The New Origin of Species
A review of: The New Origin of Species - Darwin’s Work Is Being Undone by Modern Genetics
Answers in Genesis is, without question in my mind, a con outfit. They routinely put forth articles like this attempting to discredit science so as to push a literal interpretation of the Bible: Earth < 10,000 years old, dinosaurs coexisting with human beings, etc.
Here is a recent article that illustrates the game played by an organization that works overtime to keep their (paying) flock misinformed (and loyal). My comments will simply critique select quotes from the article. Readers of course have access to the full article (and the author's book) for context.
This article is about a brilliant PhD researcher ( Nathaniel T. Jeanson ) - a Harvard graduate - who has been a lifelong Young Earth Creationist and who now seeks to use his knowledge of biology to illustrate that evolution -as commonly understood- is wrong. Note: I do not question the credentials or the intelligence of Dr. Jeanson. I have no doubt this is a very smart individual who understands biology.
Quoting from the article ...
You don’t know what you don’t know. In his time, Charles Darwin sought to fill huge gaps in his knowledge regarding species. And armed primarily with an 1800s education and his two eyes , perhaps Darwin did the best he could —at least the best anyone could who starts out to explain creation without the Creator. Yet Darwin published On the Origin of Species in 1859. Since then, science has exploded astronomically, developing enthralling new fields no one in those pre–Civil War days foresaw. No doubt, a peek at the technology in a twenty-first-century laboratory would have blown Darwin’s mind.
First, Darwin does not explain creation . He explains origin of species . This is not a subtle point. Perhaps this an honest mistake by this brilliant man? Moving on.
The quote in general implies that since Darwin's knowledge was far less than what we know today, his fundamental finding - biological evolution - is no longer valid. It implies that science today has effectively overturned evolution (but the scientific community does not realize it). You think I am exaggerating? Look at the next quote:
In other words, today’s men and women of science can scrutinize more biological data than Darwin ever imagined. In fact, in Jeanson’s revolutionary book, Replacing Darwin: The New Origin of Species , he argues that today’s ocean of new knowledge has overwritten Darwin’s explanations for the origin of species. One of Jeanson’s goals for writing Replacing Darwin is to point evolutionists to fresh, eye-opening research.
What interesting word choice: ' overwritten '. The implication is that Darwin was wrong. The reality is that science has indeed discovered an amazing amount of evidence that corroborates Darwin's findings. Corroboration vs overwritten. Rather big difference. Let's continue.
... is to point evolutionists to fresh, eye-opening research.
As if 'evolutionists' are not aware of modern advances in evolutionary biology? Think I am exaggerating? Look at the next quote (from Jeanson himself):
“In publishing Replacing Darwin , I know I’m challenging the scientific views of 97–99% of the professional scientific community . ..."
So think about it. Is the confusion more likely yours (Dr. Jeanson) or (in effect) the entire worldwide scientific community? 
--- skipping over Dr. Jeanson's biography, his religious calling, his employment at AiG, etc. ---
THE FIELD OF SCIENCE CONCERNED WITH INHERITANCE IS THE FIELD OF GENETICS. CONSEQUENTLY, THE QUESTION OF THE ORIGIN OF SPECIES IS, ULTIMATELY, A QUESTION OF GENETICS.Didn’t Darwin examine genetic data?
Hardly, Jeanson explains: “In 1859, genetics wasn’t even a field of science. The term genetics wasn’t invented until after the turn of the century. The molecule that we know now as the substance of heredity, DNA, wasn’t recognized as such until nearly 100 years after Darwin wrote On the Origin of Species .
This is sophistry. He is implying that since evolution ultimately is a question of genetics (it is not, by the way, since that ignores the environment's role in natural selection) that Darwin could not possibly have come up with the right answer. Darwin did indeed come up with a correct (per current knowledge) explanation of how species originate even though he had no knowledge of genetics. This is like arguing that Einstein's theory of Relativity is flawed because it predated accurate instruments (e.g. orbiting telescopes) to measure cosmological bodies and subsequent discoveries (e.g. dark energy / matter). This is not only nonsense, it is offensive. This is the kind of crap AiG routinely puts out to dumb down the public.
When we graph all these differences in human mitochondrial DNA, we discover that the human family divides into three different groups (see green dots in Figure 2). This is just what we would expect if all humans came from three women who got off Noah’s Ark just a few thousand years ago.
How convenient. The above quote is one of several claims. Basically, Dr. Jeanson is out to correlate data with his YEC beliefs. The article does not offer sufficient details, basically just claims. But Dr. Jeanson is, in effect, claiming that HE -using the same scientific tools and data as the rest of the world's scientists- has found an alternate and valid interpretation that is different than 97-99% of the world scientists and this interpretation, coincidentally, aligns neatly with his religious views of a young Earth.
Without a doubt, Jeanson’s Replacing Darwin: A New Origin of Species will ignite controversy.
Yes folks, Dr. Jeanson is going to turn all of science on its ear and illustrate that the entire field of biology is wrong. He will show that all lifeforms are no more than about 6,000 years old and argue (no doubt) that the dating methods (and the evidence) that show life dating back at least 3.5 billion years are all wrong.
Tags
Who is online
418 visitors
This article from AiG I found particularly offensive. These folks have no shame IMO.
Hi TiG, your article is very well written and perfectly demonstrates the level of intellectual dishonesy many theists (especially YECs) engage in to undermine or subvert science in favor of dogma. It's like some people prefer sheer ignorance over knowledge. It boggles the mind.
Well, it kind of reminds me of the new Directv commercials, "Some people prefer cable over Directv, just like some people like getting run over by a train." (que someone getting run over by a train and, laughing at the same time).
Good morning,
It always astounds me that Darwin is (symbolically) presented as leaping full-grown from the brain of Zeus... as though Darwin's theory was born from nothing. Ummm.... farmers??
They have been cross-breeding both animals and plants since roughly the day after they first moved on from hunting-and-gathering. It has been known to be possible to promote desirable traits since... forever, basically.
What Darwin did was explain the mechanism by which all living things, themselves , unwittingly , promote desirable traits.
No guide / invisible hand / God needed. And that is why the Bible-thumpers feel the need to discredit Darwin.
Nor did Darwin develop his ideas in splendid intellectual isolation. No ivory tower. For "natural selection" to operate, the world needs time. Lots and lots of time . While Darwin developed his theory, the (silly, IMHO) reconstruction of the age of the world by addition of the life spans of Biblical personages, by James Ussher, Bishop in the Church of Ireland , two centuries earlier, was contemporaneously being demolished by the new science of geology. Geologists looked at the ways the Earth had been sculpted by water and wind, guesstimated the time required, and concluded that many, many, many, many, many millions of years were needed.
In fact, "natural philosophers" were already presenting various theories to explain the remarkable warmth of the Earth after so much time.
Gregor Mendel's work, explaining the impact of dominant and recessive traits in heredity, was sadly lost during Darwin's time, but its existence is a demonstration that "the time was ripe" for Darwin's theory.
And of course, Alfred Russel Wallace came to the same conclusions as Darwin at the same time, if with far less meticulous documentation.
There seems to exist a notion among Young Earthers (first cousins of Flat Earthers) that if only they can discredit Darwin, the edifice of natural selection will crumble. No.
Darwin was brilliant, but his ideas were of their time.
In context of your entire post, it is troubling that the forces such as AiG have successfully preserved a cultural mindset that evolutionary science is wrong because it contradicts the biblical age of the Earth per Ussher's literal analysis of the Bible.
Why do skeptics speak out? One answer is purposeful acts to keep millions ignorant simply to preserve their revenue stream. Religion is a business and it does what it takes to remain viable.
Money and power.
The Unthinking Faithful TM must always be told the same stories; they must hear those unchanging stories from the same Authoritative Sources TM , both political and religious, so that they never have any reason to ask questions. Those Authoritative Sources TM have come to see their interests (money and power) to be so tightly knit that they have effectively fused into a single entity.
Indeed.
Those who have neither need different tactics.
Do not mistake a small group of nutters for a movement or a "successfully preserved cultural mindset".
There are fewer of these idiots than there are people who believe in astrology. (which is also nuttery)
Not true
38% of Americans believe in the Biblical view of Creation
1 in 5 Americans with a post graduate degree hold that view
It takes far more faith in evolution than to believe the Biblical record.
And for those who don't know my view on this.
There is no contradiction between the literal Book of Genesis record and the age of the earth being 4.5-6 billion years of age
There is no contradiction between the literal Book of Genesis record and the consensus view of modern man being present approximately 10,000 years
Fortunately we still have many hundreds of accomplished scientists (including Nobel winners) in all the scientific disciplines including anthropology and biology who categorically reject this phony "science".
Website on age of the earth
obviously you didn't bother to read what I linked- 21 Nobel Laureates oppose evolution as fact. I think that's pretty reputable
The following link with a list of UK Academic Scientists including Prof Norman Nevin who has over 300 peer reviewed publications in genetics oppose evolution
Biologic Institute is a non-profit research organization founded in 2005 for the purpose of developing a new approach to biology. Thanks to technological advances, the life sciences have become very effective at acquiring facts. What they need now is a theoretical foundation that makes sense of these facts. Some still claim that Darwin’s theory does just that, but the ongoing struggle to make sense of genomic data (for example) indicates otherwise.
Scientists affiliated with Biologic Institute are working from the idea that life appears to have been designed because it really was designed. That’s a hypothesis, not a theory, and while it obviously has huge philosophical implications (made even more huge by the the fact it appears to be correct) it doesn’t do much for biology if left at that. Yet it could be the gateway to big things if interested biologists are allowed to work from that starting point. The science establishment is decidedly against this, but the truth is that no one will know how much the design-centered approach will benefit biology until that approach is taken by enough people for a full theory to come out of it.
This group may not be as small as you might think. About 1 in 10 Americans hold that the Earth is less than 10,000 years old .
YEC's are substantially more prevalent than, say, flat earthers. And organizations such as AiG are quite substantial businesses actively seeking to maintain a healthy supply of faithful. This is to be taken seriously IMO.
The Biologic Institute conducts biological research with the aim of producing experimental evidence of intelligent design , funded by the Discovery Institute even though "many scientists regard intelligent design as little more than creationism dressed up in pseudoscientific clothing". [1] [2] It has offices in Redmond, Washington and laboratories in the Fremont neighborhood of Seattle , Washington. [3]
Scientific study does not begin with an "aim" other than to discover what is real, repeatable and verifiable … and ever subject to being re-examined for accuracy. Any "research" that aims for a preferred outcome is bias-loaded and subject to faked conclusions.
No....it really is.
And? There is a gargantuan difference between believing God created man and believing He did so in a 24 hour period or that He is testing us with fake dinosaur fossils, or other such ridiculous bullsh*t.
Correct. Which is what most Christians believe, why my initial statement was correct, why we don't actually disagree, and why your desire to argue this is a bit puzzling.
I realize you may find this disappointing but I don't search your profile reading all of your comments before I post on a seed. Maybe everybody else does and I'm just the odd one out, but I kinda doubt it.
From your own link:
It is also widely known that Americans are utter and complete morons when it comes to math. How else does Bernie Sanders (the king of mathematically impossible policy) get ten million votes?
Americans cancel trips to Europe over fear of terrorism. Liberals scream about how Fox News determines the outcomes of elections despite the fact that fewer than 1% of Americans actually watch. The overwhelming majority of Americans do not understand how to describe 1 billion....much less the difference between millions, billions and trillions. Millions of people have downloaded "tip calculator" apps for their phones because we as a nation cannot manage to calculate 15% of a restaurant tab.
Scroll through your Facebook feed and it doesn't take long to find 200 adults arguing about the correct answer to a 7th grade math problem, with most of them getting it wrong.
Asking them a question about 10,000 years vs 5 billion years is like asking them a question in ancient Hebrew.
Between 31% and 45% of Americans believe astrology is a science.
Now, we allow people that foolish to drive cars, vote, sign contracts, raise children and walk around in public without supervision. Why aren't we taking that seriously?
It would seem so.
And I would say this is addressed by constantly attempting to educate. We cannot just shrug our shoulders and say que sera sera. Especially when there are forces such as AiG working overtime to keep people misinformed (and uninformed).
We have hundreds of millions of people who can't do basic math. We have a couple hundred thousand at most who think the world was created in 144 hours.
Yet, astrology has survived for thousands of years. It is the "nutter" that you must watch out for in every society.
How many billions of people is that? They do have children and, they teach their children what they believe.
I personally believe the earth is billions of years old.
just sayin.
You're joking, surely.
You have me worried that you're not actually joking.
Ambrose Bierce and I would argue it is the idiots you must watch out for in every society. His quote:
I wish that were true but it is not. YECs hold that the Earth was created in 6 24 hour days. All biblical literalists (a superset of YECs) believe likewise. All those who simply take Genesis literally (a larger superset still) believe likewise.
It is estimated that 1/10 of the USA population are YECs. That would be approximately 32 million people just in the USA. That is the smallest set in the above analysis.
That is not what your own cited article says. That is not the definition they use.
Not the way you are defining them. At least not the way your source defines them
You do realize the irony of complaining about other people being bad a science while misinterpreting a scientific article, yes?
Also, you never did answer why you're worried about these people and not worried about the 100+ million astrology morons. Why do you care about one and not the other?
Which citation are you referring to. Show me where YECs do not believe that the Earth was formed in 6 24 hour days.
Again, be specific. Which source are you referring to? Show me the quote. Don't just make vague claims.
Excuse me? If you are going to make claims that I am wrong about a fact back up your claims with a quote.
Not the topic, but the immediate answer is that these are not serious organizations trying to force creationism as scientific curriculum and engaging in an organized, serious effort to dumb down millions of people in the US alone. There are plenty of beliefs that I think cause societal harm. Astrology, psychics, etc. can be treated in their own topic. My question to you is why you are insisting on this tangent rather than focusing on the topic?
Pretty damn sure that mom was a virgin.
But the Earth didn't really exist until I was born.
From your NCSE link....
He establishes that definition, then proceeds to talk about continental drift before making his 1 in 10 conclusion.
1. "Answers in Genesis" is a "serious organization"??? Not in 10,000 years. Or 5 billion years...take your pick.
2. Why is "forcing creationism" more important than legitimizing astrology, or distributing false videos on Facebook (Patriotic Millionaires), or simply issuing HS diplomas to a hundred million people who don't know how much a billion is?
3. As far as "dumbing down"....that ship has sailed.
The topic is a case study in "focusing on small issues while ignoring large ones".
I correctly reported his 1 in 10 conclusion - your 'math' complaint seems to have disappeared. You seem to be (oddly) complaining that because the author did not include the 6 24 hour day factor when describing YECs that his 1 in 10 estimate is wrong. You do (one would expect) understand that YECs believe quite a bit more than a young Earth. Do you really expect the author to enumerate their beliefs rather than give a general description??
Here is a simple summary:
The above seem to be facts.
Yes. The fact that they are promoting nonsense does not take away from the fact that they are running a serious business. This is not a blog site, this is fully functioning business with high quality marketing, an active product line, at least two substantial paid attractions, a research staff, sales, recruitment, etc. Disagree with them all you wish (I certainly do) but to be objective one cannot ignore the fact that this is a serious organization.
This is a critical article on actions by AiG (a major YEC organization). You seem to think I am supposed to write about everything in a single article. Look, write your own critical article on astrology. I will then come into your article and repeatedly complain that you are not ALSO taking on worldwide religious indoctrination. Would that be appropriate?
So you would have us never discuss specific topics - all discussions must exclusively be broad scoped, big picture?? Take a look around Jack. That is not how human beings operate. We discuss all sorts of topics from extremely narrow scope to extremely broad scope. Your complaints are unrealistic.
If you think astrology is THE BIG topic to discuss then write an article on it rather than attempt to disrupt an article on AiG/YEC with pointless complaints.
*sigh*
I expect that if you are going to cite a scientific article you should understand the importance of the specific definition of success or failure per outcome used within the study. The study would be useless without those definitions, and it becomes useless when you attempt to ignore those definitions. .
The article is not about his beliefs. It is a technical article that details his research methods and conclusions. That's why the details matter and why pretending he meant to say things he didn't is not a credible assessment.
The article agrees with point 2 and 3. It says nothing about point 1, which is your own (as yet unsubstantiated) belief.
Here again is the author's concluding estimate: " In short, then, the hard core of young-earth creationists represents at most one in ten Americans ". If you do not understand ( and of course you understand ) that the author estimates about 1 in 10 Americans are YECs then there is no point trying to explain it to you.
At this point I am going to ask you to either make comments on the actual article or cease commenting on this article. The benefit of the doubt that you are genuinely attempting to add value, in my judgment, is long gone.
“When we graph all these differences in human mitochondrial DNA, we discover that the human family divides into three different groups (see green dots in Figure 2). This is just what we would expect if all humans came from three women who got off Noah’s Ark just a few thousand years ago.”
Cue massive eye roll.
This is what religionists do. In attempting to bolster one religious point, the take another one for granted. As if the whole ark scenario is a given. The great flood and the ark present some of the most ridiculous concepts in the Bible, period. If he’s going to pretend to be scientific about detailed biology, then he should extend that courtesy to an analysis on what kind of structure could:
- be made by hand by a handful of people with hand tools
- be big enough to house an impossible number of animals and food and shelter to keep those animals alive for several week without them eating each other
- be able to withstand the kind of weather that would come with a planet whose surface is entirely water (aka hurricanes)
And by the way, where did that impossible amount of water come from, and where did it go? And seriously - male/female pairs of animals that only exist in exotic places somehow found their way across the planet to the ark? That anyone could buy into such garbage is disheartening for our species.
AiG is also well known for cherry-picking science. They will use (albeit reinterpreted) scientific findings for credibility while (ironically) arguing against other scientific findings such as (and typically) evolution.
What still amazed me is the power of faith. Here we have clearly a knowledgeable biologist who is channeling his knowledge to try to twist reality into something that matches the naive understanding of ancient men looking around and wondering how those dots of light got up there and what they mean.
Importantly, from the article, observe that AiG pats Darwin on the head and notes that he did pretty good but alas he only had 19th century tools:
Do the faithful not realize the irony that they themselves are literally taking the words of ancient men going back to 1,000 BC as literal truth and discrediting the findings of a 19th century scientist?? Genesis is estimated to have been penned by ancient men looking up at the sky and observing their local terrain about 3,000 years ago. One could say they did the best they could with what they had.
I also like this:
How would ancient Hebrew writers know that the moon is simply reflecting light from the sun? To them it looks like a 'great light' so they write about it as such. They did the best they could. Of course had there been divine insight, Genesis could have delivered impressive evidence of at least a profoundly advanced extraterrestrial intelligence by offering knowledge that these ancient men could not possibly posses.
Have many times dressed warm, laid out in a heavyweight sleeping bag on a pool lounger with a six pack of beer and a few joints in the hope of seeing "stars fall from the sky".
The old saying, ''it takes all kinds'' seems to really fit in this instance. I rarely ever comment on religious articles, (seems pointless to me). But this is beyond the ridiculous, IMO...
The various religionist agendas are ultimately self-serving, often cover for insidious motives, political objectives, racist and ethnocentric motives … but rarely …
… Godly motives.
Those who are sincere in their religious beliefs, IMHO, tend to manifest their sincerity by way of living "The Golden Rule"!
A CHALLENGE FOR ALL EVOLUTION DENIERS (a.k.a. "CREATIONISTS")
• Voluntarily expose yourself to a pathogenic (disease-causing organism) until clearly infected
• Receive an anti-biotic
• In the event the antibiotic ceases to be effective, CONTINUE WITH IT NEVERTHELESS …
BECAUSE YOU DON'T BELIEVE THAT ORGANISMS EVOLVE!
And pray for a cure.
Keep the faith.
I love Neil deGrasse Tyson's intellect. I wish that I had his patience.
This is one of my favorite videos ....
and this is one of his more recent (short answer on the existence of a god)
There's a lot of emotion and dogma tied up in all sides of this issue. Real discussion of the topic needs to involve open minds and not be about "defeating" or silencing the other side. I'm a religious person, but I don't feel like I have a dog in the fight. Investigation into how organisms develop will only reveal another marvelous aspect of God's creation. You can be an atheist and share that view absent the God part. I feel like both sides are guilty - in varying degrees - of confirmation bias.
That will probably make several people angry. Oh well!
Shepboy is entitled to his opinion and belief system. Lets play nice.
He's entiyled to his opinions or beliefs. He's not entitled to his own facts.
Nobody's telling you what evidence you can use. You are free to post all the biased information you want. We are free to dismiss it as biased.
When we examine your "evidence", we find it to be riddled with falsehoods, much like your comments. I don't think you're intentionally lying, but you've accepted incorrect information as true, and pass it on.
If you're wrong, you're wrong, and we're going to say so.
If your sources are biased and contain falsehoods due to that bias, they're biased and contain falsehoods due to that bias, and we're going to say so.
I didn't say what you can or cannot use. I simply said what you use is usually from biased sources, which only reflects your own bias and damages your credibility. If you want to continue to use biased sources and embarrass yourself in the process, be my guest. But don't pretend to think you have any semblance of a rational or logical argument.
You could just not participate in thread where your mythological theory of creationism and a young Earth flies in the face of facts, logic, and reason. You can't prove you points and try to debunk known and accepted scientific facts. You could just admit you're wrong on this issue. And by the way, radiometric dating is accurate and all fossils found so far have been transitional. There are no relevant gaps.
My belief is that science and God go hand in hand. He gives us the ability of free thought and challenges us to find the answers. He is really doing a great job!
His religion and, his Bible do not go hand in hand with science. Science says the world is older than 10,000 years, Yahweh's Bible and, religion says it isn't older than 10,000 years.
Like I said. God is really doing a great job! WTG!
Mags, I have no problem with Yahweh or, Jesus, what I do have a problem with is the religion that has sprouted out of what Jesus started two thousand years ago and, were it has gone in that time. There are some trees that bear nothing but rotten fruit and, the current Christian religion is one that bears more than its share of rotten fruit.
Why do you say that? let me guess, you can google it and find a hundred or so bad so called "Christians"? Never mind the hundreds of millions of really nice Christians, right?
Obviously you haven't been keeping up on my posts in this thread or, in the other religious threads on here. I was raised in the church and, like you I left it behind, I chose another path, however, I know many Christians that are good and, faithful servants of Jesus, I also know many that claim to be good and, faithful servants but, they don't follow Jesus, they follow men who teach hate and, division, they wouldn't know the love of Jesus if it jumped up and, bit them on the ass, those seem to be the ones in charge these days.
Yes, just like there are good people and bad people in all walks in life. Why don't you tell us about the good atheists vs the bad atheists? Are there any good atheists? Haven't met one.
Are you of the opinion that skeptics (aka agnostic atheists) hold that all (or even most) theists are bad people?
You've probably met many and didn't know it.
You're very likely an atheist yourself when it comes to every other god concept ever imagined by humans, except one. You don't believe in Zeus and Apollo, or Loki and Thor, or any of the hundreds (thousands?) of others from different times and places around the world do you?
One of many ironies/hypocrisies of science-denier religionists, is manifested in their edifices, often opulent and ostentatiously pretentious and "in-your-face"!
Consider the science, mathematics and engineering required to build such showcases … only to become houses in which disdain for their very existence is drummed into the indoctrinated!
REALITY is an insecure place; and while religiosity and its dogmas may delude the faithful, assault on the truth makes reality an even more insecure place.
Tell that to the Jesuits who own and operate some of the finest educational institutions in the World.
I believe Mac was referring only to those theists who deny science. Jesuits don't tend to do so.
Which is to say, the entire Catholic Church.
So far as I know, no, the Catholic church no longer denies science. They certainly have in the past, but I believe Catholic schools now include evolution as part of their curriculum, and do not adhere to YEC.
Yes and you've just described roughly half the Christian's in the world.
So?
They don't speak for all Christians, and there are some Christians who deny science. You can see it right on this discussion.
Indeed. The Catholic church has accepted as valid the science of evolution since the 1950s.
It only took them a hundred years or so to come around. Similar to the whole Galileo fiasco.
So? Do all Muslims agree on everything? How about Atheists? It's obvious to the most casual of observers that they don't and never will. It has more to do with human nature than anything else. That said when over half of one group has a general concensus on something that IS a general concensus.
My whole point was this discussion has much to do with nothing but a general hatred for Christians and their faith. No one group of anything is going to agree on everything. Christians are no different.
I find the general cynicism in here towards Christianity to be very sophomoric and obtuse.
It’s a very big ship, slow to turn. But it turned and thus we can look at the smaller ships and ask what’s taking so long?
Is anyone complaining about all Christians?
No.
So what's the problem? You say there are Christians who don't deny science, we AGREE, and you still want to argue?
Okay, got it. Your point is that "some" Christians deny evolution and such.
Brilliant! I never would have guessed that ...... /S
Then why do you keep emphasizing that Christianity is not monolithic on this point? That has already been acknowledged, and, in fact, nobody ever claimed that it was.
Probably because that is not what I said.
Those are your words. When I say Christianity is not monolithic, we are saying the same thing.
This article has nothing do do with hatred of all Christians. TiG expressed his anger at one small group of Christians who are engaging in an attempt to discredit science.
We have repeatedly agreed that not all Christians do this, and we don't have a problem with the ones who don't. If you do not understand that, it is not because of what we've said, but because of what you're determined to believe.
The blue part is the key.
This article is not about their religious view but rather their deliberate attempts to discredit science to keep those under their influence in check. Ken Ham's group is a religious-based organization (YEC) but they could have been any religion. The specific beliefs do not matter.
My comments are pretty clear and concise if one isn't trying to mold them into something they were not intended to be. That said i see i did use the word hatred once which might have been a little strong. My first choice of "cynical" was probably more accurate to what i was trying to convey.
Maybe the smaller ships are lost and keep going in circles, unable to catch up?
Maybe the smaller ships are lost and keep going in circles, unable to catch up?
Whichever term you use, you accuse us of harboring such feelings toward Christians in general, and that is not so.
Regardless of your attempts to obfuscate what I just said, the fact that Christianity gets singled out regularly here on NT in a negative manner only reinforces my point.
Any allusions that it doesn't is simply ignorant to that clear and present fact.
When Islam or Judaism start demanding taxpayer subsidies for "amusement parks" that deny science, we'll criticize them.
Christianity is the largest category of religion on the planet. In the USA - the largest Christian population in the world - 75% of the population identify as Christian. Christianity's impact on the culture, laws and practices of this nation overwhelms that of any other category or religion.
Why would anyone find it odd that Christianity is talked about more than other religions (or categories) on a USA-based site?
I would imagine its due to a Persecution Complex - seems to be very common among a lot of people.
Why must there be an EITHER/OR "conclusion" … I believe it's relatively safe to say that "no one could possibly know with certainty, where the COSMOS/UNIVERSE, etc. BEGAN, or, if it actually "BEGAN" at all; that is, as human beings, upon what reference or empirical fact are we able to conceive of an entity that ALWAYS EXISTED, THAT HAD NO BEGINNING, THAT WAS NOT "CREATED," rather, that simply WAS AND IS AND WILL EXIST IN PERPETUITY!
Having prefaced what I am about to say/ask … IS IT NOT LOGICAL/REASONABLE TO CONCEDE THAT "CREATION" (if there was one) GAVE THE PRODUCT … ALL THE MATTER AND ENERGY AND SPACE THAT EXISTS, WHEREAS, POST-PRODUCT, "EVOLUTION" IF YOU WILL, IS A "PROCESS" … the ON-GOING, NEVER-ENDING REARRANGEMENT/MODIFICATION/TRANSITION/ADAPTATION/RECONFIGURATION, etc., of the elements of the PRODUCT ( generated via "Creation")?
IMO, a true scientist is easily able to accept my premise while searching objectively and honestly for the logistics and demonstrable truths of a universe whose origin is likely to be an eternal unsolved mystery; but, again, IMO, a religionist by virtue of his being one, creates (ironically), a faith-based milieu, not in search of truth, RATHER, IN TRYING TO SATISFY A NEED FOR OF A FEELING OF SECURITY IN AN INSECURE WORLD!
Science does not say "Believe me, trust me, have faith in what I tell you, don't question," -- SCIENCE SAYS, "Here is what I have found to be true based upon DEFINING A PROBLEM, HYPOTHESIZING AS TO WHAT MIGHT BE ITS SOLUTION, AND, EXPERIMENTATION LEADING TO A CONCLUSION."
But SCIENCE does not rest on its conclusions … it tests and retests them, allowing for correction or even eventual rejection!
Not so with religionist dogma.
My two cents.
take your pick. both are correct
And not sure why it matters either way.
And not sure why it matters either way.
If anyone is interested, "A Scientific Dissent from Darwinism" has been mentioned in this discussion. It's quite simply an exercise in deceit by the Discovery Institute. They've managed to get a very tiny percentage of scientists, many from disciplines outside of biology, to sign a rather non-specific statement about "Darwinian Evolution", so they could hold it up as some kind of Earth-shattering evidence against evolution in their sickening attempt to undermine real science and promote Intelligent Design.
Here's some non-Discovery-Institute info about it:
A Scientific Dissent from Darwinism - Wikipedia
A Scientific Dissent from Darwinism - RationalWiki
And a response petition from National Center for Science Education to show how ridiculous the Discovery Institute's list is:
Project Steve - Wikipedia
Project Steve - RationalWiki
Just FYI...