Evolutionary establishment tactics

by hooberus 157 Replies latest watchtower beliefs

  • kid-A

    Oh shiner,

    I was laughing so hard after your last post I was in tears! Is it actually possible for a person to be that hopelessly self-deluded? Your celebrated WTS scholars are international laughing stocks, your creation book is the biggest pile of lies, misquotes and pseudo-scientific garbage ever published in the western hemisphere. Scientists, including myself, simply ignore christian fanatics such as yourself. And for your information, we have already found the missing links, they are called australopithecines, homo habilis, homo erectus, neanderthals and cro-magnons, to name only a FEW. We have conclusively proven the evolutionary transition from amphibians to mammals, from dinosaurs to birds, etc etc.

    We scientists will simply do what we have always done with your kind.....IGNORE YOU. Meanwhile, our children will continue to be taught evolution in public schools the wide world over and comprehend their place in the biological world. Sorry dude, you lost this battle a long time ago.

  • AlanF

    scholar pretendus wrote:

    : I seems to me that you simply follow the dumb theories of evolutionists who not only have a coherent singulatr theory of evolution

    Really. What, exactly, is "a coherent singulatr theory of evolution"?

    You're so incoherent that you don't realize that when you point a finger at others for incoherence, you've got three others pointing back at you. LOL!

    : but as yet cannot create life, have not found a single missing link

    Sure they have. Define "missing link" and I'll prove it.

    : and account for the beginning of the cosmos.

    Are you saying that they can or cannot account for it? Please try to maintain coherence through connectives.

    : Celebrated WT scholars through the FDS of loyal, devoted and humble people have published the beautiful, scientific and simple Creator book.

    This book appears to have been another creation of the late and lamented Harry Peloyan, for many years the editor-in-chief of Awake! and the author of the atrociously bad and dishonest 1985 Creation book. The Creator book is a lot better than the Creation book, but relies almost exclusively on the arguments (often unattributed or without proper source references) made by various so-called Intelligent Design proponents. Therefore, it makes the same mistakes as the latter do. For an extensive debunking of the 1985 Creation book, see here: http://www.geocities.com/osarsif/ce01.htm For a somewhat dated review of the 1998 Creator book, see here: http://www.geocities.com/osarsif/creator.htm

    : This fine publication well documents current scientific theories which are now introducing a new paradigm of science, the ID movement which threatens to displace theistic and atheistic evolutionary pseudo science which is myhtology.

    LOL! ID is in no sense science. It is religious dogma masquerading as science, as proved by the many statements made by ID proponents that their real purpose in promoting ID is to restore the traditional place of conservative religion in the U.S. ID has produced no usable results, and it never will, because it's merely a sophisticated argument from ignorance, and a retreat to the old "God of the gaps" religious philosophy.

    : The evolutionists in Australia are frightened by the introduction into this country of the new DVD Unlocking The Mystery Of Life which has the scientic community tembling at the knees . . .

    Just like I tremble at my knees at the superior scholastic skills of Celebrated Watchtower Scholars! LOL!

    Actually, if the situation in Oz is similar to that in the U.S., the thing that most scientists are afraid of is the political clout of masses of ignorant voters who might easily be swayed by ID's religious dogma, and who might be able to severely damage science education and produce conditions that in the long run would surely ruin the U.S. as a scientific leader.

    : The ID hypothesis acknowledges the simple scientific statements in Genesis that God made all things beautiful in his own way, manner, time and purpose.

    See? Even you understand that ID is religion, not science.

    : Evolution at its crudest is simply a mirror image of creation but in a demonic form because evolution is simply change and that is what the Genesis demonstates in the upward progression of life.

    Really. But wait! Genesis has several important pieces of "creation" out of order. How do you account for that? And how long were the "creative days"? 7,000 years? A hundred million years? Were they of equal length? Let's see if you can support your answer with the Bible.

    : The Creator is Jehovah revealed in the Creation of the World also revealed in His Word, the Bible.

    Ok, assuming that's correct, how do you account for the existence of predators? Did Jehovah created the complex poison apparatus of snakes, spiders, scorpions and so forth, or did this evolve? How about the basic predatory instincts of these animals? Did Jehovah install these into the genetic makeup of his creatures after the Fall in Eden? Careful now, these are trick questions.


  • Daunt

    Alan refuted Scholars post pretty well but I just wanted to add that I have yet to see anything damning to evolution let alone scientific, even on major Intelligent Design support sites. And I would like to add that most proponents of ID do not look for the genesis account as scientific (Yet they do follow it still). Their aim is to teach this in school and if there is any mention of the Judeo-Christian God and not just Intelligent Designer, then they won't get their prize. You're assumption that ID is backing you is flawed, and the only individuals that put some mathematical and scientific findings for ID have all been proven terribly wrong. If you want I can show you some examples if you want to take this conversation seriously.

  • scholar

    Alan F

    Your response was predictable devoid of substance. There is no singular theory of evolution but theories of evolution faddish within science at the present time which are under attack from the ID movement scientifically speaking, not politically speaking. To date science has not presented any missing links to fill the gaps within the biological and fossil record although they have paraded many candidates to fill the gaps but all have failed including invertebrates, vertebrates, primates and human life forms. The gaps remain as large as ever.

    Cosmology cannot account for the beginning of the universe or origin and no biology cannot account for the origin of life. The big and esential mystery remains.

    The Creator and Creation books are well sourced and well argued with its compelling logic arising from current scrientific research from varied sources with the scrientific community. The writers of such publications are not known and unknowable but are dedicated men who have a love of truth and God.

    The ID hypothesis is indeed science and not religion because it simply forces science to ackowledge what is naturally known and understood instinctively and by reason alone. Such reason alone compels one to believe that the world is of design and therefore there must be a Designer. Such maxims of truth are recognized universally by all philosophers and thinkers. Evolution recognizes the same truth but in a naturalistic form using a different label chance or randomness. Charles Darwin was a theist who believed in a Creator or Designer well expressed by William Paley and the modern day Richard Dawkins. Evolution or evolutionism is simply a theory or hypothesis which is unproven or unprovable by the scientific method. The ID hypotheis is well demonstrated by the scientific method by direct observatiuon and repeatabilty.

    Yes. it is good that you tremble at the knees of celebrated WT scholars who gy means of the fine literature are able to educate the ignorant masses.

    No, the account of Genesis combines theology, philosophy and science as a perfect synthesis recognizing micro evolution with in kinds to account for the upward progression of athe natural order. Science and religion have always coexisted together throughout history right up to the present day despite the hysteria of Darwinism. Such a synthesis or perennial philosophy properly accounts for the chaos and disorder in the world as a consequence of sin.

    The days of creation are believed to be periods of time with the seventh day, a duration of 7000 years. The predatory behaviour of the animal world exist in the context of a world of sin, disorder and chaos contrary to the Edenic world of harmony,perfection and order.

    The theory of evolution as currently presented presents a framework that has some links which support both the Bible and the ID science in that all life is complex, arose from a point of origin and reveals a symmetry and purpose. Where it clashes is that removes the presence of a personal and loving Creator.

    I hope these remarks help you to find truth.

    scholar JW

  • scholar


    You are dumb because your so called knowledge has made you proud. Evolution is a false story but like all such false stories and mythiology there remain some elements of truth. Evolution is about change and the development of life and the natural world and that is the same with Creation and ID science for has the same themes, change and progression which are also Bible based.

    Evolution in its present form is not science and has not been proved true, there are no links found to fill the gaps in the Great Chain of Being of Life as well documented in the Fossil Record.

    Scientists do not ignore those advocates of ID because they are fearful that there pet theories are shown to be simply wrong. Truth always wins out in the end.

    scholar JW

  • Daunt

    Scholar said,

    No, the account of Genesis combines theology, philosophy and science as a perfect synthesis recognizing micro evolution with in kinds to account for the upward progression of athe natural order. Science and religion have always coexisted together throughout history right up to the present day despite the hysteria of Darwinism. Such a synthesis or perennial philosophy properly accounts for the chaos and disorder in the world as a consequence of sin.

    Intelligent Design has yet to produce any findings for itself, the main goal of ID is that it's pointing out the missing steps of evolution and applying the possibility of an Intelligent Designer to it. I would like to see some of your reasons why you think scientists are shaking in their boots about ID. I have yet to see any of this.

  • Daunt

    Ok after reading your last post directed to Kid-A it is obvious that you are incapable of providing anything but insults and slander to support your claims. No more from me.

  • hooberus

    The following will be a brief resonse to some previous points:

    Alan F stated:


    You two, hooberus and Forscher, are really amusing stereotypes of the Fundamentalists who cause such trouble for reasonable Christians. You ignore everything you can't deal with, which includes the most telling arguments against your claims. Even when pointed questions are emphasized, you ignore them. That's dishonest, and exactly what I've come to expect from such people over the years. In that, you're much like the typical JW apologists who cherry pick what they'll respond to, and ignore most of the arguments they're confronted with.

    Now to business.

    As I've pointed out, and you've ignored, Richard Sternberg seems not to have violated "the letter of the law" as regards Smithsonian Institution rules and the written guidelines of the Proceedings journal. If he had, he would almost certainly have been fired. But he most certainly violated the unwritten rules of ethics that all scientists are expected to observe. In particular, he violated the common sense ethical rule for journal editors that if an editor wants to publish an article he knows will be extremely controversial and is liable to embarass most everyone else on the journal's staff, he should get a buy-in from the editorial board or governing council as a whole. It's irrelevant whether the journal has written rules about this -- it's a common sense ethical practice. All scientists are expected to have this common sense after having gone through a Ph.D. program. People who don't have this common sense are by definition bad scientists and should not be allowed to practice science in a reputable institution.

    The fact is that the governing council of the Proceedings journal issued an official statement that Sternberg violated their confidence by making an end run around the unwritten rules he was well aware of. Sternberg knew in advance that publishing the ID article would be highly controversial. That's why he was careful to pick exactly the right people to discuss his plans with. It's extremely significant that none of the parties involved -- neither Sternberg's supposed peer-reviewers, nor the person on the Proceedings council who he claims he discussed it with (who is almost certainly another IDer, like Sternberg) -- have come forward to verify Sternberg's claims. So all we have is Sternberg's word. And of course, no one in the regular science community trusts him anymore, given his track record.

    Alan, if you will check the post history you will find that on the issue of the consultation of the journal board your initial comment: ". . . he didn't run an article he knew would be extremely controversial by the board of editors of the journal." (found here http://www.jehovahs-witness.com/12/97209/1666544/post.ashx#1666544), was in fact responded to on my following post (http://www.jehovahs-witness.com/12/97209/1667048/post.ashx#1667048,). Thus, there certainly was no "dishonesty" on my part. (Furthermore, even if a poster doesn't respond to all points does not necessarily mean that it due to a lack of honesty, it could be due to time constraints; an insulting attitude on the part of the questioner; feeling that the material was already covered; etc.) Anyway, since your initial comment on the "journal board" issue you added to your comments and if you would have liked a further discussion on it perhaps you should have respectufully asked rather than charge "dishonesty" on my part.

    Obviously you two refuse to admit that you understand any of this, so let me once again pose the question from Eugenie Scott:

    "If this was a corporation, and an employee did something that really embarrassed the administration, really blew it, how long do you think that person would be employed?"

    Your refusal to give a proper answer will prove that you're thoroughly dishonest.

    Regarding your question from Eugenie Scott.
    This whole question seems to presume that what Sternberg did was something that should have "really embarrased the administration" and that his publishing the paper "really blew it." Frankly, I have seen nothing in the original paper itself (or in its publishing) that merits such a response of "embarassment," thus, I see no analogy to Eugenie Scotts question.

    If the "administration"did get "embarrassed" over this issue, it should have been over the actions of the evolutionists at the Smithsonian combined with the actions of the NCSE; the government investigation of their actions; and the negative publicity caused directly by their actions (see opening post), rather than the publication of the biological origins paper itself.
  • hooberus

    The following is from this post: http://www.jehovahs-witness.com/12/97209/1668115/post.ashx#1668115

    Alan F said:

    :: Furthermore, it appears likely that Sternberg chose some of his creationist buddies who hold science positions at several Christian colleges to do the required peer review.

    hooberus responsed:

    : The reviewers held qualified degrees in science.

    Alan F then said:

    "What's your proof? All we have is Sternberg's word. And since he's violated a trust, why should anyone trust anything he says?

    I'll again quote Weitzel writing in the Skeptic article I quoted:

    Dr. Sternberg further asserts that "Meyer's paper underwent a standard peer review process by three qualified scientists, all of whom are evolutionary and molecular biologists teaching at well-known institutions." Since it is not unusual for reviewers to remain anonymous, it is entirely possible that Sternberg sent the article to the qualified scientists of his Baraminology Study Group at Bob Jones University, The Master's College, and Bryan College, all of which are well-known Christian institutions that require their faculty to sign a statement of belief in the inerrancy of Holy Scripture.

    Do you disagree with this latter assessment, hooberus? If so, can you explain why any normal scientist would agree to review a pro-ID article and recommend its publishing in an obscure taxonomy journal?"

    My response: Alan, even your own Skeptic source admits that those of his Baraminology Study Group (if they were who he used) were "qualified scientists" (ie: they are qualified in the sense that have qualified degrees in science). So your own resonse to my point "the reviews held qualified degress in in science" possibly contained the "proof" that you wanted.

  • hooberus

    Alan F said:

    Furthermore, whoever these reviewers were, they're demonstrably incompetent. As Weitzel wrote (see my earlier post for more context):

    In a summary, the authors of "Meyer's Hopeless Monster" conclude that Meyer has merely constructed "a rhetorical edifice out of omissions of relevant facts, selective quoting, bad analogies, knocking down strawmen, and tendentious interpretations."

    Any scientist who fails to see such blatant bad argumentation in a scientific paper is certainly incompetent. And of course, Sternberg is shown to be equally incompetent.

    The arcticle titled "Meyers Hopeless Monster" (written by NSCE staff) is responded to here:


Share this