In the current science community environment, which embraces the evolutionary position, young earth creationism could be seen as Bible scientific foreknowledge. Young earth creationist scientists have a number of compelling arguments for young earth creationism, as well as having a number of compelling arguments against the evolutionary view. One needs to go no further than the Dissent From Darwin list of over 600 Ph.D scientists stating skepticism over, "random mutations and selection" being responsible for the biological changes required for evolution.
[Bonus points: Read the entire article, because it is filled with so very much of the failure.]
34 comments
Young Earth creationism has "compelling arguments"? LOL!1!eleventy!1!!
Oh, and you really have 600 creationist PhD's, do you? 600 non-biology PhD's, no doubt.
One needs to go no further than the Dissent From Darwin list of over 600 Ph.D scientists stating skepticism over, "random mutations and selection" being responsible for the biological changes required for evolution.
Gosh! Six hundred? Wow, I bet none of those guys are devout Christians.
Keep in mind that 'skepticism' is required by science. Creationists, like other pollsters, like to use misleading statements to make it seem like they have more support than they do.
And of course the obvious point that even if evolution were disproved, it wouldn't automatically prove creationism by a long shot.
In the current science community environment, which embraces the evolutionary position, young earth creationism could be seen as Bible scientific foreknowledge.
No, I don't think so. Now go play with the other kids.
over 600 Ph.D scientists stating skepticism over
Appeal to authority fallacy, and a lousy one at that. 600 scientists, out of the millions worldwide, is hardly an impressive number.
Uh, just because they say they are skeptical of 'random mutations and selection' doesn't mean their creationists. There are other evolutionary theories out there.
Gould is a champion of "punctuated equilibrium". It's still evolution, but not random. I'm sure there are other theories out there.
Edit:TB Tabby ~ thanks for the link ;)
Question:
Question:
so um . . . are any of these people molecular biologists, genetic engineers, or any of that like?
or are these people who've gotten their doctorates from piles of fail like Patriot Bible University?
Kent Hovind, Kent Hovind, Kent Hovind, Kent Hovind, Kent Hovind... (x600)
No, you don't get it. The difference between science and the Bible is the explanation, not the observation.
So, for example the observation is "eating pork makes you sick".
The YouTube video that TB Tabby provides shows 101 names appended to the statement of non-belief in common descent, not 600. Most are involved in such fields as mathematics and computer science. One is a Park Ranger. There are 39 biologists on the list. Four couldn't be located. Sixteen of the remaining 35 responded to an inquiry. Fourteen of the 16 -- including Michael Behe -- accept common descent.
“In the current science community environment, which embraces the evolutionary position, young earth creationism could be seen as Bible scientific foreknowledge.”
“Young earth creationist scientists”
“have a number of compelling arguments for young earth creationism,”
“as well as having a number of compelling arguments against the evolutionary view.”
“One needs to go no further than the Dissent From Darwin list of over 600 Ph.D scientists stating skepticism over, "random mutations and selection" being responsible for the biological changes required for evolution.”
Confused?
So were we! You can find all of this, and more, on Fundies Say the Darndest Things!
To post a comment, you'll need to Sign in or Register . Making an account also allows you to claim credit for submitting quotes, and to vote on quotes and comments. You don't even need to give us your email address.
