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.

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.

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.

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?

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.

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

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.

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.

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.