Title Author Date

evolution misconceptions reading Mykyta Oct 06, 2005

I've just finished reading gread book by Phil Plait "Bad Astronomy". Book covers misconceptions, misunderstanding, bad science and plain stupidity related to astronomy and gives pretty popular correct explanation on natural astronomical phenomena.
I'm looking for similar reading covering topics related to creation of the earth, evolution and related topics. Books that will give rather popular but scientifically correct explanations and rebuttal of arguments by IDers, Creationnists, ExtraTerestrialists, etc.
Can you recommend printed book covering these topics?

Thanks a lot.

Mykyta

read replies (1)
write a reply

Title Author Date

Intelligent design Aaron Oct 06, 2005

You've probably already read this Washington Post article,

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/09/25/AR2005092501177_pf.html

just that I'd send along this blog which exposes some of the tactics of the intelligent design, creationists crowd.

http://mainstreambaptist.blogspot.com/2005/09/dna-and-intelligent-design.html

I found it highlighted at,

http://www.crooksandliars.com/

write a reply

Title Author Date

SUBMISSION Bratton, Al Oct 06, 2005

Since When Does Legend, Mythology, and Superstition Trump Science?

edited by Al Bratton Sept.11, 2005

He [Rev. Professor Sayce] allowed that the week of seven days and the Sabbath rest are of Babylonian origin; indeed, that the very word "Sabbath" is Babylonian; that there are two narratives of Creation on the Babylonian tablets, wonderfully like the two leading Hebrew narratives in Genesis, and that the latter were undoubtedly drawn from the former; that the "garden of Eden" and its mystical tree were known to the inhabitants of Chaldea in pre-Semitic days; -- Andrew White

continue reading at:
http://ipmagonline.com/god-science.html%20.html

write a reply

Title Author Date

Why not faith? Gallagher, Alex Sep 28, 2005

Sir,
I am aware that the false controversy over evolution, stirred up by the proponents of so-called "intelligent" design, has been raging in the USA for a number of years, and that it has specific connotations for the US Constitution and teaching in your public schools. Unfortunately the issue has now begun to invade public consciousness here in the UK, with articles by Richard Dawkins and others in the more thoughtful press. We can only hope that it is not allowed to confuse and degrade scientific debate in the way it appears to have done on your side of the pond.

As a non-scientist, I find your site an invaluable source of good sense and sound argument in refuting the unscientific arguments purveyed by ID proponents, but the thing that puzzles me most is that the Christian defenders of ID should feel the need to seek scientific respectability for their non-scientific beliefs in the first place.

Faith, not reason, is the basis for true Christian beliefs. Surely, if they truly believed in their God and His teachings, they would rely on faith to underpin their case. For Christians, the Bible is the one, true, complete and perfect word of God. Everything in it is irrefutably true, and needs no further explanation or explication. In relation to creation and evolution, the Bible tells us that God created the Earth, the Heavens and all that is in them, in six days. This "truth" has been “revealed” by God, conveyed by prophets, guarded by priests and imposed on the rest of us for millennia. The truly religious response to evolutionary science is to say; "Have faith. Ignore the evidence. God has revealed the truth to me. You must therefore believe whatever I tell you. Evolution is bunk".

It seems to me that this reluctance to inhabit their own natural ground in the argument shows that the Christian right is afraid of the implications of relying on faith to justify their position. That fear shows how weak they secretly know their position to be. Science and scientists should get off the defensive. Your Christian correspondents should be challenged on their apparent lack of faith in depending on pseudo-scientific arguments to undermine the theory of evolution. I, for one, would be interesteed in their replies.

Yours sincerely

Alex Gallagher

read replies (1)
write a reply

Title Author Date

Excellent Point Strumfels, David Sep 28, 2005

Very much enjoyed this essay, which demonstrates a critical point: if IDers truly were interested in science, they could formulate their ideas into a set of testable, scientifically meaningful hypotheses. The fact that they do not do so, that they are only trying to hide (their particular) religious beliefs under a pseudo-scientific cloak, needs to be stressed more, especially in court cases.

Only quibble is with the conservation of mass-energy being a genuine natural law. As I understand quantum mechanics, violations of this law are allowed, albeit over only very short time spans -- this follows from the Uncertainty Principle. Hence the "quantum foam" of classically empty space. Which actually illustrates another point: scientists can and do revise their doctrines about how nature works, when and if the evidence warrants it. They are not, ID accusations and insinuations to the contrary, blind dogmatists. If IDers really were onto something, scientists would modify or reject evolution accordingly. Relativity and quantum mechanics show this openness in action.

write a reply Related Article(s):
No supernatural causes

Previous | | Next