This website is a member of Liberty Alliance, which has been named as an company.

Where Christianity intersects with politics, culture, and entertainment.


science

Trust in Science?

by Wes Moore

A researcher out of the University of North Carolina says conservatives have lost faith in science over the last forty years. [1] The study, authored by Gordon Gaulet, tracked trust in science by political affiliation based on the General Social Survey, originally performed in 1974 and then every other year from 1994 through 2010.

Per a report on Yahoo! News, in general, Americans are not very trusting of science. “Trust in science is not especially high—fewer than half of Americans surveyed over the time frame reported a ‘great deal’ of trust in the scientific community.” Here’s the breakout:

- 47% of liberals reported a ‘great deal’ of trust of science on average through the study period [2]
- 42% of moderates
- 43% of conservatives

The most significant point of the survey is the loss of trust over time by conservatives. From 1974 to 2010, conservatives expressing a ‘great deal’ of trust in science fell from 48% (the highest of anyone) to only 35%.

Reasons for the Slide

Here’s where the study gets really interesting. According to Gaulet, the reason conservatives have changed their views of science is because most scientific research now falls under agencies perceived to have a strong political motivation, like the EPA, instead of more politically neutral groups like NASA or the U. S. military.

Stephanie Pappas, the author of the Yahoo! News report writes, “Research used to be done under the auspices of NASA and the Department of Defense, Gaulet said. Both of these agencies seemed far-removed from daily life. However, over the decades, science has become more intertwined with everyday policy. The Environmental Protection Agency is a ‘poster child’ for science informing real-world regulation that some conservatives oppose.”

With an odd nod to the intelligence of conservatives, Gaulet concluded that the drop in trust was not due to ignorance of scientific issues on their part. “The decline in trust,” Pappas writes, “was most obvious among conservatives with a bachelor’s degree or higher.”

Still Missing the Point

Gaulet’s worldview simply will not allow him see the true reasons behind this drop in trust in “science.” Claiming most Americans have lost trust because the research responsibility has moved from NASA to the EPA (which may not even be true) is like saying American’s fear of radical Islam has fallen because the control of radical Islam had moved from Bin Laden to Ahmadinejad. [3]

Wherever secular science rules, the worldview of evolution, atheism, and pantheism follows right along with it.

What are the Real Reasons?

First, it is important to point out that it is not science that conservatives and biblical creationists do not trust (although many times the findings of science have been wrong), but the evolutionary interpretation of that science. In most cases, the facts (those discovered through the scientific process) are the same on both sides; the interpretation of those facts is where the real differences manifest themselves.

Having said that, in my mind, there are at least two reasons faith in secular science (I’ll use this term to refer to the evolutionary interpretation of science) has fallen in the last forty years.

First, secular science is constantly changing its views. They frequently claim infallibility but regularly alter their conclusions based on the “latest” discoveries or “new” information. In the 80’s, it was global cooling, now it’s global warming. They were certain a giant meteorite killed the dinosaurs, now they think it might be something else. [4]

As further evidence of this, scientific literature is loaded with “fuzzy words,” as Mike Riddle of the Creation Training Initiative calls them, like “we think,” “should have,” “must have,” and “we believe.” These fuzzy words reveal the uncertainty within the ranks of secular science about even the most basic assumptions of evolution, and provide a convenient way out when their “rock solid” theories need to be revised.

Secondly, the success of the creation movement in America has greatly impacted the average American’s trust in secular science. People, conservatives especially, are much better educated now than they were decades ago because of the rise and power of the biblical creation movement in America. Ministries like Creation Ministries International, Answers in Genesis, ICR, and websites like Creation Revolution have given the populace in general many solid reasons to doubt what the secular world tells us.

Creationists don’t just go around and yell louder than the other guy (which is, by the way, what Gaulet recommends for secular scientists to do in response to these discouraging numbers). Creationists make great arguments, share little known scientific facts, and reveal the accuracy and power of the Creator’s Word.

In short, the Creationists are taking it to them in a big way, and the numbers show it. But don’t expect them to acknowledge it.

Not Over Yet

We all know there’s a long way to go. We’re way behind the curve in so many areas. But surveys like this, though the very scientists who conduct them refuse to interpret them properly, show us how God is favoring our work.

So, don’t be discouraged. You’re on the right track. Just keep doing what you’re doing!

 


[1] “Conservatives Losing Trust in Science, Study Finds,” Stephanie Pappas, LiveScience.com; accessed March 30, 2012; available at http://news.yahoo.com/conservatives-losing-trust-science-study-finds-114401347.html. All quotations in this article are taken from this source.

[2] This is the average over the study period (1974 to 2010), not the findings of the latest year, 2010.

[3] I’m not saying it has necessarily. I’m simply using this comparison to illustrate a point.

[4] You can read an article related to this growing debate at http://www.bbc.co.uk/sn/tvradio/programmes/horizon/dino_trans.shtml.


Wes Moore is a conservative Christian author and speaker, and the founder of Evidence America, an apologetics and evangelism training ministry. Wes is the author of Forcefully Advancing: The Last Hope for America and American Christianity, a book designed to equip the average Christian to engage the lost; The Maker, a futuristic apologetics novel; and The Spiritual Top 50, a non-fiction apologetics book designed to help Christians answer the questions their lost friends are asking.  You can learn more about him at www.wesmoorenow.com.


The Spiritual Top 50
by Wes Moore

Is God a she? Why does God let us suffer? Was the Jesus story borrowed from other cultures? The questions about spiritual things abound in our skeptical age. Can we really trust the Bible as the true word of God? How can we answer those who have been raised to doubt the faith we hold dear?

The Spiritual Top 50 provides short, easy to understand answers to fifty of the most common questions asked in the culture about God, Jesus, the Bible, truth, science, and the church. Not only will these questions help the believer be sure Christianity is true, but they are written so they can easily be shared with a non-Christian.

Not only does The Spiritual Top 50 give answers to common faith questions, it also provides contemporary evangelism strategies based on Wes Moore’s popular book, Forcefully Advancing. These strategies will teach you how to befriend the lost, understand their issues and objections over time, give them answers to their questions, and present the gospel to them.

And if that’s not enough, The Spiritual Top 50 will give you Wes’ “7 Laws of Apologetics” and “7 Laws of Evangelism,” two lists of foundational principles to guide you as you engage the lost and overcome their barriers to faith.

Why wait? Make The Spiritual Top 50 part of your outreach toolbox today!

 
Posting Policy
We have no tolerance for comments containing violence, racism, vulgarity, profanity, all caps, or discourteous behavior. Thank you for partnering with us to maintain a courteous and useful public environment where we can engage in reasonable discourse. Read more.
  • Chris

    As against trusting in made up stuff where there is no research and facts.

    • Dean

      If you were a little more educated in world history you'd know that's exactly what most of the so-called "science" is! False science is as old as the world!

      • The_Duelist

        Like all that evil false science that powers your computer and allows you to post mindless drivel on the inter webs? Or allows you to overcome disease and injury? LOL.

        • Dean

          No, electrical science is proven and unchanged throughout the decades! As far as medical science, that practically changes with wind. If you keep up with current events you'd know that! If you're incapable of discerning the difference between proven science and wild theory then you have a rough road ahead of you! Good luck with your handicap! You need to pull your foot out of your mouth in order to laugh!

          • http://rationalresponses.blogspot.com/ Jeff Dixon

            Hmm, it has never changed???

            It seems strange to suggest that anything could be wrong with the theories of Electricity and Magnetism. All the laws are enshrined in equations which are in daily use in the design, construction and testing of electrical devices. There is nothing wrong with the equations, but a little thought about the history of the development of the theory will cast some light. Magnetism is a mystery: at one time it was thought to consist of currents of aether, the all pervading substance of space. This led to the development of vector field theory in which the Grad and Curl operators were perceived in terms of fluid mechanics. Aether theory fell out of fashion after the null result of the Michelson-Morley experiment which was designed to detect the movement of the earth through the aether; but the vector algebra still described electromagnetic phenomena adequately and the disappearance of the aether left our concept of magnetic flux much unchanged. We simply forgot that flux meant flow and came to think of it as something which had bulk. Our understanding of magnetism was not helped when Einstein decided that electric and magnetic fields were not separate entities, but different aspects of the same entity called an electromagnetic field. According to Einstein, the velocity of the observer determines the amount of electric field and magnetic field which he sees.

          • The_Duelist

            I bet you can't even define "theory". Not intelligently, anyway.

          • Dean

            Ohm's Law hasn't changed and that's all that's required for all the electrical wonders the so-called "Duelist' could imagine with his limited thought processes! "Duelist", ha, if he saw me, he'd piss all over himself! That's my theory!

          • The_Duelist

            Sorry, but what drugs have you been doing? What does Ohm's Law have to do with this discussion? You'd think that when challenged to intelligently define the word "theory", one would offer a definition. But you just post random crap. I guess that counts as an argument on this site.

            "ha, if he saw me, he'd piss all over himself! That's my theory!"

            LOL. Go back to second grade if you want to try and pass yourself off as a tough guy. From where I'm standing, you're just another coward dodging the topic.

          • Dean

            You're the one that brought up electricity, moron! If you don't know what Ohm's law has to do with electricity, then you're even dumber than I initially thought! I'm tired of you bickering old hens! You sophomoric mental midget! You're the bozo, that thinks doubt is a science! I'm sure this is tough as you'll ever get, talking crap from the shadows!

          • The_Duelist

            LOl, who said anything about "tough"? If you're such an immature idiot that you have to turn every argument into a pissing contest, I would advise you to stay on this site, since your childishness will go largely unchallenged. Ohm's law has nothing to do with defining "theory", or evolution/creationism. Dropping irrelevant references doesn't really say anything, dos it? If anyone is a sophomoric mental midget, it's the Internet Tough Guy who can't even define theory.

            "I'm sure this is tough as you'll ever get, talking crap from the shadows!"

            This is even crazier. Everyone on this site is using usernames to post, which means everyone, including you, is "talking crap from the shadows". You are aware that you're on the internet, right?

          • http://rationalresponses.blogspot.com/ Jeff Dixon

            Ahem, I post my name.

          • The_Duelist

            Oops. Sorry.

        • Dave

          You mean science that is duplicate from computers to Meds that God already created from human brain and plant life and other forms to duplicate God Meds?

          • http://rationalresponses.blogspot.com/ Jeff Dixon

            Are you ever capable of expressing yourself in a coherent manner? Ever?

    • M Green

      I see you're taking Gaulet's advice and just trying to shout louder than the other guy.

    • blackhawk

      Yes science. Maybe we all should still believe the earth is flat with monsters waiting to devour us.That was science ; Right ???

      • The_Duelist

        That was religion at times, and ridiculous superstition at all times. And funny thing is, brainiac–in those days, science was controlled by Christianity. Are you really so ignorant that you can insult your own cult without realizing it? Seriously?

        • http://youtu.be/zjgBhpanOfQ Despeville

          Kid, you have no claim on science because your atheism cannot account for its laws.

          • http://rationalresponses.blogspot.com/ Jeff Dixon

            Of course we can. The universe has rules. Your disdain for that adds nothing to the debate.

          • http://youtu.be/zjgBhpanOfQ Despeville

            Hypo-cretin. What you mumble about is known in logic as a fallacy of begging the question and several others that you would not even understand. Grow up.

          • http://rationalresponses.blogspot.com/ Jeff Dixon

            I am still waiting for you to point to your invisible extra universe.

          • The_Duelist

            Coward and his weak cover-up. You cannot even say a word about evolution, Despe.

          • http://youtu.be/zjgBhpanOfQ Despeville

            See yourself sad moron with ignorant chip on your feeble mind and rotten soul: I http://bit.ly/rY4jQv

  • Bobseeks

    Science has become the willing handmaiden of atheistic/lieberalism and has proven itself to be more than will to commit fraud to help the atheist/lieberals in their campaign to spread lies and propaganda. Examples: the global warming and evilution hoaxes.

    • http://rationalresponses.blogspot.com/ Jeff Dixon

      Science is a process not a person. There may be people who use science incorrectly, but that does not mean science is willing to commit fraud. There is more evidence for evolution than any other scientific theory. And whether global warming is accurate or not, it will be science that finally determines that issue as well.

      • The_Duelist

        It's nice to see that not everyone on this site is a scientifically illiterate moron. Just don't mention vestigal forms; they'll start frothing at the mouth most likely. ;)

        • http://rationalresponses.blogspot.com/ Jeff Dixon

          Many on this site froth at the mouth with their every post.

        • Mexseiko

          It's hard to imagine many here frothing at the mouth except when occasionally someone refers to others as morons, illiterates, and such. It says in the Bible that "knowledge puffs up." I understand that saying when I encounter such arrogance in people who react so impatiently to differing opinions, especially regarding "Scientia," which actually means knowledge. This brings up the fact that the Theory of Evolution is not based on known fact, but it's rather an educated guess or speculation if you will. A Victorian idea that has been supported by serious, erroneous, as well as fraudulent analyses. Intentional or accidental miss match of skeletal pieces has happened through the evolution of the theory with the same name. Constant adjustment of the theories causes lack of confidence in it and its proponents. This is why the Theory of Evolution remains suspect of being an elaborated fiasco. I personally believe that the Science Community has gone so far up with it investing so much research without reaching an infallible conclusion, that it has become a matter of saving face and reputation into a never ending justification.

          • The_Duelist

            "It's hard to imagine many here frothing at the mouth except when occasionally someone refers to others as morons, illiterates, and such."

            When they can't even tell me what evolution is, and respond by pasting random bible verses or talking about how "tough" they are, then words like "morons" and "illiterates" seems appropriate. Opposing a theory on the grounds that your pastor told you to is not worthy of any level of respect. What if their pastor told them not to believe in atoms?

            "It says in the Bible that "knowledge puffs up.""

            It also says that anyone who works on the Sabbath should be stoned to death, amongst other things. Something is not true merely because it's in your holy book.

            "I understand that saying when I encounter such arrogance in people who react so impatiently to differing opinions, especially regarding "Scientia," which actually means knowledge."

            So because I actually know what I'm talking about, unlike the people on this site, I'm arrogant? Interesting criteria.

            "This brings up the fact that the Theory of Evolution is not based on known fact, but it's rather an educated guess or speculation if you will."

            And with this tidbit, you've discredited yourself. The scientific use of the word "theory" does NOT mean an educated guess; that is a hypothesis. A theory is based upon physical evidence and observations, and repeatable experiments. Brush up on your definitions before you start referencing them.

            "A Victorian idea that has been supported by serious, erroneous, as well as fraudulent analyses."

            Ah, so transitional forms are fraudulent, eh? How about bacterial strains and insect species evolving in both the lab and nature? Let me guess; the devil made 'em do it.

            "Intentional or accidental miss match of skeletal pieces has happened through the evolution of the theory with the same name."

            Just as intentional or accidental misinterpretations of scripture have occurred throughout the evolution of your religion, which, unlike science, is supposed to be infallible.

            "Constant adjustment of the theories causes lack of confidence in it and its proponents."

            Perhaps these people would then be wise to actually educate themselves on what science is and how it actually works instead of assuming that it's an instant, magical process beyond their ken. You can find books to that purpose at your local library. You might also look at scientific journals.

            "This is why the Theory of Evolution remains suspect of being an elaborated fiasco."

            Because many people are woefully ignorant of the scientific method, and think that "theory" means "assumption", or that science is just personal opinion filtered through fancy vocabularies.

            "I personally believe that the Science Community has gone so far up with it investing so much research without reaching an infallible conclusion, that it has become a matter of saving face and reputation into a never ending justification."

            Then, no offense, but you, sir, need to do some heavy research into what they say to support it instead of propagating misconceptions over the matter. But thank you for at least showing more respect and intelligence than the others on this site; I'd almost given up hope.

          • http://rationalresponses.blogspot.com/ Jeff Dixon

            Then you have not been reading the posts here for very long.

      • http://twitter.com/lambsev11 @lambsev11

        "Science is a process not a person."

        Eggs ackly right Jeff. It is not science I don't trust, it is scientists! And then really only the ones who push evolution and atheism.

        • http://rationalresponses.blogspot.com/ Jeff Dixon

          There are many Christian scientists who acknowledge that evolution is true.

          • Bobseeks

            That is a lie because no Christian puts pseudo-science of Scripture.

          • http://rationalresponses.blogspot.com/ Jeff Dixon

            Then it is obvious you truly have no idea of what you speak of. Not that it was ever in question.

        • The_Duelist

          So if their ideas don't agree with yours, you don't trust them; how fascinating.

      • Evermyrtle

        Do you know any half gorilla/half man people? I have see many, many humans and some gorillas, but none that appear to be in between. If evolution is a true process, we should have all degrees man/gorilla/monkey people!

        • http://rationalresponses.blogspot.com/ Jeff Dixon

          The fact that you do not understand evolution is not proof of anything except your ignorance.

        • The_Duelist

          Wow. This kind of willful stupidity is dazzling. Man did not evolve from gorillas–scientists have never claimed that, but they have said that we share a common ancestor with apes. But thanks for yet another stirring display of creationist stupidity, ignorance, and dishonesty;

          1] Make up random crap about something you disagree with,
          2] Attribute this straw-man to scientists who are far more knowledgeable than you,
          3] Ignore all rebuttals,
          4] Continue ad nauseum until your brain putrefies.

          Transitional forms evolve, myrtle–that means they adapt into something else in order to survive. So, if we use our brains as something other than a receptacle for religious dogma, what happens when a species has to change in order to survive? Will the ancestor species be able to compete with the new one and keep walking around? Get back to me once you've puzzled it out for yourself.

          • http://rationalresponses.blogspot.com/ Jeff Dixon

            Now that is humorous.

          • http://youtu.be/zjgBhpanOfQ Despeville

            There is nothing more cabaret like shallow atheist making superfluous and vain statements about reality he has no tools to measure or account for. That is tools consistent with his myopic schizophrenia sitting only wobbly three legged stool of matter, chaos and energy only. Every atheist is a serial dumbo on a thievery run who steals from theistic worldview only to run back at it and bark about what he has stolen in the first place.

          • The_Duelist

            If you read a science book and made some effort to understand it, you would suddenly realize that scientists have infinitely better tools than blind faith and mindless dogmatism, which is all you've displayed thus far.

          • http://youtu.be/zjgBhpanOfQ Despeville

            I have plenty of science books and scientific theories books of which you have never heard of and never will. Many of the published only in Europe. The books nor scientists are not of question but the science and its underlying laws are for which no atheistic scientist can account for and so much less you.

          • http://rationalresponses.blogspot.com/ Jeff Dixon

            You may own them and even read them, but it obvious you do not comprehend them.

          • http://youtu.be/zjgBhpanOfQ Despeville

            Sure hypocretin, you are the authority on that. You are so clueless that just recently you have discovered theorists like Penrose whom you never read. You are so incredibly dumb and unread and you do not know whole swaths of writers and theorists which is probably good thing anyway for you are too dumb to understand any of it. For the reader's sake mainly:

            "The Devil's Delusion: Atheism and its Scientific Pretensions" by David Berlinski ~ http://amzn.to/ITTH8E

            Straight from the city of lights but old.

          • http://rationalresponses.blogspot.com/ Jeff Dixon

            Humnty, you cannot even explain your own theology. The Trinity for one, and the flood for another. Do not pretend to try and explain science which has nothing to do with your worldview.

          • http://youtu.be/zjgBhpanOfQ Despeville

            :) Flood has nothing to do with theology and I told Schizoid me explaining anything to you past Mark 1:15 is like discussing realism and its techniques in Caravaggio paintings with a man blind from his birth.

            Labor at Berlinski's for a few months instead…

          • http://rationalresponses.blogspot.com/ Jeff Dixon

            It has everything to do with theology.

            Luke quoting Jesus, "Everybody kept on eating and drinking, men and women married, up to the very day Noah went into the ark and the Flood came and killed them all" (Luke 17:27}

            I am glad to see that you show you have no idea what you think you believe in.

          • http://youtu.be/zjgBhpanOfQ Despeville

            There neophyte from dark woods. I found it on one of my old computers. Get it and make it a labor for yourself… at the very least it will give you idea whom to read as Berlinski mentions many names and works.

            "…Thus Sam Harris argues that “to believe that God exists is to believe that I stand in some relation to his existence such that his existence is itself the reason for my belief” (italics added). This sounds very much as if belief in God could only be justified if God were to call attention conspicuously to Himself, say by a dramatic waggling of the divine fingers. If this is so, then by parity of reasoning again, one might argue that to believe that neutrinos have mass is to believe that I stand in some relationship to their mass such that their mass is itself the reason for my belief. Just how are those neutrinos waggling their fingers? A neutrino by itself cannot function as a reason for my belief. It is a subatomic particle, for heaven’s sake. What I believe is a proposition, and so an abstract entity—that neutrinos have mass. How could a subatomic particle enter into a relationship with the object of my belief? But neither can a neutrino be the cause of my belief. I have, after all, never seen a neutrino: not one of them has never gotten me to believe in it. The neutrino, together with almost everything else, lies at the end of an immense inferential trail, a complicated set of judgments. Believing as I do that neutrinos have mass—it is one of my oldest and most deeply held convictions—I believe what I do on the basis of the fundamental laws of physics and a congeries of computational schemes, algorithms, specialized programming languages, techniques for numerical integration, huge canned programs, computer graphics, interpolation methods, nifty shortcuts, and the best efforts by mathematicians and physicists to convert the data of various experiments into coherent patterns, artfully revealing symmetries and continuous narratives. The neutrino has nothing to do with it. Within mathematical physics, there is no concept of the evidence that is divorced from the theories that it is evidence for, because it is the theory that determines what counts as the evidence. What sense could one make of the claim that top quarks exist in the absence of the Standard Model of particle physics? A thirteenth-century cleric unaccountably persuaded of their existence and babbling rapturously of quark confinement would have faced then the question that all religious believers now face: Show me the evidence. Lacking access to the very considerable apparatus needed to test theories in particle physics, it is a demand he could not have met. In the face of experience, W. K. Clifford’s asseveration must be seen for what it is: a moral principle covering only the most artificial of cases. The existence of God is not one of them…"

            Berlinski, David (2008-04-01). The Devil's Delusion: Atheism and Its Scientific Pretensions (Kindle Locations 689-709). Crown Forum. Kindle Edition.

          • http://rationalresponses.blogspot.com/ Jeff Dixon

            To believe in your god is to believe that the sun stops in the sky, that snakes and donkeys talk, that people turn in to salt and that people tried to rape angels. To believe in your delusion is to give up every rational view of life that people have held for centuries and assume that up is down, left is right and that nothing we know is true. If your view of life is correct, we might as well all go live in caves and holes since that is what your holy men did.

            << Hebrews 11:38 >>
            They were too good for this world, wandering over deserts and mountains, hiding in caves and holes in the ground.

          • http://youtu.be/zjgBhpanOfQ Despeville

            Vast indeed is your ignorance perhaps outmatched only by your bias.

          • http://rationalresponses.blogspot.com/ Jeff Dixon

            No, it is simply a sound rebuttal for your delusional comments.

          • Joe Anzilotti

            Go back to your dinner Dixon. Did you get permission from your wife to start on your usual silliness?

          • http://rationalresponses.blogspot.com/ Jeff Dixon

            She fully supports me, thanks for asking yet another pointless question.

          • The_Duelist

            Funny how you fail to give their names(the scientists or the books). Oh wait–they're imaginary books, aren't they?

          • http://youtu.be/zjgBhpanOfQ Despeville

            What would you know about that beyond standard cliche popular science sausage your feed your self with?

          • http://rationalresponses.blogspot.com/ Jeff Dixon

            Humpty, reading books by people who share your delusion will never help you.

          • http://youtu.be/zjgBhpanOfQ Despeville

            At least I read hypo-cretin… I recommend it but this is on a level your jelly mind cannot climb to.

          • http://rationalresponses.blogspot.com/ Jeff Dixon

            Your right, I have never embraced delusion and I never will.

          • http://youtu.be/zjgBhpanOfQ Despeville

            @dupe-ist,

            See yourself sad moron with ignorant chip on your feeble mind and rotten soul: I http://bit.ly/rY4jQv

          • http://rationalresponses.blogspot.com/ Jeff Dixon

            Did a clown scare you as a child, Humpty?

      • Evermyrtle

        What do you mean? something like your god? Actually you can make anything your god, but there is only one TRUE GOD who is the hear of the Trinity of GOD, THE FATHER, THE SON AND THE HOLY GHOST.

    • daves

      Mama, When Did Ben Franklin Invent Electricity?

      That's Nonsense, I Invented Electricity. Ben Franklin Is The Devil!

  • The_Duelist

    "Wherever secular science rules, the worldview of evolution, atheism, and pantheism follows right along with it."

    You use the term "secular science", as if there's an alternative to it, which there isn't. Science is either secular and unbiased towards any given ideology, or it's mindless mysticism. But as creationists, you would be remiss if you *didn't* dish out huge servings of Epic Fail every time you start talking. Carry on the entertainment.

    • http://twitter.com/lambsev11 @lambsev11

      A medical researcher with his PHD was talking to God one day. "You know, God," he said, "today we can transplant kidneys, lungs, and hearts. We can replace knees and correct eyesight with lasers. We Can do almost anything! I don't think we need you anymore God." God smiled and asked, "What about having a contest? Let's see who can make a man." "OK!" the scientist responded enthusiastically, and he stooped down and picked up a a big handful of dirt. "Oh, no no no," God interjected, "go get your own dirt."

      • http://rationalresponses.blogspot.com/ Jeff Dixon

        A made up story to try and explain a made up deity. Seems about right.

      • The_Duelist

        Was that story meant to have a point? If so, please share it.

        • http://youtu.be/zjgBhpanOfQ Despeville

          The point is that you cannot account for anything you mumble and rant about. You have to sneakily steal from theistic worldview, pretend that you did not and then claim how right you are.

          • The_Duelist

            You're retarded. Steal what from theism? Magical zombies and talking donkeys? That's all you have to offer.

          • http://youtu.be/zjgBhpanOfQ Despeville

            Theists actually can account for immateriality, absoluteness, universality and continuity of scientific laws. Are you that stupid or that convoluted or both?

          • The_Duelist

            How do you account for it? Oh, that's right–you don't. You say a magical man who lives in the sky did it a very long time ago, and that solves everything as far as you're concerned. The only stupid one here is you, but thanks for projecting.

    • Bobseeks

      "Science" as we know it today is neither rational or unbiased. Many "scientists" today start out with a conclusion and then make the facts fit the conclusion. Once again I point to the hoaxes of global warming and evilution.

      • The_Duelist

        You're doing nothing more than projecting your own behavior onto science–just like the OP, in fact. Creationists are the only ones who claim infallibility and start off with a conclusion(god created everything as is 6,000 years) and run with that. You're the only ones who never update your theories except for the occasional shot at RD or something like that. You point to evolution because you're ignorant of the facts concerning this theory. And global warming–at least of the nutso Al Gore variety–has little to no credence in the scientific community.
        http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/

        • http://youtu.be/zjgBhpanOfQ Despeville

          Do not tell us about behaviors… First account for immaterial, absolute, universal and continuous nature of laws that do govern science before you hypocritically assert it for your worldview of chaos, matter and energy only which precludes the intrinsic nature of science even though it claims it. Until you do just that we have to discount your shallow ramblings for what they truly are: shallow, superficial rant of a person who never cared to thought about this is on a deeper and more profound level which is a very much internal characteristic of atheism and its gullible subscribers.

          • http://rationalresponses.blogspot.com/ Jeff Dixon

            We already dealt with that bit of nonsense Humpty. Please try to keep up.

          • http://youtu.be/zjgBhpanOfQ Despeville

            Hypo-cretin you dealt with your dumb ego only and nothing else.

          • The_Duelist

            "Do not tell us about behaviors… First account for immaterial, absolute, universal and continuous nature of laws that do govern science before you hypocritically assert it for your worldview of chaos, matter and energy only which precludes the intrinsic nature of science even though it claims it."

            I'm not a physicist. Accounting for natural laws should be left up to people who have studied the field in depth and know more abut than I do. And cease your cowardly attempts to derail the conversation away from creation/evolution.

            "Until you do just that we have to discount your shallow ramblings…"

            This from the guy who is too gutless to stand his ground on the subject at hand, and ceaselessly rambles over chaos and energy.

            "a shallow, superficial rant of a person who never cared to thought about this is on a deeper and more profound level which is a very much internal characteristic of creationism and its gullible subscribers."

            Fixed.

          • http://youtu.be/zjgBhpanOfQ Despeville

            : 0 That is humorous – "…left up to people who have studied the field in depth and know more abut than I do…" Even is there were such people and such discoveries (which there are not which further underscores your ignorant rant) you should be able to Google it our as every proper neophyte atheist does. You have no slightest clue what are you mumbling about here in rather moronic attempt to cover you complete inability to address this question which you have never even seen until today and still did not fully grasped…

            "to stand his ground on the subject at hand…"

            No this the subject, Far more deeper and intrinsic than your shallow surface surfing.

          • The_Duelist

            "Even is there were such people and such discoveries (which there are not which further underscores your ignorant rant) you should be able to Google it our as every proper neophyte atheist does."

            What are you smoking? I am not a physicist, and unlike you and the folks here, I am not going to argue about a field I know little about, especially when it's a tangent. The only people here who try to base their views of science upon the first result Google brings up for them are the cretins I'm been arguing with. Can you even define the word evolution? I doubt it. And since you just want to derail the thread, you should keep your inanity to yourself until you muster the courage to argue for your pet hypothesis.

            "You have no slightest clue what are you mumbling about here in rather moronic attempt to cover you complete inability to address this question which you have never even seen until today and still did not fully grasped… "

            I love the mental projection there. You're the one making a pathetic and retarded attempt to cover up your stupidity, otherwise you would already have said something in favor of creationism. Furthermore, I am well aware of the challenge about physics, but that is not the subject under discussion. So go on, coward; continue your shallow, feeble, fumbling, mumbling, grasping, ranting, raving, incoherent, pedantic, illogical, mentally masturbatory, self-referencing attempts to derail the thread and cover up your own mental incompetence. At least your peers have the guts to stand for their beleifs instead of hiding behind tangents. You are transparent.

          • http://youtu.be/zjgBhpanOfQ Despeville

            I asked for a basic intrinsic nature of your "scientific worldview" on which you cannot even begin to deliver… See yourself sad moron with ignorant chip on your feeble mind and rotten soul: I http://bit.ly/rY4jQv

          • Evermyrtle

            Name calling is destructive, mean, and childish. If you want to turn someone away from listening to your testimony, just start by being a know-it-all idiot, yourself. That will work perfectly.

          • http://youtu.be/zjgBhpanOfQ Despeville

            Why don't you take a walk then?

          • http://rationalresponses.blogspot.com/ Jeff Dixon

            The never friendly self appointed pope of the Zionica making small talk with his Christian antagonists.

  • http://www.dds-sd.com Ed Galicki

    So the answer should be Americans have lost trust in scientists. This is especially true of evolutionists and global warming propagandists, as well as outspoken creationists. After reading Gerald Schroeder's books comparing Genesis and science I see the evolutionists are wrong, as are the creationists; and real science can and does display this clearly and definitively.

    If you read a couple of his books and feel the same way about either the universe or the ideas Christians have about the beginning of the universe and the beginning of life I'll give up dessert for a month.

    • http://rationalresponses.blogspot.com/ Jeff Dixon

      Ed, if you have lost trust in scientists, then do not be a hypocrite. Stop eating food, using medical processes, driving cars or even turning on light switches, for these are all provided by the courtesy of these same scientists that you disdain.

      • Bobseeks

        Mankind did just fine without all of the things you mentioned except for food which existed before the first scientist crawled out from under his rock. In fact, we probably did better because widespread pollution didn't exist until science brought us factories that spread poisons throughout the environment.

        • http://rationalresponses.blogspot.com/ Jeff Dixon

          The average age of mankind has been increasing ever since evil scientists started helping out. You may prefer to live in the hellholes of medieval Europe. I will stay with modern day that science has helped create.

    • The_Duelist

      If you cannot argue for your superstitions on a debate thread, then I highly doubt your favorite propagandists will be able to in a long-winded book. But, I've never been one to pass up cheap amusement, so when I find the time, I'll look over this Schroeder's arguments and see whatever I see.

  • The_Duelist

    "First, secular science is constantly changing its views. They frequently claim infallibility but regularly alter their conclusions based on the “latest” discoveries or “new” information."

    Wow, creationists never fail to amuse; I'll give them that much. But seriously, lying like this is not going to gain you any credibility. First off, when have real scientists (and not creationist witch-doctors) ever claimed that any discovery or theory made by science is an infallible, unchanging truth. Answer; never. Science changes because unlike religion, science is interested in facts, not pipe dreams. The only idiots to claim infallibility for their opinions are religious people. Science is not dogma, as your beliefs are. All it can do is try and discover the facts, double-check them, look for more facts, and then draw a conclusion, which may change, or be thrown out when new facts are found.

    • http://youtu.be/zjgBhpanOfQ Despeville

      First account for immaterial, absolute, universal and continuous nature of laws that do govern science before you hypocritically assert it for your worldview of chaos, matter and energy only which precludes the intrinsic nature of science even though it claims it. Until you do just that we have to discount your shallow ramblings for what they truly are: shallow, superficial rant of a person who never cared to thought about this is on a deeper and more profound level which is a very much internal characteristic of atheism and its gullible subscribers.

      • http://rationalresponses.blogspot.com/ Jeff Dixon

        The universe exists. The rules of the universe exist. There, I have accounted for them.

        Humpty, arguing from ignorance may have worked for the theists when people had no scientific way to determine how the universe operates, but it will not work now. Every year science unravels more information that was deemed to be "unknowable". If you wish to conduct your life in ignorance, feel free, but that limit will only apply to you.

        • http://youtu.be/zjgBhpanOfQ Despeville

          Hahahhaaha you are truly an imbecile and that is the only thing you have "accounted for" raving hypo-cretin.

          • http://rationalresponses.blogspot.com/ Jeff Dixon

            Here is science peeling back another layer of the previously unknown.

            New research by John Lisman, professor of biology and the Zalman Abraham Kekst chair in neuroscience, helps explain how memories are stored at synapses. His work builds on previous studies showing that changes in the strength of these synapses are critical in the process of learning and memory.

            "It is now quite clear that memory is encoded not by the change in the number of cells in the brain, but rather by changes in the strength of synapses," Lisman says. "You can actually now see that when learning occurs, some synapses become stronger and others become weaker."
            http://aurmoth.blogspot.com/2011/06/nmdar-type-gl

          • http://youtu.be/zjgBhpanOfQ Despeville

            More inconsequential and beside the point smoke screen from a hypo-cretin who cannot answer the dilemma of ihis hypocritical pseudo worldview.

          • http://rationalresponses.blogspot.com/ Jeff Dixon

            It is exactly the point, Humpty. Science continues to advance our knowledge base. Theists stick their fingers in their ears or cover their eyes with their hands and refuse to admit that people are capable of explaining what was previously unknown.

          • http://youtu.be/zjgBhpanOfQ Despeville

            Then get back to me on that when it actually advances there… Right now you are a raving lunatic who is arguing from future and you have more in common with bad, cheesy, popular science fiction than with science itself. Anyone with a shred of logic will notice that you are arguing from silence and from expectation and not from data and you call yourself reasonable? I told you long ago that you are a raving cretin who cannot even follow a simple laws of logic.

          • http://rationalresponses.blogspot.com/ Jeff Dixon

            Comments from someone who believes the sun can stop in the sky, that snakes and donkeys can talk, or that a worldwide flood took place in the last 5,000 years is nobody to take seriously on any view they blather on about.

            I already stated what it advances, our knowledge of memory.

          • http://youtu.be/zjgBhpanOfQ Despeville

            Notice hypo-cretin that whether sun can do this or that or snakes or donkeys or anything else that does not have any bearing as to your complete inability to even begin to explain why atheism supposedly "scientific" worldview cannot account for nor explain intrinsic aspects of scientific laws i.e. science itself. So in the end you are were you started – nowhere but evading to cover up unattainability and inconsistency of your pseudo worldview. You are such a predictable, superfluous, trifling and fatuous bore…

          • http://rationalresponses.blogspot.com/ Jeff Dixon

            You are correct. I ended up with a point of view that is supported by all available scientific evidence. You are supported by fables in a book. Your point of view does not supply the answers you claim from it. It merely states that somehow, some unknowable deity did something no one can understand or comprehend.

            Arguing from ignorance may be comfortable for you Humpty, but it does not provide any actual answers.

          • http://youtu.be/zjgBhpanOfQ Despeville

            " I ended up with a point of view that is supported by all available scientific evidence"

            Hahahahahaha Hypo-cretin Schizoid expectation is not any "evidence". Not to normal people at least. You should be locked up. You are a danger to society.

          • http://rationalresponses.blogspot.com/ Jeff Dixon

            You really need to talk with a professional about that maniacal laughter issue you have.

          • http://youtu.be/zjgBhpanOfQ Despeville

            Like a dog to its vomit so is Dixon coming back to his useless rant.

          • http://rationalresponses.blogspot.com/ Jeff Dixon

            I actually offer many comments. You are the one who is a one trick pony. And that one trick is useless to anyone who reads about science. But, please post your stupidity one more time.

          • http://youtu.be/zjgBhpanOfQ Despeville

            You offer only what you plagiarize from lower parts of internet and what has been refuted long ago.

          • http://rationalresponses.blogspot.com/ Jeff Dixon

            The lower parts of the internet? Now that is amusing that you think the internet is divided into higher and lower parts. Your delusion runs very deep, Humpty.

          • http://youtu.be/zjgBhpanOfQ Despeville

            Yes, according to the quality of the content, You being oblivious to that shows again what kind of moron you are. That is all you get for tonight hypo-cretin. I got better things to do than arguing with uneducated idiots with Google search window instead of ability to think critically.

          • http://rationalresponses.blogspot.com/ Jeff Dixon

            Run off and crawl into your bottle of wine.

          • Bobseeks

            If science is ever to redeem itself, someday it will discover the only truth that matters – the truth of the Bible, then all the fables and myths of science will then disappear to be rep[laced by the knowledge that there is a GOD.

          • The_Duelist

            This is possibly the most retarded comment I've ever seen. You're saying that science is a myth for not agreeing with the obvious myths the bible–talking animals, zombies, impromptu suspensions of natural law, and internal contradictions–and that there is a knowledge of a god. How? When? Where? What evidence is there for god? And don't start mindlessly spouting off scripture(which is self-referencing, circular logic, and in a word–stupid) and provide a definite scientific case for him.

          • http://rationalresponses.blogspot.com/ Jeff Dixon

            Bobbiesocks is one of the more retarded on this site. He is also praised for his belief quite often. Go figure.

          • http://youtu.be/zjgBhpanOfQ Despeville

            "What evidence is there for god?"

            Again shallow myopic amateur. To assert and evaluate evidence you need to use logic, mathematics and other branches of science to which you have no right for you cannot account for any laws that do govern them. In fact each and every law of science is alien to your deficient, unattainable and insane schizophrenia of matter, chaos and energy only. So who is a retard here? You are and on the top of it completely hypocritical about it too.

          • http://rationalresponses.blogspot.com/ Jeff Dixon

            Humpty, you have no idea what science, evidence or logic is. Have another bottle or two of wine.

          • http://youtu.be/zjgBhpanOfQ Despeville

            Hypo-cretin observe that you have said nothing on the subject of a question besides the terms used and you quick descend to your favorite stupefying manipulation of discussing and smearing the person who asked the question.

            You are truly a 14 karat moron.

          • http://rationalresponses.blogspot.com/ Jeff Dixon

            If that ever occurs, then science will have died.

          • http://youtu.be/zjgBhpanOfQ Despeville

            No, your imbecilic bias would have no apparent handles to hold on to. It does not have it right now but you are too dumb to understand it.

          • http://rationalresponses.blogspot.com/ Jeff Dixon

            I see that you have crawled into your wine bottle again. Enjoy your delusions.

          • http://youtu.be/zjgBhpanOfQ Despeville

            Ad hominem of a lying cretin is what cretin has to always come back to. Like a dog to its vomit.

          • http://rationalresponses.blogspot.com/ Jeff Dixon

            You are fixated on vomit, canards and my testicles. I am so glad I am not at one of your dinner parties.

          • The_Duelist

            Aww, the poor little creationist still doesn't know what science is. How sad.

          • Bobseeks

            I know what science is -it is a joke and the willing servant of those who distort the truth for power. You are a part of the joke and you duel with nothing more powerful than lies, distortions, and the fables of witless liars. When intellect is called for, all atheists are unarmed.

          • http://rationalresponses.blogspot.com/ Jeff Dixon

            No, that is what Christians do with their book of fables.

          • http://youtu.be/zjgBhpanOfQ Despeville

            Serial hypo-cretin with his trance inducing worn out mantras.

          • The_Duelist

            [citation needed].

            "You are a part of the joke and you duel with nothing more powerful than lies, distortions, and the fables of witless liars."

            Because as a witless liar yourself, you'd know all about that, wouldn't you? I bet you can't even give a proper definition of evolution, mutation, adaptation, speciation, variability, gradualism, or even common descent. I duel with evidence and facts, half-wit; but not with you. You were defeated and crushed before I was even born. Now crawl back into the dark ages like a good sheep.

            "When intellect is called for, all atheists are unarmed."

            How would you know? You don't even have an intellect.

          • http://youtu.be/zjgBhpanOfQ Despeville

            Kiddo, you cannot even account for the laws of logic so stop kidding yourself about discerning any facts.
            You have to borrow or steal from our worldview that does account for it to turn around and attack it with what you have stolen. Pretty beastly and treacherous act under any sky.

          • The_Duelist

            Your worldview is a sack of feces that has about as much to do with genuine science as Scientology. "Dur, a really long time ago, god spoke magic words and created everything. The end". That's your worldview in a nutshell; mindless God of the Gaps fallacy on an infinite loop. Go back to high school and pay attention this time.

          • http://youtu.be/zjgBhpanOfQ Despeville

            Keep evading. Keep changing subject. Keep entrancing yourself into it. I guess this is exactly what you did to "become a Christian"… It did not work and neither will this.

          • The_Duelist

            I'm sorry, coward–did you just project your deficiencies upon your truly, again? Tell ya what; this weekend, I'll do a post over your tangent on my blog and you can come publicly humiliate yourself. Because really, entertainment like this should milked for all it's worth. See ya later.

          • http://youtu.be/zjgBhpanOfQ Despeville

            I do not care for your lame blog and the only reason you will post it is to harvest some rubbish from naive neophytes like you so you can evade the question with bit more nuance that today which is the day it dawn on you…

          • The_Duelist

            So even when I offer to confront your tangent on another thread, which would be proper, you run and hide. Typical.

          • http://youtu.be/zjgBhpanOfQ Despeville

            I don't have time to deal with all neophytes out here. I gave you enough to think for a year.

          • http://rationalresponses.blogspot.com/ Jeff Dixon

            You have given nothing to think about unless one is interested in delusion or lies.

          • http://youtu.be/zjgBhpanOfQ Despeville

            You can only think through your plagiarized moronic canards. That much is true but they really do not require much thinking which is why you like them.

          • http://rationalresponses.blogspot.com/ Jeff Dixon

            Humpty, we know what canard you prefer to deal with.
            http://www.canardvineyard.com/

          • http://rationalresponses.blogspot.com/ Jeff Dixon

            Humpty, the only one playing word games is you. You pretend your worldview explains the universe. All it does is admit it has no idea what occurred, so it places a bow on its ignorance and calls it a god.

          • http://youtu.be/zjgBhpanOfQ Despeville

            You can reduce it to your dumb, moronic simplified misrepresentation but even with that kind of lie it is eons better than your complete face palm and utter inability to address your massive dilemma in any intelligent and substantiated way. Congratulations, you have been raped and by yourself too.

          • http://rationalresponses.blogspot.com/ Jeff Dixon

            You still cannot explain anything. So, try to place a bow with intertwined with lace and hope that is all people are looking for. It is still meaningless babble.

          • http://youtu.be/zjgBhpanOfQ Despeville

            Nothing can be explained to closed and enslaved mind such as the one you carry in your cranium.

          • http://youtu.be/zjgBhpanOfQ Despeville

            You have no right to science kiddo. You cannot account for its laws. That might a "tiny detail" but only for your tiny, key-hole like perspective.

          • The_Duelist

            Coward. That is really all that needs to be said, Mr. I Believe in Talking Animals. Prove that animals can talk, buddy; then I'll look into your tangent.

          • http://youtu.be/zjgBhpanOfQ Despeville

            Maybe we should discuss what you had for breakfast last 4th of July? The significance of it for the question asked of you is exactly the same. You entertain a notion of being reasonable? It is as valid as you being Elvis.

          • The_Duelist

            So you once again avoid my question out of cowardice. Story of this thread.

          • http://youtu.be/zjgBhpanOfQ Despeville

            ad hominem and ad hominem is the only thing a clueless atheists resolve to when cornered in irrationality of his madness.

          • The_Duelist

            Blah, blah. The topic of this thread is evolution. If the author of this site had any decency, he would ban you from derailing the thread and trying to change the subject. And by the way, coward, you turned down my offer to address your tangent, so stop embarrassing yourself even more.

          • http://youtu.be/zjgBhpanOfQ Despeville

            You are a shallow moron and that is all to it.

          • http://rationalresponses.blogspot.com/ Jeff Dixon

            Still waiting for you to show that animals can talk, Humpty.

          • http://youtu.be/zjgBhpanOfQ Despeville

            Did you visit cousins in the Zoo?

          • http://rationalresponses.blogspot.com/ Jeff Dixon

            Humpty, all you are doing is stating you can not explain anything.

      • The_Duelist

        "First account for immaterial, absolute, universal and continuous nature of laws that do govern science before you hypocritically assert it for your worldview of chaos, matter and energy only which precludes the intrinsic nature of science even though it claims it."

        What, you're unaware of natural laws? That's strange. But, you can easily rectify this by going back to high school and asking questions. I'm not here to talk about the scientific laws that govern nature; if you don't believe in gravity, try throwing your computer out the window. Asking me to prove it for you is just lazy. I'm here to talk about the creation/evolution debate, and prick nerves, as I seem to have done with you. If you want to assert your archaic superstitions, first account for an immaterial, invisible, all-powerful being who spoke everything into existence with mere words. Then account for the geological strata, which definitely spans a far greater period than six millenia. Then account for vestigal forms and transitional fossils with a theory that explains these with a higher degree of accuracy than evolution by natural selection. Then provide proof positive that the creator you speak of is the creator of your religion, and not either one from another, or a god who is so far advanced that humans have no concept of it.

        "Until you do just that we have to discount your shallow ramblings for what they truly are: shallow, superficial rant of a person who never cared to thought about this is on a deeper and more profound level which is a very much internal characteristic of atheism and its gullible subscribers."

        The person who beleive in an unfalsifiable beinge who just magically zapped everything into existence, and has existed forever, even before time existed, is calling people who don't subscribe to that as "shallow, superficial, and gullible"? I love the mental projection on this site. And the complete absence of a concept of irony.

    • aceituna

      Every new authenticated scientific fact shows the power, magesty,and omnipotence of God. If a Scientific "fact" does not show that it is at best questionable and most likely false.

      • http://rationalresponses.blogspot.com/ Jeff Dixon

        You can believe whatever you like, but you cannot change the reality of what science is. Science has always shown that there are no supernatural events or deities.

        • Bobseeks

          Liar – Science has shown no such thing. Give it up jeffie, we all know you for a sorry little shill for the sideshow of pseudo-science.

          • http://rationalresponses.blogspot.com/ Jeff Dixon

            Then show the scientific evidence for your god, bobbiesocks.

          • http://youtu.be/zjgBhpanOfQ Despeville

            Hypo-cretin. You have no right to say anything about science. Your atheistic schizophrenia does not allow it nor does account for it. You are a serial dumbo on a run.

          • http://rationalresponses.blogspot.com/ Jeff Dixon

            In my worldview the universe exists. The rules of the universe exist. In your worldview, there must be something besides the universe. I can point to all the elements of my universe. Please point me to all of yours.

          • http://youtu.be/zjgBhpanOfQ Despeville

            Existing does not explain why it exists nor is that an issue for a moron like you.

          • http://rationalresponses.blogspot.com/ Jeff Dixon

            Stating a god created it does not explain it either. However, scientists keep peeling back the mysteries of the universe while theists are limited to hollow threats of a hell.

  • http://sciencetheoryreligion.2itb.com/index.html USCitizen

    InvitationToVisit: Science Theory – What Is It Really?.
    http://sciencetheoryreligion.2itb.com/index.html

    Author email on pages.

    • The_Duelist

      That website is nothing more than a straw-man against legitimate scientists that uses flagrant false analogies that crumble like a house of cards when you lean close to scrutinize it. It is a perfect expression of creationist dishonesty, ignorance, deceit, and question begging rubbish, and if you actually subscribe to it's childish impersonations of opposing view points, I have serious concerns about your intellectual integrity.

      • http://youtu.be/zjgBhpanOfQ Despeville

        Speaking about dishonesty kiddo. How about you account for us for immaterial, universal, absolute and continous laws of science in your worldview of chaos, randomness, energy and matter only? Before you can do that do not rant about science that you cannot claim.

        • The_Duelist

          Thank you for proving yet again that you're an intellectually dishonest coward who is so completely incapable of defending his absurd dogma of creationism, that you don't even try, but instead attempt to derail the thread on unrelated tangents. At least your peers make the effort; what have you contributed to the discussion?

          • http://youtu.be/zjgBhpanOfQ Despeville

            Ad hominem and a beastly crude one is the only thing that atheist can claim when cornered and with no answers.
            Pathetic. Answer underlying question neophyte.

          • The_Duelist

            You'd know far more abut being pathetic than I ever could. That's the only respect in which you know more than me.

  • msjallen

    There are basic divine laws in science but the facts are taken and people run wild with them like evolution. It is speculation. When science differs from the Bible, I always believe the Bible.
    Heb 4:12 -For the word of God is alive and powerful sharper than any two-edged sword, and piercing as far as the division of soul and spirit, of both joints and marrow, and able to judge the thoughts and intentions of the heart.
    Colossians 1:16-17 For by Him all things were created, both in the heavens and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or rulers or authorities–all things have been created through Him and for Him. He (Jesus Christ) is before all things, and in Him all things hold together. (Jesus Christ controls history.)
    Psalm 102:25-27 In the beginning You founded the earth, and the heavens are the work of Your hands. "Even they will perish, but You endure; and all of them will wear out like a garment; Like clothing You will change them and they will be changed. But You are the same, And Your years will not come to an end.

    • The_Duelist

      Quote-mining an ancient book of fairy tales that doesn't even address modern science proves nothing; it is mindless self referencing circular logic. Ever hear of "thinking outside of the box"? It's a skill you would be much better off with.

      • msjallen

        People like you want Christians to leave you alone and stop talking about the Lord Jesus Christ but you are so willing to tell us what to do. What gives you that right? The sad part is that we can see both sides of this issue but you can only see one side. I pray that you will come to know the truth about God though His Word. There is no better way to live.

        • http://youtu.be/zjgBhpanOfQ Despeville

          Indeed, and if I can add something… More importantly there is no better way to die.

          • msjallen

            Right, Philippians 1:21 For to me, to live is Christ and to die is gain.
            I am looking forward to seeing my Lord face to face.

          • http://rationalresponses.blogspot.com/ Jeff Dixon

            Sure there is. Being honest with yourself.

        • The_Duelist

          Where have I told you what you should do? I'm advising to think for yourself. If that advice is so stinging, then ignore it and continue living in ignorance. I'm only pointing out the stupidity of not knowing anything about a theory you dislike, and self-referencing irrelevant material in defense of that. If you don't agree with evolution, then why don't you study it from both sides of the fence? Are you so used to mental slavery that the mere mention of freedom frightens you?

          "The sad part is that we can see both sides of this issue but you can only see one side."

          You're completely blind. You don't even know what atheists think, and you can't even muster an argument against evolution that is actually related to it. I used to be a Christian myself, before I was forced out of my anti-reality bubble and looked at the world without the blinders of dogma. I used to parrot the same crap you do. And I can see both sides of the issue because I've lived on both. Do not presume to tell me what I can and can't see; you know absolutely nothing about me.

          "There is no better way to live."

          In your limited experience, this may be true; in mine, it is the opposite. To each his own.

          • http://youtu.be/zjgBhpanOfQ Despeville

            "I used to be a Christian myself…"

            Nope. You have played a crude trick on yourself kiddo. You were never a Christian. You have duped yourself to think that you were.

          • The_Duelist

            Can you prove I wasn't? Then you're an idiot. You just endlessly speculate about stuff you can't possibly know. Creationism and religion in a nutshell.

          • http://youtu.be/zjgBhpanOfQ Despeville

            I can neophyte. It is in the very Word you supposedly believed in…

    • aceituna

      I'de rather believe God who has always in the end been proven right, rather than man, no matter how learned he is about scientific "facts". It goes back to 1st Corinthians, chap 1 where we learn that God's foolishness is far wiser than the best wisdom of man.

  • M Green

    It's always amusing to read what our resident atheists write in response to articles like these. For the self-proclaimed unbiased, more educated, more tolerant, fairest of the bunch, they do an awful lot of name-calling and ignoring facts and questions that don't hold up to their beliefs.

    • Bobseeks

      True, they have proven to be incapable of drawing the proper conclusion from the evidence presented.

      • Chris P

        You haven't presented any you clown.

    • The_Duelist

      What facts? Lying through your teeth and putting words in the mouths of genuine scientists? If that is your definition of facts, then you're really off the deep end. And people who say that mankind got along just fine without medicine or technology–in the days when the life expectancy was around thirty, disease killed over half of all children and infants, traveling a thousand miles could a month(or more), human rights didn't exist, and define good science as ideas that pander to their worldview are contemptible idiots, and deserve to be called as such. Saying the sky is a lie created by aliens is crazy talk. So is saying that donkeys and snakes can speak, and non-virgins should be stoned to death(read the OT if you think I made that one up).

      • http://youtu.be/zjgBhpanOfQ Despeville

        Hypocrite, you cannot say anything about science. Its laws are alien and do not belong to your random schizophrenia of a worldview.

        • The_Duelist

          Hypocrite, you cannot say anything about science. Your myths of talking animals and magical zombies who are their own fathers and have no cause and make no sense.

          • http://youtu.be/zjgBhpanOfQ Despeville

            Dumbo, I can say the most important thing. I can actually account for it and have a worldview that is consistent with it. You cannot and that is why you cannot answer the question nor can you Google it out like every atheistic neophyte out there.

          • Chris P

            You cannot account for anything – it's all made up lies. You just don't like discovering that your parents taught you to believe in something idiotic

          • http://youtu.be/zjgBhpanOfQ Despeville

            Useless rubbish is all you have.

          • http://rationalresponses.blogspot.com/ Jeff Dixon

            No, we have science on our side. You have a book of fables. Oh, I am so worried!!!!!

          • http://rationalresponses.blogspot.com/ Jeff Dixon

            Humpty, you can account for nothing. You merely say god did it, which is no answer at all, especially since there is no evidence for this god.

    • http://rationalresponses.blogspot.com/ Jeff Dixon

      What posts are you reading? it is the Christians who deny reality with every comment they make.

  • Parktx

    Science can't explain a lot of things.
    Get the one who can explain everything and desperately wants to. Ban the EPA. Ban planned abortion parenthood please.

    • The_Duelist

      "Science can't explain a lot of things."

      So let's make up a bunch off miraculous nonsense involving devils and gods until it can (then we'll look for other stuff it can't explain yet).

      "Ban the EPA."

      That's right; why regulate the environment like rational adults when we can just pollute it and kill ourselves off like morons? That sounds more holy to me.

  • http://www.colorcodehex.com/ HexColor

    Science is NOT theories and opinions and a persons attitude about his/her work. Science works when somebody else can repeat the same experiment with the same impersonal results. Science CANNOT be filtered through attitudes and be accurate.

    • aceituna

      Man corrupts true science. True science agrees with God.

  • bighoss

    Within the next couple of decades, the die-hard, mainstream Darwinian evolutionists will come to appreciate just what is actually involved in Intelligent Design. Forthcoming information from advanced molecular genetic research will shed much light from which they will find an understanding that now eludes them because of their rigid mindset. Check with me in 20 years and we will see if I was right.

    • Chris P

      You are wrong. Intelligent design is, first of all, a creation of the Discovery Institute and was used to avoid the term creationism. Go read the notes on the Dover trial. It is clearly spelled out in their "Wedge" document.

      • bighoss

        You are talking about the past; I am talking about the future. The Discovery Institute's "admission" does nothing to discredit Intelligent Design. The "wedge" document does not alter the fundamental premises of ID, against which Darwinians have used all kinds of bogus arguments. My prediction stands.

        • http://rationalresponses.blogspot.com/ Jeff Dixon

          The odds of us communicating in 20 years is unlikely. However, I will make my own prediction. Evolution theory will continue to be supported by all the scientific evidence as it currently does. ID believers will still be predicting that "any day now", something will prove them right. They will continue to be wrong.

  • http://youtu.be/zjgBhpanOfQ Despeville

    Hoss,

    Look at the level of this sophistication of molecular machines via link to scientifically based visualization below.
    You have to be a raving moron to assert that this is a result of chaos, energy and matter interacting only.

    "The Central Dogma: From Genomic Information to Protein Synthesis" by Reiken Omics Science Center.

    VIDEO: http://youtu.be/-ygpqVr7_xs

    Watch in entirety please.

    • http://rationalresponses.blogspot.com/ Jeff Dixon

      It is the Theists who make that assertion, Humpty, so you are correct, for you are a moron. Scientists have never asserted that.

  • Chris P

    So exactly how did you magic man put it on the planet? What was the sequence? Did people suddenly get eyes where they previously walked around blind? There is nothing to support intelligent design. When they started out they said an eye was impossible – then they were shown MULTIPLE ways that eyes did develop. The they started talking about something else.

    It's more "God of the Gaps" garbage. If you don't understand it you say "God did it".

    • http://youtu.be/zjgBhpanOfQ Despeville

      Were you always this stupid or the schools they sent you dumbed you down this much?

      • http://rationalresponses.blogspot.com/ Jeff Dixon

        Humpty, you would have no way to determine any answer to this question. You believe donkeys can talk. You believe the sun stops in the sky.

  • keyboardshark

    Many people do not realize that science was actually developed in Christian Europe by men who assumed that God created an orderly universe. If the universe is a product of random chance or a group of gods that interfere in the universe, there is really no reason to expect order in nature. Many of the founders of the principle scientific fields, such as Bacon, Galileo, Kepler, and Newton, were believers in a recently created earth. The idea that science cannot accept a creationist perspective is a denial of scientific history.

    To help us understand that science has practical limits, it is useful to divide science into two different areas: operational science and historical (origins) science. Operational science deals with testing and verifying ideas in the present and leads to the production of useful products like computers, cars, and satellites.

    Historical (origins) science involves interpreting evidence from the past and includes the models of evolution and special creation. Recognizing that everyone has presuppositions that shape the way they interpret the evidence is an important step in realizing that historical science is not equal to operational science.

    Because no one was there to witness the past (except God), we must interpret it based on a set of starting assumptions. Creationists and evolutionists have the same evidence; they just interpret it within a different framework. Evolution denies the role of God in the universe, and creation accepts His eyewitness account—the Bible—as the foundation for arriving at a correct understanding of the universe.

    Origins science by nature involves assertions about processes that cannot be observed or assessed by repeatable tests. The origin of the universe and of life is in the past. It is not possible to go back and watch those origins happen. Observational science requires observable subjects. Our origins are simply not observable.

    Therefore, any belief about origins must depend on faith of some sort. Biblical creationists accept God’s eyewitness account of origins and find His account is not violated by any observable science. Evolutionists, on the other hand, have faith that random processes acting over long periods of time produced all we see today.

    Without an eyewitness account of those origins or any way to actually test those origins in real time, an evolutionist is putting faith in a “just-so story” and then searching for scientific evidence to support his position. Understanding evolutionary ideas, however, unveils the unverifiable uniformitarian assumptions, circular reasoning, and equivocal definitions on which evolution’s support is based.
    http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/ee/what-http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/2012/01/

    • http://rationalresponses.blogspot.com/ Jeff Dixon

      The question of who invented the scientific method is extremely difficult to answer, simply because it is difficult to pin down exactly where it started.

      by Martyn Shuttleworth (2009)

      The scientific method evolved over time, with some of history’s greatest and most influential minds adding to and refining the process.

      Whilst many point to Aristotle and the Greek philosophers as the prime movers behind the development of the scientific method, this is too much of a leap.

      Whilst the Greeks were the first Western civilization to adopt observation and measurement as part of learning about the world, there was not enough structure to call it the scientific method.

      It is fair to say that Aristotle was the founder of empirical science, but the development of a scientific process resembling the modern method was developed by Muslim scholars, during the Golden age of Islam, and refined by the enlightenment scientist-philosophers.

      Muslim scholars, between the 10th and 14th centuries, were the prime movers behind the development of the scientific method.

      They were the first to use experiment and observation as the basis of science, and many historians regard science as starting during this period.

      Amongst the array of great scholars, al-Haytham is regarded as the architect of the scientific method. His scientific method involved the following stages:

      1.Observation of the natural world

      2.Stating a definite problem

      3.Formulating a robust hypothesis

      4.Test the hypothesis through experimentation

      5.Assess and analyze the results

      6.Interpret the data and draw conclusions

      7.Publish the findings

      These steps are very similar to the modern scientific method and they became the basis of Western science during the Renaissance.

      Al-Haytham even insisted upon repeatability and the replication of results, and other scholars added ideas such as peer review and made great leaps in understanding the natural world.
      http://www.experiment-resources.com/who-invented-

      The question of who invented the scientific method shifts to Europe as the Renaissance began and the wisdom of the Greeks and Arabs helped Europe out of the Dark Ages.

      It is certainly true that the scientific method finally came to Europe and many Christian scientists added to the process. But to claim that Christians developed it is simply not accurate.

      • keyboardshark

        While all of what you have presented appears to be true, my source was not making a case that Europeans developed the scientific method, but rather that they originated modern science as we know it today:

        (shark quote): "Many people do not realize that science was actually developed in Christian Europe by men who assumed that God created an orderly universe." Note that it says "science" rather than "the scientific method"

        The vast majority of greatest scientific achievements originated with Bible-believing Christian scientists, mainly in Europe. Most major branches of modern science were founded by these scientists, such as Boyle, Kepler, Faraday, Newton, and others:
        http://www.godandscience.org/apologetics/sciencef

        • http://rationalresponses.blogspot.com/ Jeff Dixon

          You are being disingenuous. My information stated this specifically: "They were the first to use experiment and observation as the basis of science, and many historians regard science as starting during this period. " So, it was not just addressing the scientific method, but science.

          You had also made this comment with your previous post: The idea that science cannot accept a creationist perspective is a denial of scientific history.

          No one denies that individuals may have had a creationist viewpoint, but that does not mean that science incorporates that view. Science always assumes a naturalistic explanation for what occurs in nature. Since Creationism invokes a supernatural deity, science excludes that explanation.

          • keyboardshark

            But your opening statement was "The question of who invented the scientific method is extremely difficult to answer,…" and your second sentence (excluding the authorship) was "The scientific method evolved over time, with some of history’s greatest and most influential minds adding to and refining the process", plus you mentioned the words "scientific method" eight more times, so it was reasonable for me to conclude that you were addressing that aspect.

            While it's true that I did say, "The idea that science cannot accept a creationist perspective is a denial of scientific history.", it does not follow that evolution is 'scientific' whereas creation is not. Origins science by nature involves assertions about processes that cannot be observed or assessed by repeatable tests. The origin of the universe and of life is in the past. It is not possible to go back and watch those origins happen. Observational science requires observable subjects. Our origins are simply not observable.

            So if we assume that science means phenomena that are observable, testable, or repeatable, then neither evolution nor creation meets this definition. If, on the other hand, we use a broader definition of science to include origins theories, then we could say that while science cannot reach a definite conclusion about origins, it can assemble evidence that either supports or refutes each theory.

            Like it or not, the "creationist perspective" is just as much a part of scientific history as evolution is. This does not tell us anything about the validity of either view, it simply tells us that both viewpoints are a part of scientific history even though neither can be categorized as 'operational science'.

          • http://rationalresponses.blogspot.com/ Jeff Dixon

            Intelligent Design theory may be bad science, but it is good politics. People with no grounding in the scientific method and philosophy are highly susceptible to its arguments, for the simple reason that the scientific method does not come naturally to people. After all, if the scientific method did come naturally to people, it wouldn't have taken humanity more than three thousand years after the discovery of iron to figure out that you can make a boat out of it.

            So what is the basic philosophy of Intelligent Design, and how does it differ from the philosophy of science? Well let's review: the Intelligent Design argument goes like this:

            "Evolutionists cannot explain exactly how [insert species or organ name here] evolved."

            "Therefore, evolution theory cannot explain how it evolved."

            "Therefore, it could not have evolved."

            "Therefore, it must have been magically created by God … er, an "intelligent designer"."

            Each of these steps is riddled with falsehoods and basic logic errors. Let us address them one at a time, before we discuss the fundamental reason why Intelligent Design is completely useless.

            Step 1: "Evolutionists cannot explain exactly how [insert species or organ name here] evolved". In a surprisingly large number of cases, this statement is actually false. In many cases (such as the Bombardier beetle), the feature is described inaccurately, in order to exaggerate the unlikelihood of it evolving naturally. In other cases, it is claimed that there is no scientific explanation when in fact there is. But nevertheless, with millions of species in the world, it is obvious that scientists could not possibly have developed a complete family tree for every single one. The real question is: why is this a problem? It may seem like a problem to you, but it is actually not, as we shall see.

            Step 2: "Therefore, evolution theory cannot explain how it evolved." If you pick a name of a species and an organ from that species out of a hat and I can't fill in its family history, then I lose, right? Well that's not really how it works. Contrary to what you might think, there is a difference between explaining how things work (ie- science) and giving a complete history. As an analogy, imagine that you see me get into a car in Toronto on Friday morning and you hear that I arrived at my destination in Philadelphia late Friday evening. You would naturally conclude that I drove my car to Philadelphia. If you could not say exactly which route I followed, would that shake your confidence in this theory? Of course not.

          • http://rationalresponses.blogspot.com/ Jeff Dixon

            You don't know whether I crossed the border at Niagara Falls or Buffalo. There is a "missing link", yet that does not disturb you at all, does it? The correct way to disprove this theory is not to point to the "missing link", but to show that the theory makes predictions which are different from the outcome. For example, the theory predicts that it would take at least 10 hours. If I arrived in Philadelphia one hour after leaving Toronto, the theory clearly makes a prediction which is much different from reality, hence the theory fails. Perhaps I took a flight and then rented a car which just happens to be the same make, model, and year as my car. But the fact that a theory can't give you a complete history does not mean it fails; you need to generate a prediction with that theory and then show that this prediction is different from reality.

            Step 3: "Therefore, it could not have evolved." To return to our previous analogy, this is like saying that I could not have driven from Toronto to Philadelphia if you cannot explain which route I took. Let's be very clear about this: neither science, religion, or any other intellectual method will ever produce a reliable complete history of all the species on this planet. Too much evidence has been obliterated over the eons. There will always be unanswered questions. But these are not "holes in the theory"; they are holes in our history.

          • http://rationalresponses.blogspot.com/ Jeff Dixon

            The distinction between theory and history is a crucial distinction which "intelligent design" proponents invariably ignore in their zeal to attack evolution. The scientific theory of evolution only provides a mechanism which successfully predicts many otherwise staggeringly unlikely patterns in nature and in the fossil record. It does not provide a complete history of our entire biosystem, nor should it be expected to. It would be thoroughly illogical to conclude that a mechanism must not work if you can't use it to fill in a complete history. It works if its predictions are not contradicted by observation and it is found to be necessary, ie- it explain patterns that would otherwise beg for an explanation, such as the coincidental patterns of species characteristics and migration paths, or the fact that features never abruptly jump from one animal family to another. Evolution meets and passes these tests with flying colours, which is why "intelligent design" proponents try to move the goalposts. That is why they unreasonably demand that it fill in a complete history of our world before it can be considered a successful theory.

            Step 4: "Therefore, it must have been magically created by God … er, an "intelligent designer." Now it goes without saying that this is primitive logic: this is the exact same flawed logic used by the ancient Greeks to conclude that since they didn't understand lightning, it must have been thrown down from Mount Olympus by Zeus. The reasoning here is that if you can't explain the mechanism for something, then any story about it must be correct. And keep in mind: once again we encounter the distinction between a mechanism and a story, ie- a scientific theory and a history.

            Of course, an "intelligent design" proponent would argue at this point that "intelligent design" actually fulfills my earlier tests for a scientific theory. After all, it can predict any kind of species, so its predictions are never contradicted by observation1. And since evolution theory can't generate a complete history, "intelligent design" is necessary! However, this argument has three crucial flaws. As stated previously, it is not necessary for a scientific theory to function as a complete history, and in fact, expecting it to do so is totally unreasonable. Also, the theory is generally defined in such a manner that it denies evolution, so the patterns which were explained by evolution would require explaining once again. But the argument also has a third huge flaw. Can you see it?

            Here's a hint: "intelligent design" can predict any kind of species, no matter what it looks like. This is touted as the great strength of "intelligent design" theory, but it actually proves that "intelligent design" is completely useless. You see, if you make a real prediction, you are not just predicting what will happen: you are also predicting what will not happen. If I use the theory of action/reaction to predict that a rocket will move forward in space when the engine is fired, I am not just predicting that the rocket will move forward: I am predicting that it will not move backwards or stay still. Similarly, the mathematical equation 2+2=4 does not just say that 2+2=4; it also says that 2+2 does not equal 3, or 5, or 100.

            Predictions and the Failure of Intelligent Design

            That is what it means to make real predictions; if a "theory" predicts that anything can happen, it is not a scientific theory at all. Imagine if someone promoted a theory of rocketry by saying that no matter whether the rocket goes forward, backward, or nowhere, his theory will predict it. You would be quite justified in asking what on Earth his theory is good for, right?

            When you think about it, a theory which can predict anything is actually a theory which predicts nothing. An open-ended "prediction" which is incapable of ever saying "no, we won't see that" is absolutely, utterly, completely useless. And that, ladies and gentlemen, is "intelligent design" theory in a nutshell: completely useless. http://www.creationtheory.org/Essays/IntelligentD

          • keyboardshark

            To repeat again, origins science by nature involves assertions about processes that cannot be observed or assessed by repeatable tests. The origin of the universe and of life is in the past. It is not possible to go back and watch those origins happen. Observational science requires observable subjects. Our origins are simply not observable. Therefore neither creation nor evolution can be categorized as operational science simply because they involve events in the past.

            "So what is the basic philosophy of Intelligent Design, and how does it differ from the philosophy of science? Well let's review: the Intelligent Design argument goes like this:

            "Evolutionists cannot explain exactly how [insert species or organ name here] evolved."

            Creation science (not I.D.) does not consist of merely refuting evolutionary arguments. True, it includes those arguments, but this is certainly not the sum of the argument, as your source suggests. Here is a better explanation:

            "Scientists who call themselves "creation scientists" are professionals, typically with advanced degrees from major universities, who are generally involved in the same types of work as the average scientist. The difference is that creation scientists have a "world-view", or "model" for their science which is based on the belief that an intelligent designer ("God") exists who created our universe and the natural things in it. The creation events were one-time events and are not taking place today.

            A large subset of creation scientists could be called "Biblical creationists", who take the first eleven chapters of the Bible to be real history, including the creation of all things in six 24-hour days, the existence of Adam and Eve as the first man and woman, the unnatural introduction of "death" into the perfect creation because of the disobedience of Adam and Eve, and the occurence of a world-wide flood (Noah's flood) which destroyed most life and greatly affected the processes operating on the earth.

            Most creation scientists believe that the earth is "young" (on the order of ten thousand years), but this is a secondary issue. Biblical creationists believe that the Bible and true science are in full harmony with each other – there is no need to "check your brain at the door" when entering a church.

            A major goal of creation science is to point out the weakness of evolutionary theory, because basically there are only two alternatives for how we got here, and if naturalistic processes are incapable of the task, then special creation must be the correct answer.

            On the positive side, creation scientists are developing alternative models and theories in many areas to help our understanding of how the universe works. It should be noted that much of day to day scientific activity is not heavily influenced by either evolutionary or creation assumptions, but much scientific energy has been wasted over the last century in the search for evolutionary evidences and experimental proofs, which have been unsuccessful so far and will continue to be. How much further might we be in some areas of scientific understanding if a model of special creation had been the working hypothesis?
            http://www.bestbiblescience.org/creatdef.htm

  • http://www.sargee5.blogspot.com The Watchman

    As a Christian and a Conservative, in my opinion, in the last 10 or 15 years Conservatives have lost faith in science, because science can be easily falsified. For example, the science that led to global warming, which is of course the biggest scam ever perpetrated on humanity in the history of the world. It was false science, and it took years to get the truth out of the scientists who started the entire episode, in order to receive government grants to study the effect of the fictitious global warming. Valid scientific information can only be judged by the validity and honesty of the scientist compiling the the data. We have been bombarded with false science for too many years, how can any scientist expect anyone to believe what they put forward? In simple terms, they can not. Most lay-people don't understand science, they depend on scientists to explain scientific phenomenon truthfully. Once science or a single scientist is proven to have lied, it will be very difficult for them to once again enter the good graces of the people they tried to fool.