Where's the birth certificate

Free and Strong America

Monday, November 2, 2009

Column: Science and faith used to be allies

In today's article by Mark Pinsky, he concludes by saying....

""The God of the Bible is also the God of the genome," (National Institutes of Health, Francis) Collins said. "God can be found in the cathedral or in the laboratory. By investigating God's majestic and awesome creation, science can actually be a means of worship."

Could you imagine the harmony between the two if many scientists approached their studies in a state of reverence for what they are examining? I don't see at all why the two have to be at odds at all. As VD once stated. If religion didnt exist then science would have to invent religion in order to ensure it's ethical uses and applications.


feeno said...


True dat. Pinsky rules. I think I knew his brother Snake?

Later Holmes, feeno

Tracy said...

I've always thought just what you're saying; that science should lead us to awe and wonder at the great Creator.

feeno said...

Hey JD

Something else to consider, I know that not all Christians are "Young Earthers" and if you or they are not, it's all good with me. I do believe that God created us in a literal 6 days. And because of my beliefs, I truly believe as science continues to teach us things we will go full circle and Evolution could be an obsolete idea in future? Darwin himself said he just needed time to be proven right by archeological discoveries to "fill in the gaps" by using fossil records. we haven't found anything of real significance to support his theory. Maybe in another hundred years people will laugh at the notion mankind evolved?

Later, feen

What, no love for Snake Pinsky, what da hell?

JD Curtis said...

Feeno, I agree that Darwinism is on the way out. It is a constantly changing story that still hasnt settled. On Ray Comfort's blog the other day I posted what I thought was one of the better points raised by Young Earth Creationists, that of paraconformities. I look more toward ID, but thats just me.

Here's the best entry I've seen on evolution in my entire life. Check it out.

feeno said...

Thanks JD, I honestly would fall asleep if I tried to read all that and still comprehend anything. But it would be nice if they could explain some of these points in our public schools and colleges along side of evolution. Most of what I read didn't even mention God or the Bible. So what's the rub?

Reynold said...


Feeno, I agree that Darwinism is on the way out. It is a constantly changing story that still hasnt settled...

one of the oldest failed dreams of the religous crowd.

In recent reading of Dembski and other ID proponents I saw them make a claim which has been made for over 40 years. This claim is one that the young-earthers have been making. The claim is that the theory of evolution (or major supporting concepts for it) is increasingly being abandoned by scientists, or is about to fall. This claim has many forms and has been made for over 178 years. This is a compilation of the claims over time. The purpose of this compilation is three-fold. First, it is to show that the claim has been made for a long, long time. Secondly, it is to show that entire careers have passed without seeing any of this movement away from evolution. Third, it is to show that the creationists are merely making these statements for the purpose of keeping hope alive that they are making progress towards their goal. In point of fact, no such progress is being made as anyone who has watched this area for the last 40 years can testify. The claim is false as history and present-day events show, yet that doesn't stop anyone wanting to sell books from making that claim. Now for the claims in chronological order.

Read on and see.

Instead, the evidence for evolution just keeps piling up.

Reynold said...

As for "conservapedia", I'd rather that one gets information about evolution from, you know, the people who actually study and work within the relevent fields as opposed to outsiders who have been continually spanked by those same experts.


Tell me...those are the people who are also planning on rewriting the bible. How much do you trust them not to muck it up since they're not actual hebrew scholars?

JD Curtis said...

Reynold, where were you 2 months ago? I was trying to get that snipe-and-dodge faculty member at the satellite campus to debate Vox Day on Natural Selection. Why did Myers turn and run away? He's obviously not above trying to argue with Ken Ham. Why not with Day?

Reynold said...

Did we not go over this?

All I can say besides what I said there is, if Vox Day is your hero, you sodding need to do better.

I remember that I also had to educate you about Dawkins as well...after you ignorantly accused him of just being in it for the paycheck.

Here's something: Why not respond to the points I actually made in my post above which actually deal with the topic at hand?

Reynold said...

Ah, since you brought Vox Day up...

JD Curtis said...

Pardon me for not remembering it was actually YOU. Anyway. Day is only one that is currently being snubbed by the lemmings that you look up to. It appears that Dawkins is ducking Stephen C. Meyer also. Why? Can't say that he never had his work peer reviewed in a scientific journal. Link. Snipe-and-dodge wussies.

Reynold said...

Well, if you really want to talk about "Snipe-and-dodge wussies"? How's about "brave" Dembski who was writing articles about how he'd like to cross-examine "Darwinists" in court (using that cute vice-picture), then instead of actually bleeping showing up in court, he pussied out.


Dembski, Meyer, and Campbell’s exodus is explained by their fear of cross-examination. The public shredding that Irigonegaray had given ID creationists in Kansas one month earlier was still fresh17. Moreover, Dembski, Meyer, and Campbell knew what the plaintiffs’ expert witnesses would say in court because they had our reports. DI must have known that our case would be devastating to the defense —and thus to ID— if it was argued before a judge who respected the truth and the Constitution.

In contrast, Barbara Forrest and her fellow "Darwinists" all testafied and were cross-examined, all pro-bono

Who's the "snipe-and-dodge wussie" there?

Come to think of it, where's all the "research" that the ID people have been promising for some years now?

- A peer-reviewed paper by Dembski, Wells, Nelson, Meyer

- Or for that matter, a single peer-reviewed article offering either (a) evidence for design, (b) a method to unambiguously detect design, or (c) a theory of how the Designer did the designing, by any fellow of the DI.

- An exposition of Nelson’s theory of "ontogenetic depth" (promised in March 2004)

- An article by Nelson & Dembski on problems with common descent (promised in April 2005)

- Nelson’s monograph on common descent (currently MIA since the late 90’s).

If they really had anything to back up what they say, those people would be in the LABS and doing some actual work, instead of just speaking at churces, writing easily-debunked books for the public (as opposed to peer-reviewed articles in scientific journals that show the actual evidence for ID), writing blogs, and losing court cases.

Come to think of it, why have you still not said a word about the points I brought up in my previous posts here, which actually dealt with the original post topic?

Anyway, your heroes get beaten even without Myers et al dealing with them directly. Vox Day for example was smacked down by the scienceblogs people as my previous links showed. Ray Comfort is being smacked down by Eugenie Scott. If she refuses to debate someone else of your choosing later on, will she be a "wussie" too?

As I asked before: Even if they were to debate your "hero", Vox Day, what's to stop some other snot-nosed religious blogger from proclaiming Myers, Dawkins, et al to be "wussies" or "lemmings" if they don't debate their hero later on?

Eugenie Scott is the better debater, and she's doing a good enough job on your friend Comfort.

Reynold said...

...Stephen C. Meyer also. Why? Can't say that he never had his work peer reviewed in a scientific journal.

Uh, you mean the peer-review case talked about here?

JD Curtis said...

Reynold, I'm still waiting for "research" on this "settled science" that proves

A. Macro Evolution and
B. Chemical evolution

Do be so kind as to point me in the right direction for info re: these "facts".

Reynold said...

Hello! How many times have I posted this link or at least parts of it, here? Just read it through, and more importantly, read the footnotes and references, since they give the research sources.

As for chemical evolution and biochemical evolution...

It's a huge boring read, but you asked for it...

And again, why have you ignored the points I've posted before?

For instance, have you noted the blog link to the article "The Year in ID, 2008" edition where the authour lists several ID projects that were promised and have never been followed through?

Any explanations for those?

JD Curtis said...

Are you referring me to a book by Duane Gish? Check the bibliography that you cited. I think I'll buy Evolution, The Fossils Say No first. Have you read it Reyn?

Reynold said...

That's not a book: It's just one Impact article.

That reference is just one of many that talks about chemical evolution, though of course he denies it.

Since you asked specifically for "chemical evolution" I figured I'd give you a list. Though to me, a more relevent read is the stuff dealing with biochemical evolution that I linked to afterward; since biochemistry has more to do with evolution than inorganic chemistry.

That's talked about a little bit here.

Only the development of an oxygen atmosphere is all I can think of where inorganic chemistry is very relevent to evolution.

I've read Gish's Evolution: The Fossils Still Say No, and I've found it to be as full of it as any other creationist work. For some rebuttals to at least the Hominid section of his book, go the the Fossil Hominid section of the Talk Origin archive.

Have you anything to say about any of the other points that I've brought up in any of my other posts? You seem damned good at ignoring almost everything I post and focussing on a teeny part, if at all, of what I post.

For instance, I've listed where the ID people have promised research papers and still haven't delivered; I've given you the link to the 29 evidences for macroevolution which shows the research that you've asked for.