Chris,

I've taken the bait several times in this debate and subsequently raced
down a few dead-end roads, but not this time.

The purpose of this exercise was to discuss the scientific dissent to
Darwinism.  It is there and should be heard.

http://www.reviewevolution.com/press/pressRelease_100Scientists.php
http://www.arn.org/ (Intelligent Design)
http://www.creationresearch.org (Creation Research, published since 1964)

A second purpose was to draw attention to the fact that we are all
biased by our a priori commitment to something.

Further, devout evolutionists ARE afraid of the Intelligent Design
movement.

Science's New Heresy Trial
By: Gene Edward Veith
World Magazine
February 18, 2005
(http://www.worldmag.com/displayarticle.cfm?id=10344)

For those of you who didn't visit the site, here's a taste of what Mr
Veith had to say.

"Science is typically praised as open-ended and free, pursuing the
evidence wherever it leads. Scientific conclusions are falsifiable, open
to further inquiry, and revised as new data emerge. Science is free of
dogma, intolerance, censorship, and persecution."
"By these standards, Darwinists have become the dogmatists. Scientists
at the Smithsonian Institute, supported by American taxpayers, are
punishing one of their own simply for publishing an article about
Intelligent Design."
"Historically, said Mr. Meyer, science has sought 'the best explanation,
period, wherever the evidence leads.' But now the scientific
establishment is requiring something else: 'the best materialistic
explanation for phenomenon.' That rules out non-materialistic
explanations from the onset, demanding adherence to the worldview that
presumes the material realm is all that exists..."
"The virulence of the attempts to suppress Intelligent Design
demonstrates the Darwinists' insecurity. 'You don't resort to
authoritarianism,' observed Mr. Meyer, 'if you can answer it.'"

As I've said since last Friday, our bias colors the way we see the
world.  I recognize and admit that I am biased to see life as a direct
consequence of a Creator.  Further, there is growing scientific evidence
in the biological sciences that life was in fact designed and not the
result of macro-evolution.  Scientific dissent to Darwinism exists.

Stephen


>Stephen,
>
>I don't think it's going to be lost on any of your Raven critics that you have failed to respond to even one of my toughest questions.  Don't want to discuss the age of the universe today?  Fine.  The age of life on earth?  The age of human beings?  The age of mammals?  Take you're pick, and give us your estimate.
>
>Next, if your scientific "dissenters" are not counting begats in the Bible, how do they arrive at that age?  What in the world (if it is in the world) are they counting?
>
>Next, who are the atheist creationists who have simply been convinced by the weight of the evidence that the world is dramatically younger than the vast majority of scientists think?  You have some names but you won't give them out?
>
>One colleague writes to me personally in your defense to say that I have been uncivil an uncollegial.  She goes on to suggest that your critics on Raven are in actuality threatened by your logic.  After all, she reasons, if a little kid were trying to argue with her that 2+2=7, she wouldn't get all upset and start firing off angry e-mails.
>
>But I submit that she might if that child were in the legislature and threatening to make her teach 2+2=7 as "one theory among others."  It's not your logic that threatens the scientists on this campus who have spoken up, I'm guessing.  If your logic were threatening, I think there'd be a lot more scientists on your side. There are, after all, issues where scientists are much more evenly divided, just not on this one.  No, your logic is not scary.  What's scary is the political power folks of your persuasion might wield and which might be used to try and force professors to teach "Creationism" as "one theory among others," as though Creationist arguments were not poor ones, and as though they were as good and deserved the same respect as any other arguments.  At least, that's what scares me.
>
>We can agree, can't we, without saying that I'm being uncivil, that 2+2=7 is not an argument that should be accorded the same respect as 2+2=4?  So why should professors have to give your "dissenting" view a voice if in their expert opinion your 2+2 amounts to 7?
>
>Chris
>
>