Bible Discussion: Evolution's Secret

Evolution's Secret
Posts: 34

Report Abuse

Use this form to report abuse or request takedown.
The requests are usually processed within 48 hours.

Page: 1 2 3 4   Next  (First | Last)

IknowHimDoYou
2003-07-04 12:23:15 EST

EVOLUTION
The Secret Behind the Propaganda
by Margaret Helder (Botanist)

"Everybody" knows, one might suppose, that evolution is about facts and
the creation model is about belief. Certainly this was the message of the
PBS TV series entitled "Evolution." An internal memo sent to PBS stations
stated concerning evolution, "All known scientific evidence supports
evolution. New discoveries over the past 150 years have all supported the
validity of the theory of evolution." (PBS Internal Memo. 2001. The
Evolution Controversy: Use it or lose it. Evolution Project/WGBH Boston.
June 15, p. 5). The memofurther defined a scientific theory as a "higher
level of understanding that ties 'facts'together" (p. 5). As to the
creation model, the memo dismissed it as "not science. It is part of a
religious belief system . . ." (p. 6). Such statements and other similar
ones over the years have convinced many that science in general and
evolution in particular are based on observations from the natural world
and thus they are empirically or factually based. The interesting thing is
that this is not the modern understanding of science among scientists
them-selves. They have long since abandoned much concern for actual data.

The modern outlook on science is readily apparent from remarks by
scientists about their discipline. It was David Hull, a well-known philosopher
of science, who wrote as early as 1965 that ". . . science is not as
empirical as many scientists seem to think it is. Unobserved and even
unobservable entities play an important part in it. Science is not just
the making of observations: it is the making of inferences on the basis of
observations within the framework of a theory."t Within this statement we
see what appears to be a balance between facts and interpretation or
theory. Dr. Hull, however, had a dubious grasp of what constituted data.
The previous year, he had written concerning the concept of descent with
modification from a common ancestor (phylogeny or evolution): "The first
factor in the phylogenetic program and the only one that is of an
empirical nature is phylogeny, but even phylogeny is not a brute fact to
be discovered merely by looking and seeing. Phylogeny, the subject matter
of phylogenetic taxonomy, is an abstraction. It is an abstraction in two
respects. First, it is inferred almost exclusively from morphological,
genetical, paleontological, and other types of evidence and is not
observed directly."2 His thoughts concerning evolutionary descent, we
discover, were merely conclusions, not directly indicated by the evidence.

Views on the nature of science were actually in a state of flux at the
time that Dr. Hull wrote these papers. Karl Popper in 1934 had pointed out
that no theory in science could ever be proven true. The only altemative,
he suggested, was to try to prove that theories were false. Those
well-tested theories which had not been falsified or disproven on the
basis of experimental data, would then qualify for the designation of
scientific theory. The only catch was that many areas of scientific
research did not meet these criteria. Theories which could not be
falsified, were said to be metaphysical (belief-based) rather than
scientific. Accordingly an editorial in the scientific journal Nature in
1981 pointed out that both Darwinism and the idea that God created the
world, were metaphysical theories since "the course of supposed past
evolution cannot be rerun.3 However, such embarrassing characterizations
of Darwinism as nonscientific were on their way out. Thomas Kuhn had
published his book, The Structure of Scientific Revolutions, in 1962
thereby ushering in a post-empirical age in scientific understanding.

According to Thomas Kuhn, all science must be conducted in terms of a
unifying set of ideas. Without such a theoretical system, said Kuhn, facts
were meaningless and science nonexistent. According to philosopher of
science, Del Ratzsch, in his recent book, Science and its Limits, this
primacy of theory over data has had enormous implications for the practice
of science. The result is that empirical data are not that important to
science anymore. According to Dr. Ratzsch: "in arguing that we have no
paradigm-independent access to some ultimate reality and that paradigm
choices are in part value choices made by scientists, Kuhn is moving the
ultimate court of appeal concerning correct pictures of reality away from
the world itself [data] and toward the informed consensus of scientists.4
Dr. Ratzsch further pointed out, "Since there is no complete and stable
and independent external reality to which we have access, there is no
particular point in talking about truth in science...."

So what do modern scientists do with data? What they do is to interpret
their data in terms of the current scientific paradigm. They do not seek
to falsify any paradigm such as evolution because paradigms are not
supposed to be easily toppled. Indi vidual falsifying facts won't cause a
paradigm to be rejected. Even a lot of contrary data will have little
effect on a paradigm. Evolution of course is the most obvious_paradigm
which is largely immune to the influence of empirical data. Cosmology is
another.

The most obvious casualties of this new definition of science are the
concepts of reality and truth. Biologists Mark Siddall and Arnold Kluge,
in 1997, for example, suggested that "'the search for truth' was a
misguided venture in science from the start and one that has no basis in
reality.5 They further opined that "Truth, though not irrelevant to
science, is nonetheless irrelevant to the choice among scientific
theories, because it is unknowable." Nevertheless these authors conclude
that the good news is that we will keep on doing science. They depict the
situation thus: "0ur assertions regarding the terminal elusiveness of this
truth may be seen by some as troubling or even nihilistic. We counter that
it is the impossibility of achieving truth that ensures the continuation
of scientific endeavor, and that guarantees our perpetual realization of
that which is more valuable than truth itself understanding."

Science has definitely come a long way. Initially in the eighteenth and
nineteenth centuries, actual observations (empirical data) were highly
valued. In some cases they were esteemed too highly. Some people like
eighteenth century Scottish philosopher David Hume declared that there was
no reality other than what our senses could discover. The material world
was all there was. Gradually theory came to be more important until at the
present time empirical data are often ignored. Not all scientists,
however, support the Kuhnian appeal to consensus among scientists. To -
Settle, another philosopher of science, deplored the situation. "Many
thinkers, seeing that the search for truth is an unending quest, abandon
it (in despair perhaps) and settle for agreement with their fellows. If
they are right that it is consensus rather than truth that ought to be
aimed for in science, then the picture that emerges . . . is gloomy.6 The
worst aspect of the situation is that scientists so dogmatically defend
interpretations which are based only on consensus. "But what is vacuous is
to abandon truth as regulative and then to agree to something's being so.
And it undermines science rather than affirms it, since it rules out
appeal to reality, it rules out striving to be objective."

It is evident that modern scientists do not attempt to prove paradigms
or impor ) tant theories like evolution wrong. They merely interpret their
data in terms of the paradigm. Evolution is a philosophical starting
point, not an observation. As Siddall and Kluge remark: "Biologists are no
more immune to the requirements of a sound philosophical foundation than
are these other sciences if our occupation ever is to be more than a
simple cataloguing of the experiences of our senses. Evolutionary biology,
and phylogenetics in particular, demands this even more because, like the
quantum physicist, we are not able to observe that which we seek to
explain."

Another biologist, Andrew Brower characterized "descent with
modification'' as a circular argument or a metaphysical assumption. "There
is clearly an ontological leap between tests of individual observations
and tests of 'descent with modification, if the latter is even testab]e
without tautology.7 If 'the background knowledge: of descent with
modification' underlying cladistics is not testable by independent means,
it would seem to be more a metaphysical First Principle like vitalism or
orthogenesis than a component of a Popperian hypothetico-deductive
approach." In other words, evolution is not falsifiable, but is an a
priori assumption.

Christians, on the other hand, typically take a much more traditional
or empirical approach to science. They expect that when contrary data are
pointed out, that the hearer's response will be to reject the paradigm.
All too often however, the hearer minimizes the significance of the data,
calling them merely "anomalous" or poorly understood. Most supporters of
evolution theory expect that the obvious problems will eventually be
solved and in the meantime they concentrate on less controversial aspects
of the paradigm.

For the present, consensus by scientists is indeed used as a major point
in favor of a paradigm. Individuals arguing from a minority position
already have a major strike against them. Some scientists also claim that
science is an all or nothing proposition with no room for a critical
evaluation of individual aspects of the discipline. It was Hull who
articulated the all or none principle. He was referring specifically to
evolutionary versus numerical [empirical] categorizing of organisms, and
this same argument is used today against the creation model. "Are the
inductive inferences made by evolutionists in reconstructing phylogeny
sufficiently warranted? .... Any decision ... must rest on the advances of
the various sciences using the techniques of discovery and justification
which they do use. Hence, induction is justified by an induction! The
arguments presented by the empiricists against evolutionary
reconstructions if sound would annihilate not just evolutionary taxonomy
but all empirical science.8 According to him, it is pointless to contest
scientific speculations on the basis of data, because the whole scientific
enterprise holds together. If some theorizing is acceptable, then all of
it is beyond challenge.

Since the importance of empirical data in science has long since been
down-graded to a subsidiary importance relative to theory, the PBS
statements concerning evolution and creation are all the more interesting.
The PBS memo implied that evolution could easily have been falsified by
negative empirical evidence. On the contrary, scientists have devoted
their best efforts to protecting evolution theory from negative data. In
actual fact, it is the creation model supporters today who so frequently
appeal to empirical evidence (such as the coded nature and information
content of DNA) and the evolutionists who so blissfully fail to recognize
the
significance of these very same data. Indeed, when all is said and done,
the essence of much modern science is that it is not empirical at all but
rather post-empirical or theory based. That's quite a difference. Maybe
PBS should run a new creation-based series to alert the public to the real
situation.

References

1. David Hull. 1965. The effect of essentialism on taxonomy\ufffdtwo thousand
years of stasis (II). British Journalfor the Philosophy of Science 16
(61):1-18.
2. David Hull. 1964. Consistency and monophyly. Systematic Zoology 13 (1):
1-11.
3. Editorial. 1981. How true is the theory of evolution? Nature 290 March
12: 75-76.4. Del Ratzsch. 2000. Science and Its Limits: The Natural
Sciences in Christian Perspective. InterVarsity Press. pp. 191.
5. Mark Siddall and Arnold Kluge. 1997. Probabilism and phylogenetic
inference. Cladistics 13: 313-336.
6. Tom Settle. 1979. Popper on "When is a Science not a Science
"Systematic Zoology" 28: 521-529.
7. Andrew Brower. 2000. Evolution is not a necessary assumption of
cladistics. Cladistics 16: 143-154.
8. David Hull. 1967. Certainty and circularity in evolutionary taxonomy.
Evolu-tion 21 (1): 174-189.

Comment:

This author has broken through the propaganda that is taught in schools
and colleges as \ufffdfact\ufffd. To bad so any have been brainwashed and don\ufffdt
even know it. Some in these NG actually think they are evolutionary
products with no purpose and just an organism on the path to who knows
where (because direction/purpose means a Director-Almighty God to whom
they will bow and confess sooner or later).

Contrasting the above with the Christian, who knows who he is, why he is
here and where he is going presents a gulf that seems impassable between
the two.

Oh well, to each their own destiny...

Lane Lewis
2003-07-04 14:43:05 EST

"IknowHimDoYou" <IknowHim@leavingsoon.com> wrote in message
news:IknowHim-0407030923150001@pm3-04.kalama.com...
>
snip

[qt]
In actual fact, it is the creation model supporters today who so frequently
appeal to empirical evidence (such as the coded nature and information
content of DNA) and the evolutionists who so blissfully fail to recognize
the significance of these very same data.
[fin]

Great can you answer these two simple questions.

1. What is the nature of the coded data in DNA
2. What is the information content and where is this information located in
DNA

In actual "fact" you can't answer these questions can you. Even though they
are stated as fact they are in fact impossible to define aren't they. You
are in collusion to deceive people by stating as fact what are really just
ideas.

Lane






Bardi
2003-07-04 16:50:49 EST

"Omphalos" <omphalos@xmsg.com> wrote in message
news:hzlNa.19446$ic1.356856@twister.tampabay.rr.com...
> There's no evidence for evolution. That's the secret.
>
>
Which I suppose goes to show that something may be secret and not have the
slightest shred of truth.



> --
> __________
> ==\ /================================
> ===\ /==You know how dumb the average==
> ====\ /===guy is? Well half of everyone==
> =====\ /======is even dumber than that=====
> ======\/====================================
>
Not true btw. There is a difference between average and median.


df
bardi




> http://31337.pl



Mike Hargrove
2003-07-04 16:53:23 EST

"Omphalos" <omphalos@xmsg.com> wrote in message
news:hzlNa.19446$ic1.356856@twister.tampabay.rr.com...
> There's no evidence for evolution. That's the secret.
>


You got that right!



Matt Silberstein
2003-07-04 18:35:59 EST
In alt.religion.christianity I read this message from
I*m@leavingsoon.com (IknowHimDoYou):

>
>EVOLUTION
>The Secret Behind the Propaganda

Where did she publish this and why don't you give full copyright
credit and information?

>by Margaret Helder (Botanist)

I looked on the web to see if I could find any publication
information about her. Lots of references to her being an
botanist or something, but nothing about the research she does.
Do you have any information about her research? Her articles
don't seem to mention any.

> "Everybody" knows, one might suppose, that evolution is about facts and
>the creation model is about belief. Certainly this was the message of the
>PBS TV series entitled "Evolution." An internal memo sent to PBS stations
>stated concerning evolution, "All known scientific evidence supports
>evolution. New discoveries over the past 150 years have all supported the
>validity of the theory of evolution." (PBS Internal Memo. 2001. The
>Evolution Controversy: Use it or lose it. Evolution Project/WGBH Boston.
>June 15, p. 5). The memofurther defined a scientific theory as a "higher
>level of understanding that ties 'facts'together" (p. 5). As to the
>creation model, the memo dismissed it as "not science. It is part of a
>religious belief system . . ." (p. 6). Such statements and other similar
>ones over the years have convinced many that science in general and
>evolution in particular are based on observations from the natural world
>and thus they are empirically or factually based.

As does the actual evidence, the reports from scientists who do
research in the areas (look at Nature or Science or the Journal
of Evolutionary Biology).

>The interesting thing is
>that this is not the modern understanding of science among scientists
>them-selves. They have long since abandoned much concern for actual data.

I gather she has started this given her lack of interest in
research.

> The modern outlook on science is readily apparent from remarks by
>scientists about their discipline. It was David Hull, a well-known philosopher
>of science, who wrote as early as 1965 that ". . . science is not as
>empirical as many scientists seem to think it is. Unobserved and even
>unobservable entities play an important part in it. Science is not just
>the making of observations: it is the making of inferences on the basis of
>observations within the framework of a theory."t

Notice the difference between Helder's claim ("abandoned much
concern for actual data") and what Hull wrote ("not as
empirical", "not just the making of observations"). Now does
anyone want to bet that these quotes were taken way out of
context? Given the title of this piece, "effect of essentialism
on taxonomy" I suspect that Hull's objections work double against
creationist. I have yet to see a creationist who does not argue
for essentialism.

>Within this statement we
>see what appears to be a balance between facts and interpretation or
>theory. Dr. Hull, however, had a dubious grasp of what constituted data.
>The previous year,

This would be 1964. I wonder if Hull has written anything in the
39 years since then. (He has, I know someone who has worked with
him.)

> he had written concerning the concept of descent with
>modification from a common ancestor (phylogeny or evolution): "The first
>factor in the phylogenetic program and the only one that is of an
>empirical nature is phylogeny, but even phylogeny is not a brute fact to
>be discovered merely by looking and seeing. Phylogeny, the subject matter
>of phylogenetic taxonomy, is an abstraction. It is an abstraction in two
>respects. First, it is inferred almost exclusively from morphological,
>genetical, paleontological, and other types of evidence and is not
>observed directly."2 His thoughts concerning evolutionary descent, we
>discover, were merely conclusions, not directly indicated by the evidence.

Huh? They are conclusions from the evidence. What is this
"directly indicated" nonsense? If you ask me the temperature now
I would say 88. I would not say that the mercury is at a mark
between the place where there is a '9' and a '0' and the place
where there is an '8' and a '5'.

> Views on the nature of science were actually in a state of flux at the
>time that Dr. Hull wrote these papers. Karl Popper in 1934 had pointed out
>that no theory in science could ever be proven true. The only altemative,
>he suggested, was to try to prove that theories were false. Those
>well-tested theories which had not been falsified or disproven on the
>basis of experimental data, would then qualify for the designation of
>scientific theory. The only catch was that many areas of scientific
>research did not meet these criteria.

Evolution does, though.

>Theories which could not be
>falsified, were said to be metaphysical (belief-based) rather than
>scientific. Accordingly an editorial in the scientific journal Nature in
>1981 pointed out that both Darwinism and the idea that God created the
>world, were metaphysical theories since "the course of supposed past
>evolution cannot be rerun.3

And, yet, that is not the position of Nature. But if you pick and
choose quotes from 40 years or more of work you can find what you
want. I wonder if Dr. Helder is among those who don't care about
evidence.

> However, such embarrassing characterizations
>of Darwinism as nonscientific were on their way out. Thomas Kuhn had
>published his book, The Structure of Scientific Revolutions, in 1962
>thereby ushering in a post-empirical age in scientific understanding.

Simply false.

> According to Thomas Kuhn, all science must be conducted in terms of a
>unifying set of ideas. Without such a theoretical system, said Kuhn, facts
>were meaningless and science nonexistent.

Not quite. Kuhn noted that you have theories even when you
observe. Like my temperature comment above. There is theory in
the statement "it is 88 degrees out".

>According to philosopher of
>science, Del Ratzsch, in his recent book, Science and its Limits, this
>primacy of theory over data has had enormous implications for the practice
>of science. The result is that empirical data are not that important to
>science anymore. According to Dr. Ratzsch: "in arguing that we have no
>paradigm-independent access to some ultimate reality and that paradigm
>choices are in part value choices made by scientists, Kuhn is moving the
>ultimate court of appeal concerning correct pictures of reality away from
>the world itself [data] and toward the informed consensus of scientists.4
>Dr. Ratzsch further pointed out, "Since there is no complete and stable
>and independent external reality to which we have access, there is no
>particular point in talking about truth in science...."

Amusingly enough Del Ratzsch is a creationist.

> So what do modern scientists do with data? What they do is to interpret
>their data in terms of the current scientific paradigm. They do not seek
>to falsify any paradigm such as evolution because paradigms are not
>supposed to be easily toppled.

You interpret your observations in terms of the weight of
previous observations and understandings. If I put a thermometer
in a hot oven and it says 45 it is possible I have overthrown the
current paradigm, but most likely I have a broken thermometer.

>Indi vidual falsifying facts won't cause a
>paradigm to be rejected.

This makes sense to me. There are millions of observations
supporting evolution. A single apparent contradiction will not
refute the theory. Some set of sufficiently contradictory
observations will make people re-think their ideas. Let us look
at the actual evidence. Science has seen major ideas, paradigms,
over thrown. Clearly something can do it. If you look you see it
is not because of one observation, but because of sufficient
material the previous theories can't handle. It took more than
one experiment to lead to Einstein, but it happened.

>Even a lot of contrary data will have little
>effect on a paradigm. Evolution of course is the most obvious_paradigm
>which is largely immune to the influence of empirical data. Cosmology is
>another.

Excepting that there is no such contradictory evidence. If there
were she would argue from the evidence.

> The most obvious casualties of this new definition of science are the
>concepts of reality and truth. Biologists Mark Siddall and Arnold Kluge,
>in 1997, for example, suggested that "'the search for truth' was a
>misguided venture in science from the start and one that has no basis in
>reality.5

I agree and thought this was clear. Truth is for a different
domain. Science can give me answers and error bars and that is
all.

>They further opined that "Truth, though not irrelevant to
>science, is nonetheless irrelevant to the choice among scientific
>theories, because it is unknowable."

Correct. We can't know which theory is "truth", all we can get is
the best current model.

[snip]

> Science has definitely come a long way. Initially in the eighteenth and
>nineteenth centuries, actual observations (empirical data) were highly
>valued. In some cases they were esteemed too highly. Some people like
>eighteenth century Scottish philosopher David Hume declared that there was
>no reality other than what our senses could discover. The material world
>was all there was. Gradually theory came to be more important until at the
>present time empirical data are often ignored.

This last is nonsense. Find me one article in a peer-reviewed
*science* journal that ignores evidence.

>Not all scientists,
>however, support the Kuhnian appeal to consensus among scientists. To -
>Settle, another philosopher of science, deplored the situation. "Many
>thinkers, seeing that the search for truth is an unending quest, abandon
>it (in despair perhaps) and settle for agreement with their fellows. If
>they are right that it is consensus rather than truth that ought to be
>aimed for in science, then the picture that emerges . . . is gloomy.6

So what if it is gloomy? There is no guarantee that our ideas are
emotionally uplifting.

[snip]

> Another biologist, Andrew Brower characterized "descent with
>modification'' as a circular argument or a metaphysical assumption.

He was wrong.

>"There
>is clearly an ontological leap between tests of individual observations
>and tests of 'descent with modification, if the latter is even testab]e
>without tautology.7 If 'the background knowledge: of descent with
>modification' underlying cladistics is not testable by independent means,
>it would seem to be more a metaphysical First Principle like vitalism or
>orthogenesis than a component of a Popperian hypothetico-deductive
>approach." In other words, evolution is not falsifiable, but is an a
>priori assumption.

Other, but wrong words. Brower seems to be making a technical
point about cladistics, not about evolution. Since Brower
actually does research (I assume it is this Brower:
http://www.ent.orst.edu/Entomology/Archive/browera.html) he seems
to falsify this entire essay.

> Christians,

Do you or Helder have any evidence that Brower is not Christian?

>on the other hand, typically take a much more traditional
>or empirical approach to science. They expect that when contrary data are
>pointed out, that the hearer's response will be to reject the paradigm.

And, yet, when evidence contrary to a young Earth is pointed out
*creationist* (meaning scientific creationists) do not abandon
their paradigm. I wonder why?

>All too often however, the hearer minimizes the significance of the data,
>calling them merely "anomalous" or poorly understood. Most supporters of
>evolution theory expect that the obvious problems will eventually be
>solved and in the meantime they concentrate on less controversial aspects
>of the paradigm.


> For the present, consensus by scientists is indeed used as a major point
>in favor of a paradigm. Individuals arguing from a minority position
>already have a major strike against them. Some scientists also claim that
>science is an all or nothing proposition with no room for a critical
>evaluation of individual aspects of the discipline. It was Hull who
>articulated the all or none principle. He was referring specifically to
>evolutionary versus numerical [empirical] categorizing of organisms, and
>this same argument is used today against the creation model.

Without evolution biology is just stamp collecting.

[snip]

>References
>
>1. David Hull. 1965. The effect of essentialism on taxonomy‹two thousand
>years of stasis (II). British Journalfor the Philosophy of Science 16
>(61):1-18.
>2. David Hull. 1964. Consistency and monophyly. Systematic Zoology 13 (1):
>1-11.
>3. Editorial. 1981. How true is the theory of evolution? Nature 290 March
>12: 75-76.4. Del Ratzsch. 2000. Science and Its Limits: The Natural
>Sciences in Christian Perspective. InterVarsity Press. pp. 191.
>5. Mark Siddall and Arnold Kluge. 1997. Probabilism and phylogenetic
>inference. Cladistics 13: 313-336.
>6. Tom Settle. 1979. Popper on "When is a Science not a Science
>"Systematic Zoology" 28: 521-529.
>7. Andrew Brower. 2000. Evolution is not a necessary assumption of
>cladistics. Cladistics 16: 143-154.
>8. David Hull. 1967. Certainty and circularity in evolutionary taxonomy.
>Evolu-tion 21 (1): 174-189.
>
>Comment:
>
>This author has broken through the propaganda that is taught in schools
>and colleges as ³fact². To bad so any have been brainwashed and don¹t
>even know it. Some in these NG actually think they are evolutionary
>products with no purpose and just an organism on the path to who knows
>where (because direction/purpose means a Director-Almighty God to whom
>they will bow and confess sooner or later).
>
>Contrasting the above with the Christian, who knows who he is, why he is
>here and where he is going presents a gulf that seems impassable between
>the two.
>
>Oh well, to each their own destiny...

--

Matt Silberstein TBC HRL OMM

We are not here to judge other people,
we are just here to be better than they are.

Matt Silberstein
2003-07-04 18:49:21 EST
In alt.religion.christianity I read this message from
I*m@leavingsoon.com (IknowHimDoYou):

>
>EVOLUTION
>The Secret Behind the Propaganda
>by Margaret Helder (Botanist)

I missed this in my first response. This essay was from the ICR
(Institute for Creation Research). They require that people take
an oath to avoid paying attention to the evidence. It is
impossible for an honest person to be a scientist and belong to
the ICR. http://www.icr.org/abouticr/tenets.htm




BTW, the ICR home page says: " Nothing on this website may be
reprinted in whole or in part without obtaining permission from
ICR". I hope that you got permission. Otherwise you are stealing
for Christ. That probably won't make him happy.


--

Matt Silberstein TBC HRL OMM

We are not here to judge other people,
we are just here to be better than they are.

Mike Hargrove
2003-07-04 22:36:50 EST

"Matt Silberstein" <matts2@ix.netcom.com> wrote in message
news:0p0cgvkqjqc7t1kdfmfm35q68v5gvp9tk2@4ax.com...
> In alt.religion.christianity I read this message from
> IknowHim@leavingsoon.com (IknowHimDoYou):
>
> >
> >EVOLUTION
> >The Secret Behind the Propaganda
> >by Margaret Helder (Botanist)
>
> I missed this in my first response. This essay was from the ICR
> (Institute for Creation Research). They require that people take
> an oath to avoid paying attention to the evidence.

There isn't any evidence.

It is
> impossible for an honest person to be a scientist and belong to
> the ICR. http://www.icr.org/abouticr/tenets.htm
>

Bullshit!



>
> BTW, the ICR home page says: " Nothing on this website may be
> reprinted in whole or in part without obtaining permission from
> ICR". I hope that you got permission. Otherwise you are stealing
> for Christ. That probably won't make him happy.
>
>
> --
>
> Matt Silberstein TBC HRL OMM
>
> We are not here to judge other people,
> we are just here to be better than they are.



Matt Silberstein
2003-07-05 00:18:21 EST
In alt.religion.christianity I read this message from "Mike
Hargrove" <mhargrove@excite.com>:

>
>"Matt Silberstein" <matts2@ix.netcom.com> wrote in message
>news:0p0cgvkqjqc7t1kdfmfm35q68v5gvp9tk2@4ax.com...
>> In alt.religion.christianity I read this message from
>> IknowHim@leavingsoon.com (IknowHimDoYou):
>>
>> >
>> >EVOLUTION
>> >The Secret Behind the Propaganda
>> >by Margaret Helder (Botanist)
>>
>> I missed this in my first response. This essay was from the ICR
>> (Institute for Creation Research). They require that people take
>> an oath to avoid paying attention to the evidence.
>
>There isn't any evidence.

The what about all those articles in The Journal of Evolutionary
Biology?

> It is
>> impossible for an honest person to be a scientist and belong to
>> the ICR. http://www.icr.org/abouticr/tenets.htm
>>
>
>Bullshit!

I agree. They require that people swear an oath that they will
hold to a young Earth creationist model no matter what the
evidence says.

>
>
>>
>> BTW, the ICR home page says: " Nothing on this website may be
>> reprinted in whole or in part without obtaining permission from
>> ICR". I hope that you got permission. Otherwise you are stealing
>> for Christ. That probably won't make him happy.

No words for the Christian who stole?


--

Matt Silberstein TBC HRL OMM

We are not here to judge other people,
we are just here to be better than they are.

Matt Silberstein
2003-07-05 09:30:28 EST
In alt.religion.christianity I read this message from "Mike
Hargrove" <mhargrove@excite.com>:

>
>"Matt Silberstein" <matts2@ix.netcom.com> wrote in message
>news:o7kcgvgs6v4jr8geb51cedmp8pdc9abke2@4ax.com...
>> In alt.religion.christianity I read this message from "Mike
>> Hargrove" <mhargrove@excite.com>:
>>
>> >
>> >"Matt Silberstein" <matts2@ix.netcom.com> wrote in message
>> >news:0p0cgvkqjqc7t1kdfmfm35q68v5gvp9tk2@4ax.com...
>> >> In alt.religion.christianity I read this message from
>> >> IknowHim@leavingsoon.com (IknowHimDoYou):
>> >>
>> >> >
>> >> >EVOLUTION
>> >> >The Secret Behind the Propaganda
>> >> >by Margaret Helder (Botanist)
>> >>
>> >> I missed this in my first response. This essay was from the ICR
>> >> (Institute for Creation Research). They require that people take
>> >> an oath to avoid paying attention to the evidence.
>> >
>> >There isn't any evidence.
>>
>> The what about all those articles in The Journal of Evolutionary
>> Biology?
>
>
>Evolution is a scam so there cannot be any evidence.

I see. We decide before hand that it is a scam. And therefore
there can't be any evidence. Ok, but what about all those studies
reported in all those articles?

>>
>> > It is
>> >> impossible for an honest person to be a scientist and belong to
>> >> the ICR. http://www.icr.org/abouticr/tenets.htm
>> >>
>> >
>> >Bullshit!
>>
>> I agree. They require that people swear an oath that they will
>> hold to a young Earth creationist model no matter what the
>> evidence says.
>
>Show me where you see that.

Read the page I gave you. They no long seem to have the wording
about the oath, but they do say: "More explicitly, the
administration and faculty of ICR are committed to the tenets of
both scientific creationism and Biblical creationism as
formulated below". They used to have more explicit language. I
don't know if they have changed or just made the web page more
acceptable.

>
>> >>
>> >> BTW, the ICR home page says: " Nothing on this website may be
>> >> reprinted in whole or in part without obtaining permission from
>> >> ICR". I hope that you got permission. Otherwise you are stealing
>> >> for Christ. That probably won't make him happy.
>>
>> No words for the Christian who stole?
>
>What can I say? It was wrong!

That is a good step.



--

Matt Silberstein TBC HRL OMM

We are not here to judge other people,
we are just here to be better than they are.

DAS
2003-07-05 09:37:31 EST
IknowHimDoYou wrote:

> EVOLUTION
> The Secret Behind the Propaganda
> by Margaret Helder (Botanist)
>
> "Everybody" knows, one might suppose, that evolution is about facts and
> the creation model is about belief.

Yup. That's the reality.

***************************************************************
Elmer Bataitis “Hot dog! Smooch city here I come!”
Planetech Services -Hobbes
585-442-2884
"...proudly wearing and displaying, as a badge of honor, the
straight jacket of conventional thought."
***************************************************************
Page: 1 2 3 4   Next  (First | Last)


2020 - UsenetArchives.com | Contact Us | Privacy | Stats | Site Search
Become our Patron