Of Storks and babies: Teach the controversy

No, it's more like acknowledging that there are holes in the theory of genetics and childbirth that the stork theory can adequately explain.

As for your example, I'm not going to take the bait. You're asking me to play a game: "Provide as much detail in terms of possible causal mechanisms for your stork position as I do for my Darwinian position." Stork Theory is not a mechanistic theory, and it's not ST's task to match your pathetic level of detail in telling mechanistic stories. If ST is correct and storks are responsible and indispensable for certain babies, then it makes no sense to try to ape your method of connecting the dots. True, there may be dots to be connected. But there may also be fundamental discontinuities, and with babies that is what ST is discovering.

Scientific Storkism

Didn't someone say that babies really do come out of mum, but are intelligently pre-loaded?

Rustopher.

Whatever they think about evolution, teenagers already know that it's storks, not swallows that bring babies.

Better still you can view the speech that Steve Jones made to the Royal Society here:

Why Creationism is wrong and Evolution is right - Prof Steve Jones

No beating about the bush with that title.

While you're on the site you might want to look at the parting address that Lord May made last year - he covers the assault on science in general - including Global warming denial and tha Popes attitude to condom use - and ends with an attack on creationism in schools:

As a document: http://www.royalsoc.ac.uk/downloaddoc.asp?id=2414

and a video of the speech: Threats to tommorrow's world

>Whatever they think about evolution, teenagers already know that it's storks, not swallows that bring babies.

Was that an African or European swallow? ;-D

Poor Steve Jones ... brilliant geneticist, no doubt ... but no one has taken the time to show him that it is actually Evolution ( Macro-Evolution that is... Micro-Evolution is actually a Creationist prediction but is routinely misapplied by evolutionists) that is more like Stork Theory ... he apparently is starting to realize that his "Evolution ship" is sinking by the sound of this warning ... doesn't he know that large numbers of excellent scientists are "jumping ship" every day and becoming Creationists? ... doesn't he realize that Darwin's own home country is beginning to realize that they've been fed a bunch of nonsense all these years? Maybe he should have attended the recent AIG Conference in his home country!

First Ever UK Answers-in-Genesis Conference a Sellout Crowd
Thursday, April 20th, 2006
http://info.answersingenesis.org/aroundtheworld/?p=725

Britons unconvinced on evolution
Last Updated: Thursday, 26 January 2006, 22:10 GMT
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/4648598.stm

Sir Peter Vardy Plans to Open Six More Schools in the UK
RICHARD DAWKINS AND SIR PETER VARDY
interviewed on "Today" - BBC Radio 4 - 28 April 2003
http://www.angelfire.com/nb/lt/docs/called43.htm

Religion and creationism In a December 2005 interview with Simon Mayo on BBC Radio Five Live, Attenborough stated that he considers himself an agnostic. [7] When asked whether his observation of the natural world has given him faith in a creator, he generally responds with some version of this story: "My response is that when Creationists talk about God creating every individual species as a separate act, they always instance hummingbirds, or orchids, sunflowers and beautiful things. But I tend to think instead of a parasitic worm that is boring through the eye of a boy sitting on the bank of a river in West Africa, [a worm] that's going to make him blind. And [I ask them], 'Are you telling me that the God you believe in, who you also say is an all-merciful God, who cares for each one of us individually, are you saying that God created this worm that can live in no other way than in an innocent child's eyeball? Because that doesn't seem to me to coincide with a God who's full of mercy."[8] He has explained that he feels the evidence all over the planet clearly shows evolution to be the best way to explain the diversity of life, and that "as far as I'm concerned, if there is a supreme being then He chose organic evolution as a way of bringing into existence the natural world."

Afdave: I think someone from the Panda's Thumb should have done a report from the UK conference, similar to Jason's at the Mega-Conference last July. I enjoyed his blogs from that event, and he did a good job at exposing creationist shortcomings. A missed opportunity this time I think.

Back to Steve Jones. Answers in Genesis do not like this man at all and seem to put him on a par with Richard Dawkins. This from their website last week:

http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs2006/0418royal_society.asp

...

sorry the link to the David Attenborough Poll is here:

Evolutionist David Attenborough the most trusted person in Britain

Peter Henderson wrote: Afdave: I think someone from the Panda's Thumb should have done a report from the UK conference, similar to Jason's at the Mega-Conference last July. I enjoyed his blogs from that event, and he did a good job at exposing creationist shortcomings. A missed opportunity this time I think.

Brilliant Dean. I'll look forward to reading something over the next few days. I'll also have a look at the just science site.

Since John Mackay is mentioned in The Independent article, here is a good report on a debate with him a few years back:

Mackay is so cocky now that he repeatedly tells Christian audiences that he wins every debate with secular scientists. I think these guys were very brave to take him on. I think more scientists should be prepared to do this, even if it means getting their hands dirty. To sit and ignore YECers doesn't mean they'll just go away !

Mackay is so cocky now that he repeatedly tells Christian audiences that he wins every debate with secular scientists.

I think these guys were very brave to take him on. I think more scientists should be prepared to do this, even if it means getting their hands dirty.

Thanks for the link Peter.

I don't think we're likely to have the problem in the UK of Creationists winning over public opinion - so there isn't any great push to debate them ( although some of might be tempted to for entertainment value).

Mackay seemingly has gained access to a State school in Lancashire - without the knowledge of parents or the public at large - to take a team of four teach his rubbish for a period of three days. Now that does need to be challenged...

http://justscience.1.forumer.com/index.php?showtopic=292

We have a more insidious problem of a Prime Minister with a pet education project who is sseemingly unconcerned about about evangelical creationists taking over state schools. This project is bogged down and touched by scandal at the moment - what we do need to do is to get people to realise that there is a problem. Thankfully prominent individuals and groups are finally speaking out - from the Archbishop of Canterbury to the Royal Society - and members of Blairs own party - but as I said, more later.

One interviewer asked him [Steve Jones] to comment on the recent BBC opinion poll showing that 44% of the British public wanted creationism taught in school science lessons. Professor Jones replied that stupidity is on the increase. This gave me[Paul Taylor ] the opportunity to point out that Prof. Jones believes 44% of the British public are stupid---an opinion, I pointed out, which I didn't share.

However, the bookshop manager persuaded him [Paul Taylor ]that it made scientific sense to believe the Bible's account of creation in Genesis, and sent Paul home with such books as Evolution or Creation by Professor Enoch, The Genesis Flood by John Whitcomb and Henry Morris, and Morris' The Genesis Record. Now convinced of the truth of Genesis, and, therefore, of the whole Bible, Paul began to propagate these views, writing articles for his church magazine.

Taylor also makes another mistake in his article. He states that Lord Kelvin was a young Earth creationist. When Kelvin did his experiment, calculating the Earth's age using it's primordial heat, he came up with a figure of 20-30million years (he did not of course, know anything about radio-activity at the time). Surely that rules Kelvin out as a young Earth creationist ?

Debates like this do not convince anybody of anything, since only the already-converted will show up -- Lenny

Lenny, you're probably mostly right -- but not completely. What if a few of the "already-converted" start to think a little more deeply about the human condition and, as a result, start to open their minds a bit?

All such "debates" do is give the creationists a chance to rally their troops, to gain some publicity, to raise money, and to give the false impression that there really is a scientific "debate". -- Lenny

Like the fundies aren't able to do this anyway? Come on, there's virtually zero chance that fundies are EVER going to gain a foothold in legitimate scientific endeavors and even less of a chance that humanists/rationalists/etc. are EVER going reach the level of donated monies that fundies have via their racket.

Posted by afdave on April 23, 2006 06:05 AM (e) Poor Steve Jones ... brilliant geneticist, no doubt ... but no one has taken the time to show him that it is actually Evolution ( Macro-Evolution that is... Micro-Evolution is actually a Creationist prediction but is routinely misapplied by evolutionists) that is more like Stork Theory ... he apparently is starting to realize that his "Evolution ship" is sinking by the sound of this warning ... doesn't he know that large numbers of excellent scientists are "jumping ship" every day and becoming Creationists? ... doesn't he realize that Darwin's own home country is beginning to realize that they've been fed a bunch of nonsense all these years? Maybe he should have attended the recent AIG Conference in his home country.

Lenny; you're being quoted wider now thanks to IDCreationisms stupidity.

Steve S: Excellent! Not sure if most non-regulars got it though.

While Jones' analogy has classic creationists in mind, ID strategists would never want to "start biology lectures with one or more the mutually contradictory creationisms," only to have students critically analyze them and conclude evolution. No sir. For them, the less said about the alternatives, the better. Just misrepresent evolution (or "the birds and the bees") and let the students infer their favorite fairy tales, storks, dust, missing ribs, global floods and all.

What if a few of the "already-converted" start to think a little more deeply about the human condition and, as a result, start to open their minds a bit?

All such "debates" do is give the creationists a chance to rally their troops, to gain some publicity, to raise money, and to give the false impression that there really is a scientific "debate". --- Lenny

Like the fundies aren't able to do this anyway?

Come on, there's virtually zero chance that fundies are EVER going to gain a foothold in legitimate scientific endeavors

and even less of a chance that humanists/rationalists/etc. are EVER going reach the level of donated monies that fundies have via their racket.

Howie Ahmanson likes to stay in the background, and DI desperately wants to keep him there. So it's a plus for our side to drag Howie out into the sunlight and force the DI to defend him.

— 'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank

.....The one noncorporate constituency to which Bush has consistently deferred is the Christian right, both in his selections for the federal bench and in his implications that he bases his policies on premillennialist, prophetic Christian doctrine. Previous presidents have regularly invoked the Almighty. McKinley is supposed to have fallen to his knees, seeking divine guidance about whether to take control of the Philippines in 1898, although the story may be apocryphal. But no president before Bush has allowed the press to disclose, through a close friend, his startling belief that he was ordained by God to lead the country. The White House's sectarian positions -- over stem-cell research, the teaching of pseudoscientific "intelligent design," global population control, the Terri Schiavo spectacle and more -- have led some to conclude that Bush has promoted the transformation of the GOP into what former Republican strategist Kevin Phillips calls "the first religious party in U.S. history." Bush's faith-based conception of his mission, which stands above and beyond reasoned inquiry, jibes well with his administration's pro-business dogma on global warming and other urgent environmental issues......

I always think that it's like starting a discussion of the book Frankenstein by mentioning the theory that "Frankenstein" is the name of the monster, not the doctor.

I mean, look at the evidence. The "Frankenstein as doctor theory" never even GIVES a name for the monster, relying instead on the facile idea that the monster had no name. How convenient! We're expected to believe that the majority of people, who think of "Frankenstein" as the monster, are dead wrong, and this Mary Shelley character (who has no literary credentials, a dangerous radical as a mother, and may have just been stealing ideas from her more talented husband) is somehow right!

Posted by afdave on April 23, 2006 06:05 AM (e)

Poor Steve Jones ... Maybe he should have attended the recent AIG Conference in his home country!

Sir Peter Vardy Plans to Open Six More Schools in the UK
RICHARD DAWKINS AND SIR PETER VARDY
interviewed on "Today" - BBC Radio 4 - 28 April 2003
http://www.angelfire.com/nb/lt/docs/called43.htm...

Interesting. Nowadays the Vardy people deny that they teach creationism. Nice to have the evidence to the contrary from Sir Peter's own mouth.

As for AIG and other creationists: they seem to be spreading out from the USA since the Dover defeat and trying to infect other countries. They can try the UK all they want, but their biggest card is Tony Blair and he is up for retirement. Also, the UK is a really a secular country, churches are tolerated but hardly even respected. So the creatos ave a long hard battle on their hands to make any progress here. Also, we have been warned by happenings in the USA, so the opposition will be well prepared.

Poor Steve Jones ... brilliant geneticist, no doubt ...

. . . but no one has taken the time to show him that it is actually Evolution ( Macro-Evolution that is... Micro-Evolution is actually a Creationist prediction but is routinely misapplied by evolutionists) that is more like Stork Theory ...

he [Jones] apparently is starting to realize that his "Evolution ship" is sinking by the sound of this warning

... doesn't he know that large numbers of excellent scientists are "jumping ship" every day and becoming Creationists?

... doesn't he realize that Darwin's own home country is beginning to realize that they've been fed a bunch of nonsense all these years? Maybe he should have attended the recent AIG Conference in his home country!

allygally, I personally think that AiG and such have a bright future ahead. I think that because it seems to me the new tide in religion is a crazy evangelical one. If I'm wrong about that somebody please correct me.

I think that, as the Yahoos Mr. Defoe warned us about

As an aside...

For those in the UK check out ITV 1 at 10.45 pm this evening. The programme "12 books that changed the world" tonight features Charles Darwin's "the origin of species"

Rev DR Lenny Flank wrote:
The problem has been that (1) IDers do a good job of HIDING that ultimate goal and directing attention away from it, and (2) we have done a poor job of PUBLICIZING it and directing attention towards it.

I agree with this. But we need to point out their 'science' is a cover for their biblical literalism (BL) - NOT for 'Christianity'. It's an extremely important distinction.

Don't let BLs claim claim ownership of Christianity, and then use it as a bludgeon against science. It's not a battle of 'Christians vs scientists' - it's a battle of 'BLs vs anyone who disagrees with them.' Don't concede to their artificial definition of the boundaries.

Keep the focus on their fanatic positions; don't give them the claim to represent all Christians, in fact, emphasize that they DON'T; and, like vampires, keep exposing their true nature to the light.

Comment #98082 Posted by steve s on April 23, 2006 02:42 PM (e) I think that, as the Yahoos Mr. Defoe warned us about

Yahoos - the bestial, unintelligent man-like creatures in the land of the Houyhnhnms, who are intelligent, reasonable and horse-like. From Gulliver's Travels by Defoe.

Dave - you're right about the books by Defoe and Swift. I wrote without thinking properly. :-)

I'm of the opinion that 'afdave' is actually Larry - I gave him that rather obscure link some time ago...

I agree with this. But we need to point out their 'science' is a cover for their biblical literalism (BL) - NOT for 'Christianity'. It's an extremely important distinction.

Re comment #98080: I would tend to agree with you Steve S. The sad thing is that no-one in the evangelical end of the church seems to be prepared to stand up and say that this position (the YEC one) is crazy and wrong. I don't know why. Maybe they are afraid that they will incur the wrath of AIG etc. (note that a lot of AIG's rhetoric is reserved for so called "compromisers" within the church). In the past we have had evangelicals like C.S. Lewis, B.B.Warfield, and Charles Hodge, all of who rejected the YEC position and accepted science. It seems to me that people like them are very thin on the ground in the church today.

I'm sorry I missed the "Heaven and Earth" which featured Steve Jones and Paul Taylor. I've heard Paul Taylor on a number of occasions and, in my opinion, he comes over as quite arrogant, but very well versed in all the YEC claims etc. When he gets into difficulty he just utters that well known "Hamism" "Where you there ?". I'd like to have seen how Prof. Jones got on with him.

Dembski might not be the Isaac Newton of Information Theory, but Ed Darrell is the Dennis Miller of Panda's Thumb. Can someone clue me in on the Defoe reference?

I agree with this. But we need to point out their 'science' is a cover for their biblical literalism (BL) - NOT for 'Christianity'. It's an extremely important distinction.

— Kenneth Baggaley

No, it's more like acknowledging that there are holes in the theory of genetics and childbirth that the stork theory can adequately explain.

People who believe in sexual reproduction have an undeniable faith in materialism, with "sex did it" being the obvious counterpart to "God did it". I just don't have as much faith as the atheists do that a "sperm" and an "egg" actually can produce an entire baby.

When is the faith of secularists going to be challenged? When is the overarching belief in "naturalism" going to give a chance to other ideas? We aren't even proposing that it has to be "God", rather it can be cabbage patches, storks, or maybe some sort of spirit entering into the belly of the woman. Contrast this openness to the narrow-minded bigotry of the materialists, who think that it has to be sperms and eggs that make babies.

OK, enough of that. What I really wanted to point out is that indeed the IDists are not going to allow that it was "just sex" all the way back through the eukaryote lineage (with asexual deviations in many cases, of course), but that at some point or points they demand that something other than normal genetics (mutations and the like), meiosis, crossing-over, and fusion of the gametes is happening.

Which is to say that they indeed do deny the sufficiency of normal sexual inheritance at some point(s), as a sort of conveniently difficult-to-disprove divine intervention. Shades of the virgin birth. If it's not exactly "the stork", it is also not the science of heredity and sexual recombination in the least, not in the privileged time points.

No, they've already assaulted the science of sexual reproduction as the link throughout most eukaryotic evolution, and substituted a vague notion of "design" as at least partially substituting for normal reproductive strategies. How can they not? By denying the continuity of the evolutionary processes, they also must deny the continuity of normal reproductive processes.

Unfortunately, the parody of the IDists once again is little different from what the IDists actually have proposed, though conveniently in the distant past. It's very difficult to get more ridiculous than IDists are any time they are discussing biology.

Glen D
http://tinyurl.com/b8ykm

I've heard Paul Taylor on a number of occasions and, in my opinion, he comes over as quite arrogant, but very well versed in all the YEC claims etc.

Have a look at John Mackay's Creation Research website. I give them credit for presenting actual research that can be critiqued, but they provide so little detail regarding the research projects they may as well not have bothered telling us anything.

I love their claim that a fossil they found, that supposedly shows land plants mixed with sea shells, is some how evidence for the biblical flood. Wow, they really have me stumped there! If it wasn't Noah's flood how else could land plants and sea shells get mixed up together in the same fossil deposit!!!

We can only beat them as a political movement, by out-ORGANIZING them.

Does he really deny the existence of modern beef cattle, of broccoli, of HIV?

BTW, I would ONLY recommend the two Creationist organizations mentioned above ... you guys are correct that there are many incompetent groups out there.

What's so scary about the General Principles of Christianity? "Love your neighbor, Don't Steal, Be Honest, Work Hard, Be Generous", etc. etc. Is THAT what you're afraid of?

Dean Morrison makes a good point about Evil in the World making it hard to believe in God. A lot of people trip on this one, but there is a very good explanation ... It is not hard for me to imagine that God is very much like most parents who have children in this way: All parents have the choice to have children or not, just as God had the choice to create humans or not. Parents prefer having children over going out and buying a small robot for obvious reasons---yes, the robot would always do their will, but what a bore! The parents take a large risk in having children because their children will experience many evils---skinned knees, black eyes, sickness, maybe even scary stuff like prison time, parasitic eyeball worms, or maybe they'll grow up to be a mass murderer. Do they have kids anyway? Of course ... because the chance of good is worth the risk. Why should God be any different except on a grander scale? Evil is a result of CHOICE that God allowed. But it was worth the risk.

I read this and had a great laugh as I remembered how uptight some people around here are.

http://metacomments.blogspot.com/2006/04/emperors-new-clothes-and-fucking_23.html

Civility is great in courtrooms but it's downright silly on blogs about creationist morons (e.g., Michael Behe, Salvador Corova, Casey Luskin and on down the food chain).

Why?

Because creationist-peddling superstooges are among the most antisocial people on the planet, regardless of whether they enjoy using the F word or not. And if you believe that this blog will be more "successful" than a blog which is "less civil" you stuck in a time warp, simply confused, or enamored of your petty manners.

afdave

What's so scary about the General Principles of Christianity? "Love your neighbor, Don't Steal, Be Honest, Work Hard, Be Generous", etc. etc. Is THAT what you're afraid of?

Thanks Preacher Dave!

Now, please go stick your religious beliefs where the sun don't shine.

Perhaps after we amend the Constitution to specifically refer to your Personal Favorite Deity and command all three branches of our government to bow down before your Personal Favorite Deity, then the "General Principles" allegedly (but most certainly not in reality) gifted to humanity by your Personal Favorite Deity will be referred to as you have referred to them in your comment.

A person who cared about "being honest" and "working hard" wouldn't be mouthing the crap that you are mouthing, afdave. A person who cared about "being honest" and "working hard" would understand that the sort of folks who are working hardest to legislate their Personal Religious Beliefs and brainwash kids re same are the least honest and laziest people on the frigging planet.

So once again: please go stick your religious beliefs where the sun don't shine, afdave.

Thanks.

I agree with this. But we need to point out their 'science' is a cover for their biblical literalism (BL) - NOT for 'Christianity'. It's an extremely important distinction.

I think it's an "extremely important" distinction to Christians.

Speaking for myself, their "science" is a cover for the promotion of their religious beliefs and since there is no evidence for deities, it's all the same to me. I could care less if they were promoting the literalism of L. Ron Hubbard's books or The Odyssey. Same deal.

So you need to point out these distinctions, I guess. I don't.

The funny thing is that I don't see so-called Christian religious leaders spending a whole lot of time pointing out these "extremely important distinctions." If I had to guess, based on my non-professional observations, I'd say most Christian religious leaders spend a lot more time focusing on their shared beliefs and promoting religion generally than they spend pissing on Christian fundamentalists.

And it's obvious why they'd do that.

Anyone care to disagree?

...but they are hanging on to a discredited model for explaining life on earth ...

Really afdave! I didn't realize! Can you please show a link to the rigorous scientific research that discredits all the other thousands of bits of rigorous research that suggests that the earth is incredibly old and living things have changed over time?

Dean Morrison makes a good point about Evil in the World making it hard to believe in God.

[Evolutionary biologists] are hanging on to a discredited model for explaining life on earth ... one which doesn't ring very true with the public

— afdave

I've been to some countries where they DON'T have the General Principles of Christianity written into their laws and it's pretty scary.

BTW, I would ONLY recommend the two Creationist organizations mentioned above ... you guys are correct that there are many incompetent groups out there.

Evil is a result of CHOICE that God allowed. But it was worth the risk.

Dean:re. comment #98109: Believe it or not....

I've also heard Gary Bates on TV a few times and his ideas certainly came over as being a bit loopy.

A good source for hearing these guys in the UK is Revelation TV on Sky Digital channel 765. Keep an eye out for their "World in Focus" programme, which airs every evening at 9.00 PM. I'm sure this week will feature either MacKay or Ham. The station is run by Howard Condor, a strict young earth creationist and they have their studios in London, near the BBC I think. According to his testimony he was once a member of the Barron Nights (a sixties pop group) and I think he may also have been involved with The Searchers.

Back to UFOs, I once heard Carl Sagan being asked about this and he replied that no one had ever brought back something from the spaceship, like a button of the captain's uniform for example. Until someone did this he would remain a skeptic on the matter.

That PowerPoint cartoon, by the way, really does remind me of The Flintstones ! Maybe we should blame Hanna Barbera for all this YEC nonsense !

It's also funny to me that you guys are so worried about a 'Theocracy'. This country was founded on the General Principles of Christianity ... go read David Barton's "Original Intent" about the founding of America, a book with more original sources that the author actually owns than you will find anywhere ... What's so scary about the General Principles of Christianity? "Love your neighbor, Don't Steal, Be Honest, Work Hard, Be Generous", etc. etc. Is THAT what you're afraid of? I've been to some countries where they DON'T have the General Principles of Christianity written into their laws and it's pretty scary.

— afdave

This country was founded on the General Principles of Christianity

Would that be the same David Barton of "Wallbuilders" fame? The same one that routinely quote mines the founding fathers (i.e. lies) in order to make fallacious arguments about the "Christian" foundation of our country?

AiG and ICR---winners of the prestigious afdave Seal of Quality! They should put that on their front pages.

Comment #98120 Posted by afdave on April 23, 2006 10:20 PM (e) True, Lenny, but it will probably require you to install a dictatorship ... the only reason the Russian people 'agreed with' their Communist bosses was the 'encouragement' of staring down the end of a machine gun.

Macro-evolutionary theory that declares as fact that all life on earth came from a single-celled organism by 'All Powerful Mutations and Natural Selection over Millions and Millions of Years' makes about as much sense to people as Communist Theory.

The truth is ... AIG and ICR have TWO, maybe THREE cards in their favor ... (1) they have a large number of very competent scientists (2) a lot of what they say actually rings true with many people and (3) they are well organized. Evolutionists on the other hand have very competent scientists, but they are hanging on to a discredited model for explaining life on earth ... one which doesn't ring very true with the public. BTW, I would ONLY recommend the two Creationist organizations mentioned above ... you guys are correct that there are many incompetent groups out there.

It's also funny to me that you guys are so worried about a 'Theocracy'. This country was founded on the General Principles of Christianity ... go read David Barton's "Original Intent" about the founding of America, a book with more original sources that the author actually owns than you will find anywhere

What's so scary about the General Principles of Christianity? "Love your neighbor, Don't Steal, Be Honest, Work Hard, Be Generous", etc. etc. Is THAT what you're afraid of? I've been to some countries where they DON'T have the General Principles of Christianity written into their laws and it's pretty scary.

Dean Morrison makes a good point about Evil in the World making it hard to believe in God. A lot of people trip on this one, but there is a very good explanation ... It is not hard for me to imagine that God is very much like most parents who have children in this way: All parents have the choice to have children or not, just as God had the choice to create humans or not. Parents prefer having children over going out and buying a small robot for obvious reasons---yes, the robot would always do their will, but what a bore! The parents take a large risk in having children because their children will experience many evils---skinned knees, black eyes, sickness, maybe even scary stuff like prison time, parasitic eyeball worms, or maybe they'll grow up to be a mass murderer. Do they have kids anyway? Of course ... because the chance of good is worth the risk. Why should God be any different except on a grander scale? Evil is a result of CHOICE that God allowed. But it was worth the risk.

Hey Moses ... the guy you are named after was a Creationist. Maybe you should change your name to Voltaire or something

I was walking across a bridge one day, and I saw a man standing on the edge, about to jump off. So I ran over and said "Stop! don't do it!" "Why shouldn't I?" he said. I said, "Well, there's so much to live for!" He said, "Like what?" I said, "Well...are you religious or atheist?" He said, "Religious." I said, "Me too! Are you Christian or Buddhist?" He said, "Christian." I said, "Me too! Are you Catholic or Protestant?" He said, "Protestant." I said, "Me too! Are you Episcopalian or Baptist?" He said, "Baptist!" I said,"Wow! Me too! Are you Baptist Church of God or Baptist Church of the Lord?" He said, "Baptist Church of God!" I said, "Me too! Are you original Baptist Church of God, or are you Reformed Baptist Church of God?" He said,"Reformed Baptist Church of God!" I said, "Me too! Are you Reformed Baptist Church of God, reformation of 1879, or Reformed Baptist Church of God, reformation of 1915?" He said, "Reformed Baptist Church of God, reformation of 1915!" I said, "Die, heretic scum", and pushed him off.

The only assumption involved is that children are delivered by the stork.

Macro-evolutionary theory that declares as fact that all life on earth came from a single-celled organism by 'All Powerful Mutations and Natural Selection over Millions and Millions of Years' makes about as much sense to people as Communist Theory.

The truth is ... AIG and ICR have TWO, maybe THREE cards in their favor ...

(1) they have a large number of very competent scientists

(2) a lot of what they say actually rings true with many people and

(3) they are well organized.

Evolutionists on the other hand have very competent scientists, but they are hanging on to a discredited model for explaining life on earth ... one which doesn't ring very true with the public.

BTW, I would ONLY recommend the two Creationist organizations mentioned above ... you guys are correct that there are many incompetent groups out there.

Larry's back, with the usual BS. Whatever happened to "don't feed the lying trolls"?

Glen Davidson said:

What I really wanted to point out is that indeed the IDists are not going to allow that it was "just sex" all the way back through the eukaryote lineage (with asexual deviations in many cases, of course), but that at some point or points they demand that something other than normal genetics (mutations and the like), meiosis, crossing-over, and fusion of the gametes is happening
<\quote>

Whats all this about "You-Kary-OKE sex"? Is that where the IDcreationist's claim singing and dancing lead to sex? ....Come to think of it.
Perhaps that talking snake in Gen.3 was really an all singing, all dancing scientist.....with just one thing on his mind!! No wonder the creo's are so upset. The fall of man due to some sweet talking dude who just wanted to Eve to know about You-Kary-OTE's and singing and dancing....Hah! there's something to this Mythology thing after all....now where are my pumps.

Larry's back, with the usual BS. Whatever happened to "don't feed the lying trolls"?

OK, enough of that. What I really wanted to point out is that indeed the IDists are not going to allow that it was "just sex" all the way back through the eukaryote lineage (with asexual deviations in many cases, of course), but that at some point or points they demand that something other than normal genetics (mutations and the like), meiosis, crossing-over, and fusion of the gametes is happening.

Yeah ivy pointed out that afdave is Air Force dave on one of the creo sites.
Apparently morons are welcome in the Air Force. In fact it seems as though it may actually be a requirement. They make excellent cannon fodder.

Anyway afdave why aren't you flying for Air Haliburton with Jesus as your co-pilot, shipping copies of the old testament into Bagdad in exchange for barrels of oil?
Did you know the (other) sons of Abraham (Moslems) recognize Jesus as one of THEIR prophets and the OT is one of THEIR sacred texts. Reminds me of an old Graham Green(I think) novel where the US ships bags of rice into 'nam and the locals stencil each bag with the words "Supplied by the cccp to the people of Vietnam" in their local script. Out organized again. Starting to see a pattern here afdave?

What's so scary about the General Principles of Christianity? "Love your neighbor, Don't Steal, Be Honest, Work Hard, Be Generous", etc. etc. Is THAT what you're afraid of? I've been to some countries where they DON'T have the General Principles of Christianity written into their laws and it's pretty scary.

— AFdave

AfDave, Larry whatever, they are the same low life species. These kinds of troll does not deserve the light of day in places like PT. They are just two examples of the ignoramus, moronic, stupid bastard,dishonest liar, frigging IDiots that populate the fringe space of pseudo religion-science. Enough with their BS, pay no attention to these IDiots.

What's so scary about the General Principles of Christianity? "Love your neighbor, Don't Steal, Be Honest, Work Hard, Be Generous", etc. etc. Is THAT what you're afraid of? I've been to some countries where they DON'T have the General Principles of Christianity written into their laws and it's pretty scary.

— afdave

It is not hard for me to imagine that God is very much like most parents who have children...

I think the Cabbage Patch theory needs to be taught as well.

1. It is scientifically established that cabbage patches exist.

2. Cabbage patches have ample room for stork landings.

3. The migrant workers who pick the cabbage are highly prolific.

4. Cabbage Patch Kids are an established fact and were once available for adoption (after a substantial waiting period) from Toys Sure "R" Expensive and other adoption outlets.

Glen Davidson wrote:

"People who believe in sexual reproduction have an undeniable faith in materialism, with "sex did it" being the obvious counterpart to "God did it". I just don't have as much faith as the atheists do that a "sperm" and an "egg" actually can produce an entire baby."

Indeed. It's all a slippery slope; before you know it they'll start claiming that people are made of atoms - just like rocks and stuff.

This country was founded on the General Principles of Christianity

afdave: "The parents take a large risk in having children because their children will experience many evils---skinned knees, black eyes, sickness, maybe even scary stuff like prison time, parasitic eyeball worms, or maybe they'll grow up to be a mass murderer. Do they have kids anyway? Of course ... because the chance of good is worth the risk. Why should God be any different except on a grander scale? Evil is a result of CHOICE that God allowed. But it was worth the risk."

Do you really think people think about RISK when they fornicate? I mean, do you REALLY think people are thinking about risk? Risk? Really?

That's a new one on me, that's for sure. Idiot me, I thought people fornicated because it feels good.

Ah, the foolishness of being simple-minded.

afdave: "The parents take a large risk in having children because their children will experience many evils---skinned knees, black eyes, sickness, maybe even scary stuff like prison time, parasitic eyeball worms, or maybe they'll grow up to be a mass murderer. Do they have kids anyway? Of course ... because the chance of good is worth the risk. Why should God be any different except on a grander scale? Evil is a result of CHOICE that God allowed. But it was worth the risk.">

Do you really think people think about RISK when they fornicate? I mean, do you REALLY think people are thinking about risk?

That's a new one on me, that's for sure. Idiot me, I thought people fornicated because it feels good. Ah, the foolishness of being simple-minded.

Wow, you guys are uptight! What exactly is so frustrating about having guys like me speak their mind? Another question ... Let's say all you guys here at PT who hate my guts were in control of our government ... what would you do with guys like me?

What exactly is so frustrating about having guys like me speak their mind? Another question ... Let's say all you guys here at PT who hate my guts were in control of our government ... what would you do with guys like me?

— AFDave

Wow, you guys are uptight! What exactly is so frustrating about having guys like me speak their mind?

— afDave

Another question ... Let's say all you guys here at PT who hate my guts were in control of our government ... what would you do with guys like me?

Wow, you guys are uptight! What exactly is so frustrating about having guys like me speak their mind? Another question ... Let's say all you guys here at PT who hate my guts were in control of our government ... what would you do with guys like me?

— afdave

afdave wrote: Wow, you guys are uptight! What exactly is so frustrating about having guys like me speak their mind? Another question ... Let's say all you guys here at PT who hate my guts were in control of our government ... what would you do with guys like me?

Wow, you guys are uptight! What exactly is so frustrating about having guys like me speak their mind?

— afdave

Let's say all you guys here at PT who hate my guts were in control of our government ... what would you do with guys like me?

OK ... how about this one ... If you guys (evolutionists) have basically had an educational monopoly on public schools since the 60's or so, also National Geographic, Natural History and many other publications plus basically all the museums support your view, and most of the news media support your view, why do you still not have a majority of people that believe your theory? Seems like you've had ample opportunity to explain it ...

U.S. Majority Picks Creationism over Evolution
http://www.angus-reid.com/polls/index.cfm/fuseaction/viewItem/itemID/11669

Which of these views do you agree with the most? 1. Human beings evolved from less advanced life forms over millions of years, and God did not directly guide this process; 2. Human beings evolved from less advanced life forms over millions of years, but God guided this process; or 3. God created human beings in their present form.

Apr. 2006

God created humans in present form -- 53%

Humans evolved, God guided the process -- 23%

Humans evolved, God did not guide process -- 17%

Source: CBS News
Methodology: Telephone interviews with 899 American adults, conducted from Apr. 6 to Apr. 9, 2006. Margin of error is 3 per cent.

why do you still not have a majority of people that believe your theory?

— afdave

Registered User wrote (re; distinction between biblical literalist rubbish and other Christian denominations)

I think it's an "extremely important" distinction to Christians.
-------------------------------
Exactly. And 80% of the USA is Christian, in widely varying degrees of involvement. That is exactly the point.

When Creationists/IDers/etc jury-rig a poll or question to be 'science vs. the Bible' we need to clarify that the real question is 'one fanatical sect's views vs. everyone else's'.

Don't de facto concede 'the voice of god' to them - they don't own it, and they don't officially speak for Him/Her/Them/It/Whatever.

Don't let them cheat by framing the question.

- K.

what would you do with guys like me?

all you guys here at PT who hate my guts

God created humans in present form --- 53%

afdave: why do you still not have a majority of people that believe your theory?

When Creationists/IDers/etc jury-rig a poll or question to be 'science vs. the Bible

So if 476 out of 899 American adults belive the Earth is flat, that means that the Earth really is flat?

Clarification for ben ...

All my references to the Creationist majority are applicable to the USA which is where the poll referred to was taken ...

This should have been clear in the original reference to the poll ...

If you guys (evolutionists) have basically had an educational monopoly on public schools since the 60's or so, also National Geographic, Natural History and many other publications plus basically all the museums support your view, and most of the news media support your view, why do you still not have a majority of people that believe your theory? Seems like you've had ample opportunity to explain it ...

— afdave

People believed in Geocentrism and Flat Earthism because if they didn't, they risked being burned alive as a heretic

— afdave

that's not quite the situation we have today

we YECers are supposedly minority, fringe lunatics and yet we have convinced more than half the public WITHOUT any government funding, WITHOUT any totalitarian structure like the RC Church, and IN SPITE OF being almost completely censored in public schools and universities ...

In a completely unscientific poll (I wanted to make sure we were comparing apples to apples) that was taken at my college, it was found that 68% of college students believed that 8 divided by 0 was 8.

The only thing we can conclude from public opinion polls is that the public has really stupid opinions. However, thankfully, opinion != fact.

People believed in Geocentrism and Flat Earthism because if they didn't, they risked being burned alive as a heretic ... that's not quite the situation we have today ...

— afdave

I just find it amazing that with your virtual monopoly,

Of course the "monopoly" talk comes straight out of creationist/ID sources, and wasn't anything that Afdave thought about at all. I'm not sure about the flat-earth persecution fantasy, as it sounds like the prattle of any person ignorant of science and history, so it could come from "creationist sources", or Afdave making things up as he goes along.

On other matters, Afdave makes the classic ressentiment mistake, of assuming that those above him intellectually or otherwise deign to "hate" him. What he thinks is hate is in fact contempt, and even that would be missing were he simply able to know that he's outclassed intellectually. And yes, I think that the contemptible deserve contempt when they expose their overwhelming ignorance.

Glen D
http://tinyurl.com/b8ykm

afDave wrote:

Kenneth--- You're saying that Creationists have the ability to "jury rig" a CBS poll?

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

afdave - assuming your reading comprehension problem is accidental and not intentional; I did not single out a specific poll. I pointed out how Creationists often say 'it's God's Word (their interp, of course) or science' when the real question is 'it's biblical literalism or the evidence'.

Biblical Literalism is logically indefensible. And science isn't done by polls -for good reason. In one poll folks thought molecules were smaller than atoms (or electrons, I don't have the actual reference handy - but I can get it if you like). Should we teach that? Of course not.

It's about the Evidence.

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

I'll tell all my YEC buddies ... they'll be thrilled!

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

When you do, ask them how YECs deal with the mountains of cross-discipline evidence against their position, anyway? I assume it's a combination of denial and misrepresentation, but I'd be interested.

- K.

Afdave: Like you, I too am a christian. I am a member of this church:

http://www.presbyterianireland.org

and a member of this congregation:

http://www.presbyterianireland.org/congregations/abbotscross.html

The minister of my church is a young earth creationist, unfortunately, and we have had YEC's such as Dr. David Menton and Roger Oakland http://www.understandthetimes.org as speakers. I am not a young Earth creationist and I have no problem with science or evolution. I checked with church house on their position on creation (I told them I did not believe in YECism) and I was told by Stephen Lynis that church policy was that so long as I believed God created the Heavens and the Earth, how and when he did it was for me to decide. I was then told if I had a problem I should take it up with the minister. I would assume that this meant that I could believe anything from flat earthism to theistic evolution (my present position) I have no problem with science, evolution or "millions of years" as AIG likes to put it. Indeed I think that it is my minister and not myself that is at odds with church policy - check out the AIG statement of faith and you will see what I mean !

In fact I find much of the so-called science of AIG and similar groups offensive. If someone had told me that this is what I had to believe in order to be "saved" I would have rejected Christianity entirely and probably have become an agnostic. I wonder how many have done the this as a result of people like Ken Ham, Carl Baugh, or Kent Hovind ?

I have no problems accepting this:

http://www.habitas.org.uk/escr/geologyni.htm

Do you ? What exactly do you find wrong with conventional science ?

In his book "Abusing Science the case against creationism" Philip Kitcher makes a very similar statement to Steve Jones. He says:"If we let the creationists have their way we may as well go the whole hog. Let us reintroduce the flat-earth theory,the chemistry of the four elements, and medieval astrology. For these outworn doctrines have just as much claim to rival current scientific views as Creationism does to challenge evolution ". Page 5 of abusing science. I recommend you read this book Afdave. Although Philip Kitcher is not a Christian he is not anti - church. He covers all the rebuttals of YECism and there is quite a bit on the nature and philosophy of science.

As for people on this blog hating your guts, I posted a query on the "Christianstar" forum regarding this subject and many of the replies I got back were just insulting. I was even called Satan's disciple at one stage, and told to go and read my bible and learn about ID ! I think the people on this blog are above such behavior, even if Lenny does "shrug at Carol"

You should realise that the evolution/creation debate is not a salvation issue !

I don't think that a random egg plus random sperm and nine months of gestation is an adequate explanation of the production of an entire human being. In fact I think it is impossible to say for certain where fully formed humans are derived. It may be storks or cabbage patches, however those are questions beyond the realm of scientific explanation. The only thing we can be certain of is that the production humans is too complex to be explained by sexual reproduction. Sexual reproductionism is assumed by the dogmatic scientists, however, if you read between the lines in the thousands of their scientific publications you will see that their research does not in anyway support this assumption. Human production, therefore, is best explained by an intelligent producer.

In fact many scientists are changing their minds about sexual reproductionism and have signed a statement proclaiming, "We are skeptical of the claims of Sexual Reproductionism. We do not think random sperm and random egg plus nine months of gestation adequately explain the production of an entire human being." The list is up to 500 and growing.

Don't forget the 2LOT! It is clear that there has been an increase of complexity from the so-called "sperm and egg" phase to the baby, which is explicitely forbidden by the 2LoT! And also an increase of information, and since the René-Prosper Blondlot of information theory D*mbski said that information can only decrease, babies as described by the atheist sexual reproductism is clearly impossible and an atheist conspiracy!!!!1!!

This post was written by deliberately turning off my brain.

Hope that helps,

Grey Wolf

Peter Henderson wrote:

As for people on this blog hating your guts, I posted a query on the "Christianstar" forum regarding this subject and many of the replies I got back were just insulting. I was even called Satan's disciple at one stage, and told to go and read my bible and learn about ID !

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

Ah yes, the old 'if you disagree with me, you're a tool of Satan' logic. Works every time.

For anyone who is honestly interested in the human development of the Bible, I recommend three excellent books:

Bart D. Ehrman "Lost Christianities" Oxford University Press, (2003) ISBN-13: 978-0-19-51249-1

Ehrman again,"Misquoting Jesus" (out on loan, so I don't have the details handy)

And "The New Oxford Annotated Bible" Third Edition, 2001

All are respectful, historical, up to date and thoroughly researched. And all have copious notes on how humans, with the best of intentions and inspiration, wrote the Bible.

These works might help some to understand that 'The message' survives without the abject lunacy of literalism.

Jesus didn't type the New Testament in English.

And most biblical interpretations have no problem with the evidence for evolution.

- K.

Sexual Reproductionism is obviously a false doctrine. The probability of a random sperm and a random egg producing even the most basic life sustaining proteins from scratch are unfathomable. If the whole universe was crammed with electron particles, the maximum number of particles would be 10¹³⁰. If each particle could do one hundred billion-billion events every second for 3,000 billion years, then in the span of history of the universe 10¹⁷⁰ events could possibly happen. But to get a series of even 1,500 events to happen in order (with out the intelligent producers help), there is only one chance in 10⁴⁵⁰. That means the chance of sexual reproduction happening is zero.

J. Biggs: you meant "essentially zero," right? Gotta get the weasel-words straight...

J. Biggs: you meant "essentially zero," right? Gotta get the weasel-words straight...

OK ... how about this one ... If you guys (Sexual Reproductionists) have basically had an educational monopoly on public schools since the 60's or so, also National Geographic, Natural History and many other publications plus basically all the museums support your view, and most of the news media support your view, why do you still not have a majority of people that believe your theory of sexual reproduction? Seems like you've had ample opportunity to explain it ...

U.S. Majority Picks Storkism over Sexual Reproduction
http://www.angus-reid.com/polls/index.cfm/fuseac...

Which of these views do you agree with the most? 1. Human beings are produced by the combination of a sperm and egg in utero, and Storks did not directly affect this process; 2. Human beings are produced by the combination of a sperm and egg in utero, but Storks affected this process; or 3. Storks deliver all human babies fully formed.

Apr. 2006

Storks deliver all human babies fully formed --- 53%

Sexual Reproduction, Storks affected the process --- 23%

Sexual Reproduction, Storks did not affect the process --- 17%

I am not stupid enough to participate in this poll - 7%

Source: BS News
Methodology: Telephone interviews with 899 American adults, conducted from Apr. 6 to Apr. 9, 2006. Margin of error is 3 per cent.

Hilarious ... and original

And the best part is, it is not off topic, like other posts in this thread.

"This gave me[Paul Taylor ] the opportunity to point out that Prof. Jones believes 44% of the British public are stupid"

As an observer, and member, of the British public myself I'm suprised that the figure is so low.

Hmm... wasn't there a poll once that showed that 76% of all statistics is made up? :)

ask them how YECs deal with the mountains of cross-discipline evidence against their position

Hey dave, I'm still waiting for you to point out which portion of the Constitution makes the US a Christian Nation.

What seems to be the problem?

Just saw this guy http://www.creationtruthministries.org on British television. We really are being bombarded with US creationists at the moment. Can British science survive the onslaught ?

Anyway, since we are talking about babies,storks and cabbage patch kids etc. Here's a cute photo of a fossilised teddy bear:

http://www.creationtruthministries.org/pages/883912/index.htm

Peter Henderson fear not, British science will survive the onslaught of Creo/IDiocism. After all you guys have survive far worse. But in the highly unlikely case that you need some reassurance you know we are here to lend a helping hand if needed. We do have some experience dealing with Creo/IDiots that can be useful on the other side of the pond. And of course there is PT with the plethora of insightful comments and strategies.
Keep up the good fight.

Actually I can respect someone who says: The Bible is the revealed word of God - therefore, anything that apparently conflicts with what the Bible says is wrong.

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

Agreed entirely. For them, the simple answer is denial.

- K.

'Tyrannosaurus' :

... thanks mate - good to have you on our side

Deano and the Brits

"Hmm... wasn't there a poll once that showed that 76% of all statistics is made up? :)
Comment #98677"

actually we are incresingly 'Jedi'...

Some raw stats for you...

http://www.statistics.gov.uk/census2001/profiles/rank/jedi.asp

actually we are incresingly 'Jedi'...

Hey dave, I'm still waiting for you to point out which portion of the Constitution makes the US a Christian Nation. What seems to be the problem?

Hey Dean--

Lenny's got me thinking again about Christianity and the rise and fall of nations ...

I see you are a Brit ... has anyone ever done a study on this blog correlating the rise of Darwin and Marx with the booting of Christianity and the decline of the once great British nation?

Just a thought ...

dave, please start taking your medication again.

Thanks.

afdave:

Just so you know, the correlation between the ascent of Christianity and the worst decline in the history of Western civilization has been well established for the past three centuries at least.

Of course, Emperor Constantine didn't have nuculer weapons.

Afdave -

IMHO Brittania is a greater nation for having shed its imperial ambitions. People on the whole are kind and to polite to each other - and we don't feel the need to parade our masculinity by carrying guns. We try to look after the sick and the elderly and not to discriminate against people because of the colour of their skin. We are not plagued by god-botherers on our TV screens demanding our cash.

And we're not massively in debt to the Chinese.

Of course this probably owes more to British level-headedness and a sense of 'fair play' rather than Darwin or Marx - but we are free to discuss their ideas - and the terms 'atheist' and 'communist' have specific meaning here and are not simply insults.

Stick that in your pipe and smoke it.

Well it seems that the reporter (in the linked article) is not well versed in science and seems to feel the need to "balance" the discussion.

In the viewpoint bit in the sidebar the reporter wrote:

"Evolutionists say" and "Creationist say" where what would be more appropriate would be "Scientists say" and "Creationists say".

"Evolutionist" is straw man, which really should be lit alight.

No "Evolutionist" says the world is x amount of years old. Various scientific theories (with considerable supporting evidence) state that the evidence indicates that the earth is several billion years old.

A poorly written piece, but negative publicity for pseudo scientists is unfortuneatly necessary.

I can't believe it, my co-worker just bought a car for $81635. Isn't that crazy!