Saturday, January 7, 2012

Evolution Professor: I Wrote a Thoughtful Response

An evolution professor who wrote a profanity-laced diatribe in response to a question about evolution is now saying it was a “thoughtful response.” He writes:

I wrote, what I thought, was a thoughtful response to a question I was asked regarding math and evolution and creationists.

But as I pointed out here, here and here, aside from the foul language the professor’s response contained several scientific blunders. And now those blunders are being amplified in the professor’s next response. But as usual a straightforward discussion about the science won’t be easy.

Evolution is a religiously driven theory that is weak on the science, so you can guess where the discussion goes. Here is how the professor begins his next “thoughtful” response:

In my original post, I pointed out one creationist argument against the theory of evolution misuses probability. The argument goes like this: using these assumptions, the odds of life originating is infinitesimally small therefore god and Jesus and homosexuals can not visit each other in the hospital.

Aside from the usual mocking that evolutionists rely on, the misuse of probability is not a “creationist argument.” Again, this is typical. Evolutionists think they can cover over the problems with their theory by raising the “Creationist” alarm and turning to ridicule.

The professor’s first mistake was his misuse of probability. They say there are lies, damn lies, and then there are statistics. We might now add probability to the list. A problem with evolution, and the origin of life, is that they are astronomically unlikely. They have low probability.

The professor attempted to explain this away by arguing that all outcomes are equiprobable. Incredibly complex cellular life arising on its own is no different than a blob of mud. After all, all possible outcomes have a probability of 1/#Outcomes. This is an old, and frankly pathetic, trick. Laplace explained the problem centuries ago and I elaborated on it here.

Using the professor’s rationale, we would credulously accept all manner of bizarre events. If all our roulette wheel bets turned out winners, if our poker hands always gave a royal flush, if random letters spelled out CONSTANTINOPLE, it all would be just another equiprobable event.

But not surprisingly all of this was lost on the professor. He writes:

Instead of dealing with the fact that creationist assumptions are pure fiction …

That would be difficult to do since the professor gave no specifics to deal with. The professor gave no references, no citations, no links, not even any names. In fact the professor’s characterization of “creationist assumptions” was a convenient strawman rather than a serious criticism.

For instance, the professor characterizes creationists as assuming evolution occurs instantaneously. I’m not up on the creationist literature so perhaps they do say this. But if so, this hardly addresses the serious problems with evolution. (More on this below). The professor continues:

Cornelius takes a different tact. Poker and scrabble. See the odds of three players each getting an amazing poker hand at the same time is a really small number therefore evolution can not be true or the odds of pulling out scrabble tiles in order that spell out CONSTANTINOPLE is a really small number therefore evolution can not be true.

Here the professor avoids the problem and instead distorts what I said. The problem is not that “evolution cannot be true,” which of course I never said. The problem is that evolution is unlikely, and his equiprobable argument doesn’t help. After failing to address the problem, the remainder of the professor’s response degrades further:

So if flipping a coin or the lottery are not sufficient evidence, then poker and scrabble will be? Poker and scrabble did not even exist 10,000 years ago, therefore the world can not be that old (if I understand Cornelius' way of thinking). The problem isn't getting small numbers. That's easy, I brought up two ways and now we have two more. The problem is the assumptions creationists make, they are not reality.

10,000 years ago? The world can not be that old? The assumptions creationists make? Where did that come from? Later the professor contrived more opponents to attack:

He is stuck on the idea that scientists think a cell just poofed into existence, regardless of what we say, he refuses to accept it and keeps harping the same lie over and over. … Cornelius' world-view is that the Bible (as he interprets it) is correct and the universe must fit into that tiny little corpuscle of his imagination.

Poofed into existence? Of course I never said any such thing. The professor is simply contriving strawmen to knock down. Unfortunately this is typical. Try discussing the science with evolutionists and too often they attack imagined motives. The irony is that while they promote the religiously-driven theory of evolution, they criticize everyone else for the same. Sorry, but misrepresenting science and resorting to various fallacies is not “thoughtful.”

Religion drives science, and it matters.

1. However did our 'evamolutionist' friend get a professorship? Do they come with cornflake packets these days?

If he could rise above the level of the kind of bluster of Harry Enfield's disaffected adolescent, Kevin, he might reach the intellectual level of the economist, Hayek, of whom Keynes once remarked, when reviewing one of his books:

"The book, as it stands, seems to me to be one of the most frightful muddles I have ever read, with scarcely a sound proposition in it beginning with page 45 [Hayek provided historical background up to page 45; after that came his theoretical model], and yet it remains a book of some interest, which is likely to leave its mark on the mind of the reader. It is an extraordinary example of how, starting with a mistake, a remorseless logician can end up in bedlam.

Logic? If only...

2. Cornelius said:

"Try discussing the science with evolutionists and too often they attack imagined motives."

What is your motive? And since when are your endless attacks on evolution and evolutionists a straightforward discussion of the science?

You asserted:

"A problem with evolution, and the origin of life, is that they are astronomically unlikely. They have low probability."

How could you know that? What evidence do you base that assertion on?

You said:

"For instance, the professor characterizes creationists as assuming evolution occurs instantaneously."

Actually, IDCs assume (believe) that their chosen god poofed everything into existence and that evolution doesn't and never did occur.

"I’m not up on the creationist literature so perhaps they do say this."

"they"? As though you're not a creationist?

Not even any names, eh? Hmm, I don't see the professor's name in your post. Why is that?

"Poofed into existence? Of course I never said any such thing."

In your opinion, how did cells come into existence?

"The professor is simply contriving strawmen to knock down."

Oh the irony.

"The professor attempted to explain this away by arguing that all outcomes are equiprobable. Incredibly complex cellular life arising on its own is no different than a blob of mud."

Why, exactly, would it be less probable for "cellular life" to "arise" than for a blob of mud?

"Evolution is a religiously driven theory that is weak on the science, so you can guess where the discussion goes."

Speaking of strawmen.

"Evolutionists think they can cover over the problems with their theory by raising the “Creationist” alarm and turning to ridicule."

Creationists (like you) think that they can cover over the problems with their non-evidential, non-scientific religious beliefs by raising the "evolutionist" or "Darwinist" or "materialist" or "naturalist" or "atheist" alarm and turning to ridicule, strawmen, misuse of probabilities, false accusations, dishonesty, pseudo-science, and malicious attacks on evolutionary science and scientists.

"Using the professor’s rationale, we would credulously accept all manner of bizarre events."

Uh, you IDCs do accept and believe in all manner of bizarre events.

"That would be difficult to do since the professor gave no specifics to deal with."

What, specifically, isn't fiction when it comes to religious creation?

"But if so, this hardly addresses the serious problems with evolution."

What serious problems are there with "evolution"?

Do you actually have an alternative to the ToE, and is it strong on science (including positive evidence)?

3. Cornelius Hunter said...

The professor’s first mistake was his misuse of probability. They say there are lies, damn lies, and then there are statistics. We might now add probability to the list.

Tsk tsk tsk, Cornelius mails in another one. Just once I'd like to see a little creativity, not the same stupid PRATT arguments like this "it's too improbable!!" one that are the staple of brain-dead Creationists everywhere.

A problem with evolution, and the origin of life, is that they are astronomically unlikely. They have low probability.

Same dumb unsupported claim. Simple fact is, no one anywhere has enough information to calculate such a probability, let alone determine if it is low or high. We have a sample size of 1, and we have no way of knowing the total number of possible ways that life could form. All we can say for sure is that once here, life has indeed evolved over the last 3+ billion years. Yes Cornelius, that is a fact.

4. The whole truth:

Actually, IDCs assume (believe) that their chosen god poofed everything into existence and that evolution doesn't and never did occur.

Such as?

Not even any names, eh? Hmm, I don't see the professor's name in your post. Why is that?

That would be because he doesn’t provide his name.

Creationists (like you)

And a communist too don’t forget.

5. Cornelius, you're required by your employer to be a Creationist. So unless you accepted employment under false pretenses, I think the label is quite justified.

6. Cornelius said:

The whole truth:

Actually, IDCs assume (believe) that their chosen god poofed everything into existence and that evolution doesn't and never did occur.

Such as?

--------------------------------

Biola University (where you work)

Doctrinal Statement

Inasmuch as the University is interdenominational and yet theologically conservative, the Articles of Incorporation contain a doctrinal statement which is given below:

The Bible, consisting of all the books of the Old and New Testaments, is the Word of God, a supernaturally given revelation from God Himself, concerning Himself, His being, nature, character, will and purposes; and concerning man, his nature, need and duty and destiny. The Scriptures of the Old and New Testaments are without error or misstatement in their moral and spiritual teaching and record of historical facts. They are without error or defect of any kind.

There is one God, eternally existing and manifesting Himself to us in three Persons: Father, Son and Holy Spirit.

Our Lord Jesus was supernaturally conceived by the power of the Holy Spirit and born of a virgin Mary, a lineal descendant of David. He lived and taught and wrought mighty works and wonders and signs exactly as is recorded in the four Gospels. He was put to death by crucifixion under Pontius Pilate. God raised from the dead the body that had been nailed to the cross. The Lord Jesus after His crucifixion showed Himself to be alive to His disciples, appearing unto them by the space of 40 days. After this, the Lord Jesus ascended into heaven, and the Father caused Him to sit at His right hand in the heavenly places, far above all rule and authority and power and dominion, and every name that is named, not only in this world, but also in that which is to come, and put all things in subjection under His feet, and gave Him to be Head over all things to the Church.

The Lord Jesus, before His incarnation, existed in the form of God and of His own choice laid aside His divine glory and took upon Himself the form of a servant and was made in the likeness of men. In His pre-existent state, He was with God and was God. He is a divine person possessed of all the attributes of Deity, and should be worshiped as God by angels and man. "In Him dwelleth all the fullness of the Godhead bodily." All the words that He spoke during His earthly life were the words of God. There is absolutely no error of any kind in them, and by the words of Jesus Christ the words of all other teachers must be tested.

The Lord Jesus became in every respect a real man, possessed of all the essential characteristics of human nature.

By His death on the cross, the Lord Jesus made a perfect atonement for sin, by which the wrath of God against sinners is appeased and a ground furnished upon which God can deal in mercy with sinners. He redeemed us from the curse of the law by becoming a curse in our place. He who Himself was absolutely without sin was made to be sin on our behalf that we might become the righteousness of God in Him. The Lord Jesus is coming again to his earth, personally, bodily, and visibly. The return of our Lord is the blessed hope of the believer, and in it God's purposes of grace toward mankind will find their consummation.

See part two.

7. Part two.

Biola University

Doctrinal Statement (continued)

The Holy Spirit is a person, and is possessed of all the distinctively divine attributes. He is God.

Man was created in the image of God, after His likeness, but the whole human race fell in the fall of the first Adam. All men, until they accept the Lord Jesus as their personal Savior, are lost, darkened in their understanding, alienated from the life of God through the ignorance that is in them, hardened in heart, morally and spiritually dead through their trespasses and sins. They cannot see, nor enter the Kingdom of God until they are born again of the Holy Spirit.

Men are justified on the simple and single ground of the shed blood of Christ and upon the simple and single condition of faith in Him who shed the blood, and are born again by the quickening, renewing, cleansing work of the Holy Spirit, through the instrumentality of the Word of God.

All those who receive Jesus Christ as their Savior and their Lord, and who confess Him as such before their fellow men, become children of God and receive eternal life. They become heirs of God and joint-heirs with Jesus Christ. At death their spirits depart to be with Christ in conscious blessedness, and at the Second Coming of Christ their bodies shall be raised and transformed into the likeness of the body of His glory.

All those who persistently reject Jesus Christ in the present life shall be raised from the dead and throughout eternity exist in the state of conscious, unutterable, endless torment of anguish.

The Church consists of all those who, in this present dispensation, truly believe in Jesus Christ. It is the body and bride of Christ, which Christ loves and for which He has given Himself.

There is a personal devil, a being of great cunning and power: "The prince of the power of the air," "The prince of this world," "The god of this age." He can exert vast power only so far as God suffers him to do so. He shall ultimately be cast into the lake of fire and brimstone and shall be tormented day and night forever.

See part three.

8. Part three.

Explanatory note (under the doctrinal statement):

Explanatory Note:

This doctrinal statement, presented here as originally conceived by the founders of the organization, has been and continues to be the stated theological position of Biola University. Where “man” is used, referring to the human race, it includes both genders. In addition, the following explanatory notes indicate the organization’s understanding and teaching position on certain points which could be subject to various interpretations:

In fulfillment of God’s historical purpose for humanity to rule and establish God’s kingdom on earth (Gen. 1:28; Ps. 8:4-8; Matt. 6:10 Heb. 2:6-9), the Scriptures teach a millennial reign of Christ with his saints on earth following his literal return. The nation of Israel, having been redeemed, will play a central role in bringing the blessings of salvation to all nations during the millennium in fulfillment of biblical prophecies (e.g., Is. 2:1-4, 11:1-12; Jer. 23:5-6; Ezek. 37; Amos 9:9-15; Zech. 14; Matt. 19:28; Acts 1:6, 3:19-21; Rev. 20:4-7). Following the millennium, this kingdom will be merged into the eternal kingdom (I Cor. 15:22-28).

Before these millennial events, the believers will be caught up to meet the Lord in the air (I Thess. 4:13-17). The time of this “rapture” is unknown, and thus believers are to live constantly watchful and ready.

The existence and nature of the creation is due to the direct miraculous power of God. The origin of the universe, the origin of life, the origin of kinds of living things, and the origin of humans cannot be explained adequately apart from reference to that intelligent exercise of power. A proper understanding of science does not require that all phenomena in nature must be explained solely by reference to physical events, laws and chance.

Therefore, creation models which seek to harmonize science and the Bible should maintain at least the following: (a) God providentially directs His creation, (b) He specially intervened in at least the above-mentioned points in the creation process, and (c) God specially created Adam and Eve (Adam’s body from non-living material, and his spiritual nature immediately from God). Inadequate origin models hold that (a) God never directly intervened in creating nature and/or (b) humans share a common physical ancestry with earlier life forms.

Though there may be many fillings of the Holy Spirit, there is only one baptism which occurs at the time of regeneration. The gifts of the Spirit are given to believers according to the Will of God for the purpose of building up the Church. During the foundational era of the Church (i.e., the time of Christ and the Apostles) God gave special manifestations of the overtly supernatural and miraculous gifts (e.g., tongues, healings, miracles) as “signs” that witness to the validity of those bearing new canonical revelation (c.f. 2 Cor. 12:12; Heb. 2:3-4). Beyond the foundational era, God in His sovereignty may grant any spiritual gift and work miraculously for the benefit of His Church at any time.

The Bible is clear in its teaching on the sanctity of human life. Life begins at conception. We abhor the destruction of innocent life through abortion-on-demand.

9. How did I misuse probability?

I explained why I think your analogies are wrong. Instead of dealing with those arguments you ignore them and restate the same thing over and over again.

How did you determine that evolution is like roulette, poker, or any other odds game? I will say explicitly yet again Cornelius, biologists do not think a bunch of amino acids just came together into a cell all at once. Since you know this already, I will assume you think that's what happens so you can keep using your poker analogy. If you posit that biologists believe cells poofed provide the citations, references, links, or names you accuse me of not providing. Until such time, stop telling everyone that is what we think, just so you can use your poker analogy.

You say that you never said cells poofed into existence. I agree, that's is why I didn't use quotation marks. But in one of your very own posts you quote me "but I do want to stress that I have never seen the absurd idea that cells just poofed into existence fully formed from scratch" and then follow up with the response "So the first cell did not form from scratch? What, was there something swimming around in that warm little pond before evolution got going?" So, if you are not suggesting that cells poofed into existence, what are you suggesting?

I asked you before, when you said there is not enough time for a giraffe to evolve. How much time would it take? How do you arrive at this number? I gave you the evidence that supports 3.8 billion years of evolution. Now it's your turn to provide some evidence.

You know I apologize to your readers for using adult words. Your posts are twice as long just so you can whine about my language habits. I apologize for subjecting them to 2x the drivel they otherwise would have to read.

"Evolution is a religiously driven theory that is weak on the science." and "I’m not up on the creationist literature so perhaps they do say this." Clearly you need to get out more, because it seems you either do not know much or just ignore the available information to keep incredulous readers in the dark.

There you go Cornelius. Those last two paragraphs are so you can pull out your passive-aggressive keyboard and deal with how mean I am while ignoring the questions and points I raised. (Of course I do not expect a meaningful response because I realize you are not arguing in good faith, but maybe some readers can gain something from this.)

10. Top Reasons to Work at Biola University

By far, the top reason that applicants want to work at Biola University is because the University’s doctrinal statement and standard of conduct is in line with their own.

Often applicants are seeking employment that offers deeper fulfillment and they recognize that by working at Biola University their work will have an impact on eternity.

Applicants also like knowing that all of their co-workers have the same core beliefs and enjoy being in community with other believers.

From here:

http://www.biola.edu/hr/university_employment/why/

11. In the employee handbook for Biola University this sentence is added to the Doctrinal Statement:

"As an employee of Biola you are expected to be in accord with the theological position of the University as expressed in the Doctrinal Statement."

And this is added to the Explanatory Notes:

"Confession before men is viewed as a tangible fruit of salvation and not as a qualifying condition for salvation."

http://offices.biola.edu/hr/ehandbook/1.2/?h=duty

12. Hi, Cornelius. The Lorax is a known atheist and therefor unable to do science "your way," is that correct?

As he states you make claims of probability but you never demonstrate how you derive them. Are you just using numbers, or how do you get to them?

I am reading some fascinating articles on the current state of research into abiogenesis, and these reflect science, not handwaving. I think you should probably read them before attacking The Lorax's presentations again.

Oh, and grownups do use profanity. Too bad it hurts your sensibilities, but it is irrelevant to the points that The Lorax makes.

13. Thorton:
"Same dumb unsupported claim. Simple fact is, no one anywhere has enough information to calculate such a probability, let alone determine if it is low or high. We have a sample size of 1, and we have no way of knowing the total number of possible ways that life could form."

You gotta think it's impossibly high or else some bright boy in a lab coat would long ago have created life from scratch.

14. form factor belched:

"You gotta think it's impossibly high or else some bright boy in a lab coat would long ago have created life from scratch."

So now it's "impossibly high"?

What will you say if some "bright boy" or bright girl does that one of these days?

And you obviously missed the part in Thorton's comments where he said, "once here....". Think about it.

Hint: abiogenesis - then evolution. (Cornelius apparently can't figure out the difference either)

15. Mike H.:

The Lorax is a known atheist and therefore unable to do science "your way," is that correct?

I have more hope for atheists than for many people. They can do real science just fine. But yes, when it comes to the origin of species, it is true that a true atheist has a problem. If the professor is an atheist then he needs evolution, no matter how silly it is. A Christian like myself can objectively evaluate the entire spectrum, from secondary causation evolution to primary causation creationism. A truly committed atheist doesn’t have those options.

16. Cornelius Hunter said...

A Christian like myself can objectively evaluate the entire spectrum, from secondary causation evolution to primary causation creationism.

BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!

"objectively evaluate"

Good one CH!

17. CH said...

A Christian like myself can objectively evaluate the entire spectrum, from secondary causation evolution to primary causation creationism. A truly committed atheist doesn’t have those options.

Let's contrast that with the doctrinal statement from Biola (which I presume CH you must uphold):

The existence and nature of the creation is due to the direct miraculous power of God. The origin of the universe, the origin of life, the origin of kinds of living things, and the origin of humans cannot be explained adequately apart from reference to that intelligent exercise of power.

Hmmm...not sure I see much of a spectrum here for you to operate in?

Can you remotely see why whenever you spout "religion drives science" ad nausem, it's just ever-so challenging to find you even slightly
credible. Or should you resign from Biola because you don't ascribe to the above statement? Do you or do you not?

18. Cornelius is even further restricted: that doctrinal statement also demands that common ancestry cannot be countenanced when it comes to humans and the rest of the biological world. That alone utterly mangles evolutionary theory.

19. thornton: BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!

Man I'm lovin' it. The usual schoolboy caliber taunting from the "professional" caliber personalities addicted to this blog. You would think one would have enough reasons to do some useful contribution. The best part is, like I said before, the students get to see personality as so entangled in a philosophical stance that it drives an abnormal obsession and concomitant behavior. From the "best" no less, the barons of the paradigm.

20. MSEE said...

derp derp derp

LOL! Another spineless IDCer chirping from the sidelines, too scared to get in the game. I'm sure you can easily link us to all those technical analyses backed up with results from the scientific literature that you've made MSEE. Or maybe you can boast again about how smart you are because you have a freshman level statistics book on your coffee table.

21. The Lorax:

How did I misuse probability? I explained why I think your analogies are wrong. Instead of dealing with those arguments you ignore them and restate the same thing over and over again.

Explained? You began with more unreferenced “creationist assumptions.” You’re not fooling anyone. Even if you did have some oddball creationist assumptions about evolution acting instantaneously, which I doubt you have, it would be an irrelevant strawman. Your ridiculous science doesn’t get fixed because of some bogus creationist.

Next you “explained” why you think my analogies are wrong:

See the odds of three players each getting an amazing poker hand at the same time is a really small number therefore evolution can not be true or the odds of pulling out scrabble tiles in order that spell out CONSTANTINOPLE is a really small number therefore evolution can not be true.

Therefore evolution can not be true? Let’s see, where did I say that? Oh, that’s right, I didn’t, you made it up again. What I said was that these sorts of examples explain the problem behind your equiprobable argument. You didn’t even begin to address these problems.

I will say explicitly yet again Cornelius, biologists do not think a bunch of amino acids just came together into a cell all at once. Since you know this already, I will assume you think that's what happens so you can keep using your poker analogy. If you posit that biologists believe cells poofed provide the citations, references, links, or names you accuse me of not providing. Until such time, stop telling everyone that is what we think, just so you can use your poker analogy.

Once again, where did I say that evolution occurred instantaneously? Right, I didn’t. That’s another one you made up.

You say that you never said cells poofed into existence. I agree, that's is why I didn't use quotation marks. But in one of your very own posts you quote me "but I do want to stress that I have never seen the absurd idea that cells just poofed into existence fully formed from scratch" and then follow up with the response "So the first cell did not form from scratch? What, was there something swimming around in that warm little pond before evolution got going?" So, if you are not suggesting that cells poofed into existence, what are you suggesting?

Exactly what I said. So the first cell did not form from scratch? What, was there something swimming around in that warm little pond before evolution got going? Of course they formed from scratch according to origin of life dogma. No teleology, remember?

Do I need to remind you? The universe just happens to pop into existence. Galaxies, stars and planets just happen to form. Warm little ponds, deep sea vents, amino acid bearing comets just happen to arise. Organic molecules just happen to mingle. Reproducing entities just happen to cycle. It is all from “scratch.”

If you want to say it wasn’t from “scratch” because there were a few amino acids already conveniently available inside lipid vesicles that just happen to be hanging around, or some such, then you’re just moving the starting point to try to rationalize your silly truth claims.

22. Kartrev:

Can you remotely see why whenever you spout "religion drives science" ad nausem, it's just ever-so challenging to find you even slightly credible.

No, that would be the evolutionists, remember? I could care less if their silly theory is true. Maybe it is true, maybe it is not true. That’s the difference. You see, I allow for evolution to be false. That makes me a “creationist” and anti-science.

What I do know, however, is that evolution is not a fact, as evolutionists insist. While it is difficult to say just what happened in the distant past, there is no question what the state of our knowledge is. Evolution may be true (which would be a real shocker given the science), but there is no question it is not a scientific fact as evolutionists mandate with their religious beliefs.

23. CH:

What I do know, however, is that evolution is not a fact, as evolutionists insist.

As usual one doesn't know whether you are talking about evolution or simply the observation that species change over time (what do you call that then?).

Again, despite your assertions to the contrary, us "onlookers" must take into serious consideration the strong likelihood that your ability to look at any of this truly objective is biased by your own religious views. You can pretend that somehow you remain objective and not tainted by them, but truly only the choir is listening, and given that your whole "religion drives science" schtick seems to be your own unique invention, I"m not sure they're buying it that well either.

Which is why the only reason I would ever find anything you say even slightly compelling. is if you provide positive evidence for ID or some alternative to TOE. Otherwise critical thinking principles require us to remain rightly skeptical of your position.

Besides, evolution mustn't be a fact for you, because that would violate your employer's required doctrinal statement, wouldn't it? Or, do you not agree with this statement? And if you do at some point agree with mainstream science, presumably that would put your employment in jeopardy, which of course would be a very difficult position for you and possibly a crisis of faith and identify too.

24. Kartrev:

As usual one doesn't know whether you are talking about evolution or simply the observation that species change over time (what do you call that then?).

You’re confusing me with evolutionists who equivocate on evolution when the evidence is pointed out to them. Suddenly evolution is merely change over time, after having insisted the entire universe and everything in it just happened to arise.

When I use the term “evolution” I’m referring to its commonly accepted meaning—the origin of the species strictly via natural law.

Again, despite your assertions to the contrary, us "onlookers" must take into serious consideration the strong likelihood that your ability to look at any of this truly objective is biased by your own religious views.

So evolutionists use religious claims to mandate evolution, and when I point out the scientific problems I’m the one you suspect. If you want more information on my views, see:

http://darwins-god.blogspot.com/2011/03/creation-versus-evolution-real-story.html

Which is why the only reason I would ever find anything you say even slightly compelling. is if you provide positive evidence for ID or some alternative to TOE.

Sorry but I don’t know how the world arose. (btw, neither do they).

25. Cornelius Hunter sees everything through theological eyes. So when he calls biologists hypocrites and liars because they claim that evolution is a "fact," he sees them making a metaphysical claim. Indeed, he has asserted that a "fact" is something true "beyond a shadow of doubt," which is clearly not what the word "fact" means in science or in ordinary discourse.

And, by conflating "metaphysics" with "theology," he has at hand the materials for generating his straw-man construct:

"Religion drives science."

26. You see, I allow for evolution to be false. That makes me a “creationist” and anti-science.

Baloney. You don't just "allow" evolution to be false, you propagandize against it with distortion and ridicule.

27. Wow Cornelius, just wow. You addressed none of my points. I will give you credit, you allow comments to your viewpoints and pretend to address them. I appreciate that there is a record of my critique and what you think is a lucid response.

This is precious though:
Once again, where did I say that evolution occurred instantaneously? Right, I didn’t. That’s another one you made up.
The very next thing you write (not counting my quote):
Exactly what I said. So the first cell did not form from scratch? What, was there something swimming around in that warm little pond before evolution got going? Of course they formed from scratch according to origin of life dogma. No teleology, remember?

Sorry, I got to get a tissue to wipe the tears of laughter aware. Thanks for that though.

28. Hunter: Do I need to remind you? The universe just happens to pop into existence. Galaxies, stars and planets just happen to form. Warm little ponds, deep sea vents, amino acid bearing comets just happen to arise. Organic molecules just happen to mingle. Reproducing entities just happen to cycle. It is all from “scratch.”

That's what bugs him, guys. Someone had to create those galaxies, stars and planets. Otherwise it makes no sense. They can't just be made unsupervised. That would make us humans an accident.

You're a one-trick pony, Cornelius. Like the rest of creationists. Behe would deny all day long that ID is creationism in cheap tuxedo, but what drives him is a desire for the Universe, and everything in it, to have a benevolent creator. Actually, the benevolent Creator.

29. That's what bugs him, guys. Someone had to create those galaxies, stars and planets. Otherwise it makes no sense. They can't just be made unsupervised. That would make us humans an accident.

It's counter-intuitive to him. Religion drives his intuition and it matters to him.

30. Lorax,

Hunter didn't say that the first cell arose instantaneously, he said it arose from scratch. I think "from scratch" is supposed to mean "spontaneously," without intervention.

Since he considers that a silly proposition, his bias is transparent.

31. Pedant:

Lorax,

Hunter didn't say that the first cell arose instantaneously, he said it arose from scratch. I think "from scratch" is supposed to mean "spontaneously," without intervention.

Don't fall for the pretend ignorance schtick. What is it about "What, was there something swimming around in that warm little pond before evolution got going?" that he doesn't understand?

32. oleg:

You're a one-trick pony, Cornelius. Like the rest of creationists.

Communist too, don't forget.

33. Kartrev said:

Again, despite your assertions to the contrary, us "onlookers" must take into serious consideration the strong likelihood that your ability to look at any of this truly objective is biased by your own religious views.

CH replied:

So evolutionists use religious claims to mandate evolution, and when I point out the scientific problems I’m the one you suspect. If you want more information on my views, see:

Cornelius, you seem to have quite a knack for not addressing people's questions or comments. The point at hand is the influence of your own religious beliefs on your approach to science. It seems you have persuaded yourself that there is no influence, but given how it is well known how religious thought is so persuasive (ironically, a claim you make yourself), we think your claim of objectivity is little more than an assertion.

CH then said:

Sorry but I don’t know how the world arose. (btw, neither do they).

I think we need to refer back again to your employer's doctrinal statement:

The existence and nature of the creation is due to the direct miraculous power of God. The origin of the universe, the origin of life, the origin of kinds of living things, and the origin of humans cannot be explained adequately apart from reference to that intelligent exercise of power.

Seems to me the powers that be at Biola have how the world arose figured out quite well - and furthermore expect both faculty and students to agree with it. Or (third time asking) do you not agree with the doctrinal statement that is a condition of your employment?

34. Excellent post, Dr. H. And EVERY single critic just proves your point. Do you get that Pendant, Thorton, et al.? You are proving his point with every thought you express! You can't help it!
Dr. Hunter, not only were your thoughts logical, consistent and thoughtful, but it appears you must've kept "the whole truth" off the streets for a substantial time.

35. What is it about "What, was there something swimming around in that warm little pond before evolution got going?" that he doesn't understand?

I'm not falling either for your coy obscurantist shtick. Why not state clearly what you mean so we can criticize it?

Excellent post, Dr. H. And EVERY single critic just proves your point. Do you get that Pendant, Thorton, et al.? You are proving his point with every thought you express! You can't help it!

Yes, but the point CH keeps making is that Creationists won't honestly discuss scientific findings if their lived depended on it.

We do demonstrate it with every post, as does he.

37. The Lorax:

Wow Cornelius, just wow. You addressed none of my points.

None of your points? So let’s summarize the discussion:

1. You were asked about the question of whether evolution has sufficient time.

2. You first blamed the problem on the mathematicians. They just don’t understand that astronomically unlikely events happen all the time.

3. You next responded that this question about sufficient time can also stem from a bogus creationist 1/N argument (no references given), where an astronomically large number of possible states are identified, N, and then the probability of evolution producing the actual state is computed as 1/N. That would be a bogus argument, but you gave the equally bogus, all-outcomes-are-equiprobable, answer. You wrote:

The important thing here is that the odds of getting any specific combination of heads and tails in 10 flips is about 1 in a 1000. However, if you flip a coin 10 times, you will get a specific combination. … Using the creationist logic, then it was impossible to get the sequence of 270 Heads or Tails we just got.

Maybe a more current analogy is in order. Powerball! … On Dec 9th the odds were 1 in 6.86x1024 now they are 1 in 1 or 100%. The difficulty with thinking about these types of calculations is that we forget that although any specific event may by improbable, a specific event will happen. … The odds of all the specific numbers being drawn were ~1/2.21x10^99 which is more than the number of atoms in the universe by 1,000,000,000,000,000,000 times (10^99 – 10^81). Ergo, those numbers could not possibly have been drawn! But these odds were only true before the Nov. 9th drawing. Again, the odds today are 100%, because this event already happened. It’s pretty easy generating really big numbers to sound impressive, but just because someone has a big number doesn’t mean he knows how to use it right.

This is just a silly evolutionary argument that Laplace explained two centuries ago. If a guy is dealt royal flushes all night long, or hits the jackpot every time he plays the slot machines, the casino managers are all over it. They don’t say, “we’ll gee, seems like a fix, but you know, every outcome is equally probable and, after all, now that it has occurred it has odds of 100%. Who are we to argue?”

3. I explained this using poker and scrabble analogies. Did my response fully explore the subject? Of course not. Is it a deep subject that one could explore? Sure. But I did address your argument with a basic explanation of why the evolutionary reasoning is, as usual, flawed.

4. You responded with a ridiculous strawman version of my explanation. You wrote:

Cornelius takes a different tact. Poker and scrabble. See the odds of three players each getting an amazing poker hand at the same time is a really small number therefore evolution can not be true

Again this is typical evolutionary discourse. Just make things up because, after all, evolution is a fact so you can’t be wrong.

5. I then answered your non response with another explanation (yes, I know, foolish me). I know I have only myself to blame, as they say, fool me once shame on you, fool me twice shame on me, because:

6. As expected, you now come back with the same “You addressed none of my points” schtick.

Right, none of your points. You make the same old fallacious arguments, I point it out, and you call me a non responsive creationist. Wow, just wow.

38. That's what bugs him, guys. Someone had to create those galaxies, stars and planets. Otherwise it makes no sense. They can't just be made unsupervised. That would make us humans an accident.

There's a difference between saying something evolved and saying that it's an accident. In fact, the term evolution came from embryology and the way an embryo unfolds is purposeful.

But what can be observed and empirical evidence matter little because its your own psychological dynamics and what "bugs" you that blinds you. That's why you constantly bring it up, no matter what the evidence or topic is.* You're merely assuming that everyone else is just like you. But what if it was possible to consider the falsity of evolution, whatever it is, based on empirical observations or just wanting to think about things fully?

*E.g.
Like the rest of creationists. Behe would deny all day long that ID is creationism in cheap tuxedo, but what drives him is a desire for the Universe, and everything in it, to have a benevolent creator.

What he says drove him to make claims about irreducible complexity were empirical observations. And it seems to me that Darwinists should take him at his word given that they portray what is observed as a powerful illusion themselves. Rather ironic to see them applying their illusory arguments to think that we well know were designed with foreknowledge and purpose in mind though. E.g. acting like an idiot and clipping mouse traps on their ties and imagining things about them, etc. They actually do things like that. Perhaps stupidity is inevitable if one believes themselves to be reducible to ignorance. In any event, Behe's science or observations may turn out to be wrong and he would still have plenty of space to believe in a benevolent creator. On the other hand, in all probability you can't have evolution (Whatever it is.) be wrong or allow others the space to think that it may be. There has to be powerful motivation for imagining that mouse traps make good tie clips, etc. Interesting how they can explain away designs that we already know came about based on intelligence and foreknowledge. One can only imagine what else they're probably explaining away. Next thing you know they'll be pointing to faulty mouse traps and arguing that it is evidence that they have absolute knowledge that space ships are not designed.

39. This is just a silly evolutionary argument that Laplace explained two centuries ago.

I see. I thought we were dealing with evolutionary theory starting from Darwin and Origin of Species which was first published in 1859. I didn't realize we were arguing over pre-Darwinian evolutionary theory, which I assume Laplace's two centuries (=200 years, and 2012-200=1812 was referring to) argument related to. Thanks for lying again.

I would deal with your other points, but you would simply ignore them, pretend that I was saying something else and go with it. You're a scam artist nothing more.

40. thornton: Another spineless IDCer chirping from the sidelines, too scared to get in the game.

So someone likes personal attack, what a surprise! Yeah I was wondering what became of my spine, hehe. Now I could ask one "why do you behave so" based on what we see on this blog. But I already know the answer, which is one doesn't know why one does it. One who thinks the ego is the core of their being is bound to be a little confused as to why attack seems to be the BEST you have and so so irresistable. It seems one never has an answer when I question as to this addiction to come here and get down and nasty.

Now so far as to Walpole and Myers, seems this "freshman" statistics text makes use of the Jacobian ca. p 130 since I am having to incorporate this in the paper I'm currently on. Does Thornton really think that freshman are quite familiar with this tool? Familiar with it enough yourself to explain to us why the Jacobian is useful in statistics, particularly at the freshman level?

Oh and by the way, if one thinks materialistic philosophy and the handmaiden known as scientism will help one understand the ego, and why it drives ones behavior, well, good luck.

41. The Lorax:

CH: This is just a silly evolutionary argument that Laplace explained two centuries ago.

Lorax: I see. I thought we were dealing with evolutionary theory starting from Darwin and Origin of Species which was first published in 1859.

Yes, we were.

I didn't realize we were arguing over pre-Darwinian evolutionary theory, which I assume Laplace's two centuries (=200 years, and 2012-200=1812 was referring to) argument related to.

No, sorry if that was confusing. Laplace was a fairly important figure in the development of evolutionary thought in cosmology. He is often credited with the Nebular Hypothesis (though similar ideas had been proposed earlier, such as by Kant). Laplace certainly didn’t argue against evolutionary ideas.

My point was simply that your all-outcomes-are-equiprobable argument, though used by evolutionists these days, is not only misleading but has been known to be so for centuries.

I would deal with your other points, but you would simply ignore them, pretend that I was saying something else and go with it. You're a scam artist nothing more.

So you say evolution is an obvious no-brainer fact in spite of the science, label those who point to scientific problems as creationists, and I’m the scam artist?

42. MSEE said...

derp derp derp again

More chirping from the sidelines from the spineless Creationist.

Let us know when you finally grow a pair and are prepared to do more that just throw rocks from the shadows.

43. As someone who has debated evolutionists MULTIPLE times, I can attest to the fact the majority of them eventually reduce their 'argument' to name-calling, cursing and mockery.

44. Oleg said: “You're a one-trick pony, Cornelius. Like the rest of creationists. Behe would deny all day long that ID is creationism in cheap tuxedo, but what drives him is a desire for the Universe, and everything in it, to have a benevolent creator.”

Oleg, you have highlighted a very important problem in science. We all have our biases, including scientists. That is why you interpret the observations in one way and we in another way. It all depends on your worldview. If you are into scientism, materialism, humanism, methodological naturalism, etc. you will not even consider the influence of any outside intelligence being involved in the process. It is an impossibility for your worldview and therefore you fight against it tooth and nail and are willing to believe any kind of miracle to explain the evidence as long as it doesn’t involve an intelligent cause.

Creationists have a bias as well. IDers try and say they stand in the middle and have no bias, but we all have a worldview through which we process information, including IDers. They may not start by accepting God’s Word as true, like creationists, but they still have a worldview which allows for the supernatural.
Personally, I believe the creationist worldview and the ID worldview explains the evidence much better than the atheistic worldview.

But the point is, Oleg, that you have a bias just like Cornelius and you can’t get around it and pretend that you are totally objective. I’m not buyin’ it. What drives many atheists is a desire to explain the Universe and everything in it without resorting to a Creator of any type. This worldview allows for total freedom, but comes at a high cost. One has to give up all hope of real meaning in life. No one can live their life as if there really is no point or meaning to life which shows that the atheistic worldview does not work in real life.

All talk of having a bias goes both ways.

45. It is an impossibility for your worldview and therefore you fight against it tooth and nail and are willing to believe any kind of miracle to explain the evidence as long as it doesn’t involve an intelligent cause.

Whatever the motivation, apparently avoiding intelligent design also involves imagining that mouse traps could come about based on blind processes. Ironically, we already know that mouse traps are designed by intelligent agents with foreknowledge and a purpose in mind. The fact that Darwinian reasoning can be used to explain away things which are designed and intelligently selected with functions in mind as an illusion of a "blind"/natural selection should give people pause. But whatever their motivation is, and it does seem to be theological* (if not psychological and essentially psychotic), modern proponents of evolution deny what can clearly be observed and known in the present in favor of imagining things about the past.

*So it happens time and time again that they assume that everyone else has the same feelings that they do. Therefore everyone else must be motivated by "religion" and theological claims about what sort of designer would do this or that, etc., to the point that one cannot even admit to our own experience with respect to the impact of intelligence in the world or observations that are right in front of us. Instead, one is supposed to begin imagining things about the past based on ignorance and generally acting like an idiot. In some sense, that is apposite for those who believe that the brain events which cause them to think that they have knowledge emerge from ignorant chaos and recede back to it.

46. More chirping from the sidelines from the spineless Creationist.

What's wrong with not having a spine? As I recall, you believe yourself to be cobbled together by ignorant and blind processes like natural selection operating on the reproductive organs of ancient ape-like creatures. But what if snails thought their way of being was superior to the extent that they can be thought to think?

More specieism....

Let us know when you finally grow a pair...

And not sexism...

...and are prepared to do more that just throw rocks from the shadows.

And now you imagine violence and the dark to be sinister... ironic, given that you should probably explain everything in terms of violence, darkness and ignorance. Instead of imagining that you have knowledge/scientia, perhaps you should imagine that your brain events are as void of knowledge as the Big Bang. After all, doesn't that seem natural to you? Nature calls, excrement happens and here you are.

You should imagine a method to methodically and progressively explain all your knowledge in terms of ignorance. It would be apposite.

47. Yes, but the point CH keeps making is that Creationists won't honestly discuss scientific findings if their lived depended on it.

He discusses what can be observed all the time.

We do demonstrate it with every post, as does he.

What you demonstrate with nearly every post is that you're obsessed with motivations. Why this is the case is not apparent, given that it is possible for scientists motivated mainly by their professional status or money to engage in science. So why is it so hard to imagine that people motivated by the pursuit of religious truths or whatever else could engage in science? The history of science is replete with people motivated and driven by religion to engage in science. There are also examples of people motivated by fame or perhaps the fact that their mom didn't breast feed them. Should we try to explain your motivations for acting like an idiot in almost every comment? It seems so.

I doubt this theory about your motivations but if you work in a scientific field then a mythology of progress and evolution and the distinction between amateurs/creationists and professional scientists will be of paramount concern to you. This will interest you more than the pursuit of the truth, so it would be no surprise if almost every comment failed to focus on the truth and in instead shifted toward creating an amateur/professional or creationist/evolutionist distinction, etc.

No? Well, perhaps the lack of breast feeding explains your apparent urge to merge with Mommy Nature. Whatever the case may be, it's obvious that intents and motivations are of paramount importance. So if the motivation of Cornelius is religious then that's all that need be said. After all, no one has ever done any good science because they were motivated by their religion.

Johannes Kepler, Kepler’s Laws of Planetary Motion:

“Praise and glorify with me the wisdom and greatness of the Creator, which I have revealed in a deeper explication of the form of the universe, in an investigation of the causes, and in my detection of the deceptiveness of sight.”

“God who is the most admirable in his works.. .deign to grant us the grace to bring to light and illuminate the profundity of his wisdom in the visible (and accordingly intelligible) creation of this world.”

Max Planck, father of Quantum Physics:

“Religion and natural science are fighting a joint battle in an incessant, never relaxing crusade against skepticism and against dogmatism, against unbelief and superstition... [ therefore] ‘On to God!”

48. As someone who has debated evolutionists MULTIPLE times, I can attest to the fact the majority of them eventually reduce their 'argument' to name-calling, cursing and mockery.

But just imagine if visceral reactions, brutish physical realities and violence naturally and gradually lead toward complex forms of language, logic, intelligence and knowledge. Then imagine that your own imagination is the epistemic equivalent of a scientific fact or a method for gradually uncovering an accurate scientia/knowledge. And there you go, you can begin to imagine what it's like to think like a degenerate and begin to see the links between stupidity and moral or spiritual degeneracy.

49. tjguy said:

"Creationists have a bias as well. IDers try and say they stand in the middle and have no bias, but we all have a worldview through which we process information, including IDers. They may not start by accepting God’s Word as true, like creationists, but they still have a worldview which allows for the supernatural."

You're trying to make it sound as though "IDers" are not creationists. They are.

"allows for" the supernatural? You must be joking. You IDCs are godbots through and through. The fact that you try to fool people into thinking that you're not is a big part of the problem. Your dishonesty does you no favors.

50. I noticed that CH has not responded to repeated requests to comment on Biola's required doctrinal statement (which applies to both faculty and students). Here's an excerpt again:

The existence and nature of the creation is due to the direct miraculous power of God. The origin of the universe, the origin of life, the origin of kinds of living things, and the origin of humans cannot be explained adequately apart from reference to that intelligent exercise of power.

This is important because of the implications involved. Assuming CH ascribes to this, it's really not a stretch to say that there are clear metaphysical and religious influences to the way he conducts science. And despite his protests above that he does not know how the world arose, this doctrinal statement makes it quite clear that, in fact, he knows (or thinks he knows) only too well.

Of course CH is welcome to disagree with the statement or provide us with a modified version. But then he might have to answer to the powers that be at Biola, and I suspect he wouldn't want to do that.

So whenever CH comes out with his little "Religion drives science" mantra, it's always good to remind ourselves that nobody has better first-hand experience of this than CH himself.

51. Kartrev said...

Of course CH is welcome to disagree with the statement or provide us with a modified version. But then he might have to answer to the powers that be at Biola, and I suspect he wouldn't want to do that.

I've sometimes wondered exactly that. If CH's motive for publishing this continuous stream of anti-science nonsense is in some way a form of CYA with Biola. CH saw firsthand what happened to Dembski at Southwestern Baptist Seminary, where Dembski almost got fired for publishing something that didn't agree with Southwestern's literal Genesis statement of beliefs. No sense taking any chances of being EXPELLED by your literal Genesis believing fundy bosses.

52. Lorax:

CH:
Exactly what I said. So the first cell did not form from scratch? What, was there something swimming around in that warm little pond before evolution got going? Of course they formed from scratch according to origin of life dogma. No teleology, remember?

L:
Sorry, I got to get a tissue to wipe the tears of laughter aware. Thanks for that though.

I think you've entirely missed CH's point: Per "evolutionary" dogma---which doesn't allow any "teleology"---the ONLY way that a cell (=life) can come about is from "scratch", else something would be "swimming around in that warm little pond before evolution got going."

It's your point of view that forces the issue; not the non-Darwinian perspective.

53. I think you've entirely missed CH's point: Per "evolutionary" dogma---which doesn't allow any "teleology"---the ONLY way that a cell (=life) can come about is from "scratch", else something would be "swimming around in that warm little pond before evolution got going."

Consider the possibility that CH's point is inane. Consider the possibility that there is no barrier between molecular evolution and organismal evolution - that it is a continuum.

54. thornton: Let us know when you finally grow a pair and are prepared to do more that just throw rocks from the shadows.

Well it seems like when one haughtily makes fun of a text, one of many to which I occasionally refer in my work, calling it "freshman" level, why, that could be construed as "throw(ing) rocks". So this text is way beneath your level. Go ahead, follow through, explain why the Jacobian would be of use in this seeming bush league text. So we'll know how knowledgeable you are in stats and probability.

55. Kartrev:

I noticed that CH has not responded to repeated requests to comment on Biola's required doctrinal statement

Actually I’ve responded to that many times. You can see here and here:

http://darwins-god.blogspot.com/2011/03/creation-versus-evolution-real-story.html

http://darwins-god.blogspot.com/2011/09/theyll-always-blame-it-on-you-response.html?showComment=1316243024900#c3416000986439795579

56. MSEE said...

Well it seems like when one haughtily makes fun of a text, one of many to which I occasionally refer in my work, calling it "freshman" level, why, that could be construed as "throw(ing) rocks".

I'm not making fun of a text. I'm making fun of you for your childish braggadocio. Like how you crowed that your engineering training somehow gives you insight to know thousands of evolutionary biologists and geneticists are all wrong. You're the self-proclaimed genius who made a big deal about having your magic statistics book on your table. Go ahead and use some statistics to provide positive evidence for Intelligent Design Creationism.

57. oleg:

You're a one-trick pony, Cornelius.

Did you know that one-trick ponies are very talented?

58. Cornelius Hunter said...

Kartrev:

I noticed that CH has not responded to repeated requests to comment on Biola's required doctrinal statement

Actually I’ve responded to that many times. You can see here and here:

http://darwins-god.blogspot.com/2011/03/creation-versus-evolution-real-story.html

http://darwins-god.blogspot.com/2011/09/theyll-always-blame-it-on-you-response.html?showComment=1316243024900#c3416000986439795579

In neither of those links do you discuss Biola's required doctrinal statement you were required to sign, not even in passing.

Why are you deliberately providing false information?

59. Thornton: In neither of those links do you discuss Biola's required doctrinal statement you were required to sign, not even in passing.

Thornton is right. Neither of these posts specifically address the Biola doctrinal statement. Why link to other posts when you can simply state say yes or no here? Why the constant runaround and inability to deal straightforwardly?

So, CH - do you or do you not ascribe to and fully support the following statement from Biola? (Yes or No is fine)

The existence and nature of the creation is due to the direct miraculous power of God. The origin of the universe, the origin of life, the origin of kinds of living things, and the origin of humans cannot be explained adequately apart from reference to that intelligent exercise of power.

And can you see why that any reasonable person will come to the conclusion (assuming you ascribe to the above), that inevitably your views on biology and evolution would be strongly influenced by a priori religious beliefs?

60. Here's a quote of CH's from the second post he provided above (emphasis mine):

What we do know is that, given our current scientific knowledge, naturalism doesn’t work. It has failed badly, and that’s a useful, if rather obvious, scientific finding. It is true that the Bible allows for a wide spectrum of interpretations, ranging from mostly secondary causes to mostly primary causes. Unlike most other traditions, Christianity has historically allowed for this wide range, and is one of the reasons Christians have been so interested and supportive of science. And I personally am over on the secondary causes side of the spectrum.

Let's contrast again with the Biola statement:

The existence and nature of the creation is due to the direct miraculous power of God. The origin of the universe, the origin of life, the origin of kinds of living things, and the origin of humans cannot be explained adequately apart from reference to that intelligent exercise of power.

Seems to me that the Biola statement is quite explicit that creation is due to the direct miraculous power of God. I don't see too much room here for a wide range of "interpretations". I suppose one could quibble over the precise methods that God may have used, but it terms of who-did-it, it's abundantly clear. And again, such a statement like this is clearly a religous and metaphysical one.

61. thornton: I'm not making fun of a text. I'm making fun of you for your childish braggadocio. Like how you crowed that your engineering training somehow gives you insight to know thousands of evolutionary biologists and geneticists are all wrong. You're the self-proclaimed genius who made a big deal about having your magic statistics book on your table. Go ahead and use some statistics to provide positive evidence for Intelligent Design Creationism.

Now why would someone like me "crow" and brag about having a stats book, even if it is way above your understanding, which I did not know at the time. I don't remember "crowing". There are a couple of dozen other of my textbooks which are more difficult material than the stats book, you just seem to be hooked for some reason on that one. Must be the trauma of the sampling theory blunder that has you remembering those days.

Now it seems, speaking of statistics, that stochastic processes are at the core of your beliefs regarding all of life and your own existence. This, as the term RANDOM (aka RMNS) as the Darwinian theory proposes, is the "reason" we are here, according to you guys.

Now you know, the way to get a grip on stochastic processes is to study them, and all of the ways to characterize and analyze them which have been devised.

So here we have someone who has raised stochastic processes to the level of "creator", that which "created" you. So why is it are you apparently not only ignorant of advanced statistical methods, but also seem to be stuck on making fun of stats? And so far as all of your thousands of professional researchers professing faith in Darwin, well what do you know, the ones who retire seem to express second thoughts on their faith in sometimes carefully chosen words. Several of them have been referenced on the ENV website, the controversial Lynn Margulis among them. I read Barry Hall a couple of decades back, and found much to refute Darwin in his work. So no one should be impressed by your appeal to authority.

62. MSEE said...

Now why would someone like me "crow" and brag about having a stats book

I don't know why you brought it up back them, except you had this childish belief it would somehow impress people. Here's a hint - it didn't then, it doesn't now.

I read Barry Hall a couple of decades back, and found much to refute Darwin in his work.

LOL! Yet you can't provide any of that refuting evidence here despite having trolled this site for over a year. What a surprise.

63. thornton: "I'm not making fun of a text. "

referring to it as at freshman level was not ridicule of the book?

Still waiting for you to comment on freshmen applying the Jacobian.

64. MSEE said...

I'm a new ENGINEER! That means I know more than all those scientists!!

When your swelled head shrinks to below watermelon sized, feel free to provide your evidence that disproves evolution.

65. Still waiting for you to comment on freshmen applying the Jacobian.

You think the Jacobian is such an advanced concept?

I teach maths to freshmen biology students. They learn to use (2 by 2) Jacobians in Taylor approximations, for stability analysis of differential equations, for change of variables in integrals and for finding local extrema of functions. It's just a tool that anybody can learn how to use with some practice.

66. The whole truth said:
"You're trying to make it sound as though "IDers" are not creationists. They are."

I understand that to evolutionists, both IDers and creationists are labeled as creationists, but that is only because you redefined the word so you can put them in the same "radical" group.

All creationists believe in an Intelligent Designer, but most do not believe in an old universe. A creationist has always referred to people who take the Bible as is and believe in a 6 day creation which makes the earth anywhere from 6-10,000 years old. That is the position of a true creationist. The Bible is seen as God's truth and we start with that premise or take that as a given and interpret observations through that lens.

ID followers mostly believe in an old earth and do not make the Bible their starting point. They do not rule out a supernatural agent being involved in the creation of the world a priori, but are willing to examine the evidence to see where it leads. Some IDers even believe in common descent, albeit with some sort of intervention or guidance or help from an Intelligent Agent. They are not materialists and so are able to follow the evidence wherever it leads.

I'm a creationist in the sense mentioned above - the traditional sense in which the word has most often been used. Cornelius is NOT a creationist. Unfortunately, he does not believe in a young earth or in a 6 day creation.

Why do you want to call everyone a creationist? Because it makes people think of 6 day young earth wackos like myself. It is easier to label them as radical and create fear and concern in people if you label them as such.

Go to almost any creationist website and you will see that the distance themselves from IDers, especially on the age of the earth and on common descent. And most importantly, on their view of the Bible and proper hermeneutics.

Go to almost any ID website and you will see them distance themselves from creationists. Unfortunately, often they even look down on us and try and paint us as radicals and kooks as well. But although we disagree on the age of the earth and how the universe and life was created, we both believe that it couldn't have happened without the intervention of an Intelligent Agent. Creationists name that agent as the God of the Bible. IDers, although most believe in God, do not use the Bible to arrive at their theory. So, it is you who is obscuring the truth.

So, technically, it is not correct to call Cornelius a creationist, but I know that won't stop you from doing that.

If you make up your own definition of a creationist and claim that "a creationist is anyone who is open to the intervention of a supernatural agent in the creation of the universe and life", then you can call both of us creationists, but that is NOT what the word has meant or how it has been used over the years.

"Your dishonesty does you no favors."

No sir. It is your dishonesty that does you no favors. You have redefined the word in order to call us dishonest, but it is you who have failed to understand how the word "creationist" actually is used. I would think we creationists know. The fact that creationists and IDers disagree with each other is quite telling.

Neither of us would identify IDers as creationists, but it seems that labels are more important than truth for you, so I doubt there will be any change.

67. Kartrev said: "And can you see why that any reasonable person will come to the conclusion (assuming you ascribe to the above), that inevitably your views on biology and evolution would be strongly influenced by a priori religious beliefs?"

Would you rather that there is a Creator God to whom you are morally responsible exists or that there is no such God?

I don’t know what particular bias Cornelius holds, but the truth is we are all bias. The idea of scientists being totally objective is a myth. We all have things that we want to believe and things that we don’t want to believe and you are fooling yourself if you think that you can remain totally objective in interpreting the evidence. We all interpret the evidence according to our worldview.

Creationists are up front with their bias. We take the Bible as God’s Word and interpret the evidence in light of that. If a person is a materialist, he will interpret the evidence in one way and if he is a creationist, he will interpret the same evidence in another way. An ID scientist will probably interpret it in a third way since he has a different starting point from a creationist.

The simplest example is the fact of common design that we see in various living creatures.

Evolutionists interpret that as evidence for evolution and common descent while creationists say it is consistent with a Common Designer! Same evidence, different interpretation.

IDers are probably split on their interpretation of common design. Some would go along with common descent and others would take the creationist position here and perhaps there are others who would say something different. Same with the DNA similarity between chimps and humans.

Creationists view most fossils as having been formed during the global flood, but evolutionists need long ages for evolution to have a chance to work so they interpret the rocks through a modified uniformitarian perspective and therefore do not and cannot recognize a global flood. Most IDers would side with evolutionists on this one.

Take the problem of the origin of life.

Evolutionists refuse to consider the possibility of a supernatural agent in spite of the growing difficulties for that belief. Creationists say this is an unsolved problem because life didn’t evolve on it’s own, but was created. IDers probably would side with the creationists when it comes to the problem of the origin of life, because this is the area where Meyers and Behe have done a lot of research. But they would not accept that God directly created the fish, birds, animals, and humans. Some would allow though for God to direct the process of evolution so that fish, birds, animals, and humans came into existence.

Anyway, when Cornelius says that religion drives science, he is right. But you are also right to point out that he too has a bias. We all interpret the evidence differently based on our own worldview.

I happen to think the ID interpretation and the creationist interpretation make much better sense of the evidence than the evolutionary worldview does. It explains morality, irreducible complexity, biological reproducing nano-machines, spirituality, our conscience, our mind(self-conciousness), meaning to life, origin of life, origin of sex, fine tuning of the universe, natural/physical laws of the universe, our yearning for justice, Cambrian Explosion, metamorphosis, gap between humans and animals, biomimetics, etc. etc. much better than evolution can in my opinion.

Here is an interesting article posing the question as to whether true objectivity is really possible or not.

http://crev.info/2011/10/111024-objectivity_of_science_undermined/

68. tjguy said

Would you rather that there is a Creator God to whom you are morally responsible exists or that there is no such God?

Isn't that like asking "why do you beat your wife"?!? I could ask you a similar question - would you rather know the truth or believe in a ancient bronze-age myth about sky-gods? My honest answer is that this is a false dichotomy. What I'm really interested in knowing is why things they way they are. What I prefer really hasn't anything to do with it.

I don’t know what particular bias Cornelius holds, but the truth is we are all bias.

I agree, and some people try to work at identifying them and dealing with them. The challenge is that many religious systems by their very nature preclude people from properly examining their biases.

My challenge with Cornelius is that, in my opinion, he is not honest about his biases and pretends that he (and only he it seems sometimes!) is able to be truly objective. It doesn't wash and nobody is convinced by him, so it really impacts his credibility. I think if he said that he has this particular view of science because his faith is a foundational aspect to his life, people would still disagree, but at least perhaps respect his position more. At least you are honest with yours.

Evolutionists refuse to consider the possibility of a supernatural agent in spite of the growing difficulties for that belief.

I think if there was strong, testable, unequivocal evidence for the existence of supernatural beings that are clearly shown to work in the world, then perhaps evolutionists might be open to such an idea. For many of us we sincerely do not see this evidence, although what we do see is a strong, and perhaps innate desire to belief in such evidence among people, which has resulted in a huge plethora of conflicting and diverse belief systems (which of course is very interesting in of itself).

Besides, over the centuries science has frequently encountered huge difficulties with all kinds of theories and hypothesis. There is always the temptation to give up and just assume a divine hand is at play. So even if evolutionary theory is having these "difficulties" (and I'm fairly certain most scientists would argue as to the degree of these), is that a reason to simply resort to non-testable, non-provable, and by appearance non-existent supernatural agents as the solution?

69. What a truly fascinating exchange! Thank you CH for having the guts to state your point of view even though it exposes you to all sorts of disrespectful and nasty behavior.

What you guys do makes a difference. I am a former Christian hating atheist who was raised in a secular home who was finally able to see the light and let go of my emotionally driven biases because of the overwhelming scientific evidence for design in the Universe, thanks in large part to people like you. Keep up the good work!

70. I think if there was strong, testable, unequivocal evidence for the existence of supernatural beings that are clearly shown to work in the world, then perhaps evolutionists might be open to such an idea.

Other than UFOs/angels/heavenly hosts and so on flying around or aliens/Visitors appearing before them what type of evidence would that be?

For many of us we sincerely do not see this evidence....

Well, what would it be?

...although what we do see is a strong, and perhaps innate desire to belief in such evidence among people...

There can be and is just as much of a strong desire against it, for whatever reason. Often people want to believe themselves in control or they want to believe that things like progress and safety are assured. These are the sorts of beliefs that would be undermined by any evidence of supernatural beings.

...which has resulted in a huge plethora of conflicting and diverse belief systems (which of course is very interesting in of itself).

A huge plethora of conflicting and diverse ideas has more to do with humanity than reality. Angels/aliens/visitors could have visited last month and proven their existence and there would still be a huge plethora of conflicting and diverse histories, beliefs systems, mythologies, etc., about it. You are merely interpreting everything in terms of your own creation narratives, which are apparently based on mythologies of Progress. But there is actually little evidence that people will necessarily and naturally progress from superstition/ignorance to science/knowledge. Although it is comforting to think so.

71. thornton: your childish braggadocio. Like how you crowed that your engineering training somehow gives you insight to know thousands of evolutionary biologists and geneticists are all wrong. You're the self-proclaimed genius who made a big deal about having your magic statistics book on your table.

"Magic" statistics book? "Childish Braggadocio" from me? "Crowed" did I?

An invitation to the balanced persons on this board. Take a look at the guy's language and out-of-control verbiage here, with no reference as to what the hell does he mean. I would suggest that this apparent behavior (coupled with consistent vituperation) and the apparent hourly obsession with this blog, are a good introduction to what scientific materialism can do to a personality, particularly as that particular paradigm is under highly successful assault. Not to mention as being subscribed to by a smaller and smaller segment of the world's population, Richard Dawkins notwithstanding.

And an invitation to thornton: can you please link us to some of the results of your work? And would you please link to something detailing a significant practical (as in marketable) benefit to society, directly attributable to research into Darwinian macroevolution?

72. MSEE said...

"Magic" statistics book? "Childish Braggadocio" from me? "Crowed" did I?

Yes, pretty much like you're doing now. As they say in Texas, "all hat and no cattle".

Feel free to post that evidence refuting evolution you claim to have read.

Prediction: you'll suddenly get amnesia and forget to post any, but bluster about it anyway.

73. Thorton,

Why does it tick you off so badly that some people in the world have serious reservations about the Darwinian narrative?

It seems quite silly to argue about it. If you want to insist that some chemicals self-assembled into a living organism that had the ability to reproduce and evolve, all you have to do is create a sterile early Earth environment in a laboratory and show us how something like that happened without any intelligent intervention. Until you are able to do this, there really is no point arguing about it. Stamping your feet and calling people names just makes you look obnoxious.

Why does it matter so much to you what we believe anyway?

74. wgbutler777 said...

Thorton,

Why does it tick you off so badly that some people in the world have serious reservations about the Darwinian narrative?

It doesn't at all. I'll even go to battle to support your right to hold whatever beliefs you want.

What ticks me off is

1) Scientifically illiterate religious fundies trying to push their nonsense into public science classrooms, and

2) The Creationists who willfully lie about, quote-mine, and distort actual scientific findings to push their religious agenda.

Not all Creationists are dishonest that way. In fact, I know many who aren't. It's the few who continually do so on places like this blog and UD that make all of you look bad. They're the ones you should be taking to task.

75. tjguy said:

"It is your dishonesty that does you no favors. You have redefined the word in order to call us dishonest, but it is you who have failed to understand how the word "creationist" actually is used. I would think we creationists know. The fact that creationists and IDers disagree with each other is quite telling."

Then you shouldn't have any problem explaining why people who have thousands of different interpretations and versions of christianity (and often strongly disagree with each other) still call themselves and each other christians. And the same thing goes for other religions.

You obviously haven't noticed (or are ignoring) that Cornelius lumps all "evolutionists" together, whether it's correct or not. And, you IDCs also lump all so-called "Darwinists" together, and all materialists together, and naturalists, and atheists, and agnostics, and theistic evolutionists, etc., whether it's correct or not. And often you IDCs lump some of those labels with some or all of the other ones whether it's correct or not. You also obviously haven't noticed (or are ignoring) that the people you IDCs lump into one or more of those labels can and usually do have a huge variety of how they see things, what they accept, what they believe, or what they believe 'in' (if anything).

ANYONE who has the basic belief that a god, or supernatural being/entity, or intelligent designer, or any other thing 'created' anything or everything in the universe (in nature) is a creationist, regardless of which particular religion or version of that religion they label themselves with.

Creation stories and beliefs vary but that doesn't make those beliefs any less creationist.

I thought of responding to all of your distorted drivel sentence by sentence but it would take too much of my time.

By the way, you really are quite blind and insane.

76. Kartrev:

Neither of these posts specifically address the Biola doctrinal statement.

True they don’t address the doctrinal statement but rather the explanatory notes which are subject to various interpretations. But weren’t you asking about the explanatory notes?

Did you want me to comment on the Trinity? I believe in it. Did you want me to comment on Jesus? I believe in Jesus. That doesn’t mean I believe he was merely a smart guy who helped many people and was brutally murdered for his trouble. That means I believe he is the Christ, the Messiah and he died for you. That should be good news.

Why link to other posts when you can simply state say yes or no here?

Because I thought you were asking about the explanatory notes. Yes, of course I support the doctrinal statement.

So, CH - do you or do you not ascribe to and fully support the following statement from Biola?

I always give evolutionists the benefit of the doubt and assume a discussion will be rational. But sooner or later, as recently evidenced with Lorax and Hawks, that assumption is proven wrong. The links I provided (and surrounding discussion) lay out my views in detail on this subject. I’m not going to retype it for you.

And can you see why that any reasonable person will come to the conclusion (assuming you ascribe to the above), that inevitably your views on biology and evolution would be strongly influenced by a priori religious beliefs?

Of course, I don’t believe in theological naturalism. And I don’t believe in lying about science in the name of religion.

77. I believe in Jesus. That doesn’t mean I believe he was merely a smart guy who helped many people and was brutally murdered for his trouble. That means I believe he is the Christ, the Messiah and he died for you. That should be good news.

Now that's religion! And it's good news that Dr Hunter can be coaxed to confess it. On rare occasions.

78. I'm curious. Why are Biola's doctrinal statements an issue here? Is it really so shocking that a private Christian University would only want people who believe in Christianity to teach its classes? Imagine that, a CHRISTIAN teaching at a private CHRISTIAN University! How shocking! I guess Christian parents shouldn't have the right to spend their own money to send their kids to institutions that reflect their values. Is this the best the Darwinists can do? Really?

This thread has devolved into a series of snippy remarks, name calling, and accusations. Why are the Darwinists here so small minded that they are losing sleep and trolling over a message board on the Internet, because someone, somewhere, doesn't believe that the Universe popped into existence for no reason at all, miraculously fine tuned for life, and that some goo self assembled into a living organism which then mutated into a human being? Why are they so obsessed that everyone has to believe this narrative? This smacks of extreme insecurity or dementia!

79. I'm curious. Why are Biola's doctrinal statements an issue here? Is it really so shocking that a private Christian University would only want people who believe in Christianity to teach its classes?

It's shocking that a belief in a sectarian mythology should be a requirement for teaching history, mathematics and science.

Is this the best the Darwinists can do? Really?

Is this the best that Christians can do? Shelter their children from the secular world? There is an odor of extreme insecurity in that.

80. wgbutler777 said...

I'm curious. Why are Biola's doctrinal statements an issue here?

They're an issue here because

1) Cornelius Hunter agreed that he believed and followed them when he took the job at Biola

2) Cornelius Hunter claims on this blog to have completely different motivations than Biola requires.

The issue is not Biola's right to have such a statement at a private Christian school. The issue is CH's blatant hypocrisy in claiming one set of beliefs at Biola while claiming to hold a very different set here.

He's being dishonest to someone. The only question is who.

81. Pedant, are you then saying that no one should have the right to pass on their religious values to their children? What then is your "final" solution for Biola's requirements of employment that its professors have to be believers in Christianity?

Thorton - give me an example of CH saying contradictory things. Is CH private blog subject to the rules and regulations of Biola? And if so, how has he violated those rules?

82. Pedant, are you then saying that no one should have the right to pass on their religious values to their children?

Don't be silly. No one said that. Parents are fully entitled in our society to raise offspring as foolish as they are.

Biola is fully entitled to behave as foolishly as it likes as long as it doesn't screw up whatever educational norms it has to follow in order to operate its business legally. If people are dumb enough to send their children there, no one should stop them.

I'm not a fan of Lady Gaga, or of Rick Santorum, but they are entitled to strut their stuff as long as people are willing to watch and listen.

But I reserve the right to be appalled by them.

83. wgbutler777 said...

Thorton - give me an example of CH saying contradictory things. Is CH private blog subject to the rules and regulations of Biola? And if so, how has he violated those rules?

There are numerous examples in this very thread. Read it from the top.

According to Biola's rules, in everything its employees they are required to follow the Biola doctrinal statement. CH just plays games on this blog because he knows as soon as he admits to being a literal Genesis believer every last shred of scientific credibility goes right out the window. So he pretends to be scientifically neutral and objective while even a blind man can see he's not.

Again, I have no problem with CH or anyone believing Biola's literal Genesis version. I just wish he'd be honest enough to admit it.

84. It's not about whether Cornelius has violated Biola's "rules". It's about his motive and agenda behind his comments here (and on UD). He pretends that he is not biased by his religious beliefs and is only interested in seeing science done by proper methods. Trouble is, his proper 'method' is to allow (or force) his chosen imaginary supernatural god and associated fairy tales into science and science education.

Something you religious loons never realize is that if your non-evidential, non-scientific, wacky beliefs are allowed or forced in, ALL wacky beliefs are.

I'm sure that this will come as a shock to you but there's the same amount of evidence to support your particular religious beliefs as there is for ANY other religious beliefs: NONE. And, that includes Fifi the pink unicorn, satanism, the FSM, and ANY others that anyone wants to conjure up. Your beliefs are NOT the default. In fact, your beliefs are not only not the default when it comes to science but they're not the default in religion.

Everyone with religious beliefs believes that what they believe in is correct, and that everything else is wrong. So, exactly who, out of the 7 billion people on Earth, gets to decide which religious beliefs are allowed or forced into science and science education?

Another thing you god-goons never realize is that science is done world wide and that the methods and evidence have to be accepted world wide for science to work. You IDCs live in a tiny claustrophobic space in your own mind that is determined and limited by your own particular religious beliefs, and you never see that science is a huge undertaking by millions of people around the world who have an enormous amount of different beliefs.

For it to work well, science must adhere to methods and rules of evidence that are accepted world wide and are as standardized as possible.

85. CH just plays games on this blog because he knows as soon as he admits to being a literal Genesis believer every last shred of scientific credibility goes right out the window. So he pretends to be scientifically neutral and objective while even a blind man can see he's not.

Has CH said he does NOT believe in the literal Genesis version? (You DO realize that it is possible to literally believe the Genesis account of creation and not be a young earth creationist, right?)

Quite frankly, if CH didn't believe Genesis (or any other book of the Bible), then one would have good cause to question whether or not he was really a Christian.

And how does believing that Genesis is inspired scripture prevent someone from being a credible scientist? Isaac Newton believed in the Genesis account. Was he not a credible scientist?

86. He pretends that he is not biased by his religious beliefs and is only interested in seeing science done by proper methods

Where is your evidence for such an assertion? And who the heck cares if he is biased or not? How does this discredit any of the evidence he gives to support his position or undermine his arguments? This motive mongering game that you are playing is irrelevant to the arguments he makes, which are extremely persuasive.

I'd bet a million bucks that YOU are heavily biased to interpret all scientific evidence through an atheistic prism and in accordance with your atheistic beliefs, which by the way are far crazier than any Christian belief!

Something you religious loons never realize is that if your non-evidential, non-scientific, wacky beliefs are allowed or forced in, ALL wacky beliefs are.

And your solution to this is what exactly? That the government should use the police power of the state to ensure that only materialistic and atheistic beliefs are allowed to be discussed in the public square?

I've got a better solution. Let's put all the ideas out there and let the free market of evidence and critical analysis decide which is the correct one. That's exactly how I gave up my atheism, by critically evaluating and looking at the evidence. In the end, I decided that it was a far bigger leap of blind faith to think that atheism was true than to think that Christianity was true.

Another thing you god-goons never realize is that science is done world wide and that the methods and evidence have to be accepted world wide for science to work.

I WANT scientific research to be done world wide and to continue. The more we learn from science, the more the theistic worldview is validated!

87. CH said:
True they don’t address the doctrinal statement but rather the explanatory notes which are subject to various interpretations. But weren’t you asking about the explanatory notes?

I guess technically the section I cited was in the explanatory notes. But isn't the point of explanatory notes that they explain things, so where is it assmed they are open to various different interpretations?

Again, here's the section in question:

The existence and nature of the creation is due to the direct miraculous power of God. The origin of the universe, the origin of life, the origin of kinds of living things, and the origin of humans cannot be explained adequately apart from reference to that intelligent exercise of power.

What, then, are the different interpretations that can be applied to this. How do YOU interpret this differently? It seems to me there aren't too many shades of interpretation here. Either God did it or He didn't.

88. wgbutler777 said...

I'd bet a million bucks that YOU are heavily biased to interpret all scientific evidence through an atheistic prism and in accordance with your atheistic beliefs,

You'd lose that bet. Science isn't atheistic, it's agnostic. It takes no position on the existence or non-existence of any Gods.

I've got a better solution. Let's put all the ideas out there and let the free market of evidence and critical analysis decide which is the correct one.

That's exactly what was done. The so called 'evidence' for Intelligent Design Creationism was critically examined by the scientific community and thoroughly rejected based on its total lack of merit.

The IDCers weren't satisfied with that, so they keep trying to make a dishonest 'end run' around accepted scientific procedure to get their crap into public schools. The Kitzmiller v. Dover trial demonstrated that for all the world to see. It's this attempt to dishonestly 'backdoor' IDC nonsense that is the problem here.

89. Kartrev:

so where is it assmed they are open to various different interpretations?

http://darwins-god.blogspot.com/2012/01/evolution-professor-i-wrote-thoughtful.html?showComment=1325984410503#c5600811342967239121

90. Cornelius, do you accept that humans and chimps shared a common ancestor?

A simple yes or no will do.

91. wgbutler said:

"Has CH said he does NOT believe in the literal Genesis version?"

Well, yes, no, and/or maybe, depending on his typically vague and/or convoluted responses to direct questions about his religious beliefs, if he responds at all that is. It's obvious that he's a very religious creationist no matter how much he tries to avoid admitting it.

"(You DO realize that it is possible to literally believe the Genesis account of creation and not be a young earth creationist, right?)"

It is? How? Oh wait, I know, by adopting one of the many different interpretations of genesis.

Besides, young Earth, old Earth, or anywhere in between, a creationist is a creationist. You religious fairy tale believers will even dishonestly and conveniently nitpick and distort details of your so-called holy book, the bible, to try to make yourselves look as though you're not creationists (because you're concerned about the negative connotations associated with that word) even though the bible is allegedly the inerrant words of your all knowing, all powerful god.

And it's pretty funny that you do that and then turn around and say this:

"Quite frankly, if CH didn't believe Genesis (or any other book of the Bible), then one would have good cause to question whether or not he was really a Christian."

In other words, real christians are the people who "literally" believe genesis and all the other books of the bible, and the people who don't believe that aren't real christians, even if they call themselves christians. Hmm, interesting.

Are you a real christian?

1. You religious fairy tale believers will even dishonestly and conveniently nitpick and distort details of your so-called holy book, the bible, to try to make yourselves look as though you're not creationists (because you're concerned about the negative connotations associated with that word)

If your definition of "creationist" is someone who believes that God created the universe, then yes I am a creationist.

As far as negative connotations and all that, its water off of a duck's back and I could care less what your opinion of me is.

Interestingly enough, the term "Christian" was originally used as a term of derision by the early Romans. The literal meaning of "Christian" is "little Christ". So the early pagans threw the term around to ridicule and mock the Christians of the day, in much the same way as the secular humanists of today throw the word "creationist" around.

Nothing ever really changes, you see. Human beings are intrinsically in rebellion against God and react with great hostility towards anyone who follows God. People hated God as much in the first century as they do today, and they behaved in pretty much the same ways.

It's very interesting to read your posts. I can literally imagine you frothing at the mouth, outraged and full of indignation. Probably the veins in your forehead bulging out too!

92. This comment has been removed by the author.

93. CH: Try reading next time.

http://darwins-god.blogspot.com/2012/01/evolution-professor-i-wrote-thoughtful.html?showComment=1325984410503#c5600811342967239121

I'm not quite sure it's saying exactly what you think it does. This is the stated theological position of Biola, but there's a recognition that it could be interpreted differently, but isn't that referring to those outside of Biola? It doesn't say "this is what Biola accepts but we allow our faculty members to freely interpret as they see fit..."

And of course it goes on talk about "Creation models". Sure it allows latitude for different models here, but I think the implication is clear.

And, the most important thing, why should I not rightly conclude that (regardless of your interpretation) this is a compelling reason to believe you have a strong religious bias that impacts how you do science? (other than you simply asserting your claimed objectivity). Why can't you just be honest about this and admit that yes, "YOUR religion drives YOUR science"? I'd find you a lot more credible if you at least could simply recognize and admit to this.

We all have our biases, yours happen to be influenced by your Christian beliefs. Why be ashamed and why the constant deflection and attempts to hide it?

94. What, then, are the different interpretations that can be applied to this. How do YOU interpret this differently? It seems to me there aren't too many shades of interpretation here. Either God did it or He didn't.

Kartrev,

I'm not really sure what the point you are trying to make is. Of course CH (and for that matter me as well) believe that God created the universe and life. If we didn't believe this, we wouldn't be Christians! Guilty as charged!

What's the point you're trying to make? That being a Christian somehow makes it impossible for someone to be able to critically evaluate evidence? Or are you trying to imply something else? And why does any of this matter anyway? Why can't you just deal with the arguments and address those instead of trying to find some secret fault or nefarious motive of people who have different views than you do?

95. I'm not really sure what the point you are trying to make is. Of course CH (and for that matter me as well) believe that God created the universe and life. If we didn't believe this, we wouldn't be Christians! Guilty as charged!

I think the sticking point for a lot of us here is that CH pretends to be completely neutral and without biases. Nobody is. If he acknowledged his biases (his religion) he would be more credible, but to constantly be saying "religion drives science" without looking at his own biases is, frankly, nauseating.

Yes, of course Christians can objectively evaluate evidence. Many do, and as a result, many of them accept evolution too.

1. Kartrev:

without looking at his own biases is, frankly, nauseating.

I'm terribly sorry to be the cause of such disruptions. But I do take some solace in the fact I supplied links which could have been employed to avoid such problems.

Yes, of course Christians can objectively evaluate evidence. Many do, and as a result, many of them accept evolution too.

Mandating evolution as a fact is objective. Allowing evolution to be not a fact is biased. That's just good, solid scientific research.

http://darwins-god.blogspot.com/2011/06/jonathan-dudley-its-stuff-of-good-solid.html

96. I think the sticking point for a lot of us here is that CH pretends to be completely neutral and without biases. Nobody is. If he acknowledged his biases (his religion) he would be more credible, but to constantly be saying "religion drives science" without looking at his own biases is, frankly, nauseating.

Pretending to be neutral? The guy's a professor at Biola University for Pete's sake! Of course he has a worldview which probably shades alot of things he looks at, just like everyone else. (And I don't speak for CH, I'm just speculating here).

Is it your opinion that atheistic scientists are unbiased? Even they will admit that they are not! As just one example, Professor Richard Lewontin said

We take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs, in spite of its failure to fulfill many of its extravagant promises of health and life, in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated just-so stories, because we have a prior commitment, a commitment to materialism.

It is not that the methods and institutions of science somehow compel us to accept a material explanation of the phenomenal world, but, on the contrary, that we are forced by our a priori adherence to material causes to create an apparatus of investigation and a set of concepts that produce material explanations, no matter how counter-intuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is an absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door.

The eminent Kant scholar Lewis Beck used to say that anyone who could believe in God could believe in anything. To appeal to an omnipotent deity is to allow that at any moment the regularities of nature may be ruptured, that Miracles may happen.

97. wgbutler777 said...

Is it your opinion that atheistic scientists are unbiased? Even they will admit that they are not! As just one example, Professor Richard Lewontin said

That Lewontin quote is one of the most misused and misrepresented in all of Yecckie-dom.

Lewontin is NOT arguing an atheist position, that there is no God. He's merely pointing out that science CANNOT and DOES NOT deal with the supernatural. Science 100% relies on known, repeatable, materialistic causes. You cannot do science when you have Loki Gods changing physical laws and/or experimental results on a whim.

Try reading the quote in context Lewontin wrote it, not in the way you want it to read.

1. Thorton,

I don't agree with your position. I think that's a pretty clear example of catching an atheist in a moment of honesty.

There are other admissions out there if you like. For example, when the scientific evidence became overwhelming that the Universe had a beginning, just like the scriptures had stated and contrary to the conventional scientific wisdom of the day, and had not always existed, Sir Arthur Eddington stated:

Philosophically the notion of a beginning of the present order is repugnant to me. I should like to find a genuine loophole. I simply do not believe the present order of things started off with a bang…the expanding Universe is preposterous… it leaves me cold.

98. Kartrev:

One of the icons of evolutionary thought is the play Inherit the Wind which used a fictionalized version of the Scopes Monkey Trial as a vehicle to comment on communist witch hunts. In those inquisitions, in order to exonerate yourself you had to make an admission of guilt. And like all inquisitions there was a healthy dose of hypocrisy.

In this inquisition, you have to “just be honest” and admit to hidden religious motives. If I were to “admit” to hidden religious motives then I would not be honest. I’ve given you links to where I have clearly explained my position. If there was ever anyone who has explained his position in detail, it would be me. But without showing any evidence of actually having read those links, you continue to require that I “just be honest.” In other words, one cannot be skeptical of evolution without a religious bias.

Meanwhile evolutionists claim that all of biology arose spontaneously, insist it is a fact that is beyond all shadow of a doubt, and use religious arguments to make their case, while the theory itself has made a seemingly endless number of false predictions.

If you were genuinely interested in those that are in denial of religious bias you’d be all over the evolutionists.

I'd find you a lot more credible if you at least could simply recognize and admit to this.

Credible? I’m not asking you or anyone else to buy anything but the scientific evidence. Another great hypocrisy of this inquisition is that while evolutionists require us to accept their religious beliefs, the skeptics, who have all those supposed ulterior motives, are pointing to the science.

We all have our biases, yours happen to be influenced by your Christian beliefs. Why be ashamed and why the constant deflection and attempts to hide it?

Constant deflection? Ashamed? More inquisition rhetoric. Even though I’ve explained my position in detail, that doesn’t really matter. I’m actually ashamed and in constant deflection. Again, admission of guilt is the only right answer.

What Kartrev is saying here is not something he has just dreamed up. This is typical of evolutionists. They make religious pronouncements and they want to blame it on you. And because they lose on the science, they either become irrational or make it into an inquisition.

1. Cornelius,

So, now you're saying that you're not religious? And you're playing the persecuted victim card to boot? And you're still blaming "evolutionists" and accusing them of being the religious ones?

Your post above is one of the most dishonest ones you've ever posted, and you're got everything backward, as usual. You really need a mirror.

What scientific evidence of your own have you ever presented? What's your latest scientific paper about? What scientific study are you working on?

ALL you and the other IDCs do is attack evidence that real scientists find, research, and explain, and you attack scientists too. Is that 'rational'?

What have you ever contributed to science that is positive? What have you ever personally found, researched, and explained that has contributed to human scientific knowledge or to the betterment of anything in nature?

And what have your religious beliefs ever 'won' on "the science"?

2. I don't know about him, but I'm having a blast. Nothing is more entertaining than watching Darwinists pout, hurl childish insults and try to get personal when all of their arguments have been defeated.

And what have your religious beliefs ever 'won' on "the science"?

What about the origin of the Universe? In the early twentieth century it was established scientific thought that that the steady state model of the Universe was correct. Anyone who disagreed was probably laughed out of the room and called whatever the early twentieth century of "creationist" was.

Then with relativity and astronomical observations we discovered that yes indeed, the scriptures had been correct all along and the Universe did indeed have a distinct beginning out of nothing. The atheists heads exploded! They tried every single thing they could to get around this and come up with alternative theories. Some of them complained:

Philosophically the notion of a beginning of the present order is repugnant to me. I should like to find a genuine loophole.

At the end of the day the scientists had to conceded that the theologians had been right all along. As Robert Jastrow said:

For the scientist who has lived by his faith in the power of reason, the story ends like a bad dream. He has scaled the mountain of ignorance; he is about to conquer the highest peak; as he pulls himself over the final rock, he is greeted by a band of theologians who have been sitting there for centuries.

Now all the rage is the multiverse which is the latest attempt to not only explain away the origin of the Universe but the incredible fine tuning we see in the Universe as well.

3. Cornelius, do you accept that humans and chimps shared a common ancestor?

A simple yes or no will do.

99. wgbutler777 said...

I don't know about him, but I'm having a blast. Nothing is more entertaining than watching Darwinists pout, hurl childish insults and try to get personal when all of their arguments have been defeated.

Not near as funny as Creationists doing their Monty Python "Black Knight" impersonation, crowing about how they've won glorious victory when all they have left are bloody stumps.

Without Creationist self-delusion we wouldn't have C/E discussion boards.

100. What Kartrev is saying here is not something he has just dreamed up. This is typical of evolutionists. They make religious pronouncements and they want to blame it on you. And because they lose on the science, they either become irrational or make it into an inquisition.

Why is it a religious pronouncement to say that I think there is a very strong liklihood that CH's viewpoint is influenced by his religious beliefs? And as such people should be wary of his purported neutrality and objectivity. How is this religious?

So far in all that CH has said I have seen absolutely nothing that would lead to me believe otherwise.

101. Cornelius, do you accept that humans and chimps shared a common ancestor?

A simple yes or no will do.

Failing to answer a fair question that cuts to the bone of the argument is dishonest. Or cowardly.

1. "Failing to answer a fair question that cuts to the bone of the argument is dishonest. Or cowardly."

Religious zealots remind me of politicians when it comes to answering questions. They spew a lot of irrelevant fluff and move the goalposts but rarely (if ever) actually answer the question.

2. Pedant:

I'll be happy to fix that. Now, what exactly was not honest in my answer?

102. Cornelius HunterJan 14, 2012 08:35 PM

Thorton: I'd appreciate an honest answer.

I'll be happy to fix that. Now, what exactly was not honest in my answer?

The fact that you never provided an answer. Here is the question for the third time:

Cornelius, do you accept that humans and chimps shared a common ancestor?

A simple yes or no will do.

Please stop avoiding the question, thanks.

1. Cornelius Hunter said...

Do I accept that humans and chimps shared a common ancestor? Of course not, I’m not a lying fool. I don’t turn science upside down to satisfy some silly religion

Thank you for finally providing an honest answer, even though it took multiple tries.

Time for the next simple question:

Do you reject human-chimp common ancestry due to your religious beliefs?

Again, a simple yes or no will do.

2. Do I accept that humans and chimps shared a common ancestor? Of course not, I’m not a lying fool. I don’t turn science upside down to satisfy some silly religion

Where did Cornelius say that?

3. troy

Cornelius Hunter: "Do I accept that humans and chimps shared a common ancestor? Of course not, I’m not a lying fool. I don’t turn science upside down to satisfy some silly religion"

Where did Cornelius say that?

Heh.

Looks like CH had second thoughts about finally giving an honest answer and deleted it. But not before I read it and quoted him on it.

Another fine example of Christian honesty by Dr. Hunter.

4. CH's reply that included that admission was quite a bit longer. It was an angry, disjointed rant about all the evils of evolution and included all his usual nonsense about giraffes appearing by chance, etc. Did anyone else see it? Sadly I didn't save it because I didn't expect he'd sober up and delete the whole thing.

Cornelius, why did you delete the post that I quoted? Do you deny making that statement?

103. This comment has been removed by the author.

104. Thorton:

Do you reject human-chimp common ancestry due to your religious beliefs?

Again, a simple yes or no will do.

You didn't need to ask once. I discussed all this long before you asked, such as at the links I provided.

Do you reject human-chimp common ancestry due to your religious beliefs?

Common descent is bad science driven by silly religious claims, both of which are against my religion. My religion calls for science that makes sense. But then again, I've already explained all of this.

1. Cornelius Hunter said...

T: Do you reject human-chimp common ancestry due to your religious beliefs?

Common descent is bad science driven by silly religious claims, both of which are against my religion. My religion calls for science that makes sense. But then again, I've already explained all of this.

Do you reject human-chimp common ancestry due to your religious beliefs?

Again, a simple yes or no will do.

Why is it so hard for you to give an honest, straightforward answer?

2. Cornelius Hunter said...

Do I accept that humans and chimps shared a common ancestor? Of course not, I’m not a lying fool. I don’t turn science upside down to satisfy some silly religion

Common descent is bad science driven by silly religious claims, both of which are against my religion. My religion calls for science that makes sense. But then again, I've already explained all of this.

CH, since you reject common descent, please give us your explanation for how humans, chimps, all other extant species, and all the species recorded in the 3+ billion years of the fossil record got here. A rough time line would be appreciated too.

105. Common descent is bad science driven by silly religious claims, both of which are against my religion. My religion calls for science that makes sense.

No, your religion and your employers call for "science" that does not contradict an ancient book written by scientifically illiterate people. That only makes sense for the parasitic religious leaders that derive their wealth and power from a community of dumbed-down slavish followers.

106. Thorton

Do you reject human-chimp common ancestry due to your religious beliefs?

Again, a simple yes or no will do.

Why is it so hard for you to give an honest, straightforward answer?

This is the usual rhetorical ploy evolutionists use. They make religious truth claims and insist therefore that evolution and common descent must be true. They then blame you for the religion. I could care less whether evolution and common descent are true. And of course I’ve already explained that many times.

But for evolutionists it’s all about rhetorical ploys and Catch-22 questions to avoid their own absurdities. Why can’t you just “give an honest, straightforward answer?” Why the “evasiveness?” they so genuinely plead. This, when I’ve stated ad nauseam that I couldn’t care less if their silly idea is true or not.

What evolutionists can’t comprehend is that most people aren’t religiously dogmatic like they are. Yes people are religious, in one way or another, but most can incorporate a wide spectrum of origins explanations. Not so for evolutionists. Evolution must be a fact, there is no way around that for evolutionists.

You see evolutionists don’t have flexibility on this issue. They cannot allow for anything but strict, dogmatic evolution. The world must have arisen strictly via natural law. Well maybe it did. But then again, maybe it didn’t. Science certainly indicates the latter, but who knows?

You see the issue here is not how the species got here. In fact there are tremendous uncertainties on that question. The issue, rather, is the evolutionist’s insistence that they know the answer, and that their answer must be a scientific fact, even though their answer is scientifically ludicrous. That may sound like hyperbole, but it is not. In fact that is being generous.

Now given the absurdity of evolution it hardly seems worthy of much consideration. And much consideration would be, in fact, required to evaluate the interaction of evolution and religious belief. It is a complex question requiring exploration of both sides of the equation. I’ve given short answers, such as above, and long answers which evolutionists say is “evasive,” such as this one:

Clearly evolutionary “science,” including common descent, is deeply flawed scientifically, and theologically laden in ways that cannot be harmonized with the Bible.

What we do know is that, given our current scientific knowledge, naturalism doesn’t work. It has failed badly, and that’s a useful, if rather obvious, scientific finding. It is true that the Bible allows for a wide spectrum of interpretations, ranging from mostly secondary causes to mostly primary causes. Unlike most other traditions, Christianity has historically allowed for this wide range, and is one of the reasons Christians have been so interested in and supportive of science. And I personally am over on the secondary causes side of the spectrum. But the extreme, mostly-secondary-causes, edge of the spectrum simply cannot be harmonized with science.

And now Thorton, a question for you: Do you believe that giraffes spontaneously arose from an ancient fish population?

1. Cornelius Hunter said...

This is the usual rhetorical ploy evolutionists use. They make religious truth claims and insist therefore that evolution and common descent must be true.

LOL! Poor Cornelius, just can't bring himself to honestly answer a simple question. Oh well, I certainly gave him the opportunity.

I could care less whether evolution and common descent are true.

If you don't care, then why did you say this?

Cornelius Hunter: "Do I accept that humans and chimps shared a common ancestor? Of course not, I’m not a lying fool."

Sounds like you care a lot to me.

But that statement makes me curious. Plenty of your fellow IDCers accept common descent. Mike Behe does, Bill Dembski does. So does the mysterious but prolific Mike Gene. They just think God acted earlier in the process.

Do you think Behe, Dembski, and Gene are all lying fools for accepting the scientific evidence for common descent?

And now Thorton, a question for you: Do you believe that giraffes spontaneously arose from an ancient fish population?

You left out about 400 million years but I do accept the evidence that shows early fish evolved to be land dwelling tetrapods, which gave rise to the amniotes, which gave rise to the synapsids, which gave rise to mammals, one lineage of which eventually evolved into the extant giraffe.

Unless you have a better explanation for the observed data. But that's right, you don't know anything (wink).

107. Thorton:

CH, since you reject common descent, please give us your explanation for how humans, chimps, all other extant species, and all the species recorded in the 3+ billion years of the fossil record got here.

I don’t know. But for evolutionists that’s like an admission of guilt. Evolutionists insist they know the truth about origins, and if you are skeptical of their hilarious claims they then insist you provide the answer.

Remember Descartes assault on uncertainty. Certainty was crucial. So if evolution is doubted, an equally dogmatic truth must be substituted in its place. What evolutionists don’t realize is that most people can deal with uncertainty, especially on difficult questions. It’s OK actually to admit that you don’t know how the world arose. Imagine that. It’s OK to acknowledge that the evolutionary certainty is erroneous and, at the same time, we simply don’t know what the answer is.

1. Cornelius Hunter said...

Thorton: CH, since you reject common descent, please give us your explanation for how humans, chimps, all other extant species, and all the species recorded in the 3+ billion years of the fossil record got here.

I don’t know. But for evolutionists that’s like an admission of guilt. Evolutionists insist they know the truth about origins, and if you are skeptical of their hilarious claims they then insist you provide the answer.

Fine. You don't know. Please give us your opinion for how humans, chimps, all other extant species, and all the species recorded in the 3+ billion years of the fossil record got here. Unless you're going to be, er, economical with the truth again and claim no opinion except "God was involved".

When you went to work for Biola you signed a statement that you accepted a literal Genesis creation event, which means a younf Earth and separately created "kinds". Yet here you say you don't know.

Who were you dishonest with, Biola or us? I suppose it could be both.

2. CH: I don’t know.

Again, I'd suggest that what Cornelius does "know "is that the knowledge of how to build the biosphere has no origin. It just "was". And this presupposition is prevalent thought his arguments.

Is it merely a coincidence that all of his arguments strongly correlate him holding this presupposition? How else do could we better explain his objections? Anyone?

CH: But for evolutionists that’s like an admission of guilt. Evolutionists insist they know the truth about origins, and if you are skeptical of their hilarious claims they then insist you provide the answer.

The underlying explanation behind evolutionary theory is that the knowledge of how to build the biosphere was created via a variation of conjecture and refutation. It's really quite simple.

Not knowing exactly which conjectures in the form of genetic variation were refuted by natural selection, in the exact order, doesn't prevent us from explaining the origin of this knowledge itself. That's Cornelius' straw man argument.

108. Cornelius said:

"Do I accept that humans and chimps shared a common ancestor? Of course not, I’m not a lying fool. I don’t turn science upside down to satisfy some silly religion

Common descent is bad science driven by silly religious claims, both of which are against my religion. My religion calls for science that makes sense. But then again, I've already explained all of this."

Wow. Just wow.

109. Cornelius said:

"What evolutionists can’t comprehend is that most people aren’t religiously dogmatic like they are. Yes people are religious, in one way or another, but most can incorporate a wide spectrum of origins explanations."

Actually, all religious people are dogmatic when it comes to "origins", at least in the sense that they all believe in a 'creator/god' of some kind, and fairy tales associated with that creator/god (or gods).

"You see evolutionists don’t have flexibility on this issue. They cannot allow for anything but strict, dogmatic evolution. The world must have arisen strictly via natural law. Well maybe it did. But then again, maybe it didn’t. Science certainly indicates the latter, but who knows?"

Biological evolution, which is the relevant topic (not "origins" as you're using as a distraction) doesn't have anything to do with how the "world" did or didn't arise.

"You see the issue here is not how the species got here."

Uh, actually it is, except that "got here" is a poor choice of words.

"In fact there are tremendous uncertainties on that question."

Which question, the ones that matter or the ones you make up?

The theory of evolution isn't about how the "world" did or didn't arise.

"The issue, rather, is the evolutionist’s insistence that they know the answer, and that their answer must be a scientific fact, even though their answer is scientifically ludicrous. That may sound like hyperbole, but it is not. In fact that is being generous."

You're hilarious. And speaking of hyperbole, you god zombies are the ones who claim that you KNOW the answers, to pretty much every question.

Again, the theory of evolution isn't about how the "world" did or didn't 'arise'.

See part two.

110. Part two.

Cornelius said:

"Now given the absurdity of evolution it hardly seems worthy of much consideration."

Hey, wait a minute, I thought you said there are "uncertainties", "who knows", and that it's "evolutionists" who are inflexible and strictly dogmatic, yet you're calling evolution "absurd" in a very certain, inflexible, strictly dogmatic way as if you "know" that it doesn't and never did occur.

"And much consideration would be, in fact, required to evaluate the interaction of evolution and religious belief. It is a complex question requiring exploration of both sides of the equation."

Nope. Religious belief isn't even a question (or an answer) in the same way that scientific investigation is. The only thing that should be asked about religion is, Why does anyone fall for it and promote it?

You make it sound as though religious beliefs and evolutionary theory are on an equal basis when it comes to scientific investigation. What a joke.

And it would sure be nice if you could figure out the difference between "evolution" and evolutionary theory. They are NOT the same thing.

"And now Thorton, a question for you: Do you believe that giraffes spontaneously arose from an ancient fish population?"

Okay, it's official, I don't believe that you've ever studied any biology whatsoever. That is one of the dumbest questions I have ever seen. Did you buy your diploma on Craigslist?

Thorton:

"CH, since you reject common descent, please give us your explanation for how humans, chimps, all other extant species, and all the species recorded in the 3+ billion years of the fossil record got here."

CH:

"I don’t know. But for evolutionists that’s like an admission of guilt."

Huh?

See part three.

111. Part three.

Cornelius said:

"Evolutionists insist they know the truth about origins, and if you are skeptical of their hilarious claims they then insist you provide the answer."

No, "evolutionists" (at least evolutionary biology scientists) don't "insist they know the truth about origins", especially in the way that you're using the word "origins". Evolutionists (biologically speaking) do 'accept' the evolutionary origin of 'species'.

You say you don't know, but you also say that "evolution" is "absurd", as though you do know. And again, you godbots are the ones who "insist" that you know all the answers.

"Remember Descartes assault on uncertainty. Certainty was crucial. So if evolution is doubted, an equally dogmatic truth must be substituted in its place."

Yeah, since evolution, and evolutionary theory, are "doubted" by you godbots, you think that you can substitute them with your dogmatic, religious, so-called "truth".

"What evolutionists don’t realize is that most people can deal with uncertainty, especially on difficult questions."

Malarkey. Most people are religious, and it's mostly, if not completely, because they can't deal with uncertainty, and a lot of the time it's not because the questions are difficult. When it comes to science, evolution, and evolutionary theory, most people don't even have a clue as to what the questions or currently known answers are. Most people are dumber and more scientifically illiterate than rocks.

"It’s OK actually to admit that you don’t know how the world arose. Imagine that."

Then why don't you tell yourself and all the other 'know-it-all' god zombies on Earth that?

By the way, you just defied the doctrinal statement at Biola.

"It’s OK to acknowledge that the evolutionary certainty is erroneous and, at the same time, we simply don’t know what the answer is."

The answer to what exactly? Evolution, evolutionary theory, the origin of the world, whatever strawman you conjure up, or what?

By the way, I just happened to turn the channel on my TV and there's a Nova show about Darwin on PBS right now. Coincidence? Or the work of Fifi the omnipotent, omniscient pink unicorn?

112. Thorton:

You left out about 400 million years but I do accept the evidence that shows early fish evolved to be land dwelling tetrapods, which gave rise to the amniotes, which gave rise to the synapsids, which gave rise to mammals, one lineage of which eventually evolved into the extant giraffe.

And is that a scientific fact, like gravity and the roundness of the earth?

1. This comment has been removed by the author.

2. Cornelius Hunter said...

Thorton: "You left out about 400 million years but I do accept the evidence that shows early fish evolved to be land dwelling tetrapods, which gave rise to the amniotes, which gave rise to the synapsids, which gave rise to mammals, one lineage of which eventually evolved into the extant giraffe."

And is that a scientific fact, like gravity and the roundness of the earth?

Enough positive evidence for that sequence has been amassed that the scientific community considers the transition to be a fact.

That of course brings us to the usual point where you start the dishonest equivocation between the observed fact and the theory that explains the fact. Go ahead, wouldn't want to disappoint your handful of clueless IDCer fanboys.

Do you think Behe, Dembski, and Mike Gene are lying fools because they accept common descent of giraffes arising from early tetrapods?

Edited to fix typos

113. Thorton:

That of course brings us to the usual point where you start the dishonest equivocation between the observed fact and the theory that explains the fact. Go ahead, wouldn't want to disappoint your handful of clueless IDCer fanboys.

I don't follow, what is the "observed fact" to which you're referring?

1. Cornelius Hunter said...

Thorton: "That of course brings us to the usual point where you start the dishonest equivocation between the observed fact and the theory that explains the fact. Go ahead, wouldn't want to disappoint your handful of clueless IDCer fanboys.

I don't follow, what is the "observed fact" to which you're referring?

The only fact you asked me about, and the only one we've been discussing. That fact.

I guess we've reached stage two, where you play dumb and to try and equivocate over the term 'observed'. In this case it doesn't mean 'the event was seen in real time'; it means 'the evidence for the event has been seen'. Clear enough? Or do we have to go to Rhetorical Game Playing stage three?

I notice you're avoiding all discussion on the big contradiction between what you swore to at Biola and what you claim here about species origins. What a surprise.

You also didn't answer if you think Behe, Dembski, and Mike Gene are lying fools because they accept common descent of giraffes arising from early tetrapods.

Easier to just duck those tough questions, eh CH? I don't mind. All the lurkers get to see you ducking and squirming too.

114. Thorton:

Thorton: "That of course brings us to the usual point where you start the dishonest equivocation between the observed fact and the theory that explains the fact. Go ahead, wouldn't want to disappoint your handful of clueless IDCer fanboys.

CH: I don't follow, what is the "observed fact" to which you're referring?

Thorton: The only fact you asked me about, and the only one we've been discussing. That fact.

OK, just checking. You’re referring to the fish-turning-into-giraffes-spontaneously fact. I can see why you didn’t want to spell it out.

I guess we've reached stage two, where you play dumb and to try and equivocate over the term 'observed'. In this case it doesn't mean 'the event was seen in real time'; it means 'the evidence for the event has been seen'. Clear enough?

Oh yes, quite clear. You’re certain that fish turned into giraffes. There can be no question about it. We didn’t see it happen, and we don’t know how it could happen (that’s the theory we don’t understand). But it did happen, no question (that’s the fact we’re sure of). I’m on it now.

I notice you're avoiding all discussion on the big contradiction between what you swore to at Biola and what you claim here about species origins. What a surprise.

Actually I try not to swear. And without swearing I explained my claims in great detail at those links you never read, remember? If you think there is a contradiction somewhere then I’d be happy to clear it up. But so far all you’ve done is made vague and evasive accusations about me being vague and evasive (after I explained my views in great detail).

You also didn't answer if you think Behe, Dembski, and Mike Gene are lying fools because they accept common descent of giraffes arising from early tetrapods.

Well I try to stick to questions that make some sense. But if you insist, IDs such as Behe and Dembski are not under the delusion the universe and everything in it spontaneously arose. That would be evolutionists.

IDs believe that at some level, intentional, intelligent design factors into origins. For them the spontaneous play of chance is not likely sufficient to explain how an ancient fish population gave rise to giraffes, no matter how much time there is for the system to decay. So grouping IDs with evolutionists doesn’t make sense. Make sense?

115. Cornelius Hunter said...

OK, just checking. You’re referring to the fish-turning-into-giraffes-spontaneously fact. I can see why you didn’t want to spell it out.

No one said fish turned directly into giraffes. The evidence does clearly show however that the long distant ancestors of giraffes were Devonian age fish. Given your history of sophomoric rhetorical gamesmanship it's not surprising you try and dishonestly twist what was said.

Oh yes, quite clear. You’re certain that fish turned into giraffes. There can be no question about it. We didn’t see it happen, and we don’t know how it could happen (that’s the theory we don’t understand). But it did happen, no question (that’s the fact we’re sure of). I’m on it now.

Science does see evidence that it happened, and when, and where. Science also knows how it happened to a high degree of confidence. Not every last detail, but plenty enough to seal the deal. It's a pity you chose to ignore so much confirmed scientific work that's readily available for anyone to see.

For the umteenth time CH - if you have a better explanation for the genetic and fossil data, let's hear it. Otherwise you're just spitting into the wind again.

If you think there is a contradiction somewhere then I’d be happy to clear it up.

To work for Biola you agreed that you believed in a literal Genesis - young Earth and created "kinds". On this blog you play ignorant and claim to not have any opinion. You lied to someone, the only question is who.

But if you insist, IDs such as Behe and Dembski are not under the delusion the universe and everything in it spontaneously arose.

You said accepting common descent made one a lying fool. Behe and Dembski accept common descent. Have you told them they're lying fools? Your squirming to change the issue to "the universe spontaneously arose" would make a greased pig proud.

IDs believe that at some level, intentional, intelligent design factors into origins. For them the spontaneous play of chance is not likely sufficient to explain how an ancient fish population gave rise to giraffes, no matter how much time there is for the system to decay. So grouping IDs with evolutionists doesn’t make sense. Make sense

Which has nothing to do with accepting common descent. IDers who believe in front loading accept common descent. IDers who believe that God continuously tinkered over millions of years accept common descent. So according to you they must all be lying fools.

You said it Cornelius, not me. At least be man enough to own up to your own words.

116. Michael Behe in Edge of Evolution on the common ancestor of humans and chimps:

""More compelling evidence for the shared ancestry of humans and other primates comes from their hemoglobin — not just their working hemoglobin, but a broken hemoglobin gene, too. [10] In one region of our genomes humans have five genes for proteins that act at various stages of development (from embryo through adult) as the second (betalike) chain of hemoglobin. This includes the gene for the beta chain itself, two almost identical copies of a gamma chain (which occurs in fetal hemoglobin), and several others. Chimpanzees have the very same genes in the very same order. In the region between the two gamma genes and a gene that works after birth, human DNA contains a broken gene (called a "pseudogene") that closely resembles a working gene for a beta chain, but has features in its sequence that preclude it from coding successfully for a protein.
"Chimp DNA has a very similar pseudogene at the same position. The beginning of the human pseudogene has two particular changes in two nucleotide letters that seems to deactivate the gene. The chimp pseudogene has the exact same changes. A bit further down in the human pseudogene is a deletion mutation, where one particular letter is missing. For technical reasons, the deletion irrevocably messes up the gene's coding. The very same letter is missing in the chimp gene. Toward the end of the human pseudogene another letter is missing. The chimp pseudogene is missing it, too.
"The same mistakes in the same gene in the same positions of both human and chimp DNA. If a common ancestor first sustained the mutational mistakes and subsequently gave rise to those two modern species, that would very readily account for why both species have them now. It's hard to imagine how there could be stronger evidence for common ancestry of chimps and humans."

Cornelius Hunter at Darwin's God blog on the common ancestor of humans and chimps:

"Do I accept that humans and chimps shared a common ancestor? Of course not, I’m not a lying fool."

CH, is Behe a lying fool? Maybe you can explain why you think he is wrong on this point.

117. More Behe vs. Hunter

Michael Behe in Edge of Evolution:

"The bottom line is this. Common descent is true; yet the explanation of common descent — even the common descent of humans and chimps — although fascinating, is in a profound sense trivial. It says merely that commonalities were there from the start, present in a common ancestor. "

Cornelius Hunter of the Discovery Institute:

"Common descent is bad science driven by silly religious claims, both of which are against my religion."

Who to believe? Maybe you Intelligent Design Creationism geniuses should sit down together and get your story straight.

118. Thorton:

CH: OK, just checking. You’re referring to the fish-turning-into-giraffes-spontaneously fact. I can see why you didn’t want to spell it out.

Thorton: No one said fish turned directly into giraffes.

But of course I didn’t say anyone said that. Evolutionists cannot reckon with their own claims.

The evidence does clearly show however that the long distant ancestors of giraffes were Devonian age fish. Given your history of sophomoric rhetorical gamesmanship it's not surprising you try and dishonestly twist what was said.

Sophomoric rhetorical gamesmanship? It’s otherwise known as evolutionary theory. You see I’m merely repeating your own silly claims. It doesn’t matter how long it took, evolutionists believe giraffes arose spontaneously from fish. Through a practically endless list of miracle mutations and variations, all of which had to be random with no direction or inducement, the fish morphed into a giraffe. Selection did not help induce those mutations. They had to happen on their own. It was a long series of truly astonishing, astronomically unlikely grand slams which just happened to happen in our little corner of the multiverse. Just lucky, I guess. Of course evolutionists have no idea how this possibly could have occurred, but they are absolutely dogmatic that it must have. This is beyond pathetic. It isn’t even wrong.

Science does see evidence that it happened, and when, and where. Science also knows how it happened to a high degree of confidence. Not every last detail, but plenty enough to seal the deal. It's a pity you chose to ignore so much confirmed scientific work that's readily available for anyone to see.

Not every last detail? That would be the Mother of all Understatements. They can’t even tell us how a single protein evolved. It would be difficult to imagine a bigger scientific lie than this evolutionary mockery of science. The tragedy is that evolutionists make these misrepresentations of science and most people are none the wiser.

For the umteenth time CH - if you have a better explanation for the genetic and fossil data, let's hear it. Otherwise you're just spitting into the wind again.

Hilarious rationalism. Evolutionists insist everything came from nothing, and when you remind them of the science they insist they’re right because you haven’t solved their problem. So I have to explain how the species arose in order for them to recognize their scientific absurdities.

To work for Biola you agreed that you believed in a literal Genesis - young Earth and created "kinds".

Again, the real tragedy is that while evolutionists literally contrive whatever they like, people are none the wiser. Some have complained that evolutionists are allowed to freely comment on this blog, but it is precisely these comments that tell the story. Here the evolutionist is, in typical fashion, making up whatever misrepresentation seems to fit the moment, with no relationship to reality. This is the world of evolutionists.

CH: But if you insist, IDs such as Behe and Dembski are not under the delusion the universe and everything in it spontaneously arose.

Thorton: You said accepting common descent made one a lying fool. Behe and Dembski accept common descent. Have you told them they're lying fools? Your squirming to change the issue to "the universe spontaneously arose" would make a greased pig proud.

No, not merely “accepting common descent” in some generic sense. Mandating that evolution’s common descent is a scientific fact. The OP and discussion has been about evolution, not ID.

Which has nothing to do with accepting common descent. IDers who believe in front loading accept common descent. IDers who believe that God continuously tinkered over millions of years accept common descent.

Sorry, IDs don’t support your evolutionary common descent. Behe rightly points out that standard evolution can’t even get you a single protein.

119. It's hard to believe that Cornelius calls someone "a lying fool" just because that person accepts common ancestry of humans and chimps. I suspect that he is really worried he might get EXPELLED from Biola if the preachers-in-chief find out that Cornelius isn't really a YEC. It's pathetic.

120. Let's see if Cornelius denies The Flood. Did a big flood engulf the earth a few thousand years ago, and did Noah build a big boat to save his family and the ancestors of all terrestrial animals?

121. Cornelius Hunter said...

Sophomoric rhetorical gamesmanship?

Yep. It's what you specialize in. Seems to be the only tool you've got.

You see I’m merely repeating your own silly claims.

No, you actually repeated your silly strawman. Do you really think no one would notice?

It doesn’t matter how long it took, evolutionists believe giraffes arose spontaneously from fish. Through a practically endless list of miracle mutations and variations, all of which had to be random with no direction or inducement, the fish morphed into a giraffe. Selection did not help induce those mutations. They had to happen on their own. It was a long series of truly astonishing, astronomically unlikely grand slams which just happened to happen in our little corner of the multiverse. Just lucky, I guess. Of course evolutionists have no idea how this possibly could have occurred, but they are absolutely dogmatic that it must have. This is beyond pathetic. It isn’t even wrong.

LOL! Wow CH, you managed to cram more Creationist stupid canards into that paragraph that ever! Let's see, you've got the "it's too improbable!!" canard even though you can't compute any actual probabilities. You've got the "a fish morphed into a giraffe" strawman. You've got the "it took miracle mutations!!" where you dishonestly omit selection and inheritance. You double down on that with the "selection doesn't create mutations!!" where you dishonestly omit that evolution is an iterative process requiring variation AND selection AND inheritance. You toss in the 'multiverse' buzzword even though that has nothing to do with evolution. You deliberately misrepresent the state of scientific knowledge. Then to top it off, you fall back on your old comfy standby of equivocating between the fact of evolution and the theory that explains the fact.

That was a real tour de farce CH. You should post in under your picture at the Disco 'tute.

They can’t even tell us how a single protein evolved.

Obviously you haven't read the literature in years, or else you'd be familiar with the work of Prof. Joe Thornton on protein evolution.

So I have to explain how the species arose in order for them to recognize their scientific absurdities.

If you want anyone to take you seriously you do. You've got to explain the empirical data better than the currently accepted theory. Problem for you is you can't do it.

No, not merely “accepting common descent” in some generic sense. Mandating that evolution’s common descent is a scientific fact.

Try reading a book CH. Common descent is an established scientific fact. It's *how* it occurred that's the theory.

Sorry, IDs don’t support your evolutionary common descent.

Behe says it does.

Michael Behe: "The bottom line is this. Common descent is true

It's cute how you tried to toss out a new bit of bait-and-switch nonsense, going from "common descent" to "evolutionary common descent". One more sophomoric rhetorical game.

CH, I'm looking forward to your explanation for why all that evidence for human-chimp common ancestry published by Behe is wrong, and why Behe is a lying fool. Will you be addressing his evidence point-by-point?

Your fanboys are counting on you CH! Don't let them down!

122. CH: Sorry, IDs don’t support your evolutionary common descent. Behe rightly points out that standard evolution can’t even get you a single protein.

Of course, it's Cornelius who can't get a single protein, not science.

This is yet another instance were we can better explain Cornelius' evolutionary objections in that he holds a presupposition that the knowledge of how to build the biosphere has always existed, rather than being created over time.

Despite his claims of being supposedly neutral on the issue, this isn't evident via empirical observations alone. Rather it's likely a presupposition derived from his religious beliefs, which he then smuggles into his statistical assumptions under the guise of "science".

Specifically, if the knowledge of how to build the biosphere had yet to be created, exactly how could one calculate the statistical likely hood of evolution of finding pre-existing knowledge though some sort of "search" in protein space? It's non-sensical.

Yet this is the sort of disingenuous argument that Cornelius makes here on a regular basis.

123. Speaking of Joe Thornton:

http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/vaop/ncurrent/full/nature10724.html

124. Thorton:

CH: Sophomoric rhetorical gamesmanship?

Thorton: Yep. It's what you specialize in. Seems to be the only tool you've got.

Well I said that evolutionists hold that fish-turning-into-giraffes-spontaneously is a fact. Now is that an exaggeration? Is it a rhetorical misrepresentation of evolutionary theory? Here is how one textbook explains it:

However, there are some homologies that do look positively disadvantageous. One of the cranial nerves goes from the brain to the larynx via a tube near the heart. In fish this is a direct route. But the same nerve in all species follows the same route, and in the giraffe it results in an absurd detour down and up the neck, so that the giraffe has to grow maybe 3-5 meters more nerve than it would with a direct connection. The “recurrent laryngeal nerve,” as it is called, is surely inefficient. It is easy to explain such an efficiency if giraffes have evolved in small stages from a fish-like ancestor; but why giraffes should have such a nerve if they originated independently … well, we can leave that to others to try to explain. [Mark Ridley, Evolution, Blackwell, p. 50, 1993]

There is no question that evolutionists believe the giraffe arose from fish. So where is the sophomoric rhetorical gamesmanship? Was this evolution not spontaneous? Yes it was. Evolution is strictly the result of the play of chance. Here is how Jacques Monod explained the fact of evolution and how it is all according to chance:

We call these events [the various types of DNA sequence alteration] accidental; we say that they are random occurrences. And since they constitute the only possible source of modifications in the genetic text, itself the sole repository of the organism’s hereditary structures, it necessarily follows that chance alone is at the source of every innovation, of all creation in the biosphere. Pure chance, absolutely free but blind, at the very root of the stupendous edifice of evolution: this central concept of modern biology is no longer one among other possible or even conceivable hypotheses. It is today the sole conceivable hypothesis, the only one that squares with observed and tested fact. And nothing warrants the supposition—or the hope—that on this score our position is likely ever to be revised.

Or was it gamesmanship to say evolutionists insist all this is a fact? Again no. Evolutionists are adamant that this all must be a fact. Ernst Mayr explained that the fact of evolution is so overwhelmingly established that it would be irrational to call it a theory. The “fact” of evolution is often compared to that of gravity.

You see I’m just repeating back what the evolutionists have told us. But like family, it’s OK for them to say it, but not for you to say it.

And how does the evolutionist who cries “Sophomoric rhetorical gamesmanship” respond?

I guess your love of the DI's money is stronger than your moral principles.

I suppose you have to keep pumping out the drivel and earn your Biola paycheck somehow.

XXXXX the sockpuppet said...

CH knows that all very well. He's just feeding the IDiot sycophants their nightly does of Creationist strawman stupidity to keep them happy and clicking on his link.

Not very intellectually honest but hey - if they were honest they wouldn't be Creationists.

Isn't it time for your mommy to tuck you into bed?

Did Cornelius send out a secret memo having a "dumbest Creationist claim of the week" contest?

LOL!

125. Thorton:

LOL! Wow CH, you managed to cram more Creationist stupid canards into that paragraph that ever! Let's see, you've got the "it's too improbable!!" canard even though you can't compute any actual probabilities.

Well that’s true. I can’t compute the probability of evolution occurring. I can’t even compute the probability of a single protein evolving. But that’s because the probabilities are so astronomically low. Even by evolutionists optimistic numbers a single protein evolving is so improbable that we’re in the miracle range. It may be a one out of 10^50 shot, but more likely it is far worse. Do we really need exact numbers here? We also cannot compute the probability of perpetual motion, but that doesn’t mean we can’t say something about it. Evolution may have occurred, it may not have. But there is no question evolution is not a scientific fact.

You've got the "it took miracle mutations!!" where you dishonestly omit selection and inheritance. You double down on that with the "selection doesn't create mutations!!" where you dishonestly omit that evolution is an iterative process requiring variation AND selection AND inheritance.

No, that would be variation AND inheritance AND selection. But that doesn’t help either. You see the “selection” and “inheritance” parts can have no influence on the “variation” part. Inheritance just passes the variation on, and selection then kills off the deleterious ones. Under evolutionary theory, the variation is on its own. Every single variation that implemented new fantastic biological mechanisms and machines must have occurred by pure chance. And no, the fact that previous useless mutations were killed off doesn’t help. What evolutionists would need are for the biological design space to be filled with billions of smooth, pathways with gradually increasing fitness, leading to the millions and millions of species and yes, between the ancient fish and the giraffe. Since this is ridiculous they now imagine that some new, sophisticated non local search mechanism can jump around the design space and find the astronomically rare gems of working designs. So after all the just-so stories and truth claims of how it all must be true, what we’re left with is random mutations somehow finding fantastic designs. In other words, the whole world just happened to arise on its own. And it’s all a fact.

Then to top it off, you fall back on your old comfy standby of equivocating between the fact of evolution and the theory that explains the fact.

Uh, oh, not this again. Here’s how this one goes. Evolutionists say everything came from nothing, it’s an undeniable fact, and it you don’t agree you’re blackballed. Then when you point out the science they say evolution is a fact because some moth changed color or a microbe had a mutation. Then when you point out that doesn’t mean everything came from nothing they say you’re equivocating.

126. Thorton:

CH: So I have to explain how the species arose in order for them to recognize their scientific absurdities.

Thorton: If you want anyone to take you seriously you do.

Well there is some common ground. It’s a good explanation of why scientific problems don’t matter.

Try reading a book CH. Common descent is an established scientific fact.

I didn’t know that. I guess that pretty much seals it huh? Oh, by the way, what book is that?

It's cute how you tried to toss out a new bit of bait-and-switch nonsense, going from "common descent" to "evolutionary common descent".

Yet more accusations. The evolutionist throws out the bait, then pulls a switch, and then accuses you of bait-and-switch. In a blog about evolution, the evolutionist asks if you believe in common descent. You explain the massive scientific problems that evolutionists deny. The evolutionist then says you must be rejecting supernatural common descent, where even the evolution of even a protein-protein interface is impossible. Of course that was never part of the discussion. A classic bait-and-switch. And then to top it off, when you explain the distinction he accuses you of the bait-and-switch.

127. This comment has been removed by the author.

128. Cornelius Hunter said...

Well I said that evolutionists hold that fish-turning-into-giraffes-spontaneously is a fact.

LOL! Keep beating that silly strawman CH. Keep loudly proclaiming that evolution means a fish gave birth to a giraffe. It can do nothing but enhance that stellar reputation you have in the scientific community.

Hey, here’s an idea! Why don’t you put together a slide presentation on the transition! You can put a drawing of a Devonian age fish on one side, then put a mirror-image of the picture on the other side and label it “giraffe”. That sure worked out well for you the last time you used the technique.

Well that’s true. I can’t compute the probability of evolution occurring. I can’t even compute the probability of a single protein evolving. But that’s because the probabilities are so astronomically low.

Actually it is because you're incompetent in basic probability theory. To calculate an accurate probability you need to know all possible outcomes, and the number of those outcomes that 'work.' For a long-term iterative process like evolution you also need to know the history of each step, you can’t just take a one-time snapshot of the end result. You don’t have any of that information, which is why all those “it’s too improbable!!” made up numbers you keep tossing out are such garbage.

No, that would be variation AND inheritance AND selection. But that doesn’t help either.

LOL! Sure CH. You go tell all those millions of scientists who have empirically observed the process work in the lab and in the field that they’re lying fools. Go tell all those companies that successfully use genetic algorithms to produce new designs they’re lying fools too. See how far you get.

Thorton: "If you want anyone to take you seriously you do."

Well there is some common ground. It’s a good explanation of why scientific problems don’t matter.

What doesn’t matter to the scientific community are desperate Creationists making up so-called ‘problems’ they can’t support or demonstrate. You know all about that I’m sure.

Thorton: "Try reading a book CH. Common descent is an established scientific fact."

I didn’t know that.

Yes CH, you did know that. You’re not a dumb guy CH, you’ve had significant scientific training. What you lack is integrity in pushing these same old Creationist lies day after day after day. I bet you never envisioned your career path would lead to such a dead end job as a bottom-feeding Creationist propagandist, did you?

129. CH, just so you don't forget: We're still waiting for your explanation as to why Dr. Behe's evidence for the common ancestry of humans and chimps is all wrong, and why he's a lying fool for accepting it.

Unless you wish to remain silent and admit you were talking through your hat again. That works too.

130. Thorton:

To work for Biola you agreed that you believed in a literal Genesis - young Earth and created "kinds" …

Obviously you haven't read the literature in years …

We're still waiting for your explanation as to why Dr. Behe's evidence for the common ancestry of humans and chimps is all wrong …

What I don’t understand about evolutionists is how they view their lies. I understand that lies can be obscured with jargon, and so overlooked or denied. But I don’t understand the obvious lies that evolutionists come up with. The lies that not only are false, but they are then repeated over and over. Evolutionists can’t be unaware of the lies. How do you push forward knowing full well you are lying?

131. Cornelius Hunter

Thorton: "To work for Biola you agreed that you believed in a literal Genesis - young Earth and created "kinds" …

Obviously you haven't read the literature in years …

We're still waiting for your explanation as to why Dr. Behe's evidence for the common ancestry of humans and chimps is all wrong …

You evaded the questions yet again CH. Thanks for another great demonstration of what passes for 'integrity' with Creationists.

I understand that lies can be obscured with jargon, and so overlooked or denied.

We all know you know it. It's one of your favorite tactics.

How do you push forward knowing full well you are lying?

You tell us CH. You're the guy who's been caught posting numerous Creationist porkies, not us. Do preach to us about lying for your religion some more. Jesus loves it.

132. Cornelius,

Your explanation of the evolutionist's fallacy is very imprecise. They make two mistakes. First they confuse a priori with a posteriori probabilities. After (a posteriori) a set of 500 tosses are made something obviously will happen. However, to determine a priori that you desire a particular 2^500 outcome will take a very long time. This is a well know elementary error in probability. You should have called them out on it. Secondly, complex improbable spontaneous biological arrangements are never witnessed, otherwise no one would doubt evolution. Being an empiricist you should call them out on this also. I believe you are trying to make this point, but you are very unclear and you require readers of your blog to follow two links to get to your argument, which still isn't all that clear. B+

133. Peter:

Your explanation of the evolutionist's fallacy is very imprecise. They make two mistakes. First ...

Thanks for the feedback Peter. So many fallacies, and so little time ...