Why I believe God Created Life.

[starless]

Now I will prove my point and you are welcome to disprove me.

1. One 1987 estimate found that "700 scientists ... (out of a total of 480,000 U.S. earth and life scientists) ... give credence to creation-science." That is 0.15%
(Martz, Larry; McDaniel, Ann (1987). "Keeping God Out of Class (Washington and bureau reports)". Newsweek (Newsweek Inc.) CIX (26): 22–23.)

2. The scientific community considers intelligent design to be "unscientific", "pseudoscience" and "junk science".
(NSTA Pressroom
JCI - Defending science education against intelligent design: a call to action
WORLD | Junk science | Mark Bergin | Feb. 25, 2006)

3. In September 2005, 38 Nobel laureates issued a statement saying "Intelligent design is fundamentally unscientific."
(Kansas USD 383: 38 Nobel laureates - The Panda's Thumb)

4. In October 2005, a coalition representing more than 70,000 Australian scientists and science teachers issued a statement saying "intelligent design is not science"
(News list | UNSW Science)

5. In 1986, 72 US Nobel Prize winners, 17 state academies of science and 7 other scientific societies, asked the US Supreme Court in Edwards v. Aguillard, to reject a Louisiana state law requiring the teaching of creationism (which the brief described as embodying religious dogma).
(Edwards v. Aguillard: Amicus Curiae Brief of 72 Nobel Laureates)

6. The American Association for the Advancement of Science, the world's largest general scientific society with more than 130,000 members and over 262 affiliated societies and academies of science including over 10 million individuals, has made several statements and issued several press releases in support of evolution.
(IAP - IAP Statement on the Teaching of Evolution)

7. The prestigious United States National Academy of Sciences, which provides science advice to the nation, has published several books supporting evolution and criticising creationism and intelligent design.
(Science, Evolution, and Creationism)

Looking forward to your counter arguments as to why there are virtually no scientists who reject evolution.

 

[rusra02]

Where are they?

Tell me the name of a credible scientist who doesn't accept evolution? There are scientists who are deists, or even theists, but I challenge you to give me one who doesn't accept evolution.

I keep getting asked to give names of scientists who reject evolution. This is from a post in another thread, just for you Starless:

"This is a partial list, based on a 5-10 minute Google search. Strange that evolutionists can't seem to find any biologists who reject evolution.
Dr. Davey Loos -.biochemist in Belgium.
Dr. WOLF-EKKEHARD LÖNNIG
Dr. PAULA KINCHELOE
Dr. William Arion, Biochemistry, Chemistry
Dr. S.E. Aw, Biochemist
Dr. Kimberly Berrine, Microbiology & Immunology
Prof. Vladimir Betina, Microbiology, Biochemistry & Biology
Dr. Andrew Bosanquet, Biology, Microbiology
Dr. Choong-Kuk Chang, Genetic Engineering
Dr. Donald Chittick, Physical Chemist
Prof. Chung-Il Cho, Biology Education
Dr. Ken Cumming, Biologist
Dr. Chris Darnbrough, Biochemist
Dr. Douglas Dean, Biological Chemistry
Dr. David A. DeWitt
Dr. André Eggen, Geneticist
Dr. Dudley Eirich, Molecular Biologist
Prof. Carl B. Fliermans, Professor of Biology
Prof. Robert H. Franks, Associate Professor of Biology
Dr. Maciej Giertych, Geneticist
Dr. Duane Gish, Biochemist
Dr. D.B. Gower"

 

[starless]

I keep getting asked to give names of scientists who reject evolution. This is from a post in another thread, just for you Starless:

"This is a partial list, based on a 5-10 minute Google search. Strange that evolutionists can't seem to find any biologists who reject evolution.
Dr. Davey Loos -.biochemist in Belgium.
Dr. WOLF-EKKEHARD LÖNNIG
Dr. PAULA KINCHELOE
Dr. William Arion, Biochemistry, Chemistry
Dr. S.E. Aw, Biochemist
Dr. Kimberly Berrine, Microbiology & Immunology
Prof. Vladimir Betina, Microbiology, Biochemistry & Biology
Dr. Andrew Bosanquet, Biology, Microbiology
Dr. Choong-Kuk Chang, Genetic Engineering
Dr. Donald Chittick, Physical Chemist
Prof. Chung-Il Cho, Biology Education
Dr. Ken Cumming, Biologist
Dr. Chris Darnbrough, Biochemist
Dr. Douglas Dean, Biological Chemistry
Dr. David A. DeWitt
Dr. André Eggen, Geneticist
Dr. Dudley Eirich, Molecular Biologist
Prof. Carl B. Fliermans, Professor of Biology
Prof. Robert H. Franks, Associate Professor of Biology
Dr. Maciej Giertych, Geneticist
Dr. Duane Gish, Biochemist
Dr. D.B. Gower"

I will look them up, but before I do that, is this the complete list?

 

[starless]

I seem to have found a larger list of creationist scientists on the British Centre for Science Education:

BCSE : Creationist Scientists

Let me quote the website:

"If anyone should be so foolish to think that this is an impressively long list, it isn't. The National Center for Science Education's "Project Steve" shows just how unimpressively small the list is." (e.g. less than 1%)

Now, I would call less than 1% "VIRTUALLY NO ONE." How does less than 1% disprove my statement that there are "virtually no modern scientists who reject evolution?"

 

[rusra02]

I will look them up, but before I do that, is this the complete list?

Of course not. It is based, as stated, on a brief search on the Internet.

 

[rusra02]

I seem to have found a larger list of creationist scientists on the British Centre for Science Education:

BCSE : Creationist Scientists

Let me quote the website:

"If anyone should be so foolish to think that this is an impressively long list, it isn't. The National Center for Science Education's "Project Steve" shows just how unimpressively small the list is." (e.g. less than 1%)

Now, I would call less than 1% "VIRTUALLY NO ONE." How does less than 1% disprove my statement that there are "virtually no modern scientists who reject evolution?"

Are you aware that scientists merely expressing non-evolutionary ideas do so at the peril of their careers? Have you seen the documentary "Expelled - No Intelligence Allowed"? And no, I don't call hundreds of scientists and educators, and millions of others "virtually no one".

 

[metis]

Per #522, distrust any list that says the scientists listed "reject evolution". A couple of years ago at another religious website after someone posted pretty much the same thing, another person checked some on the list out only to find that the results were mostly fraudulent. What was disingenuous with the list was there there were people on it who didn't really oppose the ToE in general but who instead questioned or opposed maybe one or more specific hypotheses of the ToE.

Secondly, what also makes such a list nonsensical is the fact that there will always be some scientists who have an "agenda" whereas they simply won't accept something because of that.

Thirdly, typically most on such a list are not biologists, paleontologists, or anthropologists, so if one is out of their field, their opinions on certain matters may not carry much weight.

Fourthly, the ToE is overwhelmingly supported by scientists within their fields that relate to that, and this is pretty much universal. The only real opposition tends to come from Muslems and Christian fundamentalists and also those who simply attach concepts to the ToE that either aren't really part of it or are only hypotheses. One thing I had to do in my introductory anthropology course was to dispel some of these myths and misunderstandings, including the big misunderstanding that somehow the ToE is not compatible with the Bible. Fortunately, I had a theology background whereas I could cover this in some depth.

 

[metis]

Are you aware that scientists merely expressing non-evolutionary ideas do so at the peril of their careers? Have you seen the documentary "Expelled - No Intelligence Allowed"? And no, I don't call hundreds of scientists and educators, and millions of others "virtually no one".

That movie was widely condemned because of the many falsehoods found within, according to several sources I've run across.

 

[McBell]

Are you aware that scientists merely expressing non-evolutionary ideas do so at the peril of their careers?

Bold empty claim.

Care to support it with something other than more bold empty claims?

Have you seen the documentary "Expelled - No Intelligence Allowed"?

Have you seen where that movie was shown to be nothing more than a huge steaming pile of bull ****?

And no, I don't call hundreds of scientists and educators, and millions of others "virtually no one".

Of course you don't.
You have to grasp onto that less than 1% in order to protect your beliefs.

 

[starless]

Are you aware that scientists merely expressing non-evolutionary ideas do so at the peril of their careers? Have you seen the documentary "Expelled - No Intelligence Allowed"?

Do you realize how fierce the level of competition in academic circles is? If one scientist was able to prove Darwin's theory wrong, he would instantly be recognized as one of the brightest minds of modern science. Do you realize how prestigious would be to bust the Theory of Evolution? So no, disproving the Theory would be the best thing possible for anyone's career, not vice versa.

And no, I don't call hundreds of scientists and educators, and millions of others "virtually no one".

Well, if you look at my earlier post, 0.15% of creationist scientists (according to Martz, Larry; McDaniel, Ann (1987). "Keeping God Out of Class, Newsweek CIX (26): 22–23.) does INDEED count as virtually no one, whatever you might wish to call it.

 

[Ouroboros]

That movie was widely condemned because of the many falsehoods found within, according to several sources I've run across.

And quote mining, and not to talk about direct fraud. Some of the scientists they interview were edited heavily to make them say things they didn't say. It was basically a propaganda piece that would have put Goebbels at shame.

 

[starless]

And no, I don't call hundreds of scientists and educators, and millions of others "virtually no one".

Even if I give you that 1% of scientists reject evolution, which is clearly not the case, would you be happy?

To put this in practice: you went to see 100 doctors and 99 of them said you are healthy, however one said he needed to urgently amputate your arms. Would you still claim that many doctors suggested they cut off your arms, and would you go ahead with the amputation?

millions of others "virtually no one".

We are talking about scientist now, not anyone anywhere. There are also millions of bewildered people who have never read a book in their life and sit in doorways with tinfoil on the head. These people know nothing about evolution.

 

[metis]

And quote mining, and not to talk about direct fraud. Some of the scientists they interview were edited heavily to make them say things they didn't say. It was basically a propaganda piece that would have put Goebbels at shame.

Thanks for this as I didn't see the movie.

 

[Ouroboros]

Thanks for this as I didn't see the movie.

For instance:

In Dawkins' interview, the director focused on Stein's question to Dawkins regarding a hypothetical scenario in which intelligent design could have occurred.[60] Dawkins responded that in the case of the "highly unlikely event that some such 'Directed Panspermia' was responsible for designing life on this planet, the alien beings would themselves have to have evolved, if not by Darwinian selection, by some equivalent 'crane' (to quote Dan Dennett)." He later described this as being similar to Francis Crick and Leslie Orgel's "semi tongue-in-cheek" example.[60][61]
The editing of the interview with Dawkins leads the viewer to believe that Richard Dawkins is saying that some intelligent designer (God) may be discovered when the evidence of cellular and molecular biology is examined. Dawkins is midway through a hypothetical statement, making the greater point that a designer would himself have to be designed (and this is highly unlikely), when Mr Stein's voiceover interrupts, asking, "Wait a second, Richard Dawkins is admitting that Intelligent design might be a legitimate pursuit?". Dawkins then delivers the final words "That designer may well be a higher intelligence from elsewhere in the universe, but then that higher intelligence would itself had to of come about by some explicable, or ultimately explicable, process. He couldn't have just spontaneously jumped into existence, that's the point."

(Wiki)

They also guided the interview and edited Shermer's interview, and heavily misquoted Darwin. Obvious errors that shows a strong intent to mislead people.

 

[metis]

For instance:
(Wiki)

They also guided the interview and edited Shermer's interview, and heavily misquoted Darwin. Obvious errors that shows a strong intent to mislead people.

Thanks again.

My students often brought me some of the anti-evolutionary materials, ranging from tracts to books, and it constantly amazed me how people wrote and compiled these, and I have to believe most of them knew they were lying. Many were so obviously distorted that a freshman in biology would probably spot it in a nano-second. And since these were "religious" sources, it begged the question how they can tell lie after lie in the name of "God".

BTW, in the beginning of the course the students would bring them in, obviously wanting to see how I would react, so I'd take a few minutes and explain why what they presented me was either an out-and-out lie or just misleading. After a while, they would bring them in with a bit of a smile on their face because they began to see the fallacies without any prompting from me.

 

[rusra02]

That movie was widely condemned because of the many falsehoods found within, according to several sources I've run across.

I think it was widely attacked because it exposed the bullying tactics used against those who dare challenge the evolution orthodoxy. Notice a pattern here?

 

[rusra02]

Do you realize how fierce the level of competition in academic circles is? If one scientist was able to prove Darwin's theory wrong, he would instantly be recognized as one of the brightest minds of modern science. Do you realize how prestigious would be to bust the Theory of Evolution? So no, disproving the Theory would be the best thing possible for anyone's career, not vice versa.



Well, if you look at my earlier post, 0.15% of creationist scientists (according to Martz, Larry; McDaniel, Ann (1987). "Keeping God Out of Class, Newsweek CIX (26): 22–23.) does INDEED count as virtually no one, whatever you might wish to call it.

On the one hand, you claim a tiny percentage of scientists dare challenge evolution. On the other, you claim those who scientifically disprove the ToE would enjoy prestige and success. And you believe the great majority of evolutionists will welcome the truth that they were all wrong, dreadfully wrong? The experiences of the brave scientists who challenge the status quo show otherwise. I fear it is the same for scientific truth as Jesus said it is regarding truth about God: "men have loved the darkness rather than the light." (John 3:19)

 

[rusra02]

Thanks for this as I didn't see the movie.

I am disappointed at how readily evolutionists accept any statement made against anti-evolution sources, without checking the facts for themselves. But not shocked or even surprised.

 

[AndromedaRXJ]

On the one hand, you claim a tiny percentage of scientists dare challenge evolution. On the other, you claim those who scientifically disprove the ToE would enjoy prestige and success. And you believe the great majority of evolutionists will welcome the truth that they were all wrong, dreadfully wrong? The experiences of the brave scientists who challenge the status quo show otherwise. I fear it is the same for scientific truth as Jesus said it is regarding truth about God: "men have loved the darkness rather than the light." (John 3:19)

That's because no one has truly challenged ToE.

To disprove Evolution, one would need to find an alternative that explains all of the phenomenon Evolution currently explains. No one has provided an alternative and testable reason why the fossil record shows such seemless sequential change. No one has provided an alternative for ERV markers in the genome. No one has provided an alternative for homologous anatomical structures across the animal kingdom. No one has provided an alternative of embryological development always developing the more primitive and less unique features first. Find a scientist that can do THIS, and you'll be on to something. This would be the scientist that would be on his/her way of enjoying prestige and success. Other then that, Evolution is the most consistent theory for the above phenomenon.

And all of these lines of evidence model into the same general cladogram. Forming a cladogram illustrating relationships of a collection of given animals based on, for instance, ERV markers will get the same cladogram as a cladogram based on fossils or homology or embryological development.

When you have different and independent lines of evidence coming to the same conclusion is when you know a particular theory is very strong and consistent. The only people who have challenged Evolution are people who do so on a basis of misunderstanding; i.e. "dogs have never turned into bananas", or are just being plain dishonest.

 

[starless]

And you believe the great majority of evolutionists will welcome the truth that they were all wrong, dreadfully wrong? The experiences of the brave scientists who challenge the status quo show otherwise.

What you are saying is not true at all. What brave scientists have been denied their chance to challenge existing theories? Challenge requires evidence, working scientific models and predictions. You cannot refute a theory simply by quoting scripture.

There was one brave scientist who successfully challenged the most solid theory in the history of science: the Theory of Gravity. His name was Albert Einstein.

Do you know why Albert Einstein is considered one of the greatest scientists and minds of our time? Because he challenged Newtonian physics, and came up with his General Relativity Theory, which has been tested, corroborated, demonstrated time over time and accepted by scientists, superseding Newton's Theory of Gravity.

If the same could happen with the Theory of Evolution, I can assure you the scientific community would gladly abandon evolution for a more complete theory.