Helpful Mutations in the Arguments of Darwinists

...Helpful for IDers, that is.

Joe Carter at the Evangelical Outpost posted an insightful article titled, "10 Ways Darwinists Help Intelligent Design" (Part 1, Part 2, Part 3). Naturally, the Darwinists commenting on the articles worked diligently to demonstrate his point. Here are the 10 ways he lists:

1. By remaining completely ignorant about ID while knocking down strawman versions of the theory.
2. By claiming that ID is stealth creationism.
3. By resorting to "science of the gaps" arguments.
4. By claiming that ID isn't science since it's not published peer-reviewed literature...and then refusing to allow publications of ID papers in peer-reviewed journals.
5. By making claims that natural selection/sexual selection is responsible for all behaviors and biological features.
6. By invoking design in non-design explanations.
7. By claiming that the criticism of ID has nothing to do with a prejudice against theism -- and then having the most vocal critics of ID be anti-religious atheists.
8. By separating origins of life science from evolutionary explanations.
9. By resorting to ad hominems instead of arguments (e.g., claiming that advocates of ID are ignorant, liars, creationists, etc.).
10. By not being able to believe their own theory.

Read the article; Joe clarifies these points there.

I always learned that the strongest arguments are made when the one making it can make the argument for the other side better than his opponent. What really propels intellectual endeavors to excellence is when the debate is approached with such rigor as to benefit the growth of both sides toward an ever deeper understanding of the truth. It's frustrating to one side who has this goal when the other side isn't interested more in obfuscation for the sake of winning the argument rather than discovering the truth. So, while the poor arguments of Darwinists help the IDers in the public arena, the debate culminates at perhaps a lower level than it would and knowledge of the truth yet suffers.

Answers Research Journal Annoys Naturalists

As though they strive to make my case for me, you can read the comments of the news of a new peer-reviewed science journal here. This new journal is the Answers Research Journal. What is the difference between a science journal reviewed by peers who hold to naturalistic presuppositions and a science journal reviewed by peers who hold to theistic presuppositions? The fact that theistic scientists actually have material to review is an indication that the philosophical divide among scientists has nothing to do with the level of accuracy to which these scientists abide by the scientific method. It also provides demonstrable evidence that theistic scientists are actually doing science despite the claims of the naturalists.

Recent Articles by AiG

Answers in Genesis (AiG) came out with a couple of notable articles yesterday and today.

First, a team of creation scientists have been studying radioisotope methods. The efforts of this team has been called the RATE (Radioisotopes and the Age of the Earth) project. AiG has been reporting on their findings over the past week or so. Yesterday, they disclosed that the group found carbon 14, which is produced naturally in the upper atmosphere and finds its way into living matter through plants. It has a relatively short half-life and after only a million years no carbon 14 would exist in a sample of deposited bio-matter. If such a sample is tested to have carbon 14 in it, then it should be less than 1 million years old. If there is a significant amount of carbon 14, then the sample couldn’t be more than a few tens of thousands of years old assuming the earth is old enough for the ratio between carbon 14 and carbon 12 to have reached atmospheric equilibrium at the time of death of the bio-matter. If the earth is not old enough for the ratio to have reached equilibrium, then the age of the bio-matter could be considerably even younger.

The RATE project has found significant amounts of carbon 14 evenly distributed in all the coal and diamond samples they have tested.

They also found logical inconsistencies of the analyses of University of California when they performed similar tests.

Read the whole article here.

---

Second, a quick test. Who said the following?

At some future period, not very distant as measured by centuries, the civilized races of man will almost certainly exterminate and replace the savage races throughout the world. At the same time the anthropomorphous apes . . . will no doubt be exterminated. The break between man and his nearest allies will then be wider, for it will intervene between man in a more civilized state, as we may hope, even than the Caucasian, and some ape as low as a baboon, instead of as now between the negro or Australian [Aborigine] and the gorilla.

You know the man who said this. Try to guess. Here’s the answer when you’re ready (highlight to see the answer):

Charles Darwin, The Descent of Man (New York: A.L. Burt, 1874, 2nd ed.), p. 178.

Lest you think that this sentiment died with him, observe this recent quote:

I am prepared to fight and die for my cause, . . . I, as a natural selector, will eliminate all who I see unfit, disgraces of human race and failures of natural selection. No, the truth is that I am just an animal, a human, an individual, a dissident . . . . It’s time to put NATURAL SELECTION & SURVIVAL OF THE FITTEST back on tracks! - Pekka-Eric Auvinen in an e-mail before a shooting rampage killing 7 students in Helsinki November 7, 2007.

Now, I in no way mean to imply that Darwinists are intrinsically racist. However, naturalism in no way provides a basis for any kind of morality. Perhaps Jeffrey Dahmer said it best in his interview with Stone Phillips on Dateline NBC (Nov. 29, 1994):

If a person doesn’t think there is a God to be accountable to, then—then what’s the point of trying to modify your behavior to keep it within acceptable ranges? That’s how I thought anyway. I always believed the theory of evolution as truth, that we all just came from the slime. When we, when we died, you know, that was it, there is nothing . . . .

To whoever reads this: If your goal is to justify your own evil, then Darwinism is a great way to do it. If you are willing to admit that there is evil in the world, then be prepared to discover how evil you truly are when you try to derive a consistent and defensible foundation for morality and find that one exists.

Read the Aig article here.