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.
Migrations 
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?
By: edarrell on October 28, 2006
at 10:10 am
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
By: Herman Cummings on October 29, 2006
at 11:32 am
LOL. That’s hilarioius. Thanks for the creationist viewpoint.
By: Dan on October 29, 2006
at 1:55 pm
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.
By: ivy privy on October 29, 2006
at 3:10 pm
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?
By: edarrell on October 29, 2006
at 4:20 pm
P.S.: Moses didn’t write Genesis. Get thee to a good seminary and study up on the origins of scripture, please.
By: edarrell on October 29, 2006
at 4:22 pm
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
By: Herman Cummings on November 2, 2006
at 11:24 am
Herman,
How can we take you seriously on matters of science and biology when you say things like:
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.
By: Dan on November 2, 2006
at 12:51 pm
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”.
By: Dan on November 2, 2006
at 5:02 pm
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
By: WOw on March 22, 2010
at 7:28 am
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.
By: Dan on March 22, 2010
at 7:59 am