Evolutionists, are you smarter than hundreds of professors?

Question

http://www.discovery.org/scripts/viewDB/filesDB-download.php?command=download&id=660

"We are skeptical of claims for the ability of random mutation and natural selection to account for the complexity of life. Careful examination of the evidence for Darwinina theory should be encouraged"


But intelligent design theorists are quick to point out they do not necessarily call that "intelligent designer" God. They do not tie their theory to any sacred text or the creation account in Genesis, although intelligent design theory includes some kind of divine spark.
___"I do think God is real and created the universe, but I don't know how," explained Jonathan Wells, author of "Icons of Evolution." In his book, Wells challenges some of Darwin's theories about natural selection and random mutation. He claims there are structures and natural systems that defy Darwin.
___Take, for example, flagellar motors, the mechanism that powers the flagellum, a tail-like structure that moves bacteria th

Answer 1

God is beyond our limits of imagination. His way of working cannot be comprehanded by man - no matter if they are scientist or religious leaders. If we, the simple mortals could understand the way he works, he would have lost the importance that he holds now. I also know everything has been created by him, and he indeed followed a unique pattern. Religion has been in contant battle with science, not knowning that science too has been given to us by him. He provided us with these means - science, so that we could admire, and appreciate his devine style of working. Concepts like gravity, chemical reactions, gene mutation etc all are his working, science which has been given to us by him is his means to provide us tools to look into but just an iota of his style of working. So talking about Theory of Origin, I might not completely agree with it, but I also know it indeed is working in some way in that pattern. I think Religion and science are means of understanding god in totally different ways. Two different paths reaching the same destination. It is silly for one to prove the other wrong. We [science and religion] can work better if we work together then against each other. While one stress on spiritual side, it should leave science alone and science should stress more on the science side and leave spiritual side to the other team.

Answer 2

First off, this list is garbage. If the majority of the professors on here were biologists, you might have some sort of point. But they aren't. For the most part, they're physicists, chemists, and engineers.

More importantly, however, this is nothing more than an appeal to authority, and that does nothing to sway me. What does sway me is the evidence, which points to no intelligent designer.

And don't even bother bringing up the flagellum. You should actually learn what that structure is, and how there are many, many different types of flagellum. And there are also plenty of theories that explain how the flagellum came to be. It isn't some mysterious thing. Even if we didn't know, that doesn't mean there was a god behind it. That's a leap in logic. All it means is that we don't know, but we'll probably find out someday. Science is about asking questions, not just throwing up your hands and saying "god did it!" as soon as you hit something you don't understand.

Answer 3

Oooh, the Discovery Institute published a list of non-natural science professors who are creationists? What a shocker. The Discovery Institutes primary objective is to get evolution thrown out of school classrooms, at first by force and now via the "teach the controversy" tactic. They have been tossed from every courtroom they have entered because it is painfully obvious that they are trying to teach religion. Intelligent Design (ID) supporters have tried to pass ID off as non-theistic. This is a load of BS. Call it whatever you want, but ID IS NOT SCIENCE. That's all there is to it. Or, as is often said, "ID is creationism in a cheap tuxedo." It's dressed up but it's really just the same.

Ultimately ID is not science because it posits no hypotheses regarding how we came to be. That's why it isn't science--it isn't pro-anything. It makes no claim except it opposition to evolution. That's all there is to it. That's why this group of "professors" (arguing from authority anyone?) say nothing except they doubt the claims made by evolution.

Answer 4

(Chuckle) Yes I am much smarter than the idiots that majored in Theology and think the World is only 6,000 yrs old. I make decisions based on evidence and plenty of evidence exists to indicate Darwin was basically correct.
Here's the good news: Humans are very curious critters.
Now for the bad news: They want easily understood answers to their questions and are too damned lazy to do indepth searches for the truth.
With the information available on the network, one could easily research flagellum or flagellar motors... try it. Nano technology & DNA computers are other interesting subjects.
Strangely everyone that has attempted to prove Darwin wrong has eventually concluded that the evidence supports his theories on evolution.

Ed

Answer 5

Not sure if I am smater but you are really broad and do not break the numbers down in order for anyone to know what you are speaking of.
The thing that gets me and I can not for the life of me figure this out and maybe you or someone else can help.

Do I believe that 14.5 billion years ago something happend for whatever reason and the universe began to form and then about 10 billion years later the Earth was formed completly over that smae 10 billion years. Then at some point for what ever reason something happend that sparked life and 4.5 billion years later here we are.
Or Do I believe that some 6,000 years ago God looked down and saw nothing and decided it should be something so he made the universe and the planets and then the next day he made this and that and then he got and looked and saw that the earth was lonely so he made man out of a handfull of dirt that he then breathed on and it came to life and then saw that man was lonely and he put him to sleep took a rib out of him and made a women.
Which of these do I find harder to believe that life came about slowly over billions and billions of years or that one day a god said poof! and here we are.
I think I will stick with the dumb and stupid evolutionists and allow you to remain subserviant to the forced mental slavery you seem to want to keep your self and family involved with. But since this is America and we can all choose how we want why not lay off the cracks at our intelligence and we will leave you to grovel and kneel and beg at teh foot of the invisible man.

Answer 6

AH HA HA HA HA HA!!!

Ever heard of "Project Steve"?

Since the early Twentieth Century, evolution deniers have been fond of creating lists of "scientists" who do not accept evolution. This tactic is an attempt to give the erroneous impression that, among scientists in general, support for evolution is in decline or that evolution is a "theory in crisis."

The "Steve List" is a listing of scientists with doctorates who support the following statement:

Evolution is a vital, well-supported, unifying principle of the biological sciences, and the scientific evidence is overwhelmingly in favor of the idea that all living things share a common ancestry. Although there are legitimate debates about the patterns and processes of evolution, there is no serious scientific doubt that evolution occurred or that natural selection is a major mechanism in its occurrence. It is scientifically inappropriate and pedagogically irresponsible for creationist pseudoscience, including but not limited to "intelligent design," to be introduced into the science curricula of our nation's public schools.

The catch is that the NCSE tied an arm and two legs behind its back by making an arbitrary requirement that the scientists be named "Steve," "Stephanie," "Stefan," or some other form of "Stephen." It estimates that about one percent of the population of the United States has such a name. When the Project was first publicly announced on February 16, 2003 it had 220 Steves, which corresponds to about 22,000 scientists with doctorates agreeing with the statement. By May 23, 2003 that number had increased to 367 Steves which corresponds to about 36,700 scientists.

Answer 7

We're certainly not gullible enough to fall for this "intelligent design" crap that hasn't a single shred of proof to support it.

And really, "hundreds of professors?" When all you have are "hundreds" out of the thousands, you aren't even doing a proper argument by numbers fallacy.

FAIL.

Answer 8

So did you make up all those names or forge all those signatures? Even if they are all legit, the fact of the matter is that the majority of all scientists reject such notions as intelligent design. If you survey the National Academy of Sciences, you would find that 97% of its members don't even believe in god.

I will ring your doorbell and run away!!!

Answer 9

Are all of these hundreds of professors smarter than the thousands of biologists, researchers, and scientists that study and uphold evolutionary theory?

No? They're just a tiny percentage of all professors and scientists? Well... isn't that a surprise. :)

No one said a creationist couldn't get a degree in science.

Answer 10

Yes