Setting the record straight … again
Published: 12 December 2005 (GMT+10)
I am an atheist.
Hi. I’m not an atheist. However, it is good of you to begin your comments by admitting your presuppositional bias. All of us have a presuppositional bias. What matters is which bias makes the most sense.
I view many atheist and science based sites which are constantly lambasted by religous individuals for reasons ranging from professing a belief in ID to unrelenting dogmatic condescension.
Since your comments do not list which science-based sites are supposedly being lambasted, it is difficult to reply to this point. As for ‘dogmatic condescension’ … more on that later.
This chagrins me as unlike believers, secularists don’t actively lynch atheists/evolutionists/scientists as one of their main tactics in discrediting the opposition.
You obviously are not thinking of atheists like Professor Richard Dawkins of Oxford University, then.
‘It is absolutely safe to say that if you meet somebody who claims not to believe in evolution, that person is ignorant, stupid or insane (or wicked, but I’d rather not consider that).’1
Perhaps also you did not have Ian Plimer in mind, whose defamations and errors we have repeatedly documented (see More nonsense from Professor Plimer).
The list of the use of non-scientific language used in an attempt to discredit creationism is very long. However, you will find no such ‘lynching’ on our website, where atheistic and evolutionary scientists are only taken to task for their factual errors.
Most science i know starts from what it doesn’t know and finds answers. NOT the other way around. Thats science; speculation, hypothesis, evidence (!!!) TESTABILITY (if possible) and theory. NOT finding god in the gaps.
As a qualified scientist and senior science educator, I hope you are not trying to lecture me on scientific methodology. You have neglected to state your own science qualifications.
The problem seems to reside in the familiar confusion between operational science and origins science. Operational science is indeed concerned with the formulation of testable hypotheses, though rarely starting from what we don’t know—in practice we usually start from what we do know and use this to find out new things that we didn’t know. These hypotheses are repeatedly tested and reported so that other scientists can check the results.
Now how does this apply to ‘goo-to-you’ evolution? Have you been able to reproduce the conditions under which lifeless inorganic material evolved onto living organic material? In what sense are such matters testable? If they are not testable, then how scientific are such ideas? In fact, they form part of the presuppositional bias with which you filter the evidence.
Darwin speculated a theory that paleontology, archaeology, geology, physics, biology, genetics and pretty much any other scientific group supports. contrary to your BELIEF, you ARE a fringe group.
What a long list of words! This is an example of elephant hurling—you suppose that by hurling such a long list, you have made your point. In fact, I can point to a large number of highly reputable scientists in every single one of the fields that you quote who do not accept Darwinism.
Your theories are NOT supported by evidence.
I beg to differ. Do you have any specific evidence in mind, as you have not listed any? In fact, creationists do not have different evidence from evolutionists—we have the same evidence. It is how we interpret the evidence that is different (see Faith and facts).
And yes, i did examin Behe’s book and found it to be lacking and drawing on personal incredulity from start to finish.
I am pleased that you have examined Behe’s book. Which particular parts of his argument did you find ‘lacking’? You have neglected to say. Dare I suggest this is because you have not read it with an open mind, nor actually examined the arguments scientifically? Instead have you just dismissed what is said because of your prejudices?
NOT science but again, finding god in our as yet unravlled levels of understanding. Yes i had a look at your section on Hitler’s plan to eliminate christians when in fact he was a devout christian who used this fact to appeal to his men before they entered battle.
It is a very common accusation that Hitler was a Christian. You have been misinformed. He was not. His views were well documented. He said ‘Christianity is an invention of sick brains: one could imagine nothing more senseless.’2 See articles such as Was Hitler a Christian? and The Holocaust and evolution. It is well documented that his views sprang directly from his evolutionary beliefs. Don’t just take the word of Christians for this. Sir Arthur Keith was an atheistic evolutionist. He was also strongly anti-Nazi in his views. He said this:
‘To see evolutionary measures and tribal morality being applied rigorously to the affairs of a great modern nation, we must turn again to Germany of 1942. We see Hitler devoutly convinced that evolution produces the only real basis for a national policy … . The German Führer, as I have consistently maintained, is an evolutionist; he has consciously sought to make the practice of Germany conform to the theory of evolution.’3
Yes, he construed and distorted Darwin’s theory but is in no way any worse then the numerous kings and queens before him who used god’s name to kill hundreds of thousands of equally innocent people.
This is the classic ‘clean-hands’ argument. Answers in Genesis has never argued that all, or even most, atheistic evolutionists are followers of Hitler. On the contrary, the majority would join Sir Arthur Keith in finding his views abhorrent. Nevertheless, Hitler’s actions were inevitably influenced by and consistent with his evolutionary views. Contrariwise, there have been many shameful examples of killings done in the name of Christianity. In all these latter cases, however, the perpetrators follow a form of ‘Christianity’ which is completely out of step with the teachings of the Bible.
Science doesn’t claim to know or hold all the answers, it isn’t that arrogant.
On the other hand, you condescendingly claim that our site’s answers are wrong, without giving any scientific reasons, while piously implying that we are arrogant. That strikes me as arrogance on your part.
it to is misused by evil people as religon has been for much longer (and this continues to this day). this could continue for much longer but I don’t want to consume to much more of your time. What I’m getting at in all this is that yours is a belief system.
Absolutely. Ours is a belief system, based on a rational knowledge of the God of the Bible. Yours is a belief system based on an irrational prejudice of matters one has never seen or experienced.
No more. until creation science/ID articles are entering peer reviewed journals and respected within the broader SCIENTIFIC community (STOP appealing to a naive public if you seriously believe your theories and are prepared to put it through the same testing as the rest of the genetics/biological/physics etc theories out there) and quit the atheist bashing. you’ve as much chance converting us as we do of you but at the very least, act like scientists and stop defiling the name.
This is yet another old chestnut, which has been thoroughly answered on our site before. See Do Creationists Publish in Notable Refereed Journals? or see the Smithsonian/Sternberg controversy, to see what happens if an attempt is made to publish in such journals.
You can’t achieve anything by demanding people acknowledge the answers are in a millenia old book when so much of it is on shaky ground and so much of it has been proven wrong insofar as can be done without having directly witnessed it.
Actually, the Bible is much older than one millennium. It has stood the test of time and stood up to repeated analysis. Far from being ‘proven wrong’, as you claim (without offering any evidence again, I note), it has proven completely faithful. The purpose of this website is to uphold the truth of scripture.
Use it what it was intended for (as a guide for living a happy life) and leave the quest for knowledge to those who understand how to acheive it; by considering CREDIBLE new theories (ID/creationism is yet to mount a serious challenge to the mounds of evidence in favour of gradual evolution)
Which examples of evidence for gradual evolution are you thinking of? Simply stating that there are ‘mounds of evidence’ doesn’t alter the fact that your statement is incorrect.
and discarding old rubbish ie. a geocentric universe.
You will not find a geocentric universe advocated on this website. You will, however, find articles advocating that our galaxy is probably near the centre of the universe. You can read about this in articles such as Our galaxy is the centre of the universe, ‘quantized’ red shifts show. Take care—such articles contain real science. That might challenge your prejudices.
If we had of stuck with the equivalen creationists of the day, you’d be manning a plow in open field not sitting there looking at this wonder of technology
This is unlikely. The majority of the world’s major scientific discoveries were made by creationists: physicists such
as Newton, Faraday, Maxwell and Kelvin; chemists such as Boyle, Dalton and Ramsay; or biologists such as
Ray, Linnaeus, Mendel, and Pasteur.
PS. why the evolution bashing all the time? why not take up the geologists on their claim the earth is 6 billion years old or the astrophysicists who can support claims that the universe expanded from a single point and has been expanding for 14 billion years as your main attack? weird this whole place sitting around for billions of years just simmering and waiting for us to pop up 6000 years ago right? Isn’t that just as damning as Darwin’s evolutionary theory?
Why not try reading our articles on dating methods (for example Radiometric dating breakthroughs or Geology and the young earth)? Or maybe try reading some of the secular literature that now casts doubt on the big bang (see Secular scientists blast the big bang). Best of all, let me recommend that you start to think for yourself, instead of throwing out the same, tired old arguments that we have heard and dealt with over and over again. What is of particular concern is that you are prepared to regurgitate these views, with no scientific evidence. If this response can shake you out of your complacency, then it will have been worthwhile.
- Put Your Money on Evolution, The New York Times, 9 April 1989, section VII, p. 35. Return to text.
- Hitler’s Table Talk 1941–1944, Oxford University Press, pp. 118, 119. Return to text.
- Keith, A., Evolution and Ethics, Putnam, NY, USA, p. 230, 1947. Return to text.