The Creation Wiki is made available by the NW Creation Network
Watch monthly Live-Webcast - Like us on Facebook - Subscribe on YouTube

Evolutionists have blinded themselves to seeing design (Talk.Origins)

From CreationWiki, the encyclopedia of creation science

(Redirected from CI402)
Jump to: navigation, search
Talkorigins.jpg
Response Article
This article (Evolutionists have blinded themselves to seeing design (Talk.Origins)) is a response to a rebuttal of a creationist claim published by Talk.Origins Archive under the title Index to Creationist Claims.


Claim CI402:

Due to their preconceptions and bias for materialism, evolutionists have blinded themselves to seeing design.

Source: No source given.


CreationWiki response: (Talk.Origins quotes in blue)

1. This claim is nothing more than an excuse that design theorists use to try to explain away their own failure to make their case. When someone proposes a new scientific theory, it is that person's responsibility to make a case for it.

While it is the responsibility of proponents of a new scientific theory to make a case for their theory, it is the responsibility of the general scientific community to give them a fair chance to make that case. This is not being done for ID, or any other proposed alternative to Evolution. This is clear evidence that ID, as well as creation science in general, is being dismissed out of hand as being religious and non-scientific. Opponents will often use both labels, and in some cases they use the derogatory label "pseudoscience" against ID and creation science. Many active creationists have encountered venomous attacks by Evolutionists that actively oppose creation science; sometimes these attacks are personal.

Nowhere is this more blatant than when a local school board considers including ID in the public school science curriculum. Even an article about a school board in another state, that is considering including ID, can produce some highly venomous opposition. While it is true that school board meetings and letters to the editor are not scientific forums, they do show real attitudes held by some Evolutionists.

Right or wrong, the claim is based on real reactions, by real Evolutionists to ID and creation science. Nowhere in their response does Talk Origins acknowledge that Evolutionists have reacted like this. The fact is, that such reactions send a clear message that theories contrary to evolution will not be given a fair hearing.

Scientific theories have, in the past, achieved wide acceptance despite strong cultural and scientific resistance.

True, but those theories were at some point given a fair hearing.

(Evolution itself is an example.)

Not quite; there were other theories that laid the foundation for the acceptance of biological Evolution. They include:

  1. Uniformitarian geology, which, in fulfillment of II Peter 3:3-6, attacked the idea of a global Flood.
  2. The geologic column, which was used with uniformitarian geology further to attack the history presented in the Bible.
  3. So-called higher criticism, which attacked the origin of the Bible.

When Darwin published Origins of Species, it was just the final piece of the puzzle needed by those who had already rejected Biblical Creation.

If there is substance to ID theory, its proponents must make it clear.

They have, but to judge by the nature of most of the criticism, it is clear that ID is largely being dismissed out of hand.

2. People who study evolution come from a variety of cultural backgrounds. Many of them are far from committed to materialism. Some students enter the field hoping to challenge existing dogmas, and objectively detecting design in life would certainly accomplish that.

True, but most of the educators and publishers of journals are committed to materialism.

The average collage student learns nothing but absolute naturalism in public school science class, and almost everything they hear about ID is entirely and venomously negative. Few students are able to overcome this and think outside the naturalistic box. Those that do, quickly find it to be academic and career suicide. So the number of students willing to pursue ID is actually far fewer than Talk Origins is implying.

If there were anything to ID theory, there should be more than enough biologists to help the design theorists make their case.

In theory yes, but not in practice. Evolutionists attack both ID and Creation Science viciously, while Evolution is taught as unquestionable fact in public school science class. Given the publicly venomous reaction to ID by Evolutionists when a school board considers including it, the message is sent loud and clear, that for a scientist to embrace ID, or worse still Creation Science, is career suicide. Few people have the strength and courage to spend their lives in a field that is likely to bring them nothing but ridicule.

3. To all appearances, design theorists have blinded themselves to seeing flaws in their theories. Their religious motivation is obvious.

This is a totally baseless claim. If this list represents the "flaws" that Talk Origins claim exist in ID, their claim has been falsified.

Just as important, they do not follow the usual scientific procedure of testing their ideas.

A scientific theory is tested by subjecting it to a very real chance of falsification. Scientists make specific predictions based on the theory, look to see if the predictions pan out, and consider the theory false if the results cannot fit what was expected. Intelligent design theorists, unlike evolutionary scientists, do not put their ideas to such risks. Apparently, they do not want their ideas at risk.

This is totally false! Intelligent design theory predicts that some biological systems cannot have come about by natural forces or chance; General Intelligent Design includes non-biological systems, and it is claimed that such systems have been found. The theory thus has a very real chance of falsification. It can be falsified by showing real evidence — not just so stories — that such systems can come about by natural forces or chance.

Furthermore, like Creation Science and Evolution, ID is mainly a theoretical frame work. As such, it will, in and of itself, make few if any specific predictions, but in time it will, like Creation Science and Evolution, lead to theories that will make specific predictions that can be tested.

4. Design theory is older than Darwin's theory of evolution.

Not as a scientific theory. Before Darwin, design was a starting assumption.

In reality, both design and evolution are ancient concepts. Evolutionary concepts are found in several ancient civilizations including the Mayans, Greeks, Romans and Hindus.

Design theory has nothing but its own lack of worth to blame for its failure.

The situation is rather that Darwinistic evolutionist theory has only its lack of support from facts and observation and real science to blame for the increasing numbers of those who are abandoning it.

Talk Origins is ignoring the abundant evidence of bias against Design theory, even in their own statements. The reaction to local school boards who consider including ID in public school science curricula is a prime example of this bias, in that it is not just opposition but venomous opposition. Those Evolutionists, who actively oppose ID and Creation Science, show more than mere intellectual disagreement, but a strong bias against them and in many cases strong evidence of utter hatred.

The simple fact is, that nether ID nor Creation Science are allowed to compete on an even playing field with Evolution and any attempt to change that fact is resisted by Evolutionists with religious fever.

Personal tools