afraid of the establishment clause as he ruled...WOW...the more I hear and read...

    Activist judge? John E. Jones was a Republican, conservative, a former chair of the Pennsylvania liquor control commission; George Bush appointed him at the recommendation of arch conservative Sen. Rick Santorum. Jones is a life-long, active Christian, and a Boy Scout leader.

    He ruled as the law and Constitution require. The ruling was so sound the defendants didn't even bother to appeal. There was nothing they could find wrong with the decision, it appears.

    ReplyDelete
  32. Ed, you can recent it all you want, but it the mistruths are becoming more and more outlandish as you go. Perhaps you don't know you are lying when you say that every step of evolution has been tested and observed.

    Show me one species that has been proven (not guessed at) to have evolved into another species. And please answer my question about the virgin birth.

    ReplyDelete
  33. Articles and Media on Judicial Activism
    "Judge's Unintelligent Rant Against Design"

    by Phyllis Schlafly Jan. 6, 2006

    Judge John E. Jones III could still be Chairman of the Pennsylvania Liquor Control Board if millions of evangelical Christians had not pulled the lever for George W. Bush in 2000. Yet this federal judge, who owes his position entirely to those voters and the Bush who appointed him, stuck the knife in the backs of those who brought him to the dance in Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District.

    Judge Jones issued a 139-page rant against anyone who objects to force-feeding public schoolchildren with the theory of evolution. He accused parents and school board members of "breathtaking inanity" for wanting their children to learn that "intelligent design is an explanation of the origin of life that differs from Darwin's view."

    Contrary to most media coverage, the Dover case was not about whether the theory of evolution or Intelligent Design (ID) is correct or should be taught. The Dover school board did not propose to say ID is scientific or valid, or even to decrease its teaching of evolution.

    Students were merely to be read a brief statement asserting that "gaps in the theory exist for which there is no evidence," and that ID provides an explanation for the origin of life that could be further explored by consulting a book in the school library. While not denying that those statements may be true (it is undeniable that evolution has gaps), Judge Jones nevertheless permanently enjoined the school board "from requiring teachers to denigrate or disparage the scientific theory of evolution" and from saying that the theory has gaps.
    (more)
    http://www.popularsovereignty.org/schlafly.articles.html

    http://www.eagleforum.org/column/2006/jan06/06-01-04.html

    ReplyDelete
  34. Richard Dawkins on Bill O'Reilly last night:

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Elux4BKtrs8

    Dawkins seems strangely concerned that presenting anything alongside evolution will cause people to "turn to christianity".

    O'Reilly: "You don't have to turn anywhere, you just have to present it".

    ReplyDelete
  35. Laura posted: Articles and Media on Judicial Activism
    "Judge's Unintelligent Rant Against Design"

    by Phyllis Schlafly Jan. 6, 2006

    Judge John E. Jones III could still be Chairman of the Pennsylvania Liquor Control Board if millions of evangelical Christians had not pulled the lever for George W. Bush in 2000. Yet this federal judge, who owes his position entirely to those voters and the Bush who appointed him, stuck the knife in the backs of those who brought him to the dance in Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District.


    So your complaint isn't that Judge Jones is an activist. Your complaint is that he was honest, and couldn't be bought, or wouldn't stay bought. Your complaint is that he wasn't activist for your side.

    That's a different complaint. It's no shame to a judge NOT to violate the law, judicial canons and ethics, and disappoint political interests. That's generally considered a part of the job, when the law requires it. His fealty is to the Constitution, not Republicans.

    If you prefer a corrupt judiciary, I can see why you'd be disappointed.

    ReplyDelete
  36. Scott,

    you said:"False...This other side is NOT excluding from presenting their ideas. Should proof arise, the community would have no choice but to accept ID as science. But no such proof has been presented. Instead, ID has been continual refuted by science."

    You see this is the type of social and scientific ignorance of the evolutionist crowd too often displayed. ID HAS and does present the best science but leaves open the possibility of a creator and because of that you say there is no evidence...that's the most ridiculous sentiment that keeps things like this going and unresolved...

    To all the evolutionists reading and those confused by this construct:

    Evolution as it currently is presented is a NATURALISTIC METAPHYSICAL RELIGIOUS Philosophy NO MORE.

    It's dogmatic assertions do not exist. The fossil record is bankrupt for it and other proofs are wanting. Exa: Out of 60 Million fossils at the British Museum of History they do not contain ONE transitional form as evolution would require to be normal...

    You guys have presented whale evidence and say that there was a walking whale...EVEN IF we give you that...that makes a total of about 5 out of all the finds in all the stratum ever dug...

    The evolutionary system is BANKRUPT and NOT based on any science...it's merely a weird imposition of so called truths...but they are FALSEHOODS!!!

    This is what I'm saying, teach evolution as it should be presented as a THEORY a probability of species...teach it without the STUPID metaphysical atheistic construct that has attached itself to it, and it will be much more palatable...UNTIL THEN get that garbage out of the schools because it isn't what it claims to be...

    ID is scientific, deals with information systems and the phenomena that we SEE and OBSERVE and can TEST within DNA...The ONLY question of ID is origins and it can be taught without any implication of God for schools...I KNOW it was God but that's for me and my family to discuss not some teacher and some teacher DOES NOT have the right to tell my children that God Was not involved...That's BUNK and I'll fight it all day because I see what your mess has done and continues to do to our communities. It DESTROYS.

    I wanna see an atheist deal with real issues for a change...You think that teaching against God will better the community when we CAN WITNESS just the opposite in real time...You're deluded.

    Over the last 30 years evolution came to the forefront with an atheistic spin and in a corresponding manner we see the moral decline of our communities...I know this because I live, see it and am in touch with it regularly...Yes there are many other causes, but atheism through evolution has had it's part and I WON'T LET YOU FORGET IT!

    ReplyDelete
  37. Ed, you can recent it all you want, but it the mistruths are becoming more and more outlandish as you go. Perhaps you don't know you are lying when you say that every step of evolution has been tested and observed.

    Show me one species that has been proven (not guessed at) to have evolved into another species. And please answer my question about the virgin birth.


    Or, maybe you lack the ability to discern truth, and it looks like a lie to you when it turns out different than your bias.

    Keep an open mind on that.

    I named five species that were known to have evolved before. You quibbled about one, using a definition of species that Harv repudiates. But what about the other four?

    Speciation occurs all the time. Check with researchers who work with flies, drosophila, for example. One of the major problems of working in the lab is keeping them from speciating, as they do spontaneously. Especially for pesticides testing, it's important to be sure your lab population hasn't evolved to become immune to the pesticide, or more susceptible to it, as opposed to the wild population.

    I referred you to the several papers on speciation by the Grants, Peter and Rosemary. There's been no response here.

    How many examples do you need?

    Apart from speciation, each step of evolutionary change has been observe repeatedly, for both sympatric and allopatric speciation. Natural selection examples abound -- the recent 7-year retest of the coloration of peppered moths by the late Majerus confirmed Kettlewell's findings precisely, and there are dozens of other examples. Here in Texas the wildlife game managers now ask fishermen to catch-and-release the big fish, since throwing the small ones back tended to select for smaller fish. The predator selection of the color of the rodents in New Mexico, on a stretch of desert that is alternately red sand and black lava, provides spectacular example of evolution in microenvironments, where populations are separated by mere inches, and yet diverge cleanly and clearly. The rise of nylonase, a bacterium that survives exclusively on nylon, a substance that didn't exist prior to 1920, demonstrates all sorts of evolution theory.

    What part of the theory is it you think has not been demonstrated?

    I'll wager that you can't summarize evolution in four or five points, as AP Biology high school students must. I can't imagine that anyone could understand the science presented, and fail to appreciate that it works.

    On the other hand, the creationists here present the classic creationist hoaxes. You don't recognize them? More evidence that your excrement detector has been damaged.

    ReplyDelete
  38. Laura,

    Ed Darrell is about the most weak watered down Christian that I've ever seen and I have read my share of apostates.

    He presents misinformation and faulted and even patently false statements without any research and what research he presents is WRONG and normally refuted BEFORE he opens his mouth...

    As Laura has stated Ed, I'm doing good to let you continue but I will shut you down...not because you telling truth, but because you've shown yourself to be ignorant...

    PLEASE refrain from your repetitive and erroneous and stale arguments...add what is pertinent to the subject please...This is you SECOND warning.

    Everyone has read this right?

    It takes ONE idiot to ruin it for everybody, PLEASE don't be that one!

    ReplyDelete
  39. I probably should have renamed the species that have speciated that I named earlier:

    1. Modern bovines, from aurochs
    2. Grapefruit
    3. Broccoli
    4. Radishes
    5. Grapefruit
    (oops. must have left one of those off)
    6. American apple maggot

    There are also several "ring species" that demonstrate allopatric speciation in real time, separated by geography instead of time -- like the California or San Fernando salamanders, or the green warblers of the Himalayas, or the Herring gull/Lesser black-backed gull set of species.

    I've never paid much attention to Gould's work with snails, but he had several clear examples in his collection.

    And students of the Grants have watched speciation in sticklebacks -- in one case, exactly duplicating in the lab a spontaneous speciation (well, the fish duplicated it) that was observed in the wild.

    Biologists have confirmed many other cases of relatively recent speciation that we did not directly observe -- and these examples number probably in the thousands. Archipelagos and rapidly changing land areas -- like volcanic islands, or Lake Victoria -- offer opportunities for dramatic and quick speciation, and nature takes those opportunities.

    The Evolution Gateway at Berkeley offers solid explanations in lay terms; you may want to visit that site.

    ReplyDelete
  40. Ed,

    All of what you post is variations and modifications and MOST of them INTELLIGENTLY engineered. There has been NO natural selection for anything you've stated and addressed...

    EVERYOINE in the scientific community knows this but you continue to MISREPRESENT findings and LIE...

    i know your point is to say that evolution happens the problem is that evolution ONLY means change. The changes you state do not give rise to completely new phyla UNLESS there is genetic engineering and that's quite different form what you say and or attempt to represent...

    Please CEASE from this erraticism...This is you LAST warning...

    OK??? Do you understand????

    ReplyDelete
  41. Laura,

    That vid was EXCELLENT and on point. I'm not a big O'rielly fan, but he handled Dawkins and he's not close to a scientist but obviously displays good sense.

    He's right that science does not advance the human condition in any moralistic way and atheistic science is even worse.

    Dawkins said that was "muddeling up" things. I think it's muddeling up things to teach science with the priori naturalism and enter into making statement with that science that there is no God...that very statement is unscientific as it can't be DISPROVEN...

    The lengths that these pushing the agenda will go to is beyond belief.

    "Will you listen to me and stop shouting at me!"

    Dawkins sings the same old song and all i hear is that evolutionary science with the bias of atheism is bankrupt all day long.

    Good job.

    ReplyDelete
  42. Scott,

    You said this:"The book in question during the trial, Of Pandas and People, showed signs of wholesale replacement from an earlier edition where the word creationism was replaced with intelligent design. From two additions of the book..."

    Scott, I deal in a profession where laws are in flux at times. recently I ordered a slew of brochures for clients and customers that made certain statements based on the law at that time. About 2 weeks later there was a change in the law and the company that i had ordered the material from told me specifically DO NOT distribute those brochures any longer. They are not in compliance.

    If I had refused simply because I had some nice shinny new sales pieces, I would have been breaking the law. Not only would I have been fined and possibly jailed but the company could have ben penalized because of my actions...

    Changing the brochures REFLECTED the change in law as Miller said with the introduction of the time line in the video...THAT'S NOT AN UNUSUAL PROCESS occurrence, event or set of circumstances.

    The critic places great weight into that, but believe me Miller will do EXACTLY the same if the law changes because he and his books have to comply to the same set of laws...

    That was a silly argument for him to make and it only appealed to those who are sensationalists...

    Like I said, Miller is a BOOK SALESMAN...open you eyes my friend. He has a monetary interest in making sure that evolution continues as it is without any modifications...

    He professes Christianity but does not tell how he reconciles his belief in any fashion...that's him and that's his business but it's about the sales and the dollars at the bottom line.

    ReplyDelete
  43. Harv said: You said this:"The book in question during the trial, Of Pandas and People, showed signs of wholesale replacement from an earlier edition where the word creationism was replaced with intelligent design. From two editions of the book..."

    Scott, I deal in a profession where laws are in flux at times. recently I ordered a slew of brochures for clients and customers that made certain statements based on the law at that time. About 2 weeks later there was a change in the law and the company that i had ordered the material from told me specifically DO NOT distribute those brochures any longer. They are not in compliance.


    But the decision in this case, in Edwards v. Aguillard, was that the material in the book was illegal -- not that it needed to have its label changed, but that the material itself violated the First Amendment. It was religious material, not science material.

    Changing the name from "creationism" to "intelligent design" not only did not comply with the law, but it also highlighted that the intelligent design advocates were fibbing when they said that intelligent design is not just creationism with a different name, that the material is exactly the same as creationism.

    This was a major point in the trial, and probably where the most drama was. Both the school board and the book publisher, and every other party on the creationist side including the Discovery Institute, had sworn up and down that the book represented only intelligent design stuff, and was not creationist material at all.

    In short, they lied through their teeth.

    It a stunning series of comparisons, Dr. Forrest demonstrated that whole passages were exactly the same in describing the anti-evolution material. The coup-de-gras, however, was when Dr. Forrest showed the wp or so times that the publisher had simply substituted "design proponent" for "creationist," or "intelligent design" for "creationism."

    The changes were not made to comply with the law, but to evade the law, to teach religion instead of science.

    At trial there were two issues here: Was the book just warmed over creationism? And, had the publishers and everyone else lied when they said it was original, intelligent design hypothesis?

    As you can understand, catching so many of the defendants and defendants' organizations in a cold-blooded lie colored the entire trial. If they'll lie about what they do in the meat of their work, what will they not lie about?

    The defendants were lucky that the trial was a bench trial, and not to a jury.

    [Part II, next post]

    ReplyDelete
  44. [Part II, continued from previous post]

    If I had refused simply because I had some nice shiny new sales pieces, I would have been breaking the law. Not only would I have been fined and possibly jailed but the company could have been penalized because of my actions...

    But if, when the state told you that the material was illegal, you simply put a new cover on the brochure and claimed the substance was all different, you'd be a liar AND a lawbreaker.

    That's what this case is about. The publishers and the board had no intention of complying with the law. Constitution? To them it was just like toilet paper.

    Changing the brochures REFLECTED the change in law as Miller said with the introduction of the time line in the video . . . THAT'S NOT AN UNUSUAL PROCESS occurrence, event or set of circumstances.

    No, the changes reflected the flouting of the law. The publisher was trying to hide the legal violation.

    And, of course, since there is no body of science to look to in order to see if it's intelligent-design-the-science, versus intelligent-design-the-religious-material, actually looking at these drafts of the book was dispositive.

    Had there been a body of scientific work, that would have spoken for itself.

    The critic places great weight into that, but believe me Miller will do EXACTLY the same if the law changes because he and his books have to comply to the same set of laws . . .

    Actually, Miller told the State of Texas to shove it when he was ordered to make changes that departed from science. He is in the business of selling books, sure, but first he's in the business of good science. He's been at this for a long time, and he has a long track record of defending the science against religious encroachment -- in Ohio, in Texas, in Florida, in Michigan and in Pennsylvania.

    You really should learn something about Miller instead of pulling out this inaccurate stuff -- which is, by the way, an ad hominem argument, since it is directed wholly at Miller with false claims, rather than directed at a defense of the issue.

    That was a silly argument for him to make and it only appealed to those who are sensationalists . .

    In the legal profession, we don't take it lightly when people lie under oath. Miller followed the law and the Constitution. Your attempted denigration of his reputation is off the mark, and unbecoming.

    Like I said, Miller is a BOOK SALESMAN . . . open you eyes my friend.

    You could Google Miller and learn better. Open our eyes? We're seeing things clearly. Your throwing of mud here has perhaps obscured your own vision.

    He has a monetary interest in making sure that evolution continues as it is without any modifications...

    He has a scientific interest in keeping science clean and good. Cancer cures don't come from fraudulent claims. HIV treatments don't come from fraud. Good students, and the future of our nation, depend on serious science work. Miller knows it.

    Your argument here is pretty shabby, morally, as well as factually vacuous. [continued]

    ReplyDelete
  45. [Continued, Part III]



    He professes Christianity but does not tell how he reconciles his belief in any fashion . . . that's him and that's his business but it's about the sales and the dollars at the bottom line.

    He's honest. In Christianity, that counts for a lot. It counts for a lot more than you are willing to let on here.

    Additionally, Miller is a wonderful professor. He's also written a good selling book you might want to read, Finding Darwin's God, and I'll wager he's published in more religious journals than you are.

    I think your arguments are sour grapes. Just my opinion, of course. Miller is a good an just man. He's a fine father. Plus, he's a brilliant scholar and can explain the wonders of God's creation in a way that excites thousands of students every year.

    There may be something to following the rules of the Scout Law, you know? When Miller testified before Judge John Jones, a former Scout and current Scouter, Jones found him to be an honest man. Jones is paid the big bucks to do exactly that. We should give Jones' views some sway.

    Best,

    Ed

    ReplyDelete
  46. Laura wrote: The Dover school board did not propose to say ID is scientific or valid, or even to decrease its teaching of evolution.

    Laura,

    I'm sorry, but you've been fed propaganda. The Thomas More Law Center, who defended the school board members in question, explicitly argued that ID was science. This was a key claim in their defense.

    This is the same law firm that initially recommended the book Of Pandas and People to a member of the Dover school board, as they thought it was their best hope of getting ID distributed in the Dover science curriculum.

    While I'd recommend you watch the entire program, chapters 10 and 11 of Nova special on the Dover 2005 trial specifically address these issues.

    Intelligent Design on Trial

    That you are unaware of such a key aspect of the trial indicates you know very little about this issue and are merely repeating bad arguments you've found online.

    In light of this obvious falsehood, can you give us a reason why we should take what you have to say seriously?

    ReplyDelete
  47. You see this is the type of social and scientific ignorance of the evolutionist crowd too often displayed. ID HAS and does present the best science but leaves open the possibility of a creator and because of that you say there is no evidence...that's the most ridiculous sentiment that keeps things like this going and unresolved…

    Harvey, you might think ID it's the "best science", but you haven't defined what you mean by "best."

    The theory you prefer? Because it doesn't threaten your religious beliefs? Science isn't about what we prefer. It's not about making you feel comfortable or being all things to all people. These are all biases, which science seeks to avoid.

    And if ID is science then, by the same definition, so is Astrology. Or Alien intervention theory. Of course, since you do not believe in these things, I'm sure you'd say they are NOT the "best science." But then you've merely rejected them on your personal opinion, not fact.

    The rest of your comment is unsupported claims that have already been refuted.

    Please go back and read the links I referenced. Watch the NOVA special.

    ReplyDelete
  48. Harvey wrote: Changing the brochures REFLECTED the change in law as Miller said with the introduction of the time line in the video...THAT'S NOT AN UNUSUAL PROCESS occurrence, event or set of circumstances.

    Harvey, the problem here is that ID is being presented as science. However, it clearly started out as a creationist textbook.

    They essentially took the same text and merely replaced creationism with intelligent design. They didn't even do a very good job.

    As a creationist, I'm sure you have no problem with pushing creation in the schools, but it's clear that Of Pandas and People…

    A. Was part of a disingenuous plan by the Discovery Institute to push creationism into the classroom and the culture of the united states. This is clearly part of the Wedge Strategy.

    B. Shows that ID is the same thing as creationism. it's clear that an intelligent agent is God. They simply leave out the specific intelligent agent and call it science. It's NOT science. It's was intentionally created play in the playbook of the Discovery Institute.

    To quote Phillip Johnson, who developed the ID movement,

    Our strategy has been to change the subject a bit so that we can get the issue of intelligent design, which really means the reality of God, before the academic world and into the schools."

    and

    This isn't really, and never has been a debate about science. Its about religion and philosophy.

    Referenced from Wkiipedia entry on the Wedge Strategy.

    Again, see chapter 11 from the NOVA Special

    ReplyDelete
  49. A couple notes:

    Laura said...
    “We didn’t see it happen, we can’t make it happen again, and we can't show you that it ever happened, but it must have happened!” is not science.

    Science is all about inferring causation from available evidence. The entire premise of the discipline is based on this. Thus, your statement here is so far off base that you're in a whole different ball park Laura ;)

    District Supt. Harvey Burnett said...
    I'm not going to go back and forth with you o this in this thread if you simply READ the older post you'll see that Darwin not only espoused racism he also espoused bias against women as he felt that all were less superior to whites...

    I still fail to see why it matters - the majority of English men of the time were racist and sexist by today's standards. It is not his theories that made Darwin this way, but the culture that he derived from. A culture I may add that was based on close to 2000 years of saturation in Christian ideas. Thusly, methinks you are ascribing the wrong cause to the effect (shrug)

    ReplyDelete
  50. Scott,

    You said:"Harvey, the problem here is that ID is being presented as science. However, it clearly started out as a creationist textbook."

    I hear you on this one and agree thatreligion shouldn't have been taught however ID can be taught without religious emphasis. That can be left up to discovery and an open ended question similar to how evolution deals with it now. Evolution says it doesn't deal with origins right? Why can't ID be left to say that it doesn't deal with who the designer is?

    You said: "As a creationist, I'm sure you have no problem with pushing creation in the schools, but it's clear that Of Pandas and People…"

    You have forgotten my CLEAR statements on the issue. I don't believe religion should be taught in public schools. Private do what they do, but public no. So I have an issue with that, but I also have an issue with teaching philosophical naturalism or atheism under the guise of evolution also...that's inappropriate. Philosophical metaphysical naturalism as i call it should be seperated from evolution as it is taught.

    You said:"A. Was part of a disingenuous plan by the Discovery Institute to push creationism into the classroom and the culture of the united states. This is clearly part of the Wedge Strategy."

    Agreed, 2 wrongs don't make a right. Atheism has been taught through evolution so long and that mistake should not have been compounded by teaching creationism.

    You said: B. Shows that ID is the same thing as creationism. it's clear that an intelligent agent is God.

    See my earlier comment on this.

    You said:They simply leave out the specific intelligent agent and call it science.

    And they can do so and it is science. It's more scientific to point out the complexity of DNA and other processes than to simply gloss over them and say that their purpose is blindly directed. There is nothing that they do blindly. They (DNA) acts in an ordered and orderly process. Children and underserved when they are not taught this.

    You said:"It's NOT science. It's was intentionally created play in the playbook of the Discovery Institute."

    maybe the way they went about it was wrong, BUT alas, my friend, THEY are books sellers too! What goes for Miller and his camp also goes for them. They receive big money for book contracts and educational matrials...

    You and most people see a battle for creation or evolution and although that battle is real, I see a battle for book sales and marketshare.

    I amy be wrong and anyone in the know can correct me, but I see two giants in the field of educational resources trying to secure the finacian futures of their operations.

    Our discussions on this topic will be more fruitful than either of theirs because we have nothing to gain monetarily...That's just me and what I think about that battle. There too many strange things that went down and Ed may have a point as he suspects discovery's motives, but I don't think it was because of the scientific argument at all...it was BOOKS SALES.

    Now, I challenge any of you to get a Freedom Of Information from Dover Schoold District and ask how much the Panda book contract with Discover was annaully and ask who got the contract after ID was removed from the cirriculum...If we follow the money I GUARANTEE we will find the R A T...

    Betchya! (I don't bet but if I did-LOL)

    ReplyDelete
  51. Nightmare,

    You said regarding Darwin:"It is not his theories that made Darwin this way, but the culture that he derived from. A culture I may add that was based on close to 2000 years of saturation in Christian ideas."

    Nightmare we agree again...I might also add that it wasn't because of Christianity that he was racist either...just so happened that he was close to the Christianity that he REJECTED...at least at that point in his life.

    ReplyDelete
  52. Murfyn said...
    Here is a link to a fun (and short) vid about evolution: Alan Watts' Appling
    "http://zenbullets.com/blog/?p=107"

    I enjoyed it too thought it was great and easy to understand Murfyn,thanks.

    I left a note for the blogger to considder.

    What i said but under name Pete its still waiting on moderration.

    "Pete Says: Your comment is awaiting moderation.
    October 11th, 2009 at 4:20 am
    I love it too its excellent.Still we dont have the actual answer of where we came from.And science maybe still has the best chance of finding out how.

    1,Faith so far we have faith of what where and who we might have came from,with fewer scientists trying to actually find out.This group attitude mostly being “they know” already, and no more answers needed.Trouble is they dont all agree and havent for thousand of years.Its a russian roulette type existance,your life style depends often in what particular country you were born.None can yet claim to have positively cracked this code, so many still disagree and wallow quietly in their prefered faith.Quite contented it seems to wait and see where the flipped coins actually land.

    2,Outside of faith groups many many people and scientists etc are busily at work day in day out examining researching testing etc to see if a answer can be found.These people mostly are driven with a passionate drive for new information knowledge learning and answers.Many codes have been cracked this way which both faithful and non faithful do use.Scientists etc cracking codes now and then, is really no longer any real big news.

    So which group do you fell has the best likely chance of ever finely cracking this particular code,1 or 2 ?

    Remember:He who laughs last often laughs the longest."

    Fell=feel ....damm typo`s

    But that about sums up my opinion Harvey my friend.No skin off my nose if faithful folk dont want to look hard so to be sure.

    I dont think them faithful not looking, going to stop many many others from keepin on looking, do you?.

    If you do then ill have to agree you have emmence faith in something.

    Are you sure your faiths in God? ...Old men of faith who wrote books? ....What other faithful told you? ...High inteligence?...Educated opinions? ...a silly idea that lacks in enough evidence?.Foolishness?

    As always everybody needs to decide for themselves what basis it really is.


    "Ed Darrell said...
    Laura said: “We didn’t see it happen, we can’t make it happen again, and we can't show you that it ever happened,
    but it must have happened!”
    is not science.

    That's right. And since that's what ID advocates say about ID, that's why it's not taught in science class.

    On the other hand, we have seen evolution happen, we can manipulate evolution with human interference, and it's well documented in real time and historically, especially in fossils, evolution is science."


    So true Ed so very true.Its fine to be looking at science and say oh look cant cant be sure.

    But faith beliefs are no more sure.They didnt see any Gods.They can’t make it happen again, and can't show you that it ever happened,
    "but it must have happened!”
    is not science.

    Ahhh what a blinking dilemma we have to deal with.

    Should keep us busy for awhile though,after all the world wasnt made in a day was it?

    ReplyDelete
  53. Laura quoted from article on Activist Judge Jones:

    "Contrary to most media coverage, the Dover case was not about whether the theory of evolution or Intelligent Design (ID) is correct or should be taught. The Dover school board did not propose to say ID is scientific or valid, or even to decrease its teaching of evolution.

    Students were merely to be read a brief statement asserting that "gaps in the theory exist for which there is no evidence," and that ID provides an explanation for the origin of life that could be further explored by consulting a book in the school library."


    To which Scott said "Laura,
    I'm sorry, but you've been fed propaganda."

    Scott, did you bother to read the Complaint before telling me I'm being fed propaganda? Because I read it before I posted someone else's words. I'm funny like that...I'm always looking for what's true. You, my friend, continue to beat that square peg into the round hole insisting that everything you think should be truth, is truth. It's a losing battle, because there can only be One truth.



    COMPLAINT
    I. INTRODUCTION
    On October 18, 2004, the defendant Dover Area School District Board
    of Directors (“Dover School Board”) passed by a 6-3 vote the following resolution:
    -2-
    Students will be made aware of gaps/problems in
    Darwin’s theory and of other theories of evolution
    including, but not limited to, intelligent design. Note:
    Origins of Life is not taught.
    On November 19, 2004, the defendant Dover Area School District announced that teachers would be required to read a statement to students in the
    ninth grade biology class at Dover High School that includes the following language:
    Because Darwin’s Theory is a theory, it is still being
    tested as new evidence is discovered. The Theory is not
    a fact. Gaps in the Theory exist for which there is no evidence. A theory is defined as a well-tested
    explanation that unifies a broad range of observations.
    Intelligent design is an explanation of the origin of life
    that differs from Darwin’s view. The reference book, Of
    Pandas and People is available for students to see if they would like to explore this view in an effort to gain an understanding of what intelligent design actually
    involves. As is true with any theory, students are encouraged to keep an open mind.

    --------------------

    The rest of the complaint lays out all the perceived horrors of what could happen if the statement of gaps was read to school children, and the children were told there was a book in the library with an alternative view.

    Notice from the Judge's 139 page ruling over a statement being read to kids that teachers are not allowed to even mention the gaps because a student my view that "as a strong official endorsement of religion or a religious viewpoint."

    Then this activist Judge has the nerve to say his decision to withhold information from students and disallow the reading of the statement rests on the constitution, when his ruling is the very meaning of the word "Fascism".

    ReplyDelete
  54. Harv wrote:
    >I wanna see an atheist deal with real issues for a change...You think that teaching against God will better the community when we CAN WITNESS just the opposite in real time...You're deluded.

    Harv, can you understand this: we don’t care.

    We honestly do think evolution is true, we honestly do think the Christian God is non-existent. Most atheists, incidentally, do not have a strong feeling as to whether or not any sort of wussy deistic god exists – most of us doubt it, but we claim no certainty.

    Will society collapse if everyone comes to believe that evolution is true and that the Christian God is non-existent?

    We don’t care.

    We care about truth: if telling the truth causes the collapse of human society as we know it, so be it.

    Dave Miller in Sacramento

    P.S. Personally, I am in favor of the end of society as we know it.

    ReplyDelete
  55. Ed, I find you to be an intellectually dishonest person. Your posts are rehashes of earlier posts that have been disproven,
    and you seem to be incapable of understanding the difference between variation within a specific species as opposed to the evolution of one species into another species which has been my question from the beginning.

    Since you are unwilling to say if you believe in the virgin birth, I'm guessing that your statement of being "christian" is also a lie. Jesus said "Whosoever therefore shall confess me before men, him will I confess also before my Father which is in heaven. But whosoever shall deny me before men, him will I also deny before my Father which is in heaven." ~Matthew 10:32-33

    As christians know, without the virgin birth, Christ would have inherited the sin nature so He could not have been the perfect Lamb of God.

    ReplyDelete
  56. Nightmare said "Science is all about inferring causation from available evidence. The entire premise of the discipline is based on this. Thus, your statement here is so far off base that you're in a whole different ball park Laura ;)"

    Et tu, Nightmare?

    1.We didn’t see it happen...
    a) Evolution took millions of years and sometimes the changes of one species into another species happened so fast that transitions don't show up in the fossil record.

    b) Evolution took millions of years and so it was a really slow and gradual process with teensy tiny changes (wings, legs) that we can't see the transitions in the fossil record.

    2. We can’t make it happen again...
    Darn-it! But we can make better and bigger corn, so that's something, right?

    3. And we can't show you that it ever happened...
    Darn that fossil record! But have patience. We just KNOW that soon, very soon we will find something.

    4. But it must have happened!
    Because we don't like to think of the alternative.

    ...is not science.

    ReplyDelete
  57. Ed wrote of Ken Miller:
    > He's honest. In Christianity, that counts for a lot.

    No, Ed, Ken is not honest.

    Look, I admire Ken’s work in science and his public support for evolution.

    But, Ken is playing games about being a Christian, trying to get guys like Harv to believe that Ken is a traditional (Nicene) Christian, even though Ken is not.

    Several years ago, in a famous incident, Dawkins asked Ken publicly whether Ken believed in the Virgin Birth: Ken refused to answer

    Finally, according to “Discover Magazine,” Ken has brought himself to the point where he “suggested that the virgin birth of Christ could be a metaphor…”

    A guy who suggests that the Virgin Birth “could” be a metaphor is not a guy who is a Christian as large numbers of Americans use the word “Christian”!

    Ken has been playing games with this for years, as the news reports I linked to indicate: it is convenient for him to be the “Christian” who supports evolution.

    But, let’s be honest.

    Ken’s recent admission that the Virgin Birth “could” be a metaphor proves that Harv is right: if you start by acknowledging that Genesis 1-2 is just allegory, metaphor, etc., then you find yourself on a slippery slope that ends with admitting that the Virgin Birth, the Incarnation, and the Resurrection are also metaphors – i.e., Christianity is based on lies.

    That is what Harv fears, and he is quite right to fear it.

    Ken has not been honest about this, and his finally admitting his lack of faith on the Virgin Birth proves that Harv is right.

    Fortunately, it is too late: the ultimate acceptance of evolution is inevitable, and therefore so is the ultimate destruction of Christianity.

    Dave

    ReplyDelete
  58. Laura wrote to Ed:
    > Since you are unwilling to say if you believe in the virgin birth, I'm guessing that your statement of being "christian" is also a lie.

    Well, Ed probably does not think he is lying!

    No one owns the word “Christian,” and there are people who use it in ways that you, Harv, and I find eccentric, but that does not mean they are lying. The issue is whether there is “intent to deceive.” As I said above, it does seem clear to me that Ken Miller’s refusal until recently to reveal his view of the Virgin Birth was due to his silence being useful in misleading people.

    Ed can show he is not intending to deceive by simply telling us all what he thinks about the Virgin Birth. Then, if his definition of “Christian” happens to include people who deny the Virgin Birth, no deception will be involved.

    I myself think that Jesus was kind of a cool guy, even though I deny all of the traditional Christian teachings, so, perhaps, even I am a “Christian” by Ed’s definition!

    Dave

    ReplyDelete
  59. Laura said: Ed, I find you to be an intellectually dishonest person.

    And I, you. You refuse to check sources, you quote falsehoods and lies unapologetically, and you are rude besides.

    It is generally best to treat your kind Biblically, as in Psalm 50: "I will take no bull from your house . . .

    Your posts are rehashes of earlier posts that have been disproven,

    You shouldn't tell such lies. You can't respond to my posts. Your inability to respond with any data does not make my posts false.

    . . . and you seem to be incapable of understanding the difference between variation within a specific species as opposed to the evolution of one species into another species which has been my question from the beginning.

    If you wish to argue variation within a species, do so. Your refusal to accept any definition of species does not make all the definitions wrong. Have you responded once to my lists of species?

    Your refusal to respond -- or inability to respond -- does not make me a teller of falsehoods. Your refusal to confront the truth as presented by God's creation, and accept it, does not make either me or God a teller of falsehoods.

    Since you are unwilling to say if you believe in the virgin birth, I'm guessing that your statement of being "christian" is also a lie.

    My not getting around to your silly test yet doesn't make me a liar -- it does expose again the pettiness of your faith in humanity, and it exposes the lack of tolerance you exhibit for which Sodom and Gomorrah were torched. I doubt you'll face brimstone soon, but you'll get much more understanding with a bit of reading than with a tantrum

    Yes, I believe in the virgin birth. No, it's not essential to Christian theology, save to those who refuse to give up on magic.

    Do you believe God created the universe? Here you have denied almost all of God's creation, and I'll wager on cross-examination you'll repudiate all of God's creation before the cock crows once.

    And you have the gall to ask people about a virgin birth?

    Your telling falsehoods about people, about science, and about faith is not justified by any act of others, even if they don't believe in a virgin birth.

    Why are you so petty? What possible difference could it make whether I believe in a virgin birth or not? You're still wrong. You still reject the evidence plainly set before you.

    Don't seek salvation by condemning others. It doesn't work, and it's not part of the faith.

    Jesus said "Whosoever therefore shall confess me before men, him will I confess also before my Father which is in heaven. But whosoever shall deny me before men, him will I also deny before my Father which is in heaven." ~Matthew 10:32-33

    And yet, here you are, claiming that the plain evidence God sets before you is wrong, taking the word of creationist charlatans over the work of God. Duane Gish is not Jesus, and Gish's warm glow over your acceptance of his torture of scripture will not substitute for standing up for Jesus.

    You have a lot of gall to denigrate the facts and God's creation, and then quote scriptures as if that would cleanse you of sin.

    As christians know, without the virgin birth, Christ would have inherited the sin nature so He could not have been the perfect Lamb of God.

    So you reject that Christ was ever human? That's not Christian theology you're spouting.

    Should I be surprised?

    Got any answer to the ring species? Got any answer to broccoli?

    I see.

    (continued)

    ReplyDelete
  60. (part 2, cotinued from previous post, a response to Laura)

    Without answers, you are reduced to insulting the faith of others.

    Paul warned us about people who do what you're doing here, in Romans 1: 18 The wrath of God is being revealed from heaven against all the godlessness and wickedness of men who suppress the truth by their wickedness, 19 since what may be known about God is plain to them, because God has made it plain to them. 20 For since the creation of the world God's invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that men are without excuse.

    21 For although they knew God, they neither glorified him as God nor gave thanks to him, but their thinking became futile and their foolish hearts were darkened. 22 Although they claimed to be wise, they became fools 23 and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images made to look like mortal man and birds and animals and reptiles.


    Evolution is manifest throughout living creation. It's plain as the nose on your face, characteristics you inherited from you parents by common descent, or as Darwin described it, "descent with modification," or as Genesis describes it, 'after your own kind.'

    Don't blame me for your rejection of God's testament, thank you.

    You really don't have any answer to broccoli, do you.

    ReplyDelete
  61. Nightmare and Laura wrote:
    > [Laura] “We didn’t see it happen, we can’t make it happen again, and we can't show you that it ever happened, but it must have happened!” is not science.

    >[Nightmare] Science is all about inferring causation from available evidence. The entire premise of the discipline is based on this. Thus, your statement here is so far off base that you're in a whole different ball park Laura ;)

    Laura, all of the scientists I know personally use the word “science” as Nightmare uses it.

    You are free to use the word “science” in a different way if you wish, but you should recognize that most “scientists” (i.e., people with Ph.D.s in physics, biology, etc. teaching at non-sectarian research universities) use the word as Nightmare uses it.

    No sense arguing over how to use words, but it is important not to be deceptive.

    Dave

    ReplyDelete
  62. Well, Ed probably does not think he is lying!

    I'll thank you to keep insults to yourself.

    Belief in a virgin birth is not one of the things Jesus said is required for salvation.

    Let your word be your bond. Let your yes be your yes, and your no be your no.

    But do not accuse me of lying when I tell the truth. Your inability to answer the examples God has provided has nothing to do with my veracity; it probably does have something to do with your veracity, however.

    ReplyDelete
  63. Dave said "We honestly do think evolution is true, we honestly do think the Christian God is non-existent."

    Everyone is free to believe what they want. When a tiny percentage of Americans lead by the ACLU can tell kids what they can and can't learn, we have lost our freedom to choose and are on the road to fascism.

    Instead of allowing people to believe what they choose, since you honestly believe in evolution, everyone should. Since you honestly believe there is no God, everyone should. What else? Oh yeah...You are ready to end society as we know it.

    "We don't care

    Ah ha...And that's why atheists are drawn like flies to _ _ _ _ honey on these discussions. Did you come back to see if anyone addressed you, or just to bask in the glow of your own posts?

    I can't remember a time when I discussed anything with such a bunch of intellectually dishonest people.

    Pastor Harvey, I'll check back later to see if anyone wants to get real. You have more patience than I do.

    ReplyDelete
  64. But, Ken is playing games about being a Christian, trying to get guys like Harv to believe that Ken is a traditional (Nicene) Christian, even though Ken is not.

    Several years ago, in a famous incident, Dawkins asked Ken publicly whether Ken believed in the Virgin Birth: Ken refused to answer.


    Miller gave a complex answer that you may have missed. He took it to Dawkins' ground, noting the Y chromosome of Jesus -- where did it come from?

    If your standard for who is Christian is that no one ever critically consider scripture, then God is indeed dead -- to anyone who shares that standard.

    Why is the virgin birth mentioned in only one of the gospels? Don't proof text the thing so closely that you make the famous error of that joke about the children at the nativity reenactment, the Three Wise Men wearing helmets from the local fire department.

    Tell us, how do ring species occur, if not by evolution? Tell us of the errors of Peter and Rosemary Grant, if you can find them. And what of the lesser black-backed gull and herring gull? If they are the same species, why don't they interbreed? If they are different species, where do you draw the line between them?

    My faith has nothing to do with the existence of those creatures, nor anyone's ability to understand them, nor anyone else's failure to respond to the evidence God lays before us.

    ReplyDelete
  65. Ed wrote:
    > Yes, I believe in the virgin birth. No, it's not essential to Christian theology, save to those who refuse to give up on magic.

    Ed, as an atheist, I myself do think that believing in the Virgin Birth shows a refusal “to give up on magic.”

    But the fact that you refer to the Virgin Birth in that dismissive manner is going to cause a reasonable person to doubt that you believe in the Virgin Birth in the usual, normal sense of the word.

    Anyone familiar with modern theology knows that Barth, Bultmann, et al. claimed to “believe” in traditional Christian doctrines even though they did not really believe in a literal, physical Virgin Birth, Resurrection, etc.

    Do you really think that Jesus was conceived in Mary without any involvement at all by any male human being? Where do you think his Y chromosome came from, since Mary did not have one?

    It is a little hard to see why you would strain at the gnat of Genesis 1-2 but swallow the camel of a literal, physical Virgin Birth.

    Or is your belief in the Virgin Birth a bit more metaphorical, ethereal than all that?

    Dave

    ReplyDelete
  66. Harv wrote:
    > This statement is ridiculous but drives the point home: Why do evolutionists continue to believe and promote that man is simply like an electrocharged rock?

    Ah, but, Harv, we don’t!

    Don’t bear false witness.

    Remember on your old thread where I directed you to my review of Colin McGinn’s ”The Mysterious Flame”? The review was written way back in 2004, so I am not just making this up to make you happy. I think the link is working now, Harv: click on it and read my review for yourself.

    Quite a few of us atheistic evolutionists are quite cheerful to concede that science cannot (yet) explain consciousness. Personally, as a physicist, I do not think physics as it now exists ever will (as I explain in my review).

    You and I are on the same side on this, Harv, like it or not: natural science does not explain consciousness.

    Dave

    ReplyDelete
  67. Dave said"That is what Harv fears, and he is quite right to fear it.

    Ken has not been honest about this, and his finally admitting his lack of faith on the Virgin Birth proves that Harv is right.

    Fortunately, it is too late: the ultimate acceptance of evolution is inevitable, and therefore so is the ultimate destruction of Christianity.

    Dave"

    Sure will be then end of Christianity specially if they keep being ever so stubborn and unmoving in not helping look for the truth.

    Cause when they finally do find out and depending on whats actually found,may make many more realize how folks of faith have often done their best to hinder or stop possible truths that might not suit their present held beliefs from emerging.

    Many many folks wont find that all to palatable will they?

    Some will be discusted and rightly so.

    Atleast if they helped look for the truth rather than working negative against, even if the virgin birth was found to be lies and wrong.

    Christians could still have this caring fellow a great pastor of long ago called Jesus who cared and helped his people.

    whats the hold up...to much pride?....Big money in having followers?......Great way to get a good client base if you a salesman?

    Harvey i know you h8 me my friend,but i dont h8 you i like you heaps sometimes.Your fun and theres never a dull moment..Hey that photo of yours ...Man you any relation of Eddie Murphy??

    I love Eddie Murphy too ! ..Have tears coming out my eyes from laughing with watching he`s movies

    Its just it really pays to always try to be honest thats all.I got to say it like i sees it Harv ..What good me telling you fibs? .... heck you probily got enough in church doing that

    Do you lie to people you like Harv?

    ReplyDelete
  68. Ed wrote apparently to me (since he started by quoting from my post):
    > If your standard for who is Christian is that no one ever critically consider scripture, then God is indeed dead -- to anyone who shares that standard.

    Ed, as I have said again and again, I am an atheist – so, yeah I do think that “God is dead.”

    Ed also wrote (apparently to me):
    > Why is the virgin birth mentioned in only one of the gospels? Don't proof text the thing so closely that you make the famous error of that joke about the children at the nativity reenactment, the Three Wise Men wearing helmets from the local fire department.

    And, why does Saint Paul not mention it at all?

    Well, I think it is a late legend created by some dude in the Hellenistic world who took the metaphorical phrase “Son of God” a bit too literally. But I am an admitted atheist – Laura’s question was about what you believe!

    Ed also wrote:
    >Tell us, how do ring species occur, if not by evolution? Tell us of the errors of Peter and Rosemary Grant, if you can find them. And what of the lesser black-backed gull and herring gull? If they are the same species, why don't they interbreed? If they are different species, where do you draw the line between them?

    Ed, you seem to be confusing me with Laura – I think the same thing evolutionary biologists do about ring species and all the rest (I also think they are really cool).

    Dave

    ReplyDelete
  69. Ed said "What possible difference could it make whether I believe in a virgin birth or not? You're still wrong. You still reject the evidence plainly set before you."

    First off, thank you for your honest answer.

    The reason I asked if you believed in the virgin birth is because I can PROVE virgins don't get pregnant. Lock up every virgin away from men for years, and exactly zero will become pregnant.

    I could have just as easily asked if you believed in the resurrection. Because I can PROVE there is no resurrection (baring the coming of Jesus). If I shot a man dead, he's not going to stand back up again.

    So you believe in the virgin birth and the resurrection, two provalbe things that don't happen in the "real" world, but you don't believe in creation as the Bible describes it and you don't believe we were made in God's image.

    Jesus said:
    "I have come in my Father's name, and you do not accept me; but if someone else comes in his own name, you will accept him. How can you believe if you accept praise from one another, yet make no effort to obtain the praise that comes from the only God?

    "But do not think I will accuse you before the Father. Your accuser is Moses, on whom your hopes are set. If you believed Moses, you would believe me, for he wrote about me. But since you do not believe what he wrote, how are you going to believe what I say?"
    ~John 5:43-47

    ReplyDelete
  70. Laura wrote to me:
    >Instead of allowing people to believe what they choose, since you honestly believe in evolution, everyone should. Since you honestly believe there is no God, everyone should.

    Well… of course I think everyone should think as I do because I think my beliefs are true, and I think it is good for people to believe the truth.

    Harv thinks people should think as he does for the same reason, as does Ed, and as do you. Who doesn’t?

    C’mon Laura, be real!

    Dave

    ReplyDelete
  71. Laura,

    I think Ed is playing with you a bit on the “Virgin Birth” issue.

    Did you see where he wrote to me:
    >Why is the virgin birth mentioned in only one of the gospels? Don't proof text the thing so closely that you make the famous error of that joke about the children at the nativity reenactment, the Three Wise Men wearing helmets from the local fire department.

    Those are the arguments made by those of us who do *not* believe in the Virgin Birth: we distrust the “proof text” from Isaiah, we think the mention in only one Gospel shows that it was not generally believed among the earliest Christians, etc. Why would Ed present those arguments if he really believes in a literal, physical Virgin Birth?

    I suspect his belief is a rather metaphorical one.

    It does not appear that old Ed is being quite upfront with everyone here!

    Dave

    ReplyDelete
  72. Dave said "Harv thinks people should think as he does for the same reason, as does Ed, and as do you. Who doesn’t?
    C’mon Laura, be real!"


    The world would be a pretty boring place if we all thought alike, wouldn't it?

    Everyone has a right to believe what they choose to believe. It's been my experience that atheists don't extend the same "live and let live" courtesy.

    ReplyDelete
  73. Laura wrote to me:
    > Everyone is free to believe what they want. When a tiny percentage of Americans lead by the ACLU can tell kids what they can and can't learn, we have lost our freedom to choose and are on the road to fascism.

    Hmmm… Laura, I am not a liberal: I am opposed to gun control, affirmative action, Obamacare, and a host of other liberal positions.

    The ACLU has been, since its inception, a left-wing operation. I have never been a member or supporter of the ACLU. Sometimes I agree with ’em; sometimes I don’t.

    I have mixed feelings about the Kitzmiller v. Dover case. I recognize that evolution is true.

    But I also recognize that it is unjust for people such as you and Harv who think evolution is false to be forced to pay for schools that teach that it is true.

    I don’t assume that you and Harv are conservatives just because you are Christians.

    You are making a mistake if you assume I am a liberal just because I am an atheist and an evolutionist.

    All the best,

    Dave

    ReplyDelete
  74. Dave, as stated in my previous post, Ed doesn't have to answer to me. He is free to believe anything he wants to.

    "For the word of God is quick, and powerful, and sharper than any twoedged sword, piercing even to the dividing asunder of soul and spirit, and of the joints and marrow, and is a discerner of the thoughts and intents of the heart."
    ~Hebrews 4:12

    ReplyDelete
  75. Laura wrote to me:
    > Everyone has a right to believe what they choose to believe. It's been my experience that atheists don't extend the same "live and let live" courtesy.

    Some atheists, do, some don’t. Some Christians do, many don’t.

    It is an error to generalize that way, just as it would be an error to say that all “African Americans are evangelical Christians” or “All Swedish-Americans are atheists.”

    Personally, I am an absolutely fanatical supporter of freedom of speech and freedom of religion: that is why I do present my own views as clearly and strongly as possible, just as I hope others will do.

    Dave

    ReplyDelete
  76. Dave, thanks for sharing. I'm a repub but totally p-o'ed at my party and in shock over the dems. Wish we could clean house of the bunch and start over with non-elitets, freedom loving americans. I think Obama wants to be president of the world, but I still pray for him.

    ReplyDelete
  77. Laura wrote to me:
    > Dave, as stated in my previous post, Ed doesn't have to answer to me. He is free to believe anything he wants to.

    Indeed.

    But I think that when he got angry, and seemed to think that I was your sock-puppet (!), old Ed let the cat out of the bag: he appears not to believe in the “Virgin Birth” in the sense that most people use the phrase.

    His prerogative, as you say. I don’t believe in the Virgin Birth, either.

    But, I think it would be nice if Ed were not deceptive about it.

    He was trying to convince you and Harv and everyone here that he was a Christian in the traditional meaning of the word. Again, I think deception is wrong.

    Dave

    ReplyDelete
  78. Dave said "It is an error to generalize that way"

    True. That's why I said "it's been my experience". The only atheists I know are the ones I've debated on forums and a handful of artist friends. So my opinion is based in fact as I have experienced it and not meant to be a catch-all.

    ReplyDelete
  79. Laura wrote to me:
    > Dave, thanks for sharing. I'm a repub but totally p-o'ed at my party and in shock over the dems. Wish we could clean house of the bunch and start over with non-elitets, freedom loving americans.

    Ah, Laura, seems we are kindred spirits, after all.

    There is a lot of good still left in America – an awful lot of atheists and evangelical Christians can join in finding themselves admirers of the founding principles of the republic: I’m not deifying the Founders – deeply flawed human beings in many ways – but there is a great deal to be said for their underlying principles.

    Dave

    ReplyDelete
  80. "He was trying to convince you and Harv and everyone here that he was a Christian".

    Again, not my place to judge.
    I asked not to decipher if he was telling the truth, but to make a point about scientific proof and belief.

    ReplyDelete
  81. "but there is a great deal to be said for their underlying principles."

    Bible-based as they are. :-)

    Gotta get some sleep. Thanks for the chat.

    ReplyDelete
  82. Finding out the real truth of the matter of faith could effect the whole world.It would be the worst thing that could happen,and cause armageddon!!!.And wrath of God!!! to fall upon us ..there would be wars and peace would be hard to be found

    Say what ??? ...You mean folks would all still hate and kill !! each other just as much as they did before for their many supposed different imaginary friends like they so often do now????..Plenty of god/s WRATH!! around already.(i put wrath in capital because (i) see much more wrath around already than i ever do see any sign of even (one) of the many supposed gods)

    Not even (one) sign of gods?

    Plenty wrath of gods in war and hate out there over each others belief being the "one" perfect no other can match magnificently divine omnipotent remarkable undefinable undeniable sound for sure incontrovertible established unshakable authentic credulous exploitable on so on and so and so on and on and on God !!

    So there take that Harv! suck on that kumara hope ya love da taste .... Besides he loves me ...So i dont care less what anyone else feels

    ReplyDelete
  83. Larua,

    In case you're unaware, the complaint is a statement made by the plaintiff, not the defendant.

    You said…

    The Dover school board [the defendants] did not propose to say ID is scientific or valid,

    Transcripts from the trial shows that the legal team for the Dover school board members in question DID try to represent ID as science. Again, this is a key point in their defense during the trial.

    From closing statements of the defendants own legal team...

    Based upon his personal reading, [Bill Buckingham] believed the biology text made claims for evolutionary theory far in advance of what had been demonstrated by science. He wanted students to be aware of intelligent design theory, a scientific theory he believed to be supported by numerous scientists.

    …the evidence shows that the defendants' policy has the primary purpose and primary effect of advancing science education by making students aware of a new scientific theory, one which Steve Fuller, accomplished by any man's measure, believes may well open a fascinating prospect to a new scientific paradigm.

    Referenced from Dover transcripts day 21 Part 2

    Again, if you really knew as much about the trial as you claim, you'd be aware of this fact, and several others. But both of you continue to reveal how little you actually know.

    I'm funny like that...I'm always looking for what's true.

    Then you need to learn how to pick up on these kinds of falsehoods being passed off as truth. Just because you like what's being said, doesn't mean it's true.

    When presented with this kind of misrepresentation, it's a clue that you're detailing with propaganda.

    ReplyDelete
  84. Anonymous wrote: A guy who suggests that the Virgin Birth “could” be a metaphor is not a guy who is a Christian as large numbers of Americans use the word “Christian”!

    Anonymous, since when have Americans been appointed the official spokesperson for Christianity?

    Furthermore, I'm sure your aware of the various competing theological positions regarding the details of how Christ actually takes on the sin of the world - and that some of these theologies do not explicitly depend on the virgin birth.

    Last, none of these theologies actually explain, in detail, how the sin of the world is actually transferred to Christ.

    For example, how were future sins transferred to Christ before they occurred? Apparently, God decided to grandfather in these sins as part of the "deal." If this is the case, then God is free to choose the terms of salvation, which could include whether a virgin birth is necessary.

    That Miller does not subscribe to cannon in this particular area not mean he is not a Christian.

    ReplyDelete
  85. Harvey wrote: however ID can be taught without religious emphasis.

    Which is creationism without saying who exactly is the creator. It's the same thing. We know that the creator in ID is God. They are simply leaving out this one detail and calling it science. It's NOT science.

    That can be left up to discovery and an open ended question similar to how evolution deals with it now.

    It can't be discovered because ID doesn't do any research to discover who the creator is. It's specifically designed this way. it's a negative theory.

    Evolution says it doesn't deal with origins right? Why can't ID be left to say that it doesn't deal with who the designer is?

    Because, unlike creation, science gives details about the process. It gives a specific positive explanation which can be broken down into steps and tested.

    If you asserted that corn magically appeared on your plate due to being created by a supernatural, intelligent agent, there would be no process.

    But since corn seeds are purchased, planted, grown, harvested, sold, prepared, packaged, shipped and sold again in retail stores, this represents a number of complex steps which can be broken down into different fields of study. We don't have to know where corn seeds come from to make meaningful observations about how corn grows. Nor do we need to know about how corn grows to make meaningful observations about how to preserve food or how to transport it, etc.

    Evolutionary theory explains the details about how we evolved from simpler life forms. The details in the theory are random mutations and natural selection. This is cause and the process.

    If ID is not creationism, then there would be a specific designer. There would be details about how the design process took place. And there would be research being performed to show these specific details are correct. But ID has no details. It has no specific designer. There is no research being done. It's a science stopper.

    Please see….

    George Gilder, Metaphysic

    and

    Behe Disproves Irreducible Complexity

    maybe the way they went about it was wrong, BUT alas, my friend, THEY are books sellers too! What goes for Miller and his camp also goes for them. They receive big money for book contracts and educational materials..

    You're grasping at straws here. They are free to sell all the books they want. It doesn't make ID science.

    You and most people see a battle for creation or evolution and although that battle is real, I see a battle for book sales and marketshare.

    I amy be wrong and anyone in the know can correct me, but I see two giants in the field of educational resources trying to secure the finacian futures of their operations.


    Funny how you've changed your tune. Evolution is not a religion, it's an racket to keep a monopoly in educational textbooks.

    Now, I challenge any of you to get a Freedom Of Information from Dover Schoold District and ask how much the Panda book contract with Discover was annaully and ask who got the contract after ID was removed from the cirriculum...If we follow the money I GUARANTEE we will find the R A T…

    Harvey,

    Again, you reveal your own ignorance in this topic. There was no annual contract. One of the school board members took a offering at his church to pay for the books. He then said he had no idea where the money came from during a deposition, but then changed his testimony during the trial.

    If you had watched the chapter from the NOVA special, you'd know this. If you read the links I've posted, you'd know this.

    It's clear that both you and Laura are ignoring the information we're providing and that this conversation is going nowhere.

    ReplyDelete
  86. But I think that when he got angry, and seemed to think that I was your sock-puppet (!), old Ed let the cat out of the bag: he appears not to believe in the “Virgin Birth” in the sense that most people use the phrase.

    Tell you what, Dave: Call me when you get your counseling license. If I ever think I need analysis, I can put you on the list of potential analysts.

    In the meantime, remember that the you're supposed to use the whole word, "analysis," and not just the first four letters.

    ReplyDelete
  87. The reason I asked if you believed in the virgin birth is because I can PROVE virgins don't get pregnant. Lock up every virgin away from men for years, and exactly zero will become pregnant.

    Christians believe that immaculate conception is a miracle. Miracles generally run counter to natural laws.

    Be careful where you're going with this. We have no data to test on the issue of Jesus's birth, or impregnation.

    But there is ample physical evidence of evolution. Creationism isn't rejected simply because it requires an astounding set of miracles, but because creationism posits these miracles occurred contrary to the evidence God left. That makes God's actions deceitful.

    I don't believe in a deceitful God.

    You can disprove parthogenesis in most cases by locking away virgins from impregnation. But you can't disprove Jesus's virgin birth that way.

    The miracle of the virgin birth, as is the miracle of Jesus's resurrection, does not require that we deny physical evidence. There is no body of Jesus that we know to deny His physical resurrection. There is no DNA analysis that shows no Y chromosome for Jesus. God has not left physical evidence contrary to Jesus's virgin birth, nor contrary to Jesus's resurrection.

    ReplyDelete
  88. It is a little hard to see why you would strain at the gnat of Genesis 1-2 but swallow the camel of a literal, physical Virgin Birth.

    Belief is irrational, I believe, and my experience justifies my belief -- to me.

    The difficulty with believing a literal Genesis (either of the two much different creation stories told there) is that God has provided significant contrary evidence.

    There is no contrary physical evidence of Jesus's birth, life or death. There is also no confirming evidence.

    God doesn't ask us to divorce ourselves from reality, as creationism requires.

    Consequently, any hubbub about a virgin birth reveals nothing about the logical consistency or inconsistency of those who choose to believe in it.

    However, belief in a literal Genesis creation story requires a disbelief of the other Genesis story, and the other six or eight creation stories told in scripture. Plus, a literal Genesis story requires that we dismiss God's testament in creation.

    Creationism requires rejection of a lot more of Christianity than evolution does. The question is how can a creationist reconcile those odd beliefs with a belief in a God who obviously disregards a literal Genesis? The only way is to posit a God who deceives, and that is contrary to Christian theology about God's nature.

    ReplyDelete
  89. Scott, did you bother to read the Complaint before telling me I'm being fed propaganda? Because I read it before I posted someone else's words. I'm funny like that...I'm always looking for what's true. You, my friend, continue to beat that square peg into the round hole insisting that everything you think should be truth, is truth. It's a losing battle, because there can only be One truth.

    You always look for the truth, so you can ignore it?

    The board required the disclaimer to be read. The disclaimer was creationist dogma -- pure religion.

    Now, were there science to back it up, it would not matter that it is also religious. Mormons "believe" in germ theory, but since there's a mountain of evidence to support germ theory, it's okay to teach it (Christian Scientists don't believe in germ theory, but they also honor the First Amendment and don't demand that your children be taught Christian Science dogma instead).

    In court, in a series of trials, creationists have failed to present any substantial evidence of any science backing creationism (or its new incarnation, intelligent design). Consequently, teaching it can only be religious.

    And that's a violation of the First Amendment and every state constitution in the U.S.

    ReplyDelete
  90. Scott said "In case you're unaware, the complaint is a statement made by the plaintiff, not the defendant.
    You said…
    The Dover school board [the defendants] did not propose to say ID is scientific or valid,"


    Scott, I don't know what to tell you if you refuse to read the Complaint yourself.

    As already stated, the beginning of the plaintiff's complaint states what the defendants wanted to do (read the statement to students, not propose to say ID is valid) and then went on to list all the perceived horrors that would come as a result of reading that statement to students.

    These are historic facts recorded for all time in the Complaint. The plaintiffs sued over a statement being read to students that said evolution is a theory and not a fact and that there are gaps in the theory, and there is a book in the library that offers an alternative view.

    ReplyDelete
  91. Ed said "You can disprove parthogenesis in most cases by locking away virgins from impregnation. But you can't disprove Jesus's virgin birth that way."

    Oh, Ed. You missed the point entirely. You believe the miracle of the virgin birth with no proof, you believe the miracle of the resurrection with no proof, but you don't believe the miracle of creation as laid out in Genesis and attested to by Jesus Himself.

    Instead, you believe "another" that there also is no proof.

    ReplyDelete
  92. Oh, Ed. You missed the point entirely. You believe the miracle of the virgin birth with no proof, you believe the miracle of the resurrection with no proof, but you don't believe the miracle of creation as laid out in Genesis and attested to by Jesus Himself.

    Instead, you believe "another" that there also is no proof.


    You missed my point, Laura. There is no proof of miracles in either case.

    But against the miracles creationism claims, there is a wealth of contrary, physical evidence, in every corner of the universe. There is much disproof that the events occurred at all.

    Against the miracle of a virgin birth? There is no evidence. Against the miracle of a resurrection? No evidence at all.

    Faith is difficult in any case -- it's faith because there is no evidence to support the claim.

    But faith in the face of contrary evidence is wacky. It's worse than irrational, it's counter rational.

    It's not just that there's no proof for either of the Genesis stories. It's that there is evidence that denies them, evidence from God (if you're Christian).

    Christian faith starts with a belief that God created and is the motivating force behind all things in the universe. Creationists start from a literal belief in one of the Genesis stories (usually failing to specify which one). Different faith traditions.

    ReplyDelete
  93. Scott wrote to me:
    >For example, how were future sins transferred to Christ before they occurred?

    They weren’t.

    Scott, I’m an atheist, as I have said again and again: I don’t believe in “sin.”

    Scott also wrote to me:
    >Furthermore, I'm sure your aware of the various competing theological positions regarding the details of how Christ actually takes on the sin of the world - and that some of these theologies do not explicitly depend on the virgin birth.

    Actually, I don’t know of any theologies in which the Vicarious Atonement depends on the Virgin Birth.

    Scott also wrote to me:
    >Anonymous, since when have Americans been appointed the official spokesperson for Christianity?

    Scott, Ken Miller is mainly addressing Americans. His shtick has been that he is a Christian but also a believer in evolution.

    That’s fine.

    But he is relying on Americans’ assuming that he is using the word “Christian” as most Americans do – i.e., as a Trinitarian, Nicene Christian.

    It seems Ken is not that kind of Christian.

    Cool. I’m not a Christian, either – I adamantly refused to be baptized as a kid; I’ve always rejected Christianity.

    I just think it would be nice if Ken had been upfront about his position all along. If he had said from the beginning, “I consider myself a Christian, but I think the Virgin Birth may just have been a metaphor…” that would have been a much more honest way of presenting his position. Most American Christians would then have known that Ken was not a “Christian” as they used the word, and his being a “Christian” evolutionist would not then have held much water with them.

    I’m all for Ken thinking whatever he wants. But I’m also for honesty.

    Same with Ed. Ed is playing games – I think that is dishonest.

    Honesty, Scott, honesty.

    Ed has accused Laura of dishonesty, wrongly I think. I think Laura’s and Harv’s views on evolution are wildly wrong, but I do not think they are dishonest. I think Ed is projecting.

    I find myself here in the funny position that I seem to be on Laura’s and Harv’s side, even though I disagree with them on the basic issue – i.e., evolution. But maybe that is not so strange – I really do prefer honest creationists to disingenuous evolutionists.

    And, as Laura has pointed out, sometimes (not always) evangelical Christians are better defenders of individual freedom than atheist evolutionists – when push comes to shove, you will find me on the side defending honesty and freedom, whatever the religious or scientific views of the other folks on that side.

    Dave

    ReplyDelete
  94. Laura wrote to Ed,
    >Oh, Ed. You missed the point entirely. You believe the miracle of the virgin birth with no proof, you believe the miracle of the resurrection with no proof, but you don't believe the miracle of creation as laid out in Genesis and attested to by Jesus Himself.

    Laura, as someone who actually agrees with Ed’s conclusion (i.e., I think Genesis is false and neo-Darwinism is true), I have to admit that you win this exchange with Ed.

    One of the things I like about you and Harv is that you do have a certain clarity about what the issues are, even if I disagree with your conclusions.

    Dave

    ReplyDelete
  95. Scenario 1.

    Science ends up pretty much postively proving, evidence available does not seem to lead to the previous suggested wrongful assumptions of the many god/s existances.

    Terrorists discussing matters.

    One says.Baaaah infidels!...Disbelievers !, wheres me bomb there is 70 vigins awaiting.

    Wide eyed stunned folks stare in his direction and loud exclaims of disbelief fill the air all around him.

    What the ???? ... Are ye totally mad man???....what the?? are you smoking?...Get a real life!

    ---------------------------------

    Scenario num 2

    Positive evidence of existances of God/s is actually found,and a new more unified worldwide understanding is then formed which many many people feel much happier about accepting together.


    Ohhh its a slippery slope..They try to tell us....Trouble is the real slippery slope, is the silly one we have already long been following !!.

    Please please still like me Harvey :)

    I dont hate you ...Hate only gives us all far to many wrinkles to quickly

    Smilings much much better for our health :)

    ReplyDelete
  96. Laura wrote: As already stated, the beginning of the plaintiff's complaint states what the defendants wanted to do (read the statement to students, not propose to say ID is valid) and then went on to list all the perceived horrors that would come as a result of reading that statement to students.

    Laura,

    I just posted an argument given by the School boards own legal team during the trial. Don't you think their defense team would know "what the defendants wanted to do"? Why would they make this argument if they did not think ID was science?

    Scott, I don't know what to tell you if you refuse to read the Complaint yourself.

    The portion of the complaint you posted shows the particular actions the plaintiffs objected to. It does not speak for the defendants. Nor does it represents the entire scope of the defendants actions, their intentions, their own testimony and the arguments made by their own legal team.

    Are you really trying to deny that the defendant's own legal team and the defendants themselves when they said ID was presented as an alternate scientific theory?

    REALLY?

    ReplyDelete
  97. Here are just a few examples of testimony from Mr. Buckingham….

    Q. And in fact Mr. Thompson was the one who recommended Pandas to you?

    A. He didn't recommend it. He told me there was a book there. I asked him if he knew of any books anywhere that dealt with an alternative scientific theory, and he mentioned the book to me. He didn't recommend it at all.


    - - - - - - - -

    A. The issue that was so important was the alternative, the scientific theory of intelligent design. It was a big vote, and I wanted the whole board there, if we could do that. And that was the one time we could be reasonably certain we'd all be there.

    - - - - - - - -

    A. I won't say -- I won't use the word "pushing." Intelligent design is something that we felt would be beneficial to the kids because it's a scientific theory, and we thought we'd be doing the kids a good service by including that in their curriculum.

    - - - - - - - -

    Q. And the science teachers didn't want to present intelligent design as an alternative, did they?

    A. That's true.

    Q. In fact, they didn't even want to mention it. Correct?

    A. That's true.

    Q. So you disregarded or the board disregarded the view of the only scientific education advisors that it had. Isn't that correct?

    A. We did not disregard it. We considered it when we made our decisions.

    Q. Mr. Buckingham, you don't even know whether intelligent design is considered good science, do you?

    A. In my opinion, it is, and in the opinion of a lot of scientists, it is.


    - - - - - - - -


    Q. That shows that -- and it says, quotes, The superintendent has approved the donation of two classroom sets, 25 each, of Of Pandas and People. The classroom sets will be used as references and will be made available to all students, close quotes. Do you see that?

    A. Yes.


    - - - - - - - -

    Q. What was your purpose in supporting the proposed curriculum change on October 18th, 2004?

    A. We were doing it for the students, to give them an alternative scientific theory to go along with their biology class. We thought we were doing something good for them.


    - - - - - - - -
    - - - - - - - -
    - - - - - - - -

    Testimony by Alan Bonsell

    Q. Well, there's another word there's been a lot of discussion about, which is intelligent design. Do you believe that is creationism?

    A. Absolutely not.

    Q. And why do you take that position?

    A. Well, creationism is like I said the literal interpretation of the Bible. ID is a scientific theory made up by scientists. I mean, it's a science, it's science. I mean, it's two separately distinct things. I know this whole court is about that, but I mean, or this whole case is about this, but it's two separate entities completely.


    - - - - - - - - -

    Look at the item Roman XIII, heading "Curriculum." Do you see a reference to Pandas there?

    A. Yes, I do.

    Q. And what does it say?

    A. "Superintendent has approved a donation of two classroom sets of Of Pandas and People, and they will be used as references."

    ReplyDelete
  98. Ed, it is clear that in spite of your claim of christianity, you don't believe God's Word.

    That's your choice, of course, but I'm not going to argue His Word with an admitted cafeteria christian that picks and chooses what, in the Bible, is true and what isn't as it suits him.

    The Bible is either God's Word, or it's not. God's Word is either all true, or not God's Word.

    That Jesus that you believe in - Is He the One of the Bible, born of a virgin fully man and fully God, that bore the sins of the world on the Cross and cleased us of all sin through His Blood? That Jesus that rose from the dead and now sits at the right hand of God preparing a place for us that will soon return in wrath and Judgment? That Jesus of God's Word that said He was the God of Genesis, Creator of all things, no matter how "whacky" that may sound to some?

    Do you believe in the Jesus of the Bible? Or do you believe "another".

    Again, Jesus said:
    "I have come in my Father's name, and you do not accept me; but if someone else comes in his own name, you will accept him. How can you believe if you accept praise from one another, yet make no effort to obtain the praise that comes from the only God?

    "But do not think I will accuse you before the Father. Your accuser is Moses, on whom your hopes are set. If you believed Moses, you would believe me, for he wrote about me. But since you do not believe what he wrote, how are you going to believe what I say?"
    ~John 5:43-47

    ReplyDelete
  99. In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.

    The same was in the beginning with God.

    All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made.

    In him was life; and the life was the light of men.

    And the light shineth in darkness; and the darkness comprehended it not.

    That was the true Light, which lighteth every man that cometh into the world.

    He was in the world, and the world was made by him, and the world knew him not.

    He came unto his own, and his own received him not.

    But as many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God, even to them that believe on his name:

    Which were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God.

    4And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, (and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father,) full of grace and truth.
    ~John 1:1-5, 9-14

    ReplyDelete
  100. Dave said "I find myself here in the funny position that I seem to be on Laura’s and Harv’s side, even though I disagree with them on the basic issue – i.e., evolution."

    Dave, I think what you're saying is that you are honest and admire truth, and don't feel the need to villain-ize someone in order to discuss these important issues.

    I would also guess that if you were wrong or mistaken on something, you would readily admit it, as Harvey and I would also. Who wants to have a conversation where one feels they're beating their head against a brick wall? I much prefer the exchange of thoughts, ideas and truth as we know it, not forgetting that we are all of the same species.

    (How's that for staying on topic!) :-)

    ReplyDelete
  101. Laura said...."Again, Jesus said:"

    Can you be sure? ...did you hear him? ...Did somebody just tell you he did? ...Or is it that thats what you read in old faith books?.

    What are the real foundations of honesty of your belief relying on?

    Is it that people wrote in books that long ago there was a pastor named Jesus.Goodness me how very unlikely is that, seeing we already know pastors have always been around anyway.No big deal or extraordinary news really.

    Had the present bible not have been already written.

    A few thousand years from now with stories often growing in many untruths day by day as they so often do,would it have been impossible that at some stage down the track.It could have been written the Benny Hinn was infact the wonderful great messiah who rose from the dead etc.Born of a virgin and son of god

    He already has plenty of followers who already totally believe he does miracles on stages everywhere around the globe.They have all been smittin by him im sure they would be prepared to say what ever made it sound even better...

    Laura how can you be so very sure.."Again, Jesus said:" really anything like what you read he did?

    ReplyDelete
  102. Laura wrote: The Dover school board did not propose to say ID is scientific or valid, or even to decrease its teaching of evolution.

    Scott said "Laura,
    I'm sorry, but you've been fed propaganda.


    Finally Scott said "The portion of the complaint you posted shows the particular actions the plaintiffs objected to."

    I'm glad you now see that no one is being fed propaganda reguarding the issue of the suit so we can move past this before my head gets too bloodied.

    ReplyDelete
  103. Pastor Harvey, I hope your Sunday was filled with joy.

    I hope everyone's day is joy-filled. Catch y'all later.

    ReplyDelete
  104. Laura wrote to me:
    > I would also guess that if you were wrong or mistaken on something, you would readily admit it, as Harvey and I would also.

    Thanks for the compliment. Of course, on occasion, I do have it in me to be a stubborn fool, just like any other human being!

    I am coming to see that the real undercurrent in the discussion on evolution here, and in Harv’s blog in general, is about the larger political and social issues in the country.

    Part of my sympathy with you and Harv is that I partly (not entirely) agree with Harv’s take on some of those problems. I think Harv over-rates the influence of Darwinism on American culture and social policy. However, Harv is correct that, throughout most of the twentieth century, there was a pseudo-intellectual “progressive” tinge to much of American “intellectual” thought that denied individual responsibility, individual freedom, etc.

    Harv emphasizes the devastating effect of that mind-set on the black community, but the truth is that it has been devastating for all ethnic groups, indeed for the country at large, in everything ranging from education to family structure to economics to criminal behavior.

    I do see how Harv connects that with Darwinism, but I think he confuses the morons and con artists who are misusing evolutionary science with the actual science itself.

    I’d make a similar point about Harv’s attacks on materialism. Materialism happens to be false. And, he is also correct that materialism has been used to dehumanize human beings.

    But materialism does not follow from neo-Darwinism.

    Actually, I think there is currently a turning away from both materialism and crack-pot “progressivism” among people of good will of various political and religious persuasions.

    Over thirty years ago, when I was in college, I was actually accused of being a Christian when I pointed out that materialism was false. Nowadays, I can point to atheist, academic philosophers (David Chalmers, Colin McGinn) who have written book-length explanations of why materialism is false. And, it is now common for intelligent people to sneer (quite rightly!) at the sillier forms of materialism, such as Skinnerian behaviorism.

    The times they are a’changin’. Things are going on in this country that many people do not yet perceive.

    Dave

    ReplyDelete
  105. Gandy said "Is it that people wrote in books that long ago there was a pastor named Jesus.Goodness me how very unlikely is that, seeing we already know pastors have always been around anyway.No big deal or extraordinary news really."

    Gandy, please be careful - you're talking about my best Friend and being disrespectful. I'm telling you because you most likely don't know.

    I was a born believer. As a 5 year old in sunday school, I grabbed on to Jesus because I recognized the Truth. As I grew, my relationship was always with God the Father, not His Son.

    If someone on the street had asked me "Do you know Jesus?", even though I was saved I would have to have said "no". I couldn't see the significance of His death on the Cross. After all, men die on the battlefield for others all the time.

    So I started praying asking God show me. The first thing He did was in my heart. I realized, for the first time in my life, just how pitiful I was. This is not self-loathing, but an understanding of how Holy God is and what a mess I was.

    We forget about the Holiness of God because we don't all have goats and sheep pinned in our backyards ready for the once a year sacrifice for our sins. When Jesus came, He was the once-and-for-all sacrifice for those who would believe, ending the law of sin and death that started in the Garden with Adam and Eve.

    Because of His precious Blood, when I pray in His name, God doesn't see messed up Laura, He sees perfect Jesus. Because of this, I can boldly ask for anything without the self-condemnation that I'm not worthy and never will be. Jesus is my advocate.

    Two thousand years ago God stepped down from Heaven to save you from, at the least, eternal separation for God. Through His Blood, we are set free. Not only that, He said He is with me always and will never forsake me. He is my best Friend.

    ReplyDelete
  106. For Dave:

    "Come senators, congressmen
    Please heed the call
    Don't stand in the doorway
    Don't block up the hall
    For he that gets hurt
    Will be he who has stalled
    There's a battle outside
    And it is ragin'.
    It'll soon shake your windows
    And rattle your walls
    For the times they are a-changin'."

    ReplyDelete
  107. Laura,

    Either we've grossly misunderstood each other, or your still confused.

    You wrote: The Dover school board did not propose to say ID is scientific or valid, or even to decrease its teaching of evolution.

    This is a claim about the Dover school boards intentions and action.

    This is NOT a claim about the particular complaint that was raised against the school board. These are two separate things. That there is a description of what the school board allegedly did in the complaint does not mean it's is a exhaustive or all-encompassing account of what actually happened.

    The plaintiffs could have registered a complaint that the Dover school board was holding church services during biology class. In this case, it would have been false, but the complaint would have been evaluated through the trial.

    Instead, the defendants and their legal representatives speak for the defendants intentions and actions. As such, it's clear that they did intend to present ID as an alternative scientific theory. I've posted direct testimony to this effect.

    If you have been told that "The Dover school board did not propose to say ID is scientific or valid...", then you've been fed propaganda. If this is your own conclusion, then you are either unwillingly or intentionally spreading misinformation.

    ReplyDelete
  108. Dave wrote: But he is relying on Americans’ assuming that he is using the word “Christian” as most Americans do – i.e., as a Trinitarian, Nicene Christian.

    Dave,

    First, Miller does not claim to be a fundamentalist Christian. There is a broad spectrum of Christianity that include liberal beliefs. Many scientists are liberal Christians.

    Second, what does Miller gain by doing this? Please be specific.

    Furthermore, by saying he accepts Evolution, Miller makes it clear that he interprets key parts of the Bible as metaphorical. If he did not, then he could not accept evolution as true. He is obviously NOT a Nicene Christian.

    ReplyDelete
  109. Laura bows out: That's your choice, of course, but I'm not going to argue His Word with an admitted cafeteria christian that picks and chooses what, in the Bible, is true and what isn't as it suits him.

    And I don't care to argue His Word with someone so unfamilar with it, or unwilling to note it; not only a cafeteria Christian, but also a cafeteria scholar who ignores rules of evidence and common sense.

    I found this scriptural warning to creationists:

    And the light shineth in darkness; and the darkness comprehended it not.

    It's impossible to spread the light of the candle of knowledge in a demon-haunted world if the creationists insist on blowing it out.

    ReplyDelete
  110. Dave,

    I'm just getting back and reviewing some of the commentary and you mentioned about dishonest creationists...and I AGREE 100%.

    I can't for the life of me explain the faith of a person who denies the virgin birth and calls themselves a Christian...and YES...ED IS PLAYING GAMES TOO.

    That type of reasoning is far removed from my little ole understanding...I know you're not a Christian but I believe your assessment in 100% correct...

    And yes you're right. We've got to weed out the crackpots on both sides of this issue in order to make progress in understanding and moving forward as a nation. This stalemate is ridiculous and I believe instigated by AGENDA and not scientific discovery or responsible or even wholesome ideology...Look, I want my kids to be well rounded in education and scientific knowledge, but I don't want them to have to enter a worldview to get what research says are the best possible answers even IF that worldview is what we believe. I simply think some adjustments can be made if the radical elements are removed...it's easier said than done and I may just be naive in my hopes but someone must try. I just hate being "played" when so much is at stake.

    I'll read a little more but from what I can see I may have a headache before too long-LOL

    Laura,

    Good job!

    ReplyDelete
  111. Scott,

    If Miller accepts the Virgin birth as a metaphor he accepts the whole bible as a metaphor and it is little less than an antique historical literary writing.

    This would also display an antisupernatural bias as I would believe he would interpret every biblical miracle as a metaphor...That's CRACK-POT Christianity.

    The result (for me) is that i even question the notion of they's guys understanding of the death of Jesus. By their standards it too would have to have been metaphorical and there's no redemption in a metaphorical death...that's garbage.

    ReplyDelete
  112. Scott, I see where you are reading this wrong now.

    First, the school board voted to have the statement read to students. Let's call what the schoolboard voted on a "Memo", and the statement being the "statement". The Memo became the basis of the Complaint.

    In the Memo, it said "The Dover school board did not propose to say ID is scientific or valid, or even to decrease its teaching of evolution."

    Let's stop here for a second. If a school board voted to not teach ID or decrease its teaching of evolution, would you expect a suit from the ACLU? No.

    The Complaint was the reading of the statement to students that evolution is not a fact and has gaps, and pointing them to a book in the library with an alternate view. It is only because the Memo also included what they wouldn't teach that it was included in the Complaint, as each item was not voted on seperately by the school board, but as a whole.

    I hope that clears it up.
    How the defense argued the case does not change the Complaint.

    ReplyDelete
  113. Hi Laura ..Sorry i really didnt mean to be disrespectful.I dont see a pastor as anything lowly if thats what you were thinking i was suggesting,it was more about making a statement to compare how beliefs can progress.

    If you think i have any personal dislike of Jesus known as son of god.You are wrong.

    Just couldnt think of another better way to explain what i was thinking about.no malice was intended.

    And.

    Dave about the Skinnerian behaviorism you mentioned i googled and just read what i could find on it.Best bits ive enjoyed about this coversation actually has been stuff thats been mentioned,which i have then studied up on a little.Interesting stuff.

    Not exactly quite sure what you meaning in what you said,but maybe its that problems are not just based on situations.But on individual responsibility, individual freedom, etc as well.Just incase i had seemed to imply i didnt believe in individual responsibility id like to say i actually do.Do you think its about finding balances between individual responsibility and situations etc,i did feel maybe it is but might be wrong about it.

    ReplyDelete
  114. Gandy, thanks.
    I was happy to share that I once thought no-so-differently than you. I thank God for answered prayers and for showing me how precious Jesus is, and the significance of His death, burial and resurrection.

    I believe that it will only be when we get to Heaven that the full revelation of exactly what happens to us the moment we believe will be imparted to us. Right now we know that in that moment, through Christ, we are Saved for eternity, made righteous, justified, given the Holy Spirit to live inside of us and the gift of Grace to cover us and set free from condemnation.

    ReplyDelete
  115. Laura said...
    Et tu, Nightmare?

    But of course - I correct errors where I see them, to the best of my knowledge. This you know. Your problem would seem to be lack of understanding of the fossil record, what it includes, and what it does not include. For instance, there are in fact a significant enough number of transitional specimens to imply that evolution is correct, a fact backed up by the occurrence of "micro"evolution. Your error in 1 would seem to be that you do not understand that not everything fossilizes - soft tissues for instance very rarely fossilize hence your error in 1b. But there are some specimens - this is how we know Archaeopteryx had feathers.

    A list of transitional fossils can be found here if you don't believe me:

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_transitional_fossils

    Thusly, as PhysicistDave what you are describing is indeed science and entirely valid within the scientific method. Understand this - science is not religion. It does not make absolute, unalterable claims. It is subject to continual revision based on new data. If new data disproves an old theory, the theory is rethought or scrapped depending on the data.

    I will be the first to say some (perhaps many) scientists forget this. They become emotionally attached to their theories and become unwilling to consider new data. This is a flaw in the individual scientist that does this however, NOT in the theories or in the scientific method itself.

    Why you think what you described not science is something I can speculate on but cannot say with 100% certainty. However, I assure you that to the best of my understanding you are wrong here.

    ReplyDelete
  116. Laura said...
    "but there is a great deal to be said for their underlying principles."

    Bible-based as they are. :-)


    No, they are not. Freedom of religion is not a biblical principle, nor is separation of church and state. I could go on, but that's enough for starters since this is off topic.

    "That's your choice, of course, but I'm not going to argue His Word with an admitted cafeteria christian that picks and chooses what, in the Bible, is true and what isn't as it suits him."

    ALL Christians are cafeteria Christians. Even yourself Laura. After all, if you were not, you would be doing your level best to hunt me down and kill me right now (under a number of OT passages) and you would not believe that I am saved (ie once saved always saved - Hebrews 6:4-6 contradicts this)

    I was a born believer. As a 5 year old in sunday school, I grabbed on to Jesus because I recognized the Truth.

    This I'm afraid explains a great deal. A five year old cannot recognize truth, a five year old doesn't have enough information about the world to know jack squat. I'm sorry for what your church at that time did to you Laura, in the same fashion as I am sorry for the children exposed to that Jesus Camp garbage. This is why I (and I daresay others like me, such as Gandalf and Dave here) do what we do, regardless of how little effect we actually have.

    Oh, and Gandalf - Thank you for the medal complement in the other thread. I think that is perhaps the nicest thing anyone has ever said to me.

    ReplyDelete
  117. Nightmare said "ALL Christians are cafeteria Christians. Even yourself Laura. After all, if you were not, you would be doing your level best to hunt me down and kill me right now (under a number of OT passages)

    "Do not suffer a witch to live" is Old Testament. We are no longer under the law of the old covenant. Jesus is the New Covenant.
    No cafeteria christian here - I believe every Word.

    Nightmare said ...and you would not believe that I am saved (ie once saved always saved - Hebrews 6:4-6 contradicts this)

    Let's look:

    "For it is impossible for those who were once enlightened, and have tasted of the heavenly gift, and were made partakers of the Holy Ghost,

    And have tasted the good word of God, and the powers of the world to come,

    If they shall fall away, to renew them again unto repentance; seeing they crucify to themselves the Son of God afresh, and put him to an open shame."
    ~Hebrews 6:4-6

    Only confirms once saved, always saved.

    In context, the writer of Hebrews (who I believe is Paul) is telling the new christians, who I'm sure had lots of questions, "Let's get on with it!" Christ died for you once and for all. You can't re-crucify Christ every time you walk away and then come back. It's either a finished work, or you put him to open shame.

    Remember when I said what I imagined you would feel when you stood before Jesus? Something like the regret of a wasted life?

    That's because you don't have anything to please God because you have lost your faith. Everything you do or have done gets burned up in the end, and it's just raw, naked you standing before the King of Kings with not a thing to say for yourself...
    as He welcomes you into the Kingdom of Heaven because you are covered by His Blood.

    "In this was manifested the love of God toward us, because that God sent his only begotten Son into the world, that we might live through him.

    Herein is love, not that we loved God, but that he loved us, and sent his Son to be the propitiation for our sins."
    ~1 John 4:9-10

    Nightmare, if Hebrews 6 said what you think it says, 30 other verses would have to be a lie. Love casts out fear.

    ReplyDelete
  118. Laura said...
    "Do not suffer a witch to live" is Old Testament. We are no longer under the law of the old covenant.

    Not according to the gospels. I can't recall the verse atm but I do remember something like Jesus saying the law (OT) was perfect and shall not pass away. Kinda says to me the OT stuff still matters.

    But then, there's another cafeteria element - homosexuality. The OT condemns it, the NT don't care (ie doesn't say anything specifically against it iirc). So if we're under the NT, why worry so much about homosexuality?

    My point is that you can dress it up with all sorts of nice justifications and excuses, but in the end every Christian picks and chooses what of the bible they like and what they don't. And if you don't believe me, check out your reaction to Psalm 137:8-9.

    Only confirms once saved, always saved.

    Umm no, it doesn't. Here is the relevant text, minus the flowery language:

    For it is impossible for those who were once enlightened,.....If they shall fall away, to renew them again unto repentance;

    In English, you get saved and fall away your are SCREWED. No repentance, no pass go, no $200. Straight to hell. Period. How you get once saved always saved from that regardless of the context you stated I cannot fathom.

    That's because you don't have anything to please God because you have lost your faith. Everything you do or have done gets burned up in the end, and it's just raw, naked you standing before the King of Kings with not a thing to say for yourself...
    as He welcomes you into the Kingdom of Heaven because you are covered by His Blood.


    1) Well, if I'm welcomed into heaven regardless what's the problem? Cause what you just described is death - everything we're done counts for precisely nothing and we entire the unknown naked, raw, and likely screaming (presuming consciousness after death) with nothing to call our own but our minds. Nothing to fear there IMO cause it's not so much different than life.

    2) You know this will occur how?

    3) And this would be any different for your fate at that moment how? Are you saying something you've done/are doing pleases your god?

    Nightmare, if Hebrews 6 said what you think it says, 30 other verses would have to be a lie.

    Yes, this is true. The bible contains numerous contradictions, this is a fact.

    ReplyDelete
  119. Nightmare, I find it hard to believe that you, as studied as you said you were, didn't know that we are no longer under the law of the old testament covenant.

    You said But then, there's another cafeteria element - homosexuality.

    I'd have to check with Pastor Harvey for his ok, but off the top of my head I'd say sin is sin and we all fall short. Personally, I'd have a tendency to try to stay away from those God calls an "abomination" to Him. There's still only one "sin unto death" that I know of, and that's never accepting Jesus as Savior.

    You said "In English, you get saved and fall away your are SCREWED. No repentance".

    You just reminded me you used to be Catholic. Well, Nightmare, what can I say without disparaging a whole religion?
    How about a hug?
    (((Nightmare)))

    ReplyDelete
  120. Scott wrote to me:
    >First, [Ken] Miller does not claim to be a fundamentalist Christian. There is a broad spectrum of Christianity that include liberal beliefs. Many scientists are liberal Christians.
    >Second, what does Miller gain by doing this? Please be specific.

    Scott, Harv and I and many others (such as Richard Dawkins) have made this very clear. I am surprised you do not get it. This issue about Ken Miller has been discussed ad nauseum all over the Web.

    Ken has made himself the poster boy for Christians who believe in evolution. He has been very useful to those who argue that Christianity is compatible with evolution. He seems to enjoy the role.

    The problem has been that to play this role successfully he has to make a substantial number of Christians think that he is a Christian like them.

    It would not do any good for me to claim that I was a “Christian for evolution.” I actually do admire some things about Jesus of Nazareth, but since I deny his divinity, the Virgin Birth, etc., my claiming to be a “Christian” would carry no weight with most American Christians.

    Ken’s role-playing worked partly because he claims to be a Catholic: anyone who knows anything about Catholicism knows that Catholics are not required to adhere to a literal interpretation of Genesis 1-2, but they are required to believe in a literal Virgin Birth.

    Indeed, the Vatican has ways of disciplining Catholics – up to and including excommunication – who deny such key doctrines.

    Ken could therefore rely on his supposed adherence to Catholicism to re-assure people that he did believe in central doctrines such as the Virgin Birth.

    The problem, of course, is that he does not really believe in it.

    Once that becomes general knowledge, his value as the famous “Christian who believes in evolution” starts declining.

    A “deist who believes in evolution” is not a terribly interesting figure!

    I have no desire at all to control what Ken believes: indeed, his real beliefs are probably not that far from mine. I suspect he is probably really an agnostic who hopes that deism is true.

    What I, and many others over many years, do object to is his flying under a false flag: using his supposed Catholicism to make traditional Nicene Christians think that he is one of them when he is not.

    Again, this complaint has been made against Ken over several years from people ranging from Richard Dawkins and myself to Harv and his comrades.

    This is not a fundamentalist conspiracy. It is just a request that Ken stop playing dishonest games.

    Dave

    ReplyDelete
  121. Pastor Harvey, you ever notice how Pastors sometimes all teach on the same subject or verse in any given week? I'm always fascinated by the moving of the Holy Spirit like that.

    I got this in my email tonight.

    No Bones in the Bible?
    http://blog.activeword.org/

    ReplyDelete
  122. Well, i'm, a little late to the new party. Still always time to annoy a creationist.

    -“We didn’t see it happen, we can’t make it happen again, and we can't show you that it ever happened,
    but it must have happened!”
    is not science.-

    Does that mean that forensics isn't science?

    -Can you imagine how different our world would look today if science had embraced intelligent design?-

    Yes, biology would make no sense and geology would make no sense, and chemistry would make no sense.

    ReplyDelete
  123. Nightmare,

    You said:"For instance, there are in fact a significant enough number of transitional specimens to imply that evolution is correct, a fact backed up by the occurrence of "micro"evolution."

    That is incorrect. There are no transitional fossils in the record. The closes things are the whales that's already been discussed and in a minimal facts aregument IF we allow them(which we shouldn't) we're left with less than a handfull of anything that even closeto resembling a crossover. The Fossil record DOES NOT display gradualism. What it displays is "sudden appearance" in the Precambrian era. This is what PE was endorsed by Stephen Gould to account for this. Unfortunately for the evolutionist there is no better argument or evidence that can be made.

    In the Brithish Museum of History there are 60 MILLION fossils not one is a crossover or transitional. This in part is what Dawkins does not hail the fossil record or say that it is essential to validate evolutionary theory...his other points are equally as weak in my opinion but nevertheless that's why.

    You also said:Your error in 1 would seem to be that you do not understand that not everything fossilizes - soft tissues for instance very rarely fossilize hence your error in 1b. But there are some specimens - this is how we know Archaeopteryx had feathers.

    Thes were common thoughts that also have been overturned. there have been Precambrian soft-tissue fossils found. So the arguments in support of no fossils because of soft-tissue has been overturned. So far as Archaeopteryx...there is no gradualism for this animal either. A better explaination for this anumal is that it was made that way. She just appears in the fossilized record also and equally dissapears. So there seems to be nothing to support an evolutionary transitional forms except it's strange bones.

    ReplyDelete
  124. Also Nightmare said this and I understand this as a general proposition here:

    Understand this - science is not religion. It does not make absolute, unalterable claims. It is subject to continual revision based on new data. If new data disproves an old theory, the theory is rethought or scrapped depending on the data"

    Those thought prompt the writing of the article. neo-darwinian evolutionary science DOES make absolute claims based on a naturalistic or metaphysical naturalistic basis. The claims are that there is NOTHING outside of natural causation for all things. That is unscientific.

    Obviously we've seen science's ability to be modified but evolutionary science in it's current state is a religious dogma in my opinion based on radical metaphysical naturalism to the exclusion of the investigation of all other cause for applicable data.

    ReplyDelete
  125. Dave wrote:The problem has been that to play this role successfully he has to make a substantial number of Christians think that he is a Christian like them.

    Dave, while I see your point….

    As a cellular biologist, Miller is clearly NOT like other Christians. Again, the last time I checked, greater than 30% of all scientists indicated affiliation with some religious group. However, many of these scientists hold liberal beliefs.

    What's even more unusual about Miller is that he is directly involved in education though the Biology text books he writes. Based on several talks he's given on the subject, it seems clear that Miller did not expect the national attention he gained as an expert witness during the 2005 Dover trial.

    Most importantly, I'm not aware of Miller having changed his affiliation or his views during or after the trial to gain some kind of advantage. Perhaps you know of evidence that suggests otherwise?

    Dave wrote: It would not do any good for me to claim that I was a “Christian for evolution.” I actually do admire some things about Jesus of Nazareth, but since I deny his divinity, the Virgin Birth, etc., my claiming to be a “Christian” would carry no weight with most American Christians.

    Dave,

    Christianity is based on the belief that Christ is *the* way to salvation. This is the core of Christianity.

    As a non-theist, I'm sure you're aware of the argument that many people take up the religion they were raised with or which is geographically near by. Miller's association with Catholicism may be due to this upbringing, while his specific beliefs would be shaped by the fact that his is a biologist.

    This would not change the fact that Miller conceders himself a Catholic in that he identifies with and is active in the Catholic community. Again, for Miller to be dishonest, you'd need to show that Miller changed his affiliation or his supposed belief for the intent of gaining an advantage.

    That Miller would suggest that the virgin birth might be a metaphor on a public stage seems to indicate he is not hiding his belief. Nor doe he seem interested in getting into debates about details of theology, which distract from the facts at hand.

    Again, this complaint has been made against Ken over several years from people ranging from Richard Dawkins and myself to Harv and his comrades.

    As a non-theist, I do not think Christianity is cohesive when taken as a whole, let alone when parts are removed. The idea that Jesus must be born of a virgin to be the savior of human kind seems just as arbitrary. As such, I share the frustration that Dawkins exhibits regarding liberal Christians.

    However, even Harvey's current belief that the earth orbits the sun would have been heretical to fundamental Christians in the past. A significant number of Christians were dragged kicking an screaming into this belief due to the invention of the telescope. But this was not the case with all Christians.

    ReplyDelete
  126. If Miller accepts the Virgin birth as a metaphor he accepts the whole bible as a metaphor and it is little less than an antique historical literary writing.

    Harvey,

    Just because you believe the Bible is without error, doesn't mean everyone else does. There are a significant number of liberal Christians that do not share your all or nothing position.

    ReplyDelete
  127. Laura,

    A search for the words The Dover school board did not propose to say ID is scientific or valid, or even to decrease its teaching of evolution. leads to the page Judge's Unintelligent Rant Against Design, which is written by Phyllis Schlafly.

    This specific wording is NOT found anywhere in the complaint.

    Let's stop here for a second. If a school board voted to not teach ID or decrease its teaching of evolution, would you expect a suit from the ACLU? No.

    Here you're assuming that what the school board voted on and what actually took place must be exactly the same thing.

    Even if this wording have been voted on by the school board, which is was not, this does not mean that the resulting statement actually represented this goal or actually had the effect of these goals, should it have been their intention. In fact, three board members resigned in protest over the exact wording and planned presentation of the resulting statement.

    Furthermore, the defense clearly indicates that the board members in question intended to present ID as a scientific theory. Again this was a key part of their argument.

    However, the real question is, why are you trying to represent Phyllis Schlafly's opinion as an official school board memo?

    ReplyDelete
  128. DSHB,

    You said,
    "evolutionary science in it's current state is a religious dogma in my opinion based on radical metaphysical naturalism to the exclusion of the investigation of all other cause for applicable data."

    What investigation is being excluded and what test would you propose to show this evidence?

    ReplyDelete
  129. DSHB,
    You said,
    "There are no transitional fossils in the record."

    The vast majority of paleo guys and gals disagree with you.
    I was wondering what credentials you hold to disagree with them?
    You often make statements without refuting in any way the science you deny.

    Here are just two transitional lines:

    Reptiles to Birds:
    Eoraptor, Herrerasaurus, Ceratosaurus, Allosaurus, Compsognathus, Sinosauropteryx, Protarchaeopteryx, Caudipteryx, Velociraptor, Sinovenator, Beipiaosaurus, Sinornithosaurus, Microraptor, Archaeopteryx, Rahonavis, Confuciusornis, Sinornis, Patagopteryx, Hesperornis, Apsaravis, Ichthyornis, and Columba

    Land Mammal to Whale:
    Pakicetus inachus, Ambulocetus natans, Indocetus ramani, Dorudon, Basilosaurus, a baleen whale with the blow hole far more forward than contemporary whales.

    When you compare these side by side the transitional nature is clear and compelling, and since you offer no other explanation for these progressions it would seem your pronouncements are without merit.

    Respectfully Submitted,
    Froggie

    ReplyDelete
  130. -So there seems to be nothing to support an evolutionary transitional forms except it's strange bones.-

    Among other features. It has dinosaur type bones...and wings. It's almost as if it's....oh i don't know...half way between a dinosaur and a bird.

    -it's current state is a religious dogma in my opinion based on radical metaphysical naturalism to the exclusion of the investigation of all other cause for applicable data.-

    Its silly to go looking for a magical explanation before you have investigated the mundane possiblities. Especially when that mundane explanation works well and the magic people can't even agree on which diety is doing the magic. Or how he does it, or where, or when (which science would kinda need if you are going to test for him).

    ReplyDelete
  131. Froggie,

    Thanks for the comments, but please don't insult my research or intelligence with statements like these:

    "The vast majority of paleo guys and gals disagree with you.
    I was wondering what credentials you hold to disagree with them?
    You often make statements without refuting in any way the science you deny."


    First majorities can sometime be WRONG...heard of civil rights haven't you?

    Secondly even atheists unsympathetic to Christianity and paleontologists and biologist with no bias as far as I can tell confirm such. Here are some:

    "The history of most fossil species includes two features particularly inconsistent with gradualism 1) Stasis. most species exhibit no directional change during their tenure on earth. They appear in the fossil record looking much the same as when they disappear; morphological change is usually limited and directionless. 2)Sudden Appearance. In any local area, a species does not arise gradually by the steady transformation of its ancestors; it appears all at once and 'fully formed"~Stephen Jay Gould, 'Evolution's Erratic Pace' Natural History 86(1977) pg. 13-14.

    "If this view of evolution is true, the fossil record should produce an enormous number of transitional forms. Natural history museums should be overflowing with undoubted intermediate forms. About 250,000 fossil species have been collected and classified. These fossil species have been collected at random from rocks that are supposed to represent all of the geological periods of earth's history. Applying evolution theory and the laws of probability, most of these 250,000 species should represent transitional forms. Thus, if evolution is true, there should be no doubt, question, or debate as to the fact of evolution."~Duane T. Gish, "The Origin of Mammals" in Creation: The Cutting Edge (1982), p.76.

    "Granted an evolutionary origin of the main groups of animals, and not an act of special creation, the absence of any record whatsoever of a single member of any of the phyla in the Precambrian rocks remains as inexplicable on orthodox grounds as it was to Darwin."T. Neville George, "Fossils in Evolutionary Perspective," in Science Progress, January 1960, p. 5.

    "I fully agree with your comments of the lack of direct illustration of evolutionary transitions in my book. if I knew of any, fossil or living, i would certainly have included them...I will lay it on the line-there is not one such fossil for which one could make a watertight argument."~Dr. Colin Patterson Senior Paleontologist (fmr) British Museum of Natural History 4/10/79 in a letter to Luther D. Sunderland.

    "Unfortunately the origins of most higher categories are shrouded in mystery:commonly new higher categories appear abruptly in the fossil record without evidence of transitional forms.~Dr. David Raup former Curator of geology Field Museum of Natural History Chicago in 'Principles Of Paleontology, Freeman, 1978 pg. 372

    I mean there are all kinds of statements to confirm this through the years and even more recently. Archaeology is bankrupt and what's often presented is variation within species as proof of microevolutionary change the only problem is time frame and evidence does not support the theories...

    There much more but this is probably one of evolutions weakest arguments.

    Now. Does it looks like I've said something without support?

    More So, since you think I do and this has shown to be false impression, let me know what else you think I've said without support...BTW, as stated many of these people are not Christians especially Gould who was an open atheist...

    ReplyDelete
  132. Scott, we now come full circle to my original post, and you still haven't read the complaint!

    You said "Here you're assuming that what the school board voted on and what actually took place must be exactly the same thing."

    You're like a near-blind pitbull going for a perceived threat's leg who latches onto a chair leg refusing to let go.

    I already quoted from Phyllis Schlafly's article, to which you said "propaganda", so I posted the complaint.

    I'm not asking you to concede that you were wrong (which you are), but I am asking that you drop your posts to me about this issue that has been answered over and over again. You can't change history to suit your fantasies.

    Here is my reply to your "propaganda" charge 2 days ago that can be found on this same page about midway up and covers everything you are questioning today:


    Laura quoted from article on Activist Judge Jones:

    "Contrary to most media coverage, the Dover case was not about whether the theory of evolution or Intelligent Design (ID) is correct or should be taught. The Dover school board did not propose to say ID is scientific or valid, or even to decrease its teaching of evolution.

    Students were merely to be read a brief statement asserting that "gaps in the theory exist for which there is no evidence," and that ID provides an explanation for the origin of life that could be further explored by consulting a book in the school library."

    To which Scott said "Laura,
    I'm sorry, but you've been fed propaganda."

    Scott, did you bother to read the Complaint before telling me I'm being fed propaganda? Because I read it before I posted someone else's words. I'm funny like that...I'm always looking for what's true. You, my friend, continue to beat that square peg into the round hole insisting that everything you think should be truth, is truth. It's a losing battle, because there can only be One truth.


    COMPLAINT
    I. INTRODUCTION
    On October 18, 2004, the defendant Dover Area School District Board
    of Directors (“Dover SchoolBoard”) passed by a 6-3 vote the following resolution:
    -2-
    Students will be made aware of gaps/problems in Darwin’s theory and of other theories of evolution
    including, but not limited to, intelligent design. Note: Origins of Life is not taught. On November 19, 2004, the defendant Dover Area School District announced that teachers would be required to read a statement to students in the
    ninth grade biology class at Dover High School that includes the following language:
    Because Darwin’s Theory is a theory, it is still being tested as new evidence is discovered. The Theory is not a fact. Gaps in the Theory exist for which there is no evidence. A theory is defined as a well-tested explanation that unifies a broad range of observations.
    Intelligent design is an explanation of the origin of life
    that differs from Darwin’s view. The reference book, Of Pandas and People is available for students to see if they would like to explore this view in an effort to gain an understanding of what intelligent design actually
    involves. As is true with any theory, students are encouraged to keep an open mind.

    --------------------

    The rest of the complaint lays out all the perceived horrors of what could happen if the statement of gaps was read to school children, and the children were told there was a book in the library with an alternative view.

    Notice from the Judge's 139 page ruling over a statement being read to kids that teachers are not allowed to even mention the gaps because a student my view that "as a strong official endorsement of religion or a religious viewpoint."

    Then this activist Judge has the nerve to say his decision to withhold information from students and disallow the reading of the statement rests on the constitution, when his ruling is the very meaning of the word "Fascism".

    ReplyDelete
  133. DSHB,

    Thanks for the comments, but please don't insult my research or intelligence with statements like these:

    "The vast majority of paleo guys and gals disagree with you.
    I was wondering what credentials you hold to disagree with them?
    You often make statements without refuting in any way the science you deny."

    "First majorities can sometime be WRONG.."
    Indeed they can, but science is not a majority rule model. It is based on testing and falsification. The majority of paleo guys and gals have reached their conclusions through rigorous testing and experimentation. You have refuted none of that.

    ".....heard of civil rights haven't you?"

    I have, but I will submit that those issues are not germaine to this discussion.

    You quote Gould. There is nothing in that quote that refutes evolution. There is musch stasis obseved in the fossil record. Nothing new here. Gould had a lot of other things to say in support of evolution so you are basically quotemining him.

    You quote Gish.
    "If this view of evolution is true, the fossil record should produce an enormous number of transitional forms."

    That is not true. Fossilization is very rare.

    You quote T. Neville George.
    He also said, "There is no need to apologize any longer for the poverty of the fossil record. In some ways it has become almost unmanageably rich and discovery is outpacing integration… "


    You quote Dr. Colin Patterson.

    This quote is taken out of context and Dr Patterson later wrote to an associate,
    "I think the continuation of the passage shows clearly that your interpretation (at the end of your letter) is correct, and the creationists' is false."

    You quote Dr. David Raup.

    "Unfortunately the origins of most higher categories are shrouded in mystery:commonly new higher categories appear abruptly in the fossil record without evidence of transitional forms."

    You hit a sweetspot with me on that one!
    First of all, that quotation is not any type of refutation of evolution.
    and again is taken out of context.

    Next, Next, Raup is very well known to me because he has trained many contemporoary paleontoligists and it was he who noticed in the fossil record that mass extinctions seem to happen approximately every twenty six million years.

    I will reiterate my earlier complaint that it appears that you have no credentials that would allow you to criticize the Theory of Evolution, and worse yet, you seem to employ the device of random quote mining as your lame excuses for criticisms.

    That is just dishonest no matter how you cut it up.

    You must see that one must look at the body of work of an individual to understand his meaning and approach.
    Anyone can wander through the literature and find anamolies to the views of the writers as taken out of context.

    To do that without understanding the overall data sets and conclusions is intellectually irresponsible.

    When preachers start criticizing science they corupt the message of the gospel.

    Respectfully submitted,
    Froggie

    ReplyDelete
  134. Pastor Harvey, it's been funny to see that all the webpages mentioned that supposedly show transitional fossils, all point back to the talkorigins site for reference.

    It's hard to keep a straight face reading some of the stuff on wikipedia, such as the page titled "List of human evolution fossils"

    "The species name represents current consensus, when there is no clear scientific consensus the other possible classifications are indicated; deprecated classifications may be found on the fossil's page. Most of the fossils shown are not considered direct ancestors to Homo sapiens but are closely related to direct ancestors and are therefore important to the study of the lineage."

    Direct ancestry is ALWAYS a guess, but here it's stated as fact. I edited the page last night with a red flag for "misleading title", and today my flag has already been taken done by the page creator. There is no scientific search for truth here, just pure propaganda.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_human_evolution_fossils

    ReplyDelete
  135. Dave, I don't know who Ken Miller is - never heard of him until this discussion. But hearing Scott undyingly defending him and his faith gives me a clear picture of what you meant when you said something like "Miller was suppose to be the poster child for Christian evolutionist".

    ReplyDelete
  136. Harvey quoted:
    "Unfortunately the origins of most higher categories are shrouded in mystery: commonly new higher categories appear abruptly in the fossil record without evidence of transitional forms.~Dr. David Raup former Curator of geology Field Museum of Natural History Chicago in 'Principles Of Paleontology, Freeman, 1978 pg. 372."

    Frog said You hit a sweetspot with me on that one! First of all, that quotation is not any type of refutation of evolution.
    and again is taken out of context.

    Next, Next, Raup is very well known to me because he has trained many contemporoary paleontoligists and it was he who noticed in the fossil record that mass extinctions seem to happen approximately every twenty six million years.


    Out of context? The statement stands alone.

    A person has to wear a helmet around here because of these brick walls!

    ReplyDelete

  137. Pastor Harvey, it's been funny to see that all the webpages mentioned that supposedly show transitional fossils, all point back to the talkorigins site for reference.


    Except the hominid transitionals. I imagine you don't even look at those, they strike such a terror.

    But then again, the lists at TalkOrigins are quite complete, vetted by fine and smart scientists, and there simply is no honest rebuttal to be made to them. I can understand why you fear them so.

    ReplyDelete
  138. Froggie,

    Thanks for responding. You said this "Indeed they can, but science is not a majority rule model. It is based on testing and falsification.

    Sometimes it is when that can be done...cosmologically the "big bang" cannot be tested and the collider failed (and will continue to do so) eg: Not all science is based on that model...in addition a fossil record cannot be "tested", it can only be deciphered from the evidence it provided. it provides no certificate of authentication neither does it come with a diagram of what's lost in the soft tissue. So there's a lot lacking when it comes down to it.

    I said:".....heard of civil rights haven't you?"

    You said: "I have, but I will submit that those issues are not germaine to this discussion.

    They are germaine in that the majority of people at one time were against such civil rights...the majority was wrong. So that illustrates a point, that majorities don't say much as to confirming what is true. You statement was a logical fallacy on that point.

    You said:"You quote Gould. There is nothing in that quote that refutes evolution."... and "Gould had a lot of other things to say in support of evolution so you are basically quote mining him.

    That wasn't the point of the quote, neither was that the context of your original assertion. We were talking about the fossil record. Gould confirms the lack of evidence within that record, that's why his theory of PE was developed to address that issue. Gould confirms that the available records displayed stasis and not gradualism that would be seen IF evolutionary theory as was written by Darwin were correct.

    As stated this proves at least two points:
    1- Your original assertion that I had made things up was, is and yet remains incorrect
    2- Even evolutionary scientists recognize that the fossil record does not help their case in demonstrating gradualism
    3- Best arguments for evolution don't place much weight on the fossil record because it's a looser except for on those charts and high school text books.

    Once again, Gould was not a Christian neither was he trying to do Christianity a favor. Gould was simply going by the extant evidence that says out of 250,000 fossil finds there isn't a transitional forms and life was sudden within the Precambrian era.

    You claimed:You quote T. Neville George.He also said, "There is no need to apologize any longer for the poverty of the fossil record. In some ways it has become almost unmanageably rich and discovery is outpacing integration…"

    Sure the record is rich with over 250,000 finds but what does that say about transitionals which was what he was talking about in the portion I quoted? Just in case you don't know NOTHING.

    once again you say:You quote Dr. Colin Patterson. This quote is taken out of context and Dr Patterson later wrote to an associate, "I think the continuation of the passage shows clearly that your interpretation (at the end of your letter) is correct, and the creationists' is false."

    Once again NOT ONE WORD claiming that the fossil record bears out the viability of transitional forms...I said from the beginning some of these guys weren't Christian neither were they sympathetic to Christianity so I'm miffed at your response and my argument yet stands.

    end pt. 1

    ReplyDelete
  139. Froggie,

    Pt. 2

    You said:"You quote Dr. David Raup. You hit a sweetspot with me on that one! First of all, that quotation is not any type of refutation of evolution.
    and again is taken out of context.


    OK, you can't seem to stay on topic...we're talking about TRANSITIONALS in the fossil record NOT refuting evolution...I would approach the argument in a completely different manner if I were doing that...We're talking fossils...

    You conclude:I will reiterate my earlier complaint that it appears that you have no credentials that would allow you to criticize the Theory of Evolution, and worse yet, you seem to employ the device of random quote mining as your lame excuses for criticisms."

    Obviously I have enough reading credentials to know how to stay on point or how to stay on a subject that we were talking about...you said this when you showed up:

    The vast majority of paleo guys and gals disagree with you.
    I was wondering what credentials you hold to disagree with them?
    You often make statements without refuting in any way the science you deny...Here are just two transitional lines:


    Now from all indication it seems you were talking about TRANSITIONALS in the fossil record...I presented evidence from abroad spectrum of individuals friend ad foe, to refute your argument. Then you Say all of a sudden "we're talking about something else" What is that???

    Now this is the second post I've done on evolution itself and if you want to get a good idea of my reasons for rejecting it you should at least read both articles instead of trying to say I'm stacking the deck or being dishonest...I've included evidences and you've touched on nothing but the fossil record which YOU SHOULD be able to see is a losing argument and not a strong point in your favor.

    One thing I will agree, evolution doesn't fall on the basis of fossils, neither does it advance, and there are more sound basis for rejecting it in my opinion.

    You conclude: When preachers start criticizing science they corupt the message of the gospel.

    Yes misinformation is a tragedy. I don't present misinformation to the best of my ability and I certainly don't make thing sup whole cloth such as "the fossil record confirms evolution" because it does not.

    Thanks

    ReplyDelete
  140. Laura,

    You said"Pastor Harvey, it's been funny to see that all the webpages mentioned that supposedly show transitional fossils, all point back to the talkorigins site for reference...It's hard to keep a straight face reading some of the stuff on wikipedia, such as the page titled "List of human evolution fossils"

    You noticed that too. And they criticize discovery Institute and claim they are the clearing house for bad Christian argument...that's a mess...

    In all we have statements and affirmations from people not even sympathetic to Christianity that declare the bankruptcy of the fossil record.

    It would be nice if we're ever going to get to a meaningful starting place to at least agree with that but as we can see not even evolutionists agree even if they don't agree with creationism or ID...

    So that's something that even they need to come to some conclusions and consencuses about. All I know is Miller's presentation was bunk as I stated earlier and his borad claims were refuted by the professor at University of Michigan...so what's that about???

    ReplyDelete
  141. DSHB,

    You said,

    "One thing I will agree, evolution doesn't fall on the basis of fossils, neither does it advance, and there are more sound basis for rejecting it in my opinion.

    You conclude: When preachers start criticizing science they corupt the message of the gospel.

    Yes misinformation is a tragedy. I don't present misinformation to the best of my ability and I certainly don't make thing sup whole cloth such as "the fossil record confirms evolution" because it does not.

    Dear sir,
    That is your uninformed opinion.
    You continue to argue from you belief system rather than an informed opinion regarding science.

    It is well shown that you have no credentials that would allow you to refute the fossil record in the face of all the evidence. You have yet to refute any of the evidence outside of quotemining noteable paleontologists.

    Are you a pastor administering to the needs of your flock, or are you masqurading as a scientist? I now scientists and you are not a scientist.

    Respectfully submitted,
    Froggie

    ReplyDelete
  142. Hi Laura,how come Nightmare gets all the hugs.Im starting to feel just a little left out and dejected, may have to seriously consider also converting to spiritual anarchism myself.

    You said.

    "Direct ancestry is ALWAYS a guess, but here it's stated as fact."

    If somebody got raped and the police captured a offender and decided to charge him and use the technology of genealogy to help find if he was guilty.

    In such cases would you also be quite prepared to once again dismiss this scientific technology as pure guess work.And suggest it is lacking in any factual evidence.

    Or in instances such as this can this scientific technology be thought as not really alway being so much about pure guess work.

    ReplyDelete
  143. Froggie,

    You said:"It is well shown that you have no credentials that would allow you to refute the fossil record in the face of all the evidence. You have yet to refute any of the evidence outside of quotemining noteable paleontologists."

    You mean outside of telling what noteable palentologist are saying both historically and now? So are the scientist or palentologists wrong?

    You said:"Are you a pastor administering to the needs of your flock, or are you masqurading as a scientist? I now scientists and you are not a scientist."

    You greatest fallacy is the elitist or group fallacy assuming that only tem within the group can know truth, that's not a truth. Then you display a walk, talk, and shew gum fallacy, assuming that I can't do multiple tasks sucah as pastor and research evolution That's absurd and NOTHING you've presented counters anything I've said.

    So what have we affirmed? That 1- I don't make things up which was your claim. 2- The fossil record does not bear out or confirm evolution, in fact the fossil record is an embarassment to evolutionary theory, Darwin knew as much 150 years ago. If you really get down to it, the fossil record even leans to and affirms creationism. 3- One doesn't have to be an elitist to know what they are talking about as NONE of this stuff is private neither does it have a secret interpretation for those willing to read the material objectively.

    So I believe your argument has been successfully refuted, care to move to anoter as I requested earlier? Since I "often make statements without refuting in any way the science you [I]deny'

    Another thing, anyone reading my material knows that I don't deny science or it's value, I deny the good ole boys club of philosophical metaphysical naturalism taught within modern evolutionary theory. I supposed that just slipped past you when you see Christian and Pastor in one sentence...

    Later.

    ReplyDelete
  144. Please excuse my atrocious spelling when I type too fast.

    Sorry.

    ReplyDelete
  145. "If you really get down to it, the fossil record even leans to and affirms creationism."

    Ok. You win.

    ReplyDelete
  146. So far as spelling don't even get me started on me...then i still haven't got my new keyboard in yet and that makes it even worse...letters get stuck and everything so don't worry about it...

    ReplyDelete
  147. Froggie,

    I'm just saying that's not evolutionary theory's strong suit. There are other arguments to be made, Dave makes some good points Scott too, but I think we've got to push the scientific community to help us out a lot more than they currently are...

    I don't care, call me an old foggie, or just stupid, but I believe if we follow the money trail we'll find the rat and the reason for a lot of misinformation and incomplete and shady arguments on both sides of this issue.

    Now, I will give Christians the benefit of the doubt and I admit my bias in that at least initially, however, when there's conflict of interest in academia I become very skeptical of what I read and hear...

    Example: As a result of this blog and critics who have raised the point, I'm on the phone with anyone from Discovery the FIRST thing I will ask is why they left Dover without testifying? i want to hear their answer for myself and i don't believe they've even explained that on any site to anyone that I know...

    I also want to ask Miller about what I consider to be his diversionary tactics that dave and others have recognized on this board.

    I think there are a lot of issues that all of these men should address...

    ReplyDelete
  148. DSHB,

    In regards to your most recent comment I do concur with your reasoning of which there are "issues to be addressed."

    I can assure you that my spiritual advisors will not be squaring off against the most notable scientists of the day.

    It is beyond my comprehension why certain spiritual advisors would jump into debate with some of the most most noteable scientists of our day. Neither you or I have the wherewithall to challenge the plethora of evidence that the scientific community has amassed.

    Should it be our job to try to refute them, as ill equipped as we are to do so?

    Do the needs of our family and friends rest on the theory of evolution even if it is proven?

    I think not.

    ReplyDelete
  149. Hi Harvey hope you had a wondeful day yesterday.

    You said "I think there are a lot of issues that all of these men should address..."

    Harv i dont think folks are really asking for much more than what you agree to above,except maybe that this time it is always done with complete honesty.So as we call all proceed forward in hope of finding what the truthful factual evidence actually is.

    Would you also agree it maybe would be of great benefit to many many folks on both sides of this argument.To know more about the actual truth of matters if we can,so that finally its more likely we can all move on together hopefully in a much more harmonious manner.

    It may very well be that if both sides of the argument can work together instead of working on plans of how its possible to throw a spanner in the works,that if being factual and true science might aslo find more evidence to suggest a dieity or proof of a supernatural intelligence.

    I think maybe you might agree that lies and deceit sure can be keep hidden for long lengths of time,but specially with serious important matters such as this.Nothing at all will ever be able to stop the truth of the matter from being sorted out at some stage.

    What do you think.

    ReplyDelete
  150. Laura wrote: Scott, we now come full circle to my original post, and you still haven't read the complaint!

    Laura,

    When you come across something on the internet, you need to evaluate if the author appears to know what they are talking about or if their information is accurate. Just because they say something you agree with doesn't mean it's valid.

    You also need to look for indications that the author is trying to use bad or disingenuous arguments as they are a red flag that they are spreading or repeating propaganda.

    In the case of your comment, my first clue was you were making claims (by repeating Schlafly's claims) about the defendants intentions from the complaint. While the complaint might have verbatim copy of the resolution and the resulting statement, this is an incomplete picture. Nor does it represent the defendants position.

    Schlafly wrote: The Dover school board did not propose to say ID is scientific or valid, or even to decrease its teaching of evolution

    This is a red flag.

    Apparently Schlafly isn't interested in taking account the actual testimony by the defendants, expert witnesses or facts revealed in the case. For example, the complaint says nothing about how one of the school board members took an offering at his church to pay for the 60 copies of Of Pandas and People but failed to disclose it during his deposition and recanted his testimony only when confronted with the fact turing the trial.

    Most importantly, the complaint does not include the testimony of school board members and defense team who said their actions were an attempt to introduce students to an alternative scientific theory called Intelligent Design.

    Finally, by limiting it to evolution, the statement had result of singling out evolution as a "theory", when all scientific theories are "theories." Nor does the statement indicates the "gaps" in Intelligent Design. it represents the clear religious bias of the school board members in question.

    When Schlafly then went on to call Jones an activist judge, she fails to take into account that Jones was a conservative republican who was recommended by senator Rick Santorum and approved by GWB.

    Of course, it wouldn't surprise me that you have no idea who Santorum is since he's not mentioned in Schlafly article and his association with the judge doesn't support her view.

    ReplyDelete
  151. Gandy,

    You said:"Would you also agree it maybe would be of great benefit to many many folks on both sides of this argument.To know more about the actual truth of matters if we can,so that finally its more likely we can all move on together hopefully in a much more harmonious manner."

    I agree with you 100%. When we look at the arguments, we see total polarization at times and that gives rise to a lot of of additional questions.

    I buy into it at times as everyone seems to do, but as I look and learn I say now, what's good science and what's hyperbole? At the same time I say to the ID crowd (which makes no guarantee that they will support the intelligence I believe in) are you arguing for the sake of what you believe, for the sake of the evidence or is it because of some other motive? To the evolutionary crowd I say how much are your scientific findings a product of your worldview rather than the science?

    Then to the Christians in the middle there are honest one's, who sincerely believe in evolutionary theory then there are those that say they are Christians but who believe that christianity is mythological as we've seen in earlier convo and that's TOTALLY confusing...

    You said:"It may very well be that if both sides of the argument can work together instead of working on plans of how its possible to throw a spanner in the works,that if being factual and true science might aslo find more evidence to suggest a dieity or proof of a supernatural intelligence."

    I think that's the key, and I would even venture to say, remove anything that has to "discover" or search for God and anything that has to exclude God...approach it in a neutral manner. Does science have to exclude God? Does science have to validate God?

    I love science believe it or not, but I don't believe it has to be constructed to either the validation or exclusion of God. Now, as a person of faith, I don't need science to believe, however as a person competing economically in the world I better know it and how it effects my life, because if I don't my competition will.

    I don't think Christianity and science are incompatible, but I believe certain claims being made by scientists are incredulous and display a bias which isn't healthy IF education is the point.

    ReplyDelete
  152. Harvey wrote: All I know is Miller's presentation was bunk as I stated earlier and his borad claims were refuted by the professor at University of Michigan...so what's that about???

    You failed to respond to this, which bunked your bunk.

    See parts 1, 2 and 3.

    Laura wrote Pastor Harvey, it's been funny to see that all the webpages mentioned that supposedly show transitional fossils, all point back to the talkorigins site for reference.

    Apparently you didn't read this one either.

    Testimony by U.C. Berkeley paleontologist Dr. Kevin Padian in Kitzmiller v. Dover.

    ReplyDelete
  153. Froggie,

    Now froggie, I think thisis a subject that every pastor should become versed in to some extent to at least be able to distinguish the difference between bad and good info.

    More importantly, from a biblical and philosophical perspective, I believe that if we view ourselves as less than having a position, place and importance uncreated by ourselves (as is the case with everyone -I believe) that will impact our minds and actions. that's why this argument is important.

    I can know and affirm science without even going there if it weren't for the fact that people want to go there and say that we are purposeless and products of blind chance, and random processes.

    Biblically, man is unique, has a material aspect AND a spiritual aspect that science cannot measure...Is it even supposed to try? I don't believe so.

    But I think it's well within the realm of a spiritual advisor's duty, especially a 21st century pastor's duty, to know this issue, talk to his church about it as I do and know how and where to point people to resources on both sides of the issue so that they can att least be informed even if they reject it wholesale.

    Truth can stand the light is my view...

    ReplyDelete
  154. Scott wrote to me:
    > That [Ken] Miller would suggest that the virgin birth might be a metaphor on a public stage seems to indicate he is not hiding his belief. Nor doe he seem interested in getting into debates about details of theology, which distract from the facts at hand.

    Scott, you are really, really being very disingenuous here!

    The whole point is that it took years of pushing by people like Dawkins, etc. to finally get Ken to ’fess up about his beliefs. Did you actually read the links I provided and look at the dates on them???

    It does not count as being open and honest when you spend years being deceptive and then finally, sort of, tell the truth.

    Yes, if Ken just happened to be a liberal Christian, and was not intentionally hiding anything, and was not getting any mileage out of people thinking he was a traditional Christian, and was not refusing to respond to legitimate questions, then there would be no reason to criticize him.

    But none of that was true: the question was very relevant to the public debate in which Ken chose to engage, people (atheists as well as Christians) had raised the questions for years, and Ken had evaded those questions for years.

    That is evasive and deceptive.

    That liberal Christians do indeed exist, that Ken is entitled to his beliefs, etc. is simply not what people are complaining about. The complaint is about his systematic effort, over many years, to evade legitimate questions relevant to the public position he was taking in a very important debate.

    As I’ve said, I suspect Ken’s views on religion may be almost identical to mine. The one difference is that I do not mislead people by calling myself a “Christian” and then refusing for years to respond when people try to find out what I mean by that, hoping that they will interpret it in a way that is not accurate!

    I am frankly bemused by why you find a need to defend Ken’s sleazy behavior. Yeah, he’s a competent scientist. Yeah, I agree with him on evolution. But his behavior in systematically evading – for years! – basic questions about what he means in calling himself a “Christian” is despicable.

    I know he is on my and your “side.” All the more reason to point out that one of our “own” guys has been deceptive.

    Why not just admit that he is a good guy who behaved badly in this situation?

    You're arguing like a lawyer defending a guilty man who hopes he can bamboozle the jury.

    Dave

    ReplyDelete
  155. Scott,

    I'm doing a FOI to the Dover school board on this money and textbook issue. It may be nothing to it but I want them to tell me directly what the financial layouts were and to whom they went...I'll post it on this site for all to see when I get it back.

    I don't buy donations because I know that's not how it's done in the public schools (at least primarily)...

    As a community activist, I go to board meetings and I've sat with school officials and questioned and suggested on bugetary issues and text books are an expense I know that appears sometimes in the millions of dollars.

    So until I receive that back, please excuse me if I'm skeptical of ANYTHING that Dr. Miller says...

    ReplyDelete
  156. Dave,

    You said:"It does not count as being open and honest when you spend years being deceptive and then finally, sort of, tell the truth."

    You may be an atheist Dave but I'll tell you what "you're preachin'"! that's true.

    What is there to be ashamed about?

    What baffels me about Miller is that facts (if they are facts) should be the same from a Christian person or not, and quite frankly he would have got more traction from persons such as me IF he were open and honest. Make no doubt, I would yet contend with him and his version of evolution, but I would approach him and his arguments differently.

    ReplyDelete
  157. Dave, I don't know who Ken Miller is - never heard of him until this discussion.

    So, Laura hadn't even heard of Miller, yet he is deceiving Christians in America?

    Laura didn't know about Miller, who was one of the key expert witnesses in a landmark case on Intelligent design, but she knows that ID is science and that evolution is pseudo science?

    Can anyone tell me what's wrong with this picture?

    But hearing Scott undyingly defending him and his faith gives me a clear picture of what you meant when you said something like "Miller was suppose to be the poster child for Christian evolutionist".

    I invite you to show me where I attempted to capitalize on Millers faith in any of my arguments.

    In fact, I challenge you to show me where Miller himself attempts to capitalize on his faith in his own arguments. (Perhaps this is the only way I can get to you to actually listen his arguments?)

    Again, if you'd like to show evidence that Miller has changed his public position on his faith or started going to Sunday Mass to make him appear to be more of a "Christian" then I'd like to hear it.

    Until then, this appears to be nothing more than a red herring.

    ReplyDelete
  158. Pastor Harvey, I was a little po'ed when I saw my flag removed on wikipedia this morning. I've decided to do my part and pursue this diligently to clean up all those misleading pages, but first I need to figure how wiki works. I could edit the page tonight, and then everything gets changed back in the morning...so what would be the point? I do know that a person can take down entire pages for not meeting wiki's already low standards, but I don't want to go the way of censorship.

    Yes, the comments about the Discovery Institute break a handful of wiki's rules on bias and impartiality.

    ReplyDelete
  159. Harvey wrote: I don't buy donations because I know that's not how it's done in the public schools (at least primarily)…

    Harvey,

    The information regarding the donation of Of Pandas and People is already online.

    The general testimony for Mr Buckingham starts here, with the details of the donation here.

    The general testimony for Mr. Bonsell starts here, which begins with the details of the donation.

    ReplyDelete
  160. Gandy said of my post "Direct ancestry is ALWAYS a guess, but here it's stated as fact."

    "If somebody got raped and the police captured a offender and decided to charge him and use the technology of genealogy to help find if he was guilty.

    In such cases would you also be quite prepared to once again dismiss this scientific technology as pure guess work?"


    But Gandy, that's not what happens with the guess of ancestry.

    In your rapist scenario, it would be like the police rounding up all apes as suspects when they are really looking for a man, and then checking their genealogy. All they will get is more apes. Do you see what I mean? Man, ape...two different species.

    ReplyDelete
  161. DSHB,

    "Biblically, man is unique, has a material aspect AND a spiritual aspect that science cannot measure...Is it even supposed to try? I don't believe so."

    Then why do you try to involve yourself in science?

    ReplyDelete
  162. Harvey,Dave and Scott you are all discussing this matter of Ken.

    "District Supt. Harvey Burnett said...
    Dave,

    You said:"It does not count as being open and honest when you spend years being deceptive and then finally, sort of, tell the truth."

    You may be an atheist Dave but I'll tell you what "you're preachin'"! that's true.

    What is there to be ashamed about?"

    I totally agree with you honesty is a wonderful thing.Its always the best way to go,because most times the real truth always has a way emerging sooner or later.

    I know little about this Ken and the in`s and outs of what happend.

    But one thing i do know quite a bit about is its not always so easy being completely honest in christian circles.Specially if that circle also involves christian family and friends.

    This might have nothing to do with this particular case with this fellow Ken.

    But i mention it incase because lets face it this Ken sure wouldnt be the first person to be disliked shunned excommunicated and totally disowned for being something his group of christian friends happen to feel is the scurge of the earth.

    Me making mention of this problem is not at all about trying to find a excuse if the lieing happened,but more about some understanding how certain situations sometimes can effect our behaviours.

    Just a thought.

    ReplyDelete
  163. Laura you said.."In your rapist scenario, it would be like the police rounding up all apes as suspects when they are really looking for a man, and then checking their genealogy. All they will get is more apes. Do you see what I mean? Man, ape...two different species."

    Yes i understand ...But still find it a little strange that you trust scientific gene technology when its only in regards to connections with humans.

    Yet when the (very same technology) suggests possible distant connections with apes,seems you quite happy to quickly poo poo it.

    I do wonder a little why the seeming slightly bias opinion about when and where and whether scientists can really be trusted thats all.

    ReplyDelete
  164. Laura said...
    Nightmare, I find it hard to believe that you, as studied as you said you were, didn't know that we are no longer under the law of the old testament covenant.

    Oh, I'm totally aware of the idea, I just don't buy it tis all, even within the context of Christianity, for the reason noted.

    Personally, I'd have a tendency to try to stay away from those God calls an "abomination" to Him.

    Defined as such in the OT. If the OT don't matter, then why even consider it a sin any more than say being greedy (NT example) or eating shellfish (OT example)? Because as you are implying, there are only two sins in the Christian religion, one you note below the other you note in the sentence prior to this.

    There's still only one "sin unto death" that I know of, and that's never accepting Jesus as Savior.

    AKA "Blasphemy against the Holy Spirit" (I was sad when I finally figured out the logic on that one btw)

    You just reminded me you used to be Catholic. Well, Nightmare, what can I say without disparaging a whole religion?

    Ok, now I'm REALLY confused. I truly don't get what would be the down side to the scenario you described (ie me meeting Jesus) and now I don't get what this has to do with it. Help?

    How about a hug?
    (((Nightmare)))


    Sure :D

    ReplyDelete
  165. I just came across this,and thought i would post it incase somebodies interested in reading.Looks like it was published just last sunday.

    http://www.islamonline.net/servlet/Satellite?c=Article_C&cid=1254573498385&pagename=Zone-English-News/NWELayout

    ReplyDelete
  166. District Supt. Harvey Burnett said...
    That is incorrect. There are no transitional fossils in the record. The closes things are the whales that's already been discussed and in a minimal facts aregument IF we allow them(which we shouldn't) we're left with less than a handfull of anything that even closeto resembling a crossover. The Fossil record DOES NOT display gradualism.

    Umm Harv? What planet are you looking at? Seriously. Cause we got Archaeopteryx (a raptor working on becoming a bird, complete with feathers), Tiktaalik (a fish with feet), and hell even a living sample - the lung fish. If you can see that these are obvious transitions between geni (not just species) it's because of your self imposed blinders not lack of evidence.

    Thes were common thoughts that also have been overturned. there have been Precambrian soft-tissue fossils found. So the arguments in support of no fossils because of soft-tissue has been overturned.

    I said rarely, not that it doesn't happen. A victory over a straw man is no victory.

    So far as Archaeopteryx...there is no gradualism for this animal either. She just appears in the fossilized record also and equally dissapears. So there seems to be nothing to support an evolutionary transitional forms except it's strange bones.

    It's a relative of the various raptor species, hence yes there is gradualism. It certainly does not just appear out of nowhere as you imply. Try again.

    A better explaination for this anumal is that it was made that way.

    Why? Because that's the explanation you want? What would even be the point of making such a creature that was never going to be seen by a living human (humanocentic viewpoint borrowed momentarily for Christianity)? Surely such a fossil harms human faith more than promotes it, so why make it in the first place?

    Note that your god DOES NOT have the refuge in doing things "just because" or "just for giggles" in the salvation centered world view you subscribe to, so don't even bother trying that as an answer.

    neo-darwinian evolutionary science DOES make absolute claims based on a naturalistic or metaphysical naturalistic basis.

    Only because you don't understand the theory or the way scientific theory works, obviously. As I noted, there are no don't some scientists that view these as absolute, unchangeable claims, Dawkins for one likely. HOWEVER, as noted that is the fault of the individual. The theory and method are sound, since it HAS changed based on new data in the past.

    The claims are that there is NOTHING outside of natural causation for all things. That is unscientific.

    You are conflating Materialism (a matter of philosophy) with Evolution in a errant fashion, just as some scientists do. They are NOT necessarily related. I myself certainly don't subscribe to such a scenario.

    to the exclusion of the investigation of all other cause for applicable data.

    Don't you see it HAS to exclude supernatural explanations? For the simple matter that they is no reliable, repeatable, objective way to investigate ANYTHING in the supernatural realm? This I know well because it is the single largest re-occurring problem with my own work. So Harvey, with all seriousness, if you've found a way to overcome that obstacle and can produce reliable (ie success 60%+ of time), repeatable, and objective (ie not subject to individual interpretation or excuse) PLEASE PLEASE tell me!

    ReplyDelete
  167. Gandy said "Yes i understand ...But still find it a little strange that you trust scientific gene technology when its only in regards to connections with humans."

    Gandy, I never thought of it as a question of trust - just what's proven. In this country, you can't even run an ad on tv for a miracle pill without a disclaimer about testing and results. And if that pill turns out to hurt a bunch of people, you're really in trouble.

    Yet far-fetched claims are made about ancient ancestry between the species with absolutely no real evidence. Well, other than they LOOK like they are related. That's not science, that's guessing. And then to go so far and state their guesses are facts, is bad science.

    ReplyDelete
  168. Gandolf wrote to me:
    >I know little about this Ken and the in`s and outs of what happend.
    > But one thing i do know quite a bit about is its not always so easy being completely honest in christian circles.Specially if that circle also involves christian family and friends.
    > This might have nothing to do with this particular case with this fellow Ken.
    > But i mention it incase because lets face it this Ken sure wouldnt be the first person to be disliked shunned excommunicated and totally disowned for being something his group of christian friends happen to feel is the scurge of the earth.

    Oh, of course.

    I would guess that this is indeed part of what was going on in Ken’s mind (I can’t know, for certain, of course).

    Even if his family no longer cares (often the case with adults), childhood training can be hard to shake.

    I’m not claiming that Ken Miller is some inhuman monster: from everything I hear, from friends and foes alike, he is a bright, pleasant, decent fellow, and, usually, an honest fellow.

    But, on this one particular point, he behaved in a deceptive manner, and he shouldn’t have. He should have anticipated that if he were going to testify publicly as a “Christian who believes in evolution,” then what kind of Christian he was would be subject to public inquiry, and rightly so.

    He should have expected this, even if (being human), he didn’t.

    And he should have behaved honorably and been upfront and open when the issue came up, although we can all understand why he wasn’t.

    The real point of all this is that Ken’s and, on this thread, Ed’s claims of “I believe in evolution and I am a Christian” deserve to be treated with reasonable scrutiny, just as any claim about this subject does. And, when such scrutiny is applied, it often turns out that “Christians”who believe in evolution are playing games.

    This does not prove that evolution is false. I am quite certain (and I know a lot about the relevant science) that evolution is true.

    But, as Ken and Ed have both shown us, the “I’m a Christian and I believe in evolution” ploy deserves some skepticism.

    There is indeed a very real problem between Christianity and evolution.

    But is Ken Miller generally a good person, simply subject to all the foibles of all of us humans? Yeah, I think he probably is.

    Dave

    ReplyDelete
  169. Nightmare said to Harvey "Don't you see it HAS to exclude supernatural explanations? For the simple matter that they is no reliable, repeatable, objective way to investigate ANYTHING in the supernatural realm?"

    I'm sorry...I know this wasn't to me but I had to comment. It's ALL supernatural. From the big bang to to the first life on earth, it's all something from nothing.

    ReplyDelete
  170. Hi Dave!
    I just read your post to Gandy. I'm very concerned that there are these two websites carrying some authority that everyone's quoting from (talkorigins and wiki) and they are used to, basically, stop any discussion. It also explains whey I keep hearing kids say "evolution is a fact!"

    (what do you think about the situation in Afghanistan? I'm really torn, because I would like to see our young men and women come home)

    ReplyDelete
  171. Hi Nightmare!

    I'm sorry you felt I was implying there are only two sins when I said there is only one sin unto death (and you added the one unforgivable sin) No, I was speaking more on these lines:

    "These six things doth the LORD hate: yea, seven are an abomination unto him:

    A proud look, a lying tongue, and hands that shed innocent blood,

    An heart that deviseth wicked imaginations, feet that be swift in running to mischief,

    A false witness that speaketh lies, and he that soweth discord among brethren."
    ~Proverbs 6:16-19

    The downside of the meeting Jesus scenario of a wasted life is having nothing to add to the Kingdom, zero relationship with Christ, no rewards, nothing given to humanity that didn't get burned up in the end. We're only here once and only for a speck of time. Your Creator has things He wants to show you now, starting with a relationship.

    You said "In English, you get saved and fall away your are SCREWED. No repentance".

    I said "You just reminded me you used to be Catholic."

    Well, since the scripture in Hebrews didn't say you would lose your salvation but you thought it did, I had to look for clues as to where you were coming from and you said "no repentance".

    Let's just say what you already know - Catholicism teaches outside the Word of God a whole bunch of things.

    The Gospel of Grace to the gentiles is that Jesus Christ is the Son of God, He died for your sins and was resurrected. Believe this Gospel for salvation. Nothing about repentance. Though repentance is a good thing when possible - like the old law - it is doomed with failure and sets up the whole bondage thing again.

    ReplyDelete
  172. Actually, I've heard Protestant preachers on the radio saying you must repent to be saved, so that teaching has spun off into other religions too.

    ReplyDelete
  173. Laura said...
    I'm sorry...I know this wasn't to me but I had to comment. It's ALL supernatural. From the big bang to to the first life on earth, it's all something from nothing.

    Stating that everything is supernatural renders the word supernatural meaningless. Supernatural, by it's very definition, only has meaning in relation to the natural world of material objects, normal causation, etc. Besides, I see NO evidence that everything is supernatural. If it was I could do alot more than what I can I assure you ;)

    I'm sorry you felt I was implying there are only two sins when I said there is only one sin unto death (and you added the one unforgivable sin)

    Actually I was referring to one of my own thoughts - you simply seemed to be unknowingly confirming it XD

    The thought is this - that there are actually only two sins in Christianity, one forgivable, one unforgivable. They are:

    1) Being born (forgivable)
    2) Not being a Christian at time of death (unforgivable)

    It's really just a matter of simplification.

    The downside of the meeting Jesus scenario of a wasted life is having nothing to add to the Kingdom, zero relationship with Christ, no rewards, nothing given to humanity that didn't get burned up in the end.

    (shrug) In all honesty, so? I don't mean to be coy or obtuse, but I don't see how that would be different than anyone else in the world. If heaven is the heaven of an omnipotent god, then nothing anyone can do will or can add to it. If heaven is heaven, what more reward is needed or could be wanted? If heaven is eternal, I would have forever to have a relationship with Christ. And finally, in the view of Christianity, giving anything to humanity is pointless since the entire world is destroyed in the end, the saved want for nothing in heaven, and the damned are not worth mentioning (per Revelations). Do you understand my confusion a tad better now?

    The Gospel of Grace to the gentiles is that Jesus Christ is the Son of God, He died for your sins and was resurrected. Believe this Gospel for salvation. Nothing about repentance.

    (blink blink) So let me get this straight. You are of the opinion that repentance is utterly unnecessary in order to be saved. A nice tack on, that's all. Wow.

    You do realize of course that you are outside of EVERY form of Christianity I've ever seen in this? Catholic, Protestant, Assemblies of God, every type and form of fundamentalist, Eastern Orthodox, everything. You're simply off the charts here Laura, in no man's land.

    Repentance is taught by virtually even denomination. No repentance means no forgiveness means no salvation. It's the core thing of Christianity. Do a keyword search on Biblegateway.com for the word "repent" if you don't believe me, the concept is ALL over the bible.

    What you're suggesting is the kind of Christianity atheists criticize the most - Wanna be a serial killer? No prob, just believe in Jesus and keep on killing, you'll still get into heaven. Same goes for anything else, homosexuality, theft, murder, rape, arson, you name it. It's all ok so long as you believe.

    I may be reading you wrong here Laura (but I truly don't see how I could be, your wording is rather specific), but that's what you seem to be saying. And if that's the case, I sure am saved - hell, I'm a practitioner of Chaos magic, belief is our playground and deliberately holding multiple contradictory beliefs is child's play!

    http://www.ecauldron.net/chaosmagicprimer.php

    But seriously, help me out here Harv, cause what Laura seems to be saying here is not my jurisdiction or ballpark.

    ReplyDelete
  174. DSHP,

    You said,
    "I don't buy donations because I know that's not how it's done in the public schools (at least primarily)..."

    The schoolboard was advised not to buy the book through school money.
    You can read in the court transcripts that during the trial it was shown that a school board member asked his church for money to buy 50 of the books. Later, 50 copies were donated by an anonymous donor that turned out to be board member Buckingham's father.

    It was then shown that that Buckingham had lied about this in his deposition which incurred a lot of ire from Judge Jones.

    ReplyDelete
  175. Froggie,

    You asked:"Then why do you try to involve yourself in science?"

    Because science is important as I stated. Look, farming is all about science. The cars we dirve all about sciences...eveything we do is developed through the understanding of science, numbers, etc.

    So it's important. Science effects our social lives and activities.

    As I stated if we view our existence as a "chance' occurance, that will and I believe does have a devastating effect on the psychology, behavior, and morality of individuals.

    Now, this is not to say that persons who believe in morality are psychos, or immoral, but it does go further than that into what the real life's purpose and mission is...in life we have 2 choices,either take up our own purpose or take up a purpose greater than ours. At it's heart the Darwinian brand of evolution that Dawkins promotes strips a higher purpose of existence away from all humankind and lowers each of us to a slightly advanced animalistic state...

    If we see people acting like animals, my questions is why are we surprised when we've told them that that's all they were?

    All of that and then some are reasons to know science and be envolved in reasoning along these lines.

    Your question is like asking a pastor, "why should you be involved in social issues"...I know some who all they will do is preach a message, never been to court with someone in trouble,never attended a City Council meeting to find out what's going on in their community, never even attended a School Board meeting...To me, those ministries are WASTED...I know people can't do everything, but when you do nothing and are not involved, all you've done is prove that you're self-centered and I'm sorry but me and those types of ministers just don't get along.-LOL

    So this argument is not just for contention's sake it's to hopefully place some proper perspective on some very important issues.

    I could say more but I digress.

    ReplyDelete
  176. Froggie,

    Are you saying that it was only about a total of 100 books? Was this a small district?

    For instance where I live there thousands of books that would need to be secured for one high school and I would imagine the cost would exceed $250,000 per high school annually not to mention the grade school if they follow the same curriculum (which they do)

    I'm saying this because I know book sales are lucrative and there is a limited amount of companies that seriously compete in certain markets and only so many have the ability to put out product.

    ReplyDelete
  177. DSHB,

    They could see that there would be trouble making the book a class textbook so their plan was to insert the fifty (50) books into the library.

    I have no issue with that, however, uckingham lied about it showing his true color and intentions.

    ReplyDelete
  178. DSHB,

    You said,
    "But I think it's well within the realm of a spiritual advisor's duty, especially a 21st century pastor's duty, to know this issue, talk to his church about it as I do and know how and where to point people to resources on both sides of the issue so that they can att least be informed even if they reject it wholesale."

    I also think that we should all be aware of the important issues, but, when I see a spiritual advisor and pastor who is not educated in science making these claims I bristle. You addressed this but here is the deal.

    The deal is that your premise is absurd. You are using an important, yet dated cultural artifact, the bible, as your justification for rejecting evolution. The bible does not, and never did, speak to scientific issues.

    I will assume for now that you are also a young earther which is also absurd.

    My point is that the bible has everything to teach about the human spiritual condition and nothing to say about science.

    It is my opinion that you may have some serious issues since you seem to think that the veracity of the teachings of the Bible hinge on you trying to prove the earth is very young or that evolution did not happen.

    Evolution is a fact. That the universe and the earth are very old is fact. That in no way changes the true message found in the Bible.

    ReplyDelete
  179. Dave wrote: But, on this one particular point, he behaved in a deceptive manner, and he shouldn’t have.

    Again, while I can see where you're coming from, you've only provided two links - of which only one depicts Miller actually being asked the question when being grilled by Dawkins.

    But Miller is also a walking paradox to people like Dawkins. As he confessed in his book Finding Darwin’s God, Miller is a practicing Catholic, and as he pointed out to Dawkins, “I will persist in saying that religion for me, and for many other people, answers questions that are beyond the realm of science.”

    Of course he's a walking paradox for Dawkins, as he thinks religion of any kind is delusional. I don't understand how he can hold these views either. But if you've look at any statistics regarding the religious views of scientists, you'd know that Miller is in good company. How does his show Miller is being dishonest to Americans in general?

    Dawkins and Druyan proceeded to gang up on Miller. These arguments invariably devolve into snippy exchanges about the Genesis version of creation and unfold in a rhetorical no-man’s-land somewhere between King James and Watson and Crick. “I regard Genesis as the spiritual truth,” Miller said. “And I also think that Genesis was written in a language that would explain God that was relevant to the people living at the time. I cannot imagine—cannot imagine—Moses coming down from the Mount and talking about DNA, RNA, punctuated equilibrium. I don’t think he would have gotten very far.” Nonetheless, he reiterated his belief that the biblical stories of the world’s creation “are true in the spiritual sense and that they are written by human beings in the language of the time.”

    Dawkins, at the far end of the table, almost levitated out of his seat with indignation. “But what does that mean?” he demanded, voice rising. The audience rewarded his indignation with combustive applause. “Is it a caricature for me to ask you, since you are a Roman Catholic, do you believe Jesus had an earthly father?”

    “Ah, this is the famous Richard Dawkins question,” Miller replied, sounding a little defensive.

    “No, don’t ridicule it!” Dawkins shouted, relentless.

    “If I can just get a fragment of the body of Jesus,” Miller continued, “I could do DNA fingerprinting! I could figure out who gave Mary that Y chromosome!”

    “That’s a facetious answer!” Dawkins cried out, his face flushed with conviction, shaking his finger at Miller. “That’s a facetious answer!” The heat was so palpable that, as Margaret Wertheim, the moderator, said later, “At least now we know that Richard actually believes this. Before, I wasn’t sure if it was just a performance.”


    Here is in Dawkins in perfect form, trying to create some kind of causal chain of events he can refute. But Miller's response seems to indicate he thinks the question is irrelevant. He doesn't need Jesus to be born of a virgin any more than he needs human beings to be created in final form. And this drives Dawkins crazy. Rightfully so.

    But is this being dishonest? And to who, Dawkins? What evidence do you have that suggests Miller doesn't actually believe what he just said?

    Dave wrote: He should have anticipated that if he were going to testify publicly as a “Christian who believes in evolution,” then what kind of Christian he was would be subject to public inquiry, and rightly so.

    Here you're arguing that Miller should have been MORE transparent than he was before the trial. This is an argument I can agree with. He could have avoided this situation completely by being proactive with his beliefs.

    But to say that not directly answering a obviously loaded question when being grilled by by Richard Dawkins doesn't make miller "dishonest."

    When you read the transcript, It's seems clear that Dawkins is trying to make a point about scientists in general and he's trying to use Miller to make it.

    ReplyDelete
  180. Harvey you said to Froggie ..."If we see people acting like animals, my questions is why are we surprised when we've told them that that's all they were?"

    Harvey my friend do i really need to point out many many people who supposedly followed some god belief yet act like animals.

    This world is full of them Harvey and god beliefs have been around much longer than evolution.

    Honestly Harv i have yet to meet even (one) believer of god/s who show any real decent evidence that his/her belief makes for any real improvement of their humanity that would suggest the god belief made them any better than those without it.

    Oh yeah i know plenty who try to put on a great show.But acting is tiring and the gaping holes soon expose the reality.

    I prefer those who dont need a cover for playing sharades.I much prefer those who if nasty dont try to hide it.

    Let me refraze what you said to Froggie another way.If we try fooling people of a non existant non achievable higher goal connected to some supposed god/s,should we really expect to produce many honest humans or many fraudulent actors with high and almighty thoughts of themselves born out of being judgmental of any others without faith.

    Sorry Harvey my friend but my blood boils a little as i think about the many many nasty human gods of this earth that ive crossed paths with during my life time.Those that have been the cause of many suicides broken familys and marriages hidden sexual abuse heartbreak and much much more.And please please dont try telling me it dont happen in many so called godly gatherings.It does.

    I much much prefer a honest human animal anyday.

    These people dont try being that what they are not.

    Please dont take this as anger aimed towards you personally Harv,because its not.I have no personal dislike of you in fact (quite the oppersite),but i must still be honest about matters.

    My anger is aimed at the biggoted idea that the godly people of this world have proved their beliefs have made them better, when history actually reminds us time and time again its bull.

    It just cuts a raw nerve with me,and reminds me of a lifetime of nightmares produced by those who foolishly felt their godliness made them any better.

    ReplyDelete
  181. Nightmare said "Repentance is taught by virtually even denomination. No repentance means no forgiveness means no salvation. It's the core thing of Christianity."

    Can I repeat a word you used?
    Wow.
    Jesus is the core of Christianity.

    What does repent mean, and how is used in your view?

    Take Dave for example. You're saying that Dave can't be saved unless he repents (meaning repents of his sins). Dave doesn't believe he sins, so what would he repent of? You're talking dogma, not what the Bible says.

    Repentance - making a u-turn in the direction you're going. The only time Paul (who gave Jesus' Gospel to us) talks about repentance is to those breaking God's Commandments - those worshiping idols and fornication. Salvation is not "license". God's Commandments are still His Commandments.

    God doesn't live in the box you're putting Him in. It's not "do this, do that, and you will be saved". Don't you understand that there is not one thing you can add to the finished work of the Cross?

    Let me explain why this dogma is dangerous. Well, dangerous might not be the right word, because if you believe it or not, it doesn't effect your salvation, but it does effect your relationship with God.

    Let say that I was hooked on porn - that seems to be the biggy with men as of late. Ok, hooked on anything. I try to quit because I know I should. I repent, and then go back. I repent again, and then go back. I quit repenting and keep my porn. I'm convinced that God is not happy with me. I quit God.

    The first step to taking God out of the box is to read His Word - we're not Jews, so Romans to Philemon is our Gospel. We learn that we walk by the Spirit, and everything we do that matters is IN Christ and THROUGH Christ. Have a problem with porn? Take it to Jesus.

    That is, of course, if God hasn't already chastised us about it. Our loving Father correct who He loves, but because our flesh is weak, we are only made full in Christ.

    I don't know how wide-spread the dogma of repentance is, but I can tell you it's not the Gospel of Grace.

    "There is therefore now no condemnation to them which are in Christ Jesus, who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit.

    For the law of the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus hath made me free from the law of sin and death.

    For what the law could not do, in that it was weak through the flesh, God sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh, and for sin, condemned sin in the flesh:

    That the righteousness of the law might be fulfilled in us, who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit."
    ~Romans 8:1-4

    We should remember that Paul fought hard for us against the religious.

    ReplyDelete
  182. Laura,

    "The only time Paul (who gave Jesus' Gospel to us) talks about repentance is to those breaking God's Commandments."

    "....so Romans to Philemon is our Gospel."

    I agree, and Paul never taught the doctrine of hell either.
    There is no hell as some like to think.
    Paul, as the one to tke the gospel to the gentiles never once mentioned hell.

    ReplyDelete
  183. Froggie,

    You said:"...but, when I see a spiritual advisor and pastor who is not educated in science making these claims I bristle..."

    Froggie that's your opinion and I'm not trying to change it only open you up a little more. Pastoral ministry covers a lot of ground and should cover a lot and part of that is educating the people and leading them to good educational resources. Ther problem is not those having opinions and setting forth what is the best research and considerations in these type of ares, the problem is not giving correct biblical insights and perspectives as to what these issues really mean especially in light of scripture, so evey pastor is well within his means and his call to know, study and relate the aspects of darwinian evolution that are both harmful and destructive to society.

    You said:"The deal is that your premise is absurd. You are using an important, yet dated cultural artifact, the bible, as your justification for rejecting evolution. The bible does not, and never did, speak to scientific issues."

    You approach the subject from a radical perspective. First I haven't appealed to the authority of the bible except for stating that it says that God made man in his own image. Secondly, that opinion is not antiquated...unfortunately for you many people DO NOT believe that we come from a comoon ancestor along with apes etc...Most believe that we share a common creator. That's not antiquated and you have a hard time trying to prove otherwise based on an examination of the EVIDENCE, not personal opinion. Third, science DOES NOT have to take a metaphysical naturaist perspective as it does.

    That leads to antisupernaturalism and science shouldn't try a life philosophical point of view in relating what it calls theory. I just se things in a much more broad perspective than you as it pertains to this issue. Well, that's what I'm called to do.

    You said: "I will assume for now that you are also a young earther which is also absurd."

    You know what they say about the word ASSUME...however, if I were that wouldn't be an absurd perspective anyway. I don't specialize in arguing that position so I won't so please don't pick a fight with a shadow, you'll simply punch yourself out.

    You said:"My point is that the bible has everything to teach about the human spiritual condition and nothing to say about science."

    God has given us ALL THINGS that pertain to life and godliness. (2 Pet. 1:3)The bible teaches the Christian perspectives on all life issues including our view of science. At no point are we left to anything superior to God but all things are left to discovery ans the proper perspective is that all things tell of his glory...that's science done right. So what we see displays his hand at work...we don't see it blindly.

    You said:"It is my opinion that you may have some serious issues since you seem to think that the veracity of the teachings of the Bible hinge on you trying to prove the earth is very young or that evolution did not happen."

    You love wrestling strawmen don't you?

    You said:"Evolution is a fact.

    Depends upon how evolution is defined, under darwins and Dawkins construct it is not...we are not commonly descended for a lower or even higher animal.

    You said:"That the universe and the earth are very old is fact. That in no way changes the true message found in the Bible."

    Who said that it did? Ooh it was that STRAWNMAN you created-LOL

    Anyway, later.

    ReplyDelete
  184. Froggie,

    You sound like another apostate that we know when you said this:I agree, and Paul never taught the doctrine of hell either.
    There is no hell as some like to think...Paul, as the one to tke the gospel to the gentiles never once mentioned hell."


    Obviously you DON'T know the bible. However you can go HERE to read all about it because we've been there and done that.

    ReplyDelete
  185. Gandy,

    By the way thank you for your salutation last Sunday. I appreciate that very much. I forgot to mention it earlier.

    You said:"Harvey my friend do i really need to point out many many people who supposedly followed some god belief yet act like animals."

    Agree 100%, preach to the choir.

    You said:"This world is full of them Harvey and god beliefs have been around much longer than evolution."

    Now the question is, is it because of the "God belief" or the nature of sin? I believe the later and see it clearly.

    You said:"Honestly Harv i have yet to meet even (one) believer of god/s who show any real decent evidence that his/her belief makes for any real improvement of their humanity that would suggest the god belief made them any better than those without it."

    God uses human agency to help the world and there has been much more humanitarian effort from Christians than any other group of people in world history. Name the hospitals in your city. Are any of them names "Atheist Mercy General"? Or how about "Humanist Hope General"?

    I know that's silly but it drives home the point, only until recently have humanist organizations began to do anything to help society. Most established causes were inspired and or founded by people who lived and believed Christian principles.

    You said:"I prefer those who dont need a cover for playing sharades.I much prefer those who if nasty dont try to hide it."

    Me too!

    You asked:"If we try fooling people of a non existant non achievable higher goal connected to some supposed god/s,should we really expect to produce many honest humans"

    Yes we should since god is real.

    You continued:"or many fraudulent actors with high and almighty thoughts of themselves born out of being judgmental of any others without faith."

    You mean not delivered from the nature of sin? All I can say is that there is a difference between light and darkness and there is a difference between the people of God and the world. That difference does not always include me judging you, but that difference does include me determining what and where sin is an making a clear distinction in life based upon spiritual principles that I believe are lasting and eternal in nature. So there should be a marked difference in our views perspectives on certain issues.

    You said:"Sorry Harvey my friend but my blood boils a little as i think about the many many nasty human gods of this earth that ive crossed paths with during my life time."

    If by this you mean people that have taken advantage of people and killed many I believe we can spread the blame to many non-theists for that also historically...so once again the problem is less with religion as it is with a sinful and messed up heart.

    You said:"And please please dont try telling me it dont happen in many so called godly gatherings.It does."

    As long as you don't tell me that the people who don't believe in God are less responsible for their actions and atrocities over the course of humanity...they exist too and have taken many to the grave.

    You said:"Please dont take this as anger aimed towards you personally Harv,because its not.I have no personal dislike of you in fact (quite the oppersite),but i must still be honest about matters."

    Your opinion is equally as valid as any and appreciated.

    You said:"My anger is aimed at the biggoted idea that the godly people of this world have proved their beliefs have made them better, when history actually reminds us time and time again its bull."

    Yes people have failed, will fail and continue to fail, but they aren't our standard...and we can overcome and make a difference, that's what I try to do everyday. Your thoughts are appreciated though.

    ReplyDelete
  186. DSHB,

    You said,
    "Obviously you DON'T know the bible. However you can go HERE to read all about it because we've been there and done that."

    That link did not address my statement.
    Paul did not teach the doctrine of hell.
    Nowhere in his writings does he mention hell.

    ReplyDelete
  187. froggie,

    A fundamentalist and literalist such as you can deceipher what Paul talked about...

    read the comments of that post we address all of it clearly because that was one of the apostate assumptions also...BTW Paul had no primacy number 1 and he spoke of hell without calling it hell. He described it in a much worse manner.

    ReplyDelete
  188. Froggie said " agree, and Paul never taught the doctrine of hell either.There is no hell as some like to think.
    Paul, as the one to tke the gospel to the gentiles never once mentioned hell."


    On that reasoning, he doesn't say there isn't a hell either. Would we make Jesus a liar?

    Salvation is clear - there must be belief. Jesus said there is a place of torment and separation for God. So what do you think happens to you when you die?
    (assuming you are a non-believer)
    and what do you think the point was that God stepped down from Heaven, giving His all for us?

    ReplyDelete
  189. Sorry, Pastor Harvey. I didn't see your post before posting.

    ReplyDelete
  190. Nightmare, I want to be clear that repentance is a good thing - doing a u-turn when we see sin in our lives. But to give ourselves credit- to think that WE are involved in our salvation in any way but belief, is so, so wrong.

    Jesus is the vine, we are the branches. Apart from Him, we can do nothing, including making a successful u-turn.

    ReplyDelete
  191. The Parable

    It was a warm summer evening. Two people were walking along the beach listening to the gentle lapping of the waves and looking at the star-studded sky. They both spotted a light flashing out at sea. One of them was a professor of physics, the kind of scientist who thought of nothing but his work. Science was his life.

    He rushed to his car where, being the sort of person he was, he kept all kinds of scientific equipment. He got out a stopwatch and timed the flashes. He got out a photometer and measured the brightness of the flashes. He set up a spectrometer and recorded their spectrum. He noted the position of the light against the background stars. As he drove home along the coast road he stopped a couple of times and noted its position again as it appeared to move against the background stars, and did some triangulation calculations on his laptop.

    When he got home his wife said, ‘You look excited dear, did you see something interesting tonight?’ ‘Yes,’ he said, ‘I saw what I deduced was a heated tungsten filament, enclosed in a silica envelope, emitting a regular pattern of flashes of visible radiation at an intensity of 2,500 lumens from a distance of about 850 metres offshore.’

    The other person on the beach that night was a teenager going home from Sea Scouts. When she got home her mother said, ‘You look excited dear, did you see something interesting tonight?’ ‘Yes,’she said, ‘I saw a boat signalling SOS. I phoned the Coastguard, and they sent out the lifeboat.’

    This ‘parable’ illustrates the fact that the same event may have more than one level of explanation. Science, by the very methods which it uses, is restricted to the study of material things – matter and energy – and so its explanations are always expressed in materialistic terms. As a result it explains the mechanisms of nature – in the parable, how the flashing light was produced. It cannot answer questions about meaning and purpose – in the parable, why someone was shining the light and the message it carried. The scientific explanation could only go as far back as the tungsten lamp (the sec-ondary cause). It couldn’t get back behind it to the mind of the person using it(the primary cause).

    ReplyDelete
  192. Froggie said "I will assume for now that you are also a young earther which is also absurd."

    I think discussions like this one Harvey created are important for many reasons. I just wanted to point out one - how it can sure-up one's belief.

    I was on the fence about an old or new earth a week ago, and had been for some time. There is compelling evidence for both.

    But after reading everything here and doing my own research on this topic of "is evolution science", I have come to the conclusion that it's not flowery speech in Genesis, and God said what He meant to say. I don't think He even needs my "out" that a day is like a thousand years.

    I totally believe the Genesis story lock, stock and barrel.
    Thank you Pastor Harvey.

    ReplyDelete
  193. Post 1,of 3

    District Supt. Harvey Burnett said...
    Gandy,

    "By the way thank you for your salutation last Sunday. I appreciate that very much. I forgot to mention it earlier."

    Your welcome my friend. Its the god bit that worrys me a little,not folks getting together for company and friendship.Im all for more tribal/community type spirit,just dont think the better than thou attitude faith bits do much more than create division and nasty attitudes in the long run.If this wasnt really a very real problem of faith,we would not see all the division we do already see within faith its self.Baptist,Salvation army,morman,JW,open brethren,closed brethren,Amish,johnstown,on and on and on and on ....So very very many disgusting stinking faith made divisions.To make matters even worse, hundreds more new ones happening each year too.Bearing children with biggoted narcissistic type tendencies that then help breed more disharmony into society at large.Spreading it both within their own society and elsewhere worldwide.

    You said..."Now the question is, is it because of the "God belief" or the nature of sin? I believe the later and see it clearly."

    We could argue this point until the cows come home,i doubt i will convince you of any you dont wish to be convinced of.Best i can do is ask you to try to always be honest,and considder the divisions a (very few) instances of which ive recorded above.And ask yourself if its all about sin as you try to suggest,why does it happen so much within faith.

    You said.."God uses human agency to help the world and there has been much more humanitarian effort from Christians than any other group of people in world history. Name the hospitals in your city. Are any of them names "Atheist Mercy General"? Or how about "Humanist Hope General"?"

    Yes Harvey this is a problem i think needs to be looked at closely and adressed in future.Many non believers have helped provide the money in the past by giving to (faith charities),yet the faith believers then often use it as ammo against us to try making us look like the lessor humans.

    This has to stop ..I think there needs to be worldwide education of this problem,so people without faith need to learn not to give to charities who will then thank them in return by suggesting they are not so caring without possesing any belief of god/s.

    Not only was faith belief more popular in many many years gone by which accounts for many of the hospitals etc you discribe,but the other problem ive discribed was always around also.

    We are entering a new age now,and in future time will tell the real honest break down of the equation you have put forward.

    You said..."Yes we should since god is real."

    (Oh i do agree) if god/s is real we should see the fruits to back up the claim.But sadly i dont believe we really (honestly) do.

    You said...."You mean not delivered from the nature of sin? All I can say is that there is a difference between light and darkness and there is a difference between the people of God and the world"

    Oh yes i agree there is a difference between light and darkness.Just depend on whether we agree that man thinking/guessing he know there is some god is anything to do with the light or the dark.And until he know for real honestly damm sure,how likely his judgment ever gonna be much good?.Take a good look around and see how good the light/dark actually been.

    ReplyDelete
  194. 2 of 3 posts

    You said..."If by this you mean people that have taken advantage of people and killed many I believe we can spread the blame to many non-theists for that also historically...so once again the problem is less with religion as it is with a sinful and messed up heart."

    Oh the old hitler :) connection faith folks like to throw at us,yet cant seem to show many of us is turning into hitlers for some strange reason.Hitlers are obsolutists like many faith folks are,non faith folks tend to be not so absolutists strangely enough.The maths just dont add up on this one in (my opinion) Harv.And i feel for those who finding themselves in a corner who to try to save face a bit seem to need to revert to low blows.Even if they had a honest case why they think two wrongs somehow make a right i dont know.

    But no!! im talking about judgments within faiths that have caused much sadness and hurt.Family divisions and shunnings and excommunications and quite a large number of resulting suicides.Wives splt from husbands and parents from children.And sexual abuse and much nasty practices that have been keeped well hidden to try to uphold faithful folks pride.

    Thats what im talking about Harv.And may the truth of these matters be kept getting found out and ripped out from the covers and exposed for what it is.

    ReplyDelete
  195. 3 of 3 posts

    You said..."As long as you don't tell me that the people who don't believe in God are less responsible for their actions and atrocities over the course of humanity...they exist too and have taken many to the grave."

    Im quite happy to admit we are equal humans no matter what ...But you think not because you said above we should teach faiths and gods because you feel it will make some difference Quote:..."Yes we should since god is real."

    If we shouldnt expect a difference whats the good of it? ...Division? ...narcissism?..disharmony?..Im better than you all are im going to some heaven you going to some hell nah na nah na nah attitude?....Oh and we hate gays too!!...But jesus loves me

    You say..."Your opinion is equally as valid as any and appreciated."

    Well Harvey im not spending time discussing this stuff with you cause i like to be nasty and personally dislike you or something.the reason i do is because i feel there is a very big need for much stuff to finally get sorted out so change can happen A.S.A.P.....And Pastors like yourself i feel hold a certain key that could help matters a whole lot if they were willing to atleast do some very honest thinking .

    However with or without the help of pastors i still feel very sure some radical change soon enough will happen ..I have absolutely no doubts about it at all.

    The problem that worries me is without the help of pastors we might find the radical change is much much much more radical than what it really needs to be.And some folks may get hurt in the process...This is hopefully what can be avoided...But without people working together willingly on both sides,i worry that much hurt may be very unavoidable.

    You said..."Yes people have failed, will fail and continue to fail, but they aren't our standard...and we can overcome and make a difference, that's what I try to do everyday. Your thoughts are appreciated though."

    It seems to me to have been the standard for far to long now Harvey.I agree i think it can be overcome,but much change need to come within faith circles not just without faith .Which is why i ask pastors like you to beseech other pastors and priests to try stopping the spanners being thrown into the works..To talk with them about why some god wouldnt want humans who he gave a mind and hands to use,to not use science and technology etc to find out more about him if they are able to.

    Like i say Harvey folks on both sides (faith and non faith) are interested to know more about what the actual honest facts of the matter is.You faithful trying to stop people finding out only seems to suggest a WHOLE LOT MORE you are fibbing and hiding the truth which in the end can only lead to less and less faith anyway.

    And who will be to blame for that on this judgment day you say you believe in?...On whos hands will the blood lay?.

    See Harvey you and plenty others might think people like me really enjoy a hobbie of blogging and annoying folks of faith.

    But hey there is much much more to it than that ..Its no enjoyable hobbie!!....Its just becoming a very very important subject that needs to be addressed.

    Like i said once im dead and gone,my children and their children are the ones that then need to try to live on.

    What say ye Harvey my friend.

    ReplyDelete
  196. Gandy,

    I say that ye be makin' a LOT of sense!

    You said:"If we shouldn't expect a difference whats the good of it? ...Division? ...narcissism?..disharmony?..Im better than you all are im going to some heaven you going to some hell nah na nah na nah attitude?....Oh and we hate gays too!!...But jesus loves me"

    I think that is something that every Christian should read. The witness to the world is not so much in "mouthiness" but in actions.

    You know John over at DC shared in that video, the moment that he decided NOT to be a Christian any longer. He stated that after the movie "The Passion Of The Christ" everyone was going to the front of the theatre to commit to Christ and he ran the other way AFTER he saw his friend at the altar.

    The problem was that his friend was IN an adulterous relationship, yet calling people to repentance and 'supposedly' leading them to Christ.

    Man, I have shared his story with my church and preached consistently that our life must come up to what we say we believe as Christians.

    My dear friend and comrade Laura asked me about one of the posts I did on Faith and Works and I told her, that the importance of the post was to shake Christians into acting and being what the bible says we should be instead of relying the word "faith" without undertaking any faith "actions".

    Now don't get me wrong, in order to stand for right, sometimes a Christian has to be unpopular and go against popular cultural opinions and I'll gladly do that in a heart beat. I stand against homosexuality for many reasons INCLUDING biblical ones, I stand against other types of immorality usually for more than a singular reason...BUT...the way we do what we do makes all the difference. When I become inhumane in my zeal and "righteousness", I've crossed the line IF Jesus is my example of servitude.

    So you say a mouthful of things my friend that are highly worth noting. Out of all the things I've done in ministry I'm glad I've taken the time to know, disagree with, get mad at and laugh with people who disagree with me. It really has made me a better person and (I hope) a better minister.

    Yes, I believe the Love of Jesus supersedes anything in life, but if I can let that love show through me...I'll be doing what I'm supposed to do, and since I know God like I do, I'm confident he'll do the rest.

    ReplyDelete
  197. Harvey wrote: Froggie that's your opinion and I'm not trying to change it only open you up a little more.

    Harvey,

    I think you have the best of intentions. I really do.

    But, as Froggie has notied, you're making claims about a subject which you know very little about.

    For example, you claimed to be knowledgeable about ID, yet neither of you seemed to know any of the details of a landmark trial regarding Intelligent Design. Laura had no idea who Ken Miller was and you kept asking questions that were already answered at the trial.

    Beyond this, it seems clear you actually viewed or read very few of the references I provided. Had you watched the NOVA special or read the transcripts from the trial, you would have known that the books were donated, where the money came from and how much they cost.

    I don't know what else to suggest as it's clear no amount of evidence could sway your opinion.

    The only way you'd change your mind is if you actually saw humans evolve from a primate ancestor. But this obviously will not happen as we do not have a time machine. Nor will any of us live long enough to see human beings evolve in the future. However, even then, given God's supposed abilities, God could have created the universe five minutes ago and programmed us with false memories of seeing humans evolve as a test. Or you could claim is was faked as part of a conspiracy on the part of science.

    Would you actually go this far?

    You yourself said that, If evolution is true, you'd conclude NOTHING has any value. As such, suffering humiliation by publicly rejecting each and every scientific theory would be better than destroying your entire system of belief and value.

    This is NOT about facts, it's about how evolution conflicts with your religious beliefs, which is your foundation of morality and value.

    I've mentioned this before, yet you have yet to respond. Nor do I think you can respond without acknowledging this is true.

    ReplyDelete
  198. Laura,

    You said:"I totally believe the Genesis story lock, stock and barrel."

    And I say thank you Laura. I agree Genesis doesn't need an excuse.

    There's a lot in the account that very few even discuss yet alone try to make dogmatic assertions about.

    There are all kinds of treasures in the account.

    ReplyDelete
  199. Scott,

    You said:"But, as Froggie has notied, you're making claims about a subject which you know very little about."

    Scott, I know just as much as some and a lot more than many, I really don't fee inferior on this subject at all...

    You said:"For example, you claimed to be knowledgeable about ID, yet neither of you seemed to know any of the details of a landmark trial regarding Intelligent Design."

    Was Dover the litmus test for ID? I think not. The court didn't invalidate it, only held that it wasn't science in the COURTS opinion. Has the COURT even been wrong before?...I think we need to ask death row inmates in Texas and Illinois about that one. The answer is a stark YES. Let's go back to abortion ask the same question...I KNOW they got that one wrong too...courts don't exactly settle science in any given age...

    You said:"Beyond this, it seems clear you actually viewed or read very few of the references I provided. Had you watched the NOVA special or read the transcripts from the trial, you would have known that the books were donated, where the money came from and how much they cost."

    Well, youngsta, when you live as long as I have and seen as much as I have or know what I know, you wouldn't be so STUPID as to believe that people are really arguing out of the goodness of their hearts...there's always an ulterior motive and believe me, there's one whether you want to believe it or not...SEE it's people like you, that are food for people like Jim Jones...you look and say you'd never follow a cat like that, but you fight for people and personalities that you've never met all based on a video and testimony that you "think" you understand...I don't know whether that's just youth or foolishness, but either way, I hope you live long enough to return one day and say Mr. Burnett thank you for helping me to see this world as it is...If nothing else I hope you make it past yourself and really learn the lessons of life as they are.

    You said:"I don't know what else to suggest as it's clear no amount of evidence could sway your opinion."

    Then maybe you should stop trying to sway me and simply state what you claim to be a fact so we won't come to these sort of impasses...evidently, you like it here but you're skeptical and that's ok...only loose the "try so hard" and just rationally set forth your argument...we hear ya...and you don't know what anyone here knows including me...so just make your points and deal with the rebuttals...not for Miller's sake, but for yours.

    You said:The only way you'd change your mind is if you actually saw humans evolve from a primate ancestor."

    The only way I'd change my mind was if God lied, and that'll NEVER happen...Our paths and monkeys have NEVER crossed my friend. I know you wish it to be so because it makes sense to what you believe is a rational mind, but I've had a lot of things that I thought made sense to me too and as i look back I'm soooo glad I was wrong.

    You said:"However, even then, given God's supposed abilities, God could have created the universe five minutes ago and programmed us with false memories of seeing humans evolve as a test. Or you could claim is was faked as part of a conspiracy on the part of science....Would you actually go this far? "

    Look, I'm gonna say this one time...WALK AWAY FROM THE COMPUTER...take a rest OK. You're gettin' a little too far out there for me...

    end pt. 1

    ReplyDelete
  200. Scott,

    Pt 2

    You said:"You yourself said that, If evolution is true, you'd conclude NOTHING has any value. As such, suffering humiliation by publicly rejecting each and every scientific theory would be better than destroying your entire system of belief and value."

    Scott, belief in nothing only leads to self created value systems. In other words the only thing that has value is what YOU establish. That may be good and noble but belief in God, especially a God of moral goodness as is found within Christianity, creates what is called objective morality. That objective morality is good, regardless of my opinions about it, therefore it is concrete and non illusionary. This is the difference. So I don't know what you were trying to get at, but the facts are that IF all is just a result of blind, process and random mutations, then that gives us no reason to be moral...further that gives us no reason to be held accountable to anyone for anything, even if we do, there is no reason to be. That's really a simple but profound philosophical point.

    You said:"This is NOT about facts, it's about how evolution conflicts with your religious beliefs, which is your foundation of morality and value."

    The supposed facts of Darwinian evolutionary theory and Dawkins resurrection of it conflict with many of my beliefs religious ones included. I point them out clearly...I further say so what?

    You said:"I've mentioned this before, yet you have yet to respond. Nor do I think you can respond without acknowledging this is true."

    I don't know when you mentioned it before but I hope you're satisfied. was there any particular POINT to this little tirade??? please let me know.

    ReplyDelete

Please send me an email if you try to post a comment and cannot do so. Dunamis1@netzero.com. Thanks.