Comments on Arguing Origins - AddedBytes.com

Comment on Arguing Origins

Comment by Gun Of Sod ( )

Hi Dave, I must say that I admire your persipacity in following through in this thread. I honestly hope you managed to generate some interest in looking more deeply at the Theory of Evolution for some of the doubters in this thread.

I hold an atheistic world view, but if there was one thing that could shake my non-belief in a god(s), it would be the sheer simplicity yet inspiring breadth of effect on the natural world, that the theory encompasses.

Comment on Arguing Origins

Comment by James ( )

Hi Dave, I got that right didn't I, Dave? ;-)

>> I came looking for some cheat sheets and stumbled on this blog

>Did you stumble from free will ... or was it pre-ordained? ;)

Actually a guy I work with named Jeff told me about your site ;-)

>> do you believe in the possibility of life after death?

>No. I believe that while we're here, we'd better make the most of it!

I used to feel the same way but more recently I've had thoughts about existence, in particular my own, go figure, and I've concluded that, as I'm sure someone else has already said "There must be more to life than this!".

I chose to re-examine my early Christian upbringing in more detail and I went searching for answers about this particular faith which I had abandoned at the age of 17(I am 37 now).

I went to several local churches and discovered that not much had changed, same old boring sermons and I practically fell asleep in the pews. Then, perhaps pre-ordained, a friend suggested another church which was about a 45 minute drive from home, and I thought you've got to be kidding me! They insisted that I try it and so one Sunday I did and I found my new home on Sunday mornings.

This particular Church does not promote Christianity as merely a "religion"; as a matter of fact they rebuke the word religion as it merely conjures up images of self-righteousness and holier-than-thou know-it-alls, whew!

They promote that Christianity is not about religion at all but rather it's about establishing and maintaining a right relationship with Jesus Christ. We are thus a non-denominational Christian Church with no enemies, I think?

Anyone can come and join us or even make their views and opinions known either for or against and they will not be persecuted. Our pastor is very passionate and likes to present his material using movie clips which is far more entertaining than listening to some tired old fellow, completely bereft of passion, leaning on his pulpit reciting scripture. We also have a rock band that plays good, driving Christian music, throughout the service. WoW!

I never thought I would like that stuff but it actually is really good. Some really good bands I've recently heard include Lifehouse, Casting Crowns, MercyMe, Payable On Death, Hillsong, and even U2! I'm certain you can find clips of their music online somewhere if you're interested.

>It is also a question that assumes that if any gods do exist, they are stupid. Apparently, those who follow the school of thought that "might as well believe, no harm" seem to think that their deities will appreciate them playing the odds and reward them for it.

I'm certain there are people that follow that train of thought and unfortunately they are probably living unfulfilled lives whether Muslim, Hindu, Jewish, Aztec, Inca, Roman, Greek, Omnian or even Jedi ;@. I do not, I am a firm believer and it is rewarding. I am still learning more as each day passes. Having faith requires a great deal of dedication, personal sacrifice, which I believe is one of the keys as to why "religion" is so misunderstood and why so many people believe IT has failed US. When in fact WE have failed IT, once again regardless of faith. There are not enough people willing to take the time to understand why they have a chosen faith, regardless of the faith or denomination, they do it merely because their parents and their parents parents did. I have made my own choice, and my folks, who are Catholics, thought I had joined a cult because I chose to be baptized and reborn even though I was baptized as an infant and that we don't have 1st or 2nd readings at our church and we don't have a gospel per se, we don't sing hymms and we don't respond to our pastor with the same little sayings at the end of each of his sentences. We don't have communion in church but rather promote the idea of breaking bread(or whatever you feel like, last tuesday we had a real spicy chili!) with our friends, Christian or otherwise with no false pretenses. People don't dress in their "Sunday Best", I usually wear jeans and a tshirt, more recently sweaters because it's getting so damn cold here in Canada as we approach winter. We get together and worship passionately with song, conversation and lots of laughter! Enough about that...

>> Is loving all of mankind a bad thing?

>No. Though it does seem that the evidence would indicate that religions have a problem with loving anyone not a part of the same group.

This is so true...if only, ONLY, everyone could figure that one out for themselves and realize we are all part of the same family, the human family...pity.

>> I choose to live my life this way in fear

>What kind of god would create people and then insist they live their lives in fear of him?

I use the term fear loosely, perhaps a more appropriate term would be in AWE?

Anyways, nice to weigh in once again, I really need to get back to work, hehe, spending too much time blogging not enough time working, Oh wait, I work in Government, it's all good....

Comment on Arguing Origins

Comment by Dave Child ( http://www.addedbytes.com )

Hi Joe,

You raise some interesting philosophical questions.

> I came looking for some cheat sheets and stumbled on this blog

Did you stumble from free will ... or was it pre-ordained? ;)

> do you believe in the possibility of life after death?

No. I believe that while we're here, we'd better make the most of it!

> why are we here and what happens when we die?

Heh. I seriously doubt we're going to answer that question here! It is a question that has perplexed civilisations for thousands of years. Most, to answer it, have created religions.

My answer to that - my personal belief - is that we're not here to fulfil a specific purpose. We're here because ... well, because of luck, frankly. Our being here is spectacularly improbable. For me to be here, I believe, every one of my parents, and my parents parents, and my parents parents parents, ad infinitum, managed to avoid being eaten, managed to find enough to eat, and managed to avoid falling off high things. I'm happy to try to keep the chain going.

> If I am wrong, is there anything fundamentally wrong with doing what we are asked to do in the Bible?

Again, an interesting question. This is commonly referred to as Pascal's Wager. The question assumes that belief in any god(s) has no possible negative connotations. The assumption is that the deity (or deities) specified is(are) the "right" one(s).

It is also a question that assumes that if any gods do exist, they are stupid. Apparently, those who follow the school of thought that "might as well believe, no harm" seem to think that their deities will appreciate them playing the odds and reward them for it.

> Is loving all of mankind a bad thing?

No. Though it does seem that the evidence would indicate that religions have a problem with loving anyone not a part of the same group.

> I choose to live my life this way in fear

What kind of god would create people and then insist they live their lives in fear of him?

> Can you really afford to be wrong?

Can you? What if the Muslims are right? The Hindus? The Jews? The Aztecs? The Incas? The Romans? The Greeks? The Omnians? The Jedi?

Comment on Arguing Origins

Comment by James ( )

Gentlemen,

I came looking for some cheat sheets and stumbled on this blog and had to offer my own opinion and that is all it is.

You all seem to have "points of view" regarding the possibility of creation vs evolution however let me put it to you all in a different, and perhaps more important light - Creation or Evolution aside, do you believe in the possibility of life after death? I don't want to sidetrack anyone from the original debate but the real question we all seem to want answered is just that.

It seems that forever Man has debated the possibility/reality of the creation as opposed to evolution and regardless of whatever religion/lack of religion you "support"(I too am a Christian) you must ultimately wonder why are we here and what happens when we die? I have made my choice based on the evidence I've heard to date over my lifetime, including the possibility of the Creation or evolution and ultimately one thing has directed my faith which makes both of those topics seem irrelevant.

If, in fact, Christianity is the one truth in the universe then I shall have the priviledge of spending eternity, once again ETERNITY, in a wonderful relationship with Jesus Christ and all those who choose to follow the Word, for ALL time. If I am wrong, is there anything fundamentally wrong with doing what we are asked to do in the Bible? Is loving all of mankind a bad thing? Is helping those who cannot help themselves a crime? Or how about giving of yourself as opposed to pursuing your own selfish ambitions like so many people today, myself included, I never said I was perfect? I choose to live my life this way in fear of an awesome God, who promises that all who believe in God and follow the Word(Jesus Christ) we shall have eternal life. If I am wrong than I have lived a good life and can die knowing that I did but if you are a non-believer, ask yourself...Can you really afford to be wrong? It's your call. Go Creation Go! ;-)

"15 Do not love the world or anything in the world. If anyone loves the world, the love of the Father is not in him. 16 For everything in the world—the cravings of sinful man, the lust of his eyes and the boasting of what he has and does—comes not from the Father but from the world. 17 The world and its desires pass away, but the man who does the will of God lives forever." 1 John 2:15-17 NIV

I hope I didn't upset anyone with my interlude but I had to get in on this one. Cheers!

Comment on Arguing Origins

Comment by Dave Child ( http://www.addedbytes.com )

Hmmm. An interesting if predictable read, that unfortunately contains no hint of a scientific theory of creation. It appears to contain a table containing common creationist arguments and miconceptions (all of which have been repeatedly debunked) and some justification for calling that a theory.

I even had a look at some of the content on the rest of the site. Surprisingly, it was primarily the same old baseless arguments and misconceptions. The "significant body of scientific creation work" you mentioned certainly doesn't appear to be on that site.

> But you have never really answered my question - why do the proponents of evolution not even want to entertain the idea of creation?

You'd have to ask them individually, I think. For me personally I think the overwhelming body of evidence shows that creationist superstitions and stories have no basis in fact, and I would imagine the same applies to most scientists.

As to why scientists now appear to you to reject creationism, it is (once again) because creationism is not scientific - it fails to meet the basic requirements for something to be considered science - for example it cannot, and does not, make falsifiable predictions, a requirement for any scientific hypothesis or theory.

I'm not going to ask you again to answer my questions - instead I'll have a go at guessing the answers for you:

> 1. Please point out a scientific theory of creation. I want to see the actual theory.

You can't because for creationists the theory is in a book and has never really been elaborated on. Evidence found that contradicts the story has been ignored, or twisted logic used to try and fit it in. For example, the fossil record, according to creationists, is a result of the flood.

> 2. Please explain why you decided that people who died before evolution was proposed as a theory are relevant to the debate.

Because you are basing your arguments and thoughts on the words of others, not your own research and didn't bother to check your information? Because, for you, your holy book HAS to be true, regardless of the evidence? (Maybe (and this is merely conjecture on my part) even because you find your faith shaken and must therefore be as vocal in support of your chosen religion as you can as a way to convince yourself that you really do still believe?)

> 3. Please provide evidence of the "very many" scientists who reject evolution. I've already pointed out that there are scientists who do so and they are in a huge minority - no need to reiterate that for me.

You can't because although scientists who are also creationists are out there they are in a huge minority (in the region of 1% or less according to the last poll I read, though I can't now find the link). Note, that's different to scientists who believe in a god - belief in a god does not require belief in any of the various creationist stories.

I'll leave you with one more question. Is there any amount of evidence that could actually convince you that evolution has been happening for millions of years?

Comment on Arguing Origins

Comment by Willem ( http://www.aussiesheepskin.com )

Dave,

I don't know what you want when you ask for a 'scientific theory of creation'. There is a significant body of scientific creation work that has been done and that is freely available to you and to anyone who cares to look. Perhaps I could refer you to this site:

http://www.trueorigin.org/creatheory.asp

but you could just as easily have found it yourself if you cared to look.

BTW, can you tell me what the 'scientific theory of evolution' is?

But you have never really answered my question - why do the proponents of evolution not even want to entertain the idea of creation? You say that you have seriously considered it, but from your own comments you indicate that from a very early early age you found the idea ridiculous, so I wonder if you really have. But proponents of evolution do not want to submit the evidence to both possibilities. Given that the presuppositions of both creation and evolution are unprovable, to eliminate one without testing it with the evidence is an act of faith. So why do proponents of evolution avoid submitting the evidence to testing?

Willem

Comment on Arguing Origins

Comment by Dave Child ( http://www.addedbytes.com )

Willem,

A small list of names of 185 scientists who have stated over the last 10 (at least) year that they believe in creation doesn't constitute "very many reputable and qualified scientists". It constitutes "a few people over a decade i a list lifted from another website". I can find that many people who'll go on record as saying they believe in the flying spaghetti monster and it would mean the same.

> Dave, you accuse me, without a shred of evidence, of being 'sceptical of anything that seemed to challenge what their holy book had told them.'

My apologies. You have made several comments on this blog indicating you are skeptical of evolution. You have trotted out the very standard list of creationist arguments against evolution without backing up your claims in any substantial way. You have avoided replying to answers to your questions when possible, and have consistently failed to maintain a coherent point of view. You have ignored replies and questions and repeated yourself constantly.

You have not said you are a creationist, however you have given that impression. Perhaps you could clarify your position if that is in fact incorrect.

> So I question you. Have you ever seriously enterained the idea of creation? Is your mind open enough to consider that the world might well have been created? Or is it so closed that you can only accept evolution as a possibility?

Wow, there's lots of questions there, and once again some pretty standard misconceptions. Evolution has nothing to do with the creation of the world. Evolution is a theory explaining the diversity of life and the progressive changes observed in life over time.

I have seriously entertained the idea of creation. I was brought up a Christian. I found the whole idea ridiculous, personally, from a very early age.

> For the record, I have examined both theories (if we may call them that), over a lengthy period of time, and for quite a long time was open to both.

I find that very hard to believe given that your knowledge of evolution appears to be limited only to arguments against it based on a lack of knowledge.

Finally, you managed to completely avoid addressing the issues in my last comment. Allow me to put them in clearer terms:

1. Please point out a scientific theory of creation. I want to see the actual theory.
2. Please explain why you decided that people who died before evolution was proposed as a theory are relevant to the debate.
3. Please provide evidence of the "very many" scientists who reject evolution. I've already pointed out that there are scientists who do so and they are in a huge minority - no need to reiterate that for me.

Comment on Arguing Origins

Comment by Willem ( http://www.aussiesheepskin.com )

G'day Dave,

I have included a list of scientists with doctorates in a science related field who do take a creation point of view. I'm sorry the list is lengthy and takes up a lot of space on your blog, but there it is. The list is not exhaustive. Please note also that there is a wide range of disciplines represented.

Dave, you accuse me, without a shred of evidence, of being 'sceptical of anything that seemed to challenge what their holy book had told them.'

So I question you. Have you ever seriously enterained the idea of creation? Is your mind open enough to consider that the world might well have been created? Or is it so closed that you can only accept evolution as a possibility?

For the record, I have examined both theories (if we may call them that), over a lengthy period of time, and for quite a long time was open to both.

So, Dave, I have approached the problem with an open mind. Have you?

Willem

Note: Individuals on this list must possess a doctorate in a science-related field.

Dr Paul Ackerman, Psychologist
Dr E. Theo Agard, Medical Physics
Dr James Allan, Geneticist
Dr Steve Austin, Geologist
Dr S.E. Aw, Biochemist
Dr Thomas Barnes, Physicist
Dr Geoff Barnard, Immunologist
Dr Don Batten, Plant physiologist, tropical fruit expert
Dr John Baumgardner, Electrical Engineering, Space Physicist, Geophysicist, expert in supercomputer modeling of plate tectonics
Dr Jerry Bergman, Psychologist
Dr Kimberly Berrine, Microbiology & Immunology
Prof. Vladimir Betina, Microbiology, Biochemistry & Biology
Dr Raymond G. Bohlin, Biologist
Dr Andrew Bosanquet, Biology, Microbiology
Edward A. Boudreaux, Theoretical Chemistry
Dr David R. Boylan, Chemical Engineer
Prof. Linn E. Carothers, Associate Professor of Statistics
Dr David Catchpoole, Plant Physiologist (read his testimony)
Prof. Sung-Do Cha, Physics
Dr Eugene F. Chaffin, Professor of Physics
Dr Choong-Kuk Chang, Genetic Engineering
Prof. Jeun-Sik Chang, Aeronautical Engineering
Dr Donald Chittick, Physical Chemist
Prof. Chung-Il Cho, Biology Education
Dr John M. Cimbala, Mechanical Engineering
Dr Harold Coffin, Palaeontologist
Dr Bob Compton, DVM
Dr Ken Cumming, Biologist
Dr Jack W. Cuozzo, Dentist
Dr William M. Curtis III, Th.D., Th.M., M.S., Aeronautics & Nuclear Physics
Dr Malcolm Cutchins, Aerospace Engineering
Dr Lionel Dahmer, Analytical Chemist
Dr Raymond V. Damadian, M.D., Pioneer of magnetic resonance imaging
Dr Chris Darnbrough, Biochemist
Dr Nancy M. Darrall, Botany
Dr Bryan Dawson, Mathematics
Dr Douglas Dean, Biological Chemistry
Prof. Stephen W. Deckard, Assistant Professor of Education
Dr David A. DeWitt, Biology, Biochemistry, Neuroscience
Dr Don DeYoung, Astronomy, atmospheric physics, M.Div
Dr Geoff Downes, Creationist Plant Physiologist
Dr Ted Driggers, Operations research
Robert H. Eckel, Medical Research
Dr André Eggen, Geneticist
Prof. Dennis L. Englin, Professor of Geophysics
Prof. Danny Faulkner, Astronomy
Prof. Carl B. Fliermans, Professor of Biology
Prof. Dwain L. Ford, Organic Chemistry
Prof. Robert H. Franks, Associate Professor of Biology
Dr Alan Galbraith, Watershed Science
Dr Paul Giem, Medical Research
Dr Maciej Giertych, Geneticist
Dr Duane Gish, Biochemist
Dr Werner Gitt, Information Scientist
Dr D.B. Gower, Biochemistry
Dr Dianne Grocott, Psychiatrist
Dr Stephen Grocott, Industrial Chemist
Dr Donald Hamann, Food Scientist
Dr Barry Harker, Philosopher
Dr Charles W. Harrison, Applied Physicist, Electromagnetics
Dr John Hartnett, Physicist and Cosmologist
Dr Mark Harwood, Satellite Communications
Dr Joe Havel, Botanist, Silviculturist, Ecophysiologist
Dr George Hawke, Environmental Scientist
Dr Margaret Helder, Science Editor, Botanist
Dr Harold R. Henry, Engineer
Dr Jonathan Henry, Astronomy
Dr Joseph Henson, Entomologist
Dr Robert A. Herrmann, Professor of Mathematics, US Naval Academy
Dr Andrew Hodge, Head of the Cardiothoracic Surgical Service
Dr Kelly Hollowell, Molecular and Cellular Pharmacologist
Dr Ed Holroyd, III, Atmospheric Science
Dr Bob Hosken, Biochemistry
Dr George F. Howe, Botany
Dr Neil Huber, Physical Anthropologist
Dr Russell Humphreys, Physicist
Dr James A. Huggins, Professor and Chair, Department of Biology
Evan Jamieson, Hydrometallurgy
George T. Javor, Biochemistry
Dr Pierre Jerlström, Creationist Molecular Biologist
Dr Arthur Jones, Biology
Dr Jonathan W. Jones, Plastic Surgeon
Dr Raymond Jones, Agricultural Scientist
Dr Felix Konotey-Ahulu, Physician, leading expert on sickle-cell anemia
Prof. Leonid Korochkin, Molecular Biology
Dr Valery Karpounin, Mathematical Sciences, Logics, Formal Logics
Dr Dean Kenyon, Biologist
Prof. Gi-Tai Kim, Biology
Prof. Harriet Kim, Biochemistry
Prof. Jong-Bai Kim, Biochemistry
Prof. Jung-Han Kim, Biochemistry
Prof. Jung-Wook Kim, Environmental Science
Prof. Kyoung-Rai Kim, Analytical Chemistry
Prof. Kyoung-Tai Kim, Genetic Engineering
Prof. Young-Gil Kim, Materials Science
Prof. Young In Kim, Engineering
Dr John W. Klotz, Biologist
Dr Vladimir F. Kondalenko, Cytology/Cell Pathology
Dr Leonid Korochkin, M.D., Genetics, Molecular Biology, Neurobiology
Dr John K.G. Kramer, Biochemistry
Prof. Jin-Hyouk Kwon, Physics
Prof. Myung-Sang Kwon, Immunology
Dr John Leslie, Biochemist
Prof. Lane P. Lester, Biologist, Genetics
Dr Jason Lisle, Astrophysicist
Dr Alan Love, Chemist
Dr Ian Macreadie, molecular biologist and microbiologist:
Dr John Marcus, Molecular Biologist
Dr George Marshall, Eye Disease Researcher
Dr Ralph Matthews, Radiation Chemist
Dr John McEwan, Chemist
Prof. Andy McIntosh, Combustion theory, aerodynamics
Dr David Menton, Anatomist
Dr Angela Meyer, Creationist Plant Physiologist
Dr John Meyer, Physiologist
Dr Albert Mills, Reproductive Physiologist, Embryologist
Colin W. Mitchell, Geography
Dr John N. Moore, Science Educator
Dr John W. Moreland, Mechanical engineer and Dentist
Dr Henry M. Morris, Hydrologist
Dr John D. Morris, Geologist
Dr Len Morris, Physiologist
Dr Graeme Mortimer, Geologist
Stanley A. Mumma, Architectural Engineering
Prof. Hee-Choon No, Nuclear Engineering
Dr Eric Norman, Biomedical researcher
Dr David Oderberg, Philosopher
Prof. John Oller, Linguistics
Prof. Chris D. Osborne, Assistant Professor of Biology
Dr John Osgood, Medical Practitioner
Dr Charles Pallaghy, Botanist
Dr Gary E. Parker, Biologist, Cognate in Geology (Paleontology)
Dr David Pennington, Plastic Surgeon
Prof. Richard Porter
Dr Georgia Purdom, Molecular Genetics
Dr John Rankin, Cosmologist
Dr A.S. Reece, M.D.
Prof. J. Rendle-Short, Pediatrics
Dr Jung-Goo Roe, Biology
Dr David Rosevear, Chemist
Dr Ariel A. Roth, Biology
Dr Jonathan D. Sarfati, Physical chemist / spectroscopist
Dr Joachim Scheven Palaeontologist:
Dr Ian Scott, Educator
Dr Saami Shaibani, Forensic physicist
Dr Young-Gi Shim, Chemistry
Prof. Hyun-Kil Shin, Food Science
Dr Mikhail Shulgin, Physics
Dr Emil Silvestru, Geologist/karstologist
Dr Roger Simpson, Engineer
Dr Harold Slusher, Geophysicist
Dr E. Norbert Smith, Zoologist
Dr Andrew Snelling, Geologist
Prof. Man-Suk Song, Computer Science
Dr Timothy G. Standish, Biology
Prof. James Stark, Assistant Professor of Science Education
Prof. Brian Stone, Engineer
Dr Esther Su, Biochemistry
Dr Charles Taylor, Linguistics
Dr Stephen Taylor, Electrical Engineering
Dr Ker C. Thomson, Geophysics
Dr Michael Todhunter, Forest Genetics
Dr Lyudmila Tonkonog, Chemistry/Biochemistry
Dr Royal Truman, Organic Chemist:
Dr Larry Vardiman, Atmospheric Science
Prof. Walter Veith, Zoologist
Dr Joachim Vetter, Biologist
Dr Tas Walker, Mechanical Engineer and Geologist
Dr Jeremy Walter, Mechanical Engineer
Dr Keith Wanser, Physicist
Dr Noel Weeks, Ancient Historian (also has B.Sc. in Zoology)
Dr A.J. Monty White, Chemistry/Gas Kinetics
Dr John Whitmore, Geologist/Paleontologist
Dr Carl Wieland, Medical doctor
Dr Lara Wieland, Medical doctor
Dr Clifford Wilson, Psycholinguist and archaeologist
Dr Kurt Wise, Palaeontologist
Dr Bryant Wood, Creationist Archaeologist
Prof. Seoung-Hoon Yang, Physics
Dr Thomas (Tong Y.) Yi, Ph.D., Creationist Aerospace & Mechanical Engineering
Dr Ick-Dong Yoo, Genetics
Dr Sung-Hee Yoon, Biology
Dr Patrick Young, Chemist and Materials Scientist
Prof. Keun Bae Yu, Geography
Dr Henry Zuill, Biology

Comment on Arguing Origins

Comment by Dave Child ( http://www.addedbytes.com )

>Reputable creationists are always ready to have their theory tested under scientific conditions.

Feel free to point to one scientist who has actually proposed a scientific theory of creation - you know, where we can actually see the theory.

It's been said before - if you want to play in the pool, bring your own trunks - don't just point to the holes in other peoples and claim that you don't need your own.

> Is that the reason for your fear?

Heh. Always with the fear, the religious.

Scientists aren't afraid of creation (though some rightly fear some of the actions of religious people). Scientists don't pay creation any real attention. In 1985, a study was done (IIRC) following complaints from creationists that their work was being rejected by scientific publications. That study looked at the submissions to those publications and found that only 18 out of 135,000 could be said to advocate creation.

The evidence is abundantly clear - creationist "scientists" aren't interested in doing the science bit - they focus on picking holes on competing theories, often where none exists. Scientists aren't "stuck" on evolution - it is always being tested, partly because it is the most controversial scientific theory of our time.

However, to promote an opposing theory first requires the oposing theory be created. In fact, it would start as a hypothesis. That hypothesis would be tested. If the tests and evidence supported it strongly enough, it would be considered a theory.

The road to "theorydom" is well travelled. Nobody is blocking it. Creationist "scientists" are not being stopped from treating creation as science. They're just, apparently, not bothering to.

I am sure you will claim that they are, Willem, and I might well do the same in your position - so I will save myself a reply here - if you believe differently, please show me your sources - show me where the scientists are putting forward a theory of creation, and not just picking holes in other theories.

> Isaac Newton did not accept evolution. Nor did Pascal.

Dude, Isaac Newton and Pascal lived before Darwin. They would have been unaware of the concept of evolution. Hardly shocking that they didn't accept it. Most of the scientists of the day were also Christians and quite, like yourself, sceptical of anything that seemed to challenge what their holy book had told them.

> there are very many reputable and qualified scientists today who do not accept evolution

Often claimed and rarely backed up. The evidence (Gallup polls for example) shows the percentage of scientists who reject evolution to be vanishingly small. Feel free to quote your sources. There are a larger number of scientists who are religious and believe in a god, but remember that that is different to rejecting evolution.

Comment on Arguing Origins

Comment by Willem ( http://www.aussiesheepskin.com )

David,

Your comment:

>> expect creation to be allowed to do this without passing the same level of scientific scrutiny that evolution has and continues to.<<

is simply not true. Creationists are more than happy to to have creation theory pass the same level of scientific scrutiny that any other sicience is subject to. Reputable creationists are always ready to have their theory tested under scientific conditions.

If you are under a different impression then someone has misled you.

I ask the question - Why are the proponents of evolution so scared of creation that they will not even examine the evidence? What's the problem guys? I evolution is right, you have nothing to fear! But the problem is of course that it might be wrong, and creation right. What then? Then you would have to admit there is a creator! Is that the reason for your fear?

David, your claim that:

>>The scientists of the time were Christian. They examined, tested and debated evolution themselves, and still do, and found that creation didn't match the evidence and evolution did.<<

is also not true. Isaac Newton did not accept evolution. Nor did Pascal. Nor did most of the scientists of the day. It was mainly churchmen, not scientists, who accepted it. And not even all of them accepted it. There were very many who did not. And there are very many reputable and qualified scientists today who do not accept evolution and who do accept creation. To claim otherwise is simply wrong.

My challenge and my charge remain. Test the evidence to see which theory of origins best fits the evidence. That's my challenge. My charge is that evolution has been unwilling to do this for decades and is therefore and to that extent unscientific.

Willem.