Antievolution and the Conflict Model

A comment came in not long ago that did not follow from the topic of the post, but I think that it should be seen, so I’ll make a thread for it. It comes from an author of an antievolution book, and handily demonstrates the “conflict model” thinking that is popular among religious antievolutionists and anti-religionists.

Why do scientists so readily embrace evolution in lieu of the written record of creation? The answer lies with a poll of select members of the elite National Academy of Sciences. The poll discovered a prevailing disbelief in God; in fact, only 7 percent of those surveyed held a “personal belief in God.” Of the balance, 72.2 percent held a “personal disbelief” and 20.8 percent were either doubtful or agnostic.

In effect, the sampling revealed that scientists hold a “near total disbelief in God.” (Poll by Peter Atkins and Richard Dawkins, published in Nature, Summer 1998.)

The reason for the rejection, and by assessment an intense hatred of God, is two fold. Firstly, evolution is accepted by an overwhelming majority of biologists and scientists – biblical histories are myths. Consequently, scientists unequivocally abhor any supernatural explanation of natural phenomena, as it questions their intelligence. Secondly, the scientific league refuses to accept a God who would allow all the evil, suffering, and pain that befalls both man and beast (due to sin entering the world through the man, Adam).

Matter-of-factly, anyone who professes belief in God is simply anti-intellectual. Hence, scientists succumb to the grave trusting that their fleshly beings will return to dust from whence they came: there is no God, no life after death, no hell, and no eternal separation from a loving God.

An amusing epilogue: When the results of the poll were first published, a lone dissenter in the U.S. House of Representatives, James Traficant (D-Ohio), complained from the House Floor, “Mr. Speaker, a new report says only 7 percent of scientists believe in God… And the reason they gave was that the scientists are super smart. Unbelievable…”

The scientific council and educators alike have played into the hands of Secular Humanists who view public education as the vehicle to move the citizen into a total secular, materialistic, godless society. According to the manifesto outlined in the journal of the American Humanist Association, The Humanist (1983), the “battle” for the minds and, it must be added, the souls of the innocents is to be “waged and won” in the public classrooms. The aspiration has gained strength by the endorsement of the liberal faction in the National Association of Educators and by teachers, many of whom believe in God but, nevertheless, have been subverted in their faith in that they may only teach the tenets of obstructionism as ruled by the Supreme Court.

The reader may be surprised to find that the expression, “separation of church and state,” is nowhere to be found in the seven articles and twenty-six amendments of the Constitution; yet, the phrase has gained sovereignty over the public schools, not by any right granted by the founding fathers, but by the repetitious manner in which it has been brandished about by those who wish to obstruct the truth. The lesson taught here is not new: “There is nothing new under the sun.” The obstructionist approach; that is, there is no God and, hence, no Son of God, dates back two thousand years to the New Testament epistle, 1 Timothy, penned by the apostle Paul unto Timothy, a servant of Jesus, the Christ. In the disposition, “the putting into order of the church’s affairs,” Timothy was warned to avoid the opposition of “science falsely so called,” or in the modern terminology, “religious obstructionism masquerading as science,” the real purpose of which is to undermine the faith of the people of God.

20. O Timothy, keep that which is committed to thy trust avoiding profane and vain babblings, and oppositions of science falsely so called;

21. Which some professing have erred concerning the faith. Grace be with thee. Amen.-1 Timothy 6

May God give the good people of Texas the courage and wisdom to rescue the innocents within the classroom from those who would preach the unprofitable theory of evolution.

C. David Parsons

For a moment toward the end, it seemed like Parsons was going to get it right, and take antievolutionists to task for falsely calling their arguments science. That certainly didn’t turn out to be the case.

Let me take up some of this more directly.

Why do scientists so readily embrace evolution in lieu of the written record of creation?

Quite a large number of scientists are both Christian and accept the findings of evolutionary science; I’m one of them. This fact has to be ignored by Parsons and others who wish to propagate the conflict model.

The answer lies with a poll of select members of the elite National Academy of Sciences. The poll discovered a prevailing disbelief in God; in fact, only 7 percent of those surveyed held a “personal belief in God.” Of the balance, 72.2 percent held a “personal disbelief” and 20.8 percent were either doubtful or agnostic.

In effect, the sampling revealed that scientists hold a “near total disbelief in God.” (Poll by Peter Atkins and Richard Dawkins, published in Nature, Summer 1998.)

Notice how the sampling effect of a poll directed only at the NAS is completely ignored and “scientists” is used thereafter. Nor is Parsons well-informed about such basic information as who conducted the poll in question. It was not Atkins and Dawkins who conducted the poll, but rather Edward J. Larson and Larry Witham. It was, in fact, the second phase of polling they did to replicate a poll taken in the early twentieth century. Parsons does not choose to inform his readers of the existence of part 1, where Larson and Witham found that the prevalence of disbelief in God among the general body of practicing scientists had remained mostly unchanged in the intervening decades, and was found in their poll to be about 60%. That means that about 40% of practicing scientists either do believe in God or are not predisposed to disbelieve, a rather different number than the one Parsons chooses to use. Another point Parsons does not bother to discuss is that even in the recent poll of the “greater scientists” of the NAS, Larson and Witham found that outright disbelief was less prevalent among scientists in the biological sciences, and more prevalent among physical scientists, though the biological scientists of the NAS also had the least prevalence of expressed belief.

The reason for the rejection, and by assessment an intense hatred of God, is two fold. Firstly, evolution is accepted by an overwhelming majority of biologists and scientists – biblical histories are myths. Consequently, scientists unequivocally abhor any supernatural explanation of natural phenomena, as it questions their intelligence. Secondly, the scientific league refuses to accept a God who would allow all the evil, suffering, and pain that befalls both man and beast (due to sin entering the world through the man, Adam).

As already noted, the “rejection” is by no means characteristic of all scientists. This is a common tactic among those who have to argue against reality: simply assert the state of affairs most congenial to their argument and there leave it. Here we have Parsons attributing “hatred of God” to an entire profession, where our best available data say only that about 60% disbelieve; Larson and Witham did not go into what feelings their respondents had about God, nor does it make much sense to attribute hatred to people who disbelieve in the existence of the being that is supposed to be hated. Nor is Parsons reliably informed about the reasons that scientists don’t accept supernatural explanations as science, which has nothing to do with “questioning their intelligence” or “hating God”, and everything to do with making sure that science works. When scientists began deprecating the use of supernatural causes as explanations in science back in the nineteenth century, the overwhelming preponderance of practicing scientists were also theists. These people certainly did not mold the modern rules of science because they thought the supernatural “questioned their intelligence”, and it is ludicrous to imply that they took the steps they did because they “hated God”. As for Parsons “secondly”, I’m afraid it simply doesn’t make sense; again, Parsons is attributing to all scientists a view that is only held by a subset of that group.

Matter-of-factly, anyone who professes belief in God is simply anti-intellectual. Hence, scientists succumb to the grave trusting that their fleshly beings will return to dust from whence they came: there is no God, no life after death, no hell, and no eternal separation from a loving God.

Again, Parsons is railing against a strawman of his own creation, that all scientists must be God-hating unbelievers. We know that premise is false. Matter-of-factly, some people who profess belief in God are anti-intellectual, and it appears that Parsons is arguing strenuously to be included in that grouping.

An amusing epilogue: When the results of the poll were first published, a lone dissenter in the U.S. House of Representatives, James Traficant (D-Ohio), complained from the House Floor, “Mr. Speaker, a new report says only 7 percent of scientists believe in God… And the reason they gave was that the scientists are super smart. Unbelievable…”

Rep. Traficant apparently understood as little about the poll results as does Parsons, since he makes the very same error of using the sample of “greater scientists” to pull a number he erroneously applies to the general population of practicing scientists.

The scientific council and educators alike have played into the hands of Secular Humanists who view public education as the vehicle to move the citizen into a total secular, materialistic, godless society. According to the manifesto outlined in the journal of the American Humanist Association, The Humanist (1983), the “battle” for the minds and, it must be added, the souls of the innocents is to be “waged and won” in the public classrooms. The aspiration has gained strength by the endorsement of the liberal faction in the National Association of Educators and by teachers, many of whom believe in God but, nevertheless, have been subverted in their faith in that they may only teach the tenets of obstructionism as ruled by the Supreme Court.

We here in the USA have a variety of different faiths and even non-faith. We are stronger if we do not engage in the sort of internecine struggles that ravaged Europe for centuries. We are best served if each person can pursue their faith (or do whatever they decide with their time if they don’t believe) in the private sector, and we are ill-served if some one or few doctrines are given the imprimatur of government promulgation. The Southern Baptist Church used to be in the forefront of First Amendment cases aimed at keeping government programs to strictly secular content, for the simple reason that if no religious doctrine is espoused by the government, it then is simple for the church to instruct its members without that interference.

The reader may be surprised to find that the expression, “separation of church and state,” is nowhere to be found in the seven articles and twenty-six amendments of the Constitution; yet, the phrase has gained sovereignty over the public schools, not by any right granted by the founding fathers, but by the repetitious manner in which it has been brandished about by those who wish to obstruct the truth. The lesson taught here is not new: “There is nothing new under the sun.” The obstructionist approach; that is, there is no God and, hence, no Son of God, dates back two thousand years to the New Testament epistle, 1 Timothy, penned by the apostle Paul unto Timothy, a servant of Jesus, the Christ. In the disposition, “the putting into order of the church’s affairs,” Timothy was warned to avoid the opposition of “science falsely so called,” or in the modern terminology, “religious obstructionism masquerading as science,” the real purpose of which is to undermine the faith of the people of God.

The reader may not be surprised to find people in the present who weren’t paying attention in civics class. The phrase, “separation of church and state”, appears in correspondence from Thomas Jefferson and is descriptive of the policies that do appear in our constitution and its amendments. That Parsons is apparently a fan of David Barton’s loopy stuff is no surprise at all. The purpose of keeping the government out of the business of telling people what to believe with respect to religion is to keep our internal affairs civil, and avoid all that stuff about hanging, burning, pressing, stoning, impaling, or otherwise managing to kill people who believe something either slightly or completely different from what many or most people in an area happen to believe. That purpose only undermines the faith of people who don’t value the lives and respect the views of their fellow citizens, in which case, yes, that ought to be undermined.

May God give the good people of Texas the courage and wisdom to rescue the innocents within the classroom from those who would preach the unprofitable theory of evolution.

Obviously, Parsons has no clue about the content of evolutionary science. “Unprofitable” is precisely the opposite descriptor that is actually required, since evolutionary science informs our medicine, our agriculture, our wildlife policies, and even aspects of engineering and chemistry which have picked up tools for getting things done more efficiently from evolutionary science. The Soviet Union and China adopted a teleological alternative to western evolutionary science, with the result of experiencing agriculture failure on a scale that killed tens of millions and produced long-term hardship for many more. We should take care to learn from their mistake, and not try to repeat it by politically mandating a non-materialist teleological ideology in place of good science.

All in all, Parsons’ performance here is less than inspiring. Even the simplest level of scholarship seems to be beyond him, he evinces no mastery of the topics he insists on criticizing, he deploys logical fallacies to the exclusion of reasoned argument, and on top of it all presents himself as a sanctimonious jerk. This doesn’t bode well for the book-length treatment that he has authored.

Please follow and like us:

Wesley R. Elsberry

Falconer. Interdisciplinary researcher: biology and computer science. Photographer. Husband. Christian. Activist.

21 thoughts on “Antievolution and the Conflict Model

  • 2008/01/01 at 8:33 am
    Permalink

    The silliest part, I think, is also one of the most common errors made about atheists. If you disbelieve in the existence of a thing, you can’t hate it, intensely or not. You may, or may not, hate what is done in the name of that thing, but you cannot hate the thing since you don’t believe it exists. The types of thesists who formulate these arguments seem incapable of grasping this idea.

  • 2008/01/01 at 10:57 am
    Permalink

    I think the reason fundamentalists conceive of atheism as “hating God” is because they simply cannot grasp the notion of people not believing in the existence of their favored deity. This being the case, they can only conclude that atheists are pretending God doesn’t exist in order to spite Him, and perhaps pursue a (possibly Satanic) ulterior motive.

    This is silly on its face to those not caught up in religious fervor. But, when you are heavily invested in the idea that not only is there a God, but that yours is the Right One whose message you need to spread to all in order to “save” them, people who don’t accept those beliefs are immediately recast as “obstructionists” to your goal of universal proselytization, probably because they want to destroy your religion. (Whether they actually do or not doesn’t matter as long as casting them in that light is conducive to eliminating the barriers that stand in the way of your ultimate objectives.)

  • 2008/01/01 at 11:33 am
    Permalink

    How can I hate that for which there is no evidence? Hating a non-existent deity would be like hating pink unicorns.

    A deity hater would much more likely be a believer, someone who is disappointed in his/her deity’s performance or failure to come through in response to prayer, etc.

  • 2008/01/01 at 11:34 am
    Permalink

    Re James Traficant

    Rather amusing for this clown to cite former Representative Traficant as a reference. Just for the information of those who haven’t been following the trials and tribulations of former Representative Traficant, that dishonorable gentleman was expelled from the House of Representatives and is currently incarcerated in a federal birdcage after having been convicted of numerous felonies. Hardly somebody to quote as an authority.

  • 2008/01/01 at 6:23 pm
    Permalink

    As a “Judge Jones Republican,” and thus hardly a fan of James Traficant, I find the reference to Traficant an embarrassingly cheap political shot. But the “logic” of equating disbelieving and hating God really crosses the line. It translates to “I’m a political extremist pandering to political extremists; I know they know that my ‘logic’ is nonsense, but it’s what they want to hear.”

    I just skimmed the article, but I didn’t see any reference as to whether Parsons himself believes that any of the mutually contradictory “biblical histories” are “myths.” Surely he’s smart enough to know that at most one can be the correct one.

  • 2008/01/01 at 8:22 pm
    Permalink

    Wesley Elsberry:

    That means that about 40% of practicing scientists either do believe in God or are not predisposed to disbelieve, a rather different number than the one Parsons chooses to use.

    Good catch Wesley. It would seem that Parsons is guilty of lying, a violation of one of what used to be the 10 commandments. To paraphrase him, I hope the sharper bulbs on the tree in Texas take that into account when considering his viewpoint.

    As another commenter pointed out, how can one be an atheist and hate invisible pink unicorns, Zeus, god, and Harry Potter, if they think they don’t exist. Not a good use of reasoning there.

    If Parson’s thinks science and scientists are inheritantly anti-cultistXian, what does he propose to do to fix this. Kill all scientists and head on back to the stone age? That will fix that conundrum but won’t be too popular among the indoor plumbing, car owning, internet surfing, doctor visiting segment of the population.

    But he is welcome and free to head on back to the good old days himself. Believe it, plenty of people will be at his farewell party to wish him luck.

  • 2008/01/02 at 5:04 pm
    Permalink

    Here’s an apropos quote from an editorial at the Charlotte [NC] Observer, on 12/27/07:

    “[A]t its core creationism is nothing more than a move to impose my understanding on you, and to legislate the definition of reality to the limits of my understanding.”

    See http://www.charlotte.com/409/story/421185.html

  • 2008/01/02 at 9:54 pm
    Permalink

    The quote from the anti-evolutionist tract includes this gem:

    “When the results of the poll were first published, a lone dissenter in the U.S. House of Representatives, James Traficant (D-Ohio), complained from the House Floor, ‘Mr. Speaker, a new report says only 7 percent of scientists believe in God… And the reason they gave was that the scientists are super smart. Unbelievable…'”

    And Mr Traficant seems not to believe in the law. Nine felony counts of bribery, corruption, and tax evasion. You may contact him at the Federal Gray-Bar Hotel for the next 8 years.

  • 2008/01/05 at 12:09 am
    Permalink

    THE QUEST FOR RIGHT, AN UNDATE.

    Severals hundreds of Volume 1 are scheduled to be shipped to school board presidents and members across the South in about 4 weeks.

    Following is a sample of text – a taste of truth – from Volume 1.

    The dissertation on the eye is lifted from Chapter VI, On the Origin of Species by Charles Darwin: Difficulties of the Theory.

    Although the eye is chosen as the category to be entertained in this section, the investigation could have chosen any one of a hundred other theories promoted in On the Origin of Species. The relative point is that, if the eye had evolved through fine graduations or modifications, the proof must lie with numerous intermediate fossilized specimens which could be laid down in a gradual continuum so as to show the development of the eye from its first appearance as a tiny break or opening in the bones of the skull to the development of a full blown socket or orbit. Nothing else will suffice, as the fossil record is all inclusive.

    Darwin penned: “LONG before having arrived at this part of my work, a crowd of difficulties will have occurred to the reader. Some of them are so grave that to this day I can never reflect on them without being staggered; but, to the best of my judgment, the greater number are only apparent, and those that are real are not, I think, fatal to my theory.” In other words, if one is to believe in evolution, he/she has to disregard the facts; specifically, the indisputable assertion that all species are well defined in the fossil record.

    Darwin continued: “These difficulties and objections may be classed under the following heads [that is, distinct topics or categories]: …why, if species have descended from other species by insensibly fine gradations, do we not everywhere see innumerable transitional forms [in the fossil record]? Why is not all nature in confusion instead of the species being, as we see them, well defined? …In looking for the gradations by which an organ in any species has been perfected [for example, the eye], we ought to look exclusively to its lineal ancestors [found only in the fossil record]; but this is scarcely ever possible, and we are forced in each case to look to species of the same group, that is to the collateral [parallel] descendants from the same original parent-form, in order to see what gradations are possible, and for the chance of some gradations having been transmitted from the earlier stages of descent, in an unaltered or little altered condition.”

    Unable to find a transitional species; for instance, discovering a tiny break in the skull of any one of the several thousand species, which transitioned through minute variations to a full blown socket for the eye, Darwin looked to parallel descendents: a horse descending from a tapir, etc.

    By Darwin’s own admission, geologists had not been unable to uncover a transitional species: “Amongst existing Vertebrata, we find but a small amount of gradation in the structure of the eye, and from fossil species we can learn nothing on this head [the subject of the evolution of the eye]. In this great class we should probably have to descend far beneath the lowest known fossiliferous [containing fossils] stratum to discover the earlier stages, by which the eye has been perfected…

    He [the reader] who will go thus far, if he find on finishing this treatise that large bodies of facts, otherwise inexplicable, can be explained by the theory of descent, ought not to hesitate to go further, and to admit that a structure even as perfect as the eye of an eagle might be formed by natural selection, although in this case he does not know any of the transitional grades [as supported by the fossil record]. His reason ought to conquer his imagination [that is, belief in a Creator]; though I have felt the difficulty far too keenly to be surprised at any degree of hesitation in extending the principle of natural selection to such startling lengths.

    If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed, which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down. But I can find out no such case…”

    It is a fact that Darwin attempted to overcome legitimate objections to his theory by doing a song and dance; that is, an elaborate explanation intended to mislead the reader and throw him/her off the path of the truth. For instance, instead of Darwin elaborating on how the eye could have been perfected while leaving no trace in the fossil record, he immediately began rambling about: the larva of the dragon-fly, the fish Cobites, fish with gills, swimbladder in fishes, branchiae and dorsal scales of Annelids, wings and wing-covers of insects, Pedunculated cirripedes, Balanidae or sessile cirripedes, neuter insects, rays, electric organs in fish, tail of the giraffe, the tail as the organ of locomotion in most aquatic animals, green woodpeckers, trailing bamboo, naked head on the skin of a vulture, savages, webbed feet of the upland goose, seal, sting of the bee, etc. The introduction of trivia, thrown up to block a difficult question, was a familiar song and dance routine throughout The Origin.

    Darwin depended on the fact that, after taking two dozen or so detours of unrelated, yet, interesting tidbits of information the reader will have forgotten the head or category at hand. Said tidbits were also introduced in an attempt to prove that his wisdom could be trusted even above that of the Creator. And lest you have forgotten the head category at hand, it is mainly this: numerous intermediate fossil specimens must be discovered and laid down in a gradual continuum so as to show the development of the eye from its first appearance as a tiny break or opening in the bones of the skull to the development of a full blown socket or orbit. Anything less would be unacceptable.

    In Chapter X: On The Geological Succession of Organic Beings, Darwin attempted to justify the lack of “numberless transitional links” found in the “same great formation.” The naturalist lamented that the lack of missing links to prove his theory was owing to an “extremely imperfect” fossil record:

    1. that only a small portion of the globe has been geologically explored with care;
    2. that only certain classes of organic beings have been largely preserved in a fossil state;
    3. that the number both of specimens and of species, preserved in our museums, is absolutely as nothing compared with the incalculable number of generations which must have passed away even during a single formation.”

    Not desiring to be outmaneuvered by the Creator, Darwin attempted to interplay other theories to shore up his theory of evolution. For example, he called upon the important part that migration must have played as the various species escaped supposedly “oscillating continents” which arose from the depths of the sea only to sink again. In Darwin’s mind, vast continents bobbed up in down in the oceans, sinking and, thus, causing mass migrations and covering any transitional links with sediment. The drowned continents then bobbed back to the top to start the process all over again. In a final attempt at one-upmanship, Darwin supposed that the damaging missing links, which must number in the billions, may “lie buried under the ocean.” Why else could they not be found in the fossil record to support his theory?

    An arrogant Darwin showed his true colors when he suggested that the reader ought to strive to cast down a belief in a Creator and accept his theory even if there was no proof. Darwin had done just that; he had cast God and religion from his mind, stating that “it was as difficult to cast down as “for a monkey to throw off its instinctive fear and hatred of a snake.”

    In summary, Darwin conceded that the fossil record of the time, the ultimate guide by which the theory of protracted graduation was to be judged, was adverse to his concept, but not without just cause: it was simply the result of an “imperfect,” or incomplete, record. Darwin used the term “imperfect” as a crutch over a dozen times – one grows weary of reading it. Darwin’s only hope of vindication was that one day intermediate links would be discovered.

    BACK TO REALITY: Following is an index sampler of mostly essential, integral tissular parts making up the eye which were entertained at length in the investigative effort. Each part or function would have had to have been created simultaneously in order for vision to have occurred. The concise overview is submitted not only as a refresher of the awe-inspiring complexity of vision but also as an avenue of escape from the abstracts of quantum mysticism and Darwinism in order to grasp reality. Vision is immensely more sophisticated than Darwin, working with pen and ink by candlelight in a scientific void, could have ever hoped for or imagined.

    The sampler is submitted as a vehicle to show that The Quest for Right, unlike that which you may have heard, is a profoundly deep scientific investigation. Note: Several intergal parts and functions are new discoveries and are not listed here due to intellectual property concerns.

    PARTIAL INDEX FOR THE EYE:

    aberrations
    correcting for
    accommodation
    involuntary control of
    stimulus of
    amplification, see light;
    dominator principle
    antenna
    function of
    reflex time
    aperture, light-admitting
    design of
    layers
    parallel arrays
    shape of
    lubrication of
    refraction, see light
    aperture, posterior appendage
    control
    electrical
    blink response
    diffusion, extended
    extraction of
    formulation
    intermediate compounds
    pod, relative to
    canal
    drainage
    irrigation
    posterior
    chamber
    anterior
    posterior
    clarification indenture
    see mind perception
    collagen fibrils
    collector
    field
    rosette
    color acceptor
    actuated by light
    arrangement of
    cellular structure
    pod
    regimental
    sensitized to
    corresponding hue
    transponder, role of
    variant
    conditioning
    aberrations, reduction of
    accommodation, automatic
    physiological canceling
    fringe colors
    sharpening of the image
    contrast
    anatomical connection
    arrangement of
    cellular structure
    detachment
    indifference
    number of
    contrast coordinator
    anatomical connection
    compensation device
    convergence, see light
    curtain
    closure of
    lubrication
    reflex monitor
    detachment
    of contrasts
    of rosette collectors
    diffraction, see light
    dilator
    animator response
    aesthetic value
    augmentation to
    accommodation
    comparison to camera
    constriction of
    dilation of
    involuntary control of
    operation of
    depth of field
    near response
    overexposure
    underexposure
    dilator response control
    dioptric system, see lens
    dominator frequency
    dominator principle
    drainage sac, lacrimal
    Edinger-Westphal nucleus
    electromagnetic surge; see
    dominator principle;
    relay station,
    triggering of
    electrophysiology
    of color acceptors
    of contrasts
    of plexiform
    elevator response
    encasement
    fossil record
    frequency, circulatory
    frequency modulator
    color acceptors, role of
    contrasts, role of
    garland cell
    interconnecting link
    blood vascular system
    connective tissue
    termination of
    jellied body
    composition
    lateral connections
    horizontal cells
    amacrine cells
    lens, tissular
    collagenous jacket
    dioptric system
    elastic projections
    inverted image
    reflex motor
    shape of
    suspension cables
    transparency
    levator palpebri control
    light
    amplification
    angstrom units, measured
    in
    convergence
    diffraction
    diffusing
    divergence
    duplicity theory
    electrical entity
    electromagnetic surge; see
    dominator principle;
    relay station, triggering
    of
    frequency modulation
    hue
    photochromatic interval
    refraction
    correction of
    indices, transparent media
    regeneration
    regulation of
    saturation
    spectrophotometer
    threshold of appreciation
    light center, see sensory
    perception region
    linings
    curtain
    encasement
    lubrication, see nutrient
    wash
    membrane, mucous
    mind perception
    clarification indenture
    function of
    seat of
    mind perceptor
    motor reflex
    seat of
    nerve ending, see color
    acceptor
    nest, see also fossil
    record
    neural arrangement
    of color acceptors
    of contrasts
    of pods
    neuron
    axon
    dendrite
    night vision, see scotopic
    vision
    nutrient wash
    composition
    metabolic wastes, removal of
    secretion of
    osmosis
    object of regard
    orbicularis control
    outer region
    peripheral nerve, see contrast
    photometer
    blind worm
    plexiform, see frequency,
    circulatory
    pocket, diaphragm
    lower
    lubrication of
    upper
    pod
    convergence
    dominator frequency,
    inherent
    image, bleaching
    out of
    supplementary value
    preaperture wash
    monitor
    processor cell
    projections, elastic
    pump, lacrimal
    regeneration, see light
    reflex monitor
    adjustment of
    overriding function of
    refraction, see light
    register plate
    spherical aberration
    relay station
    triggering of
    rhodopsin,
    chemical imbalance
    contrast, relative to
    scotopic vision
    sensory organ
    absorption of light
    sensory track
    sensory track fibers
    sensory perception
    region
    sleep response
    squint reflex
    terminal, blocking; see
    relay station
    transparent apparatus,
    see Lens; light,
    refraction
    transponder, see color acceptors

    Ask yourself, Regarding the foregoing integral parts and functions constituting color vision, of what percentage did Darwin have a working knowledge? Was it 90%, 50%, or was it less than 1%? Even a 5th grader has a better grasp on vision than Darwin ever had. Is it any wonder then that Darwin, dabbling in things that he knew not of, accredited dumb animals with the design and implementation of color vision?

    I am your servant, C. David Parsons, author of The Quest for Right. http://questforright.com

  • 2008/01/05 at 2:26 am
    Permalink

    David,

    Why don’t we come to a conclusion on your first set of assertions before we proceed to galloping Gishly? Why is it that you attributed the poll to Atkins and Dawkins instead of Larson and Witham? Isn’t proper credit to scholars a part of truth? Why did you erroneously talk about 7% of scientists, when the number came from a far more restricted sample than the general population named?

    Will it take putting you on a witness stand under oath and in cross-examination before you’ll stick to one topic until it is fully explored?

  • 2008/01/05 at 10:17 am
    Permalink

    IN RESPONSE TO YOUR CRITICISM OF THE SCIENTIFIC POLL WHICH SHOWED THAT ONLY 7% OF THE NATIONAL ACADEMY OF SCIENCES HELD A PERSONAL BELIEF IN GOD.

    Here is the entire statement read into the congressional record by James Traficant (D-OH). Note: Although Mr. Traficant ran into some very awkward legal problems, he was nevertheless a prestigious member of the House Science Committee and the Subcommittee on Space and Aeronautics. Moreover, while he did not exercise due restraint in certain business dealings, he nevertheless demonstrated a great deal of common sense in congress. You will note in my dissertation, I omitted certain points of rationale.

    On August 5, 1998, James Traficant (D-OH) read a statement for entry into the Congressional Record which denounced studies measuring rates of belief in god among members of the scientific community. As reported in the record for the House, Page H6885:

    MR. TRAFICANT. Mr. Speaker, a new report says only 7 percent of scientists believe in God. That is right. And the reason they gave was that the scientists are “super smart.” Unbelievable. Most of these absent-minded professors cannot find the toilet.

    Mr. Speaker, I have one question for these wise guys to constipate over: How can something come from nothing?

    And while they digest that, Mr. Speaker, let me tell it like it is. Put these super-cerebral master debaters in some foxholes with bombs bursting all around them, and I guarantee they will not be praying to Frankenstein. Beam me up here. My colleagues, all the education in the world is worthless without God and a little bit of common sense. And I yield back whatever we have left.

    (end of remarks by Mr. Traficant.)

    Reference:

    http://www.geocities.com/dearkandb/traficantreligiousbigot.html

    FOR THE RECORD: I agree with Mr. Traficant’s statement that “all the education in the world is worthless without God and a little bit of common sense.” Of a truth, the combined wisdom of man, to include members of the prestigious National Academy of Sciences, is foolishness with God.

    Go here for other common sense quotations by Mr. Traficant.

    http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9904EED71E31F934A25752C0A96F958260

    HERE IS ADDITIONAL INFORMATION ON THE POLL on which Mr. Traficant was commenting:

    http://blog.case.edu/singham/2006/02/08/the_religious_beliefs_of_scientists1

    In repeating this particular aspect of the study in 1998, Larson and Witham were hampered by the fact that the editors of American Men and Women of Science stopped designating people as “greater scientists.” So Larson and Witham used as their sample source the member list of the highly prestigious National Academy of Sciences (NAS). What they found was that the number among this group who expressed “disbelief or doubt in the existence of God” was a whopping 93%.

    Here are the detailed results:

    Belief in personal God 1914 1933 1998
    Personal belief 27.7 15 7.0
    Personal disbelief 52.7 68 72.2
    Doubt or agnosticism 20.9 17 20.8

    Belief in immortality 1914 1933 1998
    Personal belief 35.2 18 7.9
    Personal disbelief 25.4 53 76.7
    Doubt or agnosticism 43.7 29 23.3

    Some interesting questions arise from these results. Belief in a personal god has dropped by half from 1914 to 1933 and again by half by 1998. The latter drop may have as a contributing factor the fact that the NAS members are probably a more elite group than the “greater scientists” designated by the editors of AMS. But that means that religious beliefs among elite scientists are either decreasing with time and/or with increasing eminence.

    Next quote from the atheists. It seems that they had some bragging rights.

    http://www.atheists.org/flash.line/atheism1.htm

    The follow-up study reported in “Nature” reveals that the rate of belief is lower than eight decades ago. The latest survey involved 517 members of the National Academy of Sciences; half replied. When queried about belief in “personal god,” only 7% responded in the affirmative, while 72.2% expressed “personal disbelief,” and 20.8% expressed “doubt or agnosticism.” Belief in the concept of human immortality, i.e. life after death declined from the 35.2% measured in 1914 to just 7.9%. 76.7% reject the “human immortality” tenet, compared with 25.4% in 1914, and 23.2% claimed “doubt or agnosticism” on the question, compared with 43.7% in Leuba’s original measurement. Again, though, the highest rate of belief in a god was found among mathematicians (14.3%), while the lowest was found among those in the life sciences fields — only 5.5%.

    Note: The National Academy of Sciences membership consists of approximately 2,100 members and 350 foreign associates. To learn more, go here.

    http://www.nasonline.org/site/PageServer?pagename=MEMBERS_Main

    I STAND CORRECTED: In a thorough search of the Internet, I could not locate an article in which the subject poll was attributed to either Peter Atkins or Richard Dawkins. The information I have came from a local newspaper during the period. If one cannot believe a newspaper story…

    Thank you for bringing this to my attention. You may rest assured that proper accreditation will be given in the future. By the way, the sujbect text is found in Volume 3 which will be going to press in about 3 weeks.

    With this finality, will you please disect my latest post on Darwin and the eye with some literacy. Thank you.

  • 2008/01/05 at 12:41 pm
    Permalink

    Austringer said: “Will it take putting you on a witness stand under oath and in cross-examination before you’ll stick to one topic until it is fully explored?”

    Thank you again for bringing the error to my attention. Your correction was very much appreciated. Unfortunatley, I depended on certain information to be accurate; it was not. I stand corrected: the poll was by Larson and Witham. Therefore, I apologize to Mr. Austringer.

    (Prov 9:8 KJV) …rebuke a wise man, and he will love thee.

    (Prov 9:9 KJV) Give instruction to a wise man, and he will be yet wiser: teach a just man, and he will increase in learning.

    Thank you.

  • 2008/01/07 at 5:45 am
    Permalink

    C. David Parsons:

    I think that we all get the picture that you are incredulous that “RM + NS” can make an eye, and probably not even a bacterial flagellum. And probably will remain so until an atom-by-atom account is provided. What I am interested in is:

    1. Do you think that, regardless of mechaninsms, modern humans are biologically realted to dogs, dogwoods, both, or neither. Please pick one of the 4 choices. A best guess will do. Michael Behe says “both” if that helps.

    2. Do you agree with mainstream science, and many creationists, that life on Earth has a ~4 billion year history. Again, a best guess of yes or no will do.

  • 2008/01/10 at 12:03 pm
    Permalink

    1. Do you think that, regardless of mechaninsms, modern humans are biologically realted to dogs, dogwoods, both, or neither. Please pick one of the 4 choices. A best guess will do. Michael Behe says “both” if that helps.

    RESPONSE: Dogs are of one type of flesh, apes, another, and humans, another. Species cannot go about willy nilly transforming their flesh from one type to another. Example: Dinosaurs downpattering their DNA to resemble the flesh and appearance of a foul. Moreover, humans are equipped with an eternal soul. We are all related in the sense that God created all things.

    2. Do you agree with mainstream science, and many creationists, that life on Earth has a ~4 billion year history. Again, a best guess of yes or no will do.

    RESPONSE: Volume 5 of The Quest for Right traces the dynasty of Jesus back to the first day of creation. The earth is only 6000 years of age as dictated by written history. Note: Volume 3 takes away the dateless past that evolution depends on by exposing the hoax that is the absolute dating systems.

    Please visit our site for more information: http://questforright.com

  • 2008/01/10 at 12:14 pm
    Permalink

    I think better of David Parsons after that last response. He’s a straightforward young-earth creationist and isn’t afraid to say so. This means that his book poses but a small threat to science education, since by his description it explicitly advocates a narrow religious doctrine. It’s refreshing to see a non-obfuscated response from an antievolutionist.

    As for geology and dating, I think people ought to read G. Brent Dalrymple’s Ancient Earth, Ancient Skies: The Age of Earth and its Cosmic Surroundings.

  • 2008/01/10 at 2:43 pm
    Permalink

    If this is the level of information at you site Mr. Parsons, you can keep it.

    1. Do you think that, regardless of mechaninsms, modern humans are biologically realted to dogs, dogwoods, both, or neither. Please pick one of the 4 choices. A best guess will do. Michael Behe says “both” if that helps.

    Why should it matter Michael Behe’s opinion? He’s not even a biologist, so I don’t see why his opinion should carry any special weight. But to answer the question, yes, humans are related to dogs and cats and cat-tails and dogwoods and every other living thing. Related to doesn’t mean one turns into the other. I’m related to my uncle, that doesn’t mean I’ll turn into him or he into me. That humans have a soul is not a question science can address. We (all living things) are all related in the sense that we are all descended from common ancestors. In other words, we are literally related, like a family.

    I’m not sure what you think dinosaurs did to their DNA to become birds.

    2. Do you agree with mainstream science, and many creationists, that life on Earth has a ~4 billion year history. Again, a best guess of yes or no will do.

    No need to guess at it. The evidence is very sound that the Earth is 4.55 billion years old (plus or minus a couple percent). Life arose some time after, about 4 billion years ago is close. There are multiple independent lines of evidence to show not only that the Earth is this old, but that it cannot possibly be 6000 years old.

    Does your book have anything in it we haven’t already seen repeatedly (and been refuted again and again) over the past 30 years?

    Anything at all?

  • 2008/01/12 at 8:31 am
    Permalink

    Dave S.:

    Those were not Parsons questions, but mine to him. The only relevance of me mentioning Behe’s opinion is to draw attention to how classic creationists who disagree with Behe and “evolutionists” will usually challenge the latter, and make excuses for the former. Similarly, IDers like Behe will challenge “evolutionists” and just “distance themselves” from classic creationists who, like “evolutionists,” clearly state their positions on the age of life and common descent.

    Like Austringer, I too think better of Parsons for giving clear answers. ~75% of the 2-3 dozen I have asked so far simply evade the questions (the rest are a mix of YECs, OECs, and OECs who accept common descet). More importantly, everyone who answered, made sure to add unsolicited, irrelevant information about his incredulity of “Darwinism.” Parsons I think is the first to be clear that he bases his incredulity on scripture, and not just cherry picking evidence.

  • 2008/01/12 at 2:48 pm
    Permalink

    Sorry Frank J and C. David Parsons. My confusion.

    I did not see your post Frank J, and thought Parsons was making up questions and answering them himself.

    I agree that at least the questions were directly answered for the most part, at least when compared to most Creationists.

    Again, my bad.

  • 2008/01/24 at 10:11 pm
    Permalink

    Did you ever notice how he quoted from the KJV Bible out of ignorance of the word “science” in the verse is a mistranslation of the word “knowledge”? Paul was referring to gnosticism, not science when he warned Timothy to stay away from “vain and profane babblings.”

  • 2008/07/19 at 9:32 am
    Permalink

    C. David Parsons entered yet another spamming comment on an unrelated thread today.

    David, how about sending me a review copy of your book series? On receipt, I’ll open up a thread where your comments would then be topical.

Comments are closed.