Pharyngula

Hold the presses: Collins is being used

A reader wrote to Francis Collins about the use of his name to promote D. James Kennedy’s upcoming ahistorical anti-evolution program, and Collins wrote right back. He’s doing exactly the right thing.

(Oops, no — Collins doesn’t want to be quoted on this, so I’ve removed the email. He’s unambiguous in stating that he was interviewed about his book, and that was then inserted into the video without his knowledge.)

Good for him, and that’ll teach me: just when you think there are no further depths to which a creationist will sink, there they go, plumbing ever deeper. Kennedy and his crew are apparently putting together the video equivalent of a quote mine.

I apologize to Dr Collins for assuming he was a party to this creationist video, and I hope he sues those frauds.

Comments

  1. #1 Molly, NYC
    August 20, 2006

    Caledonian–There’s a huge difference between letting your science drive your religious beliefs and letting your religion drive your scientific beliefs.

  2. #2 Joe Martin
    August 20, 2006

    My respect for Francis just went up from negative two to zero. Incidentally, for those horrible D. James Kennedy types, if Gawd created the world and Darwin is/was decidedly part of the world, then isn’t Hitler Gawd’s fault?

  3. #3 Caledonian
    August 20, 2006

    Collins insists that science is incapable of examining the questions that he finds satisfying ‘answers’ to in his religion. As such, he is misrepresenting the nature of science.

    In trying to “bridge the divide between science and religion”, Collins demonstrates himself to be a syncretist. He is a liar and a fraud – I don’t care whether his first act of deception was to deceive himself, or whether he’s knowingly trying to spread untruths about the scientific process and the nature of religious belief.

    He’s a “theistic evolutionist”, which means that he’s as certain that his Invisible Sky God directed the creation and development of the world as the ID fools. He’s just not willing to openly make a claim that contradicts the findings of science at this time.

  4. #4 Blake Stacey
    August 20, 2006

    Leaving aside any questions about Collins’s character and thinking style (why flame over that when I know others have and will at great length?), I have to say that the IDiots actions here don’t surprise me at all. “The video equivalent of a quote mine”? Seems long in coming.

  5. #5 Corkscrew
    August 20, 2006

    Why apologize? He is a creationist. He’s just forced his beliefs about creation to fit approximately into the facts that science has uncovered.

    There’s two distinct levels of daftness. Collins is arational – he accepts the facts, he just doesn’t take the most parsimonious interpretation of them. Folks like Hovind are irrational – they ignore the facts and any semblance of logic.

    Collins still isn’t a member of the Reality-Based Community, but at least he’s not actively opposed to it like the real creationist nutjobs.

  6. #6 JImC
    August 20, 2006

    Burt-

    No offense but this is an absolutely empty sentence:

    both think that science has the necessary apparatus to make claims about the non-natural world

    What exactly is the non-natural world? And how could we know it in any event? If we know it it has to become natural and therefor is subject to science.

    Obviously the theologians you are reading are pretty clueless. But I’ll agree in part evolution doesn’t lead to atheism. But it does make Christianity particuarlly less tenable. Other religions less so.

    Just recognize that you’re making yourself into the caricature that Kennedy and his awful ilk pretend you to be.

    No he is not. This is weak attempt to make the atheist position of no evidence with a group that spouts on about religious dogma. Anyone who says as much is either deluded or clueless.

  7. #7 PZ Myers
    August 20, 2006

    I don’t quite understand people who argue that being rational means you can’t appreciate beauty anymore, or that you have to be an emotionless robot. Did somebody watch too much Star Trek?

  8. #8 quork
    August 20, 2006

    (Oops, no — Collins doesn’t want to be quoted on this, so I’ve removed the email. He’s unambiguous in stating that he was interviewed about his book, and that was then inserted into the video without his knowledge.)

    Well then **** him. If he’s not willing to make a public statement opposing this, then why shouldn’t I assume he is telling each side what they want to hear?

    Francis Collins, show some ******** backbone.

  9. #9 PZ Myers
    August 20, 2006

    I’ll give him the benefit of the doubt on that one. I think he was swamped with email from people protesting his involvement, and he’s responding to all of them (I’ve seen a few copies of the letter now) with the same short text. He may want more time to compose a stronger response. I hope.

  10. #10 Jason
    August 20, 2006

    Kennedy and his crew are apparently putting together the video equivalent of a quote mine.

    So they did what you do on an almost daily basis.

  11. #11 Burt Humburg
    August 20, 2006

    To answer PZ’s question, yes. I watched *way* too much Star Trek.

    Second, maybe we’re working off of different definitions, but I am taking emotion to be the opposite of, perhaps a complement to, rationalism. Rational is deductive and logical, whereas emotion and intuition are not that. It was this sense of rationalism in Corkscrew’s writing – “Collins is arational – he accepts the facts, he just doesn’t take the most parsimonious interpretation of them” – to which I was referring. (Contra PZ, I wasn’t making the case that being “rational means you can’t appreciate beauty anymore.”) I don’t hold that, but Corkscrew seemed to, so I was arguing against *that* particular take on rationalism. (I may be doing Corkscrew’s perspectives violence in interpreting it in that fashion, but I’m left with that opinion.)

    If Collins is allowed to be moved by music, then why can’t he be moved by theology. If Collins is not allowed to be moved by theology on the basis that he would then be irrational (or arational, as Corkscew put it), then he’s not allowed to be moved by music for similar reasons. I hold that the committment to rationalism at all times in our lives, with all decisions, with no exceptions being made regardless of the situation or lack of scientific import, is preposterous; I called instead for enlightenment, rather than rationalism, which seems to me more virtuous and inclusive. That was my thesis, however horrible I expressed it.

    BCH

  12. #12 Steve_C
    August 20, 2006

    Jason are you a new earth creationist or old earth creationist?

  13. #13 Steve LaBonne
    August 20, 2006

    The problem I have with Collins is that he goes well beyond merely being “moved by theology”, to making anti-scientific claims about the natural world, specifically human evolution. Yes, that is irrational in a completely pejorative sense. And no, the music analogy is in no way, shape or form a relevant one to that issue.

  14. #14 Steve_C
    August 20, 2006

    Jason are you claiming that PZ quotes people in a way that makes it appear they support his position when in fact they don’t?

    I think you’ll have a problem showing that.

  15. #15 quork
    August 20, 2006

    If Collins is allowed to be moved by music, then why can’t he be moved by theology. If Collins is not allowed to be moved by theology on the basis that he would then be irrational (or arational, as Corkscew put it), then he’s not allowed to be moved by music for similar reasons. I hold that the committment to rationalism at all times in our lives, with all decisions, with no exceptions being made regardless of the situation or lack of scientific import, is preposterous; I called instead for enlightenment, rather than rationalism, which seems to me more virtuous and inclusive. That was my thesis, however horrible I expressed it.

    Appreciation of music has nothing to do with epistemology. Collins claims not just that he appreciates theology as some sort of abstract art, but that it is true. He also claims there is scientific evidence to back up this truth claim.

    Because he claims that science cannot address questions of the supernatural, but that he also has scientific evidence of God’s existence, he is self-contradictory. He is a hypocrite.

    If you agree with these positions that Collins takes, then I am sorry to hear it.

  16. #16 quork
    August 20, 2006

    Jason, don’t forget: “broad brush.” Don’t let your fans down.

  17. #17 poke
    August 20, 2006

    Wouldn’t being “moved by theology” be something akin to finding a work of theology pleasant or enjoyable rather than being a believer? I’ve been “moved by theology” at times – in that I find the wok of some older, more pious philosophers enjoyable – yet I’m an atheist.

    I think it’s perfectly rational to find enjoyment in music and art. But perhaps there’s an irrational way to do so too; I’m thinking of those people who further justify their enjoyment by arguing that art is a source of profound truth, on par with or perhaps stronger than empirical science. That sort of “postmodernist” position, I’d argue, is to art appreciation as religious belief is to being “moved by theology.” Both are irrational.

  18. #18 Kagehi
    August 20, 2006

    Apparently, some people don’t watch “enough” Star Trek. Vulcan’s where not devoid of art, they just talked about it being “pleasing”, rather than moving, same with music, etc. Their emotional state was surpressed, often ritualistically in some cases, where the natural control wasn’t available from birth for some reason, like T’vok in one episode of Voyager, which referred to his childhood. They didn’t “lack” the capacity to enjoy things, they just went to rediculous extremes to supress it, on the grounds that in the distant past “not” doing so led to all sorts of insanities, including civil wars. There are also hints too though, here in there in the various series, but more prominently in Enterprise that the philosopher who led them to the change didn’t really intend to take it to the extreme they did either. Anything taken to an extreme in unhealthy, even logic. But one can hardly argue that the lack of self examination and critical thinking implied by Collins’ interpretations of things could be described as going “too far” (unless you are trying to make a very ludicrous joke), never mind merely, “far enough”.

  19. #19 Caledonian
    August 20, 2006

    Anything taken to an extreme in unhealthy, even logic.

    Oh? What about moderation?

  20. #20 Davis
    August 20, 2006

    What about moderation?

    “All things in moderation. Including moderation.”

  21. #21 George Cauldron
    August 20, 2006

    Hey, Jason, how old do you think the earth is?

  22. #22 George Cauldron
    August 20, 2006

    I tend to take moderation to extremes. My friends tell me I go way overboard with it.

  23. #23 oldhippie
    August 20, 2006

    “Liking some type of art (stories, music, paintings, etc) is mildly irrational”
    Not at all. It is just part of what we are. There is nothing irrational about preferences, and they are very important part of how we function. I have heard that in some rare forms of illness in which all emotion gets cut off, people cannot make the simplest decision and will spend hours deciding which breakfast cereal to eat.

  24. #24 Owlmirror
    August 20, 2006

    “Liking some type of art (stories, music, paintings, etc) is mildly irrational”
    Not at all. It is just part of what we are. There is nothing irrational about preferences, and they are very important part of how we function. I have heard that in some rare forms of illness in which all emotion gets cut off, people cannot make the simplest decision and will spend hours deciding which breakfast cereal to eat.

    Perhaps the problem is that there isn’t enough gradation in just rational/irrational. Rational ideas arise from reason; irrational ideas are specifically against reason. So “nonrational” could be used to refer to that which doesn’t arise from reason, but which isn’t against reason either. Thus, rather than using the phrase “mildly irrational”, I should have used “nonrational”.

    So my point could have been better phrased as: asserting that nonrational preferences are “true” is irrational; the greater the emotional emphasis on their truth, the greater the irrationality.

  25. #25 junk science
    August 20, 2006

    Collins is not arational. He is a liar. He says that human morality cannot have a natural explanation. This has nothing to do with an aesthetic need to believe in a god.

  26. #26 oldhippie
    August 20, 2006

    Thanks for that back Ian, my source was Ackerman’s “an alchemy of the mind”, a really interesting book I highly recommend.

    “Thus, rather than using the phrase “mildly irrational”, I should have used “nonrational”.

    No, rational as we use it is not confined only to reason devoid of feeling. For example I like the taste of chocolate, so I eat it. That is a rational action – it has a valid reason. Liking chocolate is also a function of my biology so liking it is not irrational either. Similarly I start getting fat so I stop eating chocolate, that is also rational for the same reason. There is nothing irrational about having preferences, likes, dislikes, enjoying music etc, unless they become phobias or compulsions to the degree they become out of proportion enough to be considered irrational.

    “He says that human morality cannot have a natural explanation”
    If Collins says that, he is at the very least overly ignorant for a scientist. I have aso heard him say that his belief in god is scientific. I would love to hear his explanation for that. Because it sounds irrational and completely off the wall.

  27. #27 AndyS
    August 20, 2006

    Junk science,

    [Collins] says that human morality cannot have a natural explanation.

    I have not seen him make that statement. I think he said that science doesn’t provide an ethical system — which is true. Seems highly irrational to call him a liar.

    Oldhippie,

    That’s a great description you posted above. Thanks.

  28. #28 junk science
    August 20, 2006

    I have not seen him make that statement. I think he said that science doesn’t provide an ethical system — which is true.

    He made this statement in his Salon interview:

    The argument that gets me is the one I read in those first few pages of “Mere Christianity,” which is the existence of the Moral Law, something good and holy, that in our hearts has somehow written that same law about what is good and what is evil and what we should do. That doesn’t sound like a God that wandered off once the universe got started and is now doing something else. That sounds like a God who really cares about us and wishes somehow to have a relationship with us.

    He unambiguously offers our understanding of morality as evidence for the existence of “a God who really cares about us.” He’s either dishonest or extremely stupid, and I’d prefer to give him enough credit not to call him stupid.

  29. #29 Caledonian
    August 20, 2006

    It’s not a stretch at all.

    “I did not leap to a conclusion. I took one tiny little step, and there conclusion was.”

  30. #30 Scott Hatfield
    August 20, 2006

    Hey gang:

    I don’t believe Collins said that “human morality cannot have a natural explanation.” If you have that quote, I’d like to see it. What Collins has specifically said on that topic, to my knowledge, is this:

    “Sociobiologists will argue that human nature is all, in some way, an evolutionary consequence. That just never seemed particularly compelling to me as an explanation for the moral law: that we know somehow intrinsically, and yet often do not obey.”

    You can find that quote here: http://www.asa3.org/ASA/PSCF/2003/PSCF9-03Collins.pdf

    So Collins clearly is not denying that naturalistic accounts of morality exist; rather, he is saying that he is not convinced by such accounts. I’m not myself swayed by his line of reasoning, but I think it’s a bit much to claim that he is ignorant, or a liar.

    In fact, I would ask if some of you guys see the irony here? There are people here who are quick to point out the logical fallacy in the ‘trillemma’ argument proposed by Collins’ inspiration (C.S. Lewis); you know, the ‘liar/lunatic/Lord’ business. Clearly, there are other possibilities so Lewis’s argument is not compelling.

    In the same vein, many of us seem predisposed to assume that Collins must be either a liar, or else ignorant. Not only does this not seem born out by the quote I provided, it reveals that desire (so prevalent amongst the religious) to first dichotomize, then demonize. Scientists should resist this impulse.

    Sincerely…SH

  31. #31 Caledonian
    August 20, 2006

    “Sociobiologists will argue that human nature is all, in some way, an evolutionary consequence.”

    In some way?

    In some way?!

    It’s perfectly clear to me that this individual doesn’t believe evolutionary change can be responsible for our moral and ethical impulses. There’s a great deal of research on how certain concepts are build into human beings, and even more research on how those concepts might have arisen from an evolutionary standpoint. Saying that one “doesn’t find it convincing” then talking about Invisible Sky Fairies is rather like saying one doesn’t find explanations of how the Pyramids were built to be convincing, then speculating that alien UFOs run by glowing-eyed parasites might have been involved.

  32. #32 Zeno
    August 20, 2006

    If you saw this weekend’s installed of The Coral Ridge Hour from D. James Kennedy’s Ministry of Propaganda, you got to see clips of Ann Coulter blathering about the supposed flaws in the theory of evolution and how oppressive government monopolies on education are brainwashing our children (not that she has any children herself). I transcribed Coulter’s quotes and posted them here. Anyone who wants to can therefore scan them quickly without losing one’s cookies through exposure to the actual video. (The words alone are bad enough.)

    Consider yourself warned.

  33. #33 junk science
    August 20, 2006

    So Collins clearly is not denying that naturalistic accounts of morality exist; rather, he is saying that he is not convinced by such accounts. I’m not myself swayed by his line of reasoning, but I think it’s a bit much to claim that he is ignorant, or a liar.

    To assert again and again that science and religion are “compatible” or “complementary” interpretations of reality is either lying or being criminally disingenuous. For Collins to use his authority as a scientist to make this assertion is reprehensible. He provides no explanations for his faith that any rational thinker would find compelling. Either he is lying to himself or to other people or he’s a hideous scientist, which doesn’t seem to be the case.

  34. #34 oldhippie
    August 20, 2006

    “Agreed, although one must wonder about someone who finds the natural answer less persuasive than an invisible superbeing. It is really an odd way to think.”
    Absolutely, from a scientific point of view. But what we decide to believe in is also based on cultural norms and feelings as much an anything else. And the reason for this is that is the way our brains have evolved. Our natural tendency is to look for quick and dirty solutions that seem to work, not exacting ones that take a lot of time and thought. If we had been too exacting sometime in the past a tiger would have eaten us while we were still conteplating whether we were sure it was a threat.
    It takes considerable study and thought to understand where we came form and what we are. A simple belief works just as well in a practical way of making people feel comfortable in the world and is a lot less work.
    Religion is a cultural phenomenon with no apparent basis in fact. If only one person in a society believed in god they would be considered by the rest as just as stark raving bonkers as someone that believes in fairies.

  35. #35 Caledonian
    August 20, 2006

    reaching consensus

    Ah, now there’s a reliable warning sign. Not erroneous in itself, but frequently indicative of the wrong attitude towards logical truths.

    Note: I can’t trip you in ‘gotchas’ if you don’t put your head in the noose. Weaving the rope, then twisting it into a knot and handing it to me, would probably also be contraindicated.

  36. #36 junk science
    August 21, 2006

    The same effort is required to understand why people — even scientists — continue to believe in the supernatural and how to address this state of affairs.

    To make a speech like this

    I was hiking in the Cascade Mountains on a beautiful fall afternoon. I turned the corner and saw in front of me this frozen waterfall, a couple of hundred feet high. Actually, a waterfall that had three parts to it — also the symbolic three in one. At that moment, I felt my resistance leave me. And it was a great sense of relief. The next morning, in the dewy grass in the shadow of the Cascades, I fell on my knees and accepted this truth — that God is God, that Christ is his son and that I am giving my life to that belief.

    a man has to actively turn off his brain. If he were to admit that his belief in Christ is completely irrational and unscientific, I might believe that he could be reached. Instead, he pretends that his faith is in any way compatible with his understanding of science, for which he should not be excused.

  37. #37 Scott Hatfield
    August 21, 2006

    Junk Science:

    What do you mean by ‘lying to one’s self?’ Does it equate, in your mind, with belief or with something else? I mean, I’m genuinely confused here. Do you think Collins knows better, but doesn’t want to admit what he knows? Did Collins know better once, but deliberately suppress what he knew because he ‘couldn’t handle the truth’, and so now he doesn’t know better? I mean, I have questions.

    By the way, with respect to Chet, this is not a gotcha, ridiculous or otherwise.

    Curiously….Scott

  38. #38 AndyS
    August 21, 2006

    Junk science,

    To make a speech like this … a man has to actively turn off his brain.

    So there is no place for poetry or imaginative speech acts in your brain, or the brain of a scientist?

  39. #39 junk science
    August 21, 2006

    I was just trying to understand what you MEANT by the phrase ‘lying to himself’

    Maybe he can’t bear to conceive of a reality without a god, so he’s consciously or unconsciously pretending that his irrational beliefs can be reconciled with reality. But I don’t want to put thoughts in anyone’s head.

    So there is no place for poetry or imaginative speech acts in your brain, or the brain of a scientist?

    Of course there is, if they’re not mistaken for objective truth.

  40. #40 Caledonian
    August 21, 2006

    There is an important distinction between insults and ad hominems. Of course, when insults are the only response to an argument, and the argument doesn’t appear to be obviously invalid or incorrect, that distinction blurs very rapidly.

  41. #41 Timothy Chase
    August 21, 2006

    PZ wrote:

    (Oops, no — Collins doesn’t want to be quoted on this, so I’ve removed the email. He’s unambiguous in stating that he was interviewed about his book, and that was then inserted into the video without his knowledge.)

    He should give some thought with regard to the phrasing, but he should make a statement and have people quote away. I hope that he will reconsider.

  42. #42 Caledonian
    August 21, 2006

    I suspect that his notion of a personal god is a great deal more abstract than this – as suggested above. Is there a reason why you are trying to paint it as some primitive, animistic, tribal belief?

    He’s a Christian, for Christ’s sake.

  43. #43 Keith Wolter
    August 21, 2006

    Caledonian (and for that matter, PZ):

    Why such vehemence against a potential ally? Your “my way or the high-way” approach is such a non-starter… Look, if 65% of the US doesn’t even believe in evolution, then they are bigger fish to fry than a famous scientist who does. Just because his religious beliefs don’t match yours does not make him an idiot. The human genome project, in which he played a significant part, is the ultimate proof of evolution. (Would an intelligent designer have filled our genome with pseudogenes and retro-transposons?) Dr. Collins has done much to advance our knowledge of human biology, and to help translate that knowledge into treatments. Can any of us say the same? (PZ, where are all your recent publications? I can’t find them in PubMed…) So lighten up on the intolerence! That mindset is no more attractive in atheists than in fundies.

  44. #44 Jason Spaceman
    August 22, 2006

    Pharyngula gets a mention in today’s WingNut Daily.

  45. #45 Kim
    August 22, 2006

    Ian,

    I think you are refering to the Phineas Gage-case. It is indeed a very good example of how emotions and rational thinking/practical problemsolving are connected.
    A very nice overview of this case and also a generalization of the importance of emotional values to rational thinking appears in “Descartes´Error- Emotion, Reason and the Human Brain”, by Antonio Damasio.
    Of course, you can also find the Phineas Gage-case in many other neurology and neuropshychology books. It’s a kind of reference casestudy.
    Kim

  46. #46 junk science
    August 22, 2006

    No matter how “transcendental” Collins’ view of his god, it’s still standing in his way intellectually, preventing him from seriously considering the possibility that human morality has a natural, evolutionary cause. But I don’t think he’s that dangerous to science, really, especially considering its present enemies. He’s determined to keep his faith in his god no matter what, and that’s fine, as long as he’s not trying too hard to fight the forces of reality.

  47. #47 Lewis
    August 23, 2006

    Darwin’s theory has more holes in it than my grandmother’s underwear. The real question is why are Evolutionist afraid of an open enviroment where both sides are discussed? To me it exposes a weak link and only proves that fervent evolutionism is a religion….

  48. #48 Ken Cope
    August 24, 2006

    Speaking of fleas

    Copernicus’s theory has more holes in it than my grandmother’s underwear. The real question is why are round-earthists afraid of an open enviroment where both sides are discussed? To me it exposes a weak link and only proves that fervent heliocentrism is a religion….

  49. #49 Scott Hatfield
    August 24, 2006

    Lewis: (in a cheerful voice)

    Nuts. You are seriously misinformed, my friend. Look: I’m not an ‘evolutionist’. I don’t BELIEVE in evolution. I don’t take it on FAITH. It’s not a substitute religion for me. I’m a Christian (Methodist), thank you very much.

    But I am also very much a Darwinian. I’m deeply influenced by Darwin’s thought, as all evolutionary biologists are. The problem here is that casual usage of the term ‘evolutionist’ leads to a misleading impresion among (ahem) the uninformed. When a biologist describes themself as an ‘evolutionist’, they are in all likelihood not describing what they hold as a belief that needs to be taken on faith. They mean something different. Yes, it is a world view of sorts, but it is not a belief system.

    People like me are not afraid of different views, but as scientists we object to others pushing what are patently beliefs as science. Evolution in and of itself is not a belief and does not need to be taken on faith. It’s a fact, and I KNOW that it is true, the same way that I KNOW that there’s a Law of Gravity and that lightning is electricity, etc.

    So, from my point of view the ‘fervent evolutionism’ that you object to is largely a straw man. It doesn’t really exist, except in the mind of misguided and ill-informed ‘believers’ who project their way of thinking onto legitimate scientists.

  50. #50 Brian
    August 25, 2006

    I’m sorry, but wasn’t Darwin studying to be a Priest before his trip to the Galapagos? Even after he came up with the theory of evolution he still believed he was discovering how God made the Earth and it’s life through Evolution. Why is it you have to be an atheist to believe in Evolution; that logic is seriously flawed.

  51. #51 Steve_C
    August 25, 2006

    Logic isn’t really used when believing in a god either.

  52. #52 Brian
    August 25, 2006

    Steve you miss my point. I am not saying logic is used to believe in God. I am saying that the logic that you have to be an Atheist to believe in Evolution is a flawed logic.

  53. #53 Ken Cope
    August 26, 2006

    Lewis, from which anti-science Sunday School tract did you crib your ignorant little squawk about evolution and your granny’s undies?

    Your claims about evolution are no more true than the idea that the fact of the earth’s orbiting the sun is a religious belief. In a discussion about the fact and theory of evolution, the only reason to give equal time to ignorance and deceit, like that trotted out by you, would be to provide special dispensation for the sort of religion that can’t deal with reality.

    Where did you find any reference to “micro evolution” in Scott’s entirely too patient response to you? When his main point was to disavow the notion that science is a belief, for what purpose would you pretend to infer that Scott is telling you scientists believe in micro evolution, unless you wanted to make everybody understand that you have no capacity to comprehend what you read?

  54. #54 Caleb Schultink
    February 5, 2007

    Why are most people here asserting various ideas without giving a reasonable basis for them? seems odd to me.

    have any of you guys actually looked at Darwin’s hypothesis objectively alongside modern science?

    tell me this:
    Has an any scientist witnessed an increase of genetic complexity produced by mutations and passed on by natural selection? I haven’t.

    has anyone seen real evidence of millions of years in geology? I personally struggle to understand how one tree trunk can bisect 20 million years worth of strata.

    how come the oldest trees that still exist are aged by their rings to be about 4000 years old? By biblical chronology they started growing just after Noah’s flood?

    how come the measurements God gave for Noah’s ark are considered by modern shipbuilders as the most stable design possible for floating on rough water.

    I could ramble on about this for ages but i hope you got the point.

  55. #55 Ben Franklin
    May 27, 2007

    I can prove there is not a god. Oh, actually, I can’t. I have FAITH that there is no god.
    Just like believers have FAITH there is a god. Same thing, no?
    Brunhilde

  56. #56 Dustin
    May 27, 2007

    How is it that the trolls always manage to hamfist their way into the old threads, rather than the current ones?

    Oh yeah… it’s because they’re idiots.