Posted by: Dan | October 28, 2006

Discovery Institute Lies and Propoganda

Ok, I normally find it annoying how the flagship of the intelligent design movement, the Discovery Institute, is absolutely propoganda-laden, but this one just deserves special attention. This time, Rob Crowther on the DI’s media complaints division is going after a recent article by Cornelia Dean of the NY Times.

Let’s take a look at what Crowther says…

First, Dean mistakenly refers to intelligent design as the “ideological cousin of creationism.” It is not.

Sure it is. Design implies the act of creating, does it not? Intelligent design is exclusively a religious political movement, is it not? Intelligent design was born from the failure of creation science, was it not?

Second, she makes this incredible assertion without anything to back it up: “Although researchers may argue about its details, the theory of evolution is the foundation for modern biology, and there is no credible scientific challenge to it as an explanation for the diversity and complexity of life on earth.”

Who needs to back that factual statement up with data?

“Media bias in action,” says Crowther. Wrong.

About these ads

Responses

  1. Crowther, walking and quacking the ideology of creationism, complains that ID is not the ideological cousin of creationism.

    Ideological twin, perhaps? Didn’t he read the Dover decision?

  2. Guest Article: Evolution vs. the Observations of Moses

    The dictionary gives the following definitions for biological evolution:

    1. Change in the genetic composition of a population during successive
    generations, as a result of natural selection acting on the genetic
    variation among individuals, and resulting in the development of
    new species.
    2. The historical development of a related group of organisms; phylogeny.

    The definition for phylogeny is as follows:

    The sequence of events involved in the evolutionary development of a
    species or taxonomic group of organisms

    Evolution is a fundamental concept in modern biology. Biology is defined
    as being:
    The science of life and of living organisms, including their structure,
    function, growth, origin, evolution, and distribution. It includes botany
    and zoology. The life processes or characteristic phenomena of a
    group or category of living organisms.

    Now, we reach the point of discussing the history of living organisms. When
    biology is taught to our students in public schools, what are they required to
    learn? It is the theory of evolution, and any and all other explanations are
    excluded. Secular science is dogmatic about trying to establish evolution
    as an undeniable fact, and is not interested in accepting or exploring other
    possibilities, no matter how plausible they may be.

    Lets look deeper into evolution. The theory does not take the responsibility
    of stating how life originated. It delegates that to the theory of the “Big
    Bang”, which states that all matter in the universe was somehow contained
    In a very small dense hot atom, molecule, or singularity, which exploded
    into all the elements and celestial bodies of the universe, about 16 billion
    years ago. Never mind what caused that to happen, the origin of the
    dense entity, or what was in existence thirty trillion Earth years ago.
    Somehow, that explosion of inorganic matter is to have produced organic
    attributes somewhere in outer space that would later find its way to
    planet Earth and begin to grow.

    But before we talk about the growth of life forms, we have to accept the
    theory that our solar system was formed from a previous exploded star,
    which condensed and re-exploded, much like the Big Bang theory.
    However, this was on a relatively small scale. This is called the Nebular
    Hypothesis, which has the cloud of gas and dust to start spinning and
    flattening out to form the shape of a rotating pancake, with a bulge in
    the middle. As the nebula collapses further, instabilities in the collapsing,
    rotating cloud cause local regions to begin to contract gravitationally.
    These local regions of condensation become the Sun (which was the
    bulge in the center) and the planets, as well as their moons and other
    debris in the Solar System. Never mind that the nebula was not uniform
    and that the local regions had their own unique composition, and that
    dust and gas somehow hardens to become gold, silver, copper, and
    other metals. Also, never mind about the elliptical orbits.

    Now, with supposition upon supposition, we have the Earth formed,
    and many years passing by as it cools and becomes suitable for life.
    I guess that the molecules of life had to remain in a holding pattern
    around Earth until the conditions were “just right” to sustain life
    and get the “primordial soup” ready. The Primordial Soup theory
    suggests that life began in a pond or ocean as a result of the
    combination of chemicals from Earth’s atmosphere and some form
    of energy to make amino acids, the building blocks of proteins,
    which would then supposedly evolve into all the species. It seems
    that secular science is only interested in theories that are the best
    sounding fantasies, as long as it does not address the reality of
    the supernatural.

    For decades, evolutionists have been claiming, that the first life
    on Earth appeared in that “primordial soup” consisting of some
    body of water loaded with chemicals necessary for the start of life.
    This “warm little pond” was believed to have been struck by an
    electrical discharge (the energy source) which caused the chemicals
    to form complex protein molecules, which eventually brought forth
    life. From this first life, evolutionists hypothesize, all other life on
    Earth evolved. Never mind how water formed on Earth, we will
    only unravel just so much in this article.

    Now, we have finally reached solid evidence to examine, which is
    the fossil record of past life forms, and the evidence of past geologic
    ages on Earth. We have tangible data, but secular science has its
    own conclusions concerning that data. Science concludes that since
    the simplest organisms of life appear at what is considered to be the
    earliest periods of time that Earth was inhabitable (maybe about 1
    Billion BC), and the life forms found seems to become more complex
    and abundant as time progresses, that this constitutes the “fact” of
    evolution. Never mind that the theory allows for the fully formed
    species to be much more abundant, and the expected transitional
    forms are extremely hard to find, or are actually non-existent. If
    there were transitional forms, they should be just as easy to find,
    and abundant, as the other fossils.

    Enough about evolution. What about the “Observations of Moses”?
    Well, we have to clarify some things first. Those that try to compare
    creationism with evolution do not understand the facts. Creationism
    is the undisciplined doctrine that the Holy Bible (Genesis) teaches
    how God created the Earth. That is false. There are no “creation
    accounts” in Genesis, as stated by the “foremost terrestrial
    authority” on the book. Genesis states that God created our universe,
    but it does not give us details on the process. The Bible only gives
    us the amount of time (144 hours) it took to complete. What we can
    gather is that the supernatural realm, gave birth to our natural
    existence in one week, about 4.6 billion years ago.

    What Genesis does give us is what we will call the Observations
    of Moses (OM). God showed Moses, on Mt. Sinai in 1598 BC, six
    days from the ancient past which Moses would later write down (or
    have written) in the book of Genesis. Theology mistakenly calls them
    the “Six Days of Creation”, but that too is false, because bible
    scholars, other creationists, and theologians do not understand the
    text, and have misled mankind into thinking that early Genesis is
    just “folklore”.

    What mankind in general does not know is that God was defining
    geologic time to Moses, but Moses did not understand. Centuries
    before mankind discovered the fossil record (of death), and the
    notion of the Geologic Time Scale, the only account of prehistoric
    history was given to the chosen nation of Israel. God did not show
    Moses how the sphere of outer space and our Earth were created,
    but showed him one day from each of the different past geologic
    ages of time, as defined by God, in biblical order…, not
    chronological order.

    Science teachers are required to learn and teach their students the
    suppositions of biological and stellar evolution, and exclude what
    is taught in Genesis. Why? Is it because there is no evidence?
    They can’t say that, because Genesis reveals the previous living
    existence of fossils of the life forms that mankind would later find
    in the geologic strata, and also declares the existence of life forms
    that have not yet been discovered, such as prehistoric mankind of
    20+ million years ago.

    The Observations of Moses tell us that God created different life
    forms on Earth in each of seven different geologic ages in which He
    defines. The Eternal Spirit allowed Moses to be the only modern
    human to see those prehistoric animals, living as they were in the
    geologic age in which they lived on Earth. This is why there are no
    “transitional forms”, because when a total extinction occurred to
    all surface life, God would created new life forms out of the ground
    to replace them, after an interval of time.

    Every state governor and their educational supervising
    administrators were contacted in the fall of 2005 about this. Yet
    none of them have taken any step to secure training for their
    teachers. They continue to allow indoctrination of their students
    in the prejudice of secular science, which refuses to investigate the
    reality of our origins. A twelve hour course is available for science
    teachers in order to help them to give a more balanced education to
    their students.

    If we learn nothing else, please be advised that there is no such
    controversy between evolution and creationism. The correct
    “match ups” are the combined theories of both the Big Bang and
    Nebular Breakdown against Biblical Creation, and also evolution
    against the Observations of Moses. With the discovery of extra-solar
    planets, the Nebular theory has fallen out of favor. Perhaps with
    future discoveries, other current unrealistic theories will be discarded
    as well.

    Herman Cummings
    PO Box 1745
    Fortson GA, 31808
    Ephraim7@aol.com
    (706) 662-2893

  3. It seems that secular science is only interested in theories that are the best sounding fantasies, as long as it does not address the reality of the supernatural.

    LOL. That’s hilarioius. Thanks for the creationist viewpoint.

  4. First, Dean mistakenly refers to intelligent design as the “ideological cousin of creationism.” It is not.

    Ha. He’s not considering the word cousin in its Southern sense. It does not negate other meanings. Perhaps it would have been less ambiguous if Dean had written: ID is the ideological cousin/grandchild of creationism.

  5. Mr. Cummings,

    No textbook for biology in America says what you claim they say. “Stellar evolution” is not a biology topic — that’s astronomy, or physics. Big Bang theory says nothing about the origins of life. There is no “primordial soup theory.”

    I would recommend you take the Pulitzer Prize series of books on evolution: Jonathan Weiner’s The Beak of the Finch, a story of evolution in our time; Edward Larson’s book about evolution and the trial of John T. Scopes, Summer for the Gods; and John McPhee’s Annals of the Former World. Then, for fun, pick up a biology textbook and see what it really says about evolution.

    Look — if you can’t get right what is already in print and easy to check, why should we trust anything else you say?

  6. P.S.: Moses didn’t write Genesis. Get thee to a good seminary and study up on the origins of scripture, please.

  7. Hi edarrell.

    Don’t “read into” the text. I said “Science teachers are required to learn and teach their students the suppositions of biological and stellar evolution”. You are so eager to criticize, you create phantom literary errors. I was saying that science as a whole teaches those things to students. You have a problem with that?

    You say there is no “Primordial Soup” theory? Where have you been? A Russian chemist named A.I. Oparin, and an English geneticist named Haldane first conceived of this theory in 1920. I don’t know which one was first. However, evolution relies
    on this supposition to explain how life began on Earth.

    Finally, you suggest that I confer with “a good seminary”? I’ve already made contact with every theological seminary on the web (as of 1997), and they all refused to confer with me. They “didn’t need to learn anything from me”, and they “already knew the truth
    of Genesis”. When “the blind lead the blind, they both fall in the ditch”. I’ll let you figure out the rest.

    Moses did write the Pentateuch. Jesus said he did. So I’d believe Him regardless of what modern theologians say.

    Herman Cummings
    Ephraim7@aol.com

  8. Herman,
    How can we take you seriously on matters of science and biology when you say things like:

    It seems that secular science is only interested in theories that are the best sounding fantasies, as long as it does not address the reality of the supernatural.

    You might as well have walked into a room full of pilots and aerospace engineers at the height of the Golden Age of Flight, circa 1930, and said “You know those things don’t really fly…,” as I understand you when you compare modern theories in biology to the Old Testament.

  9. Just out of curiousity, I googled you, Mr. Cummings, and found that you’ve been the topic of discussion at least once on The Panda’s Thumb.

    Like I said, hilarious. I’ve added you to the “stupid bin”.

  10. I’m sorry. I don’t believe in evolution either, but man you got the bible wrong too. You are twisting scripture. The bible doesn’t say anything about 4.6 billion years. It says the evening and the morning was the first day. To say that those days were geologic ages is wrong and a lie and you need to stop teaching scripture. K thx bye

  11. WOw,
    You’re right about the Bible not saying anything about 4.6 billion years, and taking the Bible as metaphor is pointless.

    But if I understand you right, you believe the legends of 2,000-year-old goat-herders over what we can see and measure and test in the real world? That’s about as silly as believing in 3,000-year-old legends from the Ancient Greeks. It’s just mythology, afterall.


Categories

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 56 other followers

%d bloggers like this: