Some other Essays and Blogs Concerning Evolution

October 24, 2007 in Darwin, John West, Philip Johnson, creation, morality
Tags: , , , , , , , , ,

Friends,

Here’s some helpful stuff concerning evolution:

First, Intelligent Design is Not Creationism. (Blog entry by Robert Crowther.) I think this is significant. Said Philip Johnson, “Ralph, in my writings and public appearances I can’t even mention God much less Satan. I have a very specific battle to fight, namely, to take apart the logic of unaided evolution. That is all I am trying to do.” (See Ralph Winter: The Religion of Science: The Largest Remaining Frontier) Crowther & Johnson are right. ID is not about Biblical Creation. There may be ID’ers who happen to believe in Creation and use ID to argue against evolution, but ID should not be confused with a specific belief in the specific verses of the Bible found in Genesis and elsewhere.

Second, Casey Luskin has a series of blog entries concerning the so-called 1% difference in genetic material between chimps and humans. He is writing concerning Jon Cohen’s work and a recent Scienceessay (I’m not commenting on the Science essay since I don’t have full access to it. I’m merely referencing Luskin’s blog and pointing to it.) Follow these links: 1 % Difference Myth, Exchange with Cohen, pt 1, Exchange with Cohen, pt 2. Luskin also printed the letter he received from Cohen in the first part. For more information on this debate see Scientific American.

Third, even though this is ‘old news’ by now, I couldn’t leave out a reference to our good friend Dr Watson, and Dr Watson, and Dr Watson. I could probably put a hundred more links to this honest Darwinist, but why bother. It’s funny how every time a Darwinist is honest about the logical conclusions of Darwinism, the rest of the gang hurries to silence him or her. I at least appreciate honesty. Or read this or this or this.

Fourth, here is a brilliant blog entry by Bruce Chapman on the fears of Darwinists: Science Controversies and Public Burnings. He writes:

We all have to get over the childish assumption that scientists are superior beings immune from human pride and ambition, not to mention human guile and bile. Here’s a question though, do these negative qualities derive from evolutionary adaptation—and therefore must be excused—or from a human nature anchored to the very existence of man’s soul, and therefore must be confronted?

Brilliant point. You mean the very thing the Darwinists accuse Christians of is the very thing that they themselves are susceptible to?

Fifth, what about traditional morality? I’ve had Darwinists here tell me that one can be perfectly moral and believe in Darwinian evolution. True? Dr John West argues against this idea. I’ll even give Dr West a plug for his book Darwin’s Conservatives. (The first link will lead you to a page where you can listen to a podcast of Dr West’s ideas.)

OK. I think that is plenty for now. Some of this is for you to consider, some of it is for me to check on later when I have some more time. For now, have fun. Remember, the challenge of ideas is what spurs us on to better ideas. Here we are debating thoughts and ideas. I think you’ll have fun with these pages even if you don’t agree with all the ideas presented.

jerry

5 Replies

  1. Jon

    October 24, 2007 at 11:44 pm

    Intelligent Design is Not Creationism

    Semantics. Both make supernatural claims, and thus are not science.

    It’s funny how every time a Darwinist is honest about the logical conclusions of Darwinism, the rest of the gang hurries to silence him or her.

    The logical conclusion of evolutionary theory is that blacks are less intelligent than Europeans?

    You’ll be surprised to find out, then, that a black American and a white American can be more genetically similar than a black American and a black African. Or that a white European and a black African can be more genetically similar than two black Africans. Or that genetic variety within ethnic and racial groups is greater than genetic variety between ethnic and racial groups.

    Which is to say, too bad, wrong again, Jerry. Skin color has nothing to do with intelligence, and we can show it genetically.

    I at least appreciate honesty.

    Let me fix that for you:

    I appreciate honesty only when it satisfies my world view

    Funny how you call anything which contradicts Christianity or your political beliefs a lie, while anything that supports your preconceptions is true! What a coincidence! *Cough*

    Brilliant point.

    Brilliant point? That was the most idiotic thing you posted. Just because something is natural doesn’t excuse it. Death is natural; does that mean everyone is okay with dying, or that killing is okay?

    And since when do scientists claim not to be ambitious or prideful? That’s laughable. Scientists don’t claim to be morally superior to anyone; I mean, your mention of Dr. Watson in this very post refutes that. All secular scientists claim is that they have a better method of discerning truth than religion. And their track record proves them right.

    I’ve had Darwinists here tell me that one can be perfectly moral and believe in Darwinian evolution. True? Dr John West argues against this idea.

    Written by a DI shill, for DI shills. Why don’t Intelligent Design people ever try and convince anyone? Here, I’ll imitate the logical rigor that “Doctor” John West uses:

    “The theory of gravity is corrosive to free will. It says, ‘No, you CANNOT fly if you want to! You must be subjugated to the Earth for your whole life!’ This mere theory is a threat to Western civilization.”

    Cogent.

    Remember, the challenge of ideas is what spurs us on to better ideas.

    That is true. Irrelevant to your post, though, since everything you’ve referenced has been repeated ad infinitum for the last 15 years by Intelligent Design advocates. It wasn’t challenging back then, and it still isn’t challenging.

  2. dangoldfinch

    October 25, 2007 at 8:20 am

    Friends,

    Jon has illustrated and made every point of mine perfectly clear. Jon here demonstrates his unwillingness to discuss ideas that do not fit in with his preconceived world-view–instead he resorts to small minded ridicule of things he doesn’t understand. Jon has such a small, narrow view of life that he has no room for those who disagree and he will not intellectually engage those who do. Instead, he resorts to big words like: Cogent, *cough*, irrelevant, shill, and idiotic. But that’s OK. I don’t expect much thinking from people whose brains haven’t fully evolved just yet; I expect the sort of conformity demonstrated perfectly by Jon.

    I appreciate what Jon has to say because as long as there are people in the world who believe the way he does then I will have a job. And I will not stop pointing out that Jesus Christ rules this world and not scientists, scientism, Darwin, Darwinists, Darwinism, Materialism, atheism, Buddha, Muhammed, or, thank God, Jon. So I can keep pointing out that, and Jon can deny it all he wants, someday he will be held accountable for every single word that he utters (as will all of us). “It is appointed for everyone to die once, and after that to face judgment.”

    I wish Jon would simply acknowledge that Jesus Christ died for his sins, repent, be baptized in the Name of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit, and rejoice in the gladness of grace and salvation. I will keep praying for this stubborn bugger that God will indeed have mercy on his soul.

    jerry

    PS–Creation has been around for much longer than 15 years. In fact, it has been around since the beginning. It is evolution that has been ‘referenced…ad infinitum…by Darwinism advocates’ for a mere, what, 200 years? It wasn’t true then, and it isn’t true now.

  3. Jon

    October 25, 2007 at 5:30 pm

    Jon has illustrated and made every point of mine perfectly clear. Jon here demonstrates his unwillingness to discuss ideas that do not fit in with his preconceived world-view

    Um, I did discuss the ideas. I even quoted some of them. You, on the other hand, didn’t respond to a single one of my arguments, instead opting to regurgitate straw men, red herrings, and those loving Christian epithets you’re so fond of.

    …be baptized…

    I was baptized. And confirmed, too.

    PS–Creation has been around for much longer than 15 years.

    I said Intelligent Design has been around for 15 years. I guess they’re the same thing after all, despite what your original post said?

  4. dangoldfinch

    October 26, 2007 at 8:26 am

    “I said ID…15 years…”

    I know. That was my point. Creation was around before ID. Creation doesn’t need ID to defend its point of view or its validity. That was precisely my point. NO, they are not the same. ID does not require a particularly and necessarily Christian point of view, Creation (while also espoused by Muslims and Jews to some extent) does. Christian theology begins at creation and with a Creator. ID does not.

    jerry

  1. 1 Creationism/Evolution links of various types « Spartan Fellowship Pingback on Oct 31st, 2007 at 10:11 pm

    [...] 1, 2007 at 2:11 am · Filed under Creationism, Science This post has a number of links on different aspects of the Creationism versus Evolution debate. If you are willing to take the [...]


« I wonder If…: Thoughts on the Creation ‘Debate’
One Can Only Imagine »