[Answers to] QuestionEvolution.com News
grind...@gmail.com
site, provocatively named, QuestionEvolution.com.
QuestionEvolution.com is a collection of arguments meant to throw a
stick in the spokes of the Theory of Evolution. Within those pages is
a challenge for rebuttal, and the torch was quickly taken up --
answering all of the "questions" within a few days.
http://www.geocities.com/chastity403/questionevolution/
To the webmaster's credit, he actually linked to those collected
rebuttals from his website, and promised to review the arguments. That
review has yet to come, and now I notice that the rebuttal links have
been removed. I guess it was too much to ask for a creationist to
produce more than a transient display of integrity.
I've asked David Hancock, the creator of the site, what has become of
those rebuttal links, but cannot force myself to be optimistic that I
will receive a reply, much less a credible explanation.
jcon
grind...@gmail.com wrote:
> A little more than two years ago, someone in talk.origins noticed a
> site, provocatively named, QuestionEvolution.com.
>
> http://questionevolution.com
>
> QuestionEvolution.com is a collection of arguments meant to throw a
> stick in the spokes of the Theory of Evolution. Within those pages is
> a challenge for rebuttal, and the torch was quickly taken up --
> answering all of the "questions" within a few days.
>
> http://www.geocities.com/chastity403/questionevolution/
>
> To the webmaster's credit, he actually linked to those collected
> rebuttals from his website, and promised to review the arguments.
> That review has yet to come, and now I notice that the rebuttal links have
> been removed. I guess it was too much to ask for a creationist to
> produce more than a transient display of integrity.
>
Maybe it's like the Gordian Knot. Are you sure he didn't say he would
"undo" the arguments, rather than "review" them.
Anyway, the web never forgets. Here's an archived copy of the page,
with the rebuttal link in place:
http://tinyurl.com/8w8nz
-jc
unrestra...@hotmail.com
Here's the Solar System page from the site, with my comments:
"The Solar System
Why does Venus rotate backward, while Uranus rotates at a 98 degree
angle to its vertical plane?
The evolutionist needs to come up with special cases to handle these
two solar system misfits."
Why are special cases a problem? The solar system was, IIUIC, a pretty
exciting place in the early days. Many collisions, many bodies getting
settled into orbits. A choatic situation, in every sense.
"Why do 11 (almost 1/3) of the moons of various planets rotate
backward?
According to current views of the solar system origin, all should
rotate in the same direction and in the same plane. These backward
moons are difficult (though not impossible) to explain."
Why do they have to go in any particular direction? Asteroids and such
were and still are bouncing all over the place. Everytime I read about
another Cassini flyby I see the astronomers talking about how this moon
or that has its orbit influenced by the others.
"Why do many of those moons have inclined orbits?
The orbits of the satellites should be coplanar with the revolution of
the host."
Same reason. Asteroid A flies close to Asteroid B, which gets flung off
into space. After several thousand eccentric orbits around the sun, it
gets captured by Saturn, and there's another moon. I'm surprised that
so many of them are aligned with the plane of the solar system,
actually. I guess that shows that most of the stuff started orbiting in
the plane. Doesn't mean they stay there, though.
"Why aren't most of the planets composed of hydrogen and helium like
the sun?
Earth is composed mainly of heavy elements, while the sun has only 1%
of its composition that is not hydrogen or helium. Interstellar gas is
not composed of heavy elements, but is mainly hydrogen and helium also.
What stopped solar system gasses from falling into the sun?"
I suspect the Earth and the Sun started of pretty much the same, if it
makes sense to even speak of the Earth before it was a solid planet.
Most of the lighter stuff moved into the sun.
Let's see:
http://www.uwgb.edu/dutchs/PLANETS/Geochem.htm
Yup.
"The sun makes up 99 and 6/7% of the solar system's mass. The 1/7 of 1%
of the remaining solar system's mass should have followed the rest into
the sun.
Why didn't that gas simply dissipate?"
No, some of the heavier stuff was already clumping together. Most of
the lighter stuff - especially the inner planets - did get drawn into
the sun. Which answers the previous "problem".
Dang. The web master is a college student? I hope to Hell he's a
business major.
"For gravitational attractions to be significant, the particles would
have to have been as large as small moons."
Um, why? If they attracting each other, and close, why would they have
to be "as large as small moons"? Small, close particles would be drawn
in as readily a larger, more distant particles. IT looks like
everything eventually fell together into clumps, settled into orbits,
or drifted off to Alpha Centauri or wherever runaway particles go.
"Where did the moon come from?
A July 28th,1997 article in USA Today indicated that perhaps a planet
about three times the mass of Mars could have crashed into the early
Earth and popped enough material into orbit to form the moon. They do
point out that this would have significantly increased the spin of the
Earth in a way that cannot be observed today, but something must have
made the Earth slow back down - perhaps another large object hitting
the Earth from the opposite direction. There has still never been an
adequate theory proposed to explain the moon's origin."
I typed that question into Google, and the first hit was a NASA web
site covering this issue. The situation is as yet hypothetical. but
something like the above seems to have mainstream support.
I'd want to see the math to explain why this guy see the Earth's
rotation as a problem. I won't hold my breath.
"How could the earth have had liquid water millions of years ago when
the sun was weaker?
(See July 1999 Astronomy Magazine for a discussion of this paradox)."
How "weak" was it? Who thinks so?
"Earth's spin is slowing at the rate of almost 1 sec/year. How fast was
it spinning 1 billion years ago?"
It is not slowing down that fast. The Earth's day was about 14 hours
4.5 billion years ago.
"Why are there any small (less than 100,000th of a cm.) particles left
in the solar system?
Solar wind, acting for billions of years, should have pushed out all of
these particles by now."
Why? Wouldn't the wind get slower and thinner the farther from the sun
it gets? I imagine that there's a point at which a balance is reached.
Surely particles are falling toward the sun all the time anyway; I
would guess that we are at some stable rate: [wind blowing them out] +
[new particles being generated] + [particles falling in from beyond the
limits of the wind's push] = current density of space dust.
"Where is all of the meteoritic dust on the earth?
Assuming only present accumulation (which should have been much greater
during early years of the universe) there should be a 182 foot thick
layer after 5 billion years. This dust is extremely high in nickel
content. There is no great significant amount of nickel in either sea
or land."
In my garden. Sheesh. It's only a few centimeters thick on the moon;
why would it be especially noticeable on Earth, mixed by wind and rain
with the results of natural erosion here?
"How big was the sun 1 billion years ago?
The sun looses 4 million tons of mass through fusion per second, and is
shrinking by about 1% each century (5 feet per hour). This shrinking is
responsible for a large amount of the energy that the sun gives off."
Stuff and nonsense. It's not shrinking, except negligible fission
reation mass loss. It was about as big as it is now. No creationist
would notice the difference. Let's look it up:
http://solar-center.stanford.edu/FAQ/Qshrink.html
Yup.
"Where do short period comets come from?
A short period comet would completely "boil off" after about 15,000
years. There is no known way for a comet to come into existence. They
have been thought to have been around since the start of the universe.
The Oort cloud was devised to try to explain this but, once again, it
is a case of trying to make the observed facts fit the preconceived
notions."
Who would God have to "explain" this? The Oort cloud is there; many
recent discoveries have been in the news in recent years. Comets jostle
each other; the solar system is *still an unstable place. A comet gets
moved into another orbit, and gets slingshot toward the sun. Voila! A
short period coment. What is so freaking confusing about this? I
wouldn't care if people simply didn't know or care about these things,
but they talk as though scientsts never thought of these questions.
And, or course, he is using "evolutionist" to mean apparently any
scientist.
Kermit
Desertphile
> site, provocatively named, QuestionEvolution.com.
>
> http://questionevolution.com
It is the same old bullshit and crap that Rev. Kent Hovind spewed (and
as far as I know still spews) and has therefore already been debunked a
few hundred times. Or in other words, yet another fine example of
Creationist dishonesty and deception (as if anyone needed yet another
example).
Desertphile
> "undo" the arguments, rather than "review" them.
I suspect the Creationist, seeing the "questions" had been answered
correctly, did not wish to change his "have never been answered"
statement on his web page.... one cannot very well provide links to the
answers while at the same time claim the "questions" have never been
answred.
grind...@gmail.com
Oddly enough, Mr. Hancock was ok with that dissonance for 18 months.
Then, the rebuttal links disappeared.
grind...@gmail.com
QuestionEvolution.com. He writes:
Wow - thanks for paying attention.
I actually did that about two days ago. I am trying to fix the site
and incorporate the hundreds of comments (pro and con) and in the
process decided to remove the rebuttal link for two reasons:
1 - I can't seem to find the time to completely validate all the
information I put up from my initial research with the many excellent
questions asked and fine points made and certainly know I am not going
to be able to verify the vast amount of information on the rebuttal
pages in addition
2 - Honestly, the site is called "Question Evolution", not "Debate
Evolution". There are, as you know, thousands of pro-evolution sites
(and a large number of anti-evolution sites) and I decided to just take
one side and let the other sides speak for themselves. Or get their
own site.
I know this will anger a number of people as they find out, but I hope
they realize that I am paying for the website and am entitled to put up
my opinions, even if others do not agree with them. I just hope I
don't start getting vicious e-mails similar to those I received when I
first put up the site. This topic stirs great animosity, and I don't
see why it should. If the view expressed on this site is "mindless and
stupid" as it has been called in countless ways, then it should not get
people in such a bother. After all, there are probably other sites on
the Internet with information that some would consider wrong :)
Sincerely,
David Hancock
alexand...@btinternet.com
Well at least he's polite. Misguided, but polite.
I suppose he should change the site to 'uncritically question evolution
based on many previously debunked assertions' - but I suppose that
wouldn't be as snappy.
Apparently 'evolutionists' will get their own page to respond to the
questions (according to the contact us page) but I don't think it's up
yet.
Same old, same old really
Ron O
Willful ignorance is pretty sad. It doesn't matter how polite the guy
is, his moral character is questionable. How can you admit that you
don't know what you are doing, but do it anyways and claim you have
some other good reason for doing it? Why take out the links if you
admit that you don't care about whether the junk on your own site is
valid?
Ron Okimoto
alexand...@btinternet.com
Ron O wrote:
> alexanderhud...@btinternet.com wrote:
> > grind...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > It sounds as if Mr. Hancock has shuffled his priorities a bit for
> > > QuestionEvolution.com. He writes:
> > >
> > Well at least he's polite. Misguided, but polite.
> >
> > I suppose he should change the site to 'uncritically question evolution
> > based on many previously debunked assertions' - but I suppose that
> > wouldn't be as snappy.
> >
> > Apparently 'evolutionists' will get their own page to respond to the
> > questions (according to the contact us page) but I don't think it's up
> > yet.
> >
> > Same old, same old really
>
> Willful ignorance is pretty sad. It doesn't matter how polite the guy
> is, his moral character is questionable. How can you admit that you
> don't know what you are doing, but do it anyways and claim you have
> some other good reason for doing it? Why take out the links if you
> admit that you don't care about whether the junk on your own site is
> valid?
Don't think you have to go much further than the fact he's expounding
Creationism to see what's going on. For YEC's it's enough to
'question' based on your Christian beliefs. The motivation behind that
questioning comes from the foundation of their faith rather than
anything intrinsic to a sense of honesty as we'd describe it in an
analytical sense. They are being true to their own understanding of
faith and conception of religion. Doesn't make them right, but I don't
believe they are being 'dishonest' or immoral in the sense that they
are consciously aware that a double standard is being applied.
I'm sure that matey boy believes he's doing an honest and upright thing
in questioning the basis of evolution. His foundation is a faith based
one and it's this that guides his morality. In the classic words of
all those many post-modernists that constantly get quoted around here
'it's all relative innit?'.
However - I agree with you Ron, it is, when it comes down to it, pretty
sad. I don't have time for fundamentalism or extremism in any guise
and it's ideologies such as those that propogate creationism that have
a lot to answer for in so many ways.
>
> Ron Okimoto
Adam Marczyk
news:1132230633.9...@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com
I would write back to at least ask him why the claim "The questions found on
this site remain unanswered by the evolutionist" is still on the site.
--
"We have loved the stars too fondly | a.a. #2001
to be fearful of the night." | http://www.ebonmusings.org
--Tombstone epitaph of | e-mail: ebonmuse!hotmail.com
two amateur astronomers, | ICQ: 8777843
quoted in Carl Sagan's _Cosmos_ | PGP Key ID: 0x5C66F737
----------------------------------------------------------------------
grind...@gmail.com
> this site remain unanswered by the evolutionist" is still on the site.
I response should definitely be made.
I wrote to David Wise, thinking he might want to continue where he left
off in the saga, but have not heard back from him. Does anyone know
what he's been up to lately?
thissteve
unrestra...@hotmail.com wrote:
> "For gravitational attractions to be significant, the particles would
> have to have been as large as small moons."
>
> Um, why? If they attracting each other, and close, why would they have
> to be "as large as small moons"? Small, close particles would be drawn
> in as readily a larger, more distant particles.
I was very surprised the day I found out that we can actually orbit and
land on a 10-mile asteroid. Gravity isn't as weak as it's sometimes
made out to be.
Alexander
"Adam Marczyk" <ebon...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:hj4ff.13498$cg....@news02.roc.ny...
Done and done ... although I was circumspect and as polite as possible.
We'll see if we get a response.
grind...@gmail.com
> > on this site remain unanswered by the evolutionist" is still on the site.
Alexander wrote:
> Done and done ... although I was circumspect and as polite as possible.
> We'll see if we get a response.
If you wouldn't mind, can you post the text of your query so that I can
update the "Answers to QuestionEvolution.com" correspondence page?
http://www.geocities.com/chastity403/questionevolution/correspondence.html
Alexander
<grind...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1132265860....@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
It's fairly open ended but you're welcome to it.
Hi there - your site has attracted attention over at the Talk Origins
newsgroup (which can also be found on Google Groups if you ever care to
wander over). It can be quite a rough evironment for the new comer but
there is very much a quid pro quo attitude. If you are polite and are
sincerely there to learn or understand aspects of evolutionary theory and
it's relationship to religion then the locals are polite back. Sadly it
does seem to attract the kind of Christian who is more interested in
attacking people they believe are atheists (which is odd considering a great
many of the scientists at TO are Christians themselves) than trying to
tackle the real issues at stake.
Your polite response to some of the issues raised did generate some comments
and of course it's recognized that this is your site and you have a specific
reason for calling it 'questionevolution' rather than 'debate' evolution.
What seems odd (especially to those who have taken the time to study the
relevant issues through Biology, Paleaontology, Cosmology, Physics to
post-graduate level and beyond) is that the list you've put forward has in
fact been answered within the natural sciences (some questions for some time
as well).
The problem is not of course that you have not established a forum for
debate (entirely your prerogative of course) but that you have made a claim
that:
"Rather it (the website) was created to show that the theory that is
presented as scientific (evolution) is really not nearly as well supported
by scientific fact and discoveries as the average evolutionist believes. A
careful and objective study of the universe points one more in the direction
of special creation than natural evolution."
By listing the questions that have been repeatedly and conclusively refuted
you have presented the idea that these questions have either never been
asked or adequately answered when they have. I realise it is not your
intention to present a site that could be construed as ignoring or
overlooking the evidence but this does mean your site should carry either
more specific disclaimers or attempt to provide a more realistic
representation of the nature of the questions (which ones have been
answered, which ones are incomplete, some open ended questions that remain
etc - science doesn't have all the answers of course).
If you want to present all aspects of the argument without having to go to
the trouble of storing the collosal amounts of data available on the
evolutionary model then the simplest thing is to link to www.talkorigins.org
which has a comprehensive list of responses to all the claims made on your
website (they are not new ones, but if any occur to you let us know and we
can put it to the individuals with the appropriate expertise).
Take care and best wishes
Alexander
Ron O
I'd believe that they aren't consciously aware of the double standard
if the scam artists at the Discovery Institute and the dishonest board
members in Dover didn't think that they have to lie about what they are
doing.
You have to know what you are doing when you run a scam or you have to
go with the insanity defense. These guys know enough about what they
are doing that they have to consciously lie about it. If they didn't
know what they were doing why would they try to lie to cover up what
they are doing?
You can say something is not true out of ignorance, but if you know
that ID isn't science and you want to teach it in the science class,
what does that make you? If you know that the money came from your
church and you lie about where it came from because it would hurt your
scam if the truth came out, doesn't that mean that you know what you
are doing is a scam?
>
> I'm sure that matey boy believes he's doing an honest and upright thing
> in questioning the basis of evolution. His foundation is a faith based
> one and it's this that guides his morality. In the classic words of
> all those many post-modernists that constantly get quoted around here
> 'it's all relative innit?'.
Beats me what this guys problem is, but he knows that certain parts of
his web page are not true, he just doesn't want to face reality, and he
has chosen to hide the facts from people that he knows that he is now
trying to decieve. Maybe he is incompetent in some manner, I don't
know if that excuses the dishonesty. Why not leave up the links if you
don't know?
>
> However - I agree with you Ron, it is, when it comes down to it, pretty
> sad. I don't have time for fundamentalism or extremism in any guise
> and it's ideologies such as those that propogate creationism that have
> a lot to answer for in so many ways.
>
> >
> > Ron Okimoto
Honesty and integrity shouldn't be side issues when people claim to be
Christians. It shouldn't be hard to evaluate the situation. The guys
like in Kansas that claim that you can't be a real Christian and be
against them are the same guys that have to lie to do what they want
done. If you can't trust them about what you can check out, why trust
them about theology?
If you still want to believe the theology, shouldn't you do something
about the scammers that are covering it up with mud? I'd suggest that
the Christians that are caught up in this fiasco look into the
Christian organizations that have come out against the current
creationists scams. There is some list of 6000 clergy that have come
out against the ID scam and they don't use weasel words to do it. Look
up the plaintiff list for the Arkansas creationist court case. If you
are stuck with the guys that claim that you can't be a Christian and
side against them, look at what these guys are doing and ask if you
want to be associated with them. If you don't like what you see do
something about it.
Just think about the people that donated the money at Buckingham's
church in Dover. My guess is that he didn't tell them that he was
going to lie about where the money was coming from. They probably
thought that the money was going to an honest cause, but it seems that
Buckingham knew better.
Ron Okimoto
alexand...@btinternet.com
The DI is an interesting institution in many ways (none of them for the
reasons they'd like however). The fact that we can see DI's aims for
what they are doesn't necessarily mean that the proponents believe
themselves to be engaged in a dishonest act. Their line of reasoning
will extend from what they believe is a necessity driven from the
'need' for cultural renewal in the US (based on theistic rather than
secular values). This is an extension of the evangelical mission to
bring witness to the masses but the political machine has taken over.
It's a shame that in their zeal to promote this change that DI cannot
see the contortions they have to go through in order to arrive at what
they would consider to be a satisfactory resolution. The problem is
that when individuals are motivated through ideological drive the
niceties involved tend to be overlooked in favour of the over-arching
mission.
So you can have individuals who deeply and sincerely believe in that
mission and the basis under which it is promoted and who then convince
themselves that the vehicle it's being pushed forward is a legitimate
one. The reason the YEC and ID proponents scream censorship and
scientific exclusion all the time is that if they conceded that they
weren't being driven out through ideological differences they would
have to acknowledge that the science itself was bad.
This is denial writ large. It's not a good or happy place for them to
be, and there may be individuals who are consciously aware of duplicity
but the movement as a whole does not. This is why it's so diffciult to
address using the science alone - the barriers are already in place.
As for the Dover School Board - I imagine they have already convinced
themselves they were telling the truth and everyone else was out to get
them. Remember that for these people it is the secular world v. them.
They have The Truth (tm) and it's those outsiders who are subverting
truth for their own ends.
The fact that they deny those double standards doesn't mean that they
themselves believe that they are being dishonest in their dealings with
others. Being caught out will invariably make them intractable about
proceedings and more entrenched rather than anything else.
>
> You have to know what you are doing when you run a scam or you have to
> go with the insanity defense. These guys know enough about what they
> are doing that they have to consciously lie about it. If they didn't
> know what they were doing why would they try to lie to cover up what
> they are doing?
The usual justifications around these sorts of things extend to
variations on the 'other's not understanding the methods to acheive the
ends (which are intended to be for the good of all .. the 'martyr'
complex) - or that secular society will always try to portray the
religious as liars and malcontents. I imagine Thomas' closing argument
reinforced all of that and more in relation to how the defendants see
themselves - pillars of the community who have had their words twisted
and taken out of context by a secular media and science community.
They didn't lie ... they were 'misunderstood' or 'mis-spoke'.
The minor point that they were caught pushing forward an agenda which
does directly contravene most SCOTUS decisions on religion since WWII
sort of goes by the by.
Being aware of what you are doing and then justifying it after the fact
are key parts of our psychology and the Dover/DI lot are exemplars of
what happens when that is taken to extremes.
I personally think that the board thought they could activate
principles they always intended to enact in other ways but had little
regard for the consequences. Like many bullies they were called on it
and had to defend their actions. This is were the more complex
processes of self-justification spring into action, as the alternative
is to admit you were wrong, and for someone who has spent their life
justifying themselves through religious doctrine it is an incredibly
difficult thing to walk away from.
So again - they have been dishonest (to others and themselves) but are
they aware of that dishonesty ... nope.
>
> You can say something is not true out of ignorance, but if you know
> that ID isn't science and you want to teach it in the science class,
> what does that make you? If you know that the money came from your
> church and you lie about where it came from because it would hurt your
> scam if the truth came out, doesn't that mean that you know what you
> are doing is a scam?
Why do you think Behe is trying to redefine science? It seems absurd
but the whole anti-materialistic/evolution movement is based on a
premise that science has been stacking the deck. By claiming that 'if
only' scientists recognized that the processes that govern life should
extend beyond the confines of mortal understanding then we could be
more 'honest' about possibilities for research. The fact that this is
bollox doesn't mean that the people that support it don't actually,
sincerely, believe it.
Similarly if money is taken from a source and that source is not
revealed when questioned under oath then clearly you are a liar.
However, the individuals involved never believed they would be called
on it or (probably until it was pointed out) considered how it might be
prejudicial to their case. We don't know what was said or what
happened exactly but at the time they arranged to have the books
delivered to the school they probably didn't see anything wrong with
it. I think the whole thing about handing the money off to the
defendants father was their way of disclaiming responsibility (here ...
give this money to someone you trust to buy books for the school) but
that's speculation on my part.
You'd be surprised the extent to which individuals will go to in order
to convince themselves of how 'right' they are. If you have the
opportunity read up on case studies for narcissistic disorders ...
having met and known individuals who are narcissistic I can affirm that
there is very little you can do to convince them of their being
incorrect about an issue.
In the case of Dover I imagine some of them will have some serious soul
searching to do now that the lie has been exposed, had it not been
given coverage I doubt that any of them would have questioned their
motivations and rationale.
>
> >
> > I'm sure that matey boy believes he's doing an honest and upright thing
> > in questioning the basis of evolution. His foundation is a faith based
> > one and it's this that guides his morality. In the classic words of
> > all those many post-modernists that constantly get quoted around here
> > 'it's all relative innit?'.
>
> Beats me what this guys problem is, but he knows that certain parts of
> his web page are not true, he just doesn't want to face reality, and he
> has chosen to hide the facts from people that he knows that he is now
> trying to decieve. Maybe he is incompetent in some manner, I don't
> know if that excuses the dishonesty. Why not leave up the links if you
> don't know?
In a basic sense you're quite right - the aspect about facing reality
is a tough one. If you can't respond to the criticisms levelled then
either learn enough to challenge the critics or concede you don't know
enough and submit.
That is the rational response in any event. Going by the links posted
on this site and the mails provided by the webmaster it seems that he
is something of a driven individual (everything from martial arts
instructor to local politician of some description). I'm sure there
aren't enough hours in the day - but this kind of self-aggrandizement
and almost neurotic hyper activity (if everything he claims is true)
goes hand in hand with an inability to confront criticism and an
individuals own insecurities about the world. Constantly affirming
your self-worth vocally and visibly is a pretty good indication that
you really don't feel that good about yourself at any level. His
'confusion' over why it should generate any controversy is rather
Freudian as well - he's confused that anyone would disagree with his
position - I'm sure no-one in his little community really disagrees
with him after all.
>
> >
> > However - I agree with you Ron, it is, when it comes down to it, pretty
> > sad. I don't have time for fundamentalism or extremism in any guise
> > and it's ideologies such as those that propogate creationism that have
> > a lot to answer for in so many ways.
> >
> > >
> > > Ron Okimoto
>
> Honesty and integrity shouldn't be side issues when people claim to be
> Christians. It shouldn't be hard to evaluate the situation. The guys
> like in Kansas that claim that you can't be a real Christian and be
> against them are the same guys that have to lie to do what they want
> done. If you can't trust them about what you can check out, why trust
> them about theology?
I personally don't. However you are thinking rationally and that's
always a mistake in these situations. One of the hardest things for me
studying this issue from a sociological perspective over the past few
years is trying to understand how YEC/ID proponents rationalise their
beliefs. You have to leave a lot of assumptions behind on a number of
different levels. The hardest part is trying to comprehend the anomie
of the fundamentalist with their relationship to the contemporary
environment. It's not about 'us' trusting 'them' - it's about their
own in-group being continually reinforced with a consistent message.
The intrusions of YEC and ID into our spehere of awareness is simply
their reaction to what they see as destruction of their environment and
ideals. They are honest 'in-group', in that their message is
consistent and decipherable to those who share their ideology.
The fact that there is a massive disconnect when their 'honesty' meets
the remainder of reality is not a concern for them - all they have to
do is justify their actions within the context of their own
subject-positions.
>
> If you still want to believe the theology, shouldn't you do something
> about the scammers that are covering it up with mud? I'd suggest that
> the Christians that are caught up in this fiasco look into the
> Christian organizations that have come out against the current
> creationists scams. There is some list of 6000 clergy that have come
> out against the ID scam and they don't use weasel words to do it. Look
> up the plaintiff list for the Arkansas creationist court case. If you
> are stuck with the guys that claim that you can't be a Christian and
> side against them, look at what these guys are doing and ask if you
> want to be associated with them. If you don't like what you see do
> something about it.
I love the clergy list - if anything gives the lie to ID and the
fundamentalist campaign it's that. The BHA over here did something
similar when they got the Archbishop of Canterbury and Richard Dawkins
to sign a statement to the effect that faith was not contrary to the
teaching of evolution (this was when the Emanuel Foundation fiasco was
in full swing).
On a slightly more cynical note I suspect that the congregation from
the Dover boards church saw nothing wrong either about the issue. The
religiosity in the US is extremely high and within certain quarters
that implies a degree of 'group think' will be in evidence.
>
> Just think about the people that donated the money at Buckingham's
> church in Dover. My guess is that he didn't tell them that he was
> going to lie about where the money was coming from. They probably
> thought that the money was going to an honest cause, but it seems that
> Buckingham knew better.
He probably didn't even realise at the time it would blow up in his
face. Parochial communities give rise to parochial attitudes. I'm
glad they were called on it.
>
> Ron Okimoto
Ron O
alexand...@btinternet.com wrote:
> Ron O wrote:
> > alexand...@btinternet.com wrote:
> > > Ron O wrote:
> > > > alexanderhud...@btinternet.com wrote:
> > > > > grind...@gmail.com wrote:
At some level the scam artists and the dishonest board members know
that what they are doing just doesn't cut it in the morality
department. They wouldn't have to lie to cover up what they are doing
if this was not true.
The scam artists at the Discovery Institute know this better than just
about anyone. They wouldn't be pushing a replacement scam that
pretends that ID never existed if they really believed the junk they
claim about ID. So at some level they know that ID is bogus, but it
doesn't stop them from trying to use it.
There are guys like Behe that appear to be incompetent, but you can't
claim that about Meyer or West (the director and assitant director of
the "science" wing of the Discovery Institute). These guys figured out
that ID wasn't going to cut it years ago. They knew before they had to
admit it in Ohio, but it didn't stop them from perpetrating a new scam
on the rubes in Ohio.
Why would you have to lie about something, if you were not aware that
you had to lie about something to support your case?
They could be incompetent, but it took willful planning to figure out
what had to be lied about, and what had to be "not recalled." Do you
think that Buckingham and Bonsell just happened to both forget where
the money came from to buy the books?
>
> >
> > You can say something is not true out of ignorance, but if you know
> > that ID isn't science and you want to teach it in the science class,
> > what does that make you? If you know that the money came from your
> > church and you lie about where it came from because it would hurt your
> > scam if the truth came out, doesn't that mean that you know what you
> > are doing is a scam?
>
> Why do you think Behe is trying to redefine science? It seems absurd
> but the whole anti-materialistic/evolution movement is based on a
> premise that science has been stacking the deck. By claiming that 'if
> only' scientists recognized that the processes that govern life should
> extend beyond the confines of mortal understanding then we could be
> more 'honest' about possibilities for research. The fact that this is
> bollox doesn't mean that the people that support it don't actually,
> sincerely, believe it.
Behe's redefinition of science just shows his incompetence. You can't
admit that astrology is science if ID is science and not put two and
two together unless you were being purposely dishonest, or you were
whacked.
Behe was admitting that ID isn't good enough to teach, but he just
can't admit it to himself. That is true insanity. That isn't what the
guys like West and Meyer are doing.
>
> Similarly if money is taken from a source and that source is not
> revealed when questioned under oath then clearly you are a liar.
> However, the individuals involved never believed they would be called
> on it or (probably until it was pointed out) considered how it might be
> prejudicial to their case. We don't know what was said or what
> happened exactly but at the time they arranged to have the books
> delivered to the school they probably didn't see anything wrong with
> it. I think the whole thing about handing the money off to the
> defendants father was their way of disclaiming responsibility (here ...
> give this money to someone you trust to buy books for the school) but
> that's speculation on my part.
Both Bonsell and Buckingham had to colude to not remember where the
money came from. They had to make sure that one didn't spill the beans
or it wouldn't have been worth lying about in the first place. There
had to be a conscious decision for both of them to make the same claim.
Buckingham collected the money from his church and gave the check to
Bonsell. If Buckingham is going to claim that he didn't know where the
money came from do you think that he didn't check with Bonsell to make
sure that he had the same story? Why lie if you know that someone else
that is going to testify knows the same thing that you do?
>
> You'd be surprised the extent to which individuals will go to in order
> to convince themselves of how 'right' they are. If you have the
> opportunity read up on case studies for narcissistic disorders ...
> having met and known individuals who are narcissistic I can affirm that
> there is very little you can do to convince them of their being
> incorrect about an issue.
Just go over to ARN and look at the ostrich syndrome at work. They
pretended that Ohio never happened and now they are trying to pretend
that Dover never happened. The saddest thing is the ads for the
ID/creationist claptrap that they push at the site. Guys like Meyer
are on the board of directors at ARN and probably gets a cut of the
take, but where is the honest discussion about ID? Why hasn't Meyer
put out a short essay as to why he gave up on ID and went with a
replacement scam that pretends that ID never existed. Just try and
find the ID in the teach the controversy lesson plan. Why aren't these
guys made aware of the shortcomings of ID so that they can work on the
real problems? Self deception is a big part of why ID exists, but we
are talking about the scam artists like Meyer and not the rubes like at
ARN.
>
> In the case of Dover I imagine some of them will have some serious soul
> searching to do now that the lie has been exposed, had it not been
> given coverage I doubt that any of them would have questioned their
> motivations and rationale.
Sure, there is self deception in the Dover board, but these guys knew
at some level that they were lying. It just didn't matter to them.
I have no doubt that they rationalized their actions, but who cares?
They knew what they were doing when they lied. It doesn't matter about
if they thought that it was a good lie for god or not.
SNIP:
It is difficult for me to believe that all these guys are just whacked
out with mental problems. At some level the guys that are scamming the
rubes are probably pathological, but it is a planned pathology or they
wouldn't stay so organized and they wouldn't know when to jump ship.
Look at Pandas and People the guys involved in that book are probably
busy removing references to intelligent design and putting in drivel
about abrupt appearance, or just putting up the "controversies" and
deleting their reason for bringing up the controversies. This is a
conscious effort. It was a conscious effort to go through the book and
replace creationism with ID. Forrest even found an instance where they
had inserted design into the existing creationist euphamism. The
original word was still there, but had the new euphamism inserted
within it. It was touted as a transitional fossil over at the Panda's
Thumb.
Some of these guys know what they are doing, and are doing it on
purpose.
Ron Okimoto
Desertphile
> 1 - I can't seem to find the time to completely validate all the
> information I put up from my initial research with the many excellent
His "research?" It must take an average high school student maybe as
much a ten minutes to refute each "question" on the web site, with the
whole lot being utterly, completely, and conclusively debunked and
refuted in about two hours. No intellectually honest person who has
researched the "questions" will allow the "questions" to remain on her
or his web site.
I have a policy on my web site (holysmoke.org) that states I will
promptly remove or correct any and all web pages that are incorrect;
that policy has stood for a decade, and out of around 19,000 web pages
I have removed or corrected several dozen pages that were pointed out
to me as being incorrect. (And I have always thanked the people who
have tgaken the time to write and correct the web pages.)
SURELY Creationists, who perform god's work in the world, would be
happy and eager and thankful at people spending the time and effort to
correct the Creationists' incorrect web pages. SURELY the fact that
they DO GOD'S WORK means they would never want to spread falsehoods and
thus slander and libel god (see Job 13:4-12).
Or to put it more bluntly, certainly the owner of
"questionevolution.com" will *RUSH* to his key board and do the
intellectualy and SPIRITUALLY honest thing--- remove the falsehoods.
Or does he really want people to know that Wiccans (such as myself) are
more honest and fair than Christians such as himself?
Desertphile
> At some level the scam artists and the dishonest board members know
> that what they are doing just doesn't cut it in the morality
> department. They wouldn't have to lie to cover up what they are doing
> if this was not true.
The nine years I have spent studying Scientologists has convinced me
that some humans (and I suspect "many humans" applies, in the same
circumstances) have the ability to lie, know they are lying, and yet at
the same time believe they are not lying. I also am convinced that this
ability can be inculcated within a large portion of the human
population. I have interviewed dozens of Scientologists who, I am
convinced, believe their lies... and the more absurd and unlikely the
lie, the more they believed it.
In 2002 I stated this opinion during a meeting of the California
Department of Justice regarding Scientology and Scientology Inc., but I
was unprepared to explain how it is possible for a person to believe
her/his own lies. Fortunately the meeting included a doctor of abnormal
psychology who attempted to describe the mechanism.
It therefore comes as zero surprise to me that some Creationists
actively and agressively lie, know damn well they are lying, and yet
paradoxically also completely believe their lies. The ability may not
be very common, but I suspect it is common enough to have been studied
and there must be web pages available on the 'net about the topic.