Steve: Please back your claim on whales with documentation

[jonperry]

just what it is about this subject that makes it so important to you to convert others to your point of view. Of course, you can say, "It is just a subject of interest to me," or "It is the truth, so I want others to know." However, it is more than this, since it is not just a matter of interest, or education, but rather one of contention for you.

2 reasons:

First: As a child I was deeply fascinated with animals and how they differed from me. Before I was even old enough to go to school I spent hours catching bugs and carefully watching their behavior, collecting tadpoles and watching them sprout legs, examining my dog trying to feel the bones of his face to compare them to my own. When I first heard of evolution it captivated me, everything I had been learning on own started to make sense. At church I was told by a Sunday school teacher that evolution was a sinful lie. After that I was overcome with guilt every time I thought about evolution or biology in general. I believed it was my duty to ignore my curiosity. I didn't get over this until after I left the church as an adult for unrelated reasons.

This sort of thing keeps intelligent Christians away, not just from biology, but from science in general. It was heavily insinuated to me as a child that science was for the godless and that scientists were dishonest.

Second: Members of the creationist movement constantly misrepresent the data (as you did the other night with your whale comment). My great uncle sent me a clever quote from Scott Weitzenhoffer: "Debating creationists on the topic of evolution is rather like trying to play chess with a pigeon: it knocks the pieces over, craps on the board, and flies back to its flock to claim victory."

I'm a visual learner and many others are too, I feel that by using pictures to teach, I can break through the creationist rhetoric and get people to see that they don't need to fear or distrust science. Science is a conversation limited strictly to observation and logic. Science is for everyone - even church folk.

You said in your debate presentation that knowledge of the theory of evolution has a lot of practical value in making important advances in medicine, agriculture, etc. I would like for you to document for me what some of these practical matters are, and why belief in evolution allows scientific advances that a belief in intelligent design would inhibit.

Here are three practical application for evolution, two of which I mentioned the other night:

An understanding of evolution (particularly selective pressures) is helping control malaria cheaper and more effectively: http://www.ted.com/talks/paul_ewald_ask ... germs.html

An understanding of macro evolution led Allan Savory to his discovery of how to reverse desertification: http://www.ted.com/talks/allan_savory_h ... hange.html

Ray Greek is using his understanding of macro evolution to predict in advance, what types of animal experimentation will provide data which can be directly applied to human medicine, and which types can not. http://www.futuremedicine.com/doi/pdfpl ... /pme.11.89

This last one is probably the most applicable to your question because it demonstrates a hold up that creationism/intelligent design gave us, but that evolution has freed us from. The early doctors who started experimenting on animals and applying their findings to human medicine were creationists. They operated under the assumption that God made the animals that we might learn from them about our own bodies. This was an wonderful hypothesis which has proven extremely useful but it has its limitations.

Evolution tells us more, not only does it describe our similarities but it helps us clearly understand our differences and the origins of those differences. This understanding is what Dr Greek is applying in his work and it has proven to be extremely successful. Far more so than the alternative.

Science is neither good nor evil, it's a tool for obtaining knowledge. Knowledge is power. That power can be used for good or for evil. The creationist movement is encouraging Christians to exclude themselves from the knowledge found in biology. Christians who fall for this trap are not only missing out on amazing information, they are excluding themselves from being able to help decide how that information will be used. They forfeit real power and hand it over to those of the secular world. Unless you trust the secular world, I don't recommend participating in the creationist movement.

[jonperry]

As far as debating in the future goes, I will not rule it out. However, I have learned that atheists that attend these debates are often merely partisan cheer-leaders and I am more accustomed to debating in the presence of mature audiences. Not only your young friends, but even a couple of men my age on your side, acted so juvenile that I was embarrassed for them. It was clear that the evolutionists in the crowd are not there to learn anything, but to sneer at whatever they cannot refute. This is not my kind of audience. I like to speak to, and debate before, thoughtful and mature crowds.

Dr. James Summerton did use language I would not have used but other than that I felt everyone was respectful. You may have noticed Jame's son calming him down. Dr. Summerton by the way, is one of the leading geneticists in the world. He's currently building a molecular drug delivery system which will be used to treat multiple kinds of cancer and Alzheimers. That type of genius often comes with social quarks. You may have heard him ragging on me too during intermission.

It was a huge and diverse audience. There were so many people we filled the foyer and had people standing. In spite of that, everyone was quiet and listened through our presentations with no interruption. I feel like most people heard what you said in a mature manner. I'm sorry to hear you felt otherwise.

By the way, the video will be up soon, hopefully this week.

[doubledmateo]

If you were a scientist, speaking to a group of scientists who were searching for the scientific answers that you believe you have found, I can see why you might feel it necessary to inform them of what you think you know. However, why does it matter so much to evolutionists that they must convert all school children, all religious people and everyone who, otherwise, has no special vocation in the natural sciences?

The only explanation I can imagine for such evangelistic zeal among evolutionists is that it is a religion to them. If there was a widespread mistaken notion in society about the temperature on the surface of the sun, I doubt that those who knew the real temperature would make it their life's agenda to correct this arcane scientific mistake.

Steve, I know you don't see it this way but I think most people advocating that evolution be taught in schools are doing so for the same reason they advocate that information on tectonic plates be taught. Will it have much real world application for a random citizen? Perhaps not, but it helps them get a better grasp on the world around them. Now I know that you feel the jury is still out on this subject and you're welcome to that. I don't think it's odd though that people are pushing for science to be taught and understood, regardless of how much utilitarian purpose it has for the average person. I took lots of math classes in Highschool that I have yet to use in my day to day life. I don't take that though as a conspiracy by mathmaticians to shove their religion of math down my throat.

"If there was a widespread mistaken notion in society about the temperature on the surface of the sun, I doubt that those who knew the real temperature would make it their life's agenda to correct this arcane scientific mistake." I am really confused by this statement. The reason this topic is "controversial at all or that debates happen is because some people claim that evolution is clearly false and endorses atheism or naturalism (similar to how ancient people may have viewed the ideal of a Copernican model threatened their religiously founded view of a heliocentric universe) they are trying to fight the theory and state that it is garbage. If I'm talking to a friend and he makes a statement and I say, "wow! You're an idiot! That's totally wrong!" and he starts to explain why he believes he is not wrong, it seems rather ridiculous to feel justified telling him, "oh man, why can't you let it go. If you're right then you shouldn't need to prove it to me! You're obviously just a petty person that can't admit he's wrong."

Finally, there are plenty of scientists that have made it their life's work to try and correct the scientific community and world at large about what they see as mistakes. These are often times things of little day to day consequence for anyone. Pluto no longer is considered a planet. That has no real life applicable impact for me at all. Yet there were and are people devoted to making sure the world understands their theory and why the see it as correct.

To recap the arguments you seem to be making in this thread... The incorrect information you used to support your argument in the debate is irrelevant because you read it a long time ago (that seems like a good reason to either not use the argument or make it clear that you could be incorrect. During the debate you claimed this detail as if it were a well known fact when in reality you can't even show where such a fact is documented) and that people that argue that evolution is a valid theory are only doing so because they have some sort of a vendetta against creationsists and you are insinuating that their arguments can be ignored due to their purpose (This is an ad-hominem fallacy) (and no, this is not some fancy name I made up against creationsists as you seem to think "quote mining" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fallacy_of ... of_context is.

[steve]

If I'm talking to a friend and he makes a statement and I say, "wow! You're an idiot! That's totally wrong!" and he starts to explain why he believes he is not wrong, it seems rather ridiculous to feel justified telling him, "oh man, why can't you let it go. If you're right then you shouldn't need to prove it to me! You're obviously just a petty person that can't admit he's wrong."

I have never heard an anti-evolutionary author use insulting language toward evolutionists. I have not read very many, but the ones I read stick strictly to analysis of arguments, and do not stoop to verbal abuse or insults. By contrast, our "New Atheist" friends (and a few questioners at our recent debate) resort to insults or profanity as a response of first-resort. The classic example is Richard Dawkins' famous quip in "The Blind Watchmaker":

“It is absolutely safe to say that, if you meet somebody who claims not to believe in evolution, that person is ignorant, stupid or insane (or wicked, but I’d rather not consider that).”

To recap the arguments you seem to be making in this thread... The incorrect information you used to support your argument in the debate is irrelevant because you read it a long time ago (that seems like a good reason to either not use the argument or make it clear that you could be incorrect. During the debate you claimed this detail as if it were a well known fact when in reality you can't even show where such a fact is documented) and that people that argue that evolution is a valid theory are only doing so because they have some sort of a vendetta against creationsists and you are insinuating that their arguments can be ignored due to their purpose (This is an ad-hominem fallacy)

I have admitted that my statement about "true whales" being found below the level of ambulocetus was possibly due to my misreading of my source, which I encountered years ago. This is tantamount to admitting I could be incorrect. It was a bit of data that I had no plans of bringing up, and which arose in response to Jon's point about ambulocetus. It obviously would have been wiser for me to have ignored that point and stressed the fact that anything we might say about ambulocetus or other whale-like mammals can be interpreted without appeal to descent with modification.

No one on my side of the aisle has ever said that evolutionists' arguments can be ignored. In fact, I think their arguments should be closely examined. It is their philosophical assumptions about what is or is not proved by their data that needs to be critiqued. To use an example from the present "whale" discussion, a series of animals that share certain characteristics, which are assumed to have lived in a chronological sequence, are assumed by evolutionists to be ancestral to one another. This is a possible explanation of the data, but certainly not the only one. Also, if they were ancestral to each other, this would not take even the first step toward disproving intelligent design. It is the assumption of metaphysical naturalism imported to the data that yields certain unwarranted conclusions. Those who do not share that arbitrary worldview see no necessity of drawing such conclusions.

[Homer]

Himalayacetu, an animal known only from part of its lower jaw. It is associated with early whales because of its teeth.

So this is called "science"? Listed as an ancestor and the evolutionist has only a part of a jaw and apparently an excess of imagination? Surely you know unrelated animals have similar traits. Creation can explain this just as well as evolution.

[steve7150]

“It is absolutely safe to say that, if you meet somebody who claims not to believe in evolution, that person is ignorant, stupid or insane (or wicked, but I’d rather not consider that).”










I used to participate on the History Channel religion forum where several atheists joined in. Of course they were evolutionists (it is a religion which they preach)
and i asked them why there were so few transitional fossils. The most substantive answer i got was that i was too stupid to understand.

[mkprr]

Being undecided myself about the pervasiveness of the role of evolution in the creation, I enjoyed the debate and would love to see a second round if that were possible.

I was a little disappointed with the way the topic was worded because it left Jon with the task of presenting what he felt was some of the best evidence (something that is difficult to do no matter what the topic is) and Steve with the comparatively simple task (although it is still a huge task) of pointing out potential holes in that evidence. Steve didn’t have an alternative that he had to defend so all of his time could be focused on nitpicking Jon’s points while Jon spent most of his time trying to cram in more points of evidence for his view because there was so much information to get through.

It would have been a much more interesting exchange I think, (longer, but more interesting) if Steve were to present some of the best evidence for a young earth created by an active creator, while Jon were to present some of the best evidence for natural evolution like he presented the other night. After presenting the evidence you could then each have time to critique the evidence presented by the opponent.

All in all however, despite some sneering by the audience that i also thought was a bit over the top, I thought it was a great discussion and both Jon and Steve were respectful to each other throughout the evening. There is definitely interest in this subject. If the crowd reactions however are the problem, I could easily arrange a “go to meeting” session where you could both present the evidence (from the comfort of your home), with pictures and references etc, and we could record it without any audience at all and just post it to your respective websites (perhaps with comments turned off). Let me know if you would be interested in me arranging this.

-mike

[jonperry]

It would have been a much more interesting exchange I think, (longer, but more interesting) if Steve were to present some of the best evidence for a young earth created by an active creator, while Jon were to present some of the best evidence for natural evolution like he presented the other night. After presenting the evidence you could then each have time to critique the evidence presented by the opponent.

All in all however, despite some sneering by the audience that i also thought was a bit over the top, I thought it was a great discussion and both Jon and Steve were respectful to each other throughout the evening. There is definitely interest in this subject. If the crowd reactions however are the problem, I could easily arrange a “go to meeting” session where you could both present the evidence (from the comfort of your home), with pictures and references etc, and we could record it without any audience at all and just post it to your respective websites (perhaps with comments turned off). Let me know if you would be interested in me arranging this.

I'm down. I have a lot more evidence to show for evolution which I was not able to the show the other night and I could get access to much more still. I'd love to see some from the creation side. Lets set it up for a month or two from now.

November 15th works for me. What about you Steve?

[steve]

I'll have to get back to you. However, young earth creationism is not the subject I am defending.

[doubledmateo]

I'll have to get back to you. However, young earth creationism is not the subject I am defending.

What exactly are you arguing in behalf of then if not creationism, young earth or otherwise. It sort of seems like you purposely avoid making any statements because it's much easier to take potshots at a theory (BTW, you could do the same with theories on physics or chemistry to similar effect) then to provide a more viable and fact based alternative.