Visitors Bureau Agrees to Change Description of Anti-Museum

good....lets keep on them until they actually change it

btw do they still sell that creo book at the grand canyon

AiG won't be pleased !

http://news.enquirer.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20070901/NEWS01/709010361

The article was in today (Saturday), not Sunday as I thought.

Daniel Phelps, the paleontology society president, had complained the tax-supported visitors bureau should not have used the museum's controversial language because museums don't aim to turn anyone against religion. In fact, many religious people believe in Christ and Scripture as well as evolution, he said.

sounds. not sound's.

Thanks, Steve. That's what I get for posting too fast.

Peter Henderson said:
The church doesn’t need to be involved in this debate,

The church is the reason for this debate.

How ironic for that to happen, right as new undeniable scientific evidence for the Flood comes in.

*chokes*

How ironic for that to happen, right as new undeniable scientific evidence for the Flood comes in. *chokes*

"We have captured a unique phase of a young star's evolution, when the stuff of life is moving dynamically into an environment where planets could form,"

So the site has replaced an incendiary remark with a foolish contention that is meant to be taken as an obvious fact--but which is miserably incorrect.

The church is the reason for this debate.

So the site has replaced an incendiary remark with a foolish contention that is meant to be taken as an obvious fact–but which is miserably incorrect.

"A walk through history via the pages of the Bible - exploring how scripture provides an eye-witness account of the beginning of all things."

it wont surprise me if AiG put their own spin on this story

We didn't need Kentucky to tell us that unguided evolutionism is used as a tool against Christianity. The evolutionists themselves make that clear over and over, specially in the biosphere.

Reading Darwinian blogs is almost the same as reading atheist sites: we get a lot of philosophy, but very little science.

If people continue supporting, visiting and praying for the Creation Museum, it will do just fine.

Mats,

I have no idea what "unguided evolutionism" is, or how it could possibly be used against Christianity, any more than unguided physics, chemistry, meteorology, etc. The entire point of the thread is that this accusation was unfounded and unwarranted and has now been removed. Do you really think that the U.S. government should take an official stand on the religious implications of any scientific theory? What if the government officially condemned your religion because it was contrary to the findings of science? Would that be OK with you?

Mats said: ...The evolutionists themselves make that clear over and over, specially in the biosphere. (my emphasis)

FL said: So the museum description now reads:

“A walk through history via the pages of the Bible - exploring how scripture provides an eye-witness account of the beginning of all things.”

Not bad at all, really. Got a nice inviting ring to it. If people continue supporting, visiting and praying for the Creation Museum, it will do just fine.

Most of my knowledge of Ken Ham's viewpoints has come from quotes on various reality based community websites. Visiting creo websites has proven to be a good way to get lots of creo spam in the email box and not worth the hassles.

That being said, my impression is that he is getting more extreme and bigoted as time goes on. No idea why.

Perhaps his association with the American Death cultists has radicalized him.
More likely the constant ridicule, laughter, criticisms, and deconstruction of his pseudoscience has ticked him off enough that he is beginning to lash back.

If the trend continues, he will become a Rushdooney or Falwell class religious extremist. Look for Ham to start advocating the overthrow of the US government and incarcerating and murdering vast numbers of people in the name of god. Really this Death cult version of Xianity bears less resemblance to my mainstream sunday school version than a Grizzly bear does to a Teddy bear.

Mats said:
Reading Darwinian blogs is almost the same as reading atheist sites: we get a lot of philosophy, but very little science.

Unlike the creation "museum" which is so full of science. Imaginary science, of course, but the ignorant bumpkins who support it seem to enjoy it that way.

I hope you’re not being serious Slang !

— Peter Henderson

Still, it wont surprise me if AiG put their own spin on this story and adapt it for their website over the next few days.

we get a lot of philosophy, but very little science.

— mats

It is a move in the right direction, but other than the inflammatory nature of the wording, the Constitution and the integrity of the State of Kentucky remains in shambles.

See: "Creation Museum Gets its Way" at
http://gregladen.com/wordpress/?p=1180

The church is the reason for this debate.

We didn’t need Kentucky to tell us that unguided evolutionism is used as a tool against Christianity.

— Mats

"The evolutionists themselves make that clear over and over, specially in the biosphere."

I, for one, am happy to be a part of the biosphere. What sphere are you in?

I have no idea what “unguided evolutionism” is

or how it could possibly be used against Christianity, any more than unguided physics, chemistry, meteorology, etc.

The entire point of the thread is that this accusation was unfounded and unwarranted and has now been removed.

Do you really think that the U.S. government should take an official stand on the religious implications of any scientific theory?

What if the government officially condemned your religion because it was contrary to the findings of science? Would that be OK with you?

Regardless of what side of the fence you’re on, Ft, I think that’s a perceptive and profound reply you’ve offered there. Thanks.

Mats,

I'm sure that others will address your other claims, and may even note how people like Kenneth Miller and John Haught, who represent mainstream Christianity, balance out Dawkins' "intellectually fulfilled atheist" comment.

What I am much more interested in is what you think the empirical evidence supports, specifically:

1. Do you think that, whether or not "evolution" is the driver, that humans are biologically related to (share common ancestors with) dogs? Dogwoods? Both (like Michael Behe)? Neither? (please clearly pick 1 of the 4 choices - a best guess will do)

2. Do you agree (like many OECs) that life on earth has a ~4 billion year history? If not, how long a history do you think it has? Be specific, again, a best guess will do.

There is no shortage of scientists (both religious and secular) who point out several problems to the Darwinian synthesis. However, *you* would not consider that “valid” because it undermines *your* definition of science.

SO in a way, the Gov has unofficially condemned my religion, since they have decided that the only “scientific” explanation of origins is one that contradicts Christianity (and the empirical facts, for that matter).

Mats wrote:

"The belief that there is no intelligent, personal interference in the evolutionary process."

That would be your definition of evolutionism. If so, the unguided part is unnecessary and redundant. The belief is not unguided, the belief is that the process of evolution is unguided.

"In order for us to know about the anti-Christian spirit of unguided evolutionism, all we have to do is to check on how Darwinists celebrate “Darwin Day”. Lots of anti-religious remarks, lots of anti-Christian nonsense, etc, etc. Lots of philosophy, and very little science."

How does the other people speaking their minds constitute using evolution against Christianity? Are they taking away your right to say anything you want to in your tax free church? Would you take away their right to their opinions in order to prevent them from disagreeing with you? If we used your criteria we would undoubtedly have to condemn most religions as well.

"But the accusation is not unfounded, but factual. Wasn’t it dear old Clinton R. Dawkins who said that evolution makes it possible to be an intellectually full filled atheist? Why not be open and honest about it like him?

Again, how is this an example of evolution being used against Christianity? Why does the possibility of being an intellectually fulfilled athiest frighten you so much? Are you afraid that no one will follow your religion if there is any alternative? If Hindus, Muslims, and Buddists try to convert people to thier religion instead of yours, are they using their religion against Christianity?

"Do you honestly think that any theory of origins is religiously neutral?"

It doesn't matter. The point is that the government should be neutral when it comes to religious implications.

"The only constitutional theory of origins is unguided evolutionism. So, the Gov has taken a stand on this issue."

The only scientific theory of origins is evolution, so the government has taken a stand for science and not for any one religious viewpoint. If you don't like it, do some science yourself.

"... it is not OK either to teach ONE version of origins, and make it a sacred and holy theory, that cannot be checked with scientific evidence."

There is no such thing as a "sacred and holy theory". There is also no such thing as a theory that "cannot be checked with scientific evidence". Religious myths about origins have these characteristics, not science.

"There is no shortage of scientists (both religious and secular) who point out several problems to the Darwinian synthesis. However, *you* would not consider that “valid” because it undermines *your* definition of science."

Of course I would. Any scientific challenge to the theory of evolution deserves to be judged fairly based on the evidence. Have you got any?

"SO in a way, the Gov has unofficially condemned my religion, since they have decided that the only “scientific” explanation of origins is one that contradicts Christianity (and the empirical facts, for that matter)."

Would you prefer it instead if the government choose your religion as the one true religion that we all have to follow and enforced that policy? By the way, most people would disagree that evolution "contradicts Christianity". If the government has really condemned your religion, why do you still have the right to go to a tax free church? You have somehow equated nonsponsorship with condemnation. I assure you, there is a difference.

"Secondly, that would be a weird condemnation, since the founding fathers of many of modern day scientific branches had a worldview more in line with the YEC than with the Darwin Only party."

The founding fathers were wise enough to try to establish a system that prevented the majority from oppressing the minority. If you don't like it you are always free to live elsewhere.

Strangely enough, we don’t see people using physics, chemistry or even meteorology as a tool against Christianity.

— mats

Wasn’t it dear old Clinton R. Dawkins who said that evolution makes it possible to be an intellectually full filled atheist?

There is no shortage of scientists (both religious and secular) who point out several problems to the Darwinian synthesis.

[...] the founding fathers of many of modern day scientific branches had a worldview more in line with the YEC than with the Darwin Only party.

Mats the braindead, lying troll: There is no shortage of scientists (both religious and secular) who point out several problems to the Darwinian synthesis. However, *you* would not consider that “valid” because it undermines *your* definition of science.

Mats the unmedicated homechool failure: Strangely enough, we don’t see people using physics, chemistry or even meteorology as a tool against Christianity.

And BTW, troll, evolution is a scientific theory. It is neutral on religion.

"That evolution erodes religious belief seems almost too obvious to require argument. It destroyed the faith of Darwin himself, who moved from Christianity to agnosticism as a result of his discoveries and was immediately recognized as a huge threat by his reverent contemporaries." -- Slate writer/editor Jacob Weisberg, "Evolution versus Religion", August 10, 2005

“An evolutionary perspective undermines religious belief by removing some of the grounds that previously supported it." –- James Rachels, Created From Animals, 1990, p.127.

...."(A) central tenet of Christian theology: Human beings were designed and created in the image of God. Darwinism denies this." --Dr. Jonathan Wells, Yale Daily News, Jan. 2007. *** "With all deference to the sensibilities of religious people, the idea that man was created in the image of God can surely be put aside." --Nature magazine, "Evolution and the Brain", June 14, 2007 **(Notice how starkly and sharply the evolutionists confirmed Dr. Well's statement!!)

"Post-Darwinian evolutionary theory, which can explain the emergence of the first bacteria, doesn't even leave much room for a deist God whose minimal role might have been to flick the first switch." -- Jacob Weisberg, Slate, previously cited.

FL said: But for now, the main gig is that Raven is wrong on a key point: Evolution is most certainly NOT neutral about religion. Evolution functions like a “universal acid” against religion, as evolutionist Daniel Dennett accurately pointed out.

Flood geologists are 100% Christian fundamentalists, as far as I can tell.

— Peter Henderson

“The belief that there is no intelligent, personal interference in the evolutionary process.” That would be your definition of evolutionism. If so, the unguided part is unnecessary and redundant. The belief is not unguided, the belief is that the process of evolution is unguided.

“In order for us to know about the anti-Christian spirit of unguided evolutionism, all we have to do is to check on how Darwinists celebrate “Darwin Day”. Lots of anti-religious remarks, lots of anti-Christian nonsense, etc, etc. Lots of philosophy, and very little science.” How does the other people speaking their minds constitute using evolution against Christianity?

“But the accusation is not unfounded, but factual. Wasn't’t it dear old Clinton R. Dawkins who said that evolution makes it possible to be an intellectually full filled atheist? Why not be open and honest about it like him? Again, how is this an example of evolution being used against Christianity?

Why does the possibility of being an intellectually fulfilled atheist frighten you so much?

“Do you honestly think that any theory of origins is religiously neutral?” It doesn't’t matter. The point is that the government should be neutral when it comes to religious implications.

“The only constitutional theory of origins is unguided evolutionism. So, the Gov has taken a stand on this issue.” The only scientific theory of origins is evolution,

so the government has taken a stand for science and not for any one religious viewpoint.(...)

“… it is not OK either to teach ONE version of origins, and make it a sacred and holy theory, that cannot be checked with scientific evidence.” There is no such thing as a “sacred and holy theory”.

There is also no such thing as a theory that “cannot be checked with scientific evidence”. Religious myths about origins have these characteristics, not science.

“There is no shortage of scientists (both religious and secular) who point out several problems to the Darwinian synthesis. However, *you* would not consider that “valid” because it undermines *your* definition of science.” Of course I would. Any scientific challenge to the theory of evolution deserves to be judged fairly based on the evidence. Have you got any?

“SO in a way, the Gov has unofficially condemned my religion, since they have decided that the only “scientific” explanation of origins is one that contradicts Christianity (and the empirical facts, for that matter).” Would you prefer it instead if the government choose your religion as the one true religion that we all have to follow and enforced that policy?

By the way, most people would disagree that evolution “contradicts Christianity”.

“Secondly, that would be a weird condemnation, since the founding fathers of many of modern day scientific branches had a worldview more in line with the YEC than with the Darwin Only party.” The founding fathers were wise enough to try to establish a system that prevented the majority from oppressing the minority. If you don’t like it you are always free to live elsewhere.

FL -

The problem with your post is that it is nothing but arguments from authority.

It doesn't matter if five or six, or a thousand, "experts", make some comment about their opinion on the supposed "interaction" of evolutionary biology and "religion". Those are just their opinions.

It's possible that one or more people from the "science side" will reply angrily to this post, probably quoting Dawkins or Dennet, and accusing me of intellectual dishonesty or some subtle misinterpretation of something somebody said. That doesn't matter either.

The scientific content of evolutionary biology is nothing more than that - the enormous overlap of scientific evidence from biochemistry, molecular biology, genetics, genomics, cell biology, anatomy, physiology, ecology, etc, broadly defined, that supports and explains the evolution of cellular and post-cellular life.

I have no doubt that your particular religious views are, in fact, at odds with the theory of evolution. By extension, they are thus at odds with essentially all other branches of science as well. But that is only true for your particular religious views. The religious views of Peter Henderson differ.

I have no problem with that whatsoever. It is your inalienable right to live, worship, and believe as you see fit. It is your right to proseletyze. I comment on your religious views only because, by posting here and raising the issue, you implicitly invite comments.

I must say that, unique among creationists, your comments are civil, somewhat internally coherent, and relatively free from egregious dishonesty (that isn't such a strong complement). I didn't say your comments were "unbiased" or "accurate" :-).

Although, of course, I think it would be better if creationists would accept scientific reality even privately, the private views of others are not my business.

What I do object strongly to, and continue to fight against, are the following -

1) Any and all efforts to bowdlerize, distort, misrepresent, censor or otherwise disrupt the teaching of science in tax-payer funded public schools. When the objective is the benefit of a sectarian group at the expense of others, such efforts are blatantly illegal. In other circumstances, such efforts might be made for a less blatantly illegal motivation (eg a school board convinced that UFOlogy was more important than some aspect of the mainstream science curriculum). I would oppose that, too, of course.

There are also so activities that creationists and other peddlars of pseudoscience engage in, which are technically legal, but which I strongly oppose. Again, it is the impact on the public sphere, and thus on me, that leads me to oppose them.

2) Pushing the application of pseudoscience rather than mainstream science, or non-universal sectarian morality, as a basis for public policy decisions.

3) Deliberately miseducating the public by publishing garbage on paper and on the internet which makes false claims about science.

That's really all there is to it.

Note to lurkers:

With "evolutionists" there's no need to ask what they conclude regarding a general account of biological history. It's invariably old earth, common descent, evolutionary changes, etc. But with the anti-evolution activists (assuming they are not trolls), one must ask the simple questions that I ask in Comment 203,114 above to get a fair idea where they are coming from. Anyone, even a troll, can parrot all the usual canards against "Darwinism," but when it comes to backing up their pretense of having a "scientific" alternative, most can't even answer the most basic "what happened when" questions, let alone demonstrate a rigorous program of testing those questions, and the myriad hypotheses they generate.

Occasionally some of them will admit to some YEC or OEC leaning, and maybe even admit a rare challenge to someone promoting a contradictory anti-evolution. But not as often as in years past. And every single one will take the first opportunity to change the subject back to trotting out the same old canards. IOW the exact opposite of what they'd do if they were truly confident that they had a better scientific explanation.

So, whether or not you want to leave a comment, please take close note of their antics, and don't get sidetracked into what evolution does or doesn't claim (you can read about that elsewhere), who's the Christian, who's the atheist, etc.

Actually, the unguided part is the crux of the matter. The real question in this origins debate is: can natural, impersonal, undirected, unguided forces create the bio-complexity, OR do we need a Creator to do the job?

But ironically, in the USA now we have the minority oppressing the majority. The 10-15% of Darwin dogmatics are enforcing their religious worldview on the majority of the American population. I guess that either the founding fathers of the USA failed, or their words have been taken out of context, and used to enforce a particular religious world view.

What scientific studies show otherwise?

Mats wrote:

"Actually, the unguided part is the crux of the matter. The real question in this origins debate is: can natural, impersonal, undirected, unguided forces create the bio-complexity, OR do we need a Creator to do the job?"

Exactly. That is why saying "unguided evolutionism" is like calling it "wet liquid water". You have already defined "evolutionism" as "unguided". To call it "unguided evolutionism" implies that the belief in evolution is what is unguided. It is not. It is guided by facts and evidence. I asked you before if you had any evidence that "we need a Creator to do the job". You have not provided any. As others have already pointed out, "natural impersonal undirected unguided forces" are indeed capable of generating the diversity of life we see on this planet. That is what all of the evidence clearly shows. Now unguided Creationism would be something that is unguided by facts or evidence. That I could buy as a useful term.

"It does by the simple fact that they use the official dogma of evolutionism against the Christian Faith. Hence, what I said initially is confirmed even by your words: the theory of evolution is used as a tool against conventional religion, Christianity in particular."

So what? Lots of religious people use their religion, and the freedom given to them by the U.S. Constitution, against science. Their actions no more invalidate their religious beliefs than the actions of some against religion invalidate science. In any event, teaching evolution in public schools does not constitute using science as a tool against religion. And even if it is, it is only your particular religious view, not Christianity in general, that has a problem with evolution.

"You didn’t answer my question, and it DOES matter. IF ANY theory of origins is bound to have religious implications, then the Gov is favoring ONE particular (and minority) view on origins at public expenses. We are paying to have your religion to be taught to our kids."

This is dead wrong. The government must support science and it's findings, regardless of the implications for any religious sect. Just because science can have religious implications does not mean that science is religion. Should the government suppress the germ theory of disease because some religious sect doesn't want to believe it? How do you choose what sect to support when sects disagree about the implications? Either the government supports science, or it bows to the will of religious fanatics. The question you have to ask is why your particular religion is at odds with the findings of science.

"The Gov has taken a stand on one particular view of origins, which very clear religious outcomes, at the expenses of everyone’s money."

Once again, would you prefer that everyone be forced to teach your particular religious beliefs in science class, regardless of the findings of science?

"Yes, there is. Darwinism is one.

Then evolution is a religious myth."

Once again, the theory of evolution is not holy or above reproach in any way. It has been tested more thouroughly than any other theory in the history of science and it has never been disproven. You are just lying here and you know it.

"But that is just the problem: you don’t consider anything that opposes evolutionism as science, therefore evolutionary skeptics are ruled out, NOT because they have no evidence, BUT because the simple fact of questioning evolution is a sign that they don’t know anything about science. So skeptics are dead on arrival."

Once again, I specifically asked for evidence. Once again you responded that I would not accept any contrary views but you still provided no evidence. Well you are partly right. In the absence of evidence, why should I accept anyone else's views?

"Well, if that were to happen, there would only happen a change of religion, since, presently, the government has chosen a religion as the one true religion, has enforced it with the Law, and we all have to follow at the risk of being considered “unscientific”."

You didn't answer my question. Would that be OK with you or not? Would it be OK for the government to enforce your religion instead, given that you have such a problem with them supposedly enforcing what you perceive to be some one else's? If that did happen, should the government make science tax free?

"Most people who don’t know what evolution really means would disagree, yes."

So all of the people who disagree with you are just ignorant?

"But ironically, in the USA now we have the minority oppressing the majority. The 10-15% of Darwin dogmatics are enforcing their religious worldview on the majority of the American population."

Once again, you have a strange definition of oppression when you are guaranteed the freedom to hold any views you want and preach any views you want in your tax free church, including views that ignore all of science. If you find science to be oppressive, perhaps you should reconsider your use of the technology that makes it possible for you to express your views in this forum.

I assume by the majority Mats, you are referring to the young Earth creationists ?

But for now, the main gig is that Raven is wrong on a key point: Evolution is most certainly NOT neutral about religion. Evolution functions like a “universal acid” against religion, as evolutionist Daniel Dennett accurately pointed out.

Evolution is especially and particularly opposed to biblical religion: viz., certain major, historical, key truth claims of biblical Christianity.

But ironically, in the USA now we have the minority oppressing the majority. The 10-15% of Darwin dogmatics are enforcing their religious worldview on the majority of the American population.

Frank J said: Asking that question only tempts them to trot out the usual SETI/archeology/forensics canards.

Modern evolutionary theory says nothing about religion.

"Evolutionary theory does not admit conscious anticipation of the future (i.e. conscious forethought), either in the process of evolution of an adaptive characteristic or in the development or behavior of an individual organism." --Evolutionary Biology 3rd ed, p 342. **** "The theory of evolution by natural selection explains the adaptedness and diversity of the world solely materialistically." --Ernst Mayr, "Darwin's Influence on Modern Thought", SciAm July 2000

(Genesis 1: 26) "Then God said, 'Let us make man in our image, in our likeness, and let them rule over the fish of the sea and the birds of the air, over the livestock, over all the earth, and over all the creatures that move along the ground.' **** (Isaiah 43:6-7) I will say to the north, 'Give them up!' and to the south, 'Do not hold them back.' Bring my sons from afar and my daughters from the ends of the earth--everyone who is called by my name, whom I created for my glory, whom I formed and made." **** Colossians 1:16) For by him (Jesus Christ) all things were created: things in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or powers or rulers or authorities; all things were created by him and for him.

Not bad at all, really. Got a nice inviting ring to it. If people continue supporting, visiting and praying for the Creation Museum, it will do just fine.

funny thing, but even the Templeton hasn't found a positive effect to intercessionary prayer, despite 7 funded studies attempting to find one.

you might want to stick to recommending the sheep to just send cash.

Not bad at all, really. Got a nice inviting ring to it. If people continue supporting, visiting and praying for the Creation Museum, it will do just fine.

You see that? All three of these texts clearly express God’s teleology,

natural, impersonal, undirected, unguided forces

Not only do I not give a rat’s a$$ what people believe privately, I strongly support everyone’s right to live, believe, worship, or not worship, as they see fit, with only the restrictions that they obey the law and respect the rights of others.

Actually, the unguided part is the crux of the matter. The real question in this origins debate is: can natural, impersonal, undirected, unguided forces create the bio-complexity, OR do we need a Creator to do the job?

One of the things that I can never answer is whether my feeling that there is a god is simply some kind of neurological pattern in my brain. I have no answer to that, I just do not know. But the evidence would lead me to think otherwise, because I’m not the only person who feels this, who has the same experiences. And I can recognise what I call god in other people as well, it’s not just in me. Jocelyn Bell Burnell

Peter Henderson: In a recent article that I’ve read on the museum, someone said that the YEC’s are in fact redefining what a Christian actually is.

The New Atheists, The Nation June 25, 2007 available free on the web. "Most dramatically, a whopping 49 percent believe that Christian conservatives have gone too far "in trying to impose their religious values on the country." This, then, is an unreported secret of American life: Considerable numbers of Americans, religious and secular, are becoming fed up with the in-your-face religion that has come to mark our society."

Henry wrote:

"Another question is why somebody would think those two concepts are mutually exclusive from each other. I don’t see any reason to presume that a Creator couldn't use an unguided process if that process would produce the wanted results. After all, isn’t it the result that matters, not the amount of guidance involved?"

Seems right to me. Presumably God wouldn't care what kind of intelligent life eventually evolved on Earth. If being "made in God's image" isn't about physical appearance, then why not just allow random processes to take their course? Presumably this is why other religions based on the Bible see no contradiction with belief in evolution. After all, God seems to use unguided gravity all the time. Unless maybe your concept of God is too small or anthropomorphic.

the rise of the militant atheists.

Why are those canards? Those are some of my favorite topics to raise with IDers.

— Science Avenger

In a recent article that I’ve read on the museum, someone said that the YEC’s are in fact redefining what a Christian actually is. Reading FL and Mats opinions I would definitely agree with this statement.

Actually, the unguided part is the crux of the matter. The real question in this origins debate is: can natural, impersonal, undirected, unguided forces create the bio-complexity,

OR do we need a Creator to do the job?

For you to see that such is the matter at hand, you can see that there are IDists who accept common descent,

BUT don’t accept the “unguided part” of Darwinism.

That is why I am specific in saying “unguided evolutionism”.

“In order for us to know about the anti-Christian spirit of unguided evolutionism, all we have to do is to check on how Darwinists celebrate “Darwin Day”. Lots of anti-religious remarks, lots of anti-Christian nonsense, etc, etc. Lots of philosophy, and very little science.”

How does the other people speaking their minds constitute using evolution against Christianity?

Hence, what I said initially is confirmed even by your words: the theory of evolution is used as a tool against conventional religion, Christianity in particular.

“But the accusation is not unfounded, but factual. Wasn’t’t it dear old Clinton R. Dawkins who said that evolution makes it possible to be an intellectually full filled atheist? Why not be open and honest about it like him?

By the simple fact that they use evolution against Christianity.

“Do you honestly think that any theory of origins is religiously neutral?”

You didn’t answer my question, and it DOES matter. IF ANY theory of origins is bound to have religious implications, then the Gov is favoring ONE particular (and minority) view on origins at public expenses.

We are paying to have your religion to be taught to our kids.

The only scientific theory of origins is evolution,

so the government has taken a stand for science and not for any one religious viewpoint.(…)

which very clear religious outcomes, at the expenses of everyone’s money.

“… it is not OK either to teach ONE version of origins, and make it a sacred and holy theory, that cannot be checked with scientific evidence.”

There is no such thing as a “sacred and holy theory”.

There is also no such thing as a theory that “cannot be checked with scientific evidence”. Religious myths about origins have these characteristics, not science.

“There is no shortage of scientists (both religious and secular) who point out several problems to the Darwinian synthesis. However, *you* would not consider that “valid” because it undermines *your* definition of science.”

Of course I would. Any scientific challenge to the theory of evolution deserves to be judged fairly based on the evidence. Have you got any?

therefore evolutionary skeptics are ruled out, NOT because they have no evidence, BUT because the simple fact of questioning evolution is a sign that they don’t know anything about science.

So skeptics are dead on arrival.

Thanks to the legislation (not the science), “only scientific theory of origins”.

“SO in a way, the Gov has unofficially condemned my religion, since they have decided that the only “scientific” explanation of origins is one that contradicts Christianity (and the empirical facts, for that matter).”

Would you prefer it instead if the government choose your religion as the one true religion that we all have to follow and enforced that policy?

By the way, most people would disagree that evolution “contradicts Christianity”.

The founding fathers were wise enough to try to establish a system that prevented the majority from oppressing the minority. If you don’t like it you are always free to live elsewhere.

The 10-15% of Darwin dogmatics are enforcing their religious worldview on the majority of the American population.

I guess that either the founding fathers of the USA failed, or their words have been taken out of context, and used to enforce a particular religious world view.

Do we really know that FL and Mats are YECs?

That is to say, while they’re not entirely in agreement with science, they’re in agreement that science should be taught in public schools, not religion.

Modern evolutionary theory says nothing about religion.

Besides the rather convincing quotations that have been already quoted,

you also have (for example) evolutionist Douglas Futuyma’s clear statement (and also Mayr’s): “Evolutionary theory does not admit conscious anticipation of the future (i.e. conscious forethought), either in the process of evolution of an adaptive characteristic or in the development or behavior of an individual organism.” –Evolutionary Biology 3rd ed, p 342.

**** “The theory of evolution by natural selection explains the adaptedness and diversity of the world solely materialistically.” –Ernst Mayr, “Darwin’s Influence on Modern Thought”, SciAm July 2000

It’s “a completely mindless process”, as Futuyma said.

Needless to say, that’s an extremely clear and direct denial of what biblical religion affirms: God’s teleology and conscious forethought regarding the origination of the first humans. Take a look: (Genesis 1: 26) “Then God said, ‘Let us make man in our image, in our likeness, and let them rule over the fish of the sea and the birds of the air, over the livestock, over all the earth, and over all the creatures that move along the ground.’

**** (Isaiah 43:6-7) I will say to the north, ‘Give them up!’ and to the south, ‘Do not hold them back.’ Bring my sons from afar and my daughters from the ends of the earth–everyone who is called by my name, whom I created for my glory, whom I formed and made.” **** Colossians 1:16) For by him (Jesus Christ) all things were created: things in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or powers or rulers or authorities; all things were created by him and for him.

You see that? All three of these texts clearly express God’s teleology, God’s goal-directedness and purposefulness, God’s conscious forethought, that evolutionary theory itself denies.

Especially when it comes to the origin of humans.

(Evolutionist James Rachels has also pointed out that the religious claim of humans being created in the image of God is not sustainable if one subscribes to evolution.)

Anyway, religion (that is, Biblical religion, Biblical Christianity) makes very clear that human origination was purposeful and goal-directed and full of conscious-forethought.

In contrast, Evolution says a big direct NO to all of that, saying in fact that evolutionary theory itself does NOT admit any conscious forethought at all. Evolution presents a very clear denial of what religion affirms.

No-Teleology-No-Conscious-Forethought. That’s modern evolutionary theory, period.

Directly opposed to biblical Christianity. Wouldn’t you agree?

AiG won’t be pleased !

A few howls of protest prompted the Bureau to alter its wording a few days ago, which the Bureau informed us would probably happen (and we shared with the Bureau that we would not be offended with re-wording the museum text on its site).

“Actually, the unguided part is the crux of the matter. The real question in this origins debate is: can natural, impersonal, undirected, unguided forces create the bio-complexity, OR do we need a Creator to do the job?” Exactly. That is why saying “unguided evolutionism” is like calling it “wet liquid water”. You have already defined “evolutionism” as “unguided”. To call it “unguided evolutionism” implies that the belief in evolution is what is unguided. It is not. It is guided by facts and evidence. I asked you before if you had any evidence that “we need a Creator to do the job”. You have not provided any. As others have already pointed out, “natural impersonal undirected unguided forces” are indeed capable of generating the diversity of life we see on this planet.

“It does by the simple fact that they use the official dogma of evolutionism against the Christian Faith. Hence, what I said initially is confirmed even by your words: the theory of evolution is used as a tool against conventional religion, Christianity in particular.” So what?

Lots of religious people use their religion, and the freedom given to them by the U.S. Constitution, against science.

In any event, teaching evolution in public schools does not constitute using science as a tool against religion.

And even if it is, it is only your particular religious view, not Christianity in general, that has a problem with evolution.

“You didn't’t answer my question, and it DOES matter. IF ANY theory of origins is bound to have religious implications, then the Gov is favoring ONE particular (and minority) view on origins at public expenses. We are paying to have your religion to be taught to our kids.” This is dead wrong. The government must support science and it’s findings, regardless of the implications for any religious sect.

Just because science can have religious implications does not mean that science is religion.

The question you have to ask is why your particular religion is at odds with the findings of science.

“The Gov has taken a stand on one particular view of origins, which very clear religious outcomes, at the expenses of everyone’s money.” Once again, would you prefer that everyone be forced to teach your particular religious beliefs in science class, regardless of the findings of science?

“Yes, there is. Darwinism is one. Then evolution is a religious myth.” Once again, the theory of evolution is not holy or above reproach in any way. It has been tested more thoroughly than any other theory in the history of science and it has never been disproved.

“But that is just the problem: you don’t consider anything that opposes evolutionism as science, therefore evolutionary skeptics are ruled out, NOT because they have no evidence, BUT because the simple fact of questioning evolution is a sign that they don’t know anything about science. So skeptics are dead on arrival.” (...) Well you are partly right. In the absence of evidence, why should I accept anyone else’s views?

“Well, if that were to happen, there would only happen a change of religion, since, presently, the government has chosen a religion as the one true religion, has enforced it with the Law, and we all have to follow at the risk of being considered “unscientific”.” You didn't’t answer my question. Would that be OK with you or not? Would it be OK for the government to enforce your religion instead, given that you have such a problem with them supposedly enforcing what you perceive to be some one else’s? If that did happen, should the government make science tax free?

I never said it was. I never said that science is religion. I said that evolutionism is religion.

That is just it. There is no absence of evidence for real design. There is a judicial system that forbids such an evidence from even being presented! Not only that, we have the Communist ACLU filling law suits left and right. Since we are not tax supported like Darwinism, we can’t afford to go on legal debates with such powerful and well financed organizations.

AiG won’t be pleased !

'we have the Communist ACLU filling law suits left and right'

With that, Mats surely lost the tiny, miniscule vestige of respect he had.

Okay, I'll bite....

What evidence???

Real scientists -- you know, the guys who actually do the work -- have been asking this question for years, and all they get is the same bovine fewmets over and over and over...

Mats wrote:

"That is just it. There is no absence of evidence for real design. There is a judicial system that forbids such an evidence from even being presented! Not only that, we have the Communist ACLU filling law suits left and right. Since we are not tax supported like Darwinism, we can’t afford to go on legal debates with such powerful and well financed organizations."

Do you remember what happened at Dover? Do you remember who paid for that little bit of unconstitutional nonsense? Do you know the annual budget of the DIscovery Institute" Do you know the annual budget of the NCSE? Once again, your baseless claims are contradicted by all the evidence.

"Like I said above, nor me nor any IDist, nor any YECist nor any Darwin-skeptic I know wants the IMPOSITION of a given origins theory into public classes. What we want is freedom to criticize and freedom to present the *scientific* evidence that goes against evolutionism, and supports the Design argument."

You already have that freedom. You always did. It is guaranteed to you by the same constitution that you are fighting against. What you don't have is any evidence. That ia not the same thing as not having freedom. I have asked you three times now for evidence supporting your contentions, you have not provided any. You just keep repeating over and over that you are not allowed to present evidence. Well no one is stopping you. Go ahead, prove to us all that your are right. Until you present some evidence, I see no reason to continue responding to your nonsense any longer. Repeating lies over and over doesn't make them true.

Mats wrote:

"I would prefer if the Gov stopped trying to present itself as “impartial” when in fact is favoring one particular religious worldview. But even so, I wouldn’t want my worldview IMPOSED in public schools, just like the Darwinian worldview is imposed. I would like teachers, scientists and philosophers to freely bring in the scientific evidence for all origins theories ever proposed (which are essentially just two: nature created itself or An Immaterial Being created nature)."

Scientists and philosophers can present the scientific evidence for anything they want to already. Until there is some evidence, it isn't science. Of course there are hundreds of creation myths and they can all be taught, just not as science. What is so special about you myth? Would you still allow evidence for the theory of evolution to be presented if your myth was included, or should evolution be excluded because it is supposedly religion?

"Hilarious! You are joking, right? Do you have Darwin pictures in your room? Goodness!"

I will ignore the fact that this comment doesn't address my argument. The answer to your question is no. I don't have any pictures of any scientists anywhere in my office or my home. I don't have much to do with Darwin professionally since I am a geneticist and I don't have a "room" since I am a grown man with a job. In general, scientists don't diefy other scientists, even good ones, even dead ones. What pictures do you have on the walls in your room? What pictures are on the stained glass windows in your church? Do they give equal time to evolution?

But that’s just it. They are not supporting science.

They are supporting a particular, minority, unproven, dogmatic interpretation of origins, at the exclusion of all the other views. The fact that those who believe in it call it “science”, doesn’t make it so.

Mats the troll: Lie 1. That is just it. There is no absence of evidence for real design.

Lie 2 There is a judicial system that forbids such an evidence from even being presented!

Lie 3. Not only that, we have the Communist ACLU filling law suits left and right.

Lie 4 Since we are not tax supported like Darwinism, we can’t afford to go on legal debates with such powerful and well financed organizations.

What we want is freedom to criticize and freedom to present the *scientific* evidence that goes against evolutionism, and supports the Design argument.

Mats said: Have you or any of your Darwinian brothers on the faith [sic] ever saw [sic] an impersonal force creating living beings from dead matter?

Citing examples of rabbit s turning into rabbits, or bacteria turning into bacteria doesn’t tell us where do rabbits, bacteria and human observers come from.

I don’t know anyone who uses his/hers freedom of speech against “science”.

I never said it was. I never said that science is religion. I said that evolutionism is religion.

I would prefer if the Gov stopped trying to present itself as “impartial” when in fact is favoring one particular religious worldview. But even so, I wouldn’t want my worldview IMPOSED in public schools, just like the Darwinian worldview is imposed. I would like teachers, scientists and philosophers to freely bring in the scientific evidence for all origins theories ever proposed (which are essentially just two: nature created itself or An Immaterial Being created nature).

That is just it. There is no absence of evidence for real design.

There is a judicial system that forbids such an evidence from even being presented!

You have all the freedom to spout whatever anti-science nonsense you want to outside the classroom. What you don’t get is a pulpit inside the classroom at taxpayer expense.

— Wesley R. Elsberry

Is there any end to the chutzpah?

Dear community,

I have read above many intelligent comments, however, I think once more we are wasting priceless time while involved in non-sense discussions. This entire creationist vs. evolution debates only diverse attention on a deeper problem (as I see it) already shown by Plato: should we allow ignorance alienate the life of people? I do not care if someone believe in elves, fairies, angels or extraterrestrial forms living among us; however, I got extremely worried when someone ignore our current knowledge -an extremely costly knowledge built up for thousands of years and involving the sacrifice of many lives- with the aim to manipulate other people's lives. Theory of evolution, as Newton's gravitation, is a successful master piece of human dedication to explain Nature, and there is not space for doubts. Self-feeding the beast of ignorance is quite silly; but when the spread of ignorance is promoted by persons in charge of large numbers of people, the situation becomes unstable and dangerous.

Mario,

10 years ago I thought it was "us vs. 'the creationists'," and that the latter was one big group that just believed a single fairy tale, and that almost nothing would change that. Sadly, many who know better still caricaturize it as such. As you said, the truth is very different. Specifically, several small, but well-funded, groups of activists are determined to mislead vulnerable people, including millions that aren't "wedded" to their particular fairy tale, and who would be displeased to know that (1) there are several mutually contradictory fairy tales, and (2) that an increasing number of activists are deliberately covering up their fatal flaws and contradictions with a "pseudoscience code of silence."

So if anyone can get even a few people to at least see it the way it is, as opposed to the caricature that I bought into 10 years ago, they not "wasting their time."

So many angry, sad people here who are too intelligent for their own good. They willfully blind themselves to the truth so they don't have to admit they're wrong. You have until you die to see the light and I hope you all do. Stop hiding behind what you think you know about things that happened out of your observation or understanding and that can't be proven though you've convinced yourself they have been. That would be funny if your futures weren't at stake. Consider how many assumptions and leaps of faith you make.

They willfully blind themselves to the truth so they don’t have to admit they’re wrong.

project much?

I think we can award Chet Walker no less than a green ribbon for irony.

Chet Walker said: So many angry, sad people here who are too intelligent for their own good.

Consider how many assumptions and leaps of faith you make.

Stop hiding behind what you think you know about things that happened out of your observation or understanding and that can’t be proven though you’ve convinced yourself they have been.

Hatred, obfuscation, and arrogance continue to shine through. A lot of smart people need things explained to them. Is it possible that many of the things "known" are not knowable or irrelevant? Before an insulting response forms, I'm not talking about the set of things one would already agree about that with. I'm talking about even more. IOW, how much of what one knows might one accept as being assumption and/or unprovable? I would submit that the percentage should be a lot higher.

Someone suggested I might be against children. I think to be closed-minded about other possibilities like ID or some other culture's explanation of these things and then teach only the theory of evolution (and possibly glossing over the 'theory' part) is to do a disservice to the kids. I don't mind the theory of evolution being taught, just not exclusively. I don't understand the intolerance or the level of vitriol that this paragraph will no doubt inspire in some people.