BioLogos encounters Ark Encounter

Sedgwick, Adam to Darwin - 24 Nov 1859 Excerpt: There is a moral or metaphysical part of nature as well as a physical. A man who denies this is deep in the mire of folly.,, http://www.darwinproject.ac.uk/entry-2548 bornagain77

rvb8, and exactly how do you think that particular quote helps you in the least in your atheistic beliefs? Sympathy, reason, and 'noblest part of our nature' are all attributes that find their root in the Theistic worldview. When you find material particles displaying sympathy, reasoning to truthful conclusions, or displaying sacrificial love for other material particles, you let me know will ya?! bornagain77

BA77, I know those quotes you give us (constantly and repetatively), because I regularly read these two books you have at best thumbed through. Before you bluster up and claim to have read and studied them fully, I must say, please remember Commandment 9 of the Decalogue, in the Reformed tradition. Here's a Darwin quote for you; "Nor could we check our sympathy, even at the urging of hard reason,without deterioration in the noblest part of our nature." Because you are so plainly a Darwin expert, I'll let you go back to your well thumbed copies, and tell me where it came from; hint, it's from part one:'The evolution of man'. Should be easy for you to find as it's the only part of 'The Descent' creationists read, or rather glance at, and cherry pick from. rvb8

Has anyone seen this trailer? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r7e6gLht6OQ&app=desktop It relates directly to the topic of dishonest claims about race and racism. I wish that BioLogos had confronted Darwinian (yes, real) racism as it really is. That would have been far more useful than their "Saving Darwin" schtick. News

No such people as european Americans. No such people as African Americans. There are americans and then African citizens of America. The truth. words matter. The bible strongly hints that all there is IS segregated populations that come under influence from the environment. So there are Semitic Blacks and hamitic blacks in africa. Its just about where you live. Not a DNA trail from common ancestors. In fact evolutionists have troub;e explaing the looks/race concepts of man. This because they must first have a population evole to certain looks/traits and then separate and get new languages. It doesn't work. A creationist easily sees people changing irrelevant to language. For example all europeans, almost. spoke thier new l;languages at babel and before moving to europe in these segregated groups. THEN they turned white. Robert Byers

“At some future period, not very distant as measured by centuries, the civilised races of man will almost certainly exterminate, and replace, the savage races throughout the world.” – Charles Darwin, The Descent of Man, 1874, p. 178 In the 1933 Nuremberg party rally, Hitler proclaimed that ‘higher race subjects to itself a lower race …a right which we see in nature and which can be regarded as the sole conceivable right,’ because it was founded on science.15 https://answersingenesis.org/charles-darwin/racism/darwinism-and-the-nazi-race-holocaust/

Interestingly, as far as the science of genetics itself is concerned, Africans are actually genetically superior to Caucasians. In other words, The Africans should be worried about Caucasians contaminating their gene pool, not the other way around as the Nazis thought.

Human Genetic Variation Recent, Varies Among Populations - (Nov. 28, 2012) Excerpt: Nearly three-quarters of mutations in genes that code for proteins -- the workhorses of the cell -- occurred within the past 5,000 to 10,000 years,,, "One of the most interesting points is that Europeans have more new deleterious (potentially disease-causing) mutations than Africans,",,, "Having so many of these new variants can be partially explained by the population explosion in the European population. However, variation that occur in genes that are involved in Mendelian traits and in those that affect genes essential to the proper functioning of the cell tend to be much older." (A Mendelian trait is controlled by a single gene. Mutations in that gene can have devastating effects.) The amount variation or mutation identified in protein-coding genes (the exome) in this study is very different from what would have been seen 5,000 years ago,,, The report shows that "recent" events have a potent effect on the human genome. Eighty-six percent of the genetic variation or mutations that are expected to be harmful arose in European-Americans in the last five thousand years, said the researchers. The researchers used established bioinformatics techniques to calculate the age of more than a million changes in single base pairs (the A-T, C-G of the genetic code) that are part of the exome or protein-coding portion of the genomes (human genetic blueprint) of 6,515 people of both European-American and African-American decent.,,, http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2012/11/121128132259.htm "We found an enormous amount of diversity within and between the African populations, and we found much less diversity in non-African populations," Tishkoff told attendees today (Jan. 22) at the annual meeting of the American Association for the Advancement of Science in Anaheim. "Only a small subset of the diversity in Africa is found in Europe and the Middle East, and an even narrower set is found in American Indians." Tishkoff; Andrew Clark, Penn State; Kenneth Kidd, Yale University; Giovanni Destro-Bisol, University "La Sapienza," Rome, and Himla Soodyall and Trefor Jenkins, WITS University, South Africa, looked at three locations on DNA samples from 13 to 18 populations in Africa and 30 to 45 populations in the remainder of the world.-

And although Africans are more genetically healthy than Caucasians, the entire human race, Africans included, are actually devolving instead of evolving into some type of super humans as the Nazis thought:

If Modern Humans Are So Smart, Why Are Our Brains Shrinking? - January 20, 2011 Excerpt: John Hawks is in the middle of explaining his research on human evolution when he drops a bombshell. Running down a list of changes that have occurred in our skeleton and skull since the Stone Age, the University of Wisconsin anthropologist nonchalantly adds, “And it’s also clear the brain has been shrinking.” “Shrinking?” I ask. “I thought it was getting larger.” The whole ascent-of-man thing.,,, He rattles off some dismaying numbers: Over the past 20,000 years, the average volume of the human male brain has decreased from 1,500 cubic centimeters to 1,350 cc, losing a chunk the size of a tennis ball. The female brain has shrunk by about the same proportion. “I’d call that major downsizing in an evolutionary eyeblink,” he says. “This happened in China, Europe, Africa—everywhere we look.” http://discovermagazine.com/2010/sep/25-modern-humans-smart-why-brain-shrinking Scientists Discover Proof That Humanity Is Getting Dumber, Smaller And Weaker By Michael Snyder, on April 29th, 2014 Excerpt: An earlier study by Cambridge University found that mankind is shrinking in size significantly. Experts say humans are past their peak and that modern-day people are 10 percent smaller and shorter than their hunter-gatherer ancestors. And if that’s not depressing enough, our brains are also smaller. The findings reverse perceived wisdom that humans have grown taller and larger, a belief which has grown from data on more recent physical development. The decline, said scientists, has happened over the past 10,000 years. http://thetruthwins.com/archives/scientists-discover-proof-that-humanity-is-getting-dumber-smaller-and-weaker

Supplemental notes:

Genetic Entropy – peer reviewed references http://www.geneticentropy.org/#!properties/ctzx The waiting time problem in a model hominin population - 2015 Sep 17 John Sanford, Wesley Brewer, Franzine Smith, and John Baumgardner Excerpt: The program Mendel’s Accountant realistically simulates the mutation/selection process,,, Given optimal settings, what is the longest nucleotide string that can arise within a reasonable waiting time within a hominin population of 10,000? Arguably, the waiting time for the fixation of a “string-of-one” is by itself problematic (Table 2). Waiting a minimum of 1.5 million years (realistically, much longer), for a single point mutation is not timely adaptation in the face of any type of pressing evolutionary challenge. This is especially problematic when we consider that it is estimated that it only took six million years for the chimp and human genomes to diverge by over 5 % [1]. This represents at least 75 million nucleotide changes in the human lineage, many of which must encode new information. While fixing one point mutation is problematic, our simulations show that the fixation of two co-dependent mutations is extremely problematic – requiring at least 84 million years (Table 2). This is ten-fold longer than the estimated time required for ape-to-man evolution. In this light, we suggest that a string of two specific mutations is a reasonable upper limit, in terms of the longest string length that is likely to evolve within a hominin population (at least in a way that is either timely or meaningful). Certainly the creation and fixation of a string of three (requiring at least 380 million years) would be extremely untimely (and trivial in effect), in terms of the evolution of modern man. It is widely thought that a larger population size can eliminate the waiting time problem. If that were true, then the waiting time problem would only be meaningful within small populations. While our simulations show that larger populations do help reduce waiting time, we see that the benefit of larger population size produces rapidly diminishing returns (Table 4 and Fig. 4). When we increase the hominin population from 10,000 to 1 million (our current upper limit for these types of experiments), the waiting time for creating a string of five is only reduced from two billion to 482 million years. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4573302/

bornagain77

Ted,

Be careful, very careful. What you say is highly misleading. When writing in a general biological context, the default meaning of “race(s)” for 19th century authors was “types of animals and plants,” not specifically humans (though humans are a type of animal and were thereby included by the general reference to “race(s).”

Exactly, race was simply the term then for separate populations within a species. Populations that can adapt to their environment and survive continue to diversify, while those that can't adapt die out. Strange thing is that Creationists usually claim that even the typical young-earth Creationist doesn’t dispute that part of Darwin’s theory; that of course populations often adapt to changing environments, and that this will result in variations within a species. But then in the next breath they’ll claim that this claim is racist! And although Darwin applied the term races to humans, he actually questioned in Descent of Man whether different groups of humans form true biological races. At one point he even seems to mock those that try to discern how many human races exist, pointing out that those that have tried have claimed anywhere from 2 to 63 races. Andre,

And people wonder why can’t get past the race thing everyday in our schools we teach one group they are better, the other group that they are just above Gorilla’s and then we wonder about the hate we see…..

Wow, did you go to school in the 1840s?? That certain human races were just about certain apes was a common belief among pre-Darwinists and Darwin's opponents. Darwin actually spent a lot of time in Descent of Man arguing against, as it was a particularly common belief among polygenists. At the beginning of the very same paragraph as the quote in #28 he claims that there is a "great break" between man and apes. He claims that the gap exists because of extinctions. And just as the gap will widen even further in the future due to future extinctions, that the gap was smaller in the past. And so, far from claiming that a gap didn’t exist, he was attempting to explain why it exists, and why it is so big. goodusername

And people wonder why can't get past the race thing everyday in our schools we teach one group they are better, the other group that they are just above Gorilla's and then we wonder about the hate we see..... Darwin is the cause of more misery in the last 150 years that all the misery combined before him..... Yet people hang onto his words because hey it makes for intellectually fulfilled atheism.... Andre

Just as it was in Jesus day, as it was and is today. In Jesus day, people often misused religion as a means to get and hold onto power. In fact, the religious leaders of Jesus day, who oversaw the massive Temple, did not even recognize their own Messiah, Jesus, who was standing right before them, (save for perhaps Nicodemus), even though their very own scriptures, which they studied diligently, prophesied His coming. So as it is today. Too many pastors today are willing to compromise scripture and say what is popular instead of what is true. Such as the people of Biologos who are willing compromise what is true in order to look good in other people's, particularly Darwinists', eyes. That Darwin was racist is no hidden secret. That his pseudo-scientific theory was used to 'scientifically' justify the slaughter of millions of 'inferior' races is also no big secret.

"At some future period, not very distant as measured by centuries, the civilised races of man will almost certainly exterminate, and replace, the savage races throughout the world. At the same time the anthropomorphous apes, as Professor Schaaffhausen has remarked, will no doubt be exterminated. The break between man and his nearest allies will then be wider, for it will intervene between man in a more civilised state, as we may hope, even than the Caucasian, and some ape as low as a baboon, instead of as now between the negro or Australian and the gorilla" - Charles Darwin, The Descent of Man, 1874, p. 178

The only people who would even try to deny such a undeniable fact of history are people who have a vested personal, even a religious, interest in it not being true. bornagain77

also for BA @16, where he said, "Whereas, whomever is a racist because of Darwinian evolution is being perfectly consistent to Darwin’s teaching of ‘favored races’. That was the subtitle of his book for crying out loud!" Be careful, very careful. What you say is highly misleading. When writing in a general biological context, the default meaning of "race(s)" for 19th century authors was "types of animals and plants," not specifically humans (though humans are a type of animal and were thereby included by the general reference to "race(s)." A few years ago I tabulated all references to "race(s)" in the Origin of Species, and the overwhelming number are to various types of plants and/or animals, even to "race-horses" or the "race for life." Such things as cabbages, pigeons, and species or varieties are by far the most common meanings, in context. Just a handful of references involve humans. Ted Davis

for BA @16, who said this: "Martin Luther King and William Wilberforce would be first to vehemently argue with you that whomever used the bible to condone the practice of slavery was severely twisting scripture out of context. In fact, whomever is a racist because of the Bible is blatantly ignoring the fact that the bible clearly teaches all men have been created equal by God." My sentiments (and yours) are with King and Wilberforce, but it's plainly true that the Bible was often used to support race-based slavery in the USA. Strict Calvinists were among those who did so most vigorously; see this series by historian and Church of Christ pastor Monte Hampton: http://biologos.org/blogs/ted-davis-reading-the-book-of-nature/having-bacon-with-their-bible-southern-christians-and-the-race-question Ted Davis

Yep. As the Slate recently put it, "Most people who study evolution see no evidence of or need for God in the history of life on Earth. For them, something like BioLogos is a stopgap, the training wheels you put on your bike before realizing you can ride without them." wrossite

j-mac at 20: In practice, when prosecuting fraud, lawful authorities must consider the likelihood of success in a given case rather than dictionary definitions. News

People who give in the rejections of yEC are simply not the sharpest people. So YEC could be culling the herd. The modern YEC movement is well done and successful relative to ability to reach audiences. Biologos, which banned me for saying the anglo American civilization was superior because of the Puritan/evangelical motivation affect on raising the common peoples moral and intellect quotient. They called me racist. I don't think they are very Christian but we are told not to judge (i guess i just did, i don't know). If they want to prove genesis is false then they must demonstrate when IS the bible telling a accurate account and when not. Every second page? How does this work. Evangelicals trust God made the bible and don't trust the few humans who say they know the bible is false from science. Simple conclusion. These "scientists" don't accomplish anything in evidence. jUst speculation with a paycheque from us. Evolutionism will not last 15 years i predict. As is. Robert Byers

Harm comes to science not by people hoping to find a particular result but by people trying to suppress results that go against their hopes.

When we consider who has the power to suppress unwelcome results, we see right away that the view most likely to cause suppression is the majority view of the scientific community. - Axe, Douglas. Undeniable: How Biology Confirms Our Intuition That Life Is Designed. Mung

News @ 9 "As a Canadian taxpayer, I don’t want to pay for frauds, but I also do not want to pay for a hair trigger system that could result in partisan persecutions. It’s a balance." Are you suggesting that there are different kinds or levels of fraud? Last time I checked my dictionary the word "fraud" was still closely correlated with intent. J-Mac

OT: Undeniable: How Biology Confirms Our Intuition That Life Is Designed released today. UD management asleep at the wheel. ;)

Berkeley psychology professor Alison Gopnik described the challenge this causes for teachers of evolution in a recent Wall Street Journal column. “By elementary-school age,” she wrote, “children start to invoke an ultimate God-like designer to explain the complexity of the world around them— even children brought up as atheists.” 2 In fact, Deborah Kelemen, a psychology professor at Boston University, found that even highly trained scientists are unable to fully rid themselves of the innate impression that there is purpose underlying the living world. According to her, “Even though advanced scientific training can reduce acceptance of scientifically inaccurate teleological explanations, it cannot erase a tenacious early-emerging human tendency to find purpose in nature.” 3 Whether her materialistic presupposition will stand up to scrutiny remains to be seen, but her observation clearly affirms the universality and power of this design intuition.

Mung

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dQw4w9WgXcQ bornagain77

'Scientific rascism', was long predated by Biblical Rascism. The number of quotes from Luther alone is astounding in their volume, and vitriol; he's not a pleasant man. He had no contact with Africans but one can safely assume if he did, he would gleefully dredge up Noah's three sons to boost that troublesome myth. If Darwin said politically incorrect things, and used language that would be unacceptable today, that is because he was the product of his closed minded and rascist, and oh yes, very Christian age. Herman Otter, editor of 'Christian News', is an advocate of Holocaust revisionism. Jarah Crawford, Vermont Assembly of God minister, says creationism should be more creationist because it allows for the evolution of races. And of the big "H" himself loathed Darwin as evolution put a spanner in his great myth of German superiority. This old Darwin invented 'modern', or now 'scientific' rascism collapses at the feet of digging up the facts, and doing genuine research; Hmmm, why does this sound familiar? I expect BA to turn up now with several screeds, misquoting, half-quoting, and qutoe mining of vague little known characters from sources that are at best secondary, and at worst from the websites he usually visits, which aid his incredible confirmation bias. I visit CRI, AIG, EvNews, and here t keep uptodate with the latest in the world of creationism. I also vist ScienceDailey, WEIT, PThumb, several university sites and NASA. Once a year I also reread the Dover Decision, in its complete and preserved entirety, at Talkorigins. I think it's fair to say I read your side in depth, why don't you do our side the same courtesy? rvb8

Darwin may not have invented racism but he certainly made it possible to be 'an intellectually fulfilled racist'. Just ask the NAZI scientists.

The Role Of Darwinism In Nazi Racial Thought - Richard Weikart - October 2013 Excerpt: The historical evidence is overwhelming that human evolution was an integral part of Nazi racial ideology. http://www.csustan.edu/history/faculty/weikart/darwinism-in-nazi-racial-thought.pdf Historian Paul Johnson is Darwin's Latest Biographer -- and a Pretty Devastating One - David Klinghoffer - October 14, 2012 Excerpt: "Both Himmler, head of the SS and Goebbels, the propaganda chief," were students of Darwin, ,,, Hitler apparently carried the theory of natural selection "to its logical conclusion." "Leading Communists," moreover, "from Lenin to Trotsky to Stalin and Mao Tse-tung" considered evolution "essential to the self-respect of Communists. ... Darwin provided stiffening to the scaffold of laws and dialectic they erected around their seizure of power." Even Stalin,, "had Darwin's 'struggle' and 'survival of the fittest' in mind" when murdering entire ethnic groups, as did Pol Pot,,, ,,the "emotional stew" Darwin built up in Origin played a major part in the development of the 20th century's genocides.,,, No one who is remotely thoughtful blames Charles Darwin "for millions of deaths." But to say, as Johnson does, that Darwin's theory contributed to the growth of a view of the world that in turn had horrendously tragic consequences -- well, that's obviously true, it did. We have documented this extensively here at ENV, as have historians including our contributor Richard Weikart (Hitler's Ethic: The Nazi Pursuit of Evolutionary Progress, From Darwin to Hitler: Evolutionary Ethics, Eugenics, and Racism in Germany, Socialist Darwinism: Evolution in German Socialist Thought from Marx to Bernstein). There is, or should be, nothing controversial about this (fact of history). http://www.evolutionnews.org/2012/10/historian_paul_065281.html

as to

"even the Bible has been used to justify slavery"

Martin Luther King and William Wilberforce would be first to vehemently argue with you that whomever used the bible to condone the practice of slavery was severely twisting scripture out of context. In fact, whomever is a racist because of the Bible is blatantly ignoring the fact that the bible clearly teaches all men have been created equal by God.

Does God Approve of Slavery According to the Bible? Excerpt: According to Old Testament law, anyone caught selling another person into slavery was to be executed: "He who kidnaps a man, whether he sells him or he is found in his possession, shall surely be put to death." (Exodus 21:16) http://www.godandscience.org/apologetics/slavery_bible.html

Whereas, whomever is a racist because of Darwinian evolution is being perfectly consistent to Darwin's teaching of 'favored races'. That was the subtitle of his book for crying out loud!

On the Origin of Species By Means of Natural Selection, or, the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life

Leftists talk of jailing people for disagreeing with them about catastrophic climate change, yet to flagrantly ignore the brutality inflicted on the human race by Darwinian thinking in the 20th century really ought to be punishable crime. The unmitigated horror visited upon man, by state sponsored atheism, would be hard to exaggerate,,, Here's what happens when Atheists/evolutionists/non-Christians take control of Government:

“169,202,000 Murdered: Summary and Conclusions [20th Century Democide] I BACKGROUND 2. The New Concept of Democide [Definition of Democide] 3. Over 133,147,000 Murdered: Pre-Twentieth Century Democide II 128,168,000 VICTIMS: THE DEKA-MEGAMURDERERS 4. 61,911,000 Murdered: The Soviet Gulag State 5. 35,236,000 Murdered: The Communist Chinese Ant Hill 6. 20,946,000 Murdered: The Nazi Genocide State 7. 10,214,000 Murdered: The Depraved Nationalist Regime III 19,178,000 VICTIMS: THE LESSER MEGA-MURDERERS 8. 5,964,000 Murdered: Japan’s Savage Military 9. 2,035,000 Murdered: The Khmer Rouge Hell State 10. 1,883,000 Murdered: Turkey’s Genocidal Purges 11. 1,670,000 Murdered: The Vietnamese War State 12. 1,585,000 Murdered: Poland’s Ethnic Cleansing 13. 1,503,000 Murdered: The Pakistani Cutthroat State 14. 1,072,000 Murdered: Tito’s Slaughterhouse IV 4,145,000 VICTIMS: SUSPECTED MEGAMURDERERS 15. 1,663,000 Murdered? Orwellian North Korea 16. 1,417,000 Murdered? Barbarous Mexico 17. 1,066,000 Murdered? Feudal Russia” This is, in reality, probably just a drop in the bucket. Who knows how many undocumented murders there were. It also doesn’t count all the millions of abortions from around the world. http://www.hawaii.edu/powerkills/NOTE1.HTM How Darwin's Theory Changed the World Rejection of Judeo-Christian values Excerpt: Weikart explains how accepting Darwinist dogma shifted society’s thinking on human life: “Before Darwinism burst onto the scene in the mid-nineteenth century, the idea of the sanctity of human life was dominant in European thought and law (though, as with all ethical principles, not always followed in practice). Judeo-Christian ethics proscribed the killing of innocent human life, and the Christian churches explicitly forbade murder, infanticide, abortion, and even suicide. “The sanctity of human life became enshrined in classical liberal human rights ideology as ‘the right to life,’ which according to John Locke and the United States Declaration of Independence, was one of the supreme rights of every individual” (p. 75). Only in the late nineteenth and especially the early twentieth century did significant debate erupt over issues relating to the sanctity of human life, especially infanticide, euthanasia, abortion, and suicide. It was no mere coincidence that these contentious issues emerged at the same time that Darwinism was gaining in influence. Darwinism played an important role in this debate, for it altered many people’s conceptions of the importance and value of human life, as well as the significance of death” (ibid.). http://www.gnmagazine.org/issues/gn85/darwin-theory-changed-world.htm The Cultural Impact of Darwinian Evolution - John West, PhD - video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zFh4whzh_NU

bornagain77

"BioLogos exists to reconcile Christians to evolution, which today seems to mainly mean Darwinism (“modern science” )."

What a pitiful reason for existing! And just plain old wrong as well! Haarsma says:

When people accept the AiG narrative that these scientific conclusions are essential to Christianity, then their faith is often shaken when they encounter the incredible explanatory power of modern science.

First of all, she is attacking a straw man here. AiG would NOT say that these scientific conclusions are essential to Christianity. They believe they are true, but if you don't accept them, it does not mean you are not a true Christian.

In fact, we hear from individuals on a daily basis who have experienced a deep crisis of faith when their young-earth creationist beliefs were exposed as scientifically (and biblically) weak. While we are grateful that BioLogos has helped recover and strengthen the faith of these Christians, we mourn the fact that countless others have drifted away from the faith.

Yes, if young people are brainwashed at college into believing the "explanations" of modern science that are based on naturalism, their faith will be challenged. You cannot successfully merge naturalism interpretations of the history of life with the biblical version. One or the other has to go. Haarsma wants the biblical version to go. But like News pointed out, there are plenty examples of people losing their faith because they accepted this version of naturalism - they can see that, if the modern version of science is true, then the Bible and God are not necessary.

Young-earth creationist teaching is causing unnecessary harm to the reputation of the Church and creates a stumbling block for people who are considering the Gospel.

As I said, the opposite is also true. tjguy

Mike1962: What religious group claims God created man ex nihilo? Even Genesis says that man was created “from the dust of the earth”, not ex nihilo. Good point, man was created with dust which came from the earth that came from nothing. You want to answer my question? How does the belief that God used natural processes rather dust to create man cause many people News has met to lose faith in God? Both require God. velikovskys

"BioLogos exists to reconcile Christians to evolution, which today seems to mainly mean Darwinism (“modern science” )."

What a pitiful reason for existing! And just plain old wrong as well! tjguy

News: The modern history of scientific racism has Darwin’s prints all over it. Whether he invented it or not, he made it what it was and is. Cf the Nicholas Wade non-affair. Then maybe you should have said that rather than he invented it. That is what made the question whether or not he invented it relevant. My problem isn’t the facts (I’m in the news business after all) as that there is so little honest discussion of them. So much silence and evasion. Which facts are those? ID or evolution human diversity exists, Honest discussion sanitizes a lot of things and enables us to get past them. Maybe though that seems simplistic,all problems are not the result of misunderstanding But I dream on. If I hear *one more* commentator explain that Darwin and Lincoln, born on the same day, were both “liberators” Lincoln certainly was and for some Darwin is, perhaps you should take your own advice and have an honest discussion and see if it enables you to get past. , … oh wait, I might hear ten of them and most don’t work for Airhead TV. Funny So they do bear some responsibility for dealing with facts. We all do News velikovskys

OT: Axe's book "Undeniable" has shipped today and I should be getting my copy of it Thursday! :) Conversations with Douglas Axe: How Did You Become Interested in Science? - video clip https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zivbYI94JIw&feature=share&list=PLR8eQzfCOiS3-MQT4SEaLNloU5v2poZKf In Undeniable: How Biology Confirms Our Intuition That Life Is Designed, biologist Doug Axe restores the place of intuition alongside intellect in considering the question of life's origins. For more visit http://www.undeniabledesign.com bornagain77

J-Mac at 6, it's a problem, but keep in mind that fraud is a crime. It could result in imprisonment, let alone loss of licences, reputation, etc. Some judicial systems give a great deal of protection to the accused in such cases. Evidence for a criminal case can be subpoena'd by the Crown - provided that enough evidence exists that a conviction for fraud might result. So the question some of us would ask is, does enough such evidence exist? As a Canadian taxpayer, I don't want to pay for frauds, but I also do not want to pay for a hair trigger system that could result in partisan persecutions. It's a balance. News

They lost their faith in God because of the idea God did not create man ex nihilo? What religious group claims God created man ex nihilo? Even Genesis says that man was created "from the dust of the earth", not ex nihilo. mike1962

...their faith is often shaken when they encounter the incredible explanatory power of modern science.

My faith in science is shaken when I encounter its lack of explanatory power when it comes to... - Why something exists instead of nothing - Where information came from - Why so many constants seem fine-tuned for life - How life began - How matter can be conscious - How matter can be moral - How matter can perform abstract logic - How RM+NS ultimately results in a trustworthy scientific process Phinehas

"Canadian researchers who commit scientific fraud are protected by privacy laws" https://www.thestar.com/news/canada/2016/07/12/canadian-researchers-who-commit-scientific-fraud-are-protected-by-privacy-laws.html J-Mac

It did not take long for the defenders to come and defend the indefensible as if on queue Andre

The modern history of scientific racism has Darwin's prints all over it. Whether he invented it or not, he made it what it was and is. Cf the Nicholas Wade non-affair. Google human biodiversity, dedicated to all things Darwinian and race. My problem isn't the facts (I'm in the news business after all) as that there is so little honest discussion of them. So much silence and evasion. Honest discussion sanitizes a lot of things and enables us to get past them. But I dream on. If I hear *one more* commentator explain that Darwin and Lincoln, born on the same day, were both "liberators", ... oh wait, I might hear ten of them and most don't work for Airhead TV. So they do bear some responsibility for dealing with facts. Added: Here’s one of tons of UD posts on the subject. News

News: This I know: I’ve met many people who lost their faith listening to BioLogos’ Jesus-loves-Darwin-and-so-should-you stuff. They lost their faith in God because of the idea God did not create man ex nihilo? Interesting In the States, it’s got so bad that even though Darwin invented scientific racism, It seems just as arguable that Linnaeus in his classification created scientific racism, though since racism predates that event the basis of racism seems independent of any scientific justification ,After all ,even the Bible has been used to justify slavery, velikovskys

Let it be known there are people that dispute that Darwin invented scientific racism.

Maybe it has something to do with all those books being published espousing scientific arguments for racism prior to Darwinism? goodusername

News Let it be known there are people that dispute that Darwin invented scientific racism. Andre