You look at their qualifications. Are they merely preachers or have they had
some introduction to science? If they have some training in the
sciences--creationists in the sciences tend to be engineers for some
reason--and they tell you "evolution is an unproven theory" you know right
away they are being dishonest. If they have even a passing acquaintance with
science they know "proof" is a mathematical concept and has no place in
science. In science there is only evidence. They also are aware that in
science a theory is not a "wild-assed guess" but a system of thought. To a
lay person a theory is a guess, an idea, a speculation. To a scientist those
things are usually referred to as "hypothesis." A theory is a hypothesis
with a huge amount of supporting evidence. A real scientist (like an
engineer) also knows that something like the fact of nuclear physics can
also have a Theory of Nuclear Physics which organizes all that is known
about nuclear physics and that that is what is referred to when one speaks
of "The Theory of Evolution."
>They might just be deluded or honestly mistaken.
>Susan would need to be omniscient to know that a large number of people
>she has never met would definitely "know the truth" and yet would
>"misrepresent, lie and conceal".
These are a few professional creationists listed on the "Revolution Against
Evolution" website:
Dr. Erich von Fange is a retired professor from Concordia College
John Woodmorappe has an MA in Geology, a BA in Geology, and a BA in Biology.
Dr. John Morris is a geologist
Dr. Steven Austin is a geologist
Dr. Don DeYoung is a professor of Physics at Grace College
Dr. Walter Lammerts was the scientist who bred the world-renouned Queen
Elizabeth rose.
>SB>There are the innocent creationists who are
>>being betrayed by people they should be able to trust. Most of the
>>creationists fall into the latter category.
>
>Susan would have needed to have exhaustively surveyed the works of
>*every* "creationist" writer and teacher on Earth to be able to objectively
>make a claim that "Most of the Creationists...know the truth and
>misrepresent, lie and conceal".
I haven't read *all* professional creationists, but I've read a lot of them.
There's a definite trend.
>SB>American science education is
>>abysmal. Few Europeans could be fooled by a transparent lie like "evolution
>>violates the 2nd law of thermodynamics."
>
>As Ratzsch points out, this is "Perhaps the most prevalent of the
>misconstruals of creationism...when claiming that the Second Law flatly
>precludes evolution, major creationists almost invariably have in mind
>evolution in the overall cosmic, 'evolution model' sense":
oh, really? Perhaps they are so used to quoting evolutionists out of
context, they make the mistake of quoting *themselves* out of context. I've
debated a lot of creationists who try to tell me that entropy can *never*
decrease because they have read Morris's "Creation Science" where he makes
that claim. Morris who, I believe, has training as an engineer, knows that
entropy can decrease locally.
Stephen quotes (trimmed):
>"What Morris and others mean to be
>claiming is that any such view according to which the entire cosmos is itself
>in a process of increasing overall order is in violation of the Second Law."
>(Ratzsch D.L., "The Battle of Beginnings", 1996, pp91-92)
You should read this site it's a disection of a talk given by Duane Gish:
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/gish-rutgers/gish-draft.txt
this is a comment on Gish's pamphlet handed out at the talk:
" For example, the pamphlet states, "The Second Law of
Thermodynamics states that there is a general tendency of all observed
systems to go from order to disorder. . . A fundamental law of physics says
that natural systems go from order to disorder; evolutionists say that these
same systems will go from disorder to order." This is, of course, complete
nonsense. Among other problems with this argument, the Second Law of
Thermodynamics only applies to systems that are isolated and in thermal
equilibrium. Living systems are not isolated systems in thermal equilibrium.
Therefore, the systems that an evolutionary scientist talks about are not
the same systems that the Second Law of Thermodynamics talks about. The
author sums up with the outrageous claim that the "evolutionary hypothesis. .
. contradicts one of the most well-established laws of science (the Second
Law of Thermodynamics)." The fact that the pamphlet's creationist author
knows nothing about thermodynamics doesn't keep him from trying to use it as
evidence for the cause of creationism."
Me:
>>I've never met an anti-evolutionist who didn't do one or more of the above.
>>I've never seen a creationist publication or website (written by
>>"professional" creationists) that didn't do all three.
Stephen:
>Susan just contradicted herself. She had just said that only "Most of the
>creationists" "know the truth and...misrepresent, lie and conceal". Now she
>is saying that *all* of them do!
I'm saying all the ones I've read. I said *most* because I'm assuming that
it's possible there is a creationist that is honest.
<personal jibes deleted>
>>>If Susan is not opposing God, she is doing a *very* good imitation of it!
>>
>>I oppose creationists. That's different from opposing God. Though most
>>creationists get that confused.
>
>While to "oppose creationists" is indeed "different from opposing God", I
>doubt that God sees it that way!
you know this for a fact? If God exists you guys are ignoring, suppressing
information about and lying about the world He made.
>>SJ>Actually Susan touches on an interesting thing. If atheists think that
>>God is
>>>the equivalent of the Tooth Fairy, why do they bother arguing against
>>>God? Do they spend equal time arguing against the Tooth Fairy?
>
>SB>They are fools? I would find it incredibly boring to do either.
>
>I note that Susan does not answer the question.
actually I did. To broaden the answer, they do it because they feel an evil
falsehood is being spread abroad in the world by religionists. They feel
they are fighting against the darkness of ignorance. They've read about the
Dark Ages when Christians destroyed or hid as much of the ancient pagan
knowledge as they possibly could. They have read the history where virtuous
Christians burned books and their authors in order to maintain general
ignorance. They don't want any of that back.
In the modern world where burning someone at the stake is illegal almost
everywhere and Christianity does not have the power of government behind it
and must compete in the marketplace of ideas (and does very poorly there) I
don't really see much use in debating the existence of any of the gods. I
*will* fight against people who spread lies for God's sake.
>From my Biblical Christian perspective, the *real* reason Susan bothers
>arguing against God is because unlike "the Tooth Fairy", Susan knows in
>her heart that God is *real*! (Rom 1:20)
:-) yep!!!! just like you fear the eventual return Quetzalcoatl and the
human sacrifices he will demand (could be you!)
>>You are so fond of quoting, here's a quote for you from Bertrand Russell:
>>
>>"I am constantly asked: What can you, with your cold rationalism, offer to
>>the seeker after salvation that is comparable to the cosy homelike comfort
>>of a fenced-in dogmatic creed? etc."
>
>Susan does not give a reference.
sorry! "The Impact of Science on Society" 1953
>But no matter. I used to be a follower of
>Bertrand Russell, as my testimony on my web page says, until in read the
>following and realised that according to Bertrand Russell there was no
>point in being a follower of Bertrand Russell:
>
>". . . Only within the scaffolding of these truths, only on the firm
>foundation of unyielding despair, can the soul's habitation henceforth be
>safely built." (Russell B., "A Free Man's Worship", in "Mysticism and
>Logic: And Other Essays", 1949, pp47-48)
unusual quote from a man who is usually quite cheerful. May I have some more
of the essay? I don't have it in my collections.
>SB>:-) we are a social species and we evolved to be altruistic. People who
>>behave in uncompassionate and unaltruistic ways are being "unnatural."
>
>This only proves my point. Since 90% of the public believe in God and only
>10% don't, it is the *atheists* who are being "unnatural"!
100% of ancient Aztecs believed that ripping out the hearts of thousands of
people would make it rain. Shall we test their hypothesis? Oh, no need. I'm
sure such a pure consensus meant they were correct.
>SB>Also true information is important to survival. In medieval times it
>was thought
>>that disease was caused by sin.
>
>I am sceptical of these blanket claims of what people believed "In medieval
>times".
though few people in medieval times could read and write--enough of them
were permitted by the church to learn those arts--that we have books to read
on the subject. We know what they thought because they wrote their thoughts
down.
>Susan is getting ultimate and proximate causes mixed up. That disease might
>be proximally caused by germs, does not preclude that it could also be
>ultimately caused by sin. AIDS is predominantly a disease of homosexual
>and heterosexual promiscuity, which the Bible says is sinful.
that explains why faithful wives are commonly the victims of it. Also people
who get it through blood transfusions. Also infants who get it from their
mothers. It also is a wonderful illustration of how vicious relgion can make
a person--or perhaps give a venue for viciousness that such a person would
not otherwise have.
>SB>Nasty old materialistic
>>science has introduced the idea of the germ theory of disease and developed
>>the antibiotics to kill the germs.
>
>When the "germ theory of disease and developed" there was no such thing as
>"materialistic science". Two of the pioneers of "the germ theory of disease",
>namely Pasteur and Lister were in fact *Christians*!
So what? a lot of scientists are Christians. The germ theory of disease was
not possible until after the Enlightenment and the rise of empiricism.
>SB>I'm sure design theory will produce even
>>more useful stuff--once a theory of design is formulated.
>
>That ia indeed the necessary first step!
so what are some of possible things design theory wishes to
investigate--once it has some funding, of course?
>>>SB>What I oppose is deliberate, willful, rapacious ignorance.
>See above again! I will await details of Susan's exhaustive survey of all
>"anti-evolutionists" on Earth and her criteria for detecting which ones
>"know the truth and lie" and which ones don't.
See the list of "scientists" above. Presumably, they know what the real
evolution says and is and are misrepresenting it (lying about it) because of
their devotion, not to any god, because their god doesn't care for
dishonesty, but a Book.
>See above re Ratzsch. While I hold no brief for "Henry Morris", the *real*
>problem is that Susan and her ilk don't take the time to understand what
>Morris is really saying about "thermodynamics".
and of course, you have copious examples of Morris saying publicly "Wait!!!
you guys have misundersood me! I meant evolution only in the cosmic sense!"
As far as I know Morris the elder is still alive, and I'm certain his son
is. They don't seem to be hurrying to clear up this nasty misunderstanding.
>SB>I'm pretty sure
>>Phil Johnson falls in the same category. He's not ignorant of evolution as
>>his critics claim. He understands it very well and chooses to
>>misrepresent it.)
>
>Since those "critics" who claim that Johnson is ignorant of evolution are
>on Susan's own side, this shows how arbitrary and confused evolutionists
>really are in their criticisms of him.
It's science, not religion, therefor we are not reading out of (or
worshiping) the same book.
>The problem for Susan and her ilk is that Phil Johnson does indeed
>understand evolution very well and what's more he accurately *represents*
>it. Susan might not realise this but Phil Johnson has personally debated
>leading evolutionists including Gould, Eldredge, Futuyma, Provine, Ruse
>and Eugenie Scott. He is actually a personal friend of the Provine and
>Ruse. Apart from a couple of minor errors in his first book, "Darwin on
>Trial", none of these leading evolutionists have shown (or even claimed)
>that Johnson misrepresents evolution.
There is an on-line debate between Johnson and Ken Miller
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/odyssey/debate/
in which Miller exposes a lot of Johnson's misrepresentations
Susan
--------
Peace is not the absence of conflict--it is the presence of justice.
--Martin Luther King, Jr.
Please visit my website:
http://www.telepath.com/susanb