Thus saith the faculty, “Thou shalt have no other gods before Darwin.”

Thus saith, at least, 25 professors on the faculty of the University of Iowa, who penned a short letter of protest to the campus news, IowaNow, for daring to allow a fellow faculty member to publish any doubt whatsoever upon “the fact that life on Earth has evolved” (my emphasis).

Indeed, this university’s band of thought police has decreed that no debate of this topic is allowed anymore: “we no longer debate the central principles of evolutionary theory. . . .”

Thus are expressed the crowning achievements and priceless jewels of liberal scientific progress:  academic freedom, and, above all, tolerance.

Yes, Lady Tolerance hath held aloft her holy flame of enlightenment, then touched it to the stakes of all rival views. In the blazes which ensued, many blasphemers have received their just desserts, and begun their descent into the ninth circle of academic hell—the circle of traitors to their lords and benefactors.

The scorched victim in this case is chemistry professor Ned Bowden, who committed blasphemy, brazenly defying the orthodoxy of the high priests of Universitydom by suggesting science and religion can, like, all just get along.

Now, personally I dissent from and reject Bowden’s generic theistic evolution, and I have no interest in defending him on that score. But I appreciate his open mind which, as his article shows, will allow him to have a discussion with even a young-earth creationist at least without ridicule and dismissal up front. And while I think his piece was probably attempting to win over some young Christians to be more accepting of his own rationalistic views, he made two errors of judgment which threw red flags before the university’s self-appointed grand inquisition.

First, he anticipated their authoritative denunciations of ridicule which would follow. He writes, “In our era of punditry, it seems that only the loudest, most extreme, and most intransigent voices are heard. It’s not enough simply to have an opinion; you must shout down anyone expressing a different view to demonstrate the ‘right-ness’ of your own.”

It was this “shouting down” by the defenders of scientific orthodox which Bowden anticipated, and got. In retrospect, it makes the shouters look quite foolish. For there is nothing much more embarrassing for allegedly dispassionate scientists than having it predicted up front that you will respond in foolishness with the predictability of Pavlov’s dogs, only to salivate on cue when someone like Bowden rings the bell.

But an even more powerful stimuli was the menu Bowden served. He not only suggested that creation and evolution could somehow harmonize, he dared to proclaim, “There are, of course, holes in the theory of evolution that are big enough to drive a semi-truck through.” And that drove the police dogs beyond salivating into open, rabid frothing at the mouth.

Thus followed the effort to respond with collective denunciation, to declare all debate of this topic off limits, and to denounce all detractors as hopeless heretics who defy the clearly revealed “facts” of neoDarwinianism.

It all reminds me of the wonderful article Robert A. Nisbet wrote on “Inquisitions” in his collection of essays entitled Prejudices[1] some thirty years ago. To begin with, for a secularist, Nisbet was about as impeccable a scholar as there has ever been, and yet generally honest, helpful, conservative, and truly productive enough that he does not deserve the condemnation of being called a “sociologist,” though that was his field. His essay busts the university mythology which the enlightenment produced concerning the alleged ecclesiastical persecution of Galileo. With a brief review of the historical facts, Nisbet lines us out:

The first censorship of Galileo was his own, the result of fear not of ecclesiastical but of scientific-scholarly opinion. In a letter to Kepler in 1597 Galileo confessed his own belief in the Copernican view of the planets, including the earth, moving around the sun, but declared his fear of ridicule from Aristotelian scholars in the universities were he to make his belief public.

When Galileo finally got the courage, some fourteen years later, “the response was overwhelming laudatory and encouraging” in general, and neither Pope nor church seemed to have any problem. But,

[P]rotests began after his triumphal visit to Rome, and they were not in the first instance ecclesiastical at all. They came from jealous and apprehensive university professors, the majority Aristotelian and fearful of the effect of Galileo’s loud and boastful teachings.

It turns out, “Galileo’s chief enemy was no churchman at all but a fellow-scientist, deeply jealous of Galileo and convinced Galileo had stolen from one of his own scientific works.”

The entrenched, self-interested professors used what leverage and influence they could muster, which at the time was considerable, to bring enough pressure to bear eventually upon the Pope and other ecclesiastical officials that the Inquisition was sent after Galileo.

In short, while Christians and the church always get the bad rap, it has been the self-convinced, know-it-all-already, “overwhelming majority of scientists . . . across the world,” university professors who lead the inquisitions and attacks on dissenters.

Today, such thought police and enlightenment orthodoxy have decreed that dissenters of Darwin shall be racked, pilloried, flogged, flayed, branded on the forehead, and have their tongues removed for their blasphemy. “Thou shalt have no other gods before Darwin.” “Thou shalt make no image or likeness of Darwin beyond that presented in the textbooks.” “Thou shalt not bear Darwin’s name in vain.”

That it comes in the name of scientific progress, enlightenment, and tolerance, is all the more devious. But every religion has its hypocrites.

In the end, we should remember Nisbet’s conclusion:

Rivalry, jealousy, and vindictiveness from other scientists and philosophers were Galileo’s lot, and they are not infrequently the lot of unorthodox minds in modern times. Anyone who believes that inquisitions went out with the triumph of secularism over religion has not paid attention to the record of foundations, federal research agencies, professional societies, and academic institutions and departments. . . . Ideas, theories, paradigms, and values become as ensconced in the scientific as in the theological fraternity. And the vital areas of financial support, professional recognition, and academic appointment, these idols count heavily. Macromutationists in biology, catastrophists in geology, and cognitive theorists in psychology are among those who have known inquisitions in science. It was twentieth century science, not theology, that sought to prevent by every possible means the publication in the 1950s of Velikovsky’s Worlds in Collision. The church did not go that far with Galileo.

The takeaway here for those who value a biblical worldview, and who plan to send their children into the gauntlet of public universities, is that you had better have children well prepared to the point of intellectual inoculation before they go. As you can see here, the best they will get is an overly rational theistic evolution that does not mind beginning with premises like, “If we throw out our modern definition of a day as a 24-hour period. . . .” Yet even this is a persecuted minority. The vast majority of university professors are openly, rabidly hostile even to this.

They have no scruples at devouring one of their own. Their allegiance is to their god who must not be debated or questioned in any way. And they are salivating at the chance to teach your children.

(h/t The Pearcey Report; see also Evolution News and Views.)


[1] (Cambridge, MA, and London: Harvard University Press, 1982), 190–196, for the following quotations.

Print Friendly

Consider partnering with us

62 comments
Latest news
Latest news

wonderful and well expressed article ! i like such kinda articles so much ! www.newsorigin.com

Tom Graffagnino
Tom Graffagnino

When I read about Prof. Bowden's ordeal recently, I wrote to each of the 25 Inquisitors who complained so loudly about his heretical view: Dear Fellow Warriors in the Struggle: I certainly appreciated your willingness to step up to the plate to defend The Absolute Truth of Evolutionism. That took courage. My only concern is that you were not really firm enough with the infidel, Bowden. I wish I had been there to help you put together a response that was a bit more forceful. Maybe the next time Mr. Bowden steps out of line, you could borrow from this piece (see below). You certainly have my permission to do so. Well, well, well there, "Mr." Bowden. We've caught wind of your dissent. Let me tell you, we're NOT happy! We don't like your discontent. Science is now what WE says so, And we say that so you'll hear.. Some lines, sir, you DON'T cross over. (Are we making ourselves clear?) You have proven you're unworthy.. Your ideas, man, must cease! If you blaspheme one more time, sir... You will feel our heat increase. You have met our disapproval... And we're glad we smoked you out. What you're preaching is forbidden! Filling children's minds with doubt. We suggest that you repent, sir. We suggest you do it soon! We're the Masters of Persuasion... (We've got ways to change your tune.) We know ways to keep you quiet... "Pressure points" that we have learned. Keep it up and you'll be censored, Fired....or maybe even burned! (Go! Go! Go!...Let's run these religious crackpots out of academia once and for all! If we stick together, I know we can do it!)

Tom Graffagnino
Tom Graffagnino

When I first read the story about Prof. Bowden I wrote the following (tongue-in-cheek) note to each of the 25 inquisitors at U of Iowa: Dear Fellow Warriors in the Struggle: I certainly appreciated your willingness to step up to the plate to defend The Absolute Truth of Evolutionism. That took courage. My only concern is that you were not really firm enough with the infidel, Bowden. I wish I had been there to help you put together a response that was a bit more forceful. Maybe the next time Mr. Bowden steps out of line, you could borrow from this piece (see below). You certainly have my permission to do so. Well, well, well there, "Mr." Bowden. We've caught wind of your dissent. Let me tell you, we're NOT happy! We don't like your discontent. Science is now what WE says so, And we say that so you'll hear.. Some lines, sir, you DON'T cross over. (Are we making ourselves clear?) You have proven you're unworthy.. Your ideas, man, must cease! If you blaspheme one more time, sir... You will feel our heat increase. You have met our disapproval... And we're glad we smoked you out. What you're preaching is forbidden! Filling children's minds with doubt. We suggest that you repent, sir. We suggest you do it soon! We're the Masters of Persuasion... (We've got ways to change your tune.) We know ways to keep you quiet... "Pressure points" that we have learned. Keep it up and you'll be censored, Fired....or maybe even burned! (Go! Go! Go!...Let's run these religious crackpots out of academia once and for all! If we stick together, I know we can do it!) Sincerely....

Ernesto
Ernesto

Tony, your kind always throws around accusatory remarks about those that do not believe blindly in "little boy in the sandbox" fables because you really have no facts to argue with that will stand up to the scrutiny of mere common sense, much less real science. Real science is replicable in the laboratory and observable. That is the very definition of science. If you can't meet the definition of science, how can it qualify for science? I am sure you will attack this response with rhetoric, but there will be no facts in your rhetoric. Your statements will be all emotional, but will have no substance. You cannot argue with truth, or against THE TRUTH. Do some of your own research, but get outside of the box and check on the facts from the other side. I was schooled in Darwinian evolution through 5 years of college. When I got outside of the box I realized that I had been fed a bunch of lies. I became a thinker and decided that I would allow the facts to lead where they may, rather than drawing a conclusion and then hiding the facts that do not make my point, or even skewing the facts, or just plain creating the facts to be what I desire to believe. I came out walking on water. Reach up and grab a hand!!!!

Ernesto
Ernesto

My contention is that evolution is not true! All of the icons of evolution, Neanderthal man, Piltdown man, and Lucy, have all been found to be man-made hoaxes. Now, that is a fact, which makes it the truth. Science is the observation of processes in a controlled environment that happen in the natural world. Evolution has never been observed in a lab setting, much less in nature. Mathematics is a science in itself. Number do not lie. Statistics show that for even one non-living organism to come to life and become a living cell, it would take 1 to the 147th power for that to occur. That would be 1 with 147 zeros behind it. You, nor I can even fathom a number so large. One billion has 9 zeros. a trillion has 12 zeroes, which is about as high as man can even comprehend. You never hear anyone say anything about a quadrillion $$'s. Now, with the odds being 1 to the 1 with 147 zeroes behind it that life could come about for even just one cell, well, it takes more faith to believe in evolution than creation. Now, that is THE TRUTH, AND MUST THEREFORE BE A FACT!!

TIA
TIA

"For all evolution can care it was your god who created the first life, so abiogensis is irrelevant to whether evolution is true or not" Hey Tony, now we're getting somewhere! So are you admitting that God created life in the first place? Or are you simply weasel wording your way around the fact that "evolution" can't happen unless there are already living organisms to begin with? And since "science" hasn't shown abiogenesis happening, you have to put it in your "no-god of the gaps" category and presuppose it in order to even get evolution started in the first place. But you don't like presuppositions (even though you keep making them). What a quandary you are in! And you may want to touch up your grammar and spelling a bit before accusing people of "scientfic illternacy." :)

Tony
Tony

Lucy wasnt a hoax, so wasnt neanderthal man, and piltdown man was discouvered to be a hoax by those who believed in evolution,with technqiues that creationists claim are "faulty" like carbon dating " Science is the observation of processes in a controlled environment that happen in the natural world" and thats what evolution is, and you are confusing evolution with abiogensis, and you are the one who cannot stand up to the mere scuritnity of common sense you blurt out arguements that even creationists of anwsers in gensis and creation international ministries believe should not be used!

Reid
Reid

"...you are confusing evolution with abiogensis..." Here we go again. Sorry pal, but like the last 4,000 times you typed this exact phrase, evolution and abiogenesis are still linked, and still both necessary for your worldview, and still both impossible for you or anyone to prove. They always come up in the same discussions because the idiocy of evolution isn't even worth discussing until the atheist can show how it started. But you knew that. You were just trying to play your old trick card again. And we're all so dumb we'll just fall for it, right? And concede the argument because you know the distinction between the two ridiculous sides of the same fairy-tale coin, and we don't?

Tony
Tony

"They always come up in the same discussions because the idiocy of evolution isn’t even worth discussing until the atheist can show how it started" once again you still refuse to admit that they are two totally different things, evolution is about the diversfication of life, nothing more,evolution and abiogensis are NOT linked this is not an "old card trick" its the truth and you just dont like it, said evoluiton is an "idociy" would be the exactly samething as calling gravity an idoicy! For all evolution can care it was your god who created the first life, so abiogensis is irrelevant to whether evolution is true or not

Robert Pegram
Robert Pegram

Although I agree that macroevolution isn't true, 1 to any power is still 1. I think meant 10 to the 147th power.

RedMeatState
RedMeatState

Science has ceased to be science when it is more involved in promoting DOGMA (by force and threats) than it is in open debate and discussion. Evolution is not settled, but the corruption of science by political bureaucrats within the science community is!! FOR SURE!!

SouthernPatriot
SouthernPatriot

Evolutionary theory cannot be reproduced. Where are the transition stages that would be very prevalent if any specie evolved into another specie? Creation does not need these transition stages or species. Evolution does. It is easy to see and even replicate adaptations, but not the whole of the Darwinian theory.

Michael Paul Tuuri
Michael Paul Tuuri

What some people are calling "evolution" is really adaptation. Why compromise the language? Adaptation is real...evolution is not. And as for debates with Tony, don't answer a fool according to his folly...it's impossible to convince such a person. I won't even try. He needs a dose of the Holy Spirit, who is the only one who can get to Tony.

TIA
TIA

As far as debating Tony, the Bible also says, "Answer a fool according to his folly, lest he be wise in his own eyes." (Proverbs 26:5) His foolishness is plainly evident to the rest of us, but we wouldn't want Tony thinking himself to be wise, would we? Also, I figure that whatever time he spends here is time he's not spending elsewhere misleading those who are more susceptible to his bogus arguments. And maybe God will have mercy on him and convert him.

Tony
Tony

NO you are just in denial adaption IS evolution, you dont even understand what you are talking about, and even your holy ghost cannot deny science and reality

Tony
Tony

WRONG your foolishness is self evident to anyone but your selfs! This is just a standard presupptionalism debate tactic that your kind uses when you realize that you lost! So then your just blurt out these things about being "foolish" like when your actually think you understand evolution!

Greg B
Greg B

This article presents more evidence that evolution has become a matter of religious faith.

smg45acp
smg45acp

150 years ago these are the exact same type of "scientists" that would have written a letter protesting that the university not teach anything as crazy and false as the "Germ Theory". Science has always been much more about protecting the status qua than trying to find new ideas and new ways of thinking. Almost every great scientific breakthrough was mocked by the establishment scientific community. My personal favorite is an article written in the very early 1800's decrying the invention of the locomotive. This brilliant mind had many reasons why the idea of steam driven transportation would never work. But he summed it all up best by stating "any fool knows that if you were to travel at 25 miles per hour the force on your heart would kill you". These same people are proclaiming basically that any fool knows that evolution is right and Creationism is wrong. And they are just as right as the scientist against steam power.

TIA
TIA

Yes, ironically, it is usually establishment scientists who protest new understanding most vociferously, not "religious" people. See Thomas Kuhn's book "The Structure of Scientific Revolutions."

Alex Alexander
Alex Alexander

Whoa! Doc Joel cites: "Velikovsky’s Worlds in Collision." Spooky! I'VE READ THAT BOOK!! And, it's a good read (if you can lay your hands on a copy). Ahem. I just happen to own a copy. Any offers? Alex A UK (Mike E.R. : You're a reader. A thousand bucks, and it's yours!) (ha! ha!)

john c
john c

yes...salivating...

TIA
TIA

I believe that life on earth has evolved (changed). I just don't believe the pseudo-scientific "theory of evolution" which claims that, "All life on Earth is descended from a last universal ancestor that lived approximately 3.8 billion years ago." (Wikipedia) I'm not the exact same as my parents. My children aren't the exact same as me. But that doesn't mean that my great-great-great-great-grandfather was a monkey. There obviously is evolution in the sense of living organisms changing over generations. But that's not the same as saying that one kind of animal (or plant) has changed into a different kind. "In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth....[God created plants and animals] according to their kinds." (Genesis 1)

Tony
Tony

No the only one clingy to preupptions is YOU and your calvinist nutter friends,this species problem is like comparing dogs to bananas with creationists and their kinds, it's just that I seems to have forgotten about it

TIA
TIA

"if someone wants to be killed then they can just commit suicide" What if they don't want to kill themselves? What if they want someone else to kill them? "If some one really likes to kill other people just ask them do you want to die? because from all the killing that person like its clear that person enjoy death, so they would have no problem killing themselves" You mean like those who kill a bunch of people and then kill themselves? Are you saying that's right? Morality according to Tony is scary!

Tony
Tony

" If someone is into sadomasochism, does that mean it’s okay for them to treat others (who aren’t) that way?" no because how would the sadomascist fellow like it if others STOPPED hurting him/her? You fail to understand sadomasochism is what brings that certian fellow pleasure and happiness-so if he made other people unhappy they will make him unhappy which means not getting hurt! I doubt thats what a sadomasochist wants "God is love. He sets the standard" then love would be a meaningless and subjective term, and your morality is arbitary, subjective and reletvistic

Tony
Tony

NO creationism is pseudo-science, I like how you demonstrate that by using the word "kind", there is no agreement among creationists of what a "kind" actually is see its extremely vague so you can play move the goal posts "But that doesn’t mean that my great-great-great-great-grandfather was a monkey" your thinking of pokemon, and the evolution displaye din pokemon is more akin to a caterpillar turning into a butterfly then anything else "There obviously is evolution in the sense of living organisms changing over generations. But that’s not the same as saying that one kind of animal (or plant) has changed into a different kind" no its exactly the SAME creationists just create abrtary divisions in science to make their case

Tony
Tony

and one more thing, incase you haven't realized yet when saying that I have no basis to claim what Mozi said was better then Hitler is an open admission by you to not even able to realize what the statement "treat others like you want to be treated" even means! that very statement answers your absurd question!

TIA
TIA

Tony, you're kind of off topic here, but I'll briefly address your point. As I have said before, "treat others like you want to be treated," is a nice enough standard, but it has to be defined and qualified. If someone is into sadomasochism, does that mean it's okay for them to treat others (who aren't) that way? Of course not! It's like saying "we should just love one another." Again, that's a true enough statement, but it needs to be further defined. God is love. He sets the standard.

TIA
TIA

Tony wrote: "no its exactly the SAME creationists just create abrtary divisions in science to make their case" That is true of evolutionists regarding "species." But there isn't any evidence that cats and cows share a common ancestor. I know you believe that you yourself share a common ancestor with slugs, but that's not true! You were created by God in His image. That image has obviously been shattered (as it has in all of us), and yet you still exhibit some "godlike" qualities as differentiated from animals.

Tony
Tony

yes they do, there is a perfect agreement on what a "species" is in evolution, "Kind" is an extremely vague term for example Ray Comfort seemed to imply in that fish is a "kind" and dogs are a "kind" and cats are a "kind" yet fish in actual biology is a phylum and dogs and cats are considered speceis!

Tony
Tony

"But there isn’t any evidence that cats and cows share a common ancestor. " there is plenty even ID propents like Michael Behe admit so "That image has obviously been shattered (as it has in all of us), and yet you still exhibit some “godlike” qualities as differentiated from animals" Humans ARE animals!

TIA
TIA

Tony, which is it: "Treat others like you want to be treated" or "Treat others like they want to be treated"? What about people who want to kill other people? Or people who want to be killed? Do their desires make killing right?

TIA
TIA

"Humans ARE animals!" It depends what you mean by "animal." Humans are animals as opposed to plants. Humans are mammals according that classification system. But humans are not animals in the sense of being created in God's image to have dominion over the rest of the creatures (Gen. 1:26-28). You make think you're nothing more than an animal. You may even act like an animal. But you are unique creation of God, with a spirit, soul, and body.

Ernesto
Ernesto

Tony, you are being less than vague. You have refuted what someone else stated, but you refuted it with nothing. You stated no facts. The fact of the matter is that a kind is a horse that does not evolve into a monkey. A butterfly does not evolve into a buzzard. A pig does not evolve into a cow. That is what this individual meant. Most everyone else on here understood what was meant by "kinds" producing like kinds. A horse, a mule, a donkey...they is like kinds!!! A spider monkey, an orangutan, a chimpanzee, a howler monkey...like kinds!!! A german shepherd, a cocker spaniel, a black & tan, a bloodhound, a greyhound, a pit bull...like kinds!!! Do I need to go on and on and on? I can go through all of the species, but it would take probably the rest of the year to type it, much less research all of it!! I do not know of all kinds, nor does any scientist. Scientist can't even come up with an aging method that is reliable and consistent. When the method doesn't agree with their pre-conceived conclusion, they just throw out the test and do another till they come up woth therabouts what they want it to show. Check out the Creation Research Institute and read some of their legitimate science. They let the science speak for itself. They do not use preconceived conclusions before they do the experiment. Using C14 dating, rocks that were formed from the 1980 Mount Saint Helen eruption in Washington state were shown to be 2 to 3 million years old in 1995. Yet, these rocks were formed from a volcanoe that erupted only 15 years prior to the dating. Now, use helium diffusion and you get a proper dating. Helium is much more accurate, yet evolutionist will not use it because it does not yield the results that they must arrive at to keep bilking the establishment out of billions of $$ for research money. When creationsim is beleived, you can shut down the research and get jiggie with coming up with ways to better the whole lot of man based on the God given mandate of helping the poor and needy of this world, instead of helping themselves to the coffers of the universities and the taxpayer funded research projects. Dawkins or Hitchens stated the following, and this is a fact, "An evolutionist should never debate a creationist, because he will lose everytime." That was a statement that was made years ago in a science publication. I have seen many of these debates, and no, the evolutionist never wins!! If facts can't win a debate...then they are not facts!!

Tony
Tony

" That was a statement that was made years ago in a science publication. I have seen many of these debates, and no, the evolutionist never wins!!" thats because you are just in denial or even too dumb to understand the arguement, and by your definition of "kind" a creationist must admit that evolution is true!

Richard
Richard

Actually, creation scientists are working on identifying "kind" regardless of how you misrepresent the point. The beginning of animal and plant classes started with a Christian perspective and DNA is now being used to define Biblical Kinds. " The computer program model can also explain structures and patterns in DNA and leads us to a proposed informational definition of biblical kinds: Biblical Kind—The set spanned by all organisms having the same instructional segments and structural arrangements in DNA. From these findings we can conclude that equating externally observed differences with evolution is completely false, because it fails to recognize that variation can occur without any implication of evolution if the information system uses variables. A practical consequence is that the term “microevolution” should be strongly rejected along with any definition of evolution such as, “a process that results in heritable changes in a population spread over many generations” (Moran 1993) or “any change in the frequency of alleles within a gene pool from one generation to the next” (Curtis and Barnes 1989, p. 974). These terms and definitions fail to understand that for any system that uses variables, variation has nothing to do with change in kind. Therefore they are clearly inappropriate and hinder scientific investigation." You have also turned truth on its head. The Bible does not have to conform to an arbitrary and fallible science, but science has to conform to the truths of scripture. But speaking or arbitrariness.....it is the evolutionists that have established very arbitrary boundaries for what constitutes "science" within only the confines of materialistic naturalism and fail to distinguish between operational science and historic (origins) science....at least in the brainwashing world of government controlled K-12 compounds.

Tony
Tony

"it is the evolutionists that have established very arbitrary boundaries for what constitutes “science” within only the confines of materialistic naturalism and fail to distinguish between operational science and historic (origins) science" this is utter nonsense there is no such difference between "historical" and "operational" those are just arbitrary differences invented by Ken Ham because he hates evolution, and if science is not within the confines of naturalism then astrology,alchemy and witchcraft would be considered science! Under your definition of science any and all superstition would count as science! ".at least in the brainwashing world of government controlled K-12 compounds " the only one who is brainwashing is you fundamentalists dominionists who dont understand anything about science!

Tony
Tony

if someone wants to be killed then they can just commit suicide, there are plenty of rope to hang yourself with, plenty of poisons to drink and plenty of buildings and cliffs to jump off of. If some one really likes to kill other people just ask them do you want to die? because from all the killing that person like its clear that person enjoy death, so they would have no problem killing themselves

TIA
TIA

"this is utter nonsense there is no such difference between “historical” and “operational”" Of course there's a difference. Can you show that George Washington was the first president of the United States by operational science (testing and experimentation)? No! But you can by historical science (written records of eyewitnesses). See http://www.answersingenesis.org/get-answers/features/two-kinds-of-science

RedMeatState
RedMeatState

Evolution is psuedo-science!!! Conjecture and assumptions supported by more conjecture and assumptions, with no visible evidence to support it whatsoever!! And enforced by intimidation and academic thuggery. Darwin wrote on "The Origin of Species", NOT the "Origins of Life". That he could not explain. IN fact, Darwin WAS a Creationist, attributing the Creation of Life to the Creator. He extrapolated the varied appearances of differing "species" to time, adaptation, and "evolution". It has proven to be false as there is NO DATA, NO EVIDENCE, NO PROOF to support it, other than the conjectured imaginations of academic thugs determined to force their belief system upon everyone else.

Tony
Tony

1. Then they don't really want to die 2.What you said made no sense what so ever and is just typical desperate calvinist falling after they lost

Joel McDurmon
Joel McDurmon

Right, and the humanistic scientists all perfectly agree on the definition of "species," right? "Kind" serves exactly the same purpose and just as well.

TIA
TIA

This is Tony at his best. Ignoring facts and substituting his own presuppositions.

Tony
Tony

i am not ignoring anything, your are just not making anysense, i am not ignoring any facts because there are no facts to ignore!

TIA
TIA

What's the matter Tony, facts got your tongue? Of course facts don't matter when you desperately cling to your presuppositions.

Tony
Tony

No you are blinded by your presumptions you can't even understand what I am talking about yet alone about biology

Michael Earl Riemer
Michael Earl Riemer

“NO creationism is pseudo-science,” I am sorry Tony, you are totally wrong again! Creationism is not science! It is a belief, a faith, not science. It is a faith based belief of things that took place at the beginning of history, the dawn of time, and the creation of life. Likewise, any statements made by evolutionists about those things are faith based beliefs of things that took place at the beginning of history. Also my belief in God’s creation of the world and life, does not violate the evidence or any observations (as do evolutionists) of science. For the origin of all life, plant, fish, fowl and mankind, was not spontaneous generation, life from inorganic matter, but life from life, life from the Creator, which is in accord with scientific law, that “Life only comes from Life.”

TIA
TIA

"yet fish in actual biology is a phylum and dogs and cats are considered speceis!" So what? There are lots of different ways of classifying animals. Cold-blooded/warmblooded, invertebrate/vertebrate, water "breathing"/air breathing, flying/non-flying, etc. The category you put a certain animal in depends upon the definition. Changing definitions doesn't mean that other categorizations are wrong, it just means they are different. Different ways of classifying things may be useful for different purposes. So there is no reason that the Biblical "kinds" need to correspond exactly to "species" (which is not a fixed category anyway, and there is still debate over what constitutes a species) or "phylum" or any other man-made definition. Having said that, there obviously is some similarity between "kind" and "species", since both have to do with reproductive capability (notwithstanding the disagreements over the definition of species). One of the problem with "species" is the fact that some animals which are known to have been interfertile in the past are no longer. So, to wrap this up...Tony claimed, "there is a perfect agreement on what a “species” is in evolution," but when presented with the fact of the "Species problem," he ignores the evidence to the contrary. Tony is blinded to the truth by his presuppositions.