Leaving aside the rest, can you perhaps put up here links to a representative sample of ID believers/ researchers/ promoters that show that they were atheist scientists to begin with? I mean Scientist as someone who went through college and got a degree and worked in the region of work commonly called "science".David F. said:
The School Of Creationism
- Thread starter Godless
- Start date
Hey Dave; Have a nice time LEARNING: http://bigpicture.typepad.com/writing/2004/04/intelligent_des.html
Godless.
Godless.
A List, Hmmm... How about starting with:guthrie said:
Michael Behe, PhD MicroBiology
Jonathan Wells, PhD Molecular and Cell Biology
Allen Rex Sandage, PhD Astronomy/Cosmology
Dean Kenyon, PhD Biophysics
Stephen Meyer, PhD History & Philosophy Origin-of-Life Biology
William Lane Craig, PhD Cosmology
Patrick Glynn, PhD Political Science (former Arms Control Negotiator, Reagan)
Paul Davies, PhD Theoretical Physics
This is not a list of all ID scientists, only some who started as atheists and who are now ardently in the ID camp.Jonathan Wells, PhD Molecular and Cell Biology
Allen Rex Sandage, PhD Astronomy/Cosmology
Dean Kenyon, PhD Biophysics
Stephen Meyer, PhD History & Philosophy Origin-of-Life Biology
William Lane Craig, PhD Cosmology
Patrick Glynn, PhD Political Science (former Arms Control Negotiator, Reagan)
Paul Davies, PhD Theoretical Physics
One of the world's most prominent Darwinists, Michel Ruse, has recently been causing waves in Evolution circles by questioning their basic premisses. He recently wrote:
Why should a bunch of atoms have thinking ability? Why should I, even as I write now, be able to reflect on what I am doing and why should you, even as you read now, be able to ponder my points, agreeing or disagreeing, with pleasure or pain, deciding to refute me or deciding that I am just not worth the effort? No one, certainly not the Darwinian as such, seems to have any answer to this... The point is that there is no scientific answer.
I expect we shall see Michael Ruse in the ID camp before long. The evidence, especially in the last 30 years, is becoming overwhelming.15 Answers to Creationist Nonsense
Opponents of evolution want to make a place for creationism by tearing down real science, but their arguments don't hold up
By John Rennie
When Charles Darwin introduced the theory of evolution through natural selection 143 years ago, the scientists of the day argued over it fiercely, but the massing evidence from paleontology, genetics, zoology, molecular biology and other fields gradually established evolution's truth beyond reasonable doubt. Today that battle has been won everywhere--except in the public imagination.
Embarrassingly, in the 21st century, in the most scientifically advanced nation the world has ever known, creationists can still persuade politicians, judges and ordinary citizens that evolution is a flawed, poorly supported fantasy. They lobby for creationist ideas such as "intelligent design" to be taught as alternatives to evolution in science classrooms. As this article goes to press, the Ohio Board of Education is debating whether to mandate such a change. Some antievolutionists, such as Philip E. Johnson, a law professor at the University of California at Berkeley and author of Darwin on Trial, admit that they intend for intelligent-design theory to serve as a "wedge" for reopening science classrooms to discussions of God.
Besieged teachers and others may increasingly find themselves on the spot to defend evolution and refute creationism. The arguments that creationists use are typically specious and based on misunderstandings of (or outright lies about) evolution, but the number and diversity of the objections can put even well-informed people at a disadvantage.
To help with answering them, the following list rebuts some of the most common "scientific" arguments raised against evolution. It also directs readers to further sources for information and explains why creation science has no place in the classroom.
1. Evolution is only a theory. It is not a fact or a scientific law.
Many people learned in elementary school that a theory falls in the middle of a hierarchy of certainty--above a mere hypothesis but below a law. Scientists do not use the terms that way, however. According to the National Academy of Sciences (NAS), a scientific theory is "a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world that can incorporate facts, laws, inferences, and tested hypotheses." No amount of validation changes a theory into a law, which is a descriptive generalization about nature. So when scientists talk about the theory of evolution--or the atomic theory or the theory of relativity, for that matter--they are not expressing reservations about its truth.
In addition to the theory of evolution, meaning the idea of descent with modification, one may also speak of the fact of evolution. The NAS defines a fact as "an observation that has been repeatedly confirmed and for all practical purposes is accepted as 'true.'" The fossil record and abundant other evidence testify that organisms have evolved through time. Although no one observed those transformations, the indirect evidence is clear, unambiguous and compelling.
All sciences frequently rely on indirect evidence. Physicists cannot see subatomic particles directly, for instance, so they verify their existence by watching for telltale tracks that the particles leave in cloud chambers. The absence of direct observation does not make physicists' conclusions less certain.
The rest here
A good read. Same topic on another board. Evolution vs Intelligent Design
No Answers in Genesis!
Click!.
Godless.
Opponents of evolution want to make a place for creationism by tearing down real science, but their arguments don't hold up
By John Rennie
When Charles Darwin introduced the theory of evolution through natural selection 143 years ago, the scientists of the day argued over it fiercely, but the massing evidence from paleontology, genetics, zoology, molecular biology and other fields gradually established evolution's truth beyond reasonable doubt. Today that battle has been won everywhere--except in the public imagination.
Embarrassingly, in the 21st century, in the most scientifically advanced nation the world has ever known, creationists can still persuade politicians, judges and ordinary citizens that evolution is a flawed, poorly supported fantasy. They lobby for creationist ideas such as "intelligent design" to be taught as alternatives to evolution in science classrooms. As this article goes to press, the Ohio Board of Education is debating whether to mandate such a change. Some antievolutionists, such as Philip E. Johnson, a law professor at the University of California at Berkeley and author of Darwin on Trial, admit that they intend for intelligent-design theory to serve as a "wedge" for reopening science classrooms to discussions of God.
Besieged teachers and others may increasingly find themselves on the spot to defend evolution and refute creationism. The arguments that creationists use are typically specious and based on misunderstandings of (or outright lies about) evolution, but the number and diversity of the objections can put even well-informed people at a disadvantage.
To help with answering them, the following list rebuts some of the most common "scientific" arguments raised against evolution. It also directs readers to further sources for information and explains why creation science has no place in the classroom.
1. Evolution is only a theory. It is not a fact or a scientific law.
Many people learned in elementary school that a theory falls in the middle of a hierarchy of certainty--above a mere hypothesis but below a law. Scientists do not use the terms that way, however. According to the National Academy of Sciences (NAS), a scientific theory is "a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world that can incorporate facts, laws, inferences, and tested hypotheses." No amount of validation changes a theory into a law, which is a descriptive generalization about nature. So when scientists talk about the theory of evolution--or the atomic theory or the theory of relativity, for that matter--they are not expressing reservations about its truth.
In addition to the theory of evolution, meaning the idea of descent with modification, one may also speak of the fact of evolution. The NAS defines a fact as "an observation that has been repeatedly confirmed and for all practical purposes is accepted as 'true.'" The fossil record and abundant other evidence testify that organisms have evolved through time. Although no one observed those transformations, the indirect evidence is clear, unambiguous and compelling.
All sciences frequently rely on indirect evidence. Physicists cannot see subatomic particles directly, for instance, so they verify their existence by watching for telltale tracks that the particles leave in cloud chambers. The absence of direct observation does not make physicists' conclusions less certain.
The rest here
A good read. Same topic on another board. Evolution vs Intelligent Design
No Answers in Genesis!
Click!.
Godless.
Last edited:
Cute, no information, only Evolution is true because I want it to be, so there. There is no scientific substance in your article and even the part you quoted is incorrect. The fossil record in fact does not show evolution through time and there is in fact no other evidence showing any such thing and there is no clear evidence. Even the evidence quoted by Naturalists is in fact very ambiguous and could easily lend itself to other explainations. There is nothing at all compelling about the real data concerning the fiction of Macroevolution.
Godless, do you really understand any of this or are you just throwing links around?
Godless, do you really understand any of this or are you just throwing links around?
Man if you are going by Behe's assertion he's an idiot!!.
Behe continues to make a fool of himself:
"Another textbook published by John Wiley & Sons has one citation to evolution in its index out of a total of 2,500. It refers to a sentence on page 4: 'Organisms have evolved and adapted to changing environments on a geological time scale and continue to do so.' Nothing else is said."
Behe refers to a book by Conn, Stumpf et al. (1987). There is a single entry under "evolution" in the index. It refers to page 4 - here's the entire paragraph.
"The biochemist must be aware of the abilities of organisms to change and adapt, not only in the time frame of an individual organism but also on an evolutionary time scale. It is not enough to consider any noncellular, single cell, or multicellular organism in isolation as it exists today. Organisms can be classified as belonging to species or similar taxonomic or functional groupings. Organisms exchange, or at least transmit, symbolically encoded, controlling information. That is, they have genetic systems. Capabilities of the progeny reflect the capabilities of the parent(s), and the progeny follow definite plans of development. Those plans, though definite, are not rigid. They are modified by the environment and time. Organisms cannot be understood without a consideration of what their antecedents must have been like. Organisms have evolved and adapted to changing environments on a geological time scale and continue to do so. Thus, biochemists seek chemical explanations of how organisms adapt to their environment both in the short term and over eons." [emphasis added]
One might expect there to be more about evolution in such a textbook and you wouldn't be disappointed. Chapter 3 discusses phylogenetic trees based on amino acid sequences, chapter 11 introduces the pentose phosphate pathway in the context of an evolved system, and chapter 15 presents the evolution of photosynthesis. These are just a few of the many examples that Behe must have missed when he read this textbook.
Behe goes on:
"Some textbooks make a concerted effort to inculcate in students an evolutionary view of the world ...."
This is correct. What's the problem? Isn't it an important part of education to teach the correct scientific view of the world?
[Editor's note: Isn't this claim inconsistent with the entire thrust of Behe's point? How can he simultaneously argue that biochemistry textbooks do not mention evolution and yet biochemistry textbooks attempt to indoctrinate their students with evolutionary ideas?]
Behe concludes with:
"Many students learn from their textbooks how to view the world through an evolutionary lens. However, they do not learn how Darwinian evolution might have produced any of the remarkably intricate biochemical systems that those texts describe."
It's true that the biochemistry textbooks do not contain complete descriptions of all of the evolutionary pathways that lead to intricate biochemical systems. In most cases we don't know the exact evolutionary pathway. Even if we did we wouldn't put them all in a biochemistry textbook because the texts are about biochemistry and not about evolution. What textbook authors do is point to examples of biochemical evolution and explain how some of the data is acquired (e.g. amino acid and nucleotide sequences). Furthermore, most of us wouldn't emphasize "Darwinian evolution" since that's an outmoded concept - especially at the molecular level. We talk about the modern version of evolution in recent textbooks.
In conclusion, Behe is way off base with his criticisms of biochemistry textbooks. He seems to have gone out of his way to set up and knock down a strawman version of the importance of evolution in biochemistry textbooks. In addition, he deliberately chooses to select index entries as his criterion when he should know that this gives a totally false impression of what's actually in a book. All in all, this is a very poor example of scholarship. I think Mark should choose better authorities.
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/behe/textbooks.html
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/cosmo.html
As for throwing links around, you have yet to prove ID, just because some Dumb asses who have titles seem to think that they have no answer for life, throw in the towel sort of speak, and claim "intellegent design" with out any proof or emperical evidence of any designer!!.
Godless.
Behe continues to make a fool of himself:
"Another textbook published by John Wiley & Sons has one citation to evolution in its index out of a total of 2,500. It refers to a sentence on page 4: 'Organisms have evolved and adapted to changing environments on a geological time scale and continue to do so.' Nothing else is said."
Behe refers to a book by Conn, Stumpf et al. (1987). There is a single entry under "evolution" in the index. It refers to page 4 - here's the entire paragraph.
"The biochemist must be aware of the abilities of organisms to change and adapt, not only in the time frame of an individual organism but also on an evolutionary time scale. It is not enough to consider any noncellular, single cell, or multicellular organism in isolation as it exists today. Organisms can be classified as belonging to species or similar taxonomic or functional groupings. Organisms exchange, or at least transmit, symbolically encoded, controlling information. That is, they have genetic systems. Capabilities of the progeny reflect the capabilities of the parent(s), and the progeny follow definite plans of development. Those plans, though definite, are not rigid. They are modified by the environment and time. Organisms cannot be understood without a consideration of what their antecedents must have been like. Organisms have evolved and adapted to changing environments on a geological time scale and continue to do so. Thus, biochemists seek chemical explanations of how organisms adapt to their environment both in the short term and over eons." [emphasis added]
One might expect there to be more about evolution in such a textbook and you wouldn't be disappointed. Chapter 3 discusses phylogenetic trees based on amino acid sequences, chapter 11 introduces the pentose phosphate pathway in the context of an evolved system, and chapter 15 presents the evolution of photosynthesis. These are just a few of the many examples that Behe must have missed when he read this textbook.
Behe goes on:
"Some textbooks make a concerted effort to inculcate in students an evolutionary view of the world ...."
This is correct. What's the problem? Isn't it an important part of education to teach the correct scientific view of the world?
[Editor's note: Isn't this claim inconsistent with the entire thrust of Behe's point? How can he simultaneously argue that biochemistry textbooks do not mention evolution and yet biochemistry textbooks attempt to indoctrinate their students with evolutionary ideas?]
Behe concludes with:
"Many students learn from their textbooks how to view the world through an evolutionary lens. However, they do not learn how Darwinian evolution might have produced any of the remarkably intricate biochemical systems that those texts describe."
It's true that the biochemistry textbooks do not contain complete descriptions of all of the evolutionary pathways that lead to intricate biochemical systems. In most cases we don't know the exact evolutionary pathway. Even if we did we wouldn't put them all in a biochemistry textbook because the texts are about biochemistry and not about evolution. What textbook authors do is point to examples of biochemical evolution and explain how some of the data is acquired (e.g. amino acid and nucleotide sequences). Furthermore, most of us wouldn't emphasize "Darwinian evolution" since that's an outmoded concept - especially at the molecular level. We talk about the modern version of evolution in recent textbooks.
In conclusion, Behe is way off base with his criticisms of biochemistry textbooks. He seems to have gone out of his way to set up and knock down a strawman version of the importance of evolution in biochemistry textbooks. In addition, he deliberately chooses to select index entries as his criterion when he should know that this gives a totally false impression of what's actually in a book. All in all, this is a very poor example of scholarship. I think Mark should choose better authorities.
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/behe/textbooks.html
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/cosmo.html
As for throwing links around, you have yet to prove ID, just because some Dumb asses who have titles seem to think that they have no answer for life, throw in the towel sort of speak, and claim "intellegent design" with out any proof or emperical evidence of any designer!!.
Godless.
I read all these criticisms of evolution by people such as you, David F., but what do you believe? The earth was created in a few days by some magical sky dwelling deity and the earth itself is only a few thousand years old?
Maybe that we all stem from two human beings that actually have names recorded in our prehistory: Adam & Eve? Don't forget the talking snake!
Get real. Evolutionary adaptation is quite observable in our modern times. You do it, I do it, even the creationists evolve to fit their surroundings.
If you want to believe in fairy tales and myths as truths, fine by me. But don't expect me to tolerate you forcing those beliefs upon other people and saying they merit as much study as a scientific theory.
Maybe that we all stem from two human beings that actually have names recorded in our prehistory: Adam & Eve? Don't forget the talking snake!
Get real. Evolutionary adaptation is quite observable in our modern times. You do it, I do it, even the creationists evolve to fit their surroundings.
If you want to believe in fairy tales and myths as truths, fine by me. But don't expect me to tolerate you forcing those beliefs upon other people and saying they merit as much study as a scientific theory.
I don't know were the hell David did you get that Allan R. Sandage is a supporter of ID. Please include link or reference to this.
This is what I found!; http://www.ociw.edu/research/sandage.html
Nothing there noting that he supports the rhetorical bull shiet of ID.
Godless.
This is what I found!; http://www.ociw.edu/research/sandage.html
Nothing there noting that he supports the rhetorical bull shiet of ID.
Godless.
This bloke is a Darwinist? Even I, with little knowledge abotu Evolution, can point out that nowhere in Modern evolutionary theory does it say that atoms can think. Perhaps he would ilke to do some experiments to show that atoms cant think?David F. said:
He also seems to be confusing "how do people think, how are they intelligent" with evolution, evolution is merely a mechanism for producing various animals etc, some of whom may or may not be thinking creatures.
And you'll note that the quoted statement has no scientific content at all.
Dear David,
There is absolute evidence for evolution in the fossil record. There is absolute evidence for the mechanism of selection and genetic variation in our domestication of animals and plants - especially plants, which is the basis of evolution . A chihuahua is on the verge of being a different sub species of wolf. Everywhere around you, you can see evolution. It isn't difficult.
But it doesn't mean that there is no over riding force which has created the universe and the factors within it which have resulted in the evolution of life on our planet.
But what is, is probably something Mankind will never know - this is predicted in Genesis when God (and his mates) scorn us.
We might be able to understand everything else in the Universe but we'll never know what brought our Universe into creation - and that (in my simple little mind) is God.
What it all means and what is the purpose of it is something we might never grasp. It's amusing to try, but that's all.
I like to think that we are God trying to express itself - an animal just lives, we can do a bit more.
There is absolute evidence for evolution in the fossil record. There is absolute evidence for the mechanism of selection and genetic variation in our domestication of animals and plants - especially plants, which is the basis of evolution . A chihuahua is on the verge of being a different sub species of wolf. Everywhere around you, you can see evolution. It isn't difficult.
But it doesn't mean that there is no over riding force which has created the universe and the factors within it which have resulted in the evolution of life on our planet.
But what is, is probably something Mankind will never know - this is predicted in Genesis when God (and his mates) scorn us.
We might be able to understand everything else in the Universe but we'll never know what brought our Universe into creation - and that (in my simple little mind) is God.
What it all means and what is the purpose of it is something we might never grasp. It's amusing to try, but that's all.
I like to think that we are God trying to express itself - an animal just lives, we can do a bit more.
All I can say is that I am confused as to why people argue as to why evolution is the only way, when they in theory should be keeping an open mind. If one closes their mind then they are taking on in faith that evolution is true, but this is against the very nature of science. No one has seen everything since the begining and so no one has the right to declare something as absolute only way.
guthrie said:
What I got from the quote is that he finds it hard to believe that human beings should have the ability to think because they are simply atoms. Some greater force must have acted upon these atoms to give them the ability to think.
This actually made me ponder... what if our ability to think, to reason, to feel are all evolutionary steps. This is infinitely more exciting than if we simply deny evolution on those grounds. We are finding out more about our environment - string theory, holographic universes, etc, etc... and it is simply our bodies adapting to this.
denying evolution is like denying the ice ages existed. We know they did, though we have never examined one happening or experienced it. I go back to my dog example, we use evolution every day, we can see it's mark. Deny it and you deny God
But believing in evolution doesn't mean you have to deny the existence of God, understanding it makes you re-examine your ideas of God, and there should be nothing wrong with that - God's not going to strike you down because you've discovered how it (he) works. It's not evolutionists that deny the existence of God (hence ID), but it's blind faith creationists who deny how God does his (it's) work.
Genesis, is a story that helps people who are dislocated from nature understand it.
You talk to a bushman and tell him that there is evidence to suggest that we are closely related to Chimpanzees then he'll look at you in amazment, incredulous at the thought that you ever doubted it. Genesis is for people like us - sitting behind our computers with no idea what's going on in God's world.
I've always been amazed that religions' build churchs and then go and worship in them, calling them the house of God. If you want to get close to God then go and worship in the jungle, well away from man's influence - that's God's house not some dusty, dry smelly old church full of peadophiles denying the sexuality that God gave them.
But believing in evolution doesn't mean you have to deny the existence of God, understanding it makes you re-examine your ideas of God, and there should be nothing wrong with that - God's not going to strike you down because you've discovered how it (he) works. It's not evolutionists that deny the existence of God (hence ID), but it's blind faith creationists who deny how God does his (it's) work.
Genesis, is a story that helps people who are dislocated from nature understand it.
You talk to a bushman and tell him that there is evidence to suggest that we are closely related to Chimpanzees then he'll look at you in amazment, incredulous at the thought that you ever doubted it. Genesis is for people like us - sitting behind our computers with no idea what's going on in God's world.
I've always been amazed that religions' build churchs and then go and worship in them, calling them the house of God. If you want to get close to God then go and worship in the jungle, well away from man's influence - that's God's house not some dusty, dry smelly old church full of peadophiles denying the sexuality that God gave them.
B
BlueMoose
Guest
Without evolution we would be all the same, just clones. First there was organisms which could replicate them selves and there for they were immortals (Adam). Then evolution (God) did make us mortal and did put clock inside of us and forced us to interact to multiply (Adam&Eve from Adams rib). Our mortality is the price for diversity, and there for our chance to evolve. Nature (God 
) choose that way. We evolved to current state because of it. We (mortal creatures) do have a biological clock inside our cells and it takes two mortal organism to pass of the genes before clock stops. Its the only way, otherwise we would be still just some jello in the sea. So, pass on those genes of yours and make even more beatiful creatures to born Isnt that what God did tell us to do...
http://books.nap.edu/html/creationism/evidence.html
http://www.creation-science-prophecy.com/biology/
http://www.xanatos.com/xanetics.html
Still I dont understand what is the conlict, I can put creation story in the evolution context quite easy. Example; When Adam and Eve were cast out from paradise for eating the fruit: Paradise = State of "mind" where we didnt know right or wrong, like animals. We just lived in the moment. Fruit eating = We became to self-conceited and so on to make choices and so for we are not in the paradise, we are questioning everything, like here in this board. Worrying our past and future. Serpent = I leave this to someone else
Peace and take care.
) choose that way. We evolved to current state because of it. We (mortal creatures) do have a biological clock inside our cells and it takes two mortal organism to pass of the genes before clock stops. Its the only way, otherwise we would be still just some jello in the sea. So, pass on those genes of yours and make even more beatiful creatures to born Isnt that what God did tell us to do...http://books.nap.edu/html/creationism/evidence.html
http://www.creation-science-prophecy.com/biology/
http://www.xanatos.com/xanetics.html
Still I dont understand what is the conlict, I can put creation story in the evolution context quite easy. Example; When Adam and Eve were cast out from paradise for eating the fruit: Paradise = State of "mind" where we didnt know right or wrong, like animals. We just lived in the moment. Fruit eating = We became to self-conceited and so on to make choices and so for we are not in the paradise, we are questioning everything, like here in this board. Worrying our past and future. Serpent = I leave this to someone else
Peace and take care.