Two anti-evolution bills have been struck down in South Carolina this week. Both bills died in committee, which is exactly what should happen to all such bills in any state.
From the NCSE article:
Both bills were sponsored by Senator Michael Fair (R-District 6), who spearheaded a number of previous antievolution efforts in South Carolina.
Senator Fair needs to give it a rest and stop wasting the taxpayers’ money with his shenanigans.
From James McGrath of Exploring Our Matrix, I found these cartoons by Gordon Glover about Intelligent Design.
The accuracy of the depiction of Intelligent Design is amazing… and amusing!
Mississippi can now lay claim to hosting the first anti-evolution bill of 2010, according to the National Center for Science Education. Gary Chism (R-District 37), who last year introduced a bill that would have required biology textbooks to include a classic creationist disclaimer about evolution, has sponsored this new bill, HB 586.
From the NCSE article:
[The bill] would, if enacted, require local school boards to include a lesson on human evolution at the beginning of their high school biology classes. The catch: "The lesson provided to students … shall have proportionately equal instruction from educational materials that present scientifically sound arguments by protagonists and antagonists of the theory of evolution."
Chism seems to be a classic creationist… meaning that he has no business poking his nose into the science education of our children. This is from the NCSE article referring to his 2009 bill…
Speaking to the Northeast Mississippi Daily Journal (January 24, 2009), Chism was candid about his motivations for the bill [HB 25 from 2009], explaining, "Either you believe in the Genesis story, or you believe that a fish walked on the ground," and adding, "All these molecules didn’t come into existence by themselves." HB 25 died in committee on February 3, 2009.
Chism is obviously ignorant about evolution.
The (sort of) bright side is that the newly proposed bill also says…
The lesson provided to students shall not evidence bias through selective instruction on the theory of evolution, but rather, shall have proportionately equal instruction from educational materials that present scientifically sound arguments by protagonists and antagonists of the theory of evolution.
I’m amused by the phrase "selective instruction," but the good part is the phrase "educational materials that present scientifically sound arguments." As anyone who’s honestly studied evolution knows, there are no scientifically sound arguments against evolution… so Mississippi could be safe. I doubt Chism sees it that way, however, so perhaps we should still be worried.
Let’s hope HB 586 suffers the same fate as HB 25.
(via)
Ray Comfort the “ambush” evangelist and author has written his penultimate tour de force, Nothing Created Everything. Speaking of nothing, let’s talk about Ray’s sales figures compared to Richard Dawkins’. Dawkins released his book, The Greatest Show On Earth, the same day as Comfort’s. Dawkins’ book has been on Amazon’s top 100 list for 66 days now. Comfort’s book? (Now is the part where you hum the Jeopardy Game Show’s, “I’m thinking” music) It hasn’t made it there yet *Craig crosses fingers*.
It’s hard to believe that a man like Ray Comfort hasn’t hit a homerun with his latest tome. Out of all FIVE reviews on Amazon’s site it has one VERY complimentary review! And, oh wait. Who wrote the review? Why look, it was the author himself! Yeah, Ray “Banana Man” Comfort, objetively *gulp* reviewed his very own book. Well done Ray! Just when I thought your ethics hit a new low with your Michael Jackson Million Dollar Commemorative Tract, you prove me wrong again!
(Craig screams like Captain Kirk in Wraith of Khan, ” COMFORT!!!!!! “) Here is a link to Comfort’s brilliant expose on his own masterpiece, http://www.amazon.com/review/R3TFXA8B1XARBQ/ref=cm_cr_pr_viewpnt#R3TFXA8B1XARBQ . Please take note that “2 of 28 people found the review helpful”. I guess Ray’s wife and Kirk Cameron really appreciated his hard hitting review. I wonder what the book’s own website has to say about it in it’s reviews section? Let’s check: http://www.nothingcreatedeverything.com/category/reviews/ . Wow! What a shock there are…none. I guess there were too many positive reviews hitting the server and it crashed…uh huh, that’s it. It is worth noting that of the *giggle* five reviews on Amazon, Ray’s was the only positive one in support of his book.
To be fair the comments left by Comfort were less a review and more a promotion of his book. This still says nothing for the fact that there are only four legitimate reviews of this book. Four? FOUR? By the way none of the four were even positive.
The release of this book is only harder evidence for the non-existance of a God. For if there was a God, the skies would surely be filled with the rain made of his tears.
Casey Luskin of the Discovery Institute is all up in arms about censorship because, he claims, the Smithsonian-affiliated California Science Center cancelled its screening of the “documentary” Darwin’s Dilemma when it found out that the film was promoting intelligent design. While I agree that censorship is generally not good, Luskin seems to (again) misunderstand that a science center doesn’t want to promote unscientific ideas and that intelligent design is an unscientific idea. That’s been firmly established time and time and time and time again, but Luskin and his compatriots at the Discovery Institute can’t seem to wrap their heads around it.
Says Luskin…
As soon as word of the screening went public the Darwinian thought police started complaining about a government-supported science center renting its facilities to a group showing a film that challenges Darwinian evolution.
Why the outrage? Isn’t there academic freedom to express scientific viewpoints that dissent from the evolutionary “consensus�
Yes, Luskin. There is academic freedom to express scientific viewpoints that dissent from the evolutionary consensus. The key word is “scientific,” however. Intelligent design is not scientific, no matter how badly you want it to be.
Luskin (and the film) attempt to use the Cambrian explosion as evidence for intelligent design, claiming that it poses a problem for evolutionary theory. I don’t want to ruin the ending, but… it doesn’t. Luskin, in true form, sets up a false dichotomy by saying that there are “two ways that modern evolutionists approach the Cambrian explosion” and lists them as follows.
A. Some freely acknowledge that the Cambrian fossil evidence essentially shows the opposite of what was expected under neo-Darwinian evolution.
B. Others deal with the Cambrian explosion by sweeping its problems under the rug and trying to change the subject.
Strangely enough, neither option is correct… or accurate… or honest. The Cambrian explosion is not a dilemma and the reason it’s not is that it hasn’t been swept under the rug, but has been openly (and repeatedly) addressed and shown to fit easily and neatly within the bounds of evolutionary theory. Evidently word hasn’t filtered down to Luskin yet.
The other concept that hasn’t reached Luskin yet is that even if science hasn’t discovered the answer for something yet, it doesn’t mean that simply asserting an “intelligent designer” is a valid answer. It’s certainly not even remotely scientific.
Luskin goes on to complain about “Darwinian elites” (envy much?), censorship, harassment, and Carl Sagan. His claims are nonsensical, including the one about a 2004 “pro-ID peer reviewed scientific article by Stephen Meyer (seriously?) and one about Richard Sternberg experiencing “retaliation” for being pro-ID (seriously?).
What it boils down to is the fact that Luskin just can’t accept the fact that intelligent design is not science… hence it shouldn’t be presented as science at science-based institutions. It’s not censorship any more than refusing to promote astrology as an alternative to astronomy is censorship.
Luskin’s closing paragraphs are where he glaringly makes my point that he just doesn’t get it.
Darwin’s dilemma isn’t just about a lack of transitional fossils in ancient rocks. It’s about how the guards of evolutionary orthodoxy will treat contrary scientific viewpoints.
Will they silence minority views, or will they grant dissenting scientists freedom of speech and scientific inquiry to make their case?
Evolutionary scientists welcome contrary scientific viewpoints. They actually debate the fine points of evolution constantly and review new scientific ideas. Dissention is welcomed, but the key word (again… and still) is “scientific.” That’s where Luskin and his Discovery Institute peers get left in the dust. They’re not scientific. Intelligent design is not science. As much as they want to believe it, saying it over and over again does not make it true and the more they do it, the more they make a mockery of themselves.
…which is something, it seems, they do on a regular basis.
I was just shown a great slideshow on the Discover website showing Intelligent Design’s 8 Biggest Fails. It’s well worth taking a look.
A truly disappointing waste of theatrical technology and flair. As with most of the museum, this “show” was well produced (totally bat s%&t  crazy) but well done. The Men In White were the angels Michael and Gabriel. By putting a “hip” spin on an old story for the sake of youngsters, teachers and scientists are comically portrayed as villainous and silly.
The show starts with a young animatronic girl named Wendy sitting at a campfire pondering her existence and the meaning of life. During her moment of lost contemplation and doubt, Michael & Gabriel show up to raise her spirits. The implication is that without a purpose from God, Wendy is lost, alone and miserable. The angels show up to persuade Wendy that God exists and cares for her and they begin to show her “proof” of his existence. It is here that the angels begin with, ” …if you use the bible as your starting point Wendy, then everything makes sense!” ANGEL SAYS WHAT?? Imagine if your science teacher started your first class with, ” …if you just take everything I say as fact, then everything makes sense!” From the very beginning this presentation insults the human intellect. Science doesn’t require blind faith and it never suggests a “starting” point. This is where the “machine gunning” of “facts” begins.
When you start with the bible everything makes sense like:
1. Marine fossils found on mountain tops? Those mountains were once covered in water from the great flood.
2.Volcanic dust found in ice cores? Just think of all that volcanic ash in the atmosphere after the flood.
3. Similarities in DNA found in the cells of every living thing? Since God created DNA he made it so that all living things could live and eat in the same world.
If you believe in evolution or as the angels call it “goo to you” then none of this makes sense. According to the angels, “…evolution makes no sense without billions of years!”
-Next we move on to discredit radioisotope dating. This form of dating is flawed because there are too many assumptions required to be accurate, say the angels. Zircon crystals have been found with helium gas in them. This suggests that they are not nearly as old as man believes because the helium gas is escaping to quickly to be millions of years old. This is refuted on the following CHRISTIAN website http://www.answersincreation.org/RATE_critique_he-zr.htm . I highly suggest you read this article. It gets all “sciencey” but it is fascinating and alot more accurate than two white overall clad buffoon like angels.
-Next we learn from the angels that the earth can’t be millions let alone billions of years old because of the salt content in the oceans. The angels (portraying high school students in a science class) smuggly challenge a teacher about the age of the earth due to the lower than they expected salt content in the oceans. This is called EPIC FAIL. This moronic notion that if the earth were millions of years old there would be higher concentrations of salt in all of the world’s oceans is wrong. Wrong for several reasons but once again I would direct you to the following CHRISTIAN website to read the refutation of this quackery. http://www.answersincreation.org/argument/G336_creation_science.htm This article explains that creationist’s salt theories are misguided and fail to account for several factors involving the mechanisms for the removal of salt from the oceans.
-Next up, the crazy dinosaur theory. Our smug little angels tell their professor that in 2005 a T-Rex leg bone was found with blood cells intact and un-fossilized. This obviously means that the leg bone could not be millions of years old, right? WRONG! Again the answers to the BS claim come from a CHRISTIAN website. http://www.answersincreation.org/rebuttal/magazines/Creation/1997/trexblood.htm . In this excerpt there is an email log from the actual paleontologist, Jack Horner, who was chiefly involved in this discovery. He goes on to explain that it is not true and that creationist are grasping at half truths and no facts.
-The angels just can’t quit. Next we find out from these two brainiacs that the earth’s decaying magnetic field would indicate that life could not have survived millions of years ago. This is again refuted at http://www.answersincreation.org/argument/G811_creation_science.htm . The angels are referring to a scientific article written by Thomas Barnes. It has been all but publically laughed at by theoretical scientists and bears no scientific weight.
-Next…lack of super nova remnants proves a young earth, say the angels. No, it doesn’t. http://www.answersincreation.org/malone_supernova.htm . I hate to keep linking after every point but since the creation museum didn’t use any real science to make their point, I figured I should.
With about thirty minutes of research on the Internet I have found tons of articles scientifically refuting everything said in this absurd display of purposeful ignorance. The men in White should be taken away and locked up by …men in white jackets. The most disheartening part of this “program” was the fact that children were in the audience being “taught”. Shame on the creation museum and shame on the parents who made their children sit through this glaring display of stupidity.
Richard Dawkins has a DVD titled The Genius of Charles Darwin which includes interviews with various people about evolution. Today, in a post on Pharyngula, PZ Myers told folks from the Secular Student Alliance that, if they’re engaged in conversation during their visit tomorrow at the Creation Museum in Kentucky, they can probably expect the type of exchange in the following interview from the DVD.
It’s in seven parts and the seventh video drops partway through the dialogue (which evidently it does on the DVD, too), but seven parts is more than enough. I watched all seven, but really, after the first video, there wasn’t much point in continuing. It was somewhat like the old “watching the train wreck” scenario, though, that kept me going. The interviewee, Wendy Wright from the Concerned Women for America, really didn’t listen to the questions… or answer them… or acknowledge what Dawkins was saying… or make much sense. It almost seemed (!!!) as if she were a talking head who mechanically distributed creationist talking points… and who could really do nothing else.
Dawkins tried his best and was incredibly tolerant and polite, though you could tell he was frustrated during many of the exchanges because Wright wouldn’t acknowledge what he was saying. She repeated, ad nauseum, the claim that there is no evidence for evolution, and refused to acknowledge his examples of evidence… even to disagree with them! It was as if Dawkins wasn’t even speaking. She even made claims that DNA evidence which supports evolution really supported special creation. Dawkins was tossing out pieces of evidence but it was like throwing ping pong balls at a brick wall. There were so many times that she implied that the evidence was irrelevant to what she believed.
Watching the full video was painful, but educational. Wright is actually the president of the CWA, who’s website bills her as a “Policy Expert and Activist” and a “United Nations Lobbyist.” This is not a “fringe” representative of a fringe organization, but someone who engages the media on a regular basis, evidently. It’s painful to hear someone like Wright, who is so willfully ignorant of facts (and reality), try to influence public policy.
Watch the video if you can stomach it. I’d love to hear comments.
The site The Good News – A Magazine of Understanding advertises a free book titled Creation or Evolution: Does It Really Matter What You Believe? along with a free subscription to their magazine. On Pharyngula, PZ Myers recommended that his readers order a copy, read it, and thoroughly debunk it… because it surely will need debunking.
I placed my order and perused the website for a bit and found a gem of an article about Charles Darwin, evolution, and “collateral damage.” The article by David Treybig is titled Collateral Damage: The Darwin Bomb and it’s filled with antiquated information, misinformation, and woo. The overarching idea proposed is that the theory of evolution has had unintended consequences and continues to “relentlessly pummel society”… oh, and that the theory of evolution is unsupported by the evidence. In an attempt to create doubt about evolution, they don’t consistently call it a “theory” but also refer to it as “Darwin’s supposition” or “his hypothesis.”
The lead-in to the (rancid) meat of the article is priceless.
How the theory of evolution evolved and how it has been defended is a story filled with irony, deceit and even religious-like faith held by nonreligious people.
The claim is made that Darwin offered his “completely unproven theory that was in opposition to the Bible” because he wasn’t “well-grounded in the Scriptures.” The implication seems to be that being well-grounded in biblical scriptures will protect you from facts… shield you from evidence. Actually, in many cases, that seems to be true (as with any creationist).
One reason given for why the theory appealed to people was the following:
In holding to Darwin’s theory, some mistakenly think they are free from the rules and laws of a Creator and are free to decide for themselves what is right and wrong.
That tired argument has been heard countless times by evolutionary biologists, atheists, and anyone who doesn’t kowtow to the creationist worldview. It’s absurd. The reason that the theory of evolution is accepted is because it’s based on overwhelming scientific evidence which leaves virtually no doubt as to its credibility. The idea of “I can get away with stuff” isn’t a factor.
The introduction of Darwin’s theory opened up an all-out debate over truth. Ironically, Darwin’s supporters claimed that religion was just a humanly devised invention to help people during times of trouble. Ah yes. Humanly devised—as if the theory of evolution wasn’t . . .
The difference between humanly devised religion and humanly devised theories are that the theories are based on observable, testable, natural evidence, while the religion is based on… nothing? Faith? Imagination? It may not seem to be a big difference to creationists, but it’s a huge, huge difference for anyone with a penchant toward rationality.
At this point, the article starts to present its antiquated information to show how evolution is a weak theory which scientists no longer accept. The claim that Darwin had doubts about his theory (sorry, his “hypothesis”), had some problems explaining some things like the human eye, and acknowledged that the fossil record didn’t show what he was proposing show that Treybig isn’t interested in the evidence discovered in the past 150 years that backs up almost every point Darwin made in his theory of evolution (by natural selection). It’s no surprise that Darwin had more doubts about his theory than today’s scientists have. We have a mind-boggling amount of evidence for evolution that Darwin never did.
But Treybig goes further and enters the realm of misinformation.
Yet under the microscope of inspection, scientists and competent thinkers have jointly discovered serious flaws with Darwin’s theory. A number of the theory’s supposed proofs have been found inadequate (see “Myths of Evolution Part 2“).
The claim that scientists and “competent thinkers” have decided that evolution is flawed and the evidence is inadequate is preposterous, disingenuous, and dishonest. Following the link in the previous quote leads to an article with blatantly incorrect information. Whether the misinformation is accidental or by design, I can’t say, but to write about a topic and get the facts so monstrously wrong smells of either deceit or willful ignorance… perhaps both.
Treybig continues his shenanigans with claims that Darwinian evolution has no valid evidence and… well, here’s what he says.
With no valid evidence to prove Darwinian evolution and mounting scientific evidence against it, supporters of evolution find themselves increasingly challenged to maintain their faith. It’s an awkward position demanding unquestioning adherence.
More nonsense about the lack of evidence is stated along with the absurd proposition that there must be “unquestioning adherence” to keep the theory alive.
As if Treybig weren’t far enough off the deep end at this point, he starts to talk about intelligent design as if it were an actual science with actual evidence and an actual scientific theory.
When evolutionary theory is challenged by scientific evidence such as that offered by the intelligent design movement…
I’m not even going to continue the quote (it goes on to say that ID isn’t based on religion, but is based on scientific evidence) because it’s drivel of the worse degree. Intelligent design is creationism, pure and simple. Not only is it creationism, but it has no evidence. It claims no testable hypothesis. It offers nothing in the way of understanding how the natural world works. It contributes nothing to the world of science. It hinders science by muddling the public understanding of both evolution and the scientific method.
Treybig makes repeated references to scientific information undermining the theory of evolution, but mentions none of it. The reason, of course, is that there isn’t any. There is no “mounting evidence” that the world has “fingerprints of the Creator” or that intelligent design is any more valid than flat-Earth theory. He finishes this section of his article with the Ray Comfort’esque statement…
Ironically again, these days it seems to take more faith to believe in Darwinism than it does to believe in the Creator God of the Bible.
No. No it doesn’t. When given a choice between accepting something for which there is a huge, growing body of evidence versus accepting something for which there is no evidence… I’ll take the choice supported by evidence without having to use much faith at all… if any.
Next, Treybig starts talking about Stalin and Hitler and “materialistic worldviews” as consequences of “the Darwin bomb’s blast wave” as if the theory of evolution was responsible for the atrocities committed by these men. It’s been debunked many, many times before, and again Treybig is showing his use of both antiquated and misleading information.
He back peddles a bit, saying…
Is the killing of millions of people the outcome Charles Darwin desired in writing The Origin of Species? Of course not. But the collateral damage associated with Darwinism doesn’t end with Stalin and Hitler. It has continued its relentless march through numerous fields with perhaps none more striking than that of moral conduct.
So he’s saying that it’s not the theory directly, but it’s collateral damage of the theory… the theory of evolution by natural selection didn’t cause Stalin and Hitler to commit atrocities, but they committed them because of the theory of evolution by natural selection. I’m not sure if I understand the difference in Treybig’s assertion.
But he mentions moral conduct, which set me up to expect that he was going to say something entirely absurd, ideological, and unsupported by evidence. He delivers.
If people are simply animals, as Darwin suggested, there is nothing wrong with them mating with whomever they wish whenever they wish. Disregarding biblical instructions governing our sexual conduct has led to the destruction of numerous families and untold heartache. Chalk it up to collateral damage.
Furthermore, if people are simply animals, then it really doesn’t matter if a woman chooses to have an abortion or not. With this mind-set, millions of babies have been aborted before they ever drew their first breaths. More collateral damage.
Disregarding biblical instructions… I wonder to which instructions Treybig is referring. He doesn’t specify, but the bible is filled with “instructions” for all kinds of things and it’s fairly easy for someone familiar with the bible to come up with “instructions” supporting many different positions.
As for abortion, Treybig chooses the phrase “babies have been aborted” instead of “fetuses” or “zygotes” or “pregnancies” because it adds to the inflammatory nature of the statement, conjuring up images of gurgling, cooing infants with sparkling blue eyes wrapped up in cozy baby blankets.
Regardless of his rhetoric, to make the claim that Darwin’s theory of evolution is responsible for the destruction of families or for abortions is a paltry attempt to discredit the theory through an emotional appeal. The claim has got no basis in fact, but is (as expected on a religious website) purely and undeniably based on a fundamentalist religious mindset which gets its “evidence” from a 2,000-year-old book of woo.
The last sentence offers the free booklet I mentioned at the start of this post “for more information.”
I can’t wait to read it.
In Friday’s The Daily News Online in Batavia, NY, John Cantillion wrote a letter to the editor in response to a piece by Reverend Fred Jensen a few days before. I didn’t read the original piece, but the reply by Mr. Cantillion was just so awash with misinformation and theological chest thumping that it was virtually screaming for a response.
The original topic by Reverend Jensen was “Science and religion should cooperate as well as co-exist.” Jerry Coyne and Chris Mooney are currently having their own debate, but I come down pretty squarely in Coyne’s camp. However, they’re both scientists and (I think) atheists, so they’re not that far apart generally. Cantillion, however, seems to have wandered off into the “science and religion go hand in hand and compliment each other” field, one that I don’t believe Coyne or Mooney endorse.
Cantillion starts off with a bang in the first paragraph, claiming biblical scientific credentials because the book of Job describes the water cycle, something he says was not “scientifically” described until the mid 1500’s. For those of you who are biblically challenged, here are the verses in question from Job chapter 36 (NSRV).
27 For he draws up the drops of water; he distils his mist in rain,
28 which the skies pour down and drop upon mortals abundantly.
29 Can anyone understand the spreading of the clouds, the thunderings of his pavilion?
I’m pretty sure those verses don’t qualify as being “scientifically” described, either, but that’s Cantillion’s first bit of evidence for biblical science. More quoting from Job, this time from chapter 26, verse 7.
He stretches out Zaphon [or the north] over the void, and hangs the earth upon nothing.
This passage, he states, is “an apt description of the earth in space.”
I’m pretty sure it’s not.
After his first paragraph of proselytizing, Cantillion continues…
There is a legitimate case for fear when a portion of science is eliminated because it does not agree with the worldview of those in power. Science looks at all the views, and based on empirical evidence, chooses the best one. Declaring one theory to be illegitimate and then forcing all evidence to fit the theory that has been declared to be legitimate is not science.
I wholeheartedly agree with that entire paragraph (as long as it remains out of the context of the rest of his letter). Science should be based on empirical evidence and should not be twisted to suit the political agenda of the day. It should be based on observable facts, should be testable, and should be peer reviewed.
What’s the problem with Cantillion’s view, then? The problem is that, after that one paragraph, the rest of his letter is mind-numbingly anti-science, anti-intellectual, and anti-rationality.
The theory of evolution is just that, a theory, not scientific fact. It has strengths and weaknesses.
[…]
Creation science is a theory just as evolution is. Let it stand or fall based on its merits, or lack thereof, as demonstrated through empirical evidence, not prejudice.
Here’s where things take a turn into creationist-land. The “just a theory” line is a classic creationist talking point and shows a complete lack of understanding of what a scientific “theory” actually is. When the statement is used in conjunction with evolution, not only does it show a lack of understanding of the definition of the word, but it shows an even greater lack in understanding of evolution… what the theory states, and what the evidence is. When that line is trotted out, it’s a pretty safe bet that it will be followed up with Ray Comfort’esque ramblings… which in this case, is excruciatingly true.
Creation science is not “a theory just as evolution is.” Creation “science” isn’t even “science.” If it was to stand or fall based on its merits, it would have fallen decades ago, as it has with reputable scientists, but that’s not what creationists really want. What they want is for creationism to be what is taught in schools. They want creationism to be taught as fact. They want creationism to be exempt from any sort of real scientific scrutiny so that they can claim it as true.
Cantillion continues with this
If evolution is really so superior to creating, why is every effort being made to eliminate the theory of creation from public awareness so that only the theory of evolution is known and believed? If the theory of evolution is truly so superior over creation, then put them side by side and let evolution destroy creation once and for all.
First, nobody is trying to eliminate the biblical account of creation from public awareness. What rational people are doing is removing it from (or rather keeping it out of) the science curriculum, where it has no business. The science curriculum should be teaching science, a branch of which is biology, a part of which is evolution… by natural selection. Evolution is not a matter of “belief” or “faith.” It’s a matter of scientific evidence processed using the scientific method.
As for the second part, evolution and creationism have been put side by side and evolution has destroyed creationism. Sadly, it hasn’t been “once and for all” because the creationists won’t accept anything but the overwhelming victory of their biblical (or Koranic) version of creation over any scientific, evidence-based alternative. So no matter how much evidence is presented, no matter how much “proof” is piled up and presented to a creationist, it makes not a lick of difference because it doesn’t match their beliefs, to which they desparately cling despite the contradictions between the facts and their beliefs.
Cantillion asks…
The strategy being used [to support evolution] is not science, but politics. Why is politics needed to prove and establish the theory of evolution, unless it cannot be established by empirical evidence?
I find Cantillion’s statement strange because what’s actually happening is the exact opposite of what he claims. Evolution is completely supported by science. Creationism is what is desparately seeking political support because that’s the only support it can possibly muster in a scientific world. Cantillion doesn’t seem to get the dependencies correct. Evolution depends on science. Creationism depends on politics.
He goes on to criticize Reverend Jensen for what he seems to think are poorly chosen examples of God’s hand in creation and then really goes off the deep end.
Everyone has a religious faith of some sort. Even an atheist has religious faith. An atheist cannot prove that God does not exist. Therefore, it takes at least as much faith for an atheist to believe that there is no God as it does for a religious person to believe that there is a God. So then, not mentioning God and not praying is not being neutral regarding religion but is, in fact, promoting atheism. All religious faiths do not get us to the same place, unless atheism is true. Then everyone just winds up dead. Atheism, not science, is at the root of evolution.
I find it difficult to not use profanity here. Lack of a belief in a god is not, in any way, shape, or form, religious faith. It’s true that atheists cannot prove that God does not exist. However, most atheists do not make an irrefutable claim of absolute knowledge regarding the existence of God (as Creationists do), so no proof is necessary. As an atheist, I’m not stating that a god does not exist. I’m stating that I have no evidence for the existence of a god… any god. So, no… it takes no faith to be an atheist.
So, contrary to the absurd conclusion at which Cantillion arrives, not mentioning God and not praying is definitely neutral regarding religion. Leaving out religious actions is neutral to religion. Praying, reading bible verses, singing hymns, and teaching creationism are all actions that are most assuredly not religion-neutral.
As for the last sentence, the claim is just absurd. Evolution is based on evidence… factual, observable, testable evidence. Again, Cantillion gets his cart before the horse. Atheism is not the root of evolution. Evolution is, however, quite a gaping hole in the creationists’ claims.
Cantillion goes off on Reverend Jensen again at this point in his letter, but starts his criticism with this bit.
All the religions of the world cannot be held in equal esteem. Christ, Mohammed, Buddha, Confucius, and other great spiritual leaders are not equal and are in contradiction with one another.
I have to agree that great spiritual leaders contradict one another. I’m not sure what point Cantillion was trying to make here, but he inadvertently (I assume) brought up one of the main arguments atheists use regarding the truth of religion. There are so many religions, all of which claim to be true, that it’s not difficult to conclude that the most likely answer is that none of them are.
Cantillion finished with this…
Jesus claimed to be God. It is Jesus who causes the lame to walk and the blind to see, not religion and not science. Science proves what God has already established.
Unsurprisingly, Cantillion is wrong again. Science has long ago created prosthetic devices allowing the “lame” to walk and, just recently, the blind to see.
Go figure