JW scientist banned from Institute's WebSite because of Creationistic Views

by GermanXJW 229 Replies latest jw friends

  • ThiChi


    Interesting and unsurprising quote from Gould. Unfortunately you don't seem to understand the context it was written in. If you did, you would never have posted it.


    The very fact that this information was presented by me and not you, shows your lack of IQ toward the subject at hand...(oh,...I do have the book, and have met him...by the way...I have "family" in the "Field")

  • Realist
    "Not one change of species into another is on record ... we cannot prove that a single species has been changed." (Charles Darwin, My Life & Letters)

    wrong statement...due to lack of knowledge at that time (around 1850 or so).

    "..why, if species have descneded from other species by insensibly fine gradations, do we not everywhere see innumerable transitional forms? Why is not all nature in confusion instead of the species being, as we see them, well defined?" "... The number of intermediate varieties, which have formerly existed on the earth, (must) be truly enormous. Why then is not every geological formation and every stratum full of such intermediate links? Geology assuredly does not reveal any such finely graduated organic chain; and this, perhaps, is the most obvious and gravest objection which can be urged against my theory." (Darwin, C. (1859) The Origin of Species (Reprint of the first edition) Avenel Books, Crown Publishers, New York, 1979, p. 292)

    wrong statement...due to lack of knowledge at that time (around 1850 or so).

    In most people's minds, fossils and Evolution go hand in hand. In reality, fossils are a great embarrassment to Evolutionary theory and offer strong support for the concept of Creation. If Evolution were true, we should find literally millions of fossils that show how one kind of life slowly and gradually changed to another kind of life. But missing links are the trade secret, in a sense, of paleontology. The point is, the links are still missing. What we really find are gaps that sharpen up the boundaries between kinds. It's those gaps which provide us with the evidence of Creation of separate kinds. As a matter of fact, there are gaps between each of the major kinds of plants and animals. Transition forms are missing by the millions. What we do find are separate and complex kinds, pointing to Creation." (Dr Gary Parker Biologist/paleontologist and former ardent Evolutionist.)

    not true....NO date given.

    "Many species remain virtually unchanged for millions of years, then suddenly disappear to be replaced by a quite different, but related, form. Moreover, most major groups of animals appear abruptly in the fossil record, fully formed, and with no fossils yet discovered that form a transition from their parent group. Thus, it has seldom been possible to piece together ancestor-dependent sequences from the fossil record that show gradual, smooth transitions between species." (Hickman, C.P. [Professor Emeritus of Biology at Washington and Lee University in Lexington], L.S. Roberts [Professor Emeritus of Biology at Texas Tech University], and F.M. Hickman. 1988. Integrated Principles of Zoology. Times Mirror/Moseby College Publishing, St. Louis, MO. 939 pp.; (pg. 866))

    a) many more transitional (ancestral) forms were found since 1988 (as predicted by Hickman).

    b) he even states in this paragraph that in some cases gradual, smooth transitions between species have been identified already.

    c) this quote is taken out of context since it is from an article describing why punctuated equilibrium is in many cases the reason for the rather abrupt changes.

    "When we view Darwinian gradualism on a geological timescale, we may expect to find in the fossil record a long series of intermediate forms connecting phenotypes of ancestral and descendant populations. This predicted pattern is called phyletic gradualism. Darwin recognized that phyletic gradualism is not often revealed by the fossil record. Studies conducted since Darwin’’s time likewise have failed to produce the continuous series of fossils predicted by phyletic gradualism. Is the theory of gradualism therefore refuted? Darwin and others claim that it is not, because the fossil record is too imperfect to preserve transitional series...Others have argued, however, that the abrupt origins and extinctions of species in the fossil record force us to conclude that phyletic gradualism is rare. " "A number of contemporary biologists, however, favor various hypotheses of the punctuated equilibrium theory...They base their hypotheses on fossil records which have large ""chains"" of missing organisms. Although missing-link fossils are occasionally discovered, the record does little to support Darwin’’s concept of gradual, long-term change...Others opposed to hypotheses of evolution through sudden change argue that because such a tiny percentage of organisms becomes fossilized...drawing definite conclusions from fossil evidence about evolution through either gradual or sudden change is not warranted." (Hickman, C.P. [Professor Emeritus of Biology at Washington and Lee University in Lexington], L.S. Roberts [Professor Emeritus of Biology at Texas Tech University], and A. Larson. 2000. Animal Diversity. McGraw Hill, NY. 429pp.; (p. 23, 261))

    again a irrelevant quote...trasitional forms are rare but do exist (as even stated in this quote)....and as expected by equvilibrated equilibrium.

    ok thats enough for now....please reduce the volume and focus on the quality!

  • rem


    I can cut and paste a ton of articles attempting to poke holes in Einstein's theory of relativity. Yes there exist people who doubt it and who think they have disproved it. Just because they exist doesn't mean I have to doubt relativity. The fact that it works (e.g. sending people to the moon and predicting planetary orbits) is good enough for me. The same is true with evolution. The fact that evolutionary theory has helped the creation of vaccines and the understanding of DNA shows that it is a good model and it works. To doubt such a useful theory would require a great amount of contradictory evidence - none of which you have been able to provide.

    So far Intelligent Design and Creationism have not helped cure one disease or helped increase our body of knowledge. They have done nothing to help the species. Theories that are useless are much less likely to be correct - especially in the face of another extremely useful theory that makes it irrelevant.

    So, yes, have an open mind. Just don't leave it so wide open that your brain falls out.


  • ThiChi


    Why did you leave out the many modern examples?

  • Realist


    hat their comments on various aspects of evolutionary theory at least reveal that there is discontent and a lack of consensus over many crucial aspects of naturalistic theories.

    yes just as there is discussion about the exact nature of gravity. this does not mean however that gravity is not for real.

    about your other post....what is the purpose of your crusade against evolution with simply copy pasting trash from creationist webpages?

    PS: i took the first 5 or 6 entries in your list.

  • ThiChi


    Bringing in gravity as an example now? Wow, a little desperate, aren’t we?

    The fact is not "all" agree with you. Why pretend that the fossil record is not as complete as you would like it? So what?


    When you can get back on topic, instead of the Cut&Paste red herring, let me know.

  • rem
    The very fact that this information was presented by me and not you, shows your lack of IQ toward the subject at hand...(oh,...I do have the book, and have met him...by the way...I have "family" in the "Field")

    What??? I have a lack of IQ towards the subject? Okidoki. If you have the book by Gould, then I suggest you read it. The quote is not talking about what you think it's talking about. You see, your cut and pastes (which is not a red herring, btw) only put into question your credibility. Realist, right off the bat, was able to show how the first few quotes were irrelevant to the discussion. That's makes readers of this thread question whether you even read the articles you paste, and if you do, whether you really understand them. Oh, yeah, and the theory of gravity (and relativity) is quite relevant since we are discussing scientific theories in general. You are the one who hijacked this thread and turned it into an creation/evolution debate. rem

  • Abaddon


    First off the server ate (as a scientist I don’t believe in censorship unless there is proof of it) part of the post, where I said it was a dishonest argument.

    It is. In Germany, Jew were gassed because of a pseudo-scientific ideology with no proof of what it asserted saying that race was bad. If the basic precept of Intelligent Design is a non-falsifiable theory (you cannot prove that the designer doesn’t exist), then it is one many people would regard as not being truly scientific. Science Journals have reputations. I won’t insult your intelligence by finding a list of criteria for a good theory, but one of them is the theory must be falsifiable, otherwise you can’t know it is wrong. Thus articles on Intelligent Design often cannot meet the criteria for publication. I’m happy to admit, that for reasons we have discussed in other threads and that you haven’t rebutted yet, often Creationists and Intelligent Designouts have a bad reputation. I’m happy to admit that either due to this reputation, or due to closed mindedness on the part of some people, many Creationist and ID articles are not regarded that seriously. But, part of that is that so many cannot be regarded tht seriously, and it misses the whole point. No matter what bias there me be on the part of some reviewers, or bad press created by some sloppy Creationists and Intelligent Designouts, the theories still don’t meet the criteria for publication.

    I have been beaten up twice openly because of my views and the American government refused to do anything. Serves me right, they said. Do you know what it is like to get death threats? It is not fun. Shall I go on? I know that the American government is very corrupt and one study found that one out of seven inmates on death row were innocent (mostly exonerated by DNA) and all of this does not endear me to my government much.

    So, the American government, which at the moment is neo-conservative and very religiously influenced, doesn’t protect you because you are a Creationist/Ider? That’s not a very convincing argument. I do agree with your point about the death sentence though, but it’s a different issue really.

    It may interest you to know that I have interviewed hundreds of creationists for a book that I wrote and, of the out of the closet breed, all but two were denied tenure at state colleges (I am one of those rare birds; I was awarded tenure at a state college of over 4,000 students to teach biology and biochemistry in a science department; Prof. Keith who teaches at a major State University is the other one). Many creationists were also denied tenure at "Christian" colleges (including me although my Witness background probably was part of it). Those creationists in the closet do very well, though. Also, out of the closet ID advocates don't do too much better. This is pure hate.

    Some bias does occur Jerry. That’s not good. But after almost five weeks you’ve not defended the argument YOU made, that I rebutted. You said it was golly unfair that Creationists had a bad reputation; I showed examples of how they got that bad reputation. You then committed similar errors to those that I had pointed out in Creationist articles, defended yourself by book review, reduced yourself to lies about me and Ad Hom attacks, and have still not addressed one point head on. All of this is there on this web site as proof. Are you going to tell me you’re a bad Creationist, and all the rest don’t use bad science, invalid comparisons, red herrings, straw men, ad homs, prevarication, avoidance and lies? You can’t complain about how you are treated if the way you behave is an example. Harsh but fair, sad but true.

    If Neo-Darwinism is empirically proven, clearly ID and creationism are both falsified (and I would have to switch sides). Many scientists claim not only that it is falsifiable but has been falsified. Read Dawkins, Gould and many others such as Eldridge. This is one of their main points.

    I have to admit I find the lack of evidence for literal (like YEC) Creationistic beliefs compelling when compared to the wealth of evidence supporting evolution. It’s errant rubbish. I find less prescriptive forms of Creationism have smaller degrees of falsifiability. This is not necessarily a good thing, but one would is gratified to see Creationism obeying the laws of evolution and being shaped by natural selection.

    I can understand other people feeling that just ‘cause Creationism/ID cannot be disproved as a theory, doesn’t mean it’s not wrong. Many feel there’s so many indications there is no designer that one theory with no proof that you can’t prove wrong is irrelevant, as it would be like not buying your kids presents cause there might be a real Santa Claus. I think this is a bloody good point.

    I also see no conflict in a belief in god and a disbelief in Intelligent Design. There seems to be an ideological fixation on some theist’s part to retain god as a plate spinning creator, the one who balances and keeps it all going, and a disinclination to see god as a primal cause who watched his ‘experiment’ run without interference after turning it on. All such theories have an utter lack of scientific proof though. Doesn’t mean they’re false, but extraordinary claims blah blah blah…


    1. If "facts" keep changing from month to month, year to year, then there must be room for counter viewpoints, instead of the condescending remarks I read here.

    Tell you what, that’s a good point. Shall we keep the ‘facts’ the same whilst the evidence CHANGES?

    I think you miss the important point here Thi Chi.

    Science changes its facts to fit the evidence. If there is no evidence, it is not a fact.

    There might be enthusiastic “joining up the dots” to make theories about the facts there is evidence for, and these need fiddling with if new ‘dots’ of evidence are found, but that’s obviously required to keep them fitting with reality as it can be proved to be.

    Creationists and Intelligent Designouts have facts without evidence. When new evidence is uncovered, they cannot alter their fundamental facts, as these are predetermined. Even if the evidence indicates that the facts do NOT fit with reality as it can be proved to be, they can only attack the ‘facts’ other people use to interpret the evidence differently, or devise ways of viewing reality that allow them to retain the original fact.

    """""You can't be complaining about science discovering new things, or refining theories in light of new knowledge"""""

    Wow, you sound like the Watchtower! We are getting "New light" so why concentrate on the "fact today is fiction tomorrow" aspect? I am all for debate regarding the matter, but when some here take a "I am above you" because I believe in this as a "fact"(a term used loosely around here), then you can count me out! Who knows?

    Democratic fallacy. Everyone’s opinion is not worth the same, they just have equal right to express it. My opinion on maintaining 1950 American V8’s is worthless. If I tried, I’d be out of my depth and be laughed at. Some people approach these discussions without knowing that much about the subject, and act surprised when they say something foolish. Is this some white-collar/blue-collar thing, it’s okay for a master mechanic to laugh at someone who is an ‘uppity know all’, but the school teacher had better not talk down to less educated folks, even if they’re talking out of their hats?

    Now, I think someone skim reading webpages on a subject they don't know a lot about and posting them as an argument is arrogant and uppity. Go and read a few blasted books, then come and play. That's my opinion, you don't have to respect it, but you do have to tolerate it. You mention fakes but fail to see how self-policing the field is as you don't know enough about the field, and also don't mention eviolutionist fakes, which means you're ignorant of them or biased, make yourself really silly quoting 150 year-old science articles on evolution as though they were current, fail to see that all ID does is contradict it own guiding principle, that complex things need designers, by failing to explain how the designer got there. If you think it's okay to have a debate at that level, here you go;

    Now, you'll find considerable amounts of information here. Anything in the stuff that YOU cut and paste that isn't refuted by MY cut and paste, just put it in your own words, and we'll get back to you, m'kay?


    Do scientists have the right to be creationists? The general consensus of the scientific community is "No!" Because the whole concept of a personal God is so repugnant to most of the set that believes that the Universe, whether God made it or no, is operating by laws that can be comprehended and understood - laws which are not set aside at the whim of some great Beard in the Sky.

    I don't quite concur with your phrasing, but that's a good point. I'd just replace 'repugnant' with 'silly'. There may be a god, but I haven't seen one good theory about god yet, and I'm not talking about how god came into being (though now I mention it, good point), but the theories as to what god wants etc. All concepts of a personal god (by this I take it you mean a concerned and caring creator god with a plan and an individual interest in everyone) are all childish and human, the theories don't make sense. They're non falsifiable and have no evidence, other than belief (in this contect faith WITHOUT evidence), and look what belief can make people believe! I was discussing the different paradigms used on a thread here the other day, it does lead to a comprehension gap, as can be seen....

  • Realist


    Bringing in gravity as an example now? Wow, a little desperate, aren’t we?

    you didn't get the point of my post...

    just because there is an ongoing debate about details of the mechanism doesn'T mean evolution is not a fact....just as the debate about the exact nature of gravitons does not mean gravity does not exist.

    Why pretend that the fossil record is not as complete as you would like it? So what?

    i never said the fossile record is complete...in fact it hardly can be complete. but there are many cases in which transitional forms were found. in fact more and more are discovered.

    The fact is not "all" agree with you.

    LOL....of the thousands and thousands of biologists it is certainly possible to find one that is for psychological reasons inclined to believe in the religious dogmas he was told as kid. i can just say exceptions prove the rule!

    now to one of the resent quotes...(the last one from the bottom of your list): Pagel is reviewing a book about punctuated equilibrium! here is the review from NATURE:

    Happy accidents?


    Mark Pagel is at the School of Animal and Microbial Sciences, University of Reading, Whiteknights, Reading RG5 6AH, UK.

    (by the way...not the address given in your quote! i guess oxford sounds better than University of reading)

    The Pattern of Evolution
    by Niles Eldredge W. H. Freeman: 1999. 250pp
    $24.95, £17.95


    George Lyell: contributed to the revelation that the Earth is in a constant state of flux.

    The palaeobiologists who peered into the fossil records in the early part of this century were not prepared for what they saw. Pre-Darwinian palaeobiology had been dominated by the need for explanations consonant with the Creator's plan. The first hint of change came from the geologist Charles Lyell, who dismayed sensible people of the 1830s by proclaiming that the natural world was neither static — as God left it — nor young. Later, Darwin proclaimed a wholly material explanation for species, based on the principle of descent with modification. Lyell had opened the door, and Darwin showed God out.

    Palaeobiologists flocked to these scientific visions of a world in a constant state of flux and admixture. But instead of finding the slow, smooth and progressive changes Lyell and Darwin had expected, they saw in the fossil records rapid bursts of change, new species appearing seemingly out of nowhere and then remaining unchanged for millions of years — patterns hauntingly reminiscent of creation.

    But there was no turning back, and biologists have for the past century fought over how best to explain the diversity of life. Does it arise from the gentle moulding of genes by natural selection, or are there powerful, invisible hands at work that visit revolutionary changes upon the biotic world? Niles Eldredge has for three decades been among the leading voices of dissent against what he regards as a simplistic "ultra-Darwinian" view of the world: that the struggle among genes for reproductive success provides a sufficient explanation for organismic diversity.

    The Pattern of Evolution is his passionate account of how he came to that view. Eldredge outlines in a popular style a theory of 'matter-in-motion' to entrain biological evolution to the many climatic, geological and even tectonic forces that sculpt the Earth. Eldredge sees their power, inevitability and even occasional cyclicity behind many of the otherwise puzzling patterns that characterize the history of biotic evolution on this planet.

    A favourite textbook example is the dinosaurs. Not until they became extinct did the primitive mammals of the time radiate into the diverse forms we know today, including ourselves. Dinosaur extinction may have been an accident — a meteor struck the Earth; ergo, it is argued, we are happy accidents as well. Does this 'wonderful life', to paraphrase Stephen Jay Gould, one of Eldredge's collaborators over the years, derive more than is appreciated from contingency and luck?

    Late in the twentieth century we should be asking if a synthesis will ever emerge from this old and decidedly Hegelian conflict of thesis and anti-thesis. Before it does, a 'third way' (but not a 'neue mitte ') may demand an accounting. Whole genes can emerge de novo from the process of gene duplication. The major groups of animals — such as invertebrates versus vertebrates, or the fish versus the mammals — have different numbers of the important and fundamental Hox genes that determine their very divergent phenotypes. It is as if the extra genes give rise to the way of life. No one knows how general this is. Perhaps another powerful, stochastic and relentless driving force of evolution resides right inside our genomes.

  • ThiChi

    ""I think someone skim reading webpages on a subject they don't know a lot about and posting them as an argument is arrogant and uppity""

    As you quote a web page? Wow! How do you know what I have read? If you do a search, I have brought in the author of Forbidden Archeology for a Q & A here (via e-mail). So once more, you proceed from a false assumption.

    The issue was not democracy, but evidence as related to what is truly a fact or not. You can sing and dance, but the reality is there are big gaps as to the how and why of our origins.

Share this