Powered by
Movable Type 3.2
Design by
Danny Carlton





Made with NoteTab

August 08, 2005

More commentaries of the Evolution debate

Bat Buchanan
What are the Darwinists afraid of?

Our ordered universe was created out of chaos. Who or what created it? The latest theory of the evolutionists is the "Big Bang," a gigantic explosion, eons ago, did it.

But from common sense and experience, when – ever – has an explosion created order? Explosions destroy. And if the Big Bang was due to an explosion, where did the chemicals come from? And who lit the firecracker that caused the Big Bang?

As a wag has put it, to believe an explosion created an ordered universe is like believing a hurricane roaring through a junkyard can create a fifth-generation computer.

And there are gaps in human evolution. Where are the missing links between lower and higher forms? Where are the intermediate forms? Why are they not everywhere? As for that picture on the wall of the biology class, showing a reptile crawling ashore, then moving on four legs, then dragging his knuckles, then straightening up, then walking on two legs, then becoming the man of today – is that really how it happened? Or is that a theory, a belief, an act of faith of the Darwinists? Is there really all that much difference between that picture and one of Adam and Eve in the Garden of Eden?...

What causes a disbelief in Darwinian fundamentalism, the Genesis of our secular elite, is not only Christian faith, but reason.


Kathleen Parker
Looking for intelligent design in America

John G. West Jr, senior fellow at the Discovery Institute, explains that while creationism defends a literal interpretation of Genesis and a biblical God, the theory of ID "is agnostic regarding the source of design and has no commitment to defending Genesis, the Bible or any other sacred text.

"Instead, intelligent design theory is an effort to empirically detect whether the 'apparent design' in nature observed by biologists is genuine design (the product of an organizing intelligence) or is simply the product of chance and mechanical natural laws."

Not exactly wacky wisecracking from the lunatic fringe. Objectively, what would be the harm in inviting discussion of this new theory alongside others that have the imprimatur of modern science? Truth has nothing to fear from charlatans, after all. And alert, stimulated children incited to prove or disprove intelligent design would hardly suggest a failure of public education.


Chuck Colson
On solid ground: evolution versus intelligent design

...the scientific case for intelligent design is so strong that, as BreakPoint listeners have heard me say, even Antony Flew, once the world’s leading philosopher of atheism, has renounced his life-long beliefs and has become, as he puts it, a deist. He now believes an intelligent designer designed the universe, though he says he cannot know God yet.

I was in Oxford last week, speaking at the C. S. Lewis Summer Institute, and had a chance to visit with Flew. He told a crowd that, as a professional philosopher, he had used all the tools of his trade to arrive at what he believed were intellectually defensible suppositions supporting atheism. But the intelligent design movement shook those presuppositions.

Anthony Flew Coverage: WizBang

Posted by Danny Carlton at August 8, 2005 07:38 AM

Trackback Pings

TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.jacklewis.net/cgi-bin/mt/jl-tb.cgi/1805

Comments

Buchanan thinks the "Big Bang" was an actual explosion? Once again, the ignorance of those criticizing an idea they know nothing about. Here's a hint: it wasn't an explosion into space, it was the fabric of spacetime expanding (which continues to this day).

As for the so-called "missing links," someone might direct him to Talk Origins for a primer. Of course, no matter what transitionals are found, the creationist will always invoke a "god of the gaps" argument. That is, "Oh yeah? Well what came between THOSE two then? Huh?"

Parker, in her support of the religious agenda of the Discovery Institute (see "wedge strategy"), would do well to propose how ID is scientific rather than simply saying so. I suppose you can repeat a lie often enough that people will believe it, and with the "ID is science" lie it doesn't seem to require many repetitions.

Of course, the same goes for Flew. He's welcome to believe whatever he likes. Without presenting some sort of evidence other than "oh, that's very complex," he shouldn't expect anyone else to follow his lead.

Once again, Danny, a fine job of posting the ignorant and the unscientific for all to see. Keep up the good work!

Posted by: andy at August 8, 2005 08:13 AM

Are you completely oblivious to the fact that your comments amply illustrate the mindlessness of a typical Evolutionists.

What do you think a "Bang" is supposed to be?

There are major gaps in the fossil record. What is usually thrown out never really come close to spanning the gaps, but the zealots of the religion of Evolution demand that such non-proof be accepted.

I'd suggest you pose how the theory of Evolution is scientific, before trying to claim ID isn't. Evolution can't be falsified, and it's based on wild conjecture. Remember, just saying it is, doesn't make it so.

As usual, reading is not your forte. Had you actually taken them time to look up what Flew says (a total of two clicks) you would have found the following:

biologists' investigation of DNA "has shown, by the almost unbelievable complexity of the arrangements which are needed to produce (life), that intelligence must have been involved," Flew says in the new video, "Has Science Discovered God?"
...as well as...
"It has become inordinately difficult even to begin to think about constructing a naturalistic theory of the evolution of that first reproducing organism," he wrote

Posted by: Danny Carlton at August 8, 2005 10:14 AM

What do you think a "Bang" is supposed to be?

It's a metaphor for what actually happened. It's not meant to imply there was an actual explosion as we understand them. To wit:

The Big Bang actually consisted of an explosion of space within itself unlike an explosion of a bomb were fragments are thrown outward.

Got it? Calling it the "Big Bang" is a means to simplify a complex idea, apparently though it is still too complex for you to grasp it.

Yes, there gaps in the fossil record, as such is the nature of fossils. However, the fossils found, along with evidence from geology, genetics, etc, all paint a picture of descent with modification.

Evolution can easily be falsified: find a fossil that appears in a completely unpredicted stratum in the geologic column (e.g. a modern human in a stratum dated 5 million years old).

And, lastly, your quotes from Flew reinforce exactly what I said. His new position is nothing more than an argument from incredulity.

Really, Danny, you're just shaming yourself here.

Posted by: andy at August 8, 2005 10:51 AM

What do you think a "Bang" is supposed to be?

It's a metaphor for what actually happened. It's not meant to imply there was an actual explosion as we understand them. To wit:

The Big Bang actually consisted of an explosion of space within itself unlike an explosion of a bomb were fragments are thrown outward.

Got it? Calling it the "Big Bang" is a means to simplify a complex idea, apparently though it is still too complex for you to grasp it.

First of all you're playing a semantics game. You've yanked a quote from who knows where, that describes the Big Bang in convoluted terms, meant to make people go, "Duh, okay" (Which you fell for). If nothing was "thrown outward" it couldn't have accomplished what it's claimed to have done.

Yes, there gaps in the fossil record, as such is the nature of fossils. However, the fossils found, along with evidence from geology, genetics, etc, all paint a picture of descent with modification.

Just like the stars/constellations "paint" a picture of people and animals, if you use your imagination enough.

Evolution can easily be falsified: find a fossil that appears in a completely unpredicted stratum in the geologic column (e.g. a modern human in a stratum dated 5 million years old).

That's been done numerous times, but Evolutionists use circular reasoning to claim that the fossil proves the strata and the strata proves the fossil. Of course that results on overthrusts that cover hundreds of square miles, a physical impossibility, but since the ultimate "fact" must always be that Evolution is true, the observable laws of physics, chemistry or any other aspect of real science, must take a back seat to the religion of Evolution.

And, lastly, your quotes from Flew reinforce exactly what I said. His new position is nothing more than an argument from incredulity.

An argument, acknowledging the inability of Evolution to stand up to its silly claims. That's not "incredulity" it's logic.

Really, Danny, you're just shaming yourself here.

Keep telling yourself that, it's the only way you can continue believing it.

Posted by: Danny Carlton at August 8, 2005 11:25 AM

If nothing was "thrown outward" it couldn't have accomplished what it's claimed to have done.

OK, stay with me here, you can't throw something outward when there is nothing into which it can be thrown. Nothing was thrown "out into space," instead space itself expanded.

If you won't even begin to appreciate the basics of what you discuss, there's little point in continuing. People who don't know better are ignorant; people who choose not to know better are idiots. Guess which you are, Dannyboy?

Posted by: andy at August 8, 2005 11:36 AM

Like I said, semantics. If it rushing outward, whether it's matter or space, it's an explosion. Ironic that you get in a tizzy about "Redefining terms" but fall back on that yourself when you don't want to actually think up a reasonable response.

Posted by: Danny Carlton at August 8, 2005 08:08 PM

At the risk of cheapining political discourse, that snippet about the Big Bang was the single dumbest thing I've ever read. It might as well have been from The Onion.

Explosions typically involve explosives, don't they?

Posted by: Foster at August 9, 2005 01:24 PM

Here is the definition of an explosion:

ex·plo·sion Audio pronunciation of "explosion" ( P ) Pronunciation Key (k-splzhn)
n.

1. A release of mechanical, chemical, or nuclear energy in a sudden and often violent manner with the generation of high temperature and usually with the release of gases.
2. A violent bursting as a result of internal pressure.
3. The loud, sharp sound made as a result of either of these actions.

Which one of these will you cram the big bang into?

Posted by: Foster at August 9, 2005 01:27 PM

You're still playing a semantics game. Evolutionists can call it a bang, and that's okay. Creationists can refer to it as an explosion, and all of the sudden their don't know what they're talking about because somehow Merriam-Webster was granted the power to precisely define the attributes of the universe (but of course, only for Creationists)

Posted by: Danny Carlton at August 9, 2005 01:55 PM

It's not a semantics game, you're just being difficult. You've proven that your knowledge of the Big Bang theory extends no farther than it's name. I don't call it a bang, I call it 'The Big Bang', which is its figurative and catchy title. That doesn't mean that there was a huge explosion, that just means some scientist wisely decided 'The Big Bang' sounds sexier than 'The large and rapid expansion of matter and space that began the outward movement of the galaxies and precipitated the forming of Solar Systems'. That isn't semantics. That's what some of us people call 'Fact'! In a way, you're judging a book by its cover and you haven't yet proven you actually know anything about the theory itself.

I'm not asking Merriam-Webster to define the universe, I'm asking it to DEFINE A WORD. Last time I checked, THAT'S WHAT A DICTIONARY IS FOR. Or is that semantics too?

Posted by: Foster at August 9, 2005 03:32 PM

Oh, and that time you criticized Andy for "Yanking a quote from who knows where"? One word, matey: google.

It comes from those DIRTY DARWINISTS at the University of Michigan: http://www.umich.edu/~gs265/bigbang.htm

Posted by: Foster at August 9, 2005 03:38 PM

Oh my god, and I forgot the simplest thing!

The Big Bang has NOTHING TO DO with evolution. It is not "The latest theory of evolutionists" as Buchanan so dismissively call it. It's more theoretical physics than biology . . . or is THAT semantics too?

Posted by: Foster at August 9, 2005 04:54 PM

Here is the explanation of where the term Big Bang comes from: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_bang (scroll down to the history section).

Here is what to look for: It was actually Hoyle who coined the name of Lemaître's theory, referring to it sarcastically as "this 'big bang' idea" during a 1949 BBC radio program, The Nature of Things, the text of which was published in 1950.

N.B. Primarily biologists study evolution; astronomers and physicists concern themselves with the Big Bang. And everybody, even ID supporters, uses the term Big Bang.

Posted by: pigilito at August 10, 2005 07:24 AM

It's not a semantics game, you're just being difficult. You've proven that your knowledge of the Big Bang theory extends no farther than it's name. I don't call it a bang, I call it 'The Big Bang', which is its figurative and catchy title. That doesn't mean that there was a huge explosion, that just means some scientist wisely decided 'The Big Bang' sounds sexier than 'The large and rapid expansion of matter and space that began the outward movement of the galaxies and precipitated the forming of Solar Systems'. That isn't semantics. That's what some of us people call 'Fact'! In a way, you're judging a book by its cover and you haven't yet proven you actually know anything about the theory itself.

Evolutionists say “bang” -- that's okay

Creationist says “explosion” -- that unacceptable and proves he doesn't know what he's talking about.

Double standard, semantics game.

Quit being obtuse.

Oh, and that time you criticized Andy for "Yanking a quote from who knows where"? One word, matey: google.

It comes from those DIRTY DARWINISTS at the University of Michigan:

">http://www.umich.edu/~gs265/bigbang.htm

I was criticizing his not sourcing the quote. It really doesn't matter where it's from, when  you offer a quote it's customary to note where it's from, otherwise it could just as well be something made up on the spot.

The Big Bang has NOTHING TO DO with evolution. It is not "The latest theory of evolutionists" as Buchanan so dismissively call it. It's more theoretical physics than biology . . . or is THAT semantics too?

While you Evolutionists like to play semantics games, the whole theory of origins that involves the Big Bang and Evolution is referred to generically as Evolution. They are all part of the same theory and the distinction you try to make is irrelevant.

Posted by: Danny Carlton at August 10, 2005 01:28 PM

"[T]he Big Bang and Evolution is referred to generically as Evolution. They are all part of the same theory and the distinction you try to make is irrelevant."

Where on earth do you get this from. Anyone with the slightest interest in either subject knows they are in no way connected.

Here is a definition for biological evolution:

Change in the genetic composition of a population during successive generations, as a result of natural selection acting on the genetic variation among individuals, and resulting in the development of new species.

Where is the connection to Big Bang or even origin of life? If you don't like my definition, please find one that matches your opinion.

Granted, this isn't the "generic" definition you argue exists, but your post is the first time I have ever heard the two used together (again, I don't get around much, perhaps to a self-selected group the terms are practically interchangable). If the terms are so often conflated that is the fault of the user, not the science behind each term.

BTW, if you want to use explosion for the big bang, that's fine with me. Would you also use the term to describe the many new life forms found in the immediate Pre-Cambrian?

Also, I think that the previous posters did make a distinction between Big Bang and evolution. You may feel the distinction is irrelevant, but it was made. You should admit as much.

Posted by: Pigilito at August 10, 2005 01:58 PM

"While you Evolutionists like to play semantics games, the whole theory of origins that involves the Big Bang and Evolution is referred to generically as Evolution. They are all part of the same theory and the distinction you try to make is irrelevant."

What?!

That's the most incorrect thing I've heard in weeks. The two are completely different, absoloutely and totally distinct theories from different sides of the scientific spectrum. They just happen to be two theories you disagree with, so in your mind they must be from the same ungodly darwinists!

Once again, I'm not so much asking you to distinguish between band and explosion as I'm asking you to make a distinction between something you percieve as literal and something that is, actually, figurative. Are you capable of making that distinction?

Posted by: Foster at August 11, 2005 09:17 AM

"[T]he Big Bang and Evolution is referred to generically as Evolution. They are all part of the same theory and the distinction you try to make is irrelevant."

Where on earth do you get this from. Anyone with the slightest interest in either subject knows they are in no way connected.

Here is a definition for biological evolution:

Change in the genetic composition of a population during successive generations, as a result of natural selection acting on the genetic variation among individuals, and resulting in the development of new species.

Where is the connection to Big Bang or even origin of life? If you don't like my definition, please find one that matches your opinion.

In some parts of the country they use the term “Coke” to refer to any carbonated soft drink. No one seems to have a cow about that.

The overall theory of materialistic origin including both the formation of the universe and life is referred to as Evolution by most people, since there really is no other term that encompasses both. When discussing an Atheistic view of origins both parts (from Big Bang onward/Primordial Ooze onward) have more or less the same problems -- wild assumption backed by wild assumption “proven” with circular reasoning. It's just easier to use one word for the whole myth.

Granted, this isn't the "generic" definition you argue exists, but your post is the first time I have ever heard the two used together (again, I don't get around much, perhaps to a self-selected group the terms are practically interchangable). If the terms are so often conflated that is the fault of the user, not the science behind each term.

It's not that the terms are “conflated” but that it's much easier to use one term for the entire theory. In the Evolution/Creation debate, the entire theory is discussed. Trying to pretend like it's two different theories doesn't make much sense, unless of course you want some pretend arsenal in a game of musical semantics.

BTW, if you want to use explosion for the big bang, that's fine with me. Would you also use the term to describe the many new life forms found in the immediate Pre-Cambrian?

The presence of numerous fossils in what Evolutionists call the Pre-Cambrian layer, I would call “drowning” since that's why they're there.

Also, I think that the previous posters did make a distinction between Big Bang and evolution. You may feel the distinction is irrelevant, but it was made. You should admit as much.

The distinction is irrelevant in the context of his argument that using it to refer to all of the Atheistic view of origins is wrong.

Posted by: Danny Carlton at August 11, 2005 04:55 PM

"While you Evolutionists like to play semantics games, the whole theory of origins that involves the Big Bang and Evolution is referred to generically as Evolution. They are all part of the same theory and the distinction you try to make is irrelevant."

What?!

That's the most incorrect thing I've heard in weeks. The two are completely different, absoloutely and totally distinct theories from different sides of the scientific spectrum. They just happen to be two theories you disagree with, so in your mind they must be from the same ungodly darwinists!

LOL, they are two halves of the same theory.

Once again, I'm not so much asking you to distinguish between band and explosion as I'm asking you to make a distinction between something you percieve as literal and something that is, actually, figurative. Are you capable of making that distinction?

You're still playing semantics games. Why is using the word “explosion” to refer to a rapid outward expansion somehow “figurative” rather than literal? That is within the definition of the word.

A release of mechanical, chemical, or nuclear energy in a sudden and often violent manner with the generation of high temperature and usually with the release of gases; A violent bursting as a result of internal pressure; The loud, sharp sound made as a result of either of these actions; A sudden, often vehement outburst: an explosion of rage; A sudden, great increase.

Other sources which refer to it as an explosion: The University of MichiganNASA (also here), Stephen Hawking on PBS, the University of British Columbia, Case-Western Reserve University, oh and interesting enough, Merriam-Webster

Posted by: Danny Carlton at August 11, 2005 05:34 PM

Post a comment




Remember Me?

(you may use HTML tags for style)

Security verification

Type the characters you see in the image above.