Feeds:
Posts
Comments

Archive for the ‘creationism’ Category

Seed Newsvine StumbleUpon Toolbar Stumble It!

clipped from www.kentucky.com
There is trouble in paradise, with a fight of biblical proportions raging between a Kentucky-based creationist group and the Australian group from which it sprang.
Three days after the Memorial Day opening of Answers in Genesis’ $27 million Creation Museum in Northern Kentucky, a group called Creation Ministries International filed suit in the Supreme Court of Queensland.
Among other things, the suit claims the Kentucky group stole subscribers for its Answers magazine by claiming that the Australians’ Creation magazine was “no longer available.”
The suit is the most public move in what has been a growing rift between groups that are spreading the same Garden of Eden creation message on opposite sides of the globe.
Both groups believe in a literal interpretation of the Bible, that the earth and everything else was created in six days around 6,000 years ago.
But in the last several years, they have increasingly feuded about finances and power.

  blog it

Hoo Haa! So there must be more than one creation mythology because even the creationists can’t agree. Fighting over whose myth outranks the other’s even when the myths are based on the same text is, no doubt, fodder for Jay Leno. I just have to laugh. If only they would try a bit of rationality rather than delusional self-interest maybe, just maybe, the world would be a better, more tolerant place.

Advertisements

Read Full Post »

Seed Newsvine

clipped from www.y-origins.com
Q.
IS THE ARGUMENT FOR DESIGN BASED ON SCIENTIFIC IGNORANCE?
A. But, today’s intelligent design arguments are based upon a growing body
of scientific evidence concerning everything from DNA to the laws of physics;
and upon our uniform and repeated experience.Design theorists offer extensive evidence that blind, material causes are
incapable of building irreducibly complex and information-rich systems.
They then point out that whenever we know how such systems arose such as
with an integrated circuit, a car engine, or a software program invariably
a designing engineer played a role. Design theorists then extend this uniform
experience to things like molecular machines and the sophisticated code
needed to build even the first and simplest of cells. An increasing number
of leading scholars attest that increased scientific knowledge about such
things has greatly strengthened the argument for design.

  blog it


The argument from irreducible complexity suggests that the removal of a single part from a system destroys the system’s function, ergo evolution is ruled out, ergo the system must have been designed by some external force. This is the basic argument advanced by Michael Behe and his followers. Below I counter some of the claims made by the proponents of irreducible complexity.

  • Sometimes the functions are changed so that they do something other than what they did prior to mutation. Such evolutionary development of irreducibly complex systems have been described in the scientific literature in great detail.
  • Even if irreducible complexity does preclude Darwinian evolution, the conclusion of design does not follow. Many other possible conclusions can be argued. It is an example of a failed argument from incredulity.
  • Systems have been considered irreducibly complex that might not be so. For example:
  • Michael Behe’s mousetrap example of irreducible complexity can be simplified by making some minor alterations to the mousetrap. Furthermore, the mousetrap may lose functionality as a mousetrap if a part is removed but then one might craft a fishhook from the spring, turn the nonfunctional mousetrap into a paper weight and so on.
  • The bacterial flagellum is not, in fact, irreducibly complex because it can lose many parts and still function, either as a simpler flagellum or as a secretion system.
  • The immune system example that Behe is so fond of is not irreducibly complex because the antibodies that mark invading cells for destruction might themselves hinder the function o fthose cells, allowing the system to function (although not as well) without destroyer molecules of the complement system.

Read Full Post »

Seed Newsvine

The clip below is part of a series of clips available at http://evolutionvscreationsim.info.

What is at stake here is not evolution or creationism, quite the contrary, what is truly at stake in the United States is a reliance on rationalism vs a reliance on revelation. But, then we must ask just whose revelation trumps all others? Rationalism, thoughtful analysis of observable data or revelation, interpretation of the mythical explanations for just about everything based solely on what someone said was revealed to him or her a long time ago (unless you follow Scientology as revealed to L. Ron Hubbard just a few decades ago).

For this educator, I choose to engage in rational rather than mythological debate. Not that I don’t like a good story from time to time, and not that one can’t learn anything from a good story from time to time; it is clear that one can. Rather, I choose rationality because it requires a balance of observations to theoretical predictions that form the basis of clarity and avoids problems of logical fallacies that mythology simply cannot avoid.

clipped from evolutionvscreationism.info

  blog it

Read Full Post »

Seed Newsvine

Just a little tidbit I found on YouTube. If it weren’t so sad it might actually be funny. As the anti-evolutionists seek to introduce biblical mythology, call it what you will–creation science, intelligent design–into the classroom, they seem willing to turn back the clock to a time more reminiscent of the dark ages and the Inquisition than bring it to the light of the 21st century. Just because the human mind cannot conceive of the possibility of evolution does not mean that evolution is not true. It is all about evidence. The scientific FACTS based on evolutionary theory point to the validity of the theory. Other than a few scribbles in some sacred texts written 3000 years ago, and other than personal revelation (which is not rigorous evidence) there simply is no evidence to support what Richard Dawkins calls the God delusion. I think I’ll put my faith and trust in FACTS and not in the mythology of creation. If I wanted to put my faith in the mythology I would then be forced to choose from among thousands of FACTUALLY unsupported creation myths–what if I pick the wrong one? What then…

Read Full Post »

Seed Newsvine

I believe because I want to believe! To hell with the evidence to the contrary, the bible says it is true.

It is absolutely amazing to me how otherwise intelligent people can be so duped by belief that they cannot or will not examine the rigorous body of scientific evidence that exists regarding the geological and biological history of the earth we live on and, in its place, accept the particular mythology, the creation mythology, of a band of desert Hebrews written down some 3000 years ago. Why accept that particular myth and not others. What about the myths of creation that emanate from China, India, or from Native American cultures? Are their gods any less than the god of the Hebrews? Do their gods have answers that are any less appealing (however false) than those of the god of the Hebrews? And what about all of the contradictions in the creation myths of Genesis 1 and Genesis 2? The order of creation is different in each chapter, for example. And then, gosh, if Adam and Eve were the very first human beings and they had only 2 sons, Cain and Able and Cain slew Able and what thereupon banished to the land of Nod where there he knew his wife, WHERE THE HECK DID SHE COME FROM?

And dinosaurs lived on the earth along side man,,,Oh please. If your sources are no better than the bible then all you have is a belief that cannot be supported by the facts. That is known as an egocentric belief, a belief that cannot stand the pressure of reason. Oh, I forget, you don’t really care about reason because your mind is already made up regardless of what facts might be presented.

clipped from www.atheists.org
AMERICAN ATHEISTS today announced its full support for the “Rally for
Reason” protest slated for Monday, May 28, 2007 (Memorial Day) at the
grand opening of a creationist “museum” operated by an evangelical
religious group in Boone County, KY.
The $27 million facility is a project of the Answers in Genesis group
which promotes a literal, biblical view of how life and universe
ostensibly began, and challenges mainstream scientific findings about
evolution. The museum will reportedly include exhibits reflecting the
inaccurate claim that dinosaurs and human beings co-existed in a “Garden
of Eden” style Earth, and that our planet was fashioned by the
Judeo-Christian deity approximately 6,000 years ago.
The “Rally for Reason” is calling on all groups – including Atheists,
Freethinkers, Humanists and other non-believers – as well as religious,
civic and educational organizations that support good science to join in
the peaceful protest outside the gates of the “Answers in Genesis.”

  blog it

Read Full Post »