Creationist Evolutionists
August 23, 2005

[Click to Enlarge]

In light of the recent media around the discussion of intelligent design, I found this quote rather interesting. It seems the evolutionist marine biologists who wrote copy for the Vancouver Aquarium signage have disproved their own theory. I snapped this photo of a sign posted next to a tropical fish tank. It read:

Beauty by Design

"Even a thousand engineers working together for an entire lifetime could not have designed a better ocean-going survival machine."

Nope. They sure couldn't.

Posted by Ambra at August 23, 2005 11:35 PM in Culture
Bookmark and Share





Wow. That's a good quote. And they think millions of years of "evolving" is better than intelligent design??


They accidentally spoke the truth...they must be so embarrassed;)

What does this prove? Lots of scientists marvel at nature. They also regard viruses and deformities with awe. Does that mean we should teach Genesis in the public schools as science? What about Mendel, and hybrids, and thoroughbred breeding in horseracing, cattle, and botany? What do these evolutionary genetic practices (most domesticated breeds of dog are man-made) prove.

Government schools are for teaching facts that can be tested and evaluated by unrelated teams of researchers, as was done with gravity, blood circulation, and the general theory of relativity. As for religion, free schools are not the place for it (except a Sacred Studies or Philosophy course). If a parent believes in Genesis (or the creation stories of the Navajo, Aborigine, Yoruba, or Hindu) they've three options: parochial school, home schooling, and church/Sunday school. Those don't receive my tax dollars, and don't require state-certified teachers.

Besides, to teach Genesis is to deprive schoolchildren of other belief systems their creation cosmologies. Constitution protects them.

Some of us feel the same way about our tax dollars being used to propagate the THEORY of evolution as rock-solid fact. Evolution is the humanist's creation cosmology.

When the geneticists turn a horse into a bird, or vice versa, let me know.

I think the quote actually says less about "intelligent design" and more about the limitations of human engineers.

This group seems to be saying that they appreciate something greater than man is responsible for many of the miracles around us. But you should know by now that does NOT automatically mean they are giving credit to a spiritual figure of any stripe...they are likely giving credit to the wonders of nature.

I doubt they are embarassed at all by what they've said.

I for one would be a little leary of a school teacher teaching my children about "creationism" as an alternate theory to evolution.

Why? Because Hebrews 11 says BY FAITH we believe the world was created by God. I would have trepidations with an unsaved school teacher teaching my children about the Christian faith.

Christians have enough divisions amongst ourselves over speaking in tongues, baptizing in which name, and other stuff. I would rather not have unsaved or unevenly yoked school teachers teaching my children about what God did or did not do.

But that's me.

Science class is the place for science. religion courses are the place for religion. Your auto mechanic and your dermatologist speak to you in scientific terms, based on proven, testable hypotheses, not faith. They are thus-trained.

Gravity and magnetism are theories too (a theory does not mean a guess, look it up). If evolution is heresy, why do botanists and agri-scientists use it to create larger tomatoes, various new flowers, and new vegetables every year? How do racehorse owners use it in breeding? Why does our skin tan in certain climes?

Apples and oranges, Bijan.

Call me when one of them there 'maters turns into a schnauzer. Or when one of them carnations turns into Affirmed.

Evolutionary theory requires a huge leap of faith.

from a scientist speaking to a lot of non-scientists:

genetics does not equal evolution.

selective breeding does not equal evolution.

Skin tanning is so remarkably far away from evolution, I am embarrassed as a teacher that someone educated you so poorly in that respect.

"Government schools are for teaching facts that can be tested and evaluated by unrelated teams of researchers, as was done with gravity, blood circulation, and the general theory of relativity"

You believe evolution fits into this category? Once they design a good test for macroevolution, let me know. (Also, if you can find a government high school that teaches the general theory of relativity, I will be quite surprised as well.)

And finally, just as a reasonable observer, absolutely no one here proposed teaching creationism or teaching Genesis. Straw men do not make good arguments.

I'm a scientist as well.
And yes, evolution does fit into this category.

First, a lesson on how scientists use the words "fact" and "theory" (which is different from how laypeople use these terms):

"Fact" is the most basic, simplest, lowest form of scientific knowledge, for example: "Mass A is attracted to Mass B."

"Theory" is a higher form of scientific knowledge, that seeks to explain the most facts with the least assumptions. For example, to explain the fact that Mass A is attracted to Mass B, Newton proposed the universal theory of gravitation which says there is a force between all masses whose magnitude is proportional to each mass and to the inverse square of distance between them.

Facts generally do not change (unless we get better data), but the theories are constantly improved. To whit: Einsten overthrough Newton's view of gravity and replaced it with General Relativity: Mass A is attracted to Mass B because
Mass A and Mass B warp the fabric of space-time around them... objects move in straight lines in this curved space-time...

My teeth literally grind when I hear the phrase:
"It's not a fact, only a theory."
To a scientist, that doesn't even make sense...
that's comparing apples to oranges... facts are not better than theory, nor is theory better than facts... Facts support theories, and theories are only as good as how many facts they can explain with the least number of outside assumptions.

Regarding evolution... it is the best theory to explain a whole assortment of facts, more specifically that species change over time.
Is evolution "fact"? No, but then again, niether is gravity... to scientists, "theory" is NOT a dirty word.

Is evolution a COMPLETE theory? Of course not... there are still many gaps that we don't understand... but that is why we continue to do research... we don't throw our hands in the air, give up and say "God did it." And for the record, that is EXACTLY what "intelligent design" proponents advocate.... sure, they use big scientific jargon like "irreducible complexity"... but that is just to impress the masses... real scientists know that "intelligent design" is NOT just an attack on evolution, or big-bang theory... but an attack on science itself.

Where do IT proponents (read- Christians) come down on conjoined twins, deaf mutes, dwarfism, and curvature of the spine? The fossil record speaks to natural selection. Teaching science, BTW, doesn't mean there isn't a God. Darwin studied for the seminary, and Newton was quite the religious man. The marine biologists' caption is not that different that quotes by Einstein or Carl Sagan.

Had radio not been invented, many would doubt (because they're not in the Bible) the existence of radio waves. Had dinosaur bones never been unearthed, how many Christians would believe the thunder lizards once roamed the earth? Just because a scientific principle is not entirely understood yet (i.e. Alzheimer's disease, dreaming, magnetism), doesn't mean it is not fact.

jab - I did not say that evolution wasn't a theory. I specifically attacked the idea that evolution is "facts that can be tested and evaluated by unrelated teams of researchers." I do not believe it fits in that description. BTW - if you're a scientist, don't you feel bad about all of the pseudoscience being passed off on this thread in support of evolution?

I do not attack evolution, and not all ID proponents attack it either. What I attack is the non-scientific philosophy that surrounds macroevolution, the kind of stuff that people like Sagan and Gould push all the time. Ideas like:

Evolution is the result of random mutations.
Macroevolution is the result of microevolution.
Evolution is purposeless.
Evolution is directionless.
Evolution is atheistic.
Evolution is not controlled.

None of those statements are testable by us, the last four are not scientific, all are often put forth by evolutionists and some are taught as fact in public schools. If these philosophies were put in proper perspective (which means removing the last four statements from science courses altogether) than I think it would be perfectly reasonable not to mention ID either. But that's not happening, and until then I don't see anything wrong with saying that the possibility exists that evolution is non-random, directional, purposeful, and theistically controlled. In other words, intelligently designed.

Bayne - if you don't like the idea of evolution being intelligently designed, try reading "The Story We Find Ourselves In" by Brian McLaren. I'm not saying that I agree with everything in the book (or even that he agrees with everything in the book), just that he puts forth an interesting explanation for how this may just have been the perfect plan.

Aw man, you missed your chance!
{ Comments are now closed for this entry. }


Enter your Email



Why I'm Not a Republican Parts I, II, III, IV
Reflections on the Ill-Read Society
The ROI of a Kid
The Double-Minded Haters
Hip-Hop in Education: Do You Wanna Revolution?
Oh parent Where Art Thou?
Requisite Monthly Rant: the State of the Nation
College Curriculum Gone Wild
Walmart Chronicles
An Open Letter to American Idol
Gonorrhea and the City