a change in position: a testimony

PHILLIP

I think I made a post regarding my change in position, but I'm not sure where it is and would like to make it public that I now have no problems with a LITERAL 7 day creation, no gaps, no "ages" instead of days, etc. I want to make this matter public because my previous remarks were based on ignorance and lack of study of the subject matter.

I want to thank Helen publically for inspiring me to do my research and also connecting me with "good science" material which absolutely makes sense.

Besides her not giving up on me and providing good information, I also realized that death did not come to this earth until after the fall of man. If the Bible is to be taken literally (which I never argued with), then there cannot be a gap with dinosaurs that died and fossilized. It was plain and clear -- right in front of my face. I believe it is true that God sometimes hides things from us and lets the Holy Spirit do the work of opening our eyes, when the time is right.

I highly encourage everybody to look at the theories of Dr. Setterfield, as they are extremely well thought out and they allow the Bible to fit perfectly with real, modern science. By taking away the millions of years we pull the rug from under the evolutionists.

Besides, it is so much easier to believe in a designer (I am an electronic designer, so therefore I recognize design when I see it -- believe it or not) than it is to believe in the same odds as the tornado building a perfect 747 when it whips up the material in a junk yard.

Life is simply TOO complex to be accidental. If SETI would quit spending their time looking into space for a message and look at the human Gene structure, they would find the communications of the designer. Sure there may be a close resemblance between genes of apes and humans, but I will give an illustration why: When I design a certain circuit, say for instance to use GPS to guide a cruise missile, why would I waste my time redesigning a perfectly great design if I were to need a GPS locator for an aircraft. So, I simply copy the applicable circuits and only change the circuits related to the specific function. Therefore, looking at the schematic I don't guidance of a cruise missile that just happened to turn into a guide system for a jet fighter, but I do find a schematic with VERY close similarities. In a design only confirms that the same designer built both circuits. Obviously, when God created life and saw that it was "good" he did not have to reinvent the wheel for every single creature.

I have a lot of background in microbiology, too, (due to medical equipment we design and sell, plus a minor in pre-vet subjects--yes I wanted to be a vet and changed to design engineering). I have grown many, many cultures of bacteria (sorry, terrorist jerks, I don't grow Anthrax), but I have seen a lot of adaptation to anti-biotics, etc. for survival purposes. But, you know what is funny, in the millions of generations of cultures I have seen and grown, I have yet to see one grow legs and crawl out of my petri dish.

Bottom line, I want the world to know that Jesus Christ is my Lord and Savior and Genesis 1 through 11 should be seen as literal science. And, again, thank you Helen for helping me see the light. My wife just couldn't understand why I had to argue with the Bible in the first place. She just accepts it and says, why do you spend so much time trying to get around what God actually said? Now I know, I was not being smart.

Phillip

 

SCOTT PAGE

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Besides, it is so much easier to believe in a designer (I am an electronic designer, so therefore I recognize design when I see it -- believe it or not) than it is to believe in the same odds as the tornado building a perfect 747 when it whips up the material in a junk yard. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>


No evolutionist has ever postulated any such thing as an entire functioning organism arising by chance 'as-is.'

 

FROGGIE

Philip,
Thank you for posting your testimony, but I found it to be more of an appeal
to emotion than anything else. Do you have any data you would like to
discuss?

Philip stated, I highly encourage everybody to look at the theories of
Dr. Setterfield, as they are extremely well thought out and they allow the
Bible to fit perfectly with real, modern science.

Is this work published in a peer-reviewed journal such as Science or
Nature? Does he do his own research? If the answer to either
question is "yes," I would be interested in reading his work.

Philip: By taking away the millions of years we pull the rug from under
the evolutionists.

Yet you still think that YECS do objective research, with a statement like
that? Hmmm. . .

Please explain to me how YECS are less biased than "evolutionists,"
keeping in mind the following facts:
1) Young-earth creationists honestly believe that evolutionary theory
contradicts with their religious beliefs.
2) Their sole goal, which they freely admit, is to make science fit the
Bible.
3) "Evolutionists" are a large group of scientists with a variety of
religious beliefs, cultures, countries, and languages.

Philip, I do not think you have been exposed to the real theory of
evolution, but instead a YEC strawman of it. You make statements like
"Besides, it is so much easier to believe in a designer (I am an electronic
designer, so therefore I recognize design when I see it -- believe it or
not) than it is to believe in the same odds as the tornado building a
perfect 747 when it whips up the material in a junk yard" and "But, you know
what is funny, in the millions of generations of cultures I have seen and
grown, I have yet to see one grow legs and crawl out of my petri dish."

Philip, no evolutionary biologist makes these claims. And if you think that
evolution is akin to a tornado assembling a 747 or growing a frog from a
petri dish, than you never really learned about evolution.

Furthermore, evolution does not necessarily rule out a designer, it only
rules out your particular belief about creation.

Please go to talkorigins.org so you actually understand the theory you are
critiquing.

Thank you,

froggie

 

PAUL OF EUGENE

Hello, Phillip, I'm glad you found a way to reconcile your science with your beliefs, because I think having faith in God is important. Perhaps you are aware that I handle these issue differently. I'd like your opinion about your willingness to accept a brother with a biblical interpretation that's different than the young-earth scenario you mentioned. Note that I'm not suggesting you actually change your mind (not in This post at least)

I'm must putting out the outlines here.

Waters, both before light, and waters above and below the firmament = undifferentiated quantum "foam"

Let there be light = big bang

Firmament = 4th dimensional (or higher) hypersphere of the universe

Days of creation = ages

Evening and Morning per day = God's working and then displaying the results

And this final caveat: DAYS of creation not necessarily one after the other, but overlapping, as the different catagories of creation are considered by the narrator.

OK, there's the rough outline. Now, if a brother baptist - say, me - chooses to interpret scripture along that line, what do you think about allowing such a brother to continue fellowshipping in church with you, perhaps teaching a Sunday School class?

 

HELEN

Phillip,

Thank you.
I remember how uncharitable I was to you in our first exchange. Your
ability to pass over my rudeness and still listen to what I was saying
is one of the strongest rebukes I remember having from the Lord in a
long time. Thank you for your example, and I thank Christ for the work
He had already done in your life before you had to deal with me!
And thank you for your willingness to consider evidence which would
cause you to change your mind about something. That is a hard thing to
do, and speaks also of your Christian humility instead of pride.

You see, God had the ground plowed. All I did, aside from insulting you
a few times (I'm still embarrassed), was offer you some material Barry
had worked on where it seemed the data was pointing. You and God did
the rest.

I also know that no man recognizes the truth unless that is what he is
wanting. We tend to recognize what it is we search for.

Thank you again for writing what you have. It will encourage a lot of
people, I think -- including me.

God bless.

Helen

 

BILLY

Philip,

Are you being serious? The reason I ask is because I could read your post as being supportive of Helen's POV or as being some pretty good irony. Being the crusty old man that I am, I read it as being the latter, and enjoyed it immensely, especially given the resposes you evinced. If you are being serious... well, my opinion would not get past the censor since it expresses so much sadness that anyone could be so mistaken about science.

 

PHILLIP

I would like to try to answer a few responses.

Helen, First of all, you never, ever insulted me beyond correcting my misguided point of view and you simply stood tough on your beliefs. I admire you for that and I thank you sooooo much! If you had waivered, I might still be where I was six months back.

Barnabus,
Thank you so much for your kind words and God Bless You!

For the rest of you, my background has always been either a gap theory or a "age" yom theory. If you READ your Bible and don't put words in God's mouth----sorry folks long-age and evolution does not work. So, who are we to believe? A modern evolutionist or God's Words? I have "FAITH" in God's Words. Not an opinion about evolution which seems to vary from person to person in its details

Sorry, Bill, I have no irony for you. You may be older than me and I respect elders, but I respectfully submit that you have your science wrong. Two more things Bill: "Sadness????" haha I've never been so happy that I've finally justified this in my technical-mind after wrestling with God about his creation for years. Secondly, this is a Baptist Board, what in the world do you think the censors are going to do with me if I believe in a literal 6 day creation?

Okay, for you guys who want to pick apart my statement of a tornado and junk yard. I'll rephrase it. First, there was a small downdraft that blew a piece of paper into a folded paper airplane (I'm skipping some detailed steps, but it is my understanding that evolution is also a stepped mechanism.) Then a straight wind came by and blew it up in the air where it caught a rubber-band and a popcicle (registered trade-mark of Popcicle Corp.) stick and the wind wound it up and it found it could fly. The next bigger gust of wind found some old transistors that just happened to tune themselves via the length they were cut out of the old radio to six Global Positioning Satellites and low and behold the little plane knew where it was and how high it was. (Notice 747's never developed eyes---no need---and they can fly themselves today.) So, it flew around some more and found an old model 57 chevy Engine---now it had a problem because the engine was too big for the little paper winds so it putted around until it hit farmer Jone's old barn door made of sheet-steel. Contuing onward with our story. Some day a few million years there was a 747 sitting there waiting on a man to crawl up from a one-celled being and climb in the cockpit, apply throttles and start the engines and fly down the runway (which had developed from all the tornados over the past twenty million years because the plane needed it to fly) and took off into the air and flew to the next city of the most complex machines in the galaxy and landed on the next runway that grew from millions of years of sand blowing in with steel girders.......oh come on guys----pick my theory apart, but no matter how you look at it, to a REAL designer------THAT is what evolution looks like. To a researcher, there is a different mind-set. That is not an insult to a smart researcher, but it does indicate a difference in the way things are analyzed. Yes, I have studied PLENTY of "evolution" in school and could debate that until I'm blue in the face, but it just doesn't work, never did and in my book isn't even a hypothesis, let alone a theory!

For you scientists; yes, some of my statements were tongue-in-cheek and may not be similar to evolution, but you know what? They make just as much sense!

By the way, as indicated in my first post, I NEVER believed in evolution, not once-----the odds are simply mathematically impossible. My only issue was justifying old earth theory with the Bible. With all the new evidence today, there is no need for that. So, that closes the case, in my book.

PAUL OF EUGENE I have more respect for your post because your beliefs are exactly the way I believed over the last 25 years of my life. Now that I am in my 40's I figure it is time to start putting my trust in God and realize that this world is destroying the testimony of Jesus Christ, the Son of God and don't think it is not a planned an organized attack. After years and years of study, plus a little help, it became obvious to me that Genesis is literal and THAT is the Word of God.

The only thing that really scares me is the true liberalism that has gripped our land and I'm afraid that unless we turn back to Christ --- America is going to have a long, rough road. Either that or we will get to see our Savior very soon!

 

RUFUSATTICUS

Phillip,

Your new analogy bears no resemblance to evolution. Where is the descent
with modification? Where is the population of airplanes and selection?
Where is the inheritable material? The inherent problem with the 747 &
tornado analogy is that 747s don't reproduce. The ability of life to
reproduce and the fact that reproduction is imperfect allows evolution to
occur. Airplanes do not satisfy this requirement, and any such analogy
fails in this accord. Your analogy is one about development not
evolution. If you are wondering, you are evidence that development does
happen.

 

BILLY

Sorry, Bill, I have no irony for you.
Billy: My regrets to you sir.


You may be older than me and I respect elders,

Billy: Nah, I’ve been like I am since my early twenties. Ask any of my friends Besides, I would not want respect from anyone simply because of my age, percieved or otherwise.


but I respectfully submit that you have your science wrong.

Billy: And I respectfully submit that the knowledge that you based that estimation on is shallow. The only people that I have ever met who reject evolution are either those that do not understand it, or those whose religious convictions cannot allow them to accept it.


Two more things Bill: "Sadness????" haha I've never been so happy that I've finally justified this in my technical-mind after wrestling with God about his creation for years.

Billy: Well, since the sadness that I was talking about was my own, I am not sure how to answer this, except to say that my pleasure that you are happy is severely tempered by my belief that your happiness is based on faulty knowledge of the subject you are rejecting.


Secondly, this is a Baptist Board, what in the world do you think the censors are going to do with me if I believe in a literal 6 day creation?

Billy: Again, I think you misread the meaning of my post. I expect the censors on this board to have exactly the same attitude towards 6-day creationism as they have towards thorough-going Darwinism. They will post both expressions as long as it meets their standards. I could have made a much more forthright expression of my opinion of your new position, but didn’t, knowing it would be futile, since it would disappear down a black hole.

 

ARROWMAN

Phillip, you said you would "rephrase" your 747 analogy but all you have
done is provide more detail. There was no need to go to all that trouble;
we knew what you meant the first time, and we know why it's false reasoning.

Please consider the following brief points and let me know your response:

1. Junk in a junkyard does not reproduce.
2. There is no environmental pressure which favours the development of
aircraft from reproducing junk.
3. Evolution and natural selection is not a random process.

For these reasons alone, the 747 analogy is quite fallacious. In particular
(see point 3 above) it is based on a lack of understanding of the mechanisms
of evolution and natural selection - something you claim to have 'studied
plenty and could debate until you are blue in the face'.

Supplementary question: Please define the terms "designer" and "researcher"
as you have used them, and explain why these two classes of people would
"analyse things in different ways".

 

PHILLIP

Please, please, folks I am trying to use allegorical statements rather than actual systems which simulate evolution. I think everybody is misunderstanding me.

My only point on the 747 is that ---yes, a 747 won't reproduce---yet, the odds of reproduceable life are about the same. Please, don't try to pick apart my theories ---- because they are simply tongue-in-cheek statements of the way I feel about evolution. NOT, replications of an evolutionary process. I totally understand that evolution does not work that way, I studied tons and tons of it in school-----just can't agree with it.

My REAL point is that as a "designer" I can see design all around me and I also take Genesis 1 through 11 literally, not liberally.

Bill, maybe that is the only people you have met who believe in evolution, but I happen to know a lot of both researchers AND designers who take evolution as "bad science". No offense, but, I don't feel a shallow mind is required to reject evolution.

I also know that researchers tend to look down on "engineers" (designers) just as designers have a tendency to look down upon technicians---the fact is, it takes all kinds of people to make this world work and the designers tend to have a second nature about them (not necessarily talking about myself, but some very wise engineers) who know what works and what does not and they "recognize design" better than some researchers (at least in my opinion). This is NOT an insult, just a difference in the mind set between most of you who are researchers and possibly don't understand "my" mindset and where I come from. This is evidenced in the fact that you are trying to pick apart my comparisons "literally" when I don't intend them that way. This is not to be insulting to anybody, only to show that we all have different ways of viewing the world and I am simply presenting mine, even though it may not obtain as much respect as a full research scientist.

 

PAUL OF EUGENE

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>[originally from Phillip to Paul of Eugene] I have more respect for your post because your beliefs are exactly the way I believed over the last 25 years of my life. Now that I am in my 40's I figure it is time to start putting my trust in God and realize that this world is destroying the testimony of Jesus Christ, the Son of God and don't think it is not a planned an organized attack. After years and years of study, plus a little help, it became obvious to me that Genesis is literal and THAT is the Word of God.

The only thing that really scares me is the true liberalism that has gripped our land and I'm afraid that unless we turn back to Christ --- America is going to have a long, rough road. Either that or we will get to see our Savior very soon! <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Alas, you have missed the depth of the treachery of the enemy. The enemy seeks to divide us between those who seek truth through science and reject God and those who seek God and reject the findings of science. As for liberalism versus conservatism, may God save us from the dangers of Enron style conservatism. The true peril on our national scene is not liberalism versus conservatism - another false dichotomy spread by the enemy - but honesty versus thieves.

 

MARC BATES

Phillip:

You do not need to modify or change your analogy of the 747 in a junkyard. Everything that the evolutionists say about your analogy holds up for what it is trying to demonstrate. Chemicals do not reproduce, chemicals to not randomly form together into amino acids, then into proteins, and then into life. The formation of proteins and life from non-life is another thread so I won’t go any farther here, but the 747 analogy works just fine.

As to the old straw man argument about creation scientists not publishing in peer reviewed journals. There are two very good peer reviewed journals; Technical Journal and Creation Research Quarterly that you will find have excellent articles and ongoing discussions on creation issues, some even have been from non-creationists. Unlike evolutionist peer reviewed journals (science, nature, et al) that refuse to publish a single piece of research or rebuttal by a creation scientist, TJ and CRSQ have allowed non-creationists to respond to research presented by creation scientists. Peer reviewed journals do not publish everything that is presented to them. It first has to go through a review committee. Since evolutionist peer review journals reject with prejudice anything written from a creation standpoint, you will never see a creation paper written in one of their peer review journals.


Marc S. Bates
Romans 1:16
I am not ashamed of the gospel,
because it is the power of God for the salvation of everyone who believes:
first for the Jew, then for the Gentile.
www.66-40.com

 

HELEN

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Alas, you have missed the depth of the treachery of the enemy.
The enemy seeks to divide us between those who seek truth through
science and reject God and those who seek God and reject the findings of
science. As for liberalism versus conservatism, may God save us from the
dangers of Enron style conservatism. The true peril on our national
scene is not liberalism versus conservatism - another false dichotomy
spread by the enemy - but honesty versus thieves.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I don’t think those who seek God reject the findings of science, only
the conclusions of some scientists! Although I do not agree with
everything Malcolm Bowden espouses, I fully agree with the title of his
book, “True Science Agrees with the Bible.”

Perhaps the telling point is whether one takes science’s finite
knowledge as superior to God’s when there is a seeming discrepancy.

As far as Enron goes, it is not a matter of ‘conservatism’ there, as
they appealed to all alike, Republicans and Democrats! It is more a
matter of human nature there: selfish and manipulative. It is this we
get saved from by Christ, not a political party.

Your last sentence gave me a double-take: Honesty vs. thieves? Is a
thief who admits he stole something then an honest thief? Perhaps the
peril is truth vs. lie…

And, to Phillip: you don’t need to apologize for a thing. Your
intelligence and education are just fine, and God bless you.

Helen

 

RUFUSATTICUS

Marc,

Some chemicals can reproduce themselves using material found in their
environment. Mad Cow Disease is propagated by proteins that have a peculiar
ability to reproduce themselves by modifying other proteins.
http://www.mad-cow.org/

Nucleic acids also have the ability to propagate themselves by acting as
templates. You and me are examples of this ability.

The reason why peer-reviewed scientific journals don't publish creationist
works is that creationism is a religious belief and not science.
Here are two court decisions that affirmed what scientists had been saying
all along.
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=393&invol=97
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/edwards-v-aguillard.html


If you believe that there is a scientific bias against creationism, do you
have any verifiable evidence that creationist literature was rejected from
publications for reasons other than its scientific value? Maybe we don't
see creationist works is because they never even try to get them published?
I have also read a few creationist publications and have not once seen a
single rebuttal from an "evolutionist." Could you please provide a
reference? I would very much enjoy reading it.

Thanx, Rufus.

 

KEVIN KLEIN

Marc Bates wrote:
<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Since evolutionist peer review journals reject with prejudice
anything written from a creation standpoint<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Do you have evidence for this claim?

 

FROGGIE

Hello all,
Marc stated, There are two very good peer reviewed journals; Technical
Journal and Creation Research Quarterly that you will find have excellent
articles and ongoing discussions on creation issues, some even have been
from non-creationists. [...] Since evolutionist peer review journals reject
with prejudice anything written from a creation standpoint, you will never
see a creation paper written in one of their peer review journals.

I will try to find and read these journals on line. If you have a link,
that would be helpful. I have a question for you though Marc, will these
journals publish only evidence against evolution? If the answer is
no, than how is this journal any less biased?

Warning: rambling thoughts from a scientist ensue:

One of the reasons I grow frustrated with the evolution/creation debate is
that it tends to demonize both science and religion. I work in the
scientific field, and have done so for the last several years. The idea
that scientists are pulling some sort of "evolutionist conspiracy" is
ludicrous. When you say "scientists," you are talking about a large group
of people, encompassing all nations, cultures, and religions. When we say
"The scientific community supports evolution," we mean scientists from the
USA, pakistan, israel, russia, france, etc. We mean scientists who are
Christian, Muslim, Jew, Atheist, and Buddhist.

In my department alone, we have several muslims, several christians
(evangelical, lutheran, catholic, and mormon), atheists, agnostics, and
various asian religions. We have republicans, democrats, and independants.
In terms of politics and religion, there is very little that our lab would
ever agree on, in order to pull off a vast 'conspiracy.' And Montana is one
of the least diverse states!

What we do agree on, however, is that the scientific process is a good way
to ascertain facts about science. If humans want to understand their world
in order to make it better (such as curing disease, saving biodiversity,
finding better ways to grow crops), they must first learn about this world,
and how it works. Scientists are simply people who like to learn how the
world works. That is about the only stereotype that will apply across the
board when you say "All scientists. . . "

I hope I can put to rest the idea that there is an anti-religion
evolutionist "conspiracy." Now, perhaps you think that scientists are all
misguided. That may be true. But is it likely that scientists, who are the
ones actually generating and studying the data, are more misguided
about the scientific facts than the creationists? Consider the year in the
life of froggie, a graduate student in cell biology:

1) Every friday I attend Journal Club. One graduate student presents a
paper, and we critique it--from the methods to the conclusions. A variety
of fields are covered--anything in biology is fair game. This process
allows us to refine our critical thinking skills, as well as learn to
critically evaluate published works--a very important part of being a
scientist. Why is this important? Well, some reports about a similar topic
give conflicting results. As a scientist, you learn how to read and review
these papers to come up with a more "global" conclusion. Perhaps one paper
that showed an increase in variable X were looking in mice, and the other
paper was looking at humans.

I honestly feel that even my bachelor's degree with honors in biomedicine
with a minor in biochemistry was not enough to train me to be a scientist.
The background I learned was important (you have to know what cells are
before you can work with them), but I did not really learn how to do
science, or to evaluate science, until I went to graduate school.

2) Once a year I am required to give a formal seminar to the department. In
this seminar, I present my hypothesis, my data, and my conclusions. Faculty
then ask questions, which is one of the most important parts of the seminar.
The questions are designed to find "holes" in my research, to make sure my
conclusions are valid.

3) About once or twice a year, my data gets submitted (along with other
data) to be published by a "peer-reviewed" journal. There are some flaws in
this process. Unfortunately, because of human nature (or satan, whichever
you believe ), people have been known to fabricate data. Also, there can
be 'conflicts of interest' in the peer review process--let's say a reviewer
comes across a paper very similar to their own research. They might reject
the paper, than steal the ideas and publish it themselves! However, I feel
the caveats of the peer-review process are outweighed by the benefits.
Allowing your work to undergo intense scrutiny by educated peers I think is
the best way for the process to go. In fact, I cannot think of a better
way, although I can think of ways to improve the peer-review process.
Incidentally, many creationists often bring up the few cases of fraud. They
fail to mention that the fraud was detected by other scientists (who are
also evolutionary supporters), not by creationists. Nothing makes a
scientist more happy than proving someone else wrong.

4) About once a year, my lab goes to a scientific conference. This year,
it's in New Orleans Woo Hoo! At these conferences, you go to various
seminars pertaining to your field, and you attend poster sessions. You get
to interact with a variety of other scientists to exchange information and
ideas. Also, these meetings are a great rejuvenator for people burned out
from the sometimes tedious work of science.

5) And just every day, I am talking with people in my lab, and other labs,
and reading new articles, about my work. I am continuously evaluating and
re-evaluating my knowledge and working hypotheses about neutrophils.

So, there are several ways to keep scientists in check. The theory of
evolution has been subjected to these types of scrutinies by a very diverse
group of scientists for over 100 years. And while it has been modified, and
certainly added to, it has not yet been proven false.

In my experience with religion, you see the opposite of the above. There
was never a question-and-answer session after my priest's homily. In fact,
questioning the priest, and the Bible, was discouraged (if not outright
forbidden). We all know that human interpretations of an event or a text
can vary a lot from person to person. My experience as a scientist tells me
that honest inquiry and critical thought is not just the best way to
elicidate the truth, it is the only way.

The only creation research institution I am familiar with is ICR. The
employees of ICR are required to sign a form stating something like, "I
believe in a literal interpretation of Genesis, and I will work to find data
which supports that view." This procedure is an anathema to the way that
legitimate science works. Imagine if a pharmaceutical company did the same
thing: Let's say they are working on a drug which cures diabetes, and their
employees are required to sign the following form: "I believe that Drug Z
will cure diabetes, and my results will reflect that belief." I would never
buy a drug from that company, ever! Requiring a "statement of faith" -
either for OR against a theory - should not be done.

Another point I would like to make: Much of the evidence you will see for
evolution was not gathered for the sole purpose of irritating creationists.
Really, I promise!

Our lab, for example, studies the neutrophil. Neutrophils are a type of
white blood cell which fight off bacterial and fungal pathogens. If you are
born without functional neutrophils (such as CGD patients), you very often
die at a young age, due to sepsis of normally harmless infections. However,
in some diseases like arthritis, neutrophils can become over-activated, and
cause tissue damage. Our lab is trying to figure out how neutrophils work,
so we can tweak their responses as desired.

One of the ways we study neutrophils is to compare them in other species.
Our lab has studied neutrophil enzyme sequences in several organisms,
including buffalo! Now, this sequence data correlated with the suspected
evolutionary phylogenies. But that was not the reason we sequenced the
proteins--we are trying to find functional significance in the differences.
Much of the genetic data you see which supports evolution was not sequenced
to support evolution (it just happened to do so). This makes it even more
unlikely that scientists fabricated their data. Remember--our lab is truly
interested in the differences between buffalo and cattle neutrophils so we
can design drugs to combat cattle and buffalo-specific diseases, like
brucellosis. Lying about the sequence data "to make it fit evolution" would
be a really dumb move on our part (not to mention unnecessary).

A lot of scientists are completely unaware, or mostly unaware, of the
evolution-creation controversy, and therefore do not spend time trying to
debunk some of the myths and false information that is out there.
A great many other scientists have better things to do, like try to cure
cancer or arthritis. Sure, our lab could switch our goals from trying to
cure disease to proving evolution. But why? I would much rather come up
with a treatment for arthritis. My boss, who is an evangelical Christian,
believes in Intelligent Design. But he also recognizes the validity of the
evolutionary model, and he is using it to try and cure diseases like
arthritis or brucellosis. He has realized that believing in God helps him
as a person, but believing in evolution helps him as a scientist. He in no
way feels conflicted, because in all cases, he is simply seeking answers,
and using those answers to help us understand ourselves and our world. So
please, quit making it sound like Christianity and evolution are opposites,
because they clearly are not!

Thanks for listening, and if anyone has any questions about how scientists
work, or how the scientific process works, please ask!

froggie

 

MARC BATES

Some examples of creation scientists being discriminated against. Note, I only used online articles to provide an easy way to verify my quotes. I have many other examples in print, but this should suffice.

Creationists such as Humphreys have extensive publications in mainstream journals on non-creationist topics. As mentioned previously, the article by Scott & Cole was a search for articles openly espousing creationism, which is a different matter altogether. Creationists who publish scientific research in mainstream journals have found that they can publish articles with data having creationist implications, but will not get articles with openly creationist conclusions published. When they attempt to do this, their articles are usually rejected. Those who are well-known to evolutionists as creationists have more difficulty even with articles which do not have obvious creationist implications.

In the summer of 1985 Humphreys wrote to the journal Science pointing out that openly creationist articles are suppressed by most journals. He asked if Science had “a hidden policy of suppressing creationist letters.” Christine Gilbert, the letters editor, replied and admitted, “It is true that we are not likely to publish creationist letters.” This admission is particularly significant since Science’s official letters policy is that they represent “the range of opinions received.” e.g., letters must be representative of part of the spectrum of opinions. Yet of all the opinions they receive, Science does not print the creationist ones.

Humphreys’ letter and Ms Gilbert’s reply are reprinted in the book, Creation’s Tiny Mystery, by physicist Robert V. Gentry (Earth Science Associates, Knoxville, Tennessee, 2nd edition, 1988.)

On May 19, 1992 Humphreys submitted his article * “Compton scattering and the cosmic microwave background bumps” to the Scientific Correspondence section of the British journal Nature. The editorial staff knew Humphreys was a creationist and didn’t want to publish it (even though the article did not contain any glaring creationist implications). The editorial staff didn’t even want to send it through official peer review. Six months later Nature published an article by someone else on the same topic, having the same conclusions. Thus, most creationist researchers realize it is simply a waste of time to send journal editors openly creationist articles. To say that a “slight bias” exists on the part of journal editors would be an understatement.

Full article: http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs/538.asp



But this is one good thing to come out of this — further evidence of the censorship of creationist submissions to establishment science journals, even to the point of denying the natural justice of a right of reply. Dr Robert Gentry has documented this in his book Creation’s Tiny Mystery. Recently, Scientific American refused to allow Phillip Johnson to defend himself against a vindictive and petty review by the atheistic Marxist, Stephen Jay Gould. So Johnson published Response to Gould on the web site of Access Research Network, which promotes Intelligent Design.
http://www.leaderu.com/orgs/arn/orpages/or151/151johngould.htm


It just shows that materialism is an entrenched ideology in the scientific establishment that must silence all critics. Scientific American has also shown that it is willing to practise religious discrimination in its hiring policies to achieve this aim — see Revolutionary Atmospheric Invention by Victim of Anti-creationist Discrimination.

Full Article: http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs2001/0406news.asp

Even today, some members of the scientific establishment have seemed nearly as illiberal toward religion as the church once was to science. In 1990, for instance, Scientific American declined to hire a columnist, Forrest Mims, after learning that he had religious doubts about evolution.4

Small wonder that many creationists write under pseudonyms or otherwise hide their beliefs from the establishment.

Full Article: http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs/195.asp


As to the request to provide responses to creationist articles by non-creationists, unless you have access to back issues of TJ (formally Technical Journal), you would not be able to read them. If you do, I can try to look them up. I will admit that they are few in number and I do not have the computerized index of all the articles and replies, making such a search a little cumbersome.

Rufasatticus said:

“Some chemicals can reproduce themselves using material found in their
environment. “

-- Can you provide an example of this please?

“Mad Cow Disease is propagated by proteins that have a peculiar
ability to reproduce themselves by modifying other proteins. http://www.mad-cow.org/ “

-- How about a better reference, I do not have the time to wade through the entire site you mentioned to find an article that you did not name specifically. It would help me to understand what you are referring to. Thank you.


“Nucleic acids also have the ability to propagate themselves by acting as
templates. You and me are examples of this ability.”

Ah, but how is this done? Nucleotides (DNA, RNA) require specific enzymes (proteins) to process the reproduction process. But enzymes require DNA to be produced. Which came first? Nucleic acids do not just simply propagate -- it is a highly complex interaction that does not take place randomly.

Marc S. Bates

Romans 1:16
I am not ashamed of the gospel,
because it is the power of God for the salvation of everyone who believes:
first for the Jew, then for the Gentile. www.66-40.com

 

RUFUSATTICUS

Hi Marc, I'll address your comments to me first.

You asked me to give examples of chemicals that can propagate themselves.
Prions and nucleic acids are such chemicals. (I'm using "chemical" in a
broad sense here. If it helps you, just replace "chemical" with molecule.)

Prions: http://www.mad-cow.org/~tom/prion_evol.html

Pay close attention to the paragraphs concerning disease transmission.

Nucleic Acids:
<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR> Ah, but how is this done? Nucleotides (DNA, RNA) require specific
enzymes (proteins) to process the reproduction process. But enzymes require
DNA to be produced. Which came first? Nucleic acids do not just simply
propagate -- it is a highly complex interaction that does not take place
randomly.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Nucleic acids became associated with life before amino acids. Some RNAs do
have the ability to act as enzymes. Thus proteins were not necessary for
the earliest forms of life. Furthermore, nucleic acids do not require
enzymes to replicate. It is just more efficient and accurate if enzymes
help. Evolution favored organisms with a high fidelity of replication,
thus early forms of life have been replaced by later froms. However, there
is still evidence that the earliest forms of life consisted of
self-replication RNAs, possibly associated in membranes. If you are
interested, I could email you some links about the RNA world hypothesis.

For the comments not directly addressed to me:

Marc, could you please distinguish quotes when you use them? I found that
most of your post consisted of quotes from the works you cited. If I had
not read the linked webpages, I'd think they were your own words. Thanx.

[Administrator: this may have been our fault in formatting. Clear marking of quotes using formatting for italics or quotes is appreciated.]

I know that many creationists do publish in mainstream journals. A
creationist can practice good science so long as it doesn't interfere with
their religious beliefs (or the other way around). However, when a
scientist writes a paper and their religious beliefs become involved, they
are no longer practicing good science. Scientific journals are very biased;
they are biased towards good science. Journals reject many papers,
including those upholding Darwin's dangerous idea, because they will only
publish those that fit high standards. They reject creationist papers for
the same reason they'd reject a paper that claimed the earth was flat or
that demons cause diseases or that there were only four elements. Such
claims were proved wrong by science a long time ago. The main problem with
creationists, who are also good scientists, is that not a single one is an
evolutionary biologist. They might do really good science in their field,
but have absolutely no qualifications in another field. It is no surprise
then that when they write papers in a field outside of their own, especially
ones critical of that field which ignore the progress made in it, it is no
surprise that they do not measure up. I am an evolutionary biologist, but
you won't catch me telling an engineer how bridges should be made.
Likewise, I'd hope bridge-makers wouldn't be so haughty as to tell me what
my field should do.

You mentioned a few papers that got rejected. I suspect that they were
rejected based solely on their scientific value. The sites you
linked to did not convince me otherwise. To convince me you'll probably
have to provide the actual papers in their submitted form and the comments
of the reviewer. (Yes, I know this is a difficult task, but it is the only
way to gauge the actual reasons for the rejection.) The author's opinion is
not always objective, since we all think our work is good enough to be
published.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR> As to the request to provide responses to creationist articles by
non-creationists, unless you have access to back issues of TJ (formally
Technical Journal), you would not be able to read them. If you do, I can try
to look them up. I will admit that they are few in number and I do not have
the computerized index of all the articles and replies, making such a search
a little cumbersome.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I'm persistent. I'm sure that I can get a hold of TJ if I need to. I am
very skeptible about your claim and would like to read whatever you can dig
up.

-RvFvS