A  B  C  D  E  F  G  H  I  J  K  L  M  N  O  P  Q  R  S  T  U  V  W  X  Y  Z

Ernst Mayr  Stephen Meyer  Terry Mortenson  

Previous Page

Terry Mortenson  (b. 1953)  PhD History of Geology  Web  Amazon  GBS  AV

Young-earth creationists are enthusiastic about science! But we object to religion charading as science.    washingtonpost.com  September 28 2001

Although the ID movement is fighting naturalism in biology, it is actually tolerating or even promoting naturalism in geology and astronomy -- which is not a consistent strategy -- thus undermining its potential effectiveness.    Philosophical Naturalism and the age of the earth  The Master’s Seminary Journal  Spring 2004

So from all this it should be clear that by 1830, when Lyell published his uniformitarian theory, most geologists and much of the church already believed that the earth was much older than 6,000 years and that the Noachian Flood was not the cause of most of the geological record. Lyell is often given too much credit (or blame) for the church’s loss of faith in Genesis. In reality, most of the damage was done before Lyell, often by Christians who were otherwise quite biblical, and this compromise was made at a time when geologists knew very little about the rocks and fossils of the earth.    Philosophical naturalism and the age of the earth  The Master’s Seminary Journal  Spring 2004  III

So contrary to what people in the ID movement and many Christians influenced by the ID movement seem to think, naturalism (with its attendant anti-Bible, especially anti-Genesis, attitude) took hold of geology and astronomy in the late eighteenth and early nineteenth centuries. And this spread of the infection of naturalism in science was concurrent with the development of the same critical naturalistic approach to Genesis in biblical scholarship.    Philosophical naturalism and the age of the earth  The Master’s Seminary Journal  Spring 2004  V

Robson correctly identifies two important weaknesses of these efforts to defend the existence of God. First, because they largely divorced themselves from divine revelation (the Bible), the natural theology that was produced failed to deal with one of the greatest difficulties in theology, namely the existence of evil. To put it simply, by arguing for a Designer without incorporating the Fall, they raised the obvious question of what sort of Designer would create some of the pathological features of this world. Second, argued Robson, contrary to the intent of the authors of the ‘Bridgewater Treatises,’ their arguments had an inherent tendency toward deism or even pantheism.    Philosophical naturalism and the age of the earth  The Master’s Seminary Journal  Spring 2004  VII

The early nineteenth-century design arguments, while enthusiastically received by the already ‘converted’ of that day, failed to stem the rising tide of atheism and other forms of anti-biblical (and therefore anti-God) skepticism. In fact, history shows that the unrecognized assumptions of naturalism, which were buried in the foundations of the old-earth, ‘the-age-of-the-earth-doesn’t-matter’ design arguments, actually paved the way for Darwin’s theory, which would demolish the force of those design arguments in most people’s minds.    Philosophical naturalism and the age of the earth  The Master’s Seminary Journal  Spring 2004  VII

 

Paul Moody  Professor of Natural History and Zoology 

"Does not science prove that there is no Creator?" Emphatically, science does not prove that! Actually science proves nothing about first causes at all.    Introduction to Evolution  (1953)  p.429-430 

The more I study science the more I am impressed with the thought that this world and universe have a definite design and a design suggests a designer. It may be possible to have a design without a designer, a picture without an artist, but my mind is unable to conceive of such a situation.    Introduction to Evolution  (1953)  p. 431

 

Malcolm Muggeridge  (1903 – 90)  Web

I myself am convinced that the theory of evolution, especially the extent to which it's been applied, will be one of the great jokes in the history books of the future. Posterity will marvel that so very flimsy and dubious an hypothesis could be accepted with the incredible credulity that it has.    The Advocate  March 8  1984  p. 17

People do not believe lies because they have to, but because they want to.

 

PZ Myers  (b. 1957)  Associate Professor of Biology from the University of Minnesota  Web  Blog  AV

Our only problem is that we aren’t martial enough, or vigorous enough, or loud enough, or angry enough. The only appropriate responses should involve some form of righteous fury, much butt-kicking, and the public firing and humiliation of some teachers, many schoolboard members, and vast numbers of sleazy far-right politicians.    A New Recruit  June 14 2005

I say, screw the polite words and careful rhetoric. It's time for scientists to break out the steel-toed boots and brass knuckles, and get out there and hammer on the lunatics and idiots.    Perspective  August 4 2005

Confronting the issue head-on is exactly what we need. We don't need to convert people to atheism, but we do need to wake them up and let them know that there are legitimate arguments with their unquestioning acceptance of Christian dogma.    In which I envy the British  January 10, 2006 

"God." Once again, I'm going to give good, liberal progressive Christians the vapors and point out that there is the destroyer, the idea that ruins young minds and corrupts education: god. Ham has god on the brain, and he exploits other people who have god on the brain to give him millions of dollars so he can run around the country and put god on the brain of the next generation.

I know. Many of you support science, and you carefully set aside your religious biases when assessing ideas about the world—you've managed to find means to cope with this infectious lie. That doesn't change the ugly fact that it is a lie, a crippling corruption, and that many people don't even try to sequester their superstitions and cultivate their rational side.

When I hear Christians make excuses for their religion, it's like hearing smallpox survivors praising their scars. "It didn't kill me, and these poxy marks add character to my face! Those deadly cases have nothing to do with my own delightful disease."    I'm sure Ken Ham is sincere in his faith...  February 11, 2006

Scientists will never be the close, reassuring father figures that Americans see every week. We will always be threats to the backwards-looking flocks of the majority of the religious, and we will always be railed against from the pulpits—science is an alternative and better way to approach the truth, so we are the competition. The only religion that we can coexist with is one that abandons dogma and scriptural authority, that concedes all explanations of the natural world to the scientific process rather than ancient writ.    The Dawkins/Dennett boogeyman  March 27, 2006 

Tenure is a brutal, evil machine that puts everyone through a hellish torture, and often spits out the deserving and rewards the undeserving. Do not ever judge someone by whether they have got tenure or not—it's too arbitrary for that, and often represents a kind of insubstantial and subjective matching or mismatching between a person and an institution.    Francis Beckwith and the cold, cruel realities of tenure  March 27, 2006 

I get to vote on tenure decisions at my university, and I can assure you that if someone comes up who claims that ID 'theory' is science, I will vote against them.    Beckwith's tenure decision  April 8, 2006

I'm not against America. I'm just for a godless America that cares about the welfare of its citizens.    Pinko Jesus-hating!  May 28, 2006

Atheist scientists are consistent, and don't need to announce whether they are speaking as a scientist or an atheist—those two voices are the same. Religious scientists are the ones who have to be careful, because they are the ones who are living with two very different worldviews.    What should a scientist think about religion?  June 29, 2006

Collins the theist is no scientist. When he puts on the silly hat of a Christian, he also abandons the mindset of an honest scientist.    The ubiquitous Francis Collins  August 7, 2006

Actually, we don't teach that Genesis is nonsense—we don't even mention the Bible, for the most part. Students who are taught to think and evaluate the evidence manage to figure out for themselves that Genesis is nonsense.     Ham and Wilkins on Downe  August 12, 2006

Personally, I think scientists ought to speak out more against the silliness of religion, and I'm a bit tired of the appeasers on my side who want to pretend that religion and science are fully compatible. I'd reverse his complaint a little: it's hypocritical that we keep trotting out god-worshippers as spokespeople for evolution. They just aren't at all representative.    Joe Carter strings together some noise  August 13, 2006

I'm sorry, but theistic evolutionists are creationists. They're just creationists who accept evidence and readily back off from specific claims about their creator god, but they still place faith in unwarranted assumptions about the existence and interventions of a supernatural being, they just tuck it into the gaps in our knowledge. What makes theistic evolution somewhat acceptable to scientists is that its proponents are so willing to run away from their faith when challenged.    Post on Science Blogs  April 26, 2007

I still stand by my review, and now I'm a bit disturbed that someone would think criticism of a scientific hypothesis must be defended by silencing its critics.    email  to Christopher Mims  August 20, 2007

Here's our big problem: we have had no offense at all, and we're never going to make any progress without one. Keeping the other team from scoring is important but doesn't win us any games if we can never carry our arguments forward — we're always being told to stop at the point where we are drawing the logical implications of science and evolution and told to back off…it might alienate the other team. Worse, our defense is then rushing to help the apologetics of the opposition. This is all done in the name of what they call political pragmatism. Always, they say, they have to mollify the religious people on school boards, in government, and the electorate if they want to get anything accomplished; they can't possibly state outright that evolution refutes most religious views of creation, that science reveals a universe dominated by chance and necessity and natural processes, because, well, they'll throw science out then.    Panda's Thumb  April 26 2009

I've also told them that one factor in my loss of faith was the promulgation of bad interpretations of the Bible that contradicted the evidence of science, and that they were going to drive more intelligent people out of their congregations if they insisted on adherence to falsified ideas. That often seems a more effective and pragmatic approach than pretending they can believe whatever they want and still remain true to science.    Panda's Thumb  April 26 2009

This is why some of us are beginning to express our resentment of the approach taken by the NCSE and its friends: they have chosen as their preferred face of science spokespeople who are not representative of the majority of scientists, and who are definitely not at all representative of the significant fraction of even more militant atheists among us... We are asking that this pretense that religion and science are compatible, and that the only way to get political support is for the majority of scientists to sit back and shut up about their rational views while the scientists who endorse superstition are propped up as our façade, has got to end. If the national science organizations want to be pragmatic, then stop speaking only favorably of religion. Stop bringing religion up altogether, and stick to the science. Or let godless voices join the chorus... We're going forward with a bold new offense against the regressive forces that have kept this country locked in a stalemate — we are going to change the culture with an aggressive promotion of rational ideas and our ongoing opposition to religious superstition.    Panda's Thumb  April 26 2009

Some people seem to be incapable of grasping something both Coyne and I have said.

We are not lobbying for the NCSE to be a militantly atheist organization. I’d even agree that maintaining a careful neutrality is the best and most politically pragmatic approach for them to take.

The problem is that they aren’t neutral. They promote a moderate religion. We’re saying they SHOULD be neutral, and stop that.    Panda's Thumb  April 26 2009  4.30pm

Yes, the NCSE is lying.

They say they are religiously neutral, but as Jerry Coyne has shown, the only view on religion that is promoted is one of compatibility. I go by what they do more than by what they say they do.    Panda's Thumb  April 26 2009  6.19pm

 

Next Page

Ernst Mayr  Stephen Meyer  Terry Mortenson  

A  B  C  D  E  F  G  H  I  J  K  L  M  N  O  P  Q  R  S  T  U  V  W  X  Y  Z

 

Home  Evolution  Stephen Jones