Evolution is an elaborate fairy tale

Except that any good scientist would admit that science needs to be objective in order for it to be honest. IOW, human nature may not tend to be objective, but we need to overcome that tendency in order to keep science honest. On the other hand, creation science is not objective by definition, and any creationist would freely admit it.

This is an obvious and glaring difference between the two camps bevets. This is why creation science is not science, and never will be. There is no point in pretending to have parity when there isn't any.

I see your site is a large amount of quote mining. Calvin has given us a great series of examples of how inaccurate that is.

I realize you picked your quotes carefully to show what you wanted to, but even within those quotes its apparent that they are saying that scientists behave like other human beings. However, you are making your claim about science. Not the scientists, but the discipline.

One reason that you can't paint the discipline as being totally biased is because the individual scientists have different biases. While Dawkins may be passionately attached a reductionist approach of selection at the gene level, Gould is equally passionately attached to a pluralistic approach of selection at levels above the gene. Each is going to scour the physical universe for evidence to show the other wrong. (And did, btw.) Therefore it is impossible for all scientists to be sucked into a single view. Their individual emotional biases aren't going to permit it. Unless the data gives them no choice.

What the quotes show is the human side of scientists and explains the very acrimonius disputes you can see between scientists over theories. But at the same time they show that science as a discipline can never be biased.

__________________
"If sound science appears to contradict the Bible, we may be sure that it is our interpretation of the Bible that is at fault." Christian Observer, 1832, pg. 437

"Christians should look on evolution simply as the method by which God works." Rev. James McCosh, theologian and President of Princeton, 1890

Basically, we're done. AiG themselves admitted to the presence of transitionals. Both at the individual level and at the species level (eliminating H. habilis).

We're just mopping up individual misrepresentations, but AiG did a great job of killing the "no missing link" argument. Just like it killed creationism when it admitted that speciation happens.

http://www.answersingenesis.org/home...22n3_liger.asp

"Speciation ... occurred ... due to greater environmental pressures, isolation due to migration of small populations, and many unoccupied ecological niches."

That's evolution by natural selection, allopatric speciation, and radiation!

__________________
"If sound science appears to contradict the Bible, we may be sure that it is our interpretation of the Bible that is at fault." Christian Observer, 1832, pg. 437

"Christians should look on evolution simply as the method by which God works." Rev. James McCosh, theologian and President of Princeton, 1890

Agreed. Both AIG and the ICR, for example, have faith statements requiring their members to adhere to prescribed conclusions. I've yet to see any mainstream scientific publication with something similar.

__________________
Creationism has not made a single contribution to agriculture, medicine, conservation, forestry, pathology, or any other applied area of biology. Creationism has yielded no classifications, no biogeographies, no underlying mechanisms, no unifying concepts with which to study organisms or life. - Botanical Society of America's Statement on Evolution

Are you sure about that Pete

"More and more, like the monasteries of the Middle Ages, todays universities and professional societies guard their knowledge.Collusively, the university biology, curriculum the tesxtbook publishers, the National Science Foundation review committees, the Graduste Record examiners, and the various microbiological, evolutionary, and zooloogical societies map out domains of the known and knowable; they distinguish required from forbidden knowledge, subtly punishing the trespassers with rejection and oblivion; they determine who is permitted to know and just what that he or she may know..if an individual with ambition to study nature rejects neo-Darwinist biology in todays ambience, he becomes a threat to his own means of livelihood"

Lynn Margulis evolutionist and author of Big Trouble in Biology

"we cannot allow a divine foot in the door"
Richard Lewontin

Read the other posts on this topic napajohn. Its not that all scientists are objective...as lucaspa has said, the discipline of science encourages objectivity. Creationist science certainly does not.


Science is about finding the methods that God uses. To a Christian, God should be implicit in the process. If we find something that is not explained...should a scientist say 'God did it'? Of course not. We will continue to dig deeper into God's methods instead...trying to find out how He did it. Who would be content to toss their research into a dustbin and say "this is a tough problem...God must have done it"? If allowing a 'divine foot in the door' means throwing in the towel like this, then where would science be today? The truth is God did all of it napajohn (the Bible tells us this), science simply looks at how it was done.

Lewontin is mistaken. We don't need to allow a divine foot in the door because the door is wide open, and God was the first to step through it.

Well, one way to stop granting committees from being selective about what they fund is to greatly increase the amount of money available for research, and then the more risky and unpopular ideas will also get a chance to be studied. Anybody up for a nice big tax increase to let that happen?

__________________
"Sadly, biblical literalism brings not only the bible but Christianity itself into disrepute." - The Rt. Revd. Richard Harries, Anglican Bishop of Oxford.

It would appear to me that the bisexual reproduction that we see in many creatures would be difficult to prove from an evolutionary standpoint.

My question would be why? Asexual reproduction in its many forms seems the more efficient course. Plus how would the bisexual process ever take hold? You would need to have a male/female mutation take place close to the same time and then they would need to know what to do in order to reproduce. Chances of survival for either sex to keep alive in order to reproduce. Proximity of newly bisexual candidates. Etc.

It is question like these that just don't add up for evolution (Sybiotic relationships is another). Evolution does not have intelligence behind it. It is random permutations. And when the probability of the number of permutations to occur in order for what we see in nature are calculated they pretty much deny the possibility for evolution.

Even some secular scientists are now advocating the uniqueness of earth and the life that exists on it. I understand that there are many Christians that adhere to a theist evolutionary process, but in order to do that they must deny the crux of Christianity, Genesis. Genesis gives us the reason for the need of a Savior, the fall of man, and many other Christian basics. If you cannot trust in the literalness of Genesis then my opinion is that you cannot trust in anything that the Bible speaks of.

"Read the other posts on this topic napajohn. Its not that all scientists are objective...as lucaspa has said, the discipline of science encourages objectivity. Creationist science certainly does not."

I respectfully disagree Mike..the very basis of science sprung forth in its appreciation of God and his creation...
Its a misnomer to think that Christianity is against science..look at the Bible it says that creation gives testimony to him...the basis of Creation science is that God created..if that is a bias then I'll agree..yet scientist usually start off with a theory and try to find facts and evidence to give it substance or not..Currently, the world of academia refuses to give the creationists a platform for fear that the unknowing public may see things about evolution that may put it in a bad light...Mike, wouldn't PBS and all Discovery channels prove the silliness of creationists and ID scientists by offering a series of open debates between the 2 camps...why have they not in light of all the controversy in Ohio, Tennesee and Kansas?..I propose its because the situation that has occured in the debates I've seen with Dr Gish and Morris would result in
something evolutionists would fear...I'll be the first to
write Morris and Hovind if their issues were soundly explained by evolutionists..however, in the debates I've seen, often the crowd seems to walk away thinking that
evolution has some serious holes in it..I tell you what Mike, i'll post the schedules of where the ICR scientists will speak...often you can meet them 1 on 1 while they are selling their books and ask them any question...I invited a friend who taught at the local JC with a degree in geology and came away impressed with Morris and his explanations..sadly, he still did not believe in Christ..interested Mike

I believe he said creationism is against science--and he is exactly right. Creationist organizations require that their workers adhere to a statement of faith stating that any evidence that contradicts a literal interpretation of the Bible must be wrong and ignored. That's simply unscientific.

The basis of creation "science" is a literal interpretation of the Bible, not simply that a particular god created. They maintain a specific method of creation. They also do not allow for that fixed conclusion to be changed or challenged in any way. They shoehorn evidence into that conclusion or simply ignore it. That's bias.

They start with a hypothesis that is either accepted or rejected. Creationists do not allow for the rejection of their hypothesis. Science progresses, creationism does not.

No, you're wrong. Creationists have no platform because creationism was disproved in the 19th century. Creationism was the basis for the beginning of modern science. It was mainstream science until it was firmly disproved. There's no sense treading over an exhausted topic.

Then get out a pen and paper because disproofs are found all over this forum. Especially Hovind. You can't throw a proverbial rock in here without hitting a refutation of Hovind's nonsense.

And the crowd is often biased toward creationism and lacks scientific knowledge. They are also verbal debates which do not allow sufficient time to give adequate explanations. One point by Hovind takes a few seconds to make but takes many minutes to thoroughly discuss.