Is macroevolution a religion? Should we rename it evolutiontarianism?

I saw a website that refered to the macroevolution hypothesis as evolutiontarianism. I thought this was humorous. I know science is a social enterprise and that when paradigms change based on the evidence that dissent is often not encouraged. Copernicus would be a good example. It seems to me though that the macroevolutionist are the academic equivalent of the Taliban although the current PC movement is in many ways equivalent.Even the evolutionist Behe cannot escape the academic Taliban's wrath and he is censored. 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.Sincerely,Ken[This message has been edited by kendemyer, 03-01-2004]

Taliban? How on earth do you equate a scientific theory with a totalitarian theocracy.And what on earth is the PC movement? He isn't censored, infact he still has a wide following. His theories have just been thruoghly and unequivicably debunked.Heck, he was given the benafit of the doubt scientificaly. His fist papers came out in peer reviewd jurnals. That's how he was debunked. How is it based on tradition? His papers were included, debunked, disproven, and thus disregarded. This is science!How do you get Taliban out of this? If something is proven wrong then it is wrong.

quote:

---

It seems to me though that the macroevolutionist are the academic equivalent of the Taliban although the current PC movement is in many ways equivalent.

---

The equivalent to the Taliban is ICR (Institute for Creationist Research). They think that destroying science as we know it will return this nation to God. Sound familiar?Moving past somewhat personal attacks on ICR, science is areligious. The theory of evolution is supported by observable facts (observed instances of speciation) and observable evidence (change in organisms over time). Science is grounded in what can be observed and tested, quite different than any religion I know of. If macroevolutionarianism was a religion, than so is golf, since I have golfed on sundays before.

quote:

---

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

---

As noted above, Behe's ideas have been debunked by mainstream science. Above that, Behe based his ideas on his own incredulity. At the end of the day, his argument comes down to "I can't believe it could have evolved, even through indirect routes." Not a well supported theory, if you ask me.

Indeed? What eveidence do you have for this assertion? What papers has Behe submitted that have been rejected without reasonable cause? What journals?

Ken,What is your working definition of religion?Stephen

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.

1. To the person who wanted to know what PC is:Political correctness.2. To the person who said do I have any proof Behe was unfairly censored: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.Sincerely,Ken

Sorry, that's not convinicing evidence. Your claim is still unsupported.BTW, I've been following this debate in many forums for many years, and this is the first claim I have heard that such material exists or once existed. That makes it pretty unlikely that it ever existed.

I easily found the page in question, making use of talkorigins.org which has an extensive set of links to anti-evolution sites.http://www.arn.org/..._correspondencewithsciencejournals.htmBehe's article was rejected not because of a policy of rejecting anti-evolution articles but because of a policy of rejecting articles which criticised evolution on *non-scientific* grounds Rejection by a journal is also not unusual - as Behe should know. Many papers are published by journals other than the one they were originally submitted to. And the editors explicitly encouraged Behe to seek publication elsewhere: If Behe stopped after one submission then that is his choice - and reflects only on him.

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.

Ahh, yes, those creationist websites. Pretty silly, aren't they? Galileo would be another. But thankfully we don't have religion in charge of science anymore, otherwise there'd be alot more, and we couldn't rejoice whenever somebody makes a discovery that turns our worldview upside down This is why we celebrate Einstein and Watson and Crick as some of the greatest scientific minds of the century. Of course, we sometimes celebrate too early at the overthrow of our cherished beliefs, as with cold-fusion, but that's why we have the wonderful scientific review process, to weed out errors and mistakes. Are you meaning to say that the taliban had oservable evidence for their god, similar to the one below?

quote:

---

Predation was a powerful selective force promoting increased morphological complexity in a unicellular prey held in constant environmental conditions. The green alga, Chlorella vulgaris, is a well-studied eukaryote, which has retained its normal unicellular form in cultures in our laboratories for thousands of generations. For the experiments reported here, steady-state unicellular C. vulgaris continuous cultures were inoculated with the predator Ochromonas vallescia, a phagotrophic flagellated protist ("flagellate"). Within less than 100 generations of the prey, a multicellular Chlorella growth form became dominant in the culture (subsequently repeated in other cultures). The prey Chlorella first formed globose clusters of tens to hundreds of cells. After about 10-20 generations in the presence of the phagotroph, eight-celled colonies predominated. These colonies retained the eight-celled form indefinitely in continuous culture and when plated onto agar. These self-replicating, stable colonies were virtually immune to predation by the flagellate, but small enough that each Chlorella cell was exposed directly to the nutrient medium.

---

- Changes

---

"Knowledge is Power" - Francis Bacon

I suppose you are free to attack the historical and theological problems of the Roman Catholic Church in relation to science and other matters. As a protestant, however, I may decide to join you.In regards to Christianity and science, I offer the following:CHRISTIANITY AND SCIENCEhttp://www.ldolphin.org/bumbulis/http://www.carm.org/issues/science.htm(Yes, I realize that Bacon was a Catholic but I will say I liked some although not all of what St. Francis said (Bacon was a franciscan monk).Sincerely,Ken

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.

TO: SchrafinatorPlease read the following:The Marion StarHome | CS LewisI 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. 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. 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:
Page Not Found | Freedom HousePage not found - Open DoorsI 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 ResearchNow am I saying that all evolutionist are given to such extreme measures. No, I am not. I do see though that at a lot of the very militant, materialist evolutionist have done a lot of harm to others.I also realize that not all Moslems are not like the Taliban. I have a friends who are Muslim from Somalia and Mali where the type of Islam
is not so extreme.Also, I would admit that some people who call themselves Christians believe in the lie of the macroevolutionary hypothesis.Sincerely,Ken[This message has been edited by kendemyer, 03-03-2004]

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]