Is macroevolution a religion? Should we rename it evolutiontarianism?

quote:

---

I know science is a social enterprise and that when paradigms change based on the evidence that dissent is often not encouraged.

---

Um, have you ever even been to a professional scientific conference? Have you ever known any professional scientists and asked them about this?Science is, in a sense, based upon disagreement. Scientific conferences and, hell, PhD defenses are pretty contentious; if you make a claim, your collegues are going to question you, particularly if your study results contradict theirs!Sometimes personalities clash and tempers flare, but for the most part, this critical analysis of one's own and others' work is considered the basic diologue scientists have with each other about research.

quote:

---

It seems to me though that the macroevolutionist are the academic equivalent of the Taliban

---

That statement is incredibly offensive and insulting. It would be a very good idea to apologize immediately if you haven't already.

quote:

---

Even the evolutionist Behe cannot escape the academic Taliban's wrath and he is censored.

---

Can you please give some examples of how Behe has been censored?Look, Behe wrote a popular press book touting his modern version of the God of the Gaps claims because he knew they didn't have any peer-reviewed journal-quality evidenciary support.What you perceive as "academic wrath" is simply strong academic and scientific criticism, just the same kind of treatment any other flawed, terribly unscientific idea would get.

quote:

---

I have no problem with private ownership of journals and the setting of agendas but it seems hypocritical when they do not at least acknowledge that they are basing Behe's exclusion on tradition rather than any real scientific grounds.

---

Please specifically state which parts of Behe's ideas have been rejected as unscientific, and how you believe that they are, in fact, scientific.

quote:

---

I saw a letter that Behe published on the internet where one scientific journal where Behe exchanged several letters with finally said that they just do not have a tradition of publishing non evolutionist material. This was some time ago and now the internet is so flooded with Behe material that I just spent a few minutes trying to find it but I had no success. Perhaps Behe pulled it off the internet because Behe no longer feels his message is not getting out in the public arena.

---

Sorry, I'm not terribly convinced of your claim that Behe was censored if you can't show me the evidence.By the way, I'm still waiting for the apology, or at least a justification, for the comparison you made between scientific academics and the murderous Taliban.That was an incredibly offensive, unjustified insult that I insist you either justify or retract.Also, it would be much better if you used the small "reply" button at the bottom of the individual message you are replying to instead of the "add reply" button at the top and bottom of the page. This way we will know who it is you are replying to and our message index will show that there is a reply to us waiting.

Ken, a reply to message #10 is required.Also, please use the small reply button at the bottom of each individual message (not the gereral "add reply" buttons at the top and bottom of the page) so we know who you are replying to.

quote:

---

Please read the following:

​

The Marion Star

---

The above website was a news story about how science minded schoolboard members have reservations about letting in religiously-based ideas into a science curriculum.Please explain how this is relevant to the topic. Be specific.

quote:

---

Home | CS Lewis

---

The above is a site from a fundamentalist website praising Philip Johnson's book which is critical of Biology. The problem is, Johnson is an attourney and has no training in the sciences or Biology at all, so why should I listen to his opinions about it?Also, please explain what a religiously-motivated lawyer's book has to do with the topic? Be specific.

quote:

---

I believe that some (not all) Islamacist and some (not all) /materialist/evolutionist have one thing in common. They often go crazy when they hear criticism of their position.

---

Please provide specific examples of evolutionists "often" going "crazy" when their positions are criticized.I contend that most Biologists pay no attention at all to fundamentalist Christian criticisms of their field, because those criticisms 1)haven't changed in 60 years, and 2) are not valid.

quote:

---

Now I would admit that the Islamacist are often more hostile to criticism. On the other hand, I would also say that the materialist cannot cite one materialists martyr.

---

Who cares if there are materialist martyrs!!??What does that have to do with anything at all??

quote:

---

Now I realize that a materialist would have very low incentive for martyrdom. I also realize that materialist have been afffored far more tolerance than they have given to Christians. Examples?

​

I offer the following:

​

North Korea:
washtimes_may_2_summit_story

​

Page not found - Open Doors

​

I would also cite the Soviet Union (churches closed, millions of people died)and China.

​

Here is a essay about Stalin/Marx in regards to Origin of the Species:

​

Acts and Facts Magazine | The Institute for Creation Research

​

Now am I saying that all evolutionist are given to such extreme measures. No, I am not.

---

Your websites (except for the ICR one) do not mention Biologists at all, only repressive governments which restrict religious freedom.What do Biologists have to do with repressive governments?Oh, and did you know that modern Biology was rejected by Stalin in favor of Lysenkoism, which was wrong, and subsequently led to the starvation of many Russians.

quote:

---

I do see though that at a lot of the very militant, materialist evolutionist have done a lot of harm to others.

---

Which militant Biologists who have become repressive leaders in government are you talking about?Please list their names.

quote:

---

Also, I would admit that some people who call themselves Christians believe in the lie of the macroevolutionary hypothesis.

---

Please list your specific problems with the Theory of Evolution and we can discuss them.What are your difficulties? What do you find lacking, specifically?[This message has been edited by schrafinator, 03-04-2004] [text=wheat][Fixed too long link. --Admin][/text][This message has been edited by Admin, 03-04-2004]

Ken, you ignored my direct questions to you in your reply.This makes me think that you are not interested in debating honestly. Does your God approve of dishonesty?Here are the questions again. Please answer them:

quote:

---

What do Biologists have to do with repressive governments?

​

Which militant Biologists who have become repressive leaders in government are you talking about?

​

Please list their names.

​

Please list your specific problems with the Theory of Evolution and we can discuss them.

​

What are your difficulties? What do you find lacking, specifically?

---

Now, to your current message:

quote:

---

When I see many high schools talk about all the shortcomings of the macroevolutionary hypothesis I will rescind my Taliban comment.

---

No.Justify or withdraw your comparison of a MURDEROUS religious government with the free and open exchange of ideas that is science.Perhaps you would also like to list all the shortcomings of the Theory of Evolution here for us to specifically discuss?I asked you to do this in my last post, but you ignored the request.

quote:

---

Secondly, it is obvious that milititant atheist who espouse darwinist dogma have persecuted Christians far more than they have been persecuted by people calling themselves Christians.

---

Irrelevant.

quote:

---

I do not know of one materialist martyr.

---

Irrelevant.

quote:

---

It seem to me that if they were persecuted at least one angry person or mob would have lynched/killed a materialist. Voltaire and others, however, died a normal death

---

Irrelevant.

quote:

---

re: what specifically do I have problems with in regards to the macroevolutionary hypothesis

​

I believe you have seen this string: http://EvC Forum: Young earth creationism is valid and the macroevolutionary hypothesis is not valid -->EvC Forum: Young earth creationism is valid and the macroevolutionary hypothesis is not valid

​

I do not know why you even ask this question.

---

Your opening post does not list specifics, it just lists a bunch of websites. Following your opening post, you were requested to pick specific evidences and discuss them. You refused, but refusing to discuss the details is tantamount to giving up before you've started the debate.Please pick one specific piece of evidence from one of those websites and we will discuss the details.I want to talk about very minute, specific details in great detail about one, specific bit of evidence.So, pick one, and we will talk about why it is that you disagree with the findings of science.If you like, I will pick one for you. Let me know.

quote:

---

re: biologist/repressive regimes

​

I would say that it is a multidisciplinary effort of many scientist

---

I know what you think.However, I would like to see what your evidence is for why you think this.That is why I asked the following question in my last post, which you did not answer. Please answer this direct question: [quote]Which militant Biologists who have become repressive leaders in government are you talking about?

​

Please list their names.[quote]

quote:

---

As you know Stalin abandoned the idea of being a lifelong priest (I am guessing Russian Orthodox) pretty much after he read Darwin's Origin of the Species according to the biographer who published a book about him in Russia during the time he was in power.

---

What is the name of this Biographer, and what is the name of the book?

quote:

---

Now since Darwin was no possessor of a biology degree but had a theology degree like Stalin was working toward or completed,

---

There was no such thing as a "Biology Degree" back when Darwin was alive.There was no such thing as any "degree" in any of the sciences as we know them today, because science as a profession had not been formalized yet.

quote:

---

I would say that Stalin is the biologist you are looking for. Stalin's work in biology was just as good as Darwin's in my estimation.

---

Please tell me the title of any naturalist paper or book written by Stalin.

quote:

---

If Stalin did no work in biology it still would be better than Darwin's contribution. I am not against being self taught but Darwin would not be a great example of the benefits of being self taught. For example, let us look at some legacies. Pasteur was a creationist and he had the great Pasteur Institute as a legacy. Perhaps there is a Darwin Institute. If there is a Darwin Institute it is surely not as well known as the Pasteur Institute. I would also say that the Pasteur Institute is far more productive than any Darwin Institute there may or may not be.

---

Let me sum up what you said here:There is no Darwin Institute.Well, there might be a Darwin institute, and because I haven't heard of it, it isn't as well known worldwide as the Pasteur Institute.Even though I don't even know if a Darwin Institute even exists or not, I somehow psychically know, beyond a shadow of a doubt, that the Pasteur Institute is way better.

sorry, double post.[This message has been edited by schrafinator, 03-05-2004]

Since you seem unable to pick a single bit of evidence regarding the ToE for us to discuss, I will do so for you.Let's see, why don't we discuss why it is that whales are sometimes born with hind legs?This is predicted in an evolutionary model, because there is very good evidence that modern whales evolved from land-dwelling mammals.We understand that an individual's genetic code can become expressed, or "turned on" by mistake every once in a while. These are called "atavisms."Why would an individual whale grow legs "by mistake" if all of whale "kind" had been created by God to always swim in the sea? Why would they have the genes to grow legs at all?Now, let's discuss your problems with this bit of evidence.

---

"Evolution is a 'theory', just like gravity. If you don't like it, go jump off a bridge."

Ken, you failed to answer this question, and I don't want it to be left behind, as it is a serious accusation.

quote:

---

I believe that some (not all) Islamacist and some (not all) /materialist/evolutionist have one thing in common. They often go crazy when they hear criticism of their position.

---

Please provide specific examples of evolutionists "often" going "crazy" when their positions are criticized.

Ken, a reply to posts # 24, 26, and 27, please.

quote:

---

A large point is being ignored. When atheism is left on its own and becomes the paradigm of a country and there has not been a foundation of Bible believing or strong Christian input we see large degrees of chaos in a society (Mao, Stalin, North Korea, Eastern Europe, etc).

---

Since every single example you gave were Communist countries, maybe it has more to do with Communism as an economic system?Also, you forgot that both Russia and Eastern Europe DO have a christian input.

quote:

---

It's better then being called a flat-earther...

---

Um, OK.What does this have to do with anything being discussed in this thread?

quote:

---

"murderous taliban", Ring a bell?

---

Look, if you have a substantive point to make, make it.Explaining your point with a complete sentence or perhaps (gasp!) a short paragraph would be most welcome."Debate by soundbite" is a waste of time.

Right.Not substantive.Therefore, it doesn't really belong in a debate thread.If you want to chit chat, please head to the Coffee House or Free For All threads.