email - April 2008

A Waste of Time

We sometimes publish what evolutionists write on blogs to expose their foolishness. April is our favorite month to do that.

Dennis wanted us to get involved in an argument on a discussion board. We don’t do that. It is a waste of time. The evolutionists tend to do nothing more than make personal attacks because science isn’t on their side.

Subject: Evolution and the Social Scientist
Date: 3/27/2008 1:56 PM
From: Dennis

Hi, My name is Dennis.

Recently I read the above named article 1 on your site and posted it on a discussion board. Of course the "so called" science experts came crawling out of the woodwork immediately upon my post. I would like to answer them but would prefer to do so in your words rather than mine. I am not a scientist and could only do damage to the article[']s credibility in trying to answer it myself. Thank you.


Post #5
1 reply
Luke Smith (Cambridge) replied to your post about an hour ago.

How can you possibly say the first author goes to great lengths to be as unbiased as possible? I can only assume you didn't read what you posted. It works on the assumption that evolution is false. It actually says that evolution has failed the scientific method whilst offering absolutely no evidence to back that up. It attacks evolution and says that there are no plausable [sic] naturalistic origins to life without so much as mentioning RNA or any of the other possibilities.

Pretty quickly if [sic] degenerates even further into calling the American Humanist Association a communist anti-god plot to attack christian [sic] values. It does that in a large part by "reinterpreting" their manifesto to the point where it's hard to take seriously. It's funny that you mention that this was written by a scientist because it completely fails to even pretend to present any evidence and instead tries to package opinion and ad hominem attacks as science.


Post #6
Jimmy Groove (Valdosta) replied to Luke's post about an hour ago.

And the person making these claims isn't exactly qualified himself. The only Do-While Jones I can find (and I assume it is the right one; that name can't be common) has a BS in electrical engineering. He is not a biologist, geoologist [sic], paleontologist, or anyone else with formal creditials [sic] demonstrating he knows the field of evolutionary biology. Now, that itself wouldn't be an impossible hurdle to overcome. He would still be respectable if he demonstrated some knowledge of the field. But he doesn't, and yet he has the audacity to call all of us biologists, geologist[s], and members of numerous other sciences liars and members of a conspiracy.

It's wrong. It's libel. It's horrible. And it is horrible that people listen to him.

Notice that neither Luke nor Jimmy made any scientific argument.

We never claimed to be unbiased. The corporation is named Science AGAINST Evolution. Of course we are biased. We are no different from National Geographic, Scientific American, the Discovery Channel, or PBS. They are just as biased as we are. There’s nothing wrong with being biased. It is only wrong if the bias leads to incorrect conclusions. We give you the references straight from current scientific literature and let you check our conclusions.

Yes, we do say there are no plausible naturalistic origins to life. We did not mention “RNA or any of the other possibilities” because they are not plausible. The burden is upon Luke to show that they are plausible. If the “RNA world” hypothesis was plausible, then evolutionists would not still be looking for other explanations.

Yes, the American Humanist Association is anti-god. They are proud of being atheists. They want everyone else to be atheists, too, and advocate using the public education system to do it. We didn’t “reinterpret” their manifesto—we simply quoted large sections of it, and gave the link to it (http://www.americanhumanist.org/about/manifesto1.html). Read it for yourself. You will see that we quoted it accurately and fairly.

Jimmy’s comment is nothing more than an ad hominem attack against us (which is what Luke implies is a terrible thing to do). He accuses us of lying. We have pointed out where some scientists made unwarranted assumptions, used faulty reasoning, and came to wrong conclusions, but we have never said they lied. We have never said the evolutionists who were mistaken were unqualified, evil, or dishonest.

We don’t expect you to believe anyone simply because of qualifications. We want you to look at the facts. If we have made factual errors, then point them out to us and we will address them. Don’t just make vague and untrue accusations about us.

And we are very glad to know that people listen to us! It’s not horrible—it’s wonderful!

Quick links to
Science Against Evolution
Home Page
Back issues of
Disclosure
(our newsletter)
Web Site
of the Month
Topical Index

Footnotes:

1 Disclosure, February 2007, “Evolution and the Social Scientist