To the right is a computer generated rendering of the Tiktaalik roseae, the creature that will once and for all banish the evil science-hating creationists, in his prehistoric habitat.
Oh wait, I’m sorry that was an actual photo of an alligator gar fish that can be found in Flordia today.
Maybe this is it:
|
Okay last one, this has to be it. This is a fish that made it on to land 300 million years ago (ignore the human feet in the background):
Oops, that’s a snakehead fish which has been a real pest in Maryland in the last few years. I know those of us who are sympathetic to creation and intelligent design will be ridiculed for not following the scientific dogma on this issue. But the fossil that was found could be for an odd-looking fish, an early alligator or any other creature that has been extinct for a significant period of time. None of that means that this animal fills the missing gaps in the evolutionary tree. Before anyone goes off about how this is science and who am I to dare doubt these experts – a couple of things need to be remembered. First, once they move from this is a fossil to this is what this animal did, what he looked like etc., they have left the realm of hard science and entered into speculation. Now the speculation may be based on evidence, strong or weak. But we have no way of determining exactly what this creature is or what he did merely by seeing his fossil. Second, this is not the first time a fossil was discovered, trumpeted across the media as the missing link to end all controversy. Archaeoraptor was supposed to be the long sought after half-bird, half-dinosaur. But that was the problem, it actually was a half-bird, half-dinosaur that a fossil maker had put together using the body of a bird and the tail of a dinosaur. It was a total hoax and National Geographic had to admit as such, although with a lot less fanfare than they gave the original story. I don’t know if Tiktaalik is a hoax or not. Most likely it isn’t, but that still doesn’t mean it proves evolution. When you read the story in the Boston Globe I linked to, you will find extravagent claim after extravagent claim about how great this find is, what a great evolutionary tool the fins on the fish were, etc.. However when you get a few paragraphs from the bottom, you find this intriguing statement:
Then every scientist takes a turn guessing what good the fins would actually do, but while they don’t know why this would give the fish an advantage they know it gives him some type of advantage and they know that this is a missing link that proves evolution. Excuse me if the alligator gar fish, the walking catfish, the snakehead fish and I are not impressed. |
Nope, that’s a "
The issue here is that creationists will NEVER be impressed. It will never matter what anybody says – there's no chance you'll ever give ground on this.
The issue here is that evolutionist will NEVER be impressed. It will never matter what anybody says – there's no chance you'll ever give ground on this.
The other issue is that articles like the one in the NYT are so overtly biased, concluding that this is some sort of death blow for creationism, that creationists have to respond to the rediculous spin on this probably inconsequential find.
Seeker,
Because there is NO EVIDENCE outside of the Bible to support your claims. That's the reason. If Creationists could provide a tenth of the evidence that those supporting evolution present, maybe we'd have something. But we don't. We have Creationists claiming that they're right because the Bible says so.
OK, so we have the "Evolution is really a religion" ploy with the use of the words 'saviour','banishment', and of course 'dogma'.
Check.
The "It's just an ordinary everyday animal, those SILLY scientists!" gambit with the pictures of the catfish.
Check.
Finally, we have the old "Could be a hoax, could be..Nothing proven of course. Could be a hoax, could be" to round things off.
Check.
Stop messing about with the side-order of French Fries and go straight for the burger itself!
These scientists (ahem, High Priests of Darwinism, sorry) claim that the fossils are MILLIONS OF YEARS OLD.
Well, THERE's the fatal flaw in their reasoning! :)
Point out to the Boston Globe that they can't possibly be millions of years old because, of course, the Earth is only a few thousand years old.
(Right?)
I'd love to see those Boston Globe/NYT reporters get out of that little conundrum.
Because there is NO EVIDENCE outside of the Bible to support your claims. That's the reason. If Creationists could provide a tenth of the evidence that those supporting evolution present, maybe we'd have something. But we don't. We have Creationists claiming that they're right because the Bible says so.
There is plenty of evidence put forth by creationists. Of course, it is disupted. Some of it has even been disproven, while much of it still remains on the table. While some may appeal to biblical authority, that's not science. There is plenty of evidence offerred. Stop being a fanatic by saying "the opposition has no evidence." It's silly and untrue.
Rather, you could admit that you haven't looked at the evidence, and believe what you're told by the purveyors of evolution. You trust the authorities. You have faith in them. Like a true religionist, you don't have to look at the contrary evidence, since your faith is proven beyond a doubt. You rage at any insinuation otherwise. Oh wait? Isn't that Richard Dawkins giving the call to prayer? Time for you to go now. ;)
Do I trust people that professionally study science? Why, yes, I do, in the same way that I trust those who professionally study medicine. Why would I trust those who professionally study religion to tell me about science?
Point me toward evidence of creationism endorsed by actual scientists introduced in something other than the Bible, and I'll take a serious look. However, if you ask me to believe the bunk science offered us by BibleThumpingScientists, and I'm going to look the other way.
How about I'll point you to evidence and you can decide for yourself rather than pandering to your prophets of naturalism – since you don't believe any of the 600+ scientists on the dissenters list (since by signing it they become non-reputable ;).
I didn't say that they became non-reputable – I argued that they signed that list because they value their religious beliefs more than they value the scientific evidence in front of them.
I agree Sam
So you still consider those scientists as valid dissenters? Or are their scientific objections no longer worth considering?
If those 600+ scientists put religious beliefs over scientific empiricism, they are no longer worth considering as scientists in my opinion. I don't know how Sam feels.
You continue to make the claim of religious beliefs, but you have yet to answer the fact that the signers are of a varied background in terms of religious beliefs. Some are Christian, some are Jews, agnostics, etc.
Many may have a religious reason for believing what they do, but that does not automatically make them wrong. Many support evolution for religious reasons – ie they do not want to accept that there may be a God, so evolution helps to buffer that belief.
Considering the motives for an action can be instructive, but they do not by default tell you the truthfulness of a claim.
Thank you Aaron – as I have previously stated, while someone's beliefs may make them suspicious, it does not invalidate their arguments. Just because a supporter of evolution is an atheist doesn't make his/her arguments false – it only means that I suspect them of having a religious bias.
Aaron,
I think a scientist should be empirical, first and foremost. A scientist can be devout, in whatever religion, but if he allows his beliefs to superceed his empiricism, it negates him as a scientist. I think the majority of scientists do believe in a God. At one time, even Darwin was a devout Christian but what he discovered scientifically, changed his view.
The reason I keep claiming "religious beliefs" with these 600+ ID scientists is the paradox they find themselves in. On one hand they claim they are empirical scientists. On the other, they espouse a theory that has no empirical evidence, that states "certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection." (Wikipedia encyclopedia) My view, and those who dismiss the 600+ ID scientists is, you can't test intelligent design by experiment so it not science. Science is based on empiricism, experimentation, and methodological naturalism (Wikipedia encyclopedia).
"Considering the motives for an action can be instructive, but they do not by default tell you the truthfulness of a claim." – Aaron
Now this is absolutely true and I agree with it. It may be an intellegent agent was involved.. and also maybe not… but it can't be considered as science by definition. That's why I don't consider ID as valid science.
Cin,
I agree with you that a scientist should be an empiricist first. I also agree that they can be devout and good scientists. My first scientific mentor used to say "All scientists have biases, but the good scientists devise their experiments with their bias in mind, making sure that their bias does not skew the results or the interpretation of the results."
You are somewhat right about the problem ID faces – they are arguing, somewhat, from a purely mathematical standpoint, and one that could be refuted when more "evidence" comes in.
However, creation scientists are not in that same boat. Both creation and evolution make faith assumptions about the origins of life, and both make predictions that can be tested against history and future discoveries (empirical data, although historical data is not quite empirical). In this case, I think that creationism does a good job with the data we have. Not a *perfect* job, but better than evolution.
As I said, atheisitc naturalists also have a religious bias which also needs to be addressed. It may not be as overtly religious as creationism, and they may feel that science must be naturalistic, but I only think that is so with respect to experimentation. It does not have to be true about primary assumptions about origins – abiogenesis is still a matter of faith.
I agree that science is based on experimentation which cuts both ways.
No one has ever been able to duplicate the claims of evolution. Just as ID says an "intelligent being," creation says "God," evolution says "Time."
As in, "of course you cannot see evolution it takes place slowly over a long period of time."
When someone is able to replicate the conditions and results of evolution in a lab, then we can talk about evolution being strictly science and ID and creationism being strictly faith.
I believe that they object on religious grounds, and would do so even if evolution was proven totally true. That alone indicates to me that these are people who cannot be trusted to be honest with the public. They signed those documents are Christians. They attached their credentials to make a point, but a point that is canceled by their Christianity-first beliefs.