Friday, June 30, 2006

Polly wanna cracker?

Danny starts out by asking the T-bloggers how many of us “subscribe to a young earth? To special creation? To God-guided common descent? To God-free common descent, with the only ‘miracle’ in the initiation of the universe? I hope there are at least a few of you in the latter two camps.”

I don’t know the answer to that question since I never asked my colleagues that question. I didn’t ask them to fill out a job application. I didn’t interview them.

Speaking for myself, I subscribe to a “young” earth and special creation.


“To make the creation myth more amenable to reality? I especially enjoyed reading Glenn R. Morton, Christian evolutionist, shredding the misconceptions of persons like yourself [eklectos], who claim that the Bible has to be ‘perverted’ to incorporate an evolutionary interpretation of the Hebrew creation myth.”

Danny has become so blinded by his irreligious hostility that he lashes out at anything and everything, like a rattlesnake writhing in a forest fire.

Does he in fact believe that Gen 1-2 is compatible with evolution? Does he regard theistic evolution as a viable option?

Presumably not. After all, he’s an atheist, and a pretty militant atheist at that.

So what’s the point of plugging an evolutionary interpretation of Gen 1-2? That’s hardly consistent with his own position.


“Who gets to define terms like scientific ‘theory’ in your world: religionists or the scientific community itself?”

Note the assumed antithesis between scientists and religionists, as if these were mutually exclusive.


“Because it's pretty clear that the latter decided long ago that evolution is a historical fact and a theory. And, it sure does seem that they have evidence to substantiate their claim...”

Yes, it sure does “seem” that way. Unfortunately for Danny, appearances can be deceiving—especially for those with an appetite for self-deception.

i) To begin with, a lot of the very same “evidence” which Douglas Theobald has marshaled in favor of naturalistic evolution is cited by Kurt Wise as evidence of special creation—or intelligent design, by Michael Denton.

Cf. K. Wise, Faith, Form, & Time (B&H 2002); “The Origin of Life’s Major Groups,” J. Moreland, ed. The Creation Hypothesis (IVP 1993), 211-34; M. Denton, Nature’s Destiny (Free Press 1998).

ii) Another problem is that what the reader is actually treated to is not the raw evidence, but graphic reconstructions.

For example, we’re told that “we have found a quite complete set of dinosaur-to-bird transitional fossils with no morphological ‘gaps."

Unfortunately, that’s what we’re “told,” but that’s not what we’re “shown.”

Likewise, we’re told that “We also have an exquisitely complete series of fossils for the reptile-mammal intermediates.”

Once again, that’s what we’re told, but that’s not what we’re shown.

All we’re ever actually shown are diagrams that “arrange” scattered bits and pieces of evidence into an evolutionary pattern.

There’s no slide show from the very same site in which we are allowed to see for ourselves a continuous series of intermediate species given in situ in the natural record itself.

I’m reminded of all those prehistoric nature shows in which computer animation does the spadework.


“What is your scientific theory of creationism?”

That’s an illogical question. One doesn’t need a theory to disprove a theory. Evolution could be a lousy theory regardless of what alternative, if any, is in the pipeline.

“I've yet to find one. I've found all kinds of conjecture and speculation, but never, once, a single, coherent, rational framework within which explanation is cogently argued from the evidence to support YEC or anything resembling.”

We’ve been over this ground with Danny many times before regarding creation ex nihilo.

But because Danny is unable to find a flaw in our answer, all he can ever do is to repeat his borrowed arguments in his very best impersonation of Polly the parakeet.


  1. If I were your bird, Steve-o, I'd sh*t on your shoulder. ;)

  2. If you were a bird, Danny, I'd pump my son's pellet gun 10 times and shoot you before you ahd a chance to drop bombs on Steve's shoulder.

    **Note, that is, *if* you were a bird. Don't try and sue me for threatening your life, you sue happy liberal! :-)

    Anyway, origens is a philosphical and theological question, not a scientific one. So it doesn't matter much what "the Scientists" say. I mean, does it matter what Detroit's auto workers have to say regarding how to make cup cakes?

    Besides, if you're going to pit 'science' against 'religion' maybe you could provide us with a definition of science which properly gives the necessary and sufficient conditions which properly demarcate it from non-science?

  3. I think you guys would want to see this site.

  4. Creation ex nihilo is exactly that: it is creation from nothing to something. Thus, any questions concerning any observable "evidence" that speculates a supposed discrepancy between the world in which we live and a world created ex nihilo is simply nonsense.

    ...This is the part that naturalists seem to never be able to understand.

  5. Part of what's going on here was hinted at by Paul. Two parts of the problem in talking with these guys are the definitions of "science" and "theory." These have shifted over the centuries from "investigation" and "testable hypothesis not yet disproved," respectively, to something more like "curiosity" and "speculation."

    Which is to say, you aren't communicating because you aren't talking about the same thing. It's like the difference between what a Christian means and what a Mormon means when both affirm, "God is eternal."

  6. Daniel,
    I laughed much, as 'bird' in Britain can also mean 'kept woman'. But that's by the by. Oh, and I've said before that rudeness doesn't help.

    The fight here is between Popper and Lakatos. Popper believed that if a theory is bad, it should be chucked out, while Lakatos believed that theories were adapted until a better one comes away (for example, the Aristotelian/Ptolomeic system).

    I shall admit that whenever a millitant atheist tells me evolution and religion can be combined, I get a wee bit suspicious. Me, I don't know much about science, but I know my history. Attempts to marry religion to evolution have always ended in acrimonius divorce, and I'm afraid Darwin usually gets the alimony and custody of the child.

  7. Oh yes, and Cote, old boy, your link hasn't taken. At least I assume so, otherwise you're saying I want to see this site, which I obviously do as I'm looking at it.

    Don't worry, I can't do the links bit either.

  8. I shall admit that whenever a millitant atheist tells me evolution and religion can be combined, I get a wee bit suspicious.

    Then would you listen when the Pope tells you that?

    The intellectual bankruptcy of creationism is only subscribed to by those who don't really care about reality.

  9. evanmay,

    Were the species all created ex nihilo? If not, then could you tell me whether you agree or disagree with common descent?

    Steve started a whole brand spankin' new post, and yet so far, only he has weighed in with a clear stance. Paul, Evanmay, et al, will you just answer the questions? I'm not asking for a defense, and I'm not offering an offense. I just want to know:
    1) Are the physicists lying about the age of the earth?
    2) Are the biologists lying about the descent with modification of species from common ancestors? [note here I'm not specifying whether "guided" or "unguided"]

  10. PS: "origens is"