[_ Old Earth _] How long can the bad ideas of macroevolutionists endure?

[kendemyer]

HOW LONG CAN THE BAD IDEAS OF MACROEVOLUTIONISTS ENDURE?

Someone wrote a internet blog forum regarding the macroevolutionary hypothesis:

blonderedhead:

If it was just some crazy theory by some crazy nut, then the whole ideal would've unravled a long time ago

taken from: http://darwintalk.com/message-board-for ... 91-15.html

I wrote in reply:

...I see no real evidence for this assertion. Would it have unraveled? Is it beginning to unravel now?

Lastly, I already wrote that this is a history of science thread and what implications a knowledge or igorance of the history of science might have.

taken from: http://darwintalk.com/message-board-for ... 91-15.html

Now this raises the question: How long can bad science endure?

I don't really know the answer to this question and I would appreciate some input. I will write some of the things I do know from history though and current events though.


A LOOK AT CURRENT MEDICAL SCIENCE

I cite:

However, since only 15% of medical procedures have been reported to be supported by any documentation 60 and only 1% is considered to be scientifically sound, 61 it is presumptuous to assume that what is currently accepted in standard medical procedures is intrinsically robust from a scientific point of view.

60 Smith R. Where is the wisdom: The poverty of medical evidence. British Medical Journal 1991; 303: 798-799.

61 Rachlis N, Kuschner C. Second opinion: What's wrong with Canada's health care system and how to fix it. Toronto: Collins, 1989.

taken from: http://www.fcer.org/html/News/whccamp.htm

TRAGIC TALE OF SEMMELWIES

Dr. Semmelweis was the 19the century physician who demonstrated that contagious disease could be drastically reduced by making doctors perform hand-washing.

Dr. Semmelweis lectured publicly about his results but the medical community was not interested and was sometimes hostile due to the fact that his ideas when against the medical community consensus of his day.

Eventually Dr. Semmelweise suffered a nervous breakdown and he was put in a insane asylum.



BLEEDING OF PATIENTS

I cite:

17th and 18th Century Medicine

Medical practice began to greatly improve during the 17th and 18th centuries. Professional societies were formed in all major European capitals, and scientists shared their research by publishing in journals.

Still, many of the old practices, like bleeding, continued

ALCHEMY

Up to the 18th century, alchemy was actually considered serious science in Europe; for instance, Isaac Newton devoted considerably more of his time and writing to the study of alchemy than he did to either optics or physics, for which he is famous, (see Isaac Newton's occult studies). Other eminent alchemists of the Western world are Roger Bacon, Saint Thomas Aquinas, Tycho Brahe, Thomas Browne, and Parmigianino.

The demise of Western alchemy was brought about by the rise of modern science with its emphasis on rigorous quantitative experimentation and its disdain for "ancient wisdom". Although the seeds of these events were planted as early as the 17th century, alchemy still flourished for some two hundred years, and in fact may have reached its apogee in the 18th century.

TAKEN FROM: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alchemy

DID ANYTHING UNDERGIRDED ALCHEMY BESIDES GREED?

Here is something I read about alchemy:

Alchemy encompasses several philosophical traditions spanning some four millennia and three continents, and their general penchant for cryptic and symbolic language makes it hard to trace their mutual influences and "genetic" relationships.

taken from: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alchemy#Overview

MERE PHILOSOPHIES CAN INHIBIT SCIENCE

I would submit that many of the most militant macroevolutionist are professed materialist/atheist and this has caused the failed paradigm of a atheistic viewpoint to retard scientific progress. For example, is DNA wrongly called a code? Do codes infer intelligence? Does all of human experience infer that codes infer intelligence? Is this a good analogy?

Is the analogical method valid in science? I think it is.

I cite:

In the 19th Century the astronomer John F. W. Herschel advanced the analogical method of reasoning from observed causes to unknown causes: "If the analogy of two phenomena be very close and striking, while, at the same time, the cause of one is very obvious, it becomes scarcely possible to refuse to admit the action of an analogous cause in the other, though not so obvious in itself."{47} (emphasis added) Scientists have relied on this method for more than 150 years.

taken from: http://www.origins.org/articles/thaxton ... igent.html

I think this type of thinking is getting in the way of science:

The observation that species are amazingly conservative and static entities throughout long periods of time has all the qualities of the emperor's new clothes: everyone knew it but preferred to ignore it. Paleontologists, faced with a recalcitrant record obstinately refusing to yield Darwin's predicted pattern, simply looked the other way."

Niles Eldredge & Ian Tattersall,
'The Myths of Human Evolution', 1982, p. 45-46

"We take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs, .... in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated just-so stories, because we have a prior commitment, a commitment to materialism.

It is not that the methods and institutions of science somehow compel us to accept a material explanation of the phenomenal world, but, on the contrary, that we are forced by our a priori adherence to material causes to create an apparatus of investigation and a set of concepts that produce material explanations, no matter how counter-intuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is an absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door." Richard Lewontin, Professor, geneticist. "The New York Review", January 9, 1997, p. 31

Evolution [is] a theory universally accepted not because it can be proven by logically coherent evidence to be true, but because the only alternative, special creation, is clearly incredible.... D.M.S. Watson, Adaptation, Nature 124:233, 1929.

taken from: http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/ar ... apter1.asp

I personally believe that eventually the macroevolutionary view will unravel. The debates in which the creationist usually win (see: http://members.shaw.ca/mark.64/hcib/whowins.html ), creationist American school victories (see: Minnesota Becomes Third State to Require Critical Analysis of Evolution at: http://www.discovery.org/scripts/viewDB ... coMainPage ) , the excitement regarding the publication of Behe's Black Box, the creationist Stephen B. Meyer getting published in macroevolutionary journal. I think the handwriting is on the wall. The question remains though is how long can bad science endure in the current science community environment?

 

[SyntaxVorlon]

The fact that there is a large, belligerant, stubborn and rigorous body of scientists who review if not everything, the almost all that all other scientists say, then, it is highly unlikely that a psuedoscience would be widely accepted as factual for more than 150 years. Especially as entirely new fields of study, such as genetics, radiometric dating, etc, would, were it not true, point to entirely different conclusions.

Macroevolution has passed more tests than you can give.

 

[reznwerks]

endure

It will endure as long as there is no better explanation and as long as evidence supports the claims. Remember you can complain about a lack of evidence but the alternative is absolutely no evidence. Its a slam dunk.

 

[Featherbop]

As long as scientists harbor bias and are afraid of embarrassment.....I'd say a good long while. :

 

[Barbarian]

As we've discussed before, evolutionary theory has changed, as scientists saw new evidence requiring that they revise their understanding of living things.

Science is like that; it's self-correcting. That's why science has been so successful in understanding the world.

Creationism is a religious dogma, and as such cannot change, no matter what the evidence.

It's dying slowly, but it's dying. Eventually, like geocentrism, only a tiny minority will hold to it. But the people so inclined will find some new doctrine to raise in its place.

 

[reznwerks]

yea

As long as scientists harbor bias and are afraid of embarrassment.....I'd say a good long while. :

Yea right. LOL Scientists are walking in lockstep and are all members of a group with their own bible telling them what is truth. Seriously do you believe that? If you do , have you questioned the motives of YEC's who get their marching orders from the bible and cannot question the accuracy of the claims or beliefs? Remember to be a Christian you must have faith and if you question you show doubt and therefor have no faith.

 

[Featherbop]

Creationism is a religious dogma, and as such cannot change, no matter what the evidence.

Which creationism? And yes, it can and does change, because of the limits of human understanding, according to various evidences, therefore spliting "creationism" into many or several different beleifs. Even you, Barbarian are a creationist, if you beleive in God the Creator. That is, only if you accept the definition of creationism. I don't recall that being the case with you, however.....

It's dying slowly, but it's dying.

Most human beings are creationist in one way or another. If you mean only literal Genesis creationism, you may be correct. Counting all kinds of creationism, however, it is quite rightfully dominant.

Yea right. LOL Scientists are walking in lockstep and are all members of a group with their own bible telling them what is truth. Seriously do you believe that?

I never made any such claim......So, no.

If you do , have you questioned the motives of YEC's who get their marching orders from the bible and cannot question the accuracy of the claims or beliefs?

I question everybody. I am not very.....trusting.

Remember to be a Christian you must have faith and if you question you show doubt and therefor have no faith.

Um, no.

 

[Barbarian]

Barbarian observes:
Creationism is a religious dogma, and as such cannot change, no matter what the evidence.

Which creationism?

Both variaties in all their variations.

Even you, Barbarian are a creationist, if you beleive in God the Creator.

Creation and creationism are opposed to each other. Creationism, is the denial of God's creation, and the substitution of a story more to man's liking.

That is, only if you accept the definition of creationism. I don't recall that being the case with you, however.....

Barbarian on creaetionism:
It's dying slowly, but it's dying.

Most human beings are creationist in one way or another. If you mean only literal Genesis creationism, you may be correct. Counting all kinds of creationism, however, it is quite rightfully dominant.

If you change the definition to anyone who accepts creation, then you have reversed the meaning of creationism.

The whole point of creationism, is that they don't accept God's creation as it is.

 

[Featherbop]

Creationism is a religious dogma, and as such cannot change, no matter what the evidence.

Darck Marck tips to Barbarian #1: Instead of frequently repeating one's opinions, it is more useful and productive to create and use arguments.
(Just a little constructive critisism, nothing personal.)
___

Creationism is a belief that there is a Creator of the universe(aka, God).

There are different types of creationism, such as YEC creationism, Old earth creationism, evolutionary creationism(theistic evolution), and progressive creationism.

To claim that creationism cannot change or that there is only one type is, simply put, incorrect, and I suspect here, dishonest.

Both variaties in all their variations.

Please list clearly what two varieties you speak of, and these variations.

Creation and creationism are opposed to each other. Creationism, is the denial of God's creation, and the substitution of a story more to man's liking.

Darck Marck tip to Barbarian #2: Don't massacre definitions.

Creationism=Beleif in the Creator God.

Creation=What was created.(Universe and things contained therein.)
___

And I have never seen a creationist of any kind denying that there is a creation. Of course, they don't, because they use the actual definition of the word "Creation".......

Barbarian on creaetionism:
It's dying slowly, but it's dying.

Would you like to substanciate that position or repeat it in your next post.

(Refer to tip #1)

If you change the definition to anyone who accepts creation, then you have reversed the meaning of creationism.

People who beleive in creation created by God are creationists. That tends to cover a large number of people....


The whole point(and problem) with you posts, Barbarian, is that you do not accept the definitions of certain words, opting instead to create your own in place.

 

[Barbarian]

Barbarian observes:
Creationism is a religious dogma, and as such cannot change, no matter what the evidence.

Darck Marck tips to Barbarian #1: Instead of frequently repeating one's opinions, it is more useful and productive to create and use arguments.
(Just a little constructive critisism, nothing personal.)

Perhaps you don't know about creationism. It was invented by the Seventh-day Adventists, who called it "Flood Geology." It was proslytized to fundamentalists by a Adventist preacher named George McCready Price.

Here's where you can learn about it:
"Not until the 1970s did Price’s views, rechristened "creation science," become fundamentalist orthodoxy."
http://www.counterbalance.net/history/f ... -body.html

Creationism is a belief that there is a Creator of the universe(aka, God).

No. That is theism.

There are different types of creationism, such as YEC creationism, Old earth creationism, evolutionary creationism(theistic evolution), and progressive creationism.

All are religous doctrines. YE creationism is very close to breaking away from Christianity entirely.

To claim that creationism cannot change

It has not. Most creationists still use the Adventist doctrine.

or that there is only one type

Don't remember anyone saying that there weren't different types.

I suspect here, dishonest.

Kinda like adding "there is only one type" to my argument?

Barbarian observes:
Creation and creationism are opposed to each other. Creationism, is the denial of God's creation, and the substitution of a story more to man's liking.

Darck Marck tip to Barbarian #2: Don't massacre definitions.

That's not a definition. It's an observation. Creationism, insisting on an ex nihilo creation of life, denies what God tells us in Genesis.

Creationism=Beleif in the Creator God.

Words mean things. If you use them differently than other people, you will be continuously misunderstood.

Creation=What was created.(Universe and things contained therein.)

Also God's method of creation. Which creationists do not accept.

And I have never seen a creationist of any kind denying that there is a creation.

I haven't either. They just don't approve of the way it was done.

Barbarian observes, re: creationism:
It's dying slowly, but it's dying.

Would you like to substanciate that position or repeat it in your next post.

Yep. For the first time, this year, the Gallup Poll on evolution had an absolute majority of respondents say that humans evolved from other organisms, most of them saying God was involved in it. About 15 percent think that humans evolved, but God wasn't involved. Only 45% think God created humans pretty much as they are, a few thousand years ago.

You can go to the Gallup site and register to see the complete data.
http://www.gallup.com/poll/content/login.aspx?ci=14107

Barbarian observes:
If you change the definition to anyone who accepts creation, then you have reversed the meaning of creationism.

People who beleive in creation created by God are creationists.

If we went with your private definition, that would mean most evolutionists are creationists. The purpose of language being communication, I don't think we should change it.

The whole point(and problem) with you posts, Barbarian, is that you do not accept the definitions of certain words, opting instead to create your own in place.

This time, at least, you have invented your own. I doubt many people would accept that evolutionists are creationists.

 

[Featherbop]

Barbarian observes:
Creationism is a religious dogma, and as such cannot change, no matter what the evidence.

Why do you continue to repeat yourself so many times?
Are you into gimmicks?

Perhaps you don't know about creationism. It was invented by the Seventh-day Adventists, who called it "Flood Geology." It was proslytized to fundamentalists by a Adventist preacher named George McCready Price.

Here's where you can learn about it:
"Not until the 1970s did Price’s views, rechristened "creation science," become fundamentalist orthodoxy."
http://www.counterbalance.net/history/f ... -body.html

SDAs are definately one of the largest proponents of YECism as far as I know. However, if one were to say that it is now only a SDA doctrine, that would be very incorrect.

No. That is theism.

Theism=Belief in God or a god(s).

Creationism=Belief in a God that is the Creator.

YE creationism is very close to breaking away from Christianity entirely.

What do you mean?

It has not. Most creationists still use the Adventist doctrine.

As I have already pointed out, there are several types of creationism, so, obviously it is not one doctrine that is inherently unchangable, or not capable of branching into different kinds.

Don't remember anyone saying that there weren't different types.

Good. Then there is no problem there.

Kinda like adding "there is only one type" to my argument?

You claimed that creationism cannot change. If that were true, there would only be one type of creationism that hasn't branched out, been divided into different kinds, or revised....and all those things have happened to creationism in various ways.

Barbarian observes:
Creation and creationism are opposed to each other. Creationism, is the denial of God's creation, and the substitution of a story more to man's liking.

You made an incorrect observation.

That's not a definition. It's an observation. Creationism, insisting on an ex nihilo creation of life, denies what God tells us in Genesis.

Since when do you care what Genesis says?

If you are an evolutionary creationist, then whatever Genesis claims about creation wouldn't matter to you, would it?

Words mean things. If you use them differently than other people, you will be continuously misunderstood.

Right. Now practice what you preach.

Also God's method of creation.

Can't find 'Creation' defined as the method of creation. Did you make up that definition as well?

Which creationists do not accept.

Those other creationists accept a different type of creationism than you do. You beleive you are correct. They beleive they are correct.

Not very convincing.....as an argument....or anything else.

I haven't either. They just don't approve of the way it was done.

Everyone beleives that they are correct in their own personal beleifs.....They just as easily say that you don't accept how creation was made. Not convincing.

Yep. For the first time, this year, the Gallup Poll on evolution had an absolute majority of respondents say that humans evolved from other organisms, most of them saying God was involved in it. About 15 percent think that humans evolved, but God wasn't involved. Only 45% think God created humans pretty much as they are, a few thousand years ago.

That poll does not show creationism "dying". Unless you count all who beleive in evolution together, regardless of all the other major differences in religion and the like. And there is no reason to, because, beleiving in God or not is, to say the least, highly significant:

45%-Creation by God; YEC

15%-Evolution, no God


So, that leaves 40% are evolutionary creationists.

(Even if you count all people who beleive in evolution together, then YECs are only a little under half. Not bad.)

Barbarian observes:
If you change the definition to anyone who accepts creation, then you have reversed the meaning of creationism.

Another incorrect observation.

If we went with your private definition, that would mean most evolutionists are creationists.

Hate to break it to you, but look up the words "creation" and "creationism" in a dictionary, or Wikipedia, just some reliable place, and you'll be forced to accept the true definitions.

And yes, most evolutionists are creationists. I don't care what you think you are, or what you want to beleive you are. A monkey is still a monkey, even if it thinks it is a gorilla. Does. Not. Matter. Case. Closed.

The purpose of language being communication, I don't think we should change it.

Then don't change the meaning of words. You must either be insane or have superhuman stubborness....Maybe you defeat your enemies by wearing them down like that....

This time, at least, you have invented your own.

If by that you mean I used the dictionary, then yeah! Why don't you start using the dictionary to learn the true definitions of words? It's a great time to start!

I doubt many people would accept that evolutionists are creationists.

Doesn't matter. If you beleive in the Creator God, you are a creationist. If most people didn't accpet that the earth is a sphere, that wouldn't make the earth flat.

 

[Barbarian]

Barbarian observes:
Creationism is a religious dogma, and as such cannot change, no matter what the evidence.

Why do you continue to repeat yourself so many times?

Just from the previous post.

Barbarian on creationism:
Perhaps you don't know about creationism. It was invented by the Seventh-day Adventists, who called it "Flood Geology." It was proslytized to fundamentalists by a Adventist preacher named George McCready Price.

Here's where you can learn about it:
"Not until the 1970s did Price’s views, rechristened "creation science," become fundamentalist orthodoxy."
http://www.counterbalance.net/history/f ... -body.html

SDAs are definately one of the largest proponents of YECism as far as I know. However, if one were to say that it is now only a SDA doctrine, that would be very incorrect.

Used to be just an SDA doctrine. But they've converted a lot of other people to their faith in the prophetess.

Barbarian observes:
No. That is theism.

Creationism=Belief in a God that is the Creator.

I know that is your private definition, but if you don't use words the way other people do, you won't be understood.

Barbarian observes:
YE creationism is very close to breaking away from Christianity entirely.

What do you mean?

It contradicts Genesis, which does not support ex nihilo creation of life. And YE creationists are now sharing doctrines with Muslim YE creationists. Creationism is becoming more important than other doctrines.

Barbarian observes:
It has not. Most creationists still use the Adventist doctrine.

As I have already pointed out, there are several types of creationism, so, obviously it is not one doctrine that is inherently unchangable, or not capable of branching into different kinds.

There have always been different kinds, but I don't see any sign of changing.

Barbarian, on dishonesty:
Kinda like adding "there is only one type" to my argument?

You claimed that creationism cannot change. If that were true, there would only be one type of creationism that hasn't branched out,

Nope. You just added an argument I didn't make, and attributed it to me.

Barbarian observes:
Creation and creationism are opposed to each other. Creationism, is the denial of God's creation, and the substitution of a story more to man's liking.

You made an incorrect observation.

Nope. You can't reconcile creationism with Genesis.

Barbarian observes:
That's not a definition. It's an observation. Creationism, insisting on an ex nihilo creation of life, denies what God tells us in Genesis.

Since when do you care what Genesis says?

It's the word of God. You should care, too.

If you are an evolutionary creationist, then whatever Genesis claims about creation wouldn't matter to you, would it?

"Evolutionary creationist" would be an oxymoron.

Barbarian observes:
Words mean things. If you use them differently than other people, you will be continuously misunderstood.

Right. Now practice what you preach.

"Creationist: Belief in the literal interpretation of the account of the creation of the universe and of all living things related in the Bible."
http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=creationist

Can't find 'Creation' defined as the method of creation. Did you make up that definition as well?

Just regarding what God tells us in Genesis as true. You should, too.

Barbarian on creationists regarding creation:
They just don't approve of the way it was done.

Everyone beleives that they are correct in their own personal beleifs.....

True, but irrelevant. God doesn't give you a list of choices to pick from in Genesis. He tells you how it happened. Not a lot of detail, but He does tell you that life began by natural means.

Barbarian observes:
Yep. For the first time, this year, the Gallup Poll on evolution had an absolute majority of respondents say that humans evolved from other organisms, most of them saying God was involved in it. About 15 percent think that humans evolved, but God wasn't involved. Only 45% think God created humans pretty much as they are, a few thousand years ago.

That poll does not show creationism "dying". Unless you count all who beleive in evolution together, regardless of all the other major differences in religion and the like.

It shows evolution is now accepted by the majority, for the first time in the USA. Creationism is dying slowly, but it's dying.

And there is no reason to, because, beleiving in God or not is, to say the least, highly significant:

Of course it is. But evolutionists for the first time, are an absolute majority. And creationists are a smaller minority.

45%-Creation by God; YEC

15%-Evolution, no God

So, that leaves 40% are evolutionary creationists.

No oxymorons reported. But 36% were theistic evolutionists, which means 51% were evolutionists. (a few offered no opinion)

(Even if you count all people who beleive in evolution together, then YECs are only a little under half. Not bad.)

They've always been a large minority, but they've lost some ground in recent years.

Barbarian observes:
If you change the definition to anyone who accepts creation, then you have reversed the meaning of creationism.

Another incorrect observation.

See above. You have a private definition, that most people don't accept.

Quote:
If we went with your private definition, that would mean most evolutionists are creationists.

Hate to break it to you, but look up the words "creation" and "creationism" in a dictionary, or Wikipedia, just some reliable place,

Just did. Dictionary.com. They don't agree with you. Neither does Wikipedia.

And yes, most evolutionists are creationists. I don't care what you think you are, or what you want to beleive you are. A monkey is still a monkey, even if it thinks it is a gorilla. Does. Not. Matter. Case. Closed.

Barbarian on private definitions:
The purpose of language being communication, I don't think we should change it.

Then don't change the meaning of words.

See above. First dictionary I checked, says you are wrong. And when I looked at Wikipedia, it didn't say what you claimed.

You must either be insane or have superhuman stubborness....Maybe you defeat your enemies by wearing them down like that....

Citing evidence works better. See above.

Barbarian observes:
This time, at least, you have invented your own.

Why don't you start using the dictionary to learn the true definitions of words? It's a great time to start!

Just posted one for you. Your private definition isn't accepted by many people, if any.

Barbarian observes:
I doubt many people would accept that evolutionists are creationists.

Doesn't matter.

It matters a lot. If you use words differently than other people do, you will be continuously misunderstood.

If you beleive in the Creator God, you are a creationist.

Sorry, that's not what the word means.

 

[Featherbop]

Barbarian, this thread has moved far off topic. I am through here. I have made another thread("Definitions of terms") if you wish to continue our debate regarding definitions, however.