One third of teachers support creationism in schools

As a teacher in the U.S., I too agree that creationism should be taught or at least spoken about. If we are told that we must teach Darwin's theory, Big Bang, evolution, etc. It is only fair but to talk about other views, too.
Sarcastically speaking, Thanks to the sake of the " Being politically correct" and " We must respect everyone's views", is the reason that we can't bring issues such creationism into the classrooms.

This is a very sensitive issue, but like any other it can be spoken about with respect. If I were a student, I would want to be informed. That I make my own choice at the end is just that "MY CHOICE"! I think we all are smart enough to think things through and think for ourselves.

Finally, as Christians, we share what we have come to believe as truth. We don't force any believes on anyone. We know that everyone has the freedom to choose whatever they want. Unfortunately, some have given us a bad name.

In fact the figures are even more startling;-

according to press assocation 90% of teachers in the survey take Reiss's position that ID/creationism should be debated in science classes.


The lower of figure of 29% relates to the Uk teachers who think that ID/creationism should be given equal status to evolution in science classes.

I dont know about anyone else, but I found those figures quite surprising!






FROM GOOGLE/PRESS ASSOCATION;-

A third of teachers believe creationism should be given the same status as evolution in the classroom, a survey suggested.

A Teachers TV poll of 1,200 teachers found that almost a third (30%) already consider creationism or intelligent design, to some extent, during science lessons.

And almost nine out of ten teachers take the view that they should be allowed to discuss the subject in science if pupils raise the question.....

I would just like to clarify my position in case I might be represented (that would never happen, would it?)

I really dont see how creationism/ID can be presented as "science" at the current time due to its supernatural elements and the approach of current philsophy of science to this.

However I do think it would only be fair to students to present thecreationist/ID ideas in the context of the historical development of science, where belief in a creator/creationism/ID and the supernatural have been bedrock inspirations for modern science;-

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/science/religion-vs-science-can-the-divide-between-god-and-rationality-be-reconciled-955321.html

The real survey is:

"Do you believe that creationism is science and therefore should be part of the science curriculum?"

I think many people can agree that the creation story in Genesis, for example, should be taught in school: in R.E., for example, and even maybe in science class per Reiss. But it ain't because they think it's science and equal to the theory of evolution.

I wouldn't mind creationism / ID being debated in school as long as every other creation myth is given the same amount of time but that isn't going to happen.
So if ID wants to get on the science curriculum it has to earn its place. Why should ID bypass the process that every other scientific theory has to go through before making it in to our text books?

I don't think ID can be taught as part of the Science curriculum as it is very difficult to discern exactly what ID is.
Dembski's explanatory filter? I don't think that the filter is the only, or the best, way to discern design.
Ideas like Irreducible Complexity or Specified Complexity don't seem essential to ID - for example, a Bayesian or a Likelihood approach could be used to detect design. But then how would ID differ from Design arguments? Especially as Dembski is not skeptical about Common Ancestry, and he has also stated that ID need not include miraculous intervention.
When similar arguments are put forward by Keith Ward or Simon Conway Morris, both of whom believe that it is rational to infer design from Biological Entities, they do not want to identify these arguments as ID. They simply don't believe these inferences are Scientific.
And when John Haldane and Anthony Kenny discuss Irreducible Complexity etc., they do so as part of their discussion of the Design Argument. That is, they see these arguments as Philosophical and not Scientific.
Likewise the agnostic Elliott Sober discusses ID as a Design Argument, not a Scientific Hypothesis.

Perhaps if Science teachers had to spend some time learning and teaching the history and philosophy of science, this deabte would not be necessary.

GV

Try getting New Labour to pay for those courses.
I mean, much better spending the time and resources on Local and Global Citizenship, or Personal and Social Hygiene.

GV

Yes, what we need is less Science and English, more social engineering.

Hi John Wright

Hope you're well...

You suggest that the real survey is

"Do you believe that creationism is science and therefore should be part of the science curriculum".


In fact it appears you have not read the survey results closely enough because that the 29 per cent of respondants do believe it is science - or should be.


90 per cent of respondants feel ID/creationism should be discussed in science classes.


It is probably an appropriate time to flag up the anomoly that in this debate, many people conflate "science", "secular humanism" and "truth".


Just because ID does not fit into the current parameters of science at this time does not for a second mean it is not true. This was affirmed by the judge at Dover.

That would be effectively asserting that the supernatural does not exist and that this assertion is an absolute truth.

As you, John are on record here as believing in an almighty supernatural being, I would hope you would spot the subtlety of the point. Otherwise what scientist evidence do you give for your belief in God?

I also have to question Graham's assertion that science teachers should learn and teach the history of science, thereby implying that there is no connection between ID and science.

In fact the history of science shows very clearly that the scientific revolution on which modern science now stands was formed on the basis of a creationist Christian, biblical worldview.

i think you are way off the mark here GV, perhaps.

I agree that ID/creationism would not fit into modern science at present but why is there such a paranoia about ID being addressed in science classes?

Obviously pupils and teachers want to discuss it to a very large extent.


IMHO opinion GV, the very discipline of understanding the history of science underlines the creationist foundation of modern science and also the temporary nature of what is understood to be true science in any given era.

Seems you missed that completely... or not?


OT



OT

OT

Nice to debate a Christian for a change.

A question and a clarification.

Q: What do you mean by "creationist"? Is a literalistic reading of Genesis 1 implied? Or merely Christian Theism?

C: I have no difficulty in discussing ID etc. in Science, or any, class. I do not think it should be on the curriculum and I do not think it should be described as a Scientific theory. Otherwise, give teachers enough credit to discuss maturely.

GV

OT- Hi. I'm not sure what point you're making exactly. Yes, I believe in a deity, but the minute that belief is contradicted by science I need to revise it. It seems to me that ID attempts to challenge evolutionary science without any basis for doing so and is not a competitive theory in any sense. Why would it be addressed in science class when it isn't science? It makes no peer-reviewed, falsifiable predictions, it doesn't constitute a theory at all and it isn't science. I have no objections to ID being mentioned, per se, but no credible scientist is going to teach that there's anything scientific about the belief that a creator designed everything. It's rather a religious belief, and belongs in R.E. Don't you agree?

Hi Guys

thanks for response

not sure either of you got my points, but maybe my fault.



Graham

By creationist I understand a broadly literal reading of Genesis.

My main point to you was that I felt you were being grossly unfair to teachers who felt creationism/ID has scientific credibility.

When you suggest they go and read the history/philosophy of science, you imply they are badly informed.

In fact the modern strictly secular approach to creationism/ID in science is just that - ie very modern.

The giants of the scientific revolution were creationists and this formed an integral part of their worldview. More crucially the integrity of their overall worldview directly inspired the scientific revolution.

They held that science was the study of the uniformity of natural causes in an open system/supernatural world.

The current perception of what science is could often be defined as the study of the uniformity of natural causes in a world where the supernatural most definitely does not exist.

Can you see the difference? Your condescension to the giants of science history (and modern creationists in the science classroom) therefore appears to be misplaced IMHO.

You also seem to assume that your current perception of what is science (or acceptable to science but outside science) is as it always was.

In fact the continouos process of radical theory change in science poses serious questions of this perception.

Having said all that, I still dont believe that creationism/ID can be taught as science in a science classroom at present, primarily because of its supernatural causation.



John

Just a reminder, you did know this, but I Previously Bantered you with a different pen name :-)

I think you missed my point; the 29 % of teachers cited in the survey ALREADY DO think creationism/ID is valid science.

They were NOT arguing that it should be simply debated in science classroom as non-science.

In fact 90 % of the teachers in the survey took that position ie that ID should be discussed in science class when raised by pupils.

You appear to have misread the findings of the survey.

That was my key point.

I know this is old ground but just a reminder;-

Some form of creationism/ID can arguably make the following testable predictions IMHO;-

1) The only evidence for animals should be overwhelmingly in distinct kinds of species which roughly correlate to those recognised in Genesis.

2) Human civilisation should have begun around the Euphrates (Eden) and spread out from there;

3) For the young earth variety of belief, it should predict that the history of homo sapien existence and civilisation should be only thousands of years of age.
( I am not convinced by geological arguments for a young earth BTW)


Im curious, how is your belief in a supernatural deity NOT contradicted by science?

Would I be right in saying that you accept that a creator designed everything through theistic evolution, but just that God doesnt stack up as formal science?

cheers all

OT

ps Point 1 above should refer to all life ie including plant life, not just animals of whatever sort...

OT- Ah... I know who you are and I'm glad you're still kicking around these parts. I was beginning to miss you!

Okay: the teachers who believe ID is science. Well that's an interesting and surprising statistic, if it's true. Needless to say teachers don't get to decide what is and is not science, however, scientists do that! And most scientists agree (the vast majority to the exclusion of a statistically insignificant minority) that it just isn't science.

Let's say we grant you not only the validity of the three predictions of ID you cited, but we also grant you that they accurately predict ID not evolution. Then ID still has to deal with the mountain of predictions made and found correct by evolution: including all the genetic evidence found in recent months and years and of course the predictions of cosmologists and geologists in response to the last of your three. It hasn't done this effectively (and in many cases at all), which means evolution is still the better theory - even if I'm prepared to grant you what most scientists won't!


"Would I be right in saying that you accept that a creator designed everything through theistic evolution, but just that God doesnt stack up as formal science?"

That's basically right: I think a deity is intricately involved with the fabric of the universe and what lies beyond, but I can't back that up with any evidence so I don't try to.

Welcome back! (Or did you ever leave?)

OT
1) I didn't say that a Designer was an unscientific concept. I said the ID community has not produced a cohetent accounts; and those accounts it has produced do not differ sufficiently from philosophical arguments to count as science.

2) Do Creationist scientists take philosophy and history of science more seriously than their counterparts? I can't see why anyone should believe that. In any case, whilst Einstein, Bohr etc. had to study philosophy of science as part of their degree, and were able to make significant contributions to that field, it is no longer compulsory, and no longer popular. This is mainly due to specialisation in academia.

3) What history of science are you reading? You are ignoring the importance of Pythagorean thought, Democritus and Lucretius, and Hermeticism.
Christian Theism certainly provided a coherent framework that allowed these ideas to play out. It also allowed an epistemology important (maybe essential) to the develoment of science. But it also provided a framework for the anti-realism of Bellarmine and the other Scholastics. The birth of science does not logically follow given Christianity.

4) Protestant thought made a contribution, granted. But correlation does not prove causality. Certainly the early members of the Royal Society would have been Young Earth Creationists. They were probably also sexist. I doubt they were all liberal democrats.
Does that mean that sexism and anti-democratic ideas are essential to the birth of science?
What you need is an argument that shows that a traditional, orthodox reading of the Bible was essential to the birth of science. And I'm afraid on that point Francis Bacon proves you wrong, as indeed does Newton. Both were quite heretical.
Furthermore Calvin never had to face serious evidence for the earth's antiquity. However he refused to allow Genesis to be used to show that the moon generated it's own light, rather than reflecting the suns. I believe that they were both viable views in his day - but he would not let scripture decide the matter, even though Genesis describes the Moon as a light, analogous to the Sun and the Stars.

5) There's some more detail in the posts above. I think you have some valid points about the origins of science, but you are overstating your case so far as I can tell.

Ease up on the Bahnsen. Presuppositionalists are always overstaing their case.


GVeale

OT
Reading your post to John - the case for God's existence does not need to be scientific to be rationally compelling. Which I know you believe. What exactly is your worry here? Why do we need God in Science class?

GV

Hi John

I assure you that the statistics are correct - 29 % of teachers in the survey held that id/creationism should be held on an equal footing to evolution in the science classroom.


Regarding the first two of my predictions, let's not allow mission drift here.

You questioned whether creationism could have any testable predictions and I have give you two major ones that can't really be contested.

On the third one, I have had long discussions with a senior university geologist lately and although he is not a creationist (very sceptical of it in fact) he strongly agrees with me that the old earthers doth protest far too much.

In other words, they very strenously overtstate the certainty of their case on the basis of the evidence they have.

So I have given you three testable predictions that are credible.

Regarding the testable predicitions of evolution, as we have discssued before, it is my understanding that in fact neither creationism nor evolution can be replicated and therefore substantiated by the scientific method.


Didnt we ever wrap this up John, but even Karl Popper held that evolution was not a scientific theory for this very reason. Popper said evolution was tautological in scientific terms, even though he believed it himself.

In other words, Popper said the scientific justification for evolution was a circular argument and could not be proven.

He was right. All the predictions you mention fall into Popper's critique.


Graham

1) My comments about Popper above seem to bounce your criticism of ID back into evolution in equal force.

2) Never suggested creationists take history of science more seriously. My point is that it supports their view whether they know it or not.

3) Not ignoring pre-Christian science but modern is science is very strongly based on the scientific revolution; names you mention lesser lights in terms of foundations for modern science IMHO. I am not degarding their contribution, it is just that I understand that the major foundations for modern science were built properly in the scientific revolution of 17th century.

This point was made very strongly in Dover trial.


You suggest the Christian worldview may have been "essential" to modern science.

Are you disagreeing with me or admitting your error?

Oppenheimer made exactly this same point ie that modern science would not have happened without Christian faith.

Bacon came up with the foundation for the scientific method, for example.

As I understand it the concept of creator was key to modern science. The scientists of the 17th century (natural philsophers) had no dividing line between their science and their faith, nor did those before them.

Their belief in a creator inspired them to believe that there was design and order in creation that could and should be explored in a methodical fashion as an act of worship. Kepler made exactly this point.

I am not saying a particular rigid form of creationism or a rigid systemic theology that is defined down to the last letter caused modern science.

But I am saying that a broadly creationist pre-evolutionist worldview was most certainly a/the key driver.

Therefore criticisms of other "heresies" of Newton et al are red herrings.

Ironically, I suggest that citing pre-Christian natural philsopher supports my argument more than yours.

They had no strict dividing line between their faith and their science.

This is exactly my point; such a dividing line is a very very very recent idea in science. the indpendent article William linked to here recently suggested this is only around 100 years old. I think that point could/should be made clear in science classes.

I dont believe we understand the full meaning of every word and verse in genesis by the way.

Presuppostionalists are always overstating their case? Then you didnt overstate your case because you didnt bring any (now perhaps most likely incorrect??) presuppostions to this discussion???

;-)


Have reviewed my ideas on this discussion. Not an expert on science education but to me there seem to be three main positions.

1) ID is science and should be taught as such.

2) ID is not science and should not be mentioned in science classrooms. (of course we forget Popper said evolution was not a scientific theory either!)

3) ID does not qualify as science under 21st century definition of such; but bearing in mind the obviously massive interest in the matter from pupils, there is a huge opportunity to use this interest to teach children key issues that I think we might mainly agree on;-

-history of science
-philsophy of science
-politics and sociology of science
-continual radical theory change of science

This could take childrens curiosity in these subjects and teach them critical thinking for themselves. I guess this was Reiss' argument.


Why do we need God in the science class Graham?

Is there any field of human existence that is truly secular Graham, apart from sin?

Why do you *appear* to be so keen to aribrush God and the supernatural out of the central part it plays in the history of science???

I hope there are no fear of ridicule or popularity/success issues here?

interesting chat guys, thanks

OT

Hello Orthodox-tradition,

You seem to be focusing a lot on the past when it comes to the development of science. Not very helpful when it comes to what should be taught in science classes nowadays. Let me explain.

In science it frequently happens that an idea forms, that scientists make some predictions from that idea, test them, only to find out that they've killed their own idea. This goes for much of christianity too. While today most science belongs to non-believers, as I've pointed out to you before (I know that data pains you, but please note Grahams strong criticism of your complaining tactics to get it removed, a fellow christian doesn't think very highly of your censoring mode), there were in the past of course more believers who contributed to the advances of science. But the advances in science showed plenty of those christian beliefs to be rubbish. God has now been driven entirely from the physical world, as not a single shred of credible evidence is available. That didn't happen overnight . In the transition from using god to try to explain almost everything -> findings a few answers through science -> finding many more answers, making god obsolete, you would of course find believing scientists in what could be seen as a transition period. But while most scientists believed in the distant past and a small percentage still do today, that doesn't mean that christianity has any relevance left in science today. We learned, over a long period of time we came to see the error of mixing christian beliefs with science, time to dump christianity from the world of science entirely. As has already happened, for the most of it. Time for believers to accept that.

So I would advise you to try not to be so much stuck in the past, and cling to a position that is an intellectual lost cause. Quoting Heisenberg over and over again doesn't make it viable again.

Peter

Oh and you were quite some way of when it comes to creationism/ID and predictions. ID did make a few testable statements, but they were very convincingly shown to be wrong. Like irreducible complexity. Or Dembski's math that was so far off. Creationism, especially the young earth variety, has a list of wrong claims to its name to long for the blog server to handle. So it's not as if no testable predictions ca be formed from creatinism or ID. It's that no testable predictions can be formed from it that turn out to be correct.

And you say you've had a discussion with 'a senior university geologist'. Burrgh. As a scientific argument that is about as credible as Grahams 'My friend has a math PhD, you know!'.

Finally, you refer to the Dover ruling. If that is now an accepted source, then it's good to remember how that ruling stated that ID is creationism with science jargon and that the world of creationists is full of perjurers and other flavours of dishonesty. Not something to introduce into a science class room really.

Hi Pete (nice to chat again) and indeed Graham and John

Pete, Im a bit rusty of some of this, so keep me right.

But it did of course strike me over the weekend that if ID is coming under scrutiny as to its scientific credentials, we cant let that go without remembering that Karl Popper was adamant that species to species evolution did not qualify as a scientific theory either, because it cannot be falsified either. As i recall, when you boild it down he was quite right.
Instead of a theory, he said it was a "discipline with scientific character" if I remember correctly.


Peter said: In science it frequently happens that an idea forms, that scientists make some predictions from that idea, test them, only to find out that they've killed their own idea. This goes for much of christianity too.

-Popper pointed out that the emperor had no clothes, ie that s-2-s evolution cannot be falsified and therefore does not qualify as science. I think you previously classed this as demanding an "impossible" standard of evidence of evolution. But this is double standards. Either species to species evolution clearly qualifies as a valid scientific theory or it doesn't. This also throws into sharp contrast the double standards as to who sets which standards for actually qualifies as science with regards to origins of man and the universe. Why should non-scientific theories such as evolution be presented in science classes as though they were science?

PK said: God has now been driven entirely from the physical world, as not a single shred of credible evidence is available.

-That is a humanist giving his religious opinion, not a scientist giving evidence based conclusions.

PK said: Oh and you were quite some way of when it comes to creationism/ID and predictions.

- Oh? I have not seen anybody yet dismantle predictions one and two above. If you can I will learn something. Prediction three is debatable certainly, we are debating it...


PK said: And you say you've had a discussion with 'a senior university geologist'. Burrgh. As a scientific argument that is about as credible as Grahams 'My friend has a math PhD, you know!'.

- Not at all. My academic friend was simply agreeing with me that any reaction against young earthers that asserts the "absolute truth" of old earth estimates is going way beyond what the evidence justifies. In other words, read any paper about earth/human chronology and you will see it hedged about with many very carefully worded qualifications .

PK: Finally, you refer to the Dover ruling. If that is now an accepted source, then it's good to remember how that ruling stated that ID is creationism with science jargon and that the world of creationists is full of perjurers and other flavours of dishonesty. Not something to introduce into a science class room really.

- Of course there is no obligation on me whatsoever to defend every knave that takes on the name of religion (or science), no more than you would defend every knave that is a professional scientist (or religious). I simply pointed out that the trial judge at Dover affirmed that ID may well be true but just that he did not see that it could qualify as science because of its supernatural causation.

Doubtless that sticks in the craw of any atheist trying to use science to promote their agenda. But the judge was factually correct.


Kepler said: "Science is thinking God's thoughts after him".

This in my mind sums up the inspiration, motivation and most importantly, vision, which gave us the scientific revolution.

You could argue that it could have all been achieved with a theistic evolutionary worldview and you may well be right.

But the fact of the matter is that it wasn't, it was creationist. Therefore, I come back to my initial response to Graham.

To condescend to anyone who suggests that creationism / ID has no scientific credibility whatsoever in history or philsophy of science is simply wrong.

To say this has nothing to do with contemporary science is a different matter Pete. Strictly speaking you have a point.

But only because of the cultural conditioning of the enlightenment, which insisted on removing a creator God as a given; this was not a scientific assertion but a philosophical one, as you know.

To assert that there is place for discussing God's role in science classrooms is a denial of the history of science of Kepler and the 17th century science revolution.

The tone in which it is done asserts that the secular nature of the science class has always been and always will be static. This is historically inaccurate and naive regarding the future.


OT

Orthodox-tradition, you disappoint me. Despite my urging that you get out of the past, your post again consisted much of quoting men long dead. Do you have nothing to add about the present on all the issues where the names of Popper or Kepler substitute for scientific argument?

On the few issues about the presents state you addressed you were unfortunately wrong. It's not the opinion of a humanist that there is zero physical evidence for god. In fact, Dylan Dog has asked you time and time again (like the wait for your reading of transitional fossil papers, it's set to become an annual celebratory event) for positive evidence. Care to present some?

I note you do not refute that the central ID predictions about irreducible complexity have proven wrong. That at least is something we agree on then.

You wrote

"read any paper about earth/human chronology and you will see it hedged about with many very carefully worded qualifications ."

Not at all. See the many referenced journal papers in the article about the radiometric dating that has been pointed out to you so often, and that you have failed to refute in any way every time:

https://www.asa3.org/aSA/resources/Wiens.html

So the only valid point in your posts seems to be the lines where you agree that the past development of science is no basis for allowing god in the science class room today. But agreeing to that, you've undone so much of your own post. Maybe you could redo it based on up-to-date scientific knowledge. Like: present the positive scientific evidence for god, if you want god discussed in the science class room (as Dylan Dog has asked sooooh many times). Give your views on why predictions from IDs central theorem of irreducible complexity should not be viewed as disproven hypotheses. Etc.

On a separate note, would you like to give your explanation to Graham, myself and others as to why you keep hitting the complaint button when you can't refute posts that are uncomfortable to your fundamentalist views? Grahams disapproval for that is noted on another thread, posts 175, 176, 178:

https://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/ni/2008/10/science_and_belief_duel_or_due.html

Any answers to a fellow christian who thinks rather scathing of your tactics?

greets,
Peter

PK
In fairness to Dr Glass, he has rather more than a Maths PhD to his credit, and he has publications in the philosophical foundations of Quantum Mechanics. (I only mention his name as one or two bloggers probably know who I'm talking about, but I didn't ask his permission. So don't tell).
And I wasn't making an argument of any kind at all. Your critcisms were a *bit * OTT - given that I was quoting Khalili directly. And then had my post checked. By an expert (assuming that peer reviewed journal articles make you an expert). And then gave you the context of the quote. And the only reason I gave long quotations, and didn't use my own words, is that I didn't want to be accused of technical errors.
And you're still going on about it. Can we just say that if I made a mistake, it's a mistake that two PhD's who work in Quantum Physics also made?
Sheesh, even Brian isn't this unrelenting.

GV

PK
To be clear - all I wanted the quotes and Dr Glass to establish is that I was being careful when I posted.
Actually, in retrospect it's actually a kind of back handed compliment. Once I'd heard you out I found you're a pretty good guy to debate with. Should have mentioned that before now, given the psychotic way I kicked off the discussion.

GV

Hi Pete

It appears that you have somehow managed to avoid every point I felt I was making...

1) Can you contradict Popper by showing how species to species evolution can be falsified and therefore qualifies as a scientific theory?

2) Can you prove scientifically (and not philosophically) how "God has been driven from the physical world" as you put it?

3) Can you dismantle the first two predictions i suggested for ID/creationism?

4) Can you show me a peer reviewed paper which asserts with little or no qualification the actual age of the earth?

5) Ref GV's post 6 can you tell me how creationism has no credibility in the context of the history and philosophy of science, bearing in mind the worldview of the scientific revolution, and views of Oppenheimer, Newton, Kepler etc on the matter?


sincerely
OT

PS Pete, I think that the best way to keep the moderators out of our discussions is to focus on arguments and not on attacking individuals, ie play the man and not the ball.

sorry - that should be play the ball and not the man ...

:-D

i believe the term is "ad hominem" attacks Pete....

OT
1) Did Christian Theism have an input into the rise of Science? Yes, and that informed the nature of Natural Philosophy for generations after. Could Science have arisen without Christianity? That's impossible to tell. Did Christian Theism guarantee that Science would develop? No, as Bellarmine's view of Mathematics and Astronomy was entirely consistent with Christianity, as was Aristotleian Scholasticism. These were the dominant viewpoints in the academy prior to Galileo. Were it not for Pythagoras and Democritus and Archimedes, Galileo would not have been able to change our perception of nature. Kepler in particular was informed by esoteric ideas that have no place in Christianity.
2) If you did hit the complaint button, can you state why? If you did not, can you say so. I think the air needs to be cleared. Whoever hit the button killed an interesting discussion between PK and me. So I have a bone to pick with them.
3) Very roughly, if we could identify "gaps" that in principle could only be filled by Intelligent intervention then we would have a scientfic theory. But I don't think that Dembski has shown that his approach to detecting design is superior to, say, a Bayesian or a Likelihood approach. And I don't think that Behe has done enough to show that Irreducible Complexity exists in nature. So ID could count as good science; but at the moment it doesn't. It just seems to provide some reasons to be skeptical of one large scale scientific theory. That hardly makes it a science.
4) Popper modified his views on Darwinism (not evolution - Darwinism is the proposed mechanism of evolution)in a lecture in Darwin College in 1977. Scientists had convinced him that Darwinian theory did make testable predictions.In any case, Popper's defintion of science is viewed as too stringent. I'm happy to discuss the problems with his view if you want.
5) Stop accusing me of condescending to creationists. I have made it clear that increased specialisation in academic study (which benefits us all) means that Science graduates do not receive training in philosophy and history of science. It does strike me that these subjects should be taught at school, and would be best taught by science teachers. (Call them "Science Appreciation" classes or some such). I have no idea how you read this pie-in-the-sky dream as a criticism of creationism.


GV

By the way, OT, what credible argument is there in the scientific literature that the Earth is anything less than several million years old?

Hello Orthodox-tradition ,

I'm not avoiding your points, I'm dismissing some of them as not being relevant for todays science. Quotes from long dead men (of whom some changed their mind about what they said in those quotes, if what Graham says is correct).

Point 1 in your post is very easy to answer: yes species to species evolution can be falsified in countless ways. Show any species that is way out of order in time and evolution is dead. For instance, mammals had only grown into small, ground-dwelling creatures when the dinosaurs died. Show me a fossil of an elephant, cow, pig or monkey dating to the dinosaur era and the idea that they evolved from lower mammal species would be dead.
The same could be done by showing animals in other classes of animal out of time order. For instance birds or snakes or oak trees in the Cambrian. The number of ways to falsify species to species evolution is of the order of the number of species there is, as showing one out of place would kill evolution. So there are countless ways to falsify it. It's testament to how incredibly powerful a theory evolution is, that with zillions of species around, not one major error has ever been observed. Few theories can boast such a strong foundation.

Re. your point 2, the burden of proof is on you. Science doesn't accept the hand of god in nature by default anymore as it did in the past. No more than it accepts the work of the ancient Egyptian gods or the Flying Spaghetti Monster (blessed be His Noodly Appendages!). As long as you or other YECs can't present verifyable evidence, god is out of it.
So as Dylan Dog has asked you many times, will you finally produce some verifyable evidence!

Regarding the predictions you claim for creationism, I do find it amusing that you claim to have found the geographical location of the garden of Eden. Do other christians know of this spectacular new insight?! Has the fossil of the snake with vocal cords been found in Irak too?
Curious that I haven't heard anything about it on the news. Must be that liberal BBC bias again, right?
For the transitional species that knock down the idea of 'birds on the second day, humans on the first (or last, depending which self-contradicting account of Genesis you prefer)', you can start with the transitional fossils papers I have pointed out to you so many times. We are nearing the second anniversary of PBs unread transitional fossils papers. Gosh, I can hardly believe it was December 2006 that PB started about that on the McIntosh threads.

The age of the earth literature I have also already covered many times. See e.g. the references in the Wiens page about radiometric dating. Lots of them for you to read, little reservation in them (at least in the ones I read from that list, I didn't read all of them).

greets,
Peter

Peter

As you know I'm not a scientist so I'll leave that debate about that to Graham and OT, but you know those contradictions you mentioned in Genesis 1 and 2 (?), just run them by me...

A list would be useful, you could set them up like coconuts on a shy!

Hello petermorrow,

I was referring to the different order in which god creates things in the two accounts (man last, man first etc). Probably only interesting for fundamentalists like OT/PB/etc who take it literally. I don't know if you do (from posts I've read from you sofar I get the impression you don't)? If not then it's less interesting.

greets,
Peter

Graham

1 I dont see that you are contradicting me here

2 If anyone has a post removed they get an official report from the moderators. Peter can report it to you.

3 Dont see your point

4 I though I *was* repping Popper's last views..

5 A proper reading of the history of science would show that it was inextricably linked with creationism during the sceintifyc revolution

ref post 28 I said elsewhere above I have never yet seen such a publication.



Pete not convinced by your falsification and neither was popper,

The phylogenic tree is 99 per cent speculation (or "conjecture" to use your term about evolution).

could there be other explanations; what if.... say... animals settled into sediment in groups according to their bouancy and mass etc?


Genesis says Eden had the Euphrates and Tigris running through it.


Ducking the issue on evidence for God. I agree the burden of evidence is on me. The question I asked was for you to explain how and when it switched from you to me. It was a philsophical change so you cant say it was "science".

Wiens is not a peer reviewed paper on earth chronology. try again.

Different accounts of creation in Genesis is no problem.

Peter Morrow if you have the guts to match your assertions you will parade said coconuts yourself you stir ;-) try it.

In any event there is no necessity to assert that anyone understands the nuances of every verse or word, yet still holding that the main thrust can have credibility.

Trial judge at Dover felt it could be a credibile explanation after all and I think he is well respected...


OT

This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the house rules. Explain.

OT

"Peter Morrow if you have the guts to match your assertions you will parade said coconuts yourself you stir ;-) try it.

I have to say I'm a bit confused by this comment of yours. I know we haven't interacted much in the past, and maybe you haven't read much else of what I have written about Biblical authority, but my post 30 was the beginning of a defense of such authority; as you say, the different perspectives of Genesis 1 and 2 aren't actually a problem.

If I was stirring, and I sort of was, (!) I was seeking to provoke a response from PK, because the so called contradictions aren't really contradictions at all.

I know that, it seems that you know that, and it's my guess that Peter is intelligent enough to know that as well.

PeterM

Re33

Peter, you fount of all evil, what have you done now?

GV

OT

1) Like I've said, I agree in part with what you are saying about the history of Science. But I think your account is too simple if you move directly from Christianity to the Scientific Revolution. So I don't think the Scientific Revolution has a lot of apologetic value, other than balancing a naive equation of the Scientific Revolution with an Atheistic worldview.
2) If he didn't use extremely abusive language, or slander you, or use extremely blasphemous language, complaining was very poor form OT. You should apologise. The Gospel is offensive - so we need to allow a certain amount of offensive material on the blog before we call the referee, wouldn't you agree?
3) There's no a priori reason to preclude ID as good science. PK's point, and I agree with him, is that a posteriori it hasn't made the grade. It may be of interest to philosophy of religion or philosophy of science. But it cannot propose a viable research programme. Maybe someday it will, who knows.
4) Nope, he modified the view you outlined.
5) Not essentially Young Earth Creationist. You may as well say that it was essentially sexist and racist and class-conscious. The belief in 7 literal days had to make some difference to their epistemology. Not essentially Orthodox Christian. Bacon was Pelagian - or worse.

GV

Hi Graham,

I gave a scientific answer to OTs points. The usual thing that makes him hit the complaint button. petermorrow posted in between. If he read my post, maybe he can comment on if he found anything offensive in it?

Or why don't I just repost now, hopefully you (Graham) can read it before OT hits the complaint button again.

I asked OT/PB to provide some reasons he's not convinced about the falsifyability of evolution, rather than just asserting he's not.

I also said it should be easy for him to falsify evolution if he writes that practically all of the phylogenic tree is speculation. The vast number of species couldn't have been arranged in the right order by accident, so let him show some that are out of place.

I told OT to provide some more detail about animals ending up in sediment layers based on their mass etc, if he wants to hold that up as an alternative theory. I asked for some peer-reviewed literature, not AiG nonsense web pages.

PB/OT says he accepts that the burden of proof for god in science is on him but asks when the burden shifted from him to me. I said it never was on me, that I would not have accepted needing to disprove god in any post I made on this blog.

Finally I pointed out to OT that I referred him to the references on the Wiens page, not the Wiens page itself. And that distorting peoples words is less than a praise worthy activity, that he should stop being dishonest for jesus.




Maybe petermorrow can post if he thinks this is a fair summary of my initial post, if he read it before it was deleted?

greets,
Peter

Pete, Graham

It seems we are indeed reaching a consensus. we all seem to agree that the scientific revolution assumed the existence of God and that the scientists of this crucial era had a creationist outlook.

And Peter and I also agree that the onus, scientifically, is now on me to prove God whereas previously in science it was assumed and he would have had a job persuading scientists that there is no God. This is philosophy and not science and may well change again in the future of course.


Graham if you look in post 3 you will see I also agreed with you and Peter that I did not think that ID could stand as a scientific theory in a science class.

I essentially backed Reiss in saying that there is such a public interest in the matter that it was an educational opportunity for schools to explain why this is so.

Grahamm ref Pelagianism, Bacon may have had this view of original sin, but I cant see that that has anything to do with his creationism and the scienttific revolution view that exploring God's creation methodically was science and worship at the same time.

Graham, if Oppenheimer said the scientific revolution would not have happened without the Christian faith, then I think you can take it that this has some serious credence.



Peter

As I understand it the fossil record already falsifies the theory of evolution because the record never shows a progression over time of very simple to more complex lifeforms; there is always a mixture of simple and more complex forms found in the same period.

Furthermore, species to species evolution has never been observed or recorded; even Darwin said the fossil record did not support it and the paucity of significant finds since then have put the theory even further back.

Peter, Wiens may or may not have cited papers but I asked you to cite one. Can you provide a link for earth chronology paper that is not carefully hedged around with many assumptions and qualifications???

After reading the following excert from Enc Brit perhaps you can explain exactly how species to species evolution can be proven scientifically. The piece is riven with speculation and guesses and explicitily so.

////////////////////////////////////////

phylogeny from Enc Brit

the history of the evolution of a species or group, especially in reference to lines of descent and relationships among broad groups of organisms.



Fundamental to phylogeny is the *
proposition* universally accepted in the scientific community, that plants or animals of different species descended from common ancestors. The evidence for such relationships, however, is nearly always incomplete, for the vast majority of species that have ever lived have become extinct, and relatively few of their remains have been preserved. Most judgments of phylogenicity, then, are based on indirect evidence and cautious speculation. Even when biologists use the same evidence, they often hypothesize different phylogenies, though they do agree that life is the result of organic descent from earlier ancestors and that true phylogenies are discoverable, at least in principle….Since the publication of Charles Darwin's Origin of Species in 1859, however, taxonomy has been based on the accepted propositions of evolutionary descent and relationship.



Biologists who postulate a phylogeny derive their most useful evidence from the fields of paleontology, comparative anatomy, comparative embryology, and biochemistry….



The earliest organisms were probably the result of a long chemical evolution, in which random reactions in the primeval seas and atmosphere produced amino acids and then proteins. It is supposed that droplets containing proteins then formed membranes by binding molecules to their surface, and these membrane-bound proteins are said to have become organisms when they developed the capacity to reproduce. It is not certain whether these earliest self-reproducing organisms were proteins, nucleic acid–protein associations, or viruses....



Cyanobacteria (sometimes called the blue-green algae) are thought to have been the next evolutionary step... Three groups of algae can be dismissed with passing mention, as they arose from uncertain ancestors.... Three more groups have greater phylogenetic importance: the chlorophytes (green algae), which almost certainly gave rise to the land plants, i.e., the bryophytes (mosses and liverworts) and the tracheophytes, or vascular plants (including all of the higher plants); the euglenoids (unicellular, flagellate organisms), which suggest a broad connection between plants and animals at this primitive level; and the phaeophytes (brown algae), which some biologists have considered to be a probable source of the animal kingdom. Finally, the protozoans (unicellular prokaryotic microorganisms) were derived from unknown, more primitive ancestors, and one or more groups of protozoans have given rise to metazoans—i.e., multicellular animals... Bryophytes have apparently not advanced far beyond their algal predecessors and do not seem to be the evolutionary source of other groups...

In explaining the evolution of tracheophytes, it has been suggested that a mutant form of green algae developed a primitive rootlike function with which to supply itself with water and minerals....

The problem of the origin of multicellular animals (metazoans) was long dominated by the German embryologist Ernst Haeckel's theory that the original metazoan ancestor was a spherical protozoanthat was structurally similar to the coelenterates (e.g., jellyfishes, corals). Today there are two alternative explanations. The first traces metazoans back to flagellates, the presumed ancestors of flattened, ciliated animals (planulas) that eventually led to coelenterates and flatworms. Another theory hypothesizes that multinucleated protozoans, dividing into subcells, were the original metazoans, which developed into simple flatworms. No decisive information, however, yet exists to sustain either contention.
////////////////////////


Finally Peter K

Obviously Peter Morrow, Graham and myself are in agreement that God created the universe and all matter, all life, and that he holds the universe together and stable.

The reall division here is not between ID and evolution, I have no problem with theistic evolutionists.

The real division is between athiests and believers.

Athiests still have a mountain to climb with the following questions;-

1) What caused the Big Bang?
2) Where did matter come from?
3) What makes the universe and its laws stable?
4) How did life begin?
5) What happens your consciousness after death?

In pure science all you can conclude about God will take you to an agnostic position.

To assert that there is absolutely certainly no God is a leap of fundamentalist religious faith which cannot be supported by science.

Finally, I concurr with the trial judge from Dover; ID may well be true but it cannot qualify as a scientific theory at present because it has supernatural causation.

But it may well be true, he said.

sincerely

OT

OT
I think we disagree on the following points

1) The Judge at Dover was wrong. If ID could support a research programme, and provide the necessary statistical and biological evidence to rule non-intelligent causes at certain stages of the development of life, it would be a viable scientific alternative to evolution. It's only when you start to make inferences about the intentions and abilities of the designer that you enter theology or philosophy.
I just don't think that Dembski et al. have provided the necessary evidence. In fact, many advocates of ID did not want a trial at Dover. At the minute, their work is too speculative.
2) It's one thing to say that Christianity played an important role in the development of science. That much is not controversial. It is another to say that Christianity is necessary and sufficient to bring about Science. The views of Bellarmine show that Christianity is not sufficient to bring about a scientific mode of investigation. And we don't know enough about counterfactuals in history (how things might have turned out given other circumstances and events) to be sure that some other worldview could not have given birth to Science.
3) I'm still not sure if you're suggesting that Young Earth Creationism was essential to the birth of Science. In fact an ancient Earth was taken as an accepted fact long before Lyell, and Lyell's work caused no crisis in Christian thought.

Where we agree-
As I've said, the view that Science necessarily replaces religion is naive and simplistic. It runs contrary to the historical evidence. That's not how it happened up until 1860. At this stage agnosticism became a social tool that Huxley and co. could use to replace the amateur scientist (mostly clergy and gentlemen) with the professional scientist (mostly middle-class, and in need of financial support). Huxley's sympathisers invented quite a few myths about the warfare between science and Christianity. Whatever is driving secualrism it isn't the success of science. Other social forces are at work.

G Veale

PS Sorry to bang on about this, but for goodness sake, just apologise to PK and let's get on with the discussion. We have to allow some posts we find offensive on the blog - don't we?

PK
Nothing in that post that offended me. "Dishonest for Jesus" would probably be the point that will be cited as offensive. But of course, I imagine that you would find it offensive to be called, say a "sinner", or be told that you needed to "repent". (Which we all are and all need to do in my opinion.) Now that would not only be offensive to a skeptic or humanist. Being told that you needed to repent and trust your whole person to Christ would be telling a Muslim to commit an unforgivable act of Blasphemy ("shirk"). It would be telling an Orthodox or Conservative Jew that they have profoundly misinterpreted the Shema, and that their traditions have no merit in the eyes of G*d.
So if we are all going to hit complaint buttons every time we hear something that offends us then we can't have a discussion at all. And to be honest (I hope Helio and John Wright don't mind me saying this) you are not even close to making the most outrageous statements on W&T.
I also think that, if you are offended by a statement, it's better to write a post to the person who offended you. Dylan Dog wrote something an age ago about another blogger that annoyed me. I wrote to him, he clarified his reasons for the comment, and lo and behold, it turned out that he's a very reasonable guy. No need to hit the complaint button at all.
Finally, if our discussion on Science hadn't been heated to begin with, I doubt that (speaking only for myself) I would have had the motivation to pursue the topics. As it was I had to re-read books that I hadn't given sufficient attention to on the first reading.
There are rules of "nettiquette", and "flaming" is perfectly permissable. In other words, it can actually be good fun to let off a bit of steam in an online discussion, and this quite often aids the discussion. The implicit assumption that every party must take is that no real offence is meant. At the end of the day, I don't see other posters face to face. Why take things personally?

Which is all a very long, reasoned plea to OT to stop hitting the complaint button. It ruins a discussion.

GV

Hi GV

1) Speculative work could be true in future

2) Bellarmine shows no such thing. You are implying that all Christians should be capable of generating quality science. I am saying that modern science as we know it could not have happened without Christianity. Quite different.
Please note this is not the same thing as saying no science is possible without Christian faith, as the ancient greeks et al showed. But they did not have the scientific revolution and the quantum leap forwards that provided.

this may be of interest;-
https://ldolphin.org/bumbulis/


3) You can argue that modern science might have happened without a creationist worldview but you cant prove it. I *can* prove that it only happened with a creationist viewpoint ie in a time and place where this was the norm and from many people who explicitly cite a pre-evolutionary Christian faith as central to their inspiration.

again this might be of interest;-
https://ldolphin.org/bumbulis/


I agree that science need not replace religion and your points that the "conflict" between the two was a propaganda coup.

OT

put it another way GV

why was there never a scientific revolution equivalent to the 17th century one we now stand on, in a non-judeo-christian culture?


BTW let me get this right, PK accuses me of dishonesty with abs no justification and you call on me to apologize to him????????????????



I note that several posts of mine to PK have been also been pulled in recent weeks!!!!!!!!!

Who was responsible for that I wonder?

In any case, it is just a childs whining.

The moderators are an essential part of the system and if you or PK dont like them then......obviously you are not really happy here.

Peter, what did the moderator tell you about your post that they removed by the way???

Can you tell us please?

OT

Hello OT,

You start your post 39 once again with your mind firmly stuck in the past. Repeating how several great scientists of the past were creationists won't do anything for you other than showing you're stuck in the past, it doesn't provide any argument for god in science today. Fortunately you agree that the burden of proof is on you. So maybe you would finally respond to Dylan Dogs often-repeated request for evidence?

"As I understand it the fossil record already falsifies the theory of evolution because the record never shows a progression over time of very simple to more complex lifeforms; there is always a mixture of simple and more complex forms found in the same period."

Oh dear OT, how either ignorant or dishonest (or both?) you are. Care to tell me what complex animals were present when some of the earliest, simplest life forms like stramatolites were around?

"Furthermore, species to species evolution has never been observed or recorded; even Darwin said the fossil record did not support it and the paucity of significant finds since then have put the theory even further back."

Hahahaha! Care to give the reference for that Darwin statement? What's next OT, are you going to repeat the quote mine of Darwin on the eye you so shamelessly put up some time ago?
And since you're so fond of the Dover trial judge, maybe you should look at some of the evidence presented there on transitional fossils which he all accepted:

https://www.sciohost.org/ncse/kvd/Padian/kpslides.html

You ask for a direct reference for a work covering the age of the earth. That is all known for so long, that much of it was published in the pre-pdf era. So you'll have to make do with a reference to a publication in paper. A reference from Wiens page could e.g. be

Dalrymple, G. Brent (1991) "The Age of the Earth", Stanford University Press, page 474.

That is a very interesting publication btw. You could learn so much, if for once you didn't ignore information presented to you (read any papers about transitional feather fossils yet, after crying your lungs out a supposed lack of them?)

And finally, I don't have access to Enc. Brit, but Dylan Dog has exposed you for posting quotes attributed to Enc. Brit. that simply weren't in Enc. Brit. See e.g. the discussion on Helio's blog about your quote fabrication:

https://answersingenes.blogspot.com/2007/07/another-jump-to-glory.html?showComment=1192809840000

So without means of verification, your record on Enc. Brit quoting is too dishonest to just accept the one you put up now.

greets,
Peter

Oh and btw, I never hit the complaint button ever. I think PBs/OTs posts are an excellent service to atheism. Demonstrating how christianity inspires dishonest behaviour in some, will do more to put people off religion that I ever could manage. I regularly thank the Flying Spaghetti Monster for PB/OT, W&T's greatest gift to atheism!

Moderator emails about removed posts never state the reason for removal other than that it broke the house rules. Never any detail about which passage was the offending one or which rule it broke.

OT
I think I can make a reasonable inference that you hit the complaint button. You have had numerous oppotunities to deny this, but you won't lie (to your credit). I have also said that you should only apologise if Peter did not slander you, or use extremely blasphemous (PZ Myers, Bill Maher style) language. My working assumption is that he did not.
Again, you are equivocating over "creationist." If you mean a Theistic view of creation, I think you are correct. A contingent creation that needs to be investigated empirically and not through a priori deductions, the existence of universal Laws and a view of human rationality and faculties that imply that it can understand the universe, yet are fallible enough to require constant testing all "fit" neatly with Christian Theism. I'm not sure that Pythagorean philosophy or Lucretian atomism could achieve this view of the universe and our place in it.
The Protestant reaction to "allegorising" also helped. In the Protestant view the book of nature did not reveal more than God's power and wisdom. No moral or spiritual lessons could be gleaned from nature without the use of allegory. So the search for "final" causes in nature was abandoned, on the view that we were not wise enough to discern them. This opens the way to a "mechanistic" examination of nature.
Nothing in this account requires Seven literal days of creation. If the first scientists believed in seven days of creation, so what? Unless something essential to the development of science follows from a literal weeks work, nothing of consequence has been shown. The first scientists were male. Is Science a male enterprise? They tended to be independently wealthy, or rely on wealthy sponsors. Is indepenent wealth essential to the development of science? Etc Etc

G Veale

Graham, your points are (as usual) well made against OT. So if we find out that some cherished idea is wrongo, and we accumulate an overwhelming mass of evidence to *prove* that it's wrongo, and we come up with a much better idea that fits the data and makes testable predictions that are subsequently borne out... this very process of progress somehow lends credibility to the original wrongo idea??

That, in a nutshell, appears to be OT's argument. Or maybe case.

-H

H/OT

I think it's important to realise that discovering the ideas that caused Science does not prove that those ideas are true. They motivated a particular type of enqiry into nature. So the ideas proved fruitful.
But practical value need not imply truth. And many thinkers have preferred to think of Science as useful rather than truth-telling.

I think knowledge of any kind requires a religious view of the universe (but that's a rather different argument). If I have to put my cards on the table I would say that the success of Science lends some credence to some elements of Christian Theology (but only some elements). That is not enough to establish Christianity as true.

I think that a necessary conflict between Science and Christianity belies the historical facts. That would be my main contention.

G Veale

This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the house rules. Explain.

Shock, horror, nothing blasphemous there! What a surprise!
I wonder why the moderators censored your post? To protect PB's anonymity? I've looked through their reasons for removing a post. I cannot see that there is any ground at all for removing your post, or for complaining about your post.
Maybe the moderators think "phylogenic" is a rude word.
GV

And removed again, see post 49 now. Luckily not fast enough for Graham not to have read it first. :)

Graham, I think this should give you some idea about what OT/PB will go to in defense of his ideas of christianity. Maybe with this you will understand why I consider OT such a gift to atheism, as his behaviour so clearly demonstrates how religion can lead to bad behaviour. Unable to provide an answer with some substance to criticism of your religious ideas? -> resort to hitting the complaint button, time and time again.

Luckily for me the religious camp doesn't have the power anymore that it used to have. OTs/PBs petty behaviour is as far as it will go, no boiling oil or thumb screws to look forward to fortunately.

I also read it. As far as I can see there was absolutely no reason for that comment to be censored.

Perhaps this is the hegemony and dominance that Brian is talking about!...but if that's the height of it, I'm sure we can all get by

:)

Hi Bernards_Insight,

"Perhaps this is the hegemony and dominance that Brian is talking about!...but if that's the height of it, I'm sure we can all get by"

LOL. Thanks, that brought a smile to my face. I've been fighting a losing battle all day sofar with a stubborn compiler that won't turn my code into a workable binary. It's frustrating. Your post was a welcome small uplift to my mind. :)

You're very welcome.

I'm up for a love-in, who's with me.

:)

This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the house rules. Explain.

Hi Graham,

I can give you part of the answer now. Some of my posts to/mentioning PB (or OT) disappeared before we found out who OT is. He got posts pulled that didn't reveal his identity. So it is at least in part OT suppressing posts for jesus.

And it's not hard to imagine why he finds posts on evolution particularly wounding if you look at the web page of his church (evolution sub page link on the left):

https://www.bbcib.com/

greets,
Peter

Guys,

I'm fairly sure your reasoning above is correct, that the reasons for removing the posts is to protect PB / OT's anonymity. I just had another one from ages ago removed this morning by mods who said something like, "No real names or addresses to be used," and the comment itself was about using his full name.

Now, you'll notice I use my full name and always have, even when I lived in Belfast. I have nothing to hide, I'm not saying anything on here I wouldn't want to be asked about in person, everything I say can be traced back to a real live person who is serious enough about what I say to permit that association.

PB / OT clearly doesn't want to be associated with his statements too closely for some reason, and I think we should respect his wishes on that. I'm sure that, if I'm right, PB / OT won't complain about any comments which don't include his real name. Fair to say, OT?

PeterKlaver just noticed your post. Not sure what those disappeared for.

John,

Some of these posts called out OT (or PB then) over past bad or dishonest posts, like quote mining Darwin, fabricating false quotes for prof. Prum out of thin air, his classic statement that QM was increasingly undermining evolution, claiming Einstein to be a man of god etc.

I can understand very well why he would not to have his identity exposed with such a posting record. Or even be reminded of what sort of person he is without having his identity exposed.

I just had a very old post pulled as well. Does OT have nothing better to do than comb through months old threads?

greets,
Peter

ps John,

Some other posts just presented data he found uncomfortable, like the data on the inverse relationship between scientific achievement and religious adherence:

https://kspark.kaist.ac.kr/Jesus/Intelligence%20&%20religion.htm

Or data showing some examples of transitional fossils:

https://www.sciohost.org/ncse/kvd/Padian/kpslides.html

Anyone want to place a bet on how long this post will last?

Peter

This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the house rules. Explain.

School ended at 3.00pm today, hence the long plea above.

PK
I take back what I said long ago about Dover. It would have been great to sit in on that trial! It's a shame they had to focus so much on Pandas and People.

GV

Still lost on the connection between QM and ID though. Can't even find a google link!

Hi Graham,

"Still lost on the connection between QM and ID though. Can't even find a google link!"

You're looking in the wrong place, it's not on the internet. The inside of OT's fundamentalist mind is where you'll find it. There, and nowhere else.

greets,
Peter

Graham- A well-put case. I certainly don't think OT / PB / P.B. has anything to worry about in any case. I like him, as I've said many times, I've bantered with PB for YEARS here.... right back to (almost) the beginning of this blog, which was, when William? This is the earliest I can find, but I know the blog (and PB and myself on it) went back way earlier. So I don't think there's any issue, unless PB wants to cite one.

This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the house rules. Explain.

PB?OT

"Some form of creationism/ID can arguably make the following testable predictions IMHO;-

1) The only evidence for animals should be overwhelmingly in distinct kinds of species which roughly correlate to those recognised in Genesis.

2) Human civilisation should have begun around the Euphrates (Eden) and spread out from there;

3) For the young earth variety of belief, it should predict that the history of homo sapien existence and civilisation should be only thousands of years of age."

Goodness these are "testable predictions"!? then please show the results and who use them!? The world scientific community is waiting with baited breath!? I for one will not as you have raised them before here

https://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/ni/2007/12/are_religious_politicians_nutt.html

Then were asked some very simple questions in order to back up your stunning statements but as ever you...ran away! and it looks like you are running away here too :-/

Kindest regards

DD

"Finally, I concurr with the trial judge from Dover; ID may well be true but it cannot qualify as a scientific theory at present because it has supernatural causation.

But it may well be true, he said."

Oh for goodness sake! not this again! Judge Jones said that ID may be true in a *theological* sense NOT in a scientific sense-he said it was "bad science" as well as describing the ID case as being presented with "breath-taking inanity". It also did not help that the Bible-believering Protestants on the Dover school board lied under oath.

Graham

M41

"Dylan Dog wrote something an age ago about another blogger that annoyed me. I wrote to him, he clarified his reasons for the comment, and lo and behold, it turned out that he's a very reasonable guy."

Shucks!and you are not so bad yourself!

DD

PeterK

M44

"So maybe you would finally respond to Dylan Dogs often-repeated request for evidence?"

Thanks for the reference Peter! as you and the long term posters here know only too well I have been asking PB/OT for the positive evidence for his position for nearly two years but all I get is prevarication/bluster/running/a lot of heat-not much light etc etc/fallacies in abundance but nothing in what could be described in any shape or form as evidence! zilch! nada! nowt!

I hope you understand Peter that I will not be holding my breath!

Regards

DD