Is Science a Weapon Against Creation?
by BradfordJoy posted the blog entry Stop the Presses! It's all Over! citing questionable news coverage of a paper published by researchers at the University of Manchester. The university's press release titled St Bernard study casts doubt on creationism contains two paragraphs which I'll quote and comment on. The first:
"Creationism is the belief that all living organisms were created according to Genesis in six days by 'intelligent design' and rejects the scientific theories of natural selection and evolution.
Note an old debating tactic. Redefine a concept to make it an easier target to attack. The above definition applies to those who believe in the biblical account of Genesis and who take what has been described as a literal interpretation of it. By posing this definition one limits creationists to a sub-group within the two religions that view Genesis as scriptural- Christianity and Judaism. The definition excludes Muslim creationists from the mix as well as creationists of other faiths. The artificial definition also presents a false dichotomy. Not all creationists reject natural selection or evolution. A common denominator to creationists is the belief that God is nature's creator. Beyond that there are many variations not evidenced in the definition supplied by the University press release. The final paragraph reads:
"But this research once again demonstrates how selection "” whether natural or, in this case, artificially influenced by man "” is the fundamental driving force behind the evolution of life on the planet."
For the sake of argument let the reader presume the truth of the foregoing statement. Would this constitute a refutation of creationism? Does it preclude inferences of intelligent design? Would it even render us with a scientifically viable explanation for the origin and diversity of life? Finally, why embroil science in non-scientific matters when doing so does damage to science itself?
October 27th, 2007 at 6:19 pm
Bradford, from the press release:
This is the quote that jumped out at me and made me laugh (and report), the quote which explains the headline attached to the release by its writers in the Journalism department of UManchester. All undergrads (probably Freshmen), and without many science courses under their belts I'm sure.
The three quotes in the article were completely non-contextual to the research itself, which was simply measurements made of 47 St. Bernard skulls supplied by breeders in Switzerland for the purpose. I have argued on the other thread how un-representative these skulls are of St. Bernards in general, as they are representative of breed exemplars bred in a single country for conformity to breed standards. All skulls of all species display some peculiar and even radical departures from 'norm', and in dog breeding exemplars, we're not talking about a 'norm'. We're talking about exemplars.
It seems to me that not only have these 47 skulls been used to grossly distort the nature and purposes of pedigree dog breeding (something I am familiar with), they've also been used to extrapolate wildly to entirely unrelated and irrelevant things in no way connected to dog breeding OR scientific evolution. Some of these obscure British universities seem positively parochial in their adherence to this paradigm or that one, having nothing much to do with science.
Again Bradford quotes:
This quotation further reveals the ulterior motives of the researchers who examined the 47 skulls, beyond their total ignorance of pedigree dog breeding. Neither Charlie Darwin's version of evolution nor the later Neodarwinian Synthesis claimed that selection (natural or artificial) is 'The' driving force of evolution on this planet. It's just what shapes that which survives over time.
The true engine of evolution is variation. Darwin recognized this, Mendel recognized this, and all ideologically uncontaminated evolutionary scientists since have recognized this. Selection cannot act on that which does not already exist. Selection has no creative power in and of itself at all. It does have the power to design.
This explains a great deal about the perennial 'culture war'. Religion acknowledges the clay - the raw material [variation] on which selection acts. And further claims that the variations are directed to a significant degree, even while acknowledging the winnowing power of natural selection. Materialism is terrified of origins, has spent centuries ignoring origins in order to justify worship of the winnowing wind. Which blows this way and that, no one knows why.
By ignoring the origin of variation - locking it up behind a thick brick wall topped with razor wire and labeled "random" - they believe they've defeated all notions of design and purposeful creation. They have not, and can not. This drives them to overblown distraction. Now they think they can simply forbid questions of origin by judicial fiat and/or legislation.
Just another example of the stupid human pastime of pretending any person or group of people can control the thoughts and beliefs of all by authoritarian means. Someday we might grow out of this phase. If we survive it.
Comment by Joy — October 27, 2007 @ 6:19 pm
October 27th, 2007 at 7:44 pm
Joy:
You are completely wrong. It's like saying that the true engine of the art of sculpting is the variation in the blocks of marble that sculptors work with. As if the process of selecting which parts of the block go and which stay has nothing to do with the final sculpture. No, natural selection is the main creative process responsible for the marvelous adaptations that we see in life.
Comment by Raevmo — October 27, 2007 @ 7:44 pm
October 27th, 2007 at 8:33 pm
Raevmo:
No, the marvelous adaptations that we see in life are responsible for natural selection. Her point is not that selection has nothing to do with it, but that it is secondary.
Comment by Guts — October 27, 2007 @ 8:33 pm
October 28th, 2007 at 12:32 pm
Guts:
Precisely! See? I'm not always speaking total gibberish, even though some of our live-in nay-sayers pretend so.
Raevmo:
No, I am not completely wrong. The most creative artist is just playing mind-games with himself if he's no medium to work with.
Is this an attempt to assign intelligent agency to selection? If you're carving the Pieta from a hefty chunk of marble, you've got a clay model right in front of you - created using live models - telling you what goes and what stays. Anyone watching the process can look at the model and see what must go and what should stay. If the marble is faulty the artist may lose a whole side and have to set it aside for carving something else entirely. Solution for the intended design? A new, more suitable chunk of marble.
Selection can add nothing to the medium. The sculptor does all the intelligent designing and chooses his medium. Not all blocks of marble can serve the Pieta, though broken pieces might serve a smaller, single-subject theme.
Comment by Joy — October 28, 2007 @ 12:32 pm
October 28th, 2007 at 4:03 pm
Clearing the Air About Genesis
No one else, presently walking on this Earth, is an expert on Genesis. Do not even listen to anyone else trying to expound what Genesis is saying, or what "creationism" is, for they do not understand the text, and are speaking from ignorance. There is no "creation account" in Genesis. There is no such thing as a "creation/evolution" contest. It is "evolution" verses the "Observations of Moses ", given to Moses by God in 1598 BC, in biblical order, as revealed by the Living Word in the Gospels.
The world of theology (and creationism) has never understood Genesis, so of course they would not have told us the truth, since they never did their "homework". Each day in Genesis, from Gen. 1:2 thru 2:3 was a 24-hr day , shown to Moses, taken from seven different weeks (1 day from Creation Week, 6 days from 6 restoration weeks), and each week was from a different geologic age. The seven days conveyed to Moses were not linear.
Genesis chapter two covers about a 200 yr period, starting in about 7200 BC, and has nothing to do with chapter one. There was no "evolution". There was Creation, followed by extinction, then six periods of restorations, with five more extinction events in between, ending each era of mankind. With the third era of mankind (the second restoration), God "redesigned" mankind to be in His image, after His likeness, in about 64 Million BC.
If you have comments, issues, or questions, direct them to me (ephraim7@aol.com), or read the book "Moses Didn't Write About Creation!". Forget about "Intelligent Design", Creation Science, Theistic Evolution, "progressive creation", and any gap theories. They are ALL FALSE, and misrepresent the Word of God.
Herman Cummings
PO Box 1745
Fortson GA, 31808
Ephraim7@aol.com
Comment by hzcummi — October 28, 2007 @ 4:03 pm
October 28th, 2007 at 4:25 pm
Because the people doing such things don't really care about science as such, just what it can get them.
Comment by thesciphishow — October 28, 2007 @ 4:25 pm
October 28th, 2007 at 8:36 pm
If you have a genuine love for science you don't make claims for it that cannot be empirically substantiated even in principle. When answers are unknown despite considerable efforts to find them, asserting a gap, that nonetheless favors a specified outcome, does nothing to further scientific integrity. Rather, simply acknowledging that the matter is beyond science at the present time is more honest.
Comment by Bradford — October 28, 2007 @ 8:36 pm
October 28th, 2007 at 9:18 pm
Sure. Plenty of the new atheist crowd fall into this camp I think.
Though I think the problem is more that they seek to treat science like a whore. While she is useful to them they will use her accordingly.
Comment by thesciphishow — October 28, 2007 @ 9:18 pm
February 26th, 2008 at 7:18 pm
When I consider the enormous complexity that must occur for the very first cell to live, and that it has to be made from dirty natural chemicals, which are not likely to be in the same area, must be absolutly pure chiral chemistry, it make evolution look totally stupid. Life cannot hapen by accident, so an intelligent manipulative entity must have done it, even though we cannot detect that entity in the lab.
Consider the complexities. see:
http://www.evolution.htmlplane...
for file about this and the ENCODE Project.
The scientists won't state the conclusion given because the evolutionists would sack them, and destroy their hope of employment.
Another file that may be of interest is on :
http://www.creationtheory.8k.c...
This has a coherent reason why a God may create the world and keep hidden, observing people and deciding their fate.
Once you know that God is in control you can look at the evidence and evaluate it in the light of a better understanding.
YEC are good scientists and use it truthfully, because they are not allowed to lie. Evolutionists have no such restriction. hence pepperd moth, Haeckles faked drawings and many other lies are used to mislead people.
But if you stop and study both sides, and creation as the creationists actually say, not as the evolutionists lie to you about the data, you can see that evolution falls short an all aspects.
How many times has the missing link apes-humans been discovered, and yet it never has been? Its all lies. cut out the lies and evolution has nothing to support it.
Try actually thinking for yourself, instead of swallowing the evolutionist story.
Comment by kernest135 — February 26, 2008 @ 7:18 pm