Hey there Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free

The "Monkey Trial" - Evolution vs Religion, the courtroom debate that divided America

Announcements Posted on
Post on TSR and win a prize! Find out more... 10-04-2014
    • 4 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    Names? ICR, Answers in Genesis, Truth in Science, and many other creation-affirming sites can supply them in droves. Atheism is the main enabler for evolution- although you can be a Christian and hold to an allegorical view of Genesis, you can't be a materialist and say things were created in six days. But if things can come out of thin air by string theory of 10-dimensional spacetime foam suddenly filling an eternal vacuum, why can't six-day creation be true?

    The reason most scientists believe evolution is that they are relentlessly drilled in it from childhood and then when new evidence presents itself they see it through phylogenetically-tinted spectacles, even if grand leaps of logic are required to get from the observation to its place in evolution. They are taught creation only in the forms of simplistic arguments against it- often a tu quoque fallacy and other fallacies are part of the argument, but don't expect academics today with their overspecialisation and neglect of logic or rhetoric to notice that.

    Futuyma's seminal evolution textbook (which there are dozens of piled in most UK university libraries- why?) spends 800 pages building up the case for Darwin and just 20 claiming that creation is unscientific nonsense. Even if Darwin was right, the creation/ID view raises questions that would take far longer than that to treat properly.
    • 4 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    Of course I don't deny Mendelian genetics. I believe in science as a method given to us to determine truth related to this life for the purpose of 1) glorifying God and 2) doing service to man by improving our lot. Christianity is not anti-science; however it's against philosophical materialist scientists who think that because the methods of science themselves exclude supernatural causes, no supernatural cause may be considered in the issue of origins. They are trying to overlap magisteria.

    Traits are passed down generations through the alleles in the DNA which code for amino acids by a triplet organic base code. One allele has a different arrangement of bases so certain characteristics will be expressed. Sexual reproduction introduces variation by random assortment of chromatids, crossing over at chiasmata during meiosis, and the possibility of mutation. This variation leads to natural selection as offspring which are more likely to survive are more likely to pass their genomes on with specific alleles either expressed or switched off, until the less well adapted alleles are selected out of the gene pool. This is all science.

    Unfortunately, there is no science in the leap of logic which moves from a monkey to a man. Nature selected monkeys should develop morals, a conscience and the faculties of speech and higher cognition? Because these were survival advantages in north Africa 4 million BC? Explain...
    I believe that evolution is the perversion of science to suit a secularist agenda.
    • 2 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by ScheduleII)
    1.Creationists are normally born-again Christians who believe it is SIN to lie or cheat and would never disguise truth in favour of a lie;

    2. I know of creationary biologists with PhD's IN BIOLOGY- Darwinomaniacs will often say that the creationist scientists we talk about have never actually studied biology to any advanced level and are mainly physicists or chemists. People believe young and old Earth creation at all levels of science.

    3. Most of the scientists we have now have been taught NOTHING other than the "modern evolutionary synthesis" (MES) from the very beginning of their school career all the way to postdoctoral research, so of course they will take a darwinist perspective unless they are gently corrected. There is NO conclusive evidence for macroevolution and plenty going against its claims. I decided to challenge the MES from the age of seven when my mother taught me that we came from monkeys in Africa millions of years ago and I thought it sounded wrong.

    10 years and a lot more scientific knowledge later, I won't accept the Darwin fairytale.
    1. The judge in the Dover school trial in 2005 accused several members of the Dover school board of lying to conceal their true relgious motives for trying to get Intelligent design onto the school ciriculum. They will no doubt be heading straight for hell when they die. http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/10545387...ience-science/

    2. Having a PhD is not the same as working in and contributing to the field. What are the names of these scientists and which peer reviewed articles have they published? You mentioned you been studying this field so that would be easy for you out this for me.

    3. This is nonsense. Scientist are always out to disprove the accepted paradigm. Just look at how many things have been disproved since evolution was first postulated. Newton's laws of motion have been disproved by Enistein, plate tectonics was only accepted in the 1950s after much argument and the age of the universe have been revised numerous times. You must think only creationists can think outside the box when in fact, they are mired in ignorance hubris.
    • 4 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    They did not lie. The judge's accusation is unsurprising coming from a darwinist. Their motives were scientific more than religious and as the case hinged on whether they were trying to make "a law respecting an establishment of religion" contrary to US Const. Amend I. this was a very important difference.

    Peer review is a process controlled by darwinists for all respected science journals. Asking "why is their science not peer reviewed?" is like asking "Why is Arminian theology not published in a Reformed journal?' Creationist science does not comply with the foundational principles of the peer review team.

    Newton's laws of motion are an incomplete picture of mechanics which hold true for the vast majority of conditions you can observe on earth and was thus not in a position to be challenged in the 17th century. It is only at speeds close to the speed of light or sub-atomic orders of magnitude it breaks down and relativity and quantum mechanics take over. This does not disprove Newtonian/classical mechanics. It only limits its sphere of influence. Creationists have no hubris, they usually have a spirit of modesty but are bold in correcting evolutionist assumptions and the false science such as "phylogenetics" that flows from them.
    • 2 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by ScheduleII)
    They did not lie. The judge's accusation is unsurprising coming from a darwinist. Their motives were scientific more than religious and as the case hinged on whether they were trying to make "a law respecting an establishment of religion" contrary to US Const. Amend I. this was a very important difference.

    Peer review is a process controlled by darwinists for all respected science journals. Asking "why is their science not peer reviewed?" is like asking "Why is Arminian theology not published in a Reformed journal?' Creationist science does not comply with the foundational principles of the peer review team.

    Newton's laws of motion are an incomplete picture of mechanics which hold true for the vast majority of conditions you can observe on earth and was thus not in a position to be challenged in the 17th century. It is only at speeds close to the speed of light or sub-atomic orders of magnitude it breaks down and relativity and quantum mechanics take over. This does not disprove Newtonian/classical mechanics. It only limits its sphere of influence. Creationists have no hubris, they usually have a spirit of modesty but are bold in correcting evolutionist assumptions and the false science such as "phylogenetics" that flows from them.
    The fact remains they lied in a trial, it dosen't matter why they lied. They knew the truth and chose to tell the opposite. If you want to make excuses for them, knock yourself out but thats what they are; excuses. the judge was not a darwinist whatever that may be, he was appointed personally by Reagan and is considered a conservative.

    This is the usual excuse by creationists as to why their "science" is never published in scientific journals even the really obscure ones, that and conspiracies by vested interests. Its never because what they write is tosh and anyone with common sense will see it as such. Creationists are so misundertood, thats why they had to create the fred flinstone museum.
    http://creationmuseum.org/

    By the way, have you found any names of those creationists scientists where you got your information from or were they really episodes of the Flinstones?
    • 4 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    Their writings are based on a different foundation- evolution has insinuated itself so thoroughly into many university biology departments, as one liar said "nothing in biology makes sense except in light of evolution." I am aware of the Creation Museum and would probably like to visit it one day. It is far better than the Science Museum in London for example which teaches unadulterated evolutionism as fact. I told you that names were available widely on creationist sites and there are too many for me to list.
    • 2 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by ScheduleII)
    Their writings are based on a different foundation- evolution has insinuated itself so thoroughly into many university biology departments, as one liar said "nothing in biology makes sense except in light of evolution." I am aware of the Creation Museum and would probably like to visit it one day. It is far better than the Science Museum in London for example which teaches unadulterated evolutionism as fact. I told you that names were available widely on creationist sites and there are too many for me to list.
    I see you have not given me a single name of the many biological scientists you claim to support creationism. Do they exist or did you just make them up? Come on, just one name would suffice.

    I suppose the fact that the earth is billions of years old has also insinuated itself into the geologic and physics departments of many univeristies, that the universe is billions of years old has insinuated itself into all the astromony departments in many universities and 2 and 2 equals 4 has insinuated itself into maths departments in many universities.

    When will you start believing the world is run my the Illuminati or the Royal family is controlling the world drug trade or you do already?
    • 4 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    2 plus 2 does equal four. I can do calculus and advanced statistical analysis so don't patronise me. I am strictly anti-Illuminati and have actually DEBUNKED people who believe that nonsense or who slander Jews or Masonry, being Ashkenazi descended myself. The top drug dealers do have bent superintendents and judges on their side and the very top ones have MI5/ CIA connects but they don't need the royal family...

    Why do you KEEP asking for names? Fine, I'll give you names....Nathaniel Abraham, Alan Gillen, Ray G. Bohlin, Michael J.Behe, Joseph Mastropaolo, Duane T. Gish, George Mcready Price (scopes trial material)
    • 0 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by ScheduleII)
    Unfortunately, there is no science in the leap of logic which moves from a monkey to a man. Nature selected monkeys should develop morals, a conscience and the faculties of speech and higher cognition? Because these were survival advantages in north Africa 4 million BC? Explain...
    I believe that evolution is the perversion of science to suit a secularist agenda.

    You're assuming that humans are *precisely* the same as monkeys. We aren't, we share a common ancestor, yes. I'll agree that the chances of intelligent and sapient life are extraordinarily low, but that's the Anthropic Principle isn't it? It's not unlikely at all that this happened, as we would not be in this position if it had not.

    If I remember correctly, one of your citations, Behe, is against evolution due to cellular complexity - but the development of morals and syntax?

    Syntax is necessary for complex communication - I'd argue it is the root for both language and higher cognition. We would not be able to sit here having this debate if not for syntax - I will point you to the Anthropic Principle again.

    The common sets of morals/laws that generally apply across all sects and societies are what are known as natural law. They are laws forbidding theft, murder, rebellion and the ilk. These values have developed because they are necessary to stop a society from flying apart, and as such, individuals without these morals would not be able to co-exist well, and would likely be ostracised - and if isolated and shunned, where would reproduction occur?

    My arguments against ID is fairly similar to my lack of belief in God - Feuerbach's beliefs that man created God in order to explain the unexplainable are the most similar to mine. To quote: "Religion is the dream of the human mind" - Psychologically, many people would struggle without religion, particularly with such subjects as bereavement - hence my belief that we have developed a need for it - evolved, so to speak. As for ID, I frankly see very little solid arguments for it. The whole "oh it's so unlikely" argument does not leave me impressed, the arguments about the Bible leave me unimpressed - after all, who wrote the Bible?

    Intelligent Design suggests that people have a purpose in life, a 'destiny'. I dislike this belief, as I feel that people need to find their own purpose, not believe in one god-given. I do have more issues with it, but I'm tired and going to bed, so I'm going to leave it there.

    /apologies to anyone who I've offended, I'd love to have the faith to believe in religion - but I don't, and I won't.
    • 2 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by ScheduleII)
    2 plus 2 does equal four. I can do calculus and advanced statistical analysis so don't patronise me. I am strictly anti-Illuminati and have actually DEBUNKED people who believe that nonsense or who slander Jews or Masonry, being Ashkenazi descended myself. The top drug dealers do have bent superintendents and judges on their side and the very top ones have MI5/ CIA connects but they don't need the royal family...

    Why do you KEEP asking for names? Fine, I'll give you names....Nathaniel Abraham, Alan Gillen, Ray G. Bohlin, Michael J.Behe, Joseph Mastropaolo, Duane T. Gish, George Mcready Price (scopes trial material)
    I thought you said there was a conspiracy to keep those who oppose evolution out of scientific journals but some of the scientists in your list has stuff published in mainstream journals. How do you explain that?

    Anyway, none of the stuff they been doing has convinced the rest of their scientific colleagues to change their minds on evolution so they need to work harder on that and find some real evidence to back up their assertions, not just discredited "theories" like irreducible complexity.
    • 28 followers
    Online

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by ScheduleII)
    1.Creationists are normally born-again Christians who believe it is SIN to lie or cheat and would never disguise truth in favour of a lie;

    2. I know of creationary biologists with PhD's IN BIOLOGY- Darwinomaniacs will often say that the creationist scientists we talk about have never actually studied biology to any advanced level and are mainly physicists or chemists. People believe young and old Earth creation at all levels of science.

    3. Most of the scientists we have now have been taught NOTHING other than the "modern evolutionary synthesis" (MES) from the very beginning of their school career all the way to postdoctoral research, so of course they will take a darwinist perspective unless they are gently corrected. There is NO conclusive evidence for macroevolution and plenty going against its claims. I decided to challenge the MES from the age of seven when my mother taught me that we came from monkeys in Africa millions of years ago and I thought it sounded wrong.

    10 years and a lot more scientific knowledge later, I won't accept the Darwin fairytale.
    The young earth theory has proven to be wrong again and again carbon dating anyone?


    The organization "Physicians and Surgeons for Scientific Integrity" maintains a list of medical doctors and similar professionals who disagree that evolution can account for the diversity of life on earth. As of May 22, 2007, there were 224 Americans and 28 others from other countries that had signed a statement disputing "Darwinism
    • 1 follower
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by ScheduleII)
    Of course I don't deny Mendelian genetics. I believe in science as a method given to us to determine truth related to this life for the purpose of 1) glorifying God and 2) doing service to man by improving our lot. Christianity is not anti-science; however it's against philosophical materialist scientists who think that because the methods of science themselves exclude supernatural causes, no supernatural cause may be considered in the issue of origins. They are trying to overlap magisteria.

    Traits are passed down generations through the alleles in the DNA which code for amino acids by a triplet organic base code. One allele has a different arrangement of bases so certain characteristics will be expressed. Sexual reproduction introduces variation by random assortment of chromatids, crossing over at chiasmata during meiosis, and the possibility of mutation. This variation leads to natural selection as offspring which are more likely to survive are more likely to pass their genomes on with specific alleles either expressed or switched off, until the less well adapted alleles are selected out of the gene pool. This is all science.

    Unfortunately, there is no science in the leap of logic which moves from a monkey to a man. Nature selected monkeys should develop morals, a conscience and the faculties of speech and higher cognition? Because these were survival advantages in north Africa 4 million BC? Explain...
    I believe that evolution is the perversion of science to suit a secularist agenda.
    Don't say "Christianity" please. Name you're own church. I'm Catholic and so a Christian, and evolution is a well established fact and "Darwinism" is officially recognized by the Catholic church. As Catholic made more than half of the Christian, you can't claim your point of view, one of a minority, to be a "Christian" point of view.

    A lot of famous scientist were and are religious, but they were not bigot extremist.
    • 16 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by ScheduleII)
    Unfortunately, there is no science in the leap of logic which moves from a monkey to a man.
    Nice use of a common misconception.
    Nowhere does evolutionary theory say that humans decended from monkeys.
    It says that modern monkeys / apes and humans share a common ancestor.
    A very different thing to saying that we are directly decended from monkeys.
    • 4 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    I know this, I was taught it in GCSE biology. The fact is evolutionists believe that a monkey-like creature evolved into a human which I don't accept. I think humans have never descended from a mere animal.
    • 0 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by ScheduleII)
    I know this, I was taught it in GCSE biology. The fact is evolutionists believe that a monkey-like creature evolved into a human which I don't accept. I think humans have never descended from a mere animal.
    Carbon dating is but one of any number of dating methods, all of which with a tiny error margin. Do you really think that scientists would accept a dating method with an uncertainty of over 99%? You can even line up the growth rings in petrified trees [dendrochronology], which, when lined up, stretch back well over 6000 years.

    There is no scientific vested interest in preserving evolution or indoctrinating children. If a new theory came up that radically altered the way we view the world, and its evidence was overwhelming, it would become prominent [after rigorous testing, of course].

    It is established beyond reasonable doubt that earth is not thousands but billions of years old.
    • 2 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Ramses II)
    Carbon dating is but one of any number of dating methods, all of which with a tiny error margin. Do you really think that scientists would accept a dating method with an uncertainty of over 99%? You can even line up the growth rings in petrified trees [dendrochronology], which, when lined up, stretch back well over 6000 years.

    There is no scientific vested interest in preserving evolution or indoctrinating children. If a new theory came up that radically altered the way we view the world, and its evidence was overwhelming, it would become prominent [after rigorous testing, of course].

    It is established beyond reasonable doubt that earth is not thousands but billions of years old.
    I think it pointless to try to educate the deluded and those that choose to be deliberately ignorant.

Reply

Submit reply

Register

Thanks for posting! You just need to create an account in order to submit the post
  1. this can't be left blank
    that username has been taken, please choose another Forgotten your password?

    this is what you'll be called on TSR

  2. this can't be left blank
    this email is already registered. Forgotten your password?

    never shared and never spammed

  3. this can't be left blank

    6 characters or longer with both numbers and letters is safer

  4. this can't be left empty
    your full birthday is required
  1. By completing the slider below you agree to The Student Room's terms & conditions and site rules

  2. Slide the button to the right to create your account

    Slide to join now Processing…

    You don't slide that way? No problem.

Updated: February 24, 2011
Article updates
Useful resources
Reputation gems:
You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.