HELP! Debating a Preacher in the Newspaper!

[Guest foolfromms]

Fellow Atheist,

 

A local preacher responded to a letter to the editor I wrote bashing Intelligent Design, in a local South Mississippi, newspaper. I want to rebuttal his comments and shut him up for good. Any assistance welcomed! Below is his response to my original letter.

 

Thanks in advance for any good documented points I can use against him, I don't want to screw this opportunity up.

 

William Wallace

Hattiesburg, MS

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

Mr. Wallace, in his Aug. 6 letter, stated that intelligent design (i.e. creation science), was "pseudoscience," but that evolution was science. Sounds like a gourmet meal nobody cooked, a watch nobody made, an explosion in a printing shop creating a book, or an explosion in a metal factory creating a Boeing 747! What faith it must take to believe that Nobody plus Nothing equals Everythling!

Two top scientists, Sir Fred Hoyle and Chandra Wickramasinghe, specializing in astronomy, mathematics and interstellar matter, declare the Darwin evolution theory "absurd." They array the findings of microbiology, mathematics, computer technology and the fossil record against the Darwin theory. They declare that the chances of random chemical shufflings in some primordial soup producing the complex basic enzymes of life are only one followed by 40,000 zeroes!

 

They are not Christians, but declare that the biomolecules necessary for life are so exceedingly complex that outside intelligence for explicit instructions were required. They claim that many scientists have been "bamboozled" into believing that evolution has been proven, when nothing could be further from the truth.

 

Bamboozled? Here is one example among many. The Piltdown man, a real missing link according to evolutionists, was first publicized about 1912 and taught in our schools until the 1950s. Some 500 scientists wrote their pontifical doctoral dissertations on this evolutionary marvel. It turned out to be a hoax - the jaw of an ape and a human skull artificially aged, but it fooled the top scientists for 40 years!

 

Mr. Wallace, I would suggest, respectfully, that the shoe is on the other foot. I will be happy to enlist some friends to help me financially to bring in some creation scientists I know to publicly debate Mr. Wallace or anyone else.

 

You have a choice: to trust bones or the Bible and the Lord Jesus Christ. I choose him. I pray you will, too.

 

Rev. Floyd C. McElveen,

 

Petal

 

--------------------------------------------------------------

End of transmission.... This dude's in outer space!

[Asimov]

Mr. Wallace, in his Aug. 6 letter, stated that intelligent design (i.e. creation science), was "pseudoscience," but that evolution was science. Sounds like a gourmet meal nobody cooked, a watch nobody made, an explosion in a printing shop creating a book, or an explosion in a metal factory creating a Boeing 747! What faith it must take to believe that Nobody plus Nothing equals Everythling!

 

No, sounds like a Reverend who has no idea what he's talking about, stick to your Bible thumping and Jesus humping.

 

Two top scientists, Sir Fred Hoyle and Chandra Wickramasinghe, specializing in astronomy, mathematics and interstellar matter, declare the Darwin evolution theory "absurd." They array the findings of microbiology, mathematics, computer technology and the fossil record against the Darwin theory. They declare that the chances of random chemical shufflings in some primordial soup producing the complex basic enzymes of life are only one followed by 40,000 zeroes!

 

Hoyle and Chandra were actually trying to calculate that probability of life forming on its own, their mathematics are off and anyone with fingers and a google search engine could figure that out. What Hoyle and Chandra were showing was nothing to do with Evolution, Hoyle should have stuck to Astronomy rather than pander on about something he knew nothing about. Interestingly enough, the Urey-Miller experiment also showed that organic matter could come together on its own.

 

They are not Christians, but declare that the biomolecules necessary for life are so exceedingly complex that outside intelligence for explicit instructions were required. They claim that many scientists have been "bamboozled" into believing that evolution has been proven, when nothing could be further from the truth.

 

Evolution has nothing to do with the origin of life.

 

Bamboozled? Here is one example among many. The Piltdown man, a real missing link according to evolutionists, was first publicized about 1912 and taught in our schools until the 1950s. Some 500 scientists wrote their pontifical doctoral dissertations on this evolutionary marvel. It turned out to be a hoax - the jaw of an ape and a human skull artificially aged, but it fooled the top scientists for 40 years!

 

Pildown man was an enigma in the science field because it didn't fit with the predicted ideas of what ancient humans should have looked like. There was a lot of controversy surrounding the Piltdown Man, and it was finally, through more modern technology found that indeed it was a Hoax...where were the Creation Scientists who clearly knew this was false? Nowhere to be seen as regular Science weeded out the hoax.

 

Mr. Wallace, I would suggest, respectfully, that the shoe is on the other foot. I will be happy to enlist some friends to help me financially to bring in some creation scientists I know to publicly debate Mr. Wallace or anyone else.

 

Let's ask Mr. Pigliucci to help us out with this one.

 

You have a choice: to trust bones or the Bible and the Lord Jesus Christ. I choose him. I pray you will, too. 

 

No thanks, I'd rather not trust in your superstition. We all know what that kind of faith can lead to; flat earths, the inquisition, witch burnings, and Earth centered solar systems.

[Mr. Neil]

Fellow Atheist,

 

A local preacher responded to a letter to the editor I wrote bashing Intelligent Design, in a local South Mississippi, newspaper.  I want to rebuttal his comments and shut him up for good.  Any assistance welcomed!  Below is his response to my original letter.

 

Thanks in advance for any good documented points I can use against him, I don't want to screw this opportunity up. 

 

William Wallace

Hattiesburg, MS

Certainly! Sit back, relax, and let good ol' Uncle Neil take care of your creationist woes. This should be fun.

 

Mr. Wallace, in his Aug. 6 letter, stated that intelligent design (i.e. creation science), was "pseudoscience," but that evolution was science. Sounds like a gourmet meal nobody cooked, a watch nobody made, an explosion in a printing shop creating a book, or an explosion in a metal factory creating a Boeing 747!

Too easy! Immediately he opens with a strawman. There's nothing about evolution that fits the analogy of explosions (i.e., all-at-once events) creating remarkably complex functions or structures. That is an evolutionary myth that exists only in the minds of creationists.

 

Evolution is more like a branching process, where each branch stretches out from another, poking blindly in the dark for success. Most will be broken away, but a few actually succeed and then the process repeats. The branching is your mutation, and the success and failures are natural selection.

 

Kindly remind this schmuck that if he has to resort to misrepresentations to win an argument, then he doesn't have an argument. Already, this dipshit is disarmed.

 

What faith it must take to believe that Nobody plus Nothing equals Everythling!

Hahahaha! Oh jesus fucking christ! Who is this guy? Invictus?!?

 

Ignore this, as this is a strawman as well. Nobody on our side argues this. In fact, challenge him to clarify what he means by this. He can only dig his hole deeper.

 

Two top scientists, Sir Fred Hoyle and Chandra Wickramasinghe, specializing in astronomy, mathematics and interstellar matter, declare the Darwin evolution theory "absurd." They array the findings of microbiology, mathematics, computer technology and the fossil record against the Darwin theory. They declare that the chances of random chemical shufflings in some primordial soup producing the complex basic enzymes of life are only one followed by 40,000 zeroes!

Well, first of all, remind your opponent that this is a criticism of abiogenesis; not evolution.

 

Second, this argument is automatically invalidated, because the theory of evolution, to paraphrase a response to this very argument from Talk.Origins, does not and never did claim that DNA and enzymes arose by "chance".

 

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-misconceptions.html

 

Whaddaya know!? It's another strawman attack! Damn this guy!

 

The Piltdown man, a real missing link according to evolutionists, was first publicized about 1912 and taught in our schools until the 1950s. Some 500 scientists wrote their pontifical doctoral dissertations on this evolutionary marvel. It turned out to be a hoax - the jaw of an ape and a human skull artificially aged, but it fooled the top scientists for 40 years!

Oh my goodness! Someone in a field of science lied! Oh no! Now we have to condemn an entire field of science based on the actions of ONE FUCKING MAN. (hint: No we don't.)

 

Remind him that the Shroud of Turin is a hoax as well, and then ask him if he's going to stop being a Christian because of it.

 

The hipocrisy and irony of the Piltdown Man argument is that the Piltdown Man hoax was exposed with evidence that our religious friend wouldn't accept.

 

The authenticity of Piltdown Man was brought into question because another missing link, completely contradicting the Piltdown Man, had been discovered. When the "fossil" was re-examined, the fossil exhibited certain characteristics revealing that it could not have been as old as it had been claimed, including giving off an organic burnt odor. A mineralized fossil wouldn't do this.

 

Plus, by the time it had been exposed, biologists already knew that something was wrong, so it really came as no surprised. To put it mildly, Piltdown Man was exposed as a hoax by evolutionary biology, because it was inconsistant with new hominid fossils being discovered.

 

This was just on TV the other night. If you see the Ape To Man special again on History Channel, I strongly suggest you watch it.

 

Also...

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/piltdown.html

 

Mr. Wallace, I would suggest, respectfully, that the shoe is on the other foot. I will be happy to enlist some friends to help me financially to bring in some creation scientists I know to publicly debate Mr. Wallace or anyone else.

This guy is so owned. You have him by the ass. Just repeat I told you, plus whatever our other experts, such as Crazy Tiger or Han, have to say, and you should have no problem simply destroying this guy.

 

Knowledge is power!

[Vixentrox]

Yeah, someone did a hoax. Big woop. Does the preacher man belive in all the "slivers of the True cross" and vials of Mary's milk?

[Mr. Neil]

It really pisses me off when creationists try to take a shortcut through all the evidence by poisoning the well with Piltdown Man. As if pointing out one man's fraud somehow invalidates molecular evidence.

 

Keep a keen eye out for short-cut arguments like this, and you will always be able to identify people who are arguing to win and have no interest in learning.

 

I would also like to point out that this guy has not even begun to state a case for divine creation. He thinks his entire argument can rest on attacking evolution. This is a monumental fallacy.

[Asimov]

Asimov, I believe that foolfroms, was asking for help dissecting a preachers letter to the editor regarding Intelligent Design.  I almost didn't catch it either until I say "atheist" where it says "any gods" under his avatar.  Just thought you may want to know.:-)

 

Yes.....I know.....

[vargo]

Fellow Atheist,

 

A local preacher responded to a letter to the editor I wrote bashing Intelligent Design, in a local South Mississippi, newspaper.  I want to rebuttal his comments and shut him up for good.  Any assistance welcomed!  Below is his response to my original letter.

 

Thanks in advance for any good documented points I can use against him, I don't want to screw this opportunity up. 

 

William Wallace

Hattiesburg, MS

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

Mr. Wallace, in his Aug. 6 letter, stated that intelligent design (i.e. creation science), was "pseudoscience," but that evolution was science. Sounds like a gourmet meal nobody cooked, a watch nobody made, an explosion in a printing shop creating a book, or an explosion in a metal factory creating a Boeing 747! What faith it must take to believe that Nobody plus Nothing equals Everythling!

Two top scientists, Sir Fred Hoyle and Chandra Wickramasinghe, specializing in astronomy, mathematics and interstellar matter, declare the Darwin evolution theory "absurd." They array the findings of microbiology, mathematics, computer technology and the fossil record against the Darwin theory. They declare that the chances of random chemical shufflings in some primordial soup producing the complex basic enzymes of life are only one followed by 40,000 zeroes!

 

They are not Christians, but declare that the biomolecules necessary for life are so exceedingly complex that outside intelligence for explicit instructions were required. They claim that many scientists have been "bamboozled" into believing that evolution has been proven, when nothing could be further from the truth.

 

Bamboozled? Here is one example among many. The Piltdown man, a real missing link according to evolutionists, was first publicized about 1912 and taught in our schools until the 1950s. Some 500 scientists wrote their pontifical doctoral dissertations on this evolutionary marvel. It turned out to be a hoax - the jaw of an ape and a human skull artificially aged, but it fooled the top scientists for 40 years!

 

Mr. Wallace, I would suggest, respectfully, that the shoe is on the other foot. I will be happy to enlist some friends to help me financially to bring in some creation scientists I know to publicly debate Mr. Wallace or anyone else.

 

You have a choice: to trust bones or the Bible and the Lord Jesus Christ. I choose him. I pray you will, too. 

 

Rev. Floyd C. McElveen,

 

Petal

 

--------------------------------------------------------------

End of transmission....  This dude's in outer space!

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

he demonstrates total ignorance of what exactly Evolutionary Theory states. This is what Evolutionary Theory states:

 

1. All life forms (species) have developed from other species.

2. All living things are related to one another to varying degrees through common decent (share common ancestors).

3. All life on Earth has a common origin. In other words, that in the distant past, there once existed an original life form and that this life form gave rise to all subsequent life forms.

4. The process by which one species evolves into another involves random heritable genetic mutations (changes), some of which are more likely to spread and persist in a gene pool than others. Mutations that result in a survival advantage for organisms that possess them, are more likely to spread and persist than mutations that do not result in a survival advantage and/or that result in a survival disadvantage.

 

Furthermore, the fact that amino acids can form from an atmosphere like Earth's billions of years ago from induced energy via a lightning bolt or ultraviolet radiation is observed fact. This experiment was conducted by Dr. Miller.

 

As an aside, I'll explain the most basic flaw with the Creationist premise: Evolution is both a fact and a theory. A scientific theory is an explanation for observed occurrences. When Darwin, in his time, saw a natural progression in the living creatures he observed (he didn't have fossils to work with), he said that this progression was due to Evolution, thus was born Evolutionary Theory. Creationists seem to think that Evolution isn't an observed fact and that it is simply Darwin's unsupported idea of what happened. Convincing people of this falsehood is the only way they can win standing for their position. If they bring Evolutionary Theory down to the same level as the their unsupported opinion on existence, then it is far easier to convince people that Evolutionary Theory is wrong because the Creationists' opinion is more like a happy fairy tale, due to the popularity of Christianity as a world religion. If there's no reason to accept something else, Christians (the devout ones, anyway) will always turn to what the Bible says is true. The Creationists' ultimate goal is to make it look like there's no reason to accept Evolutionary Theory over "The Word," when there are countless reasons. This goal, again, is achieved by falsely relegating Evolutionary Theory to the same status as the Creationist viewpoint: a wholly-unsupported opinion.

 

If one scientific theory is subject to scrutiny by Creationists, then so are all scientific theories, since Creationists are telling people not to trust scientists' conclusions which have been reached after years of painstaking research and testing. Would Creationists dare to attack Einstein's Theory of Relativity? Of course not! They'd be laughed out of any debate floor or forum.

 

The bottom line is this: Einstein came upon the Theory of Relativity by the same process of testing and concluding, the scientific method, that Darwin and the biologists that followed him did. If you do not question the Theory of Relativity on the basis that it's a theory, then you cannot question Evolutionary Theory on that basis, either.

 

The flaw in Creationism is simple: Creationists want a certain outcome, so they look for any evidence that proves that outcome. A scientific theory is much different. A scientific theory is formulated when a scientist observes phenomena and tries to determine why they happen. He then creates a theory, explaining those happenings, dictated by Occam's Razor (i.e.: not introducing unnecessary statements or requirements into a theory). The scientist then tests the theory to prove it wrong. If he cannot find an instance in which that theory is wrong, then that theory stands. This is why there is no "Creationism Theory." Creationism cannot be proven right or wrong, nor have any Creationists tried to do so. They fixate on proving Evolutionary Theory wrong, and then using that as automatic support for their opinion on how life was created. Also, no Creationist has ever submitted a formal research paper on Creationism to any official scientific institution. The reason is simple: If they did so, it would be laughed out, on its way to the fireplace. So, rather than trying to convince biologists that Creationism is correct, they try and convince the average scientific layman with arguments that sound as if they were based in science, but are, in reality, mockeries and misportrayals of science, a prime example being the Second Law of Thermodynamics, In short, Creationists want their idea to be the right one, so they look for evidence to support it. Evolutionary Theory was the result of collecting evidence with no preferred outcome. It merely describes what happens in nature. We've observed through the fossil record, that evolution takes place. The theory simply describes the working mechanisms of the observation in question. This is a very big difference in the philosophies behind each idea. Creationists want to liken the Evolution vs. Creationism debate to a courtroom battle, where each lawyer looks for evidence to support his side of the argument, and ignores everything else. Science simply doesn't operate in this fashion.

 

 

Here are some Q&A for you to use.

 

Life just couldn't have happened by random chance! They've done computer simulations of the probability, and they're ridiculously low! There must have been an intelligent creator!

 

Amino acids have been observed to form under conditions like those of Earth many billions of years ago in a lab. When gases contained in Earth's atmosphere back then are stuck in a container and shot with an electrical charge, amino acids form. This is observed fact.

 

Furthermore, there is no part of Evolution which says, "There is no God." Science does not make theories to answer the theistic question. Science makes theories to explain how the Universe works. It stays within its realm, the physical.

 

But the amino acids formed in the lab were formed because some scientist stuck the right gases together at the right place at the right time! That proves that intelligent direction is necessary for the acids to form! Evolution flies in the face of probability!

 

 

This is untrue. Evolution is completely consistent with probability. The amino acids created in a lab were created when hydrogen, ammonia and nitrogen were charged. This could have easily happened on Earth, billions of years ago, when a lightning bolt struck the proper mixture, and, given a billion or so years to do so, chances are, it would have.

 

Actually, the theory illustrated above is the Abiogenesis theory (the "primordial soup" theory). It's totally separate from Evolution. Creationists like to lump the two together, all the time, though (and, even mash the Big Bang in there, too). The truth is that, even if Abiogenesis were disproven, Evolution would be totally unaffected.

 

Evolution can't explain the beauty and perfection of the human body.

 

Granted, I'm as attracted to good-looking women as the next guy, but your body, biologically-speaking, is hardly "perfect." The immune system could use a lot of work. Our running speed isn't the fastest in the forest. Our natural strength isn't all it could be. Just because you find the human body physically appealing doesn't mean that it's the result of some exquisite craftsmanship from a supernatural creator. It just means that nature is doing its job: making you attracted to a member of the opposite sex so you can potentially procreate. In other words, you're attracted to females because of Evolution.

 

All the recent research in science brings out more questions that scientists can't answer. This is because God and his works are unfathomable by Man's mere intellect.

 

Good thing this kind of logic didn't prevail when scientists were trying to understand the workings of the sun. Otherwise, nuclear fusion would have never been discovered because scientists would have just dropped any kind of physical explanation in favor of the classic Catholic saying, "It's a mystery." Just because science can't answer a question now doesn't mean that it will never be able to, and it certainly doesn't mean that religious dogma is the only answer. We couldn't answer the question of what processes the sun used to create its energy at one time. Then, we found out about the atom and subatomic particles. We now have a certain understanding of how these things work, thanks to quantum physics, quantum electrodynamics and quantum chromodynamics. Obviously, these things are not "unfathomable."

 

If scientists can use what they want as evidence, then I should be able to use the Bible as evidence.

 

Scientists can't use whatever they want for evidence. Evidence gathering is a very strict process, subject to evaluation by peers. Furthermore, the Bible is not evidence in any sense of the word. It is completely unverifiable that God created the Universe out of nothing, because that violates the Law of Conservation of energy, which has never been proven incorrect. Unless creationists can recreate the creation of the Universe to test their opinion, it remains just that: an opinion. Scientists know some of what happened in the early Universe because of the predictions of particle physics theories, as well as measuring the cosmic microwave background radiation. Creationists "know" what happened because they read a book written by oppressive and arrogant Jewish males. See the difference? Where do the writers of the Bible get their information? There's no bibliography in the Bible. There are no independently verifiable sources. The Big Bang and Evolution, as well as ever other theory in science, can be verified independently.

 

But where did the first bacteria come from? Where did that come from (continue ad infinitum)? There are so many questions raised by evolution that Creationism is so much simpler.

 

By far, one of the most irritating of Creationist misconceptions. Virtually every question a Creationist will raise (except those prefacing with the word "why," science doesn't answer those questions) has an answer. The first amino acids were created when ammonia, hydrogen and methane were energized by UV rays or lightning. The Earth formed as a result of gravitational attractions among various elements after the first stars went supernova, creating the heavier elements. Why is this irritating? Because people that ask this question never do research. If you have a question about a scientific statement or theory, look it up! Chances are, you'll find an answer. Do some independent learning, and don't hold the scientific community responsible for your own laziness. I could explain how the very nature of the Big Bang and relativity doesn't require a God creator, but why should I? The information is readily available. Just because you can't understand something doesn't mean it doesn't exist.

 

 

Have more to come for you

[MrSpooky]

Two top scientists, Sir Fred Hoyle and Chandra Wickramasinghe, specializing in astronomy, mathematics and interstellar matter, declare the Darwin evolution theory "absurd." They array the findings of microbiology, mathematics, computer technology and the fossil record against the Darwin theory. They declare that the chances of random chemical shufflings in some primordial soup producing the complex basic enzymes of life are only one followed by 40,000 zeroes!

They are not Christians, but declare that the biomolecules necessary for life are so exceedingly complex that outside intelligence for explicit instructions were required. They claim that many scientists have been "bamboozled" into believing that evolution has been proven, when nothing could be further from the truth.

 

Fallacious appeal to authority. While Hoyle and Wickramasinghe were "not Christians," they weren't biologists or biochemists either. One does not seek a linguist for advice on a complex mathematical proof, nor does one seek an astronomer for his knowledge on biochemistry or biology.

 

 

 

Bamboozled? Here is one example among many. The Piltdown man, a real missing link according to evolutionists, was first publicized about 1912 and taught in our schools until the 1950s. Some 500 scientists wrote their pontifical doctoral dissertations on this evolutionary marvel. It turned out to be a hoax - the jaw of an ape and a human skull artificially aged, but it fooled the top scientists for 40 years!

 

Did Piltdown Man fool the scientific community for 40 years? Partially. Many scientists did not accept Piltdown Man uncritically, and indeed it was the scientific community itself that exposed the hoax.

 

If we're talking about hoaxes, what about the Paluxy Footprints? The Calaveras skull? The Moab and Malachite Man?

 

When Piltdown Man was exposed, the scientific community accepted the error and became ever more critical towards new evidence. Creationists and ID proponents, however, still perpetuate their hoaxes as fact. All professionals will make mistakes. What is relevant is how professionals HANDLE their mistakes, and this takes persistence, high empirical standards, and intellectual integrity. Quite frankly, Creationists and ID proponents are more often than not sorely lacking in these qualities.

[MrSpooky]

Remind him that the Shroud of Turin is a hoax as well, and then ask him if he's going to stop being a Christian because of it.

 

 

 

OH SHIT! NEIL JUST WON THE THREAD!!!

 

 

Seriously, this is an excellent point. Remember to keep your response on-topic, clear, and concise, foolfromms.

 

Post it here first so we can review it.

[vargo]

Hope this helps you CLICK HERE

[Guest foolfromms]

Thanks for all you guys assistance, I'm going to try and put this together here in a few.

 

Will

[crazy-tiger]

Certainly!  Sit back, relax, and let good ol' Uncle Neil take care of your creationist woes.  This should be fun.

There's nothing I can add to this... Neil has said it all as far as I'm concerned.

This guy is so owned.  You have him by the ass.  Just repeat I told you, plus whatever our other experts, such as Crazy Tiger or Han, have to say, and you should have no problem simply destroying this guy.

 

Knowledge is power!

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I can die happy now that Dr Neil has classed me as an expert.

[Mr. Neil]

 

I'm just a silly cartoonist who buries his head in science books. I have a doctorate in absolutely zilch. I just know a lot of shit.

[Guest foolfromms]

I finally finished the rebuttal letter, please feel free to add or subtract information. Thanks again for all your assistance.

 

Will

---------------------------------------------------

 

Intelligent Design is Pseudoscience!

 

This letter is in response to the Letter to the Editor written by Reverend Floyd C. McElveen dated August 9, 2005. First off, I’d like to say, thank you for taking the time to respond to my letter, but this debate is done and over with. It has been had over and over again with the same results. For you to claim any different is irresponsible and a misrepresentation of the truth, evolution is real science, however, I will take a moment to debunk your claims to support creationism.

 

How can you use the Hoyle-Wickramasinghe statistical argument to justify your theory on creationism when they wrote a book called Evolution From Space? Among other things, Fred Hoyle argues that insects are smarter than humans, but they're just not telling anybody.

 

Wickramasinghe was the ICR's star witness at the creationism trial in Arkansas in 1981, and he proved to be quite an embarrassment to them. He testified that life on earth began with microbes in space that got caught in the tail of a comet and contaminated our planet. He blamed a 1978 flu epidemic on a virus from outer space. And when he was asked in cross-examination if believes children catch colds from comets, he replied, "That is so."

 

But what was particularly amusing was his testimony when he was asked about the views of the American creationists. He was asked, "Could any rational scientist believe the earth's geology could be explained by the a single catastrophe?" "No," he replied. "Could any rational scientist believe the earth is less than one million years old?" Again he replied, "No."

 

They asked him what he though of scientific creationism. "Claptrap," he said. They asked him what he thought of Dr. Gish's hypothesis that all basic forms of life were created separately and had no common ancestry. Again his answer: "Claptrap."

 

Actually, Abiogenesis theory (the "primordial soup" theory). It's totally separate from Evolution. Creationists like to lump the two together, all the time, though. The truth is that, even if Abiogenesis were disproven, Evolution would be totally unaffected, your point is a criticism of abiogenesis; not evolution.

 

This is what Evolutionary Theory states:

 

1. All life forms (species) have developed from other species.

2. All living things are related to one another to varying degrees through common decent (share common ancestors).

3. All life on Earth has a common origin. In other words, that in the distant past, there once existed an original life form and that this life form gave rise to all subsequent life forms.

4. The process by which one species evolves into another involves random heritable genetic mutations (changes), some of which are more likely to spread and persist in a gene pool than others. Mutations that result in a survival advantage for organisms that possess them, are more likely to spread and persist than mutations that do not result in a survival advantage and/or that result in a survival disadvantage.

 

Evolution is more like a branching process, where each branch stretches out from another, poking blindly in the dark for success. Most will be broken away, but a few actually succeed and then the process repeats. The branching is your mutation, and the success and failures are natural selection.

 

You mentioned the Piltdown Man in your letter, did he fool the scientific community for 40 years? Partially. Many scientists did not accept Piltdown Man uncritically, and indeed it was the scientific community itself that exposed the hoax. The Shroud of Turin is a hoax as well, are you going to stop being a Christian because of it?

 

When Piltdown Man was exposed, the scientific community accepted the error and became ever more critical towards new evidence. Creationists and ID proponents, however, still perpetuate their hoaxes as fact. All professionals will make mistakes. The scientific method encourages and allows for such corrections.

 

Are you aware, the National Academy of Sciences and the American Association for the Advancement of Science have both concluded that there is no scientific basis for intelligent design and oppose its inclusion in school science classes.

 

''The claim that equity demands balanced treatment of evolutionary theory and special creation in science classrooms reflects a misunderstanding of what science is and how it is conducted," the academy said in a 1999 assessment. ''Creationism, intelligent design, and other claims of supernatural intervention in the origin of life or of species are not science because they are not testable by the methods of science." Are you familiar with scientific method Rev. McElveen?

 

You mentioned that you would like to debate in public forum, well in the words of Hulk Hogan, “Bring it on Brother!” No need for any expense except a internet connection, myself and associates across the nation would love to have a civilized debate based on the facts. I suggest two online forums each of us choose one. It would be a very educational event and who knows, we both may learn something, would you admit it if you did?

 

Based on the un-compelling facts you submitted, I’m still going to side with bones, fossils, Science Academies, Associations and Biology Departments of every collage that teaches life sciences worldwide, not to mention the poll taken in this paper August 8th and 9th. I stress my point once again, there is no place in our education system for Intelligent Design unless it’s in science fiction literature. Rev, McElveen your case does not hold water, you lose!, Good day Sir!

[MrSpooky]

Wait, this is going to be printed in a newspaper right?

 

I recommend you to trim it down to the basics. One needs to go down to methodology rather than the details for the public, sadly.

 

For example, instead of going on about Piltdown Man in detail, just use Neil's Shroud of Turin rebuttal and pointing out how using one hoax does not invalidate an entire field, especially when there are hundreds of other fossils of prehistoric man.

[MrSpooky]

Oh yeah, I also recommend you strike back with arguments of your own. Evolution is all too often on the defensive.

 

I'll write out a recommended outline for you later.

[Mr. Neil]

Yeah, you at least need to nail him for the "tornado-in-a-junkyard" bullshit. From the very first setence, he proved that he knows nothing about evolution. You have quite a bit of ammo with which to destroy this guy. I suggest you use it.

[Guest foolfromms]

I really can't add anything else. This is going to the Hattiesburg American editorial section. In fact, I'm cutting it down from what I submitted. Was about to send it when I noticed another rebuttal to my original letter. Got some Baptist all fired up! I love it!

 

I'm going to post is on a separate thread.

 

Letter to Editor Rebuttal - Hattiesburg American

[MrSpooky]

I think that you need to choose only a couple of his points to debunk (though if you can squeeze in quick rebuttals to all of em, great). You also need to streamline your rebuttals to get down to the basics, and follow up with a final "why creationism/ID isn't science and shouldn't be taught in science classrooms." I think this last bit should take up about a little less than a half of your response in entirety... an editorial being based only around rebuttals isn't going to fly very well.

 

Feel free to paraphrase this that I wrote from another forum...

 

 

In response to a comment that evolutionists are ALSO being dogmatic when denying the content of ID...

 

It's not dogma if it's true.

 

DO IDers or Creationists bring up valid points? 75% of the points that I see are factually wrong, the remaining 25% is TECHNICALLY true, but IRRELEVANT. I've never EVER seen a valid point of contention that Creationists bring up. Do they have some diamonds in the dust? Maybe... but in all honesty I've yet to see one.

 

But the problem is deeper than that.

 

The ID VS Evo argument is more than a scientific matter... in many areas it extends deeper down into the philosophical underpinnings of science itself (this is where a good education of philosophy helps out). If ID is shown to be flawed not just by its empirical propositions, but BY THE VERY DEFINITION OF THE CONCEPT, then no amount of valid empirical evidence can save it.

 

And it IS flawed in that manner.

 

Science is dependant on several factors. First is falsifiability, which ID fails in (that is, just as Freudian concepts can be "verified" by any manner of evidence), and the need for science to be naturalistic (we have a very good reason for this... see below).

 

In terms of falsifiability, IDers, in one example, can point to what they see as "successes" in "irreducible complexity" and ignore the flaws and failures of their arguments by attributing them to mysterianism (i.e. "God works in mysterious ways."). More extreme IDers will invent hosts of unsupported postulates to support ID, such as the concept that light passes through an alternate dimension in non-euclidian space so that light from stars millions of light-years away can reach earth in 6000 years. As the old cliche goes, IDers first assume their theory is true, THEN look for evidences to support it. This makes their theory unfalsifiable, and ergo unscientific by definition.

 

There is a range of ID-Creationist views, ranging from flat-earthism, geocentrism, young-earth creationism, gap, day-age, progressive, intelligent design, to theistic design. There is a scale of how literally one interprets the Bible, and thus a range of how ratinally unsupported their theories are. But all have the underlying concept of a supernatural being as the demiurge or creator/designer. However, science MUST work by naturalistic terms. Nature can be both qualitatively and quantitatively described. Discrete properties and amounts can be set and demonstrated. The Supernatural, that is, that which is "beyond/above nature," cannot be described in this manner. No properties can be attributed to it. As a result, using "the supernatural" as an explanation is just as unsatisfactory as pointing to a phenomenon and saying "My god! You can keep lightning in bottles! It must be magic!"

 

There's more to it, of course, but this is the gist of it.

 

 

 

 

There is a difference between empirical (a posteriori) and definitive (a priori) claims.

 

"There is no such thing as a black swan and there NEVER WILL BE A BLACK SWAN" is an empirical claim, but it is also one that refuses to be revised. Is this dogmatic? Definitely, because one can most certainly be wrong.

 

"All black swans are black and there shall NEVER BE A BLACK SWAN THAT IS NOT BLACK" is a definitive claim, but it is also one that refuses to be revised. Is this dogmatic? No, not really, because a priori concepts are true by the very definitions of their terms.

 

Science is defined specifically due to the essence of human inquiry. Creation science is an oxymoron... any science that postulates supernatural causes is not a science at all by the very definition of the term. Ergo, it is NOT dogmatic to say that "creation science" cannot put forward any substantive or meaningful claims relevant to their intellectual goals.