This is an interesting site from one of our supporters.

He has some interesting material and this caught my eye;

Consider this: Your beliefs describe a the model of a small, brief universe in which mankind under God has a central role. The model of the Universe built by science is vast beyond our understanding, old beyond our comprehension, complex beyond any possibility of our ever understanding even a fraction of the whole. Which model is closer to the mind of God?

Here is a link to his review of;

Introduction

I went along to see John Mackay talk about his personal disagreement with most of modern science at a small chapel in York this week. I had seen him in 2007 and wanted to see what if anything had changed and I wondered if he would be any more forthcoming this time about what he is doing in schools in the UK.

I have written up a transcript of his talk in Appendix A (see next post) if you would like to savor it in all it’s glory. If not then what follows are the edited highlights for your enjoyment and amazement.

Here are his main arguments and why I think they are poppycock;

The Arguments

The main theme of this talk was based around the biblical concept of “kinds” and the fact that genesis says that all things reproduce after their own kind. Seeing as this just sounds ridiculous on the face of it most “sophisticated” creationists call it a fancy word to make them sound “sciencey”; Baraminology is the term they use – do a google on it to uncover some huge heaps of silly stuff. Now, this piece of mental gymnastics is necessary for even the staunchest young earth creationists ( and John “Darwin is wrong because god is always right.” Mackay is one of the staunchest) to help them explain the blindingly obvious aspects of evolution that anyone can see with their own two eyes i.e. that offspring vary and that we can select from these offspring for characteristics we desire and voila we are up to our knees in cock-a-poos and fractal sprouts. Indeed this topic was part of Darwin’s own argument in “On the Origin of Species”.

What John does here is a common creationist tactic of simply making an unsupported claim. His claim is that variation is limited. He doesn’t tell us what it is limited by or how the mechanism of variation somehow knows how to stop at a certain point. It’s just obvious that it just does. Otherwise his fundamental version of christianity would tell him that his bible isn’t true, and that is something that can’t be so.

He puts his argument across like this;

“In it’s simplest construct – Darwin says that he can see a little change in a little time – therefore you can get a big change over a long time.”

Now if you do read the full transcript of his talk you will see that he never argues with the “little change in a little time” bit. In fact, quite the contrary, he just keeps on repeating it for lots of different things including dogs, cabbages, finches, frogs, moths and even your feet (I’ll come back to this in a moment). In fact he just keeps on repeating it as if it makes some kind of point in his favour. Every time he gives us another example his voice just drips with the sense of another debating point scored from those silly scientists. His audience soon pick up on this and tuts and sighs ring out as he wheels yet another organism into view.

But of course he is only giving us great long lists to back this bit up because he has nothing to back up his claim that lots of small changes can’t add up into a big one.

It’s a good job that the talk was given on the ground floor because John would appear to be vulnerable to being persuaded that whilst steps exist, staircases are a figment of the imagination and he would be rendered unable to walk up stairs when required.

Anyway, along the way we get some fairly strong hints that all mutations are negative, but he never quite says this directly. Perhaps he is a little shy of making such a claim with such a huge pile of evidence stacked up against it. I don’t know. But I think he must be sorely tempted to claim it anyway for two main reasons.

First of all, a theme of degeneracy and suffering are all the rage to his sect where the actual eating of the actual apple actually happened. From such “fruiticide” death and suffering literally entered the world leading inevitably to an Ark stuffed with baby dinosaurs and two of each “kind”. So negative mutations were adopted by creationists as a neat way to wedge the evidence into their ready made conclusion.

Secondly, the latest creationist craze (Intelligent Design) involves staring intelligently up at the ceiling and asking where the information in DNA comes from. Sigh. So of course he can’t accept that information can be generated by the process of evolution, no that has to come from God.

He doesn’t give us much detail on what mutations actually are. All we get is this;

“Mutations are a small change in the DNA.”

You see he doesn’t want his audience to know that some of the ways mutations occur generate extra information. Nuff said.

John’s heartfelt case is that God has built in a certain amount of variation into each kind of organism and whilst selective breeding and even natural selection can bring this out it is ultimately limited to the expression of what god put there in the first place. You might have already guessed, but in the interest of full disclosure I can confirm that he doesn’t tell us anything at all about the several large piles of evidence that reveals this to be a simple lie.

I have given a few examples in Appendix B (see next post) from here but there are hundreds more;

So, John says such variation is not evolution, it is instead merely adaptation. That’s it. He just tells us that this isn’t evolution. So there you go. It isn’t.

Oh hang on, I missed out his killer argument for why adaptation is limited. Brace yourself. You know how athletes can, if given a few weeks or months, adapt to high altitude environments? Yes? Well they can’t adapt to living underwater without drowning can they?

Look, seriously, I am not making this up – you should read the transcript.

The rest of his talk mainly consisted of throwing stones at a few examples of famous evolutionary experiments or observations. This is another common creationist tactic. You see, in their world things are either 100% right or 100% wrong, like the bible and er… well the bible mainly. So anyway, in this way of thinking, if they can just poke one little hole in any one tiny little area of evolution then the whole thing must be wrong and it is only a matter of time before we are giving them our money.

I cover off a few of his false claims below.

Next up is his take on the fossil evidence for evolution. There isn’t any. Well you see he showed us pictures of some fossils that look exactly like creatures that are still alive today.
Can you believe that none of his fellow believers have a clue that this is no problem for the theory of evolution at all?

This next point of his I think is a new species (or kind) of logical fallacy. I don’t think it has been described by science before so I better get this right. Let’s call it the argument from uncontrollable sarcasm.

To achieve this feat of verbal excellence you need to studiously ignore any hint of constructing an actual argument and just be sarcastic. Here you go;

He showed us a slide with the front page of National Geographic; “Was Darwin wrong?”

Then he said this;

“They say in large print “No – the evidence is overwhelming”. Have you had your heart pills? Now – notice that the print get smaller. Here we have; “The fossil record shows a movie in which 999 out of every 1000 frames has been lost.”. Some movie – you don’t have a movie – and this movie is called evolution. Now you can’t get a degree with 99.9% of the evidence for your doctorate missing can you?”

So he simply ignores all the other evidence covered in that very magazine.

Is it just me or does it annoy you as well when, on the one hand, creationists are always complaining about missing links in the fossil record and then on the other hand they are complaining about the fact that science can explain it? Of course, in fact science has never done anything but complain about the highly fragmented nature of the fossil record. Of course John has subtly implied that science holds it up as the main evidence supporting evolution. Clever daftness eh?

He does also use a rather subtle distraction argument which I imagine he crafted with some care. He sprinkles this about all over the talk. Are you ready to try to hang on to your wits? Here we go;

“You define evolution as change – then call all change evolution – you accept any change such as size or colour or even which country they live in as different species.”

Devastating isn’t it? Oh no I mean just silly.

Here is the answer;

“Yes you do. So what? No you don’t.”

Here are a few hair raising quotes;

“Darwin is wrong because god is always right.”

“You can find plenty of opinions to disagree with the bible but the facts don’t.”

“ Here’s something that most professors don’t know – we have smaller brains than Neanderthals.”

“Kids – there were no cauliflowers in the Garden of Eden!”
“ Now they can have it how they want- but either climate change is new or it isn’t. They can’t have it both ways.”

“Darwin set out to disprove the concept in Genesis “producing after their own kind”.”

“ If you go shoeless on holiday your feet hurt – then the skin on the souls of your feet get thicker – you have an ability to make more skin – but when you put your shoes back on the extra skin peels off – your body detects the presence of a shoe.”

“ In schools they tell us “no religion” so I just say I will talk about the evolution of mankind and there is no problem. ha ha”

Here are a few examples of his lack of ethics in action;

He shows us the headline from New Scientist “Darwin was Wrong” and simply says,

“This article says that if you take Darwinism at face value and test it, it doesn’t work – read it yourself or ask questions later”

Here is an extract from the editorial that accompanied the headline;

“As we celebrate the 200th anniversary of Darwin’s birth, we await a third revolution that will see biology changed and strengthened. None of this should give succour to creationists, whose blinkered universe is doubtless already buzzing with the news that “New Scientist has announced Darwin was wrong”. Expect to find excerpts ripped out of context and presented as evidence that biologists are deserting the theory of evolution en masse. They are not.”

The headline actually referred to the phenomenon of lateral gene transfer which suggests the some of the early branches of the tree of life join back up together.

He set’s up the following straw men arguments;

• Science claims that climate change is new.
• Evolution should happen to everything all the time.
• Salamanders evolved into frogs.
• Any difference between two organisms means they are counted as two species.
• National Geographic thinks Darwin is being seriously doubted.
• New Scientist thinks evolution is wrong.

Lessons to learn

• Science journalists and headline writers – just look at the ammunition you are giving someone with John’s rhetorical flair and lack of ethics!
• The main issue here is religious fundamentalism – that is why John does what he does – he is after souls for his sect, none of this is about science.
• There is definitely a role of people like the BCSE and the NCSE to play in attacking John’s scientific claims for what they are without attacking his faith. He actually uses such attacks to strengthen his religious arguments and this works with the already converted -certainly a core of martyr complex runs through his whole approach.
• No – that doesn’t mean atheists should not be allowed to make their case as well, but these are different aspects of the debate. I happen to think that the approach of atheists like Dawkins and Coyne is effective with folks not yet fully taken in by the likes of John. I also happen to think that it is worth pointint out to many of John’s faithful followers that a few folks, like the pope and the archbishop of canterbury, have no problem at all with the evidence for the age of the earth or the evolutionary tree of life. It might just make them think.
• Creationists are VERY good at asking for money – just look at how many times they do it in the transcript below.
• I don’t want this guy anywhere near my kids school.

Any questions, comments or clarifications are welcome (mark at bcseweb.org.uk)

From Christian Forums.

The discussion starts with a request for help;

Creationist said;

“I have an ongoing debate with a kid at school about evolution.

He’s presenting some pretty good arguments and he’s kicking my butt, can anyone help?!”

He is asked to outline the arguments and does so as follows;

“It is a long, drawn out logic style argument, I’ll go through it step by step:

First he said that there are two different types of claims:

faith claims: those which could not be falsified by observation or experiment even in principle.
(i.e. god exists)

-and-

science claims: those which can be falsified by observation or experiment
(i.e. the earth is roughly spherical in shape)

This seemed perfectly rational, so I agreed.

he asked if I would agree that only science claims should be taught in science class. After some hemming and hawwing I agreed.

then the argument went like this:

faith based claims are those that which cannot be falsified.
faith based claims should not be taught in science class.
Creationism / ID can incorporate any evidence by saying “God made it that way”
Therefore creationism / ID cannot be falsified
Therefore creationism / ID should not be taught in science class.

He got me, Where did I go wrong? where’s the flaw in his logic that I can’t see?”

The response he got from a Christian was;

“There is no flaw in his argument. He’s right.

Why do you think creationism should be taught in science class?”

As you might expect, this did not go down well and as well as expressing his disappointment the Creationist revealed his full position with these comments;

“With over half the country being creationists, I was really expecting help… especially on the Christian forum…

as to why creationism should be taught in science class, the choice between the word of God and the word of the atheists seems like a pretty easy one.”

The Christian responded with this;

“You are getting help. You are being told that your friend is correct and that you are wrong. Would you rather be lied to? Would that really be more helpful?

Why do you believe science is atheistic?

I should add that even the late Henry Morris, the founder of modern creationism, has argued that it is not science.”

The Creationist gives a thoughtful and considered response;

“You’re right, from what I’ve heard they’re not atheists, they have a religion called “Darwinism” where they reject Jesus and hold a racist Nazi named Darwin as their prophet.

why are we letting them indoctrinate our kids with this stuff?

can’t someone show me where that kid went wrong in his logic? that’s what I came here for.”

A rabid response from the Christians;

“Careful, now. There are many Christians here who are evolutionists. The fact of the matter is that you have a significant misunderstanding of what evolution is. Evolution is neither atheistic nor a religion. It is a scientific theory like any other. And neither was Darwin a Nazi (he died before Hitler was even born). It appears that what you think evolution is and what it really is are two different things.

He’s not wrong in his logic. You are suffering from a severe confirmation bias. If you’re looking to evangelize somehow, why not be gracious in your Christianity and concede the point in a Christ-like manner, rather than try to argue about something that you clearly do not understand? I suspect that would go a lot farther in conveying the spirit of Christ.”

The signal to noise ratio does rather deteriorate after that but I think this exchange makes a key point.

As reported in The Guardian here;

It’s a great birthday present for Darwin in his 200th anniversary year. For the first time, evolution will be on the national curriculum for primary schools when the new version is published later this year. It was initially excluded from the draft curriculum when it was published for public consultation but sometimes, if not always, it seems government will listen to scientists and experts, many of whom were signatories to an open letter (pdf) to Ed Balls organised by the British Humanist Association in July which called for evolution to be included.

Those who care about public reason are routinely shocked by opinion polls and surveys showing high levels of credence given to the idea of intelligent design. The most recent poll purported to demonstrate that a majority of Britons think that it should be taught alongside evolution in schools.

To solve this problem, we have to know what causes it and there are two reasons why you might prefer the idea of intelligent design to that of evolution. You may do so because your prior ideological convictions, mostly to do with religious belief, simply don’t allow you to accept the evidence that is presented to you. Or you may do so because you genuinely do not know of the evidence for evolution, have never had it explained to you, or because you just don’t understand it. In a society as decreasingly religious as England, it is impossible to believe that most of the people who do not accept evolution are motivated by ideology rather than ignorance. This means that the best way to solve the problem is through better education and that is what makes the inclusion of evolution in the science curriculum as early as possible so important.

It’s true that evolution can seem a difficult concept and that most resources on evolution are targeted towards pupils at secondary schools. But the wealth of new works published in this celebratory year for very young children, from What Mr Darwin Saw to Evolution Revolution or even older works like How Whales Walked into the Sea orMammals Who Morph demonstrate that it is a subject easily made enjoyable and comprehensible by young children. This is a good thing, because as evolution is arguably the most important concept underlying the life sciences, providing children with an understanding of it at the earliest possible age will surely help lay the foundations for a surer scientific understanding later on.

We must certainly hope so, because even if ignorance rather than religious ideology is the principal cause of the low levels of acceptance of evolution in our country, there are still other factors working against a better public understanding of evolution – especially amongst the young. These factors are legion but at least two are very relevant to the case for introducing evolution to young children especially. The first is the profundity of the natural cognitive biases – such as our human propensity to look for design and purpose – that hinder the acceptance of evolution; obviously these are best countered as early as possible in a child’s education. The second is the fact, so brilliantly elucidated by science educator James Williams that young children are bombarded with creationist messages in much of popular culture, which are insidious and confusing.

The new primary curriculum, together with the 2007 government guidance that prohibits the teaching of creationism and intelligent design in science lessons, should put English schools in the forefront of education about evolution. Coming in the month which marks the 150th anniversary of On the Origin of Species, and at a point when good science education is a matter of urgency, it could not be more timely.

Strong language!

Answers in Genesis have probably outdone themselves with this one. We won’t even bother to debunk it, it seems almost self debunking!

From here. Our emphasis.

Are YOU Evolutionized?

by David WrightJuly 9, 2007
Layman

Evolution can become so ingrained in our thinking that we don’t even notice it. Our government schools and universities are entrenched in evolution, from biology to philosophy and even English class. There is no escaping evolution after we graduate, either. We encounter it in the newspaper, on the radio, on television, and in blockbuster movies. So, how do you know if you’ve been evolutionized? Here are a few questions to find out:

• Are tribes in the South American rain forest more primitive forms of humans than we are?
• Did dinosaurs live before humans?
• Were the people who lived in caves and used simple tools not very intelligent?
• Did Noah lack special tools or equipment to build the Ark?
• Are the stars older than the earth?
• Is there more than one race?
• Does it take millions of years to form fossils, oil, coal, or diamonds?
• Did Adam have to learn how to speak, read, and write after he was created?

If you answered “yes” to any of these questions, you’ve been evolutionized to some degree, and the more times you responded “yes,” the more evolution impacts your thinking. Evolutionary teaching so permeates our culture that it can affect every area of our thinking, including what we believe about the Bible. This sort of evolutionized thinking has even permeated our churches.

That is why it is more important than ever for Christians to be discerning and weigh every thought against the truths revealed in God’s Word. If you examine each question more closely, you will see how your answers must be different from evolutionists’ if you start with God’s Word.

It is the duty of Christians to “demolish arguments … and take captive every thought to make it obedient to Christ” (2 Corinthians 10:5, NIV).

. . .so say both religious and non-religious members of the BCSE;

“Imagine you are a teacher of more recent history, and your lessons on 20th-century Europe are boycotted, heckled or otherwise disrupted by well-organised, well-financed and politically muscular groups of Holocaust-deniers. Unlike my hypothetical Rome-deniers, Holocaustdeniers really exist. They are vocal, superficially plausible and adept at seeming learned. They are supported by the president of at least one currently powerful state, and they include at least one bishop of the Roman Catholic Church. Imagine that, as a teacher of European history, you are continually faced with belligerent demands to “teach the controversy”, and to give “equal time” to the “alternative theory” that the Holocaust never happened but was invented by a bunch of Zionist fabricators.”

. . .

“The plight of many science teachers today is not less dire. When they attempt to expound the central and guiding principle of biology; when they honestly place the living world in its historical context — which means evolution; when they explore and explain the very nature of life itself, they are harried and stymied, hassled and bullied, even threatened with loss of their jobs. At the very least their time is wasted at every turn. They are likely to receive menacing letters from parents and have to endure the sarcastic smirks and close-folded arms of brainwashed children. They are supplied with state-approved textbooks that have had the word “evolution” systematically expunged, or bowdlerized into “change over time”. Once, we were tempted to laugh this kind of thing off as a peculiarly American phenomenon. Teachers in Britain and Europe now face the same problems, partly because of American influence, but more significantly because of the growing Islamic presence in the classroom — abetted by the official commitment to “multiculturalism” and the terror of being thought racist.

It is frequently, and rightly, said that senior clergy and theologians have no problem with evolution and, in many cases, actively support scientists in this respect. This is often true, as I know from the agreeable experience of collaborating with the Bishop of Oxford, now Lord Harries, on two separate occasions. In 2004 we wrote a joint article in The Sunday Times whose concluding words were: “Nowadays there is nothing to debate. Evolution is a fact and, from a Christian perspective, one of the greatest of God’s works.” The last sentence was written by Richard Harries, but we agreed about all the rest of our article. Two years previously, Bishop Harries and I had organised a joint letter to the Prime Minister, Tony Blair.”

. . .

“The Archbishop of Canterbury has no problem with evolution, nor does the Pope (give or take the odd wobble over the precise palaeontological juncture when the human soul was injected), nor do educated priests and professors of theology.”

. . .

“They may think God had a hand in starting the process off, and perhaps didn’t stay his hand in guiding its future progress. They probably think God cranked the Universe up in the first place, and solemnised its birth with a harmonious set of laws and physical constants calculated to fulfil some inscrutable purpose in which we were eventually to play a role.

But, grudgingly in some cases, happily in others, thoughtful and rational churchmen and women accept the evidence for evolution.”

. . .

“Evolution is an inescapable fact, and we should celebrate its astonishing power, simplicity and beauty. Evolution is within us, around us, between us, and its workings are embedded in the rocks of aeons past. Given that, in most cases, we don’t live long enough to watch evolution happening before our eyes, we shall revisit the metaphor of the detective coming upon the scene of a crime after the event and making inferences. The aids to inference that lead scientists to the fact of evolution are far more numerous, more convincing, more incontrovertible, than any eyewitness reports that have ever been used, in any court of law, in any century, to establish guilt in any crime. Proof beyond reasonable doubt? Reasonable doubt? That is the understatement of all time.”

From here.