[geocentrism] Re: Evolution

  • From: Paul Deema <paul_deema@xxxxxxxxxxx>
  • To: Geocentrism@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
  • Date: Fri, 21 Sep 2007 14:59:22 +0000 (GMT)

Martin S
First, the response to criticism of M Behe's Mouse Trap analogy. I went to 
http://www.discovery.org/scripts/viewDB/index.php?command=view&id=442 as you 
suggested and read some of it, enough to know that I was never going to be able 
to competently assess its content.
I did notice something however which caused me to go back to the top and check 
the origins. What I found was that the refutation was written by M Behe. 
Essentially, it's simply him stating that what he had said originally was 
correct. Then I noticed the sponsor -- Discovery Institute! I thought that you 
were directing me to a corroborating mainstream source. At the very least, 
someone other than the original author. I'm sorry but this is never going to 
sway me, even without my current well earned suspicion of anything from DI, 
CSR, AiG etc.
Now to Baraminology. I snipped this from Wikipedia.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baraminology
Baramin Distance
To refine this method, the concept of "Baramin Distance" was proposed. The 
initial study by Robinson and Cavanaugh tested several methods on the including 
genetic tests and Catarrhine primates, tests based on ecology and morphology. 
However, one criterion for determining a baramin is whether scripture says the 
two groups are separate,[4] so methods that did not separate humans from 
primates were rejected.[5]
Criticism
Baraminology is not accepted by the scientific community. It has been heavily 
criticized for its lack of rigorous tests, and post-study rejection of data to 
make it better fit the desired findings.[6] Baraminology has not produced any 
peer-reviewed scientific research,[7] nor is any word beginning with "baramin" 
found in Biological Abstracts, which has complete coverage of zoology and 
botany since 1924.[8]
Instead, universal common descent is a well-established and tested scientific 
theory[9] that proposes all life derived from a common ancestor.[9] However, 
both cladistics (the field devoted to investigations of common descent) and the 
scientific consensus on transitional fossils are rejected by 
baraminologists.[10]
I'm afraid that I'm in agreement with Wiki.
It is not that I am automatically dismissive of anything from the above 
mentioned groups. It is just that if they were publishing good science, there 
would be much wider agreement. It is as though these people believe that there 
are alternative truths. It is Lysenko all over again.
I found this on AiG.
http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/am/v2/n2/two-of-every-kind
Based on my own biological research into created kinds, I would be even bolder 
than Nelson. Over the past decade, I have worked to develop new methods of 
studying created kinds using statistics.8 This research is still very new and 
preliminary, but a pattern is beginning to emerge. For land animals and birds, 
the created kind most often corresponds to the conventional classification rank 
called "family," which includes many species. There is evidence that the camel, 
horse, cat, dog, penguin, and iguana families are each a created kind.9 Like 
Nelson, I would put the coyote, wolf, jackal, and dog in the same kind, and I 
would include the fox. I would put the lion and house cat in another kind, and 
the llama and camel in yet another kind. Today these species (i.e., llama and 
camel) look amazingly different, but they seem to have been generated after the 
Flood from information already present within their parent kind. Lions, 
coyotes, and dromedary camels
 were probably not on the Ark but were born to parents within the cat, dog, and 
camel kinds.
Again there is the Biblical reference. This is not science. I don't care 
particularly if this is taught in Sunday School or preached from the pulpit as 
religion, but it is not science.
Sternberg however, is another matter.
A good place to start is this link concerning the treatment Sternberg received 
for publishing Dembski back in August 2004: 
I believe you've made a fair case here -- he does seem to have been roughly 
treated, at least from this single source anyway. If the material submitted, 
and in this case -- published -- meets the definition of science, there should 
not be any impediment to publishing. After all, if he is judged by his peers to 
be talking a lot of cobblers, then it is done in public and he will be publicly 
criticised. Most all revolutionaries are criticised publicly, and that is fair 
enough. An establishment which blows with every breath of change is worthless. 
New theories must earn their berth.
In this vein also, I've asked elsewhere but got no response -- do you know why 
A E Wilder-Smith seems not to cast a shadow in the secular world despite his 
three doctorates, while in biblically sanctioned venues he seems to be lionised?
Also, have you checked your Uni-Pixel mailbox recently?
Paul D
PS Apologies for the font sizes -- Wordpad, Yahoo!, and AiG in concert seem to 
have conspired against me and I haven't the time to re-edit the whole thing.


      Sick of deleting your inbox? Yahoo!7 Mail has free unlimited storage.
http://au.docs.yahoo.com/mail/unlimitedstorage.html

Other related posts: