The Man Behind the Curtain: Evolutionists React to The Voyage

_{Cornelius Hunter

June 29, 2009

Intelligent Design}

Share: Facebook; Twitter; LinkedIn; Flipboard; Print; Email

Nothing exposes the failure of a dogma more than the propaganda it hides behind. Pathetic ideas cannot stand the light of day. They run from open inquiry and call everyone a liar. Evolution is pathetic–not because it is a religiously motivated idea with little scientific support, but because of its deceitful cover up. It makes religious proclamations and then points the finger at others. It is scientifically absurd yet it claims to be a fact. And when probed, watch out.

Continue reading here.

Comments

David Kellogg: No, just a hunch that twenty years after paleontologists have decided that birds didn't evolve from dinosaurs, the pictures will still be in schoolbooks because the image of a bird-looking creature with teeth gets the point across. Nothing scientific about it. Maybe I'm wrong.ScottAndrews_{June 29, 2009
June
06
Jun
29
29
2009
08:05 AM
8
08
05
AM
PDT}

Nnoel --but all I ever see him doing is anti-science, bashing the ToE How is pointing out flaws in a paradigm anti-science? so I may be making under-handed suggestions about his credentials, And it's also immature as that was the excepted science at the time, That describes NDE today as well :-)tribune7_{June 29, 2009
June
06
Jun
29
29
2009
08:04 AM
8
08
04
AM
PDT}

Nnoel,
‘Well established on this blog’ does not mean scientifically credible.
If by "scientifically credible" you mean established in the scientific community then of course not! You can thank social engineering and the philosophical Darwinian programming in question for that. The structure and nature of the scientific community today does not allow for dissent, regardless of how genuine such dissenting theories are. ID is written off on preconceived notions and presuppositional (and often consequently circular) evolutionary arguments, not real science. The problem here is what the definiton of science has become- a new form of methodology completely limited to naturalistic conclusions that are ultimately and conspicuously insufficient for exploring mindful causation. The dismissals against ID are completely philosophically based because of this, regardless of how much evidence is presented that debunks the theory of evolution. Your assertion that there's no science involved is not due to any truth to the claim, but rather due to the loaded definition of science that you follow.
As I see it, every bit of the literature of the ID movement has been thoroughly desputed, so propanganda is all that is left.
This is completely false, I could give you a multitude of articles explaining the implausibilities of Darwinian theory. And following that, disputing something is in no way shape or form the equivalent to refuting it, which is why you personally have to take the time to examine the logical merits of each individual claim in a proposal instead of automatically siding with the disputors by default. This autonomic bias that you exude is the very philosophical programming I'm talking about. Notice how most of the ID heavyweights were once evolutionists themselves, and it was an enlightenment towards the real facts of evolution (The same facts and logic that you don't get in the school programming process) that changed their position. They certainly aren't ignorant, and for you to assert such a thing just shows how little you've actually followed their research. Just try this one article for me, and tell me what lies and deceptions are being spread. New developments in discovering functional DNA in the genome Would you be kind enough to support your assertions by explaining to me what facts they're purposely lying about in order to propagate ignorance. Show me how these observations that disprove the concept of "junk" DNA are holding back science.PaulN_{June 29, 2009
June
06
Jun
29
29
2009
08:00 AM
8
08
00
AM
PDT}

"soon add archeopteryx." Do I hear an ID prediction?David Kellogg_{June 29, 2009
June
06
Jun
29
29
2009
07:59 AM
7
07
59
AM
PDT}

The point of the gill slits in embryos and Haeckel's drawings and peppered moths (soon add archeopteryx) is not that science was wrong. It's that those handy tools for illustrating evolution remained in school textbooks often for decades after science supposedly moved on. This reinforces the notion that believing the theory comes first while the accuracy of the evidence is secondary. It also raises the question of why, given the 'mountain of evidence' for the various evolutionary theories, discarded evidence was still needed.ScottAndrews_{June 29, 2009
June
06
Jun
29
29
2009
07:54 AM
7
07
54
AM
PDT}

Noel said : Gill slits on embryos, proof of evolution? yes Just reread my post and thought I'd do some quote-mining, another favourite of creationists, and if you dont know what I'm talking about, then google is your friend! I've not heard a good excuse for quote-mining, again, surely only propaganda! Love you! :)Nnoel_{June 29, 2009
June
06
Jun
29
29
2009
07:43 AM
7
07
43
AM
PDT}

PaulN, However you have to keep in mind that both sides of the dichotomy circulate such misconceptions I've heard about the mistakes science has made, and has corrected. But as an example, what about the ID proponents that use those mistakes to further their own agenda? While science loves to correct itself, ID Proponents love using that aspect of science to dissuade people from science. Some background to these statements : Gill slits on embryos, proof of evolution? yes, agreed, it was written in the text books, as that was the excepted science at the time, but science constantly amends itself (I'm treading on thin ice here, and those too easily convinced probably thought I've fallen through already..). By 'constantly amends' itself, think of the old analogy of standing on the shoulders of giants, well when you up there you sometimes see how the landscape is different to how you thought it was, but you wouldn't see that unless you had got to that point already. The very fact that I feel i need to do all this explaining is because ID/Creationist literature LOVES to tell people about the mistakes science has made, and they lap it up like it's milk and they are hungry kittens, but any sensible person with a understanding of science knows how deceitful that picture being painted actually is! I hope that explains my point of view, and I hope I haven't just thrown in a whole bunch more talking points as I'm running out of time to type much more this afternoon. lol Love you!Nnoel_{June 29, 2009
June
06
Jun
29
29
2009
07:40 AM
7
07
40
AM
PDT}

JTaylor,
Or did Darwin get absolutey everything wrong?
I don't think anyone here would assert that he got everything wrong. Artificially replicating natural selection on an experimental basis has shown results that selection works. Random errors, copies, and naturally occurring manipulations in the genome however, are devoid of such experimental qualifications, and in most cases have shown that they do indeed add up for an overall detrimental effect to populations. Darwin made some accurate observations on the adaptation of the finch beak in the Galapagos, however we've come to realize that this is nothing more than cyclic variations within kind that produces nothing new or novel within the genome of said finches. This shows nothing more than natural selection working on simple Mendelian genetics. In this case he made good observations but came to an invalid conclusion. It's in fact very rare for gene duplications, or errors in the genome to produce anything of functional value that doesn't already exist, as real-world trials such as the fruit fly experiment and the Lenski's E.coli experiment have thoroughly displayed. Polyploidy often severely hinders the survivability in plants, and kills humans. Aneuploidy causes down syndrome in humans. The total net result in the majority of our real-world attempts to emulate Darwinian evolution have come far short of what we observe in the fossil record and naturally occurring organisms. In fact, if nothing else they've displayed that the fossil record would be full of deformed body plans and abstract strucures that would drown out the evidence of the majority of optimally successful structures that we see in reality.PaulN_{June 29, 2009
June
06
Jun
29
29
2009
07:34 AM
7
07
34
AM
PDT}

PaulN, The scientific arguments against ToE have already been well established already on this blog, so the next logical step is to deprogram society from the philosophical mess it has left behind. Posts such as this one do a good job prying at just that. I think you are mistaken, but the above shows the EXACT issue i have. 'Well established on this blog' does not mean scientifically credible. The next step is to DO SOME SCIENCE, and stop making propaganda to 'deprogram society' and first do the science to convince those that are not 'ignorant of the intricacies' of the topic. My point, as your post confirms, is that most arguments against the ToE are made to the public, instead of the scientists that actually do the hard work of finding this stuff out. As I see it, every bit of the literature of the ID movement has been thoroughly desputed, so propanganda is all that is left. Thank for demonstrating how effective that propanganda is! Love you!Nnoel_{June 29, 2009
June
06
Jun
29
29
2009
07:27 AM
7
07
27
AM
PDT}

Joseph, Is ignorance a good way to further mankind’s understanding? Those in the scientific community that find 'ignorance' and expose it for what it is, and shine the light on a previously unlit path that will need to more vaults of human understanding, are actively honored in the scientific world. Claiming it is all 'ignorance' is ignorance on your part, not that of science. The thing is, as I see it, if evolution is wrong in any way, then the person that gives rock solid evidence of that fact that cannot be disputed will be as famous or more-so than darwin himself. The fact that the 'Dr.' is relatively unknown shows that has not found that convincing evidence yet. Science loves truth, ID loves the Designer!Nnoel_{June 29, 2009
June
06
Jun
29
29
2009
07:21 AM
7
07
21
AM
PDT}

tribune7, I have acknowledged his credentials before, and you are right, they are legit. You may notice that 'Dr.' is neither his full name, his full title, or anything specific to Cornelius Hunter, so I may be making under-handed suggestions about his credentials, but I am in no way claiming he does not deserve the title. I have said before that asking other posters on here to 'do some science' is not a reasonable request, as it would not be a reasonable request to make of myself, but the 'Dr.' is that most appropriate person in this instance to make that request too, but all I ever see him doing is anti-science, bashing the ToE and leaving a massive gaping hole where he could make some constructive suggestions or even a tentative opinion of how he thinks it could be done better. But I've seen nothing thus far, absolutely nothing of scientific merit from anything the 'Dr.' has written. He has credentials, but using them to spread propaganda (what else can it be called if he actively adds nothing constructive to the debate) love you all.Nnoel_{June 29, 2009
June
06
Jun
29
29
2009
07:14 AM
7
07
14
AM
PDT}

"But I reminded myself that it would be awfully difficult for the producers to manipulate my interview for their film. You see, I have nothing to hide. The only way my words could be twisted would be with highly selective editing. What if they interviewed me for two hours, and picked out a 3 second sound bite out of context? Well then I would have a right to complain. Nothing like this happened to the otherwise furious evolutionists. " It sounds like Dr. Hunter's own interview was fairly represented. But given the point-of-view of the documentary makers that is to be expected. Besides, the whole point of 'clever editing' is that it is, well, clever. Unless Dr. Hunter actually saw the original raw footage used, he really does not have any basis to say "nothing like this happened". Or was he present when the film was edited? I've been reading Dr. Hunter's pieces for a while now. Along with others here (like Ms O'Leary) he seems quite belligerent towards evolution. But is there any aspect of evolution (e.g., common descent) that he does accept? Or did Darwin get absolutey everything wrong? I ask because it's easy to get the impression from these pages that IDers do not accept any aspect of evolution (and perhaps this is why IDers are sometimes rightly or wrongly called creationists) - whereas many in fact do (for example, I believe Behe does accept common descent).JTaylor_{June 29, 2009
June
06
Jun
29
29
2009
07:11 AM
7
07
11
AM
PDT}

Nnoel,
Well, umm, anybody that follows this ‘debate’ between religious people trying to keep god in the classroom, and the scientists spending their life trying to further mankind’s understanding of his surroundings, knows all the lies and deceit that the Creationists and Intelligent Designer-ist love to use.
First of all, the primary arguments against the theory of evolution are not religious. The alleged merits of this theory have been thoroughly rebuked with scientific arguments, logic, realistic numbers, and real-world observations. Again, this movement is not to "keep" God in the classroom, as the evolutionists made sure he remained absent from this scene some time ago. The primary purpose of this movement is to shed light on the weaknesses of Darwin's theory and keep the "free" marketplace of ideas open to other sufficient explanations, such as intelligent design. It's clear after reading the work behind Dr. Sanford, Behe, Dembski, Meyers et al. that the logical and evidential merits of the theory are not only lacking, but seemingly point to an entirely different conclusion altogether. The scientific arguments against ToE have already been well established already on this blog, so the next logical step is to deprogram society from the philosophical mess it has left behind. Posts such as this one do a good job prying at just that.
He who only uses lies and deceit should not throw the first stone! For me, growing up in a fundamentalist home, the thing that drove me away from ‘the faith’ the fastest was all the lies on the internet the ‘faithful’ would not hesitate to use. Despicable, especially since they have ‘the truth’, why would you need to lie about it!
Some examples please? You must have a really good reason to discard an entire world view based on experiences growing up. I have close friends who have the same type of story, but normally revolve around unfortunate misconceptions that are sometimes circulated within church families. However you have to keep in mind that both sides of the dichotomy circulate such misconceptions, therefore you have to analyze each idea of its own independent quality instead of wholly discarding something or wholly accepting something for that matter.
And what I said above stands, Expelled is the most deceiptful film in every regard. If you believe uncritically everything that fits what you want to be true, you’ll never know whats true! Watch it with an open mind, and go research what sounds too ‘good’ to be true.
Expelled was a very enlightening film that exposes the animosity drawn towards dissenters of the dogmatic "scientific" collective. Check out Richard Sternberg's site, you'll find all of the legal documentation you need to come to a lean, clear conclusion based on the facts and cut away from all of the fatty deception that was involved in his mistreatment.PaulN_{June 29, 2009
June
06
Jun
29
29
2009
07:08 AM
7
07
08
AM
PDT}

Nnoel, why are you putting Hunter’s title in quotes?
I would have to agree, although his perspective on Evolutionary Science might be bizare, unless you actually have a good reason to question how he earned his qualifications then you should assume that when he was awarded them he also deserved them. Otherwise you are no better than DaveScott:(From memory) "Who are these chuckleheads and how do they ever get higher degrees"Excession_{June 29, 2009
June
06
Jun
29
29
2009
07:06 AM
7
07
06
AM
PDT}

Nnoel, How, exactly, is "Expelled" deceitful? Is it because it exposed the anti-IDists for what they are? The theory of evolution was built on ignorance and is sustained by ignorance. Is ignorance a good way to further mankind's understanding? That doesn't seem right...Joseph_{June 29, 2009
June
06
Jun
29
29
2009
06:55 AM
6
06
55
AM
PDT}

Nnoel, why are you putting Hunter's title in quotes? Here's his bio By using quotes you are claiming that a Ph.D. in Biophysics and Computational Biology from the University of Illinois is somehow not legit.tribune7_{June 29, 2009
June
06
Jun
29
29
2009
06:45 AM
6
06
45
AM
PDT}

Nnoel-- and the scientists spending their life trying to further mankind’s understanding of his surroundings, If life is designed how would it further mankind's understanding of his surroundings to hide the fact?tribune7_{June 29, 2009
June
06
Jun
29
29
2009
06:39 AM
6
06
39
AM
PDT}

I take it from that comment that you were directly involved in filming and editing the interviews? Are those complaining about the film accusing the filmmakers of doing this?tribune7_{June 29, 2009
June
06
Jun
29
29
2009
06:36 AM
6
06
36
AM
PDT}

Cornelius, I hope you're not implying that The Voyage That Shook the World is somehow supportive of intelligent design. It's from the Young Earth Creationist organization Creation Ministries International ( http://creation.com/ ), the mothership (sort of) of Ken Ham's Answers In Genesis (which is not exactly friendly to intelligent design). And like Expelled, it's being marketed solely to religious venues, not scientific venues - it's blatantly religion, not science. Or is this another example of "The enemy of my enemy is my friend"?PaulBurnett_{June 29, 2009
June
06
Jun
29
29
2009
06:31 AM
6
06
31
AM
PDT}

ok, I admit, I couldn't help follow the link... And what I said above stands, Expelled is the most deceiptful film in every regard. If you believe uncritically everything that fits what you want to be true, you'll never know whats true! Watch it with an open mind, and go research what sounds too 'good' to be true. love you all.Nnoel_{June 29, 2009
June
06
Jun
29
29
2009
05:25 AM
5
05
25
AM
PDT}

I haven't followed the link priovided, I'm done wasting my time on the 'Dr.'s articles. What I will say is that the first paragraph that appears on uncommon descent claiming... is pathetic–not because it is a religiously motivated idea with little scientific support, but because of its deceitful cover up Well, umm, anybody that follows this 'debate' between religious people trying to keep god in the classroom, and the scientists spending their life trying to further mankind's understanding of his surroundings, knows all the lies and deceit that the Creationists and Intelligent Designer-ist love to use. You also know all the true-sounding but blatantly false facts that are used to dissuade the 'ignorant of the intricacies' public away from hard earned science. He who only uses lies and deceit should not throw the first stone! For me, growing up in a fundamentalist home, the thing that drove me away from 'the faith' the fastest was all the lies on the internet the 'faithful' would not hesitate to use. Despicable, especially since they have 'the truth', why would you need to lie about it! As always, DO SOME *beeping* SCIENCE! and I love you all! :) P.S. I do apologise for the apparent tone of this post, but the 'Dr.' is constantly bashing ToE with baseless articles that don't actually say anything except give the 'the faithful' tenuous hooks on which to hang their faith and feel safe. I not joking when I say do some science!Nnoel_{June 29, 2009
June
06
Jun
29
29
2009
05:21 AM
5
05
21
AM
PDT}

Nothing like this happened to the otherwise furious evolutionists. Their views were fairly and accurately represented. There was no message manipulation. There was no clever editing of the interviews to produce a false image of evolution; rather, the problem is that the interviews accurately show the real image of evolution.
I take it from that comment that you were directly involved in filming and editing the interviews?Excession_{June 29, 2009
June
06
Jun
29
29
2009
03:26 AM
3
03
26
AM
PDT}

Prev 1 … 5 6 7

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply