I wrote a note to a couple of the politicians who appeared on last night’s Q and A.
I saw you on Q & A last night and I appreciate the way you tried to stand up to Dawkins’ attacks on the Christian faith.
I thought it was interesting that not one person on the panel could answer Dawkins’ arguments but could only say, in effect, “Please be nice.”
I did a short take on the show here.
There were a lot of things that I found disturbing:
- The blatant attacks on the Christian faith, painting Christians as stupid, ignorant and mean.
- The applause of the audience when these attacks were made.
- The inability of anyone to effectively defend their faith against Dawkins.
- The misinformation about intelligent design. (Dawkins actually believes intelligent design is a valid scientific approach, but he will only accept certain types of designer.)
- The misinformation about science.
- The misinformation about the Christian faith.
- The attacking a groups of people (creationists, Christians) without any recourse to a defense by a members of those groups.
These things seem like ominous dark clouds gathering in our country. Atheism was given a great boost last night courtesy of the ABC.
All the best,
Tas walker
PS: Dawkins’ evidence for evolution has been refuted here
Tags: Australia, Evolution, Richard Dawkins
Perhaps there is a journalist in Australia who is brave enough to ask it.
Why won’t he debate creationists?
If he is so sure of his science as he continually says, and creationists are so ignorant and ill informed, then why not have it out once for all? Even some of his fans from his web site are puzzled by his refusal.
Why does he pick off pastors, politicians, and bishops. Is it because they are a soft target?
It would be interesting to know. I wonder if any journalist in Oz has the courage to ask.
Or better still, is there anyone who would try to set up a discussion between Dr Dawkins and an informed creationist, such as ex-atheist Carl Wieland, or the scientist, Jonathan Sarfati, who has just refuted Dawkins’ book with “The Greatest Hoax on Earth: Refuting Dawkins on Evolution“.
What an excellent opportunity when Dawkins, Wieland and Sarfati will all be in Melbourne on the same weekend (see Countering the Rise of Atheism).
Tags: Australia, Evolution, Richard Dawkins
I’ve previously mentioned how the media give Richard Dawkins a dream run, never questioning or probing his assertions about evolution. They just lap it up. Seems like ABC (Australian Broadcasting Commission) is falling in line with the long tradition—making sure that the champion fighter against ignorance and creationism is not asked any difficult questions on the science of evolution.
I watched the video of the ABC QandA tonight.
The first question was “Is it possible to believe in God and in evolution?” The discussion did not define what was meant by evolution nor did it define what it meant by God. So it was a muddy question, muddy discussion and it was no clearer at the end of the discussion than before.
Another question discussed the teaching of ‘intelligent design’ in the science classroom. No one mentioned that Richard Dawkins is on record saying that there could be clues within the cell itself to indicate it may have been designed. The context of his statement was that aliens could have seeded life onto Earth.
It is a pity that no one was able or inclined to ask Dawkins any probing questions about the science of evolution and hold his feet to the fire on the huge problems with the scientific arguments. It is not as if the information is hard to find. Just visit Creation.com Q&A for academic articles on thousands of issues. But, ABC QandA basically gave Dawkins a free ride.
Right through the program Dawkins had Christians in his sights. He attacked God, he attacked the Old Testament, he attacked the New Testament, he attacked Christ, he attacked Christ’s sacrifice and he attacked his resurrection. And when he was pulled up by one of the panelists for being offensive, Dawkins showed no remorse, no apology but simply sought to thrust the insult even stronger, which he did by ridicule, misrepresentation and scorn. And the audience loved him and applauded him for it.
Perhaps it is against ABC policy to have someone who can take the fight on science to their champ on any of their shows. Perhaps it is against their policy to have anyone on their shows who can defend the Christian faith against such abuse and insult. Judging by the way the discussion went and the applause of the audience Christians were misrepresented and shown in a very bad light. You must give it to the ABC, they are very skilled in advancing their secular agenda.
Richard must be really enjoying the free ride he’s being given in Oz.
Tags: Australia, Evolution, Richard Dawkins
The Greatest Hoax on Earth: Refuting Dawkins on Evolution
Which is why Dr Jonathan Sarfati jumped at the opportunity. In his book, The Greatest Hoax on Earth: Refuting Dawkins on Evolution, Dr Sarfati deals with the evidence chapter after chapter, covering a vast range of disciplines in his trademark crisp, clear style. He convincingly shows, for those with ears to hear, that to believe the Bible’s account of Creation/Fall/Redemption straightforwardly not only does not commit intellectual suicide, but is the intellectually superior position.
Check out Dr Sarfati’s book.
The Australian media is portraying Richard Dawkins during his visit ‘down under’ as taking on the creationists.
Journalist Danika Armytage described it in her video report of 5 March 2010 like this:
“Evolutionary biologist Richard Dawkins is in Sydney this weekend to promote his new book ‘The Greatest Show on Earth‘. It’s an uncompromising assault on creationism, presenting his strongest case for Darwinian evolution.”
But, I have never heard Prof Dawkins actually debate a creationist in person? Have you?
He was offered a marvelous opportunity to make a spectacle of creationists while he is in Australia for the global atheist convention (see Atheists reject debate challenge). You would think that he would jump at the chance. But no, he declined. His long standing policy is that he does not debate creationists.
This reminds me of a football game where only one team is allowed onto the field. And they have a great time kicking dozens of goals in their match. And after the match the star footballer struts around triumphantly bragging about all the goals he kicked.
In his radio interviews Dawkins goes on and on about how mutations and natural selection change tigers and bacteria and viruses. He gives the impression that he has slaughtered the creationists. But what people do not know is that creationists agree with natural selection. It is no big deal. Natural selection removes genetic information from the genome whereas molecules-to-man evolution requires a mechanism that will increase the information. See Mutations: evolution’s engine becomes evolution’s end!
If the journalists covering ‘Dawkins vs creationism’ wanted to see a bit of competition they could ask him to give one example of a genetic mutation which actually added some information to the genome.
Or they could ask him about the origin of life. Richard Dawkins has already said publicly that neither he nor anyone else has any idea how a living cell could have originated by natural processes. In fact, he has publicly said that he thinks aliens could have seeded life onto earth and that science may be able to detect a clue to such intelligent design in the DNA itself. That would be interesting if a skeptical journalist would explore with Richard Dawkins what sort of clues he would look for in order to detect intelligent design.
Or they could ask him what he thinks about his ideal fossil, Tiktaalik, now that the tetrapod footprints have been found in Poland that are older and mean that Tik-tik is at best an evolutionary dead end.
Yes, Prof Dawkins is regarded by the media as a hero as he fights against creationism, portraying himself as the upholder of science and rationality. All the same, it would be good to see a contest occasionally where he was obliged to discuss the issue with someone knowledgeable who could ask some insightful questions.
I always find a game more interesting when there is a contest.
Tags: Fossils, natural selection, Richard Dawkins, Tiktaalik
BBC reports, 20 February 2010, the President of the US National Academy of Sciences saying that the recent controversies surrounding climate research have damaged the image of science as a whole.
“There is some evidence that the distrust has spread,” Dr Cicerone told BBC News. “There is a feeling that scientists are suppressing dissent, stifling their competitors through conspiracies.”
It’s not just a feeling. That is what they have been doing—big time.
It has been endemic for a long time and not just with climate research. The public have only now become aware of how corrupted the scientific establishment has become.
Those who have been following the creation-evolution controversy would already know about the problem. That is what the movie Expelled is all about, but it was mocked and denied by the likes of Oxford Professor Dawkins, the public face of the scientific establishment. The book The Slaughter of the Dissidents documents the chilling reality of censorship, intimidation and termination. The Geological Society of London, as does the Geological Society of Australia, aggressively censor views they do not like, as Earth Science Ireland also tried to do.
“People expect us to do things more in the public light and we just have to get used to that,” he said. “Just as science itself improves and self-corrects, I think our processes have to improve and self-correct.”
I don’t hold out much hope that the changes he has in mind are anything more than cosmetic. I may be wrong. But I will be prepared to acknowledge that there has been a substantive change when Science and Nature regularly publish papers critical of evolution and supportive of Intelligent Design. I will change my mind when the Smithsonian includes creationist interpretations of their fossil displays. I’ll admit I was wrong when the Geological Society of America, Australia and London allow creationist geologists to present ideas about Flood geology at their meetings.
I won’t hold my breath.
Tags: creation, Evolution, Flood geology, Geological society
When Climategate broke in November 2009 a catchy song appeared on Youtube called Hide the Decline. It mocked those scientists involved in the climate research who were exposed for manipulating scientific data. The song starts off:
Makin’ up data the old hard way
Fudgin’ the numbers day by day
Ignoring the snow and the cold and a downward line …
It’s very catchy and very funny. And it is hard to get the tune out of your head.
Climategate reminds us how personal philosophy, vested interests and politics can corrupt science.
And it is the same for the creation/evolution issue.
In early January a paper was published in Nature about tetrapod tracks in Poland that consigned the cherished fish-to-tetrapod transitional sequence to the garbage heap. One famous fossil that lost status in a big way was Tiktaalik. Paleontologists around the world are familiar with the paper. They expressed their surprise, amazement and disappointment at the discovery.
PZ Myers promptly posted on the topic Tetrapods are older than we thought.
Yet today Myers posts the old but catchy Tiktaalik song without a word that Tik-tik is irrelevant as far as the fish-to-tetrapod transition is concerned. Judging by the comments on his blog people are persuaded by the catchy song and don’t care about the evidence. PZ didn’t say a word about the problem like ,”Good song but pity it’s now a dead-end.”
The gatekeepers are busy on Wikipedia too keeping this new Polish find hush-hush. The edit history for Tiktaalik is particularly enlightening.
These sacred icons of evolution are untouchable. Like the mythical Phoenix they keep appearing in the evolutionary books and blogs decades after they are discredited. Reminds me of the word “ignoring” in the Climategate song.
Which raises some questions. Are we seeing a Paleogate coverup here? Do the Polish tetrapod tracks need a catchy song on Youtube?
Tags: footprints, Fossils, Tiktaalik
The Huffington Post ran an article on Five Reasons Why Evolution Is Important. It’s by Steven Newton, Public Information Project Director for the National Center for Science Education (NCSE), and was run on 12 February to celebrate Charles Darwin’s 201st birthday.
Newton gives five medical examples of natural selection and claims that proves “evolution” is important. This argument from natural selection has been shown to be faulty so many times that I’m sure they are aware of it. They have to be deliberately muddying the waters.
In a nutshell the confusion is because they use the word “evolution” in two different ways. It’s a trick. Newton gives examples of “natural selection”, which is one meaning of the word, and he implies that those examples explain “the diversity of life on this planet”, which is a different meaning. Yes, natural selection does produce change but this change is in the wrong direction to transform bacteria into bloggers (see The evolution train’s a-comin’).
Reason 1: H1N1 and Emerging Diseases. Newton says that the outbreak of “swine flu” in 2009 reminds us that “viruses evolve”. Viruses certainly change but such changes are not the sort of changes that molecules-to-man evolution requires (see Swine flu is not evidence for evolution).
Reason 2: HIV. Another virus that “evolves” so rapidly that no “vaccine” has been found. Once again, natural selection is not evolution in the molecules-to-man sense (see Has AIDS evolved?).
Reason 3: Vaccines. They have to change because viruses like the flue virus evolve. This is a repeat of reason 1 & 2. Newton would have to know that creationists accept natural selection because NCSE are continually fighting this issue in the courts in order to silence any discussion or criticism of evolution. He looks like he is playing politics and using political spin for a political advantage.
Reason 4. Antibiotic Resistance. He says it’s a “textbook example of natural selection”, and it is. But nothing has evolved here. No new kinds of bacteria have suddenly popped into existence. The bacteria that survived already existed when the antibiotic was applied and they already had the resistance. Natural selection has reduced the different varieties of bacteria leaving only the resistant ones. All the others are gone. (See Super bugs not super after all, and notice the date of the article. These answers have been around for more than a decade yet Newton keeps trotting out the same old argument. He must know. Makes you think there is more to this than science.)
Reason 5: Drug Development. Newton’s discussion of the Pacific Yew tree is another example of natural selection—variation among yew trees—yawn. But then he plays a little trick. Newton says “we know from evolution that we share a common ancestor with animals.” This is what you call “bait-and-switch“. He has been using “evolution” to mean natural selection, which is uncontroversial and which creationists would agree with. Now he switches the meaning to refer to animals evolving into people. He then claims that the reason we can test drugs for humans on animals is because animals and humans share a common ancestor. But there are other explanations. Animals and humans have similar cell structure and body configuration because they have the same designer—God (see Common design argument).
So, is evolution important? If by evolution you mean natural selection then yes. It’s important to understand natural selection just like it is important to understand the first law of thermodynamics, Newton’s laws of motion and the gas laws. Our understanding of these principles has transformed our world. But we don’t see the birthday of Isaac Newton, Lord Kelvin or Robert Boyle celebrated every year.
But, if by evolution you mean bacteria changing into bloggers over millions of years then NO. This idea is not supported by the scientific evidence and it has produced no scientific insights or inventions. There is only one reason why this kind of evolution is important, and Dawkins explained why. He said evolution enables him to be an intellectually fulfilled atheist. So, evolution, in the molecules-to-man sense, is all about dispensing with God. And that is why we see this endless adulation of Darwin.
Don’t be fooled by articles like this one from Steven Newton and promoted by NCSE. This issue is not about science, medicine or progress, about which there is no controversy. It’s part of their ongoing war against God.
Tags: Evolution, natural selection
Dinosaur footprint
I always enjoy these reports because they are describing evidence of Noah’s Flood but don’t realize it.
One puzzling feature is that the dinosaurs were running the same way. Why were they doing that?
The scientists from China suggest the footprints “could represent a migration or a panicked attempt to escape predators.”
A migration? I wonder why they ran through all that soft mud. I wonder if their papers were in order.
Fleeing predators? Panicked? Just note this: the scientists have identified six types of dinosaurs, including tyrannosaurs, coelurosaurs and hadrosaurs. And they are suggesting that all these animals are so frightened of predators that they are all fleeing in panic?
Some of the footprints were nearly a metre long. I wonder how big the predators were. Are they telling us that, for all its size, Tyrannosaurus was a wimp? That would make a good angle for a science paper.
Footprints are a key classification criteria that help us work out when rocks formed in biblical history.
The sediments are thick so a lot of material was brought in quickly and spread over a large area. The mud was still soft so it was deposited not long before but quickly hardened preserving the prints, which were soon covered by more sediment.
So it’s easy to understand why the dinosaurs panicked. They were fleeing the rising waters of Noah’s Flood. Footprints mean the animals were alive, so the waters were still rising and had not yet covered the whole earth and destroyed all air-breathing animal life (Genesis 7:19–23).
Lots of dinosaurs perished in the area, as evidenced by dinosaur fossils being found at some 30 sites around Zhucheng—so many that it has been called “dinosaur city”. But it really should be called “dinosaur graveyard”.
The animals fossilized because they were buried quickly, another sign of the magnitude of the Flood disaster. And evidence that the 100 million years mentioned in the article are imaginary. The sediments were deposited rapidly so the eons of time did not exist.
Scientists and journalists present this sort of evidence within their personal philosophy of evolution over millions of years. It’s a belief system about the past that they simply assume without question because that is what they have been told. But when you understand the true history of the world as recorded in the Bible, you can see what is really going on with these animals. And you can enjoy the funny side of the hilarious explanations that the media passes onto its readers.
But the footprints also open a graphic window where we can see something of the terror and devastation connected with Noah’s Flood—very sobering.
Tags: Dinosaurs, footprints, Fossils
Panderichythys is no longer an important transition but an evolutionary dead-end.
The evolution from fish to land dwelling tetrapods required many changes in anatomy and physiology, most importantly the legs and their supporting structure, the girdles. Well preserved fossils of Panderichthys clearly show these structures in transition, making Panderichthys a rare and important find in the history of life.
“Clearly in transition”. That sounds a really good story. Here are some more amazing insights from that entry into the importance of Panderichthys:
Fish like Panderichthys were the ancestors of the first tetrapods, air-breathing, terrestrial animals from which the land vertebrates, including humans, are descended.
The Polish footprints mean that, in the evolutionary paradigm, Panderichthys is no longer “important”. The supposed evolutionary transition had already occurred. Panderichthys is not an ancestor of the air-breathing terrestrial animals. It’s an evolutionary dead-end. How things change.
That Wiki entry, like the Tiktaalik one, is another that needs a major makeover. What a job it will be trying to battle out a revised article on Wikipedia against all those who won’t want it to change. No wonder no-one has mentioned the footprint find, even after it has been in the news for nearly three weeks.
Update 7 February 2010: Still not a word on the Polish tetrapod footprints on Panderichthys on Wiki. It’s over a month now.
Tags: fish-to-tetrapod, Fossils, Panderichythys, Wikipedia
Latest Comments