The Creationist Buffoonery and Its Dangerous Implications

Creationism seems to be gaining credence far beyond its actual influence in the world of science. Even American presidential candidates, lest they offend the religious right, reject evolution in favor of creationism. Mike Huckabee, Fred Thompson and Mit Romney endorse creationism. President George Bush suggests students ought to hear all sides of the argument, as if creationism or its bastard offspring Intelligent Design is a science topic worthy of mention. In spite of the pro-evolution 2006 verdict in Dover, PA, creationists persist seeking to influence and intimidate uninformed school boards in Ohio, Florida, and Texas. This is clearly a culture war with creationist/biblical literalists leading the anti-science, pro-creationist charge.

Creationists usually have two basic assertions: 1) that they are the ones who know true science and 2) that it is they and they alone who are the guardians of true faith in the written and revealed word of their deity. Both are of concern as surely as they are false, but it is the first assertion that we must deal with here.

Creation “science” rejects every fundamental precept upon which actual science functions, from empiricism to falsification. Creationists reject empiricism, the very heart of science, and instead embrace fanciful biblical legends of a ‘talking snake’ and a 6,000-year-old solar system all in a vain attempt to justify their immutable doctrinal beliefs. They are no different than the Roman Catholic clergy of 500 years ago persecuting Galileo because he declared the sun did not revolve around the earth.

Creationist buffoons know their a priori conclusions in advance, independent of any scientific inquiry. They then massage their superficially scientific assertions to justfy their desired answers matching their religious doctrine. The circularity and philosophical bankruptcy of this perspective is obvious. They beg the question, presuming to be true the very thing they claim. In other words, they are going to believe what they are going to believe regardless of the facts, i.e. religious fanaticism.

The major creationist concern is they’re afraid evolution may prove they’re not created in the image of the Bible’s God. It seems these poor folks have never read their Bible objectively. The Bible’s God is a serial murderer, He endorses stealing and lying, institgates gang rape, and finally declares that all (virtually 99% of all humanity) who do not believe in his Son will be condemned to Hell to burn forever and ever. But, that’s okay cause He really loves you? Tell that to the 6,000,000 Jews who perished under Adolph Hitler.

Over the past 149 years since Charles Darwin’s 1859 book On the Origin of Species, scientists of relevant disciplines such as cosmology, astronomy, geology, biology, zoology, and paleontology repeatedly confirm evolution a valid theory having the same reliability as the theory of gravity. According to a 1991 Gallup Poll there were about 480,000 scientists working in the relevant fields of earth and life sciences. Of those, only about 700 consider creationism valid. This means 98% of relevant scientists accept evolution and less than 2% of relevant scientists consider creationism good science. In the world of science, creationism does not even qualify for fringe of the fringe.

Scientists arrive at their conclusions by the scientific method of extensive trial and error testing of hypotheses until results produce a verifiably testable theory, in this case the theory of evolution. In contrast to creationist/religious theory, scientific theory is always tentative and subject to change as new evidence dictates.

It is bad enough that creationist churches are freeloaders, taking advantage of the public’s good will by skirting their fair share of real estate taxes. But, worse yet, they use creationism as a rhetorical facade, as a lever through which to influence public policy. Creationists exploit the faith of well-meaning Christians (and those of other religions) to further their own purely self-serving goals at the expense of reality. Creationism is nothing more than an ancient regurgitated ideology bereft of merit, and loathsome in its intentions.

America ’s 29th ranking in science education can, in part, be laid at the feet of our creationist/biblical literalists parading about as those righteous souls who would never “bear false witness.” James Madison saw through the charade saying, “During almost fifteen centuries has the legal establishment of Christianity been on trial. What have been its fruits?More or less in all places, pride and indolence in the clergy, ignorance and servility in the laity, in both, superstition, bigotry and persecution.” A Memorial and Remonstrance Against Religious Assessments, addressed to the Virginia General Assemby, 1785.

Make no mistake, creationism intends to redefine science, and replace it with a meaningless shell of supernatural speculation and deceit. And why, you might ask? The answer is not hard to fathom. Religion has ever been a sanctuary of those who seek to secure their eminence at the expense of others. History is unequivocal in teaching this lesson, and yet as blind as we are we seem to have failed to learn it. The creationist attack on the teaching of evolution devalues science, cheapens theology as well as condemning America’s students to an inferior education, ultimately hurting their professional opportunities, not to mention diminishing America’s leadership in science and technology.

Creationists aim to not only destroy science in an effort to protect their creationist fairy tales, their mission is to redefine the United States of America, eviscerate the Constitution, and effectively dismantle American democracy by instituting religious indoctrination in the schools and halls of public policy making. They mean to supplant all of these things with a form of oligarchy wrapped in the shrouds of a dumbed down science and legalistic religion. And if one doubts this, one need only consult the web sites and publications of such notable creationist organizations as the the Creation Museum, the Institute for Creation Research and the Discovery Institute. Creationists are quite explicit in their stated goals, and there is little room for doubt their true intentions. The true mission of creationism is theocracy. Thus exposed, the need to fight it on all fronts, scientific, philosophical, theological, administrative and judicial, is made even more clear. There is no higher imperative if we mean to preserve America’s intellectual freedom.

Lee Salisbury was an evangelical minister for 14 years. After a sabbatical leave in 1986, he finally looked objectively at the bible and Christianity. Lee began Minnesota’s Critical Thinking Clubs in January, 2001. Read other articles by Lee, or visit Lee's website.

33 comments on this article so far ...

Comments RSS feed

  1. joed said on January 29th, 2008 at 8:49am #

    98% of the citizens of the USA are ignorant, childlike humans that don’t have any idea about critical thinking. They deserve Inteligent design and all that goes with that. Let’s face it; this is the best the american people can do.

  2. C. David Parsons said on January 29th, 2008 at 9:10am #



    Things will never be the same in academia after this.

    There is a new discipline on the scene: physical science, the old science of cause and effect.
    Against the backdrop of a nation embroiled in debate and legal battles over whether creationism or evolution, or both, should be taught in the classroom, The Quest for Right proclaims a


    The Quest for Right, a series of seven textbooks designed for the public schools, represents the ultimate marriage between an in-depth knowledge of biblical phenomena and natural and physical sciences. As a result, the several volumes have accomplished that which, heretofore, was deemed impossible: to level the playing field between those who desire a return to physical science in the classroom and those who embrace the theory of evolution. The Quest for Right turns the tide by providing an authoritative and enlightening scientific explanation of natural phenomena which will ultimately replace the unprofitable Darwinian view.

    The backbone of Darwinism is not biological evolution per se, but electronic interpretation, the tenet that all physical, chemical, and biological processes result from a change in the electron structure of the atom which, in turn, may be deciphered through the orderly application of mathematics, as outlined in quantum mechanics. A few of the supporting theories are: degrading stars, neutron stars, black holes, extraterrestrial water, antimatter, the absolute dating systems, and the big bang, the explosion of a singularity infinitely smaller than the dot of an “i” from which space, time, and the massive stellar bodies supposedly sprang into being.

    The philosophy rejects any divine intervention. Therefore, let the philosophy of Darwinism be judged on these specifics: electron interpretation and quantum mechanics. Conversely, the view that God is both responsible for and rules all the phenomena of the universe will stand or fall when the facts are applied. The view will not hinge on faith alone, but will be tested by the weightier principle of verifiable truths – the new discipline.

    The Quest for Right is not only better at explaining natural phenomena, but also may be verified through testing. As a result, the material in the several volumes will not violate the so-called constitutional separation of church and state. Physical science, the old science of cause and effect, will have a long-term sustainability, replacing irresponsible doctrines based on whim. Teachers and students will rejoice in the simplicity of earthly phenomena when entertained by the new discipline. You will not want to miss the adventure of a lifetime that awaits you in Volume 1 of The Quest for Right, by C. David Parsons.

    Visit the official website for additional information:

    “A book that will change the world.” – Wayne Lin, Editor, Tate Publishing LLC

  3. Charles Dawkins said on January 29th, 2008 at 9:38am #

    You need to do your homework better. If you think you are familiar with the scientist at ICR, I think your mistaken. They have done strong research in so many areas. One of there current (YES-current) scientist was on the committee who won the nobel prize with your boy mr. Gore. Stop allowing your religion (evolution) to keep your brain isolated.

    The ICR is composed of men and women of science, having earned their advanced degrees in accredited, secular institutions. It therefore came as a surprise when the Dallas Morning News stated that the ICR graduate school allegedly “rejects so many fundamental principles of science“

    ICR – and the public – would like to know what principles of science are supposedly rejected by our graduate school. Surely not gravitational theory (formulated by creation scientist Sir Isaac Newton). Nor the laws of heredity (listed by creation scientist Gregor Mendel). Do we deny natural selection? No, this was suggested by creation scientist Edward Blyth – 24 years before the publication of Darwin’s infamous book.

    What the ICR does openly question (as well as a growing number of secular scientists) is Darwin’s ‘descent with modification’ – otherwise known as macroevolution. A literal reading of this strange idea is scientifically unsupportable. If one wishes to believe Darwin’s account over empirical science, one may. But it’s not science. We should heed what one of England’s premier secular biologists said in the Introduction to Darwin’s book, “The fact of evolution is the backbone of biology, and biology is thus in the peculiar position of being a science founded on an unproved theory – is it then a science or a faith? Belief in the theory of evolution is thus exactly parallel to belief in special creation – both are concepts which believers know to be true but neither, up to the present, has been capable of proof.” – L. Harrison Matthews (F.R.S.), Introduction to The Origin of Species (London: J.M. Dent & Sons, Ltd., 1971)

  4. Jonathan Cahill said on January 29th, 2008 at 9:58am #

    Excellent article! Very well written! Let the Chinese and Indians excel in the real sciences! American children need only to ponder how the Great Flood carved out the Grand Canyon less than 6000 years ago and how man co-existed with friendly dinosaurs ( all vegetarians, of course) until Eve had the audacity to take a bite out of that apple…!

    Meanwhile, the recently opened (2007) “Creation Museum” in Kentucky has just this month received approval from Boone County officials to add another 600 parking places!!! Think of how many more school buses can now be accommodated as Christian schools and the like make more-and-more educational “pilgrimages” to this dubious center of learning. (My favorite bumper sticker: “I visited the Creation Museum and all I got was stupider!”)

    These are the same misinformed people who, with flag lapel pin prominently displayed, lecture fellow Americans that this country was founded entirely on Christian principles by devout believers. The John Adams quotation cited in this article is more typical of the actual thoughts of the majority of our key founding fathers (Washington, Jefferson, Franklin, Paine, and so on)! I leave you with two relevant quotations, one written by that un-American “heretic” Thomas Jefferson and the other by that un-American author Mark Twain:

    “”I have examined all the known superstitions of the world, and I do not find in our particular superstition of Christianity one redeeming feature. They are all alike founded on fables and mythology..” (Thomas Jefferson)

    “”The so-called Christian nations are the most enlightened and progressive…but in spite of their religion, not because of it. The Church has opposed every innovation and discovery from the day of Galileo down to our own time, when the use of anesthetic in childbirth was regarded as a sin because it avoided the biblical curse pronounced against Eve. And every step in astronomy and geology ever taken has been opposed by bigotry and superstition. The Greeks surpassed us in artistic culture and in architecture five hundred years before Christian religion was born.” (Mark Twain)

    Unfortunately, as you so rightly pointed out, “religious fanatics are going to believe what they are going to believe regardless of the facts!”

    Thanks, again!

    Jonathan Cahill

  5. Richard Windar said on January 29th, 2008 at 10:10am #

    Has it ever been a good time to BELIEVE people came from prokaryotes?

    Evolutionist buffoons have a problem (well, lots of serious scientific problems): “Replication is regarded as a characteristic feature of living cells, and in no known organism can it take place without the involvement of both nucleic acids and proteins. This interdependence between nucleic acids and proteins gives rise to what has been called the “chicken and egg” problem: in evolutionary terms, which of the two came first, or could they have evolved together? From the early days of the debate there has been disagreements: Haldane believed the gene had primacy, whereas Oparin considered the process to have been more interactive. Even today, the answer is by no means obvious.”
    - Trevor Palmer, Controversy – Catastrophism & Evolution, Kluwer Academic, 1999, p. 266

    Not only are darwinist fundamentalists confronted with the problem of the naturalistic origin of life, but the fossils and molecular biology are at complete odds. To buy into one is to deny the other, “We have 2 bodies of evidence, each with semingly impeccable credentials, that lead us to mutally contradictory conclusions . . . If we believe the DNA, modern humans spread around the globe from Africa . . . But if we accept that, we have to ignore the evidence of the fossils, and if we believe the fossils, we have to ignore the evidence from DNA” (Trefil, 1996, pp. 268-69 ).

    Atheist Trish Gura agrees, “If molecular data have provoked strong reactions among researchers interested in the evolution of whales, that is nothing compared to the hornet’s nest stirred up among palaeoanthropologists.” – Trisha Gura, Nature 406:231 (see R. Caan’s comment about this “often polarized debate” in the Quarterly Review of Biology, June ’06). Oh, sorry, one more comment from atheist Peter Forey (J. of Paleontology 77(1)) who said, “Molecular evidence, although frought with difficulties of interpretation, . . .”

    Fossils, as I said, fare no better:
    “Both the origin of life and the origin of the major groups of animals remains unknown.” – A.G. Fisher, Grolier Multimedia Encyclopedia fossil section, 2003
    The following quotes are from Hickman, Roberts & Larson, Zoology W.C. Brown, 1997 -
    “The origin of the ciliates [e.g. the Paramecium] is somewhat obscure.” – p. 235
    “Unraveling the origin of the multicellular animals (metazoans) has presented many problems for zoologists.” – p. 240
    “. . . one of the most intriguing questions is the place of mesozoans [a phylum of animals containing only one organ, a gonad] in the evolutionary picture.” – p. 242
    “The origin of the cnidarians and ctenophores [comb jellies] is obscure.” – p. 275
    “Any ancestral or other related groups that would shed a clue to the [evolutionary] relationships of the Acanthocephala is probably long since extinct.” – p. 317
    “The primitive ancestral mollusc was probably a more or less wormlike organism . . .” – p. 346
    “No truly satisfactory explanation has yet been given for the origins of metamerism and the coelom, although the subject has stimulated much speculation and debate over the years.” – p. 365
    “What can we infer about the common ancestor of the annelids? This has been the subject of a long and continuing debate.” – p. 365
    “Controversy on phylogeny within the Chelicerata also exists . . .” – p. 379
    “The relationship of the crustaceans to other arthropods has long been a puzzle.” – p. 399
    “The evolutionary origin of insect wings has long been a puzzle.” – p. 429
    “The phylogenetic affinities of the Pentastomida are uncertain. – p. 439
    “The phylogenetic position of the lophophorates has been the subject of much controversy and debate.” – p. 447
    “Despite the excellent fossil record, the origin and early evolution of the echinoderms are still obscure.” – p. 450
    “Despite the existence of an extensive fossil record, there have been numerous contesting hypotheses on echinoderm phylogeny.” – p. 465
    “Hemichordate phylogeny has long been puzzling.” – p. 476
    “However, the exact phylogenetic position of the chordates within the animal kingdom is unclear.” – p. 480
    “ . . zoologists have debated the question of vertebrate origins. It has been very difficult to reconstruct lines of descent because the earliest protochordates were in all probability soft-bodied creatures that stood little chance of being preserved as fossils even under the most ideal conditions.” – p. 485 [In other words, there is no evidence for their evolution]
    “The fishes are of ancient ancestry, having descended from an unknown free-swimming protochordate [a tunicate or lancelet] ancestor.” – p. 499
    “To the cladist, however, the statement that humans evolved from apes says essentially that humans evolved from something that they are not, a trivial statement that contains no useful information.” – p. 204 (phylogenetic systematics = cladistics)

    I must agree with Lee Salisbury, “Darwinists aim to not only destroy science in an effort to protect their evolutionist fairy tales, their mission is to redefine the United States of America . . .” making it a secular state.

  6. Jonathan Cahill said on January 29th, 2008 at 10:28am #

    (Correction to my recent posting) Oops! I meant James Madison, not John Adams, when I referenced the quotation you cited in your article. John Adams was actually a “devout Christian” although, unlike so many Christians today, he understood the absolute necessity of keeping religion out of government!

    Ironic how the religous fanatics of today (far right in this country, Taliban, ultra-orthodox Jews, etc) will use today’s technology (laptop computers, satellite uplinks, television and radio, etc.) as they do their best to bring civilization back to the world of The Old Testament…!

  7. Richard Windar said on January 29th, 2008 at 10:35am #

    J. Kahill’s post above is so wrong at so many points it’s difficult to know where to start.
    Who said the Flood carved out Grand Canyon? Creation geologists don’t. They maintain it was a post Flood event, occurring perhaps a century AFTER the Flood.
    Hey Johanthan, where does it say Eve took a bite out of an apple? Reference, please.
    Kahill whines about a private organization, using private funds going through legal channels to obtain “another 600 parking places!!!” Why should you care, Kahill? Unlike public schools that use taxpayer dollars to teach students they came from bacteria (see my first post above), the Creation Museum uses no taxpayer money. Jonathan cries & kicks anyway.

    I quote from Kahill, “darwinian fanatics are going to believe what they are going to believe regardless of the facts!”

  8. Paul said on January 29th, 2008 at 12:36pm #

    C. David Parsons (who is not a scientist) has submitted a comment (above) which is nothing more than a commercial for his pseudoscientific book series, “The Quest For Right.” As part of the proof this is not a science book, the website has TWO favorable reviews: One from a preacher (not a scientist) and one from an editor at the vanity press that is publishing thParson’s books.

  9. Jack said on January 29th, 2008 at 1:20pm #

    I am not a scientist nor do I know all the theories surrounding this issue. What it boils down to me is FAITH. I either need to have enough faith that nothing exploded and miraculously turned into everything or that a being of supreme power miraculously brought everything into existence. It seems, in my mind, that nothing exploding and becoming everything requires a lot more faith.

    If anyone can, through scientific reasoning, show me how this explosion is possible I am all ears. But no one can or at least until now have not. That is the point, each view requires faith. That is where Evolutionist self imposed scientific higher ground falls away.

    Where do you place your faith?

  10. Scott said on January 29th, 2008 at 2:47pm #

    Intelligent design is the assertion that an intelligent designer designed and created the universe, including living things. This assertion includes a cause (the intelligent designer) and an effect (the universe, including living things). However, this assertion is untestable.

    Intelligent design cannot become a scientific theory (i.e., a verified hypothesis). ID is nothing more than a propaganda campaign. The fellows of Discovery Institute continuously proclaim that ID is the “best” explanation for “certain features of the universe and of living things”. They make no effort to test their hypothesis and publish their data because they know that their hypothesis is untestable. They nevertheless continue trying to deceive us into believing that their hypothesis has been tested and verified and is a “scientific theory.” The lie and lie and lie again. They hope that by bombarding us with “best”, “best”, “best” we will eventually be brainwashed into believing that ID is the “best” explanation.

    They know that intelligent people will not fall for their tripe. Their real goal is to convince people who have an IQ of less than 100 points that they should vote for politicians who promise to “wedge” ID into science classes.

    Ultimately, ID is 100 percent politics and zero percent science.

  11. joed said on January 29th, 2008 at 2:53pm #

    Yep! you americans deserve creationism and the anxiety needed to keep your beliefs together. Be careful, someone might say something and your beliefs will be threatened and then fall apart leaving you alone in this awsome beautiful universe. Friendly dinosaurs indeed!
    Critical thought anyone?

  12. Jonathan Cahill said on January 29th, 2008 at 3:28pm #

    REPLY TO Richard Windar (at least I can spell YOUR name!)

    There are SO many variations on Creationist bullshit that it does not really matter whether it was The Flood or a “post-flood”! To me, it has the same validity as debating some minor detail in Aesop’s Fables or Grimms’ Fairy Tales!

    You all try to tear-apart mainstream science, which by definition is testable, tenuous and mutable. Creationism is built on a “premise” that cannot be tested, i.e. The Bible IS the word of God! Then, all of the creationist “pseudo-scientists” are off-and-running trying to bend their perception of reality to fit this immutable template. You NEVER question the original premise (i.e. Book of Genesis), written thousands of years ago and influenced SO MUCH by other prevaling contemporary thoughts/religions/myths/etc.. You have the luxury, nay, DUTY to “hide” behind the construct of “faith” and NOT question the words from a book which has SO MANY contradictions. (Okay to own slaves? “Oh, that’s not what God really meant…!”) Have you ever studied how the Bible was originally put together, i.e. who decided what went into it and what didn’t? If you studied these 2nd-4th century religious zealots, trying to get “legitimacy” for their religion while in competitiion with other prevaling thoughts, you’d learn how acceptable it was to LIE (bend the truth, make-up the truth) as long as it “served God’s purpose!” Fast-forward to today and, like any bell-curve distribution, you still have the same kind of religious thinking that existed back then (some well-meaning, other quite calculating), i.e. their “take” on God is the only correct take. And, of course, how can you “test” it…?”

    Mainstream science does NOT have all of the answers. It never will. Still, look how far it’s come within the last 250 years or so – no thanks to religion! Some of your other quotations like those regarding FOSSILS (“Both the origin of life and the origin of the major groups of animals remains unknown!”) miss the point. YES, there is still so much that science hasn’t yet investigated, or knows to investigate. Just think what fossils and such will be uncovered as Northwest Canada thaws out. Again, your premise that, since there is so much that science can’t (yet) explain it (mainstream science) therefore must be flawed, is absolute lunacy, abetted by your unwillingness to objectively question the foundations and premises of YOUR own so-called “science”…!

    I’m not going to argue ad nauseum in this forum, as my main intent was to just to compliment the author! Still, I leave you with another quote, by David Brooks from “The Necessity of Atheism” –

    “To explain the unknown by the known is a logical procedure; to explain the known by the unknown is a form of theological lunacy.””

    Jonathan Cahill

  13. joed said on January 29th, 2008 at 3:55pm #

    “theological lunacy” is about it.
    These religious people will say ANYTHING to confuse the issue. chaos and confussion are their trademark. Often what they say is said with malice in their intent to cofuse. the religious people are mostly mean hate-filled small minded people. These just happen to be the people that are also the leaders of the ‘FREE WORLD” .
    critical thinking frightens them. they must be right or they are lost in this wonderous meaningless beautiful universe. They will want to kill you if you show them how truely wrong are their thoughts. they want to put thinking people on the defensive and they are good at doing that, just look at this comment section of this fine article.
    carl sagan said something to the effect that extrodinary claims require extrodinary proof. So, going on the defense with the religious people is the wrong move, just ask’em to prove their claim. Of course they can’t and will use their “slanderous tricks” to get you on the defense. America deserve these people. An Ausie once said that Austraila was tremendously fortunate to get the criminals from England, america had the misfortune of getting the religious nuts.
    How true, How true

  14. Jonathan Cahill said on January 29th, 2008 at 4:10pm #

    REPLY #2 to Richard Widnar

    Mr. Widnar wrote: “…Kahill whines about a private organization, using private funds going through legal channels to obtain “another 600 parking places!!!” Why should you care, Kahill? Unlike public schools that use taxpayer dollars to teach students they came from bacteria (see my first post above), the Creation Museum uses no taxpayer money. Jonathan cries & kicks anyway. ” (end of quote)

    That’s funny – I fully SUPPORT your right to be wrong and to be an idiot regarding your convenient “pick-and-choose” approach to science. I even support the rights of Ken Ham and other creationists to build their “Creation Museums!” Do you support MY right to criticize (politely, I must add!) all of the above? Do you grasp the key points of author Lee Salisbury’s article? Proponents of Creationism are not content to just have a different opinion from mainstream science, and have their own absurd museums that P.T. Barnum would be proud of! No, they need to promulgate their convictions into everyone’s life, starting with school boards, rewriting of the science curriculum, and so on. Ultimately, its not really about science but about their smug, sanctimonious belief that their particular brand of religion, and why it must be foisted on everyone else! This is why I am so ACTIVE about expressing my concerns, even about private (?) enterprises like the Creation Museum. I can question my opinions and can even change them! I’m willing to listen and learn. Can you do the same? Okay, if we’re going to “expand” on our high school science curriculum, who’s to say we choose YOUR version of “creationism?” Why not add the teachings of “Raven” from Northwest Canadian Indians tribes? Gotta love the Hindu’s and their Trimurti of Brahma! Of course, The Spaghetti Monster is gaining popularity. Why should we believe in your brand of biblical nonsense, and disregard all others?

    Your parting comment “darwinian fanatics are going to believe what they are going to believe regardless of the facts!” is absolutely ludicrous! Why should I believe your “facts” when you do not permit them to be “tested” and then accepted or discarded. A lot of (mainstream) scientific facts HAVE been discarded over time. A theory, of course, is usually based on a large number of facts! It’s funny (and pathetic) how school board members, trying to slip Creationism/Intelligent Design back into the classroom, ALWAYS get this wrong, saying that “Evolution is ONLY a theory – it’s not a fact!”

    Well, no use beating a dead horse! I’ll leave you with one more quotation that you’ll (undoubtedly) not comprehend:

    “I contend that we are both atheists. I just believe in one fewer god than you do. When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods, you will understand why I dismiss yours. ” (Sir Stephen Henry Roberts)

    Jonathan Cahill

  15. joed said on January 29th, 2008 at 4:27pm #

    Mr.Cahill, thanks for the excellent response to the religious guy. but, you must know by now that if you get in a pissin’ contest with a skunk you are gonna’ lose.
    Religious guy uses the slanderers tactics to get you on the defense. the only proper recoarse is the tell religious guy , “Prove It, prove you claim.” He can’t prove his claim but he will continue to try to get you on the defense. You don’t hafta bite. religious guy is unable to think critically because his head is full of beliefs and faith and junk like that. there is no help for him.

  16. Who Cares said on January 29th, 2008 at 4:28pm #

    @Charles Dawkins:
    Ah yes the eternal micro evolution exists (because we can’t deny it anymore) but not macro evolution canard. This is literally the same as saying addition exists but multiplication doesn’t.
    But you don’t stop there and make the claim that because a 150 year old idea (on which 150 years of improvements have happened) is not completely correct any research done because of that idea is worthless.
    And then to complete your dishonesty you perform a quote mine on Matthews. If you would have actually read the book (and introduction) instead of just copy/pasting things like this you’d have known that there is a distinction made between the fact of evolution and the theory, oh and that he writes two pages later that the theory is so plausible that most biologists (can and do) accept it as proven fact.

    Before you spout nonsense like that learn about the subject. The big bang is cosmology not biology. And you just said: because in an unrelated field (cosmology) something I heard about, without investigating if it is correct, doesn’t sound plausible I do not believe that in another field of science (biology) evolution is possible.
    That is the problem with most creationists. You don’t what you are talking about and instead of learning you accept on faith the claim made by others that evolution is wrong. Do some research instead, in this case it is almost as easy as grabbing a book or two and reading the first few chapters.

  17. Siegfried Starbust said on January 29th, 2008 at 6:14pm #

    ‘According to a 1991 Gallup Poll there were about 480,000 scientists working in the relevant fields of earth and life sciences. Of those, only about 700 consider creationism valid. This means 98% of relevant scientists accept evolution and less than 2% of relevant scientists consider creationism good science. ‘

    Actualy, this is 0.15% of scientists, not 2%. This works out to about 15 of every 10.000 scientists, or (incredibly) 1 in every 666.

    Not many people realize that the Big Bang was caused by Pat Robertson stubbing his toe.

  18. HR said on January 29th, 2008 at 8:44pm #

    It’s ‘way past time for religious outfits who get seriously into the political realm to lose their property and other tax exemptions. We need to start assessing property taxes and income taxes on ALL church property and income. Can’t have it both ways, superstitious ones.

  19. Jonathan Cahill said on January 30th, 2008 at 7:18am #

    REPLY to joed.

    Thanks for your comments! You’re absolutely right about the “tactics” these people utilize. As I wrote my previous comments I was constantly asking myself why am I investing so much energy in trying to refute a fool! Still, I guess its fun to “spar” from time to time, even while knowing that the outcome will always be at an impasse. It’s pathetic that people like Richard Widnar will “cut/paste” a very LARGE LIST of claims, facts, references, etc., without really understanding what it is that they’re posting. “Overwhelm the competition” with an impressive looking list of info. and the match is over! “Slam..Dunk…Creationists WIN!” Like many of our politicians and political commentators, these people never let a little thing like “facts” (or their understanding thereof) get in the way of their arguments….! Which reminds me of (yet!) another quotation, this one by George Orwell:

    “Political or military commentators, like astrologers, can survive almost any mistake, because their more devoted followers do not look to them for an appraisal of the facts but for the stimulation of nationalistic loyalties.”

    Its exactly the same for creationists!

    Best Regards!


  20. Jack said on January 30th, 2008 at 10:01am #

    In response to Who Cares

    I have read books and have studied biology in college. So I do have a basis from where to start. My comment was that I am not be up on all the new developments in the evolutionary theories. Evolutionary theory seems to evolve at a much faster pace than evolution itself. It is worthy to note that though my professor was an ardent evolutionist, in a private conversation he admitted to me that he could not explain where the building blocks of life originated from.

    To say that biology and it’s theories regarding evolution are in some way distinct and not related to cosmology is ignorance. If cosmetologist can not prove through scientific means the age of the earth I see a problem with the millions if not billions of years evolutionists throw around.

    As previously stated faith is something we all require and the problem with evolutionists fail to admit this. They seem to think they have some sort of high (arrogant) superior knowledge they condemn creationist\religious people of having.

    I have no problem having my beliefs questioned and defending them. I do not see the same accommodation from evolutionists. They believe evolution is the only way and angrily attack anyone that would suggest otherwise. Real science should be questioned and so should religion. If you are unwilling to have your beliefs questions you are no better than the people you condemn.

  21. Mark Murphy said on January 30th, 2008 at 11:06am #

    Jack you are absolutely right! Science should be questioned, and it is on a daily basis in the scientific community. What scientists angrily attack are those with little or no scientific training or experience in relative fields, spouting off sound bites, collected from the Discovery Institute or other scientifically ignorant sources, and using their influence to have mythology taught as science in our public schools. There are no more critical individuals on the planet than scientists. If the science is not supported by the evidence then other scientists will be the first to call them on their work. If people outside the scientific community understood the process of science then their work would hold more credibility in the community at large. However, because we have failed miserably to teach the most basic concepts of science to the majority of Americans we will continue to have presidential candidates run legitimate campaigns who don’t have enough scientific literacy to be able to simply use the information from science to make informed decisions. God help us!

  22. New Ideas said on January 30th, 2008 at 11:38am #

    well now,

    there is much interesting commentary going on here. science has always had the virtue of stepping back from a failure and taking another look at the possibility of total faultiness. if you can accept the idea that you are totally wrong and see all the failures of your hypothesis(the basis of any scientific claim) then you have something that is at the core of every great scientist(einstein etc.). this is the idea that fact is what matters. a true scientist is not afraid to entertain bizarre claims in search of the truth(a very objective word), however a true scientist will never base his reality on those bizarre claims. imagination is key to taking steps that can be observed (another scientific step), so what we are left with is HUGE amounts of observed data, creatures that share very specific traits( ie scales or hair or eyes even certain types of all these things) and that in todays modern environment we observe changes at a genetic level taking place in all sorts of creatures. what we are left with is a proven theory(animals are changing genetically all the time) and lots of holes which pretty accurately fit the theory of evolution. and as far as the chicken and the egg. well some hypothesize(that pesky word) that proteins have an attraction to one another and that in a nutrient rich environment with heat or electricity and likely water, these chemicals will form more and more complex compounds. or there is the ice with bacteria arriving from an asteriod theory. regardless of how you slice it these are provable theories. you can take some bacteria and throw it in a tub full of water and nutrients and you will get evolution. so regardless of HOW we got here(and i mean we as in this planet that we SHARE with other animals(and for you creationists god supposedly made the animals too so they are sacred right?)) we are getting closer to KNOWING how life started(if its possible to ever know for sure).

    phew! now lets touch on something a little different. creationists or should i just say those who believe in a creator. feel that evolution somehow cheapens it. that if we evolved over a slow process that forced us to adapt and EARN our place in this world that we are diminished in the light of god. I suggest to you another idea. the only thing i have found that comes close to bridging science and god. if god created everything and it is all a part of him/her/it, then is evolution not the most brilliant divine mechanism for creating life? if god is omnipontent and perfect then why would god go through such undignified means as just snapping and poof its all here. wouldnt god want us to have a rich history to explore and worship? i worship evolution because i think it is divine im not religious because true spirituality is colorless. so all these creationists who think that god blew his nose and the universe was created well thats kindof like the big sneeze.. er bang. and if you think god said oops theres a kink in the plan, eyeballs arent evolving fast enough so ill just spontaneously change my plan and fix that. well thats just silly. scientists often have an aversion to religion because it tries to convince you that youre guilty(original sin) with no hard proof so scientists say screw that im gonna find my own truth that i can prove. and religious people who are ridiculed for believing in creation go the opposite and live in a world that supports their internal faith. what is needed is the balanced appreciation of a book that, wiether written by god or not is for sure written in language and dialect that was meant for people 2000 years ago. god put science here so we could have some understanding of the divinity of the universe. if you believe that god is perfect then its easy to believe that gods techniques are so complex that to assume you know them is the ultimate blasphemy. open your mind and see that creationism is evolution and evolution is creationism. this post will most likely be flamed but for those of you who are in touch with their intuition and their logical observation this will ring true in a way that neither science nor god can disprove. so love eachother for Gods/Sciences sake!!!

  23. Dave said on January 30th, 2008 at 1:07pm #

    Here is an interesting blog post that compares the micro/macro evolution arguments to a logical paradox called the heap paradox:

    Just thought some people here would find it interesting.

  24. Jim said on January 30th, 2008 at 4:53pm #

    Well, the vitriol spewed by these gentle Christians is quite the bucket of vomit, no? These Christians may love each other (sometimes) but they sure hate folks not encumbered by a belief in fantasy and stuporstition.

  25. Frank Osborn said on January 30th, 2008 at 10:51pm #

    “Of those, only about 700 consider creationism valid. This means 98% of relevant scientists accept evolution ”

    I don’t agree with young earth creationism, but this guy is just as deceitful. Which type of evolution were scientist asked about? Creationist agree with the basic theory of evolution, the adaptability of leaving things. That’s the theory of gravity comparison.
    If you asked how many scientist agreed with Abiogenisis you would get a completely different number. True believer evolutionist are just is fanatical and unscientific as true believer evolutionist. I can’t see a difference in the quality of their science.
    This is just more political spin.

  26. Frank Osborn said on January 30th, 2008 at 10:55pm #

    “Of those, only about 700 consider creationism valid. This means 98% of relevant scientists accept evolution ”

    I don’t agree with young earth creationism, but this guy is just as deceitful. Which type of evolution were scientist asked about? Creationist agree with the basic theory of evolution, the adaptability of leaving things. That’s the theory of gravity comparison.
    If you asked how many scientist agreed with Abiogenisis you would get a completely different number. True believer evolutionist are just is fanatical and unscientific as true believer Creationist . I can’t see a difference in the quality of their science.
    This is just more political spin.

  27. Who Cares said on January 31st, 2008 at 1:37am #

    You just showed your ignorance again.
    Evolution does not and tries not to explain how life got started. What it does is posit an explanation how it develops from that point.

    More ignorance about needing cosmology around to explain the time needed. If you want to discredit the time needed try plain old physics. The earth being billions of years old was firmly established using radioactive decay (in 1953).
    Even more ignorance about how cosmology works. This time tiny things like triangulation (specifically parallax) , redshift and speed of light dictate a lower bound to the age of the universe. This has nothing to do with how the universe was created.

    So explain to me why faith is needed for things I can measure and correlate. Like Laplace when he offered an astronomy text to Napoleon and Napoleon asked where is God said: I did not need that hypothesis. (Note this is a paraphrased version).

    I truly suggest you take time to do some research instead of just accepting as gospel claims by people who know they are lying (Remember the “you shall not bare false witness” line in the bible) to keep their shallow faith alive.

    @Frank Osborn:
    Evolution has nothing to say about abiogenenis (or panspermia or exogenesis for that matter) since evolution does not posit an explanation on how life got started.

  28. John said on January 31st, 2008 at 10:37am #

    This is too funny. Darwin changed his mind about evolution and became a Christian.

  29. Frank Osborn said on January 31st, 2008 at 3:19pm #

    “Evolution has nothing to say about abiogenenis (or panspermia or exogenesis for that matter) since evolution does not posit an explanation on how life got started.”

    Thanks for the correction.
    I apologize to Lee Salisbury, for my ignorant statement then.

  30. Jim Moore said on February 6th, 2008 at 8:33am #

    A Quest for Right Review

    Want to know the real deal about “Quest for Right”? I bought an e-book, read it and have written a review at:

    To give you an idea, he wants to change the names of all the planets and moons to something he dreamed up (Jupiter is now Controller).


  31. Doc Savage said on February 7th, 2008 at 10:48am #

    > This is too funny. Darwin changed his mind about evolution and became a > Christian.

    Amazing that the Incult still try to spread this story.

    “His belief dwindled, and with the death of his daughter Annie in 1851, Darwin finally lost all faith in Christianity. He continued to help the local church with parish work, but on Sundays would go for a walk while his family attended church.[119] He now thought it better to look at pain and suffering as the result of general laws rather than direct intervention by God.[120] When asked about his religious views, he wrote that he had never been an atheist in the sense of denying the existence of a God, and that generally “an Agnostic would be the more correct description of my state of mind.”[121]

    The “Lady Hope Story”, published in 1915, claimed that Darwin had reverted back to Christianity on his sickbed. The claims were refuted by Darwin’s children and have been dismissed as false by historians.[122] His daughter, Henrietta, who was at his deathbed, said that he did not convert to Christianity.[123] His last words were, in fact, directed at Emma: “Remember what a good wife you have been.”[124]”

  32. Huey said on February 7th, 2008 at 1:54pm #

    John said:

    “This is too funny. Darwin changed his mind about evolution and became a Christian.”

    No he didn’t. Why don’t you read a history book instead using them for door stops?

  33. Mallard! said on March 18th, 2008 at 7:04pm #

    Maybe after the fact…

    However I highly recommend the Nova entitled “Intelligent Design on Trial”. This should clear up any illusion of ID’s psuedo-science bullshit. Basically it boils down to, do you believe a book written 2000 years ago by fanatics interested in keeping their power or do you trust every credible scientist in the last 150 years. I respect your right to ignorance, but if you believe in creationism, don’t try and support it with anything put your faith.