As we saw
here and
here the
Los Angeles Times has intentionally misinformed its readers about a new Academic Freedom law in Tennessee. If their false reporting was merely a mistake, then they would have issued a correction. The incident highlights the fact that evolution is a lie. That’s strong language but it would be wrong to describe evolution in lesser terms. It is what it is. Evolution is a lie at the scientific level, and then more lies are required at the journalism level to cover it up. As usual, the cover up serves to make the underlying lie that much more obvious. And it continues. As a follow up to this story an evolution professor supported the journalist, issuing the same lie:
This sensible reporter is not fooled by dishonest creationist subterfuge, and neither is anyone else with a brain.
But when I asked the professor to what “dishonest creationist subterfuge” he was referring, he made no reply. It is one thing to provide a reasoned defense for the
Los Angeles Times yellow journalism. It is quite another simply to repeat the same lies.
Religion drives science, and it matters.
Dr. Hunter, I think you will appreciate this following article. It has several excellent quotes from Darwinist. Quotes taken in those rare moments that Darwinist are being honest about their religion.
ReplyDeleteIf the evidence for God is so strong, why are so many smart people unconvinced?
http://www.godevidence.com/2010/10/if-the-evidence-for-god-is-so-strong-why-are-so-many-smart-people-unconvinced/
bornagain77 Apr 19, 2012 03:53 PM
Delete[...]
If the evidence for God is so strong, why are so many smart people unconvinced?
Perhaps because, when examined with the same critical rigor that you would like to see applied to evolution, the evidence is nowhere near as strong as the faithful believe it to be.
And Ian, exactly what is your evidence against God? Please tell me the exact piece of evidence that you are wagering your eternal soul on? Is it the fact that the material universe has always existed? Is it the fact that scientists have created life in a lab? Is it the fact scientists have changed a bacteria into a multicellular creature? Please Ian do tell me this stunningly great piece of scientific evidence that has made you such a dogmatic atheist.
DeleteHi Ian:
DeleteI find your response interesting. I invite you to examine the 101 summary here on in context.
I trust you (and onlookers) will find it helpful.
KF
bornagain77bornagain77 Apr 19, 2012 04:38 PM
DeleteAnd Ian, exactly what is your evidence against God?
The flip answer would be that Christianity has very kindly provided all the evidence one could need against the concept of a just, kind and loving God in the Old Testament.
The more serious answer is that I find none of the evidence proffered for the existence of the Christian God persuasive and that it is at least arguable that we may never be able to know one way or the other; that it must, ultimately, be a matter of faith.
Please tell me the exact piece of evidence that you are wagering your eternal soul on?
Since I see no reason to think an eternal soul is any more real than God, I have nothing to wager.
Is it the fact that the material universe has always existed?
The evidence points towards this Universe having a beginning. How it began, why it began, why it began when it did and what, if anything, existed before are still unknown.
I should say I don't see myself as a dogmatic atheist. I regard myself as agnostic in terms of epistomology - I don't know whether or not there is a god - but a functional atheist in that I act on the assumption that there is no god.
GEM of The Kairos Initiative Apr 21, 2012 05:57 AM
DeleteHi Ian:
I find your response interesting. I invite you to examine the 101 summary here on in context.
I trust you (and onlookers) will find it helpful.
I have a passing familiarity with those arguments and I would certainly invite any onlookers to study them critically.
People lie when they when they deliberately state as true something they know or have strong reason to believe is false.
ReplyDeleteWe know there are a small number of scientists who are openly skeptical of the theory of evolution but the overwhelming majority of biologists appear to support it. You are saying that all these academics, whose numbers must run into the hundreds of thousands, are all lying. Do you have any evidence to support what is otherwise a libel on the whole profession?
Oxford University and University of Massachusetts-Amherst Professor of Biology Lynn Margulis (winner of the U.S. Presidential Medal for Science) discusses the persistence of neo-Darwinian theory, despite its deteriorating scientific basis, with journalist Susan Mazur:
DeleteMargulis: “If enough favorable mutations occur, was the erroneous extrapolation, a change from one species to another would concurrently occur.”
Mazur: “So a certain dishonesty set in?”
Margulis: “No. It was not dishonesty. I think it was wish-fulfillment and social momentum. Assumptions, made but not verified, were taught as fact.”
Mazur: “But a whole industry grew up.”
Margulis: “Yes, but people are always more loyal to their tribal group than to any abstract notion of ‘truth’ – scientists especially. If not they are unemployable. It is professional suicide to continually contradict one’s teachers or social leaders.”
Here again the reader can clearly see that atheistic conclusions which purportedly arise from scientific research, such as neo-Darwinism, can hardly be characterized as the logical result of an objective examination of facts. Rather, they precede the examination of facts and reflect the religious beliefs of a scientist’s “tribal group.” This can be the case even when such theories have a basis which has been eroded by advances in scientific understanding. Considering that biologists are in the business of providing explanations for the phenomenon of life, it should be no surprise whatsoever that a majority of biologists find the idea that there are aspects of this phenomenon which lie beyond the grasp of human reason, well….repugnant. Indeed, a statement such as, “A majority of biologists do not find any reason to believe in an intelligent source for the origin of life” is about as meaningful as the statement, “A majority of oil company executives do not find any reason to believe that biofuels can be efficient and effective alternatives to oil.” Well of course they don’t!!
http://www.godevidence.com/2010/10/if-the-evidence-for-god-is-so-strong-why-are-so-many-smart-people-unconvinced/
Ian:
DeletePeople lie when they when they deliberately state as true something they know or have strong reason to believe is false.
So show me where the Tennessee law introduces creationism into the classroom?
BA:
DeleteHere again the reader can clearly see that atheistic conclusions which purportedly arise from scientific research, such as neo-Darwinism, can hardly be characterized as the logical result of an objective examination of facts. Rather, they precede the examination of facts and reflect the religious beliefs of a scientist’s “tribal group.”
http://darwins-god.blogspot.com/2012/03/heres-real-message-behind-this-weeks.html
http://darwins-god.blogspot.com/2012/04/you-wont-believe-who-denies.html
Until people understand evolutionary thought it's going to be difficult to make progress.
Dr. Hunter, I've been grappling with, trying to understand, the atheistic-theistic point of tension you have been trying to make clear for a while. It seems to be a subtle but very important point. In a nutshell can the point be framed like this,,,
Delete'The 'religion' of evolution is the result of false Theistic premises and is not the result of Atheistic premises.'
,,, or have I missed your point again???
BA:
DeleteWell first, it is important to understand simply that evolutionary thought was motivated by, and is justified by, theological claims. Even those who call themselves atheists make and rely on these claims. Of course, that's an internal contradiction. Materialism and theological truths are mutually contradictory. One can't say there is nothing but matter and energy, but also that it is true that if there was a Creator, then the world would be this way. You can say that's your opinion, but not that it is true. This just reveals the atheist's internal contradiction. So the atheists are just a silly side-show.
So what is this theism, and who are the theists, that mandate evolution? No mystery here, they are Christians. Evolution didn't come from Islam, Judaism, Hinduism, Buddhism, or atheism. The movement and its arguments are quite clear.
You can see this going back to the early days of modern science, when evolutionary thought first arose in modern times. And you can see this still today. For example:
http://darwins-god.blogspot.com/2012/04/is-this-what-jeff-schloss-said-at-that.html
So regarding evolution, Christians tend to fall into two categories. Those who mandate evolution and those who blame it on the atheists. Both groups are stumbling blocks.
BA:
Delete(continued)
Please take a look at this post which explains those false theistic premises:
http://darwins-god.blogspot.com/2011/03/creation-versus-evolution-real-story.html
Also, this "evolutionary tree" summarizes what it is really about:
http://www.darwinspredictions.com/Figure15.jpg
CH:Well first, it is important to understand simply that evolutionary thought was motivated by, and is justified by, theological claims. Even those who call themselves atheists make and rely on these claims.
DeleteAgain, the problem with this argument is that it's parochial. Specifically, it discounts the impact that creationism would have on the creation of knowledge. Nor do you seem to be truly objective regarding how an abstract designer will no defined limitations could have decided to create the universe.
For example, the interpretation that your birth certificate is accurate as to the location and date you were born, or that you were even born at all, had a childhood, etc, "relies" on an abstract intelligent designer not having created the universe 30 seconds ago, with the mere appearance of false documents, photographs, videos and and false implicated memories that these things were true, but are not.
The interpretation that you were the actual author of the book Darwin's God, the posts on this blog and subsequent comments "relies" on an abstract intelligent designer choosing not to have created the universe 30 seconds ago, which would have necessarily resulted in said abstract designer authoring them all in the process.
Do you cash the royalty checks from your book? That you actually deserve the income "relies" on an abstract intelligent designer choosing not to have created the universe 30 seconds ago.
In other words, you seem to be equivocating on the terms "relies" and "justified" in that the same could be said about virtually anything.
From the linked post..
DeleteCH: Simply put, evolutionary thought is motivated and justified by various claims about how God would create the world.
I sense that you haven't thought this through.
The assumption that you actually developed the entire concept of "evolutionary thought" as being religiously motivated, and that the theory of evolution itself was actually created by any human being in the first place for any reason, let alone based on claims about how God would create the world, "relies" on assumptions on how God would have created this world.
Namely, that he wouldn't have chosen to create the world, and everything in it, 30 seconds ago, with the mere illusion that these things are indeed true, but actually false.
In other words, why isn't this an example of you "forcing the facts to fit your interpretation?"
Just to be perfectly clear…
DeleteCornelius claims that "evolutionary thought" was and "evolutionists" are motivated by and justified by various claims about how God would create the world. This supposedly includes the idea that Darwinism has a long history of religious influence of the philosophies and theories listed in the tree here.
However, the intelligent designer in the theory of intelligent design has no defined limitations. This is important as it allows said designer to create entire universes out of nothing, search though massive protein spaces, design and implement complex biological machines, etc. But, in leaving the designer abstract, this also means that said designer could have also created this world 30 seconds ago, should it have decided to for reasons with we simply cannot comprehend.
Furthermore, one of the ramifications of a designer having created the world in this particular way is Darwin's theory couldn't have been formed based on influences listed in the above tree. Nor could Darwin had been the author of the the theory of evolution. That's because Darwin, or any of thees other philosophers and scientist would have been the authors of their own discoveries. Rather evolution, and the rest, would have been authored by this intelligent designer when it created this world 30 seconds ago, along with everything in it.
So, while it's logically possible that Cornelius' theory that evolution is religiously motivated could be true, this could only be the case if he makes assumptions about how this intelligent designer would create the world. Namely, that wouldn't create false knowledge in the process.
It's unclear how he knows what an intelligent deigned would or would not do.
Again, the designer in ID is abstract. As such, it has no such limitation of not creating false knowledge. How does he rule this possibility out?
And if we bring God into the equation, one would have to assume that God wouldn't decided to create false knowledge when creating this world for some perfectly good reason we simply cannot comprehend, such as a test that build spiritual character or teaches us some important spiritual lesson? How does he rule this possibility out as well?
So it would seem that if we attempt to take Cornelius' own argument seriously, it becomes incoherent as it too would itself be religious in nature.
Scott:
DeleteIt's unclear how he [Hunter] knows what an intelligent deigned would or would not do.
Scott, why are you so purposely dense? This is precisely Hunter's point. Hunter does not claim to know anything about the designer. Evolutionists, on the other hand, claim to know what a designer would and would not do. That's what makes their premise metaphysical and religious. Evolution is pure unmitigated chicken feather voodoo science.
Give a rest, Scott. You are putting both feet in your mouth deeper in every comment you write. Stop being an imbecile.
But then again, maybe you should continue as you were. It's just more evidence that evolutionists are not just liars and cowards, they have the IQ of donkey dung.
Scott, your philosophy appears to be that purely natural and earthy processes are potentially capable of anything even to achieving omniscience.
DeleteThis may sound absurd, but isn't this really your view? You have no capability or standard to reach a conclusion that something was designed. You wouldn't know it if you saw it. There is nothing in your toolbox to make such an evaluation. I'm not talking about settling on ultimate truth, but making a reasonable evaluation. I'm not talking about making a statement of certainity and then closing out further evaluation.
Your limiting your options. Your bound to the evolutionary box. This viewpoint forces you to exaggerate the forces of nature beyond the evidence... therefore you are playing with superstition. Ascribing to nature what it is not capable of doing. No wonder these hemmed in evolutionists resort to lies and slander and then justify it.
Everyone wants to be right and defend the side their on, but evolutionary theory motivates people to lies and slander because it has built its own little box and said everybody else outside the box is wrong and don't dare criticize. It's an all or nothing proposition... purely natural and earthy processes are capable of anything and to evaluate observations differently is not allowed.
If, in the distant future, man is able to manufacture bacterium from absolute scratch, do you really think the process will be to add a simple list of chemicals to water and heat at 120 degrees for 2 hours? Or someone simple like that? Seriously?
I anticipate that if we are ever able to do it, it will need to be documented in volumes, involve thousands of steps in which many of them are seriously guided by highly trained technicians, the best engineers on earth, using a myraid of precisely engineered and operated tools and equipment. But somehow a warm little pond woke up one day all on its own and had the knowledge to reproduce and potential to evolve into an omnisicient being. Your viewpoint is incapable of saying otherwise.
Louis: Scott, why are you so purposely dense? This is precisely Hunter's point. Hunter does not claim to know anything about the designer.
DeleteI'm dense? What is it about…
So it would seem that if we attempt to take Cornelius' own argument seriously, it becomes incoherent as it too would itself be religious in nature.
... that you do not understand?
Is Hunter merely discarding the possibility that a designer could have created the universe 30 minutes ago because he has no explanation as to why a designer would do just that? Or does he claim to know that a designer wouldn't create the world 30 minutes ago? Which is it?
To quote CH: Evolution didn't come from Islam, Judaism, Hinduism, Buddhism, or atheism. The movement and its arguments are quite clear.
However, if a designer actually created the world 30 minutes ago, then Darwin couldn't have been influenced by past religious assumptions because there would be no past beyond 30 minutes ago. Nor would Darwin have actually been the author of the theory himself.
As such, evolution wouldn't actually have been based on any movement or argument. It would have been authored by this same designer when it created the world 30 minutes ago. Nor could this be "clear" as, apparently, we cannot know this designer's motivations or reasons.
Louis: Give a rest, Scott. You are putting both feet in your mouth deeper in every comment you write. Stop being an imbecile.
Let me guess: it's ridiculous that a designer would have created the world 30 minutes ago? If so, would that not be an assumption as to how a designer would or would not have created the world?
A designer creating a universe out of nothing billions of years ago isn't ridiculous, but create this same universe 30 minutes ago is?
In other words, it would seem that I'm the only one who is truly objectively open as to how a designer might create the world, and the consequences of said design.
Neal: Scott, your philosophy appears to be that purely natural and earthy processes are potentially capable of anything even to achieving omniscience.
DeleteNo, I'm being genuinely and objectively open about how a designer might have created this world.
Apparently, you lack any caned responses, so you're trying to change the subject.
Scott said, "No, I'm being genuinely and objectively open about how a designer might have created this world."
Delete--
There's been a lot a posts on several articles I may have missed it. Do I understand you correctly that you are genuinely open to intelligent design?
Actually, I'd be surprised if you would even entertain such a thought as anything but replusive, religious stupidity.
Perhaps you could clarify some more as to what kind of presentation you are looking for. I beg you to spare us more categories of philosophy. Please?
I'd be glad to respond to something in which you feel I've changed the subject. Was it the dilemma of infinite regress or something?
Neal,
DeleteIt seems you've confused personally liking or having faith in something with taking it seriously for the purpose of criticism.
Could it be that you only take things seriously that you personally like or have faith in? And, therefore, you assume that others do the same?
Or perhaps you're a true believer. So taking anything seriously, for the purpose of criticism, isn't something you do at all.
Neal: I'd be glad to respond to something in which you feel I've changed the subject. Was it the dilemma of infinite regress or something?
I'm addressing a comment Cornelius made in this thread. Specifically…
CH: Well first, it is important to understand simply that evolutionary thought was motivated by, and is justified by, theological claims. Even those who call themselves atheists make and rely on these claims.
And I'm doing so by taking Cornelius' own argument, along with intelligent design, seriously, for the purpose of criticism. The result is that his argument iappears to be incoherent. That's all I'm addressing in this thread.
Cornelius Hunter Apr 19, 2012 04:36 PM
Delete[...]
So show me where the Tennessee law introduces creationism into the classroom?
I don't believe it does and I should say that I have no objection to the cases for Creationism or Intelligent Design being discussed in the science classroom. What would be unacceptable is if they were to be taught as recognized scientific alternatives to the theory of evolution because that is not the case.
All evolutionists are liars and cowards. Their incessant whining that science is being undermined by creationism is just a front to cover up their political agenda.
ReplyDeleteYes, it is theory protectionism. What evolutionists are saying is: Criticism of my theory is out of bounds because it necessarily is religious. So no criticism is allowed -- hilarious.
DeleteCornelius Hunter
DeleteYes, it is theory protectionism. What evolutionists are saying is: Criticism of my theory is out of bounds because it necessarily is religious. So no criticism is allowed -- hilarious.
Another blatant lie from the paid propagandist.
Science actually says any criticisms or alternatives to the current ToE are allowed as long as you follow proper scientific methodology. That means publicly presenting your evidence for critical inspection by the knowledgeable experts in the field.
Creationist liars will have none of that though, because they have no positive evidence *to* present. So they propose dishonest underhanded laws that let them push their crap ideas onto student without the ideas being tested or verified.
Same as it ever was. Creationist can't do science, lie to have their beliefs taught as science anyway.
ahahaha... Bonobo face reaches deep and pulls another gem out of his asteroid orifice:
DeleteScience actually says any criticisms or alternatives to the current ToE are allowed as long as you follow proper scientific methodology. That means publicly presenting your evidence for critical inspection by the knowledgeable experts in the field.
Let's see now. Peer review ('posterior review' would be a better term for it) is controlled by the same arse holes who, for decades, have maintained that common descent was a falsifiable prediction of evolution. Now that common descent has been humiliatingly and decisively falsified, they claim that they never meant common descent to be taken literally. When critics point this out, they are accused of being creationists or worse.
Personally, I don't think that critics of evolution should honor the peer review process with their papers. Peer review is a pathetic joke. When it comes to evolution, the honesty of the "scientific" community is no better than that of the Los Angeles Superior Court. It sucks.
We can win public opinion to our side without giving credence to a bunch of cowards and liars. There is enough data in the form of decoded genomes to prove beyond any doubt that life was designed. We can publish our findings and show the proof of design directly to the public without kissing anybody's behind. We should refuse to show any respect for peer review because peer review is a process for gutless swines like bonobo face. LOL.
Conclusion. Bonobo face should keep his lies and stupid opinions where he found them: his asteroid orifice.
ahahahaha... AHAHAHAHA... ahahaha...
as long as you follow proper scientific methodology
DeleteProper methodology? Like blackballing anyone who disagrees with you and things like that? You've got to be kidding me, unbelievable.
It is a observation of mine that left wing types always feel they have the right and confidence to so easily accuse their opponents motives and character.
ReplyDeleteWhile my side is so reluctant and would be held to severe account for any accusation.
The point in these school classes is to tel, teach, and discover the truth about origins.
The whole point is to teach kids about conclusions on origins.
There is serious and popular contention.
The schools must teach both sides or they are picking sides.
If picking then the people can repick as the schools belong to them.
If one side is banned then its a public declaration of the state that same side is wrong since the classes are about teaching whats right on origins.
Of coarse to say creationism is wrong is close or indeed really the state saying God/genesis is wrong.
The state is not to teach this if church/state issues are involved in origin issues.