Randy S. Berg #fundie

Randy S. Berg #fundie earthage.org

(From a page chock-full of pure fail)

Don't you think it's a bit odd that there are virtually NO Public debates between evolution-believing scientists and Creation scientists? And considering the fact that roughly half of all scientists (and 90 % of the public) believe in (either spontaneous or slow) Creation this is even more astounding.

What are evolution-believing scientists and the mass media so afraid of? In other words: IF the theory of evolution is anywhere near as sound as they (want us to) believe, then why not have some publicly televised debates on this issue?

And why are virtually all media "reporters" afraid to give Creationist Scientists ANY of their time? Are they simply afraid that the facts might upset their "faith" (or lack of it), or are they afraid that their liberal bosses and co-workers won't approve of what they might Discover: that is, IF they were to actually report on what they found? And that is a mighty BIG IF isn't it?

84 comments

old comment by Coyote

Well, Randy--I'll tell you what evolution-believing scientists are afraid of. (I'll leave out the 'mass media', though it was amusing to see your transparent attempt to drag them into a discussion about science.)

They're afraid some unscrupulous evolutionists might bus in loads of people who boo and jeer whenever the Creationist is presenting his argument, while applauding and cheering whenever the evolutionist speaks. This might imply a strong (and illusory) validation of the evolutionists comments.

But real scientists prefer their arguments to stand or fall based on the facts and reasoning supporting the argument, rather than appealing to a mob mentality. That's why many scientists offer to debate on the internet, where arguments, while still open to full public scrutiny, must be firmly based on fact, rather than blatant crowd manipulation.

Oddly enough, most Creationists decline to debate on such terms.

old comment by BobsOldSocks

"Don't you think it's a bit odd that there are virtually NO Public debates between evolution-believing scientists and Creation scientists?"

No - there's no such thing as a creation scientist, only religious weirdos who've already made up their minds regardless of any evidence.

"And considering the fact that roughly half of all scientists (and 90 % of the public) believe in (either spontaneous or slow) Creation..."

Liar.

"And why are virtually all media "reporters" afraid to give Creationist Scientists ANY of their time?"

Why on Earth would any normal, sane individual wish to spend even five minutes in the company of a crazy-eyed, irrational, dribbling loon?

old comment by Dr. Shrinker

As I recall Kent Hovind was invited to participate in at least two online debates. He refused both times. It seems that Hovind wasn't interested in participating in a forum where the audience could evaluate his nonsensical claims. Odd approach for a scientist who claims to have the evidence on his side, wouldn't you say Randy?

Oh, and to answer your question, scientists who acknowledge evolution are afraid of having the educational system of their countries dragged back into the dark ages. They are afraid that all of the work which has given immeasurable benefits to humankind will be thrown out in favor of creationist superstition because it makes a few people feel good. I would say that I hope that clears things up, but frankly you seem to have no interest in comprehending anything, outside of your favorite book of myths.

old comment by Dr. Shrinker

@ JesusIsMySavior

"Just face it, most of you are to afraid to take on a Creationist - because we have an all-powerful God on our side, what do you have? Nothing!"

We have scientific evidence on our side. Your god does not exist, so if your god is all you have then, by definition you have nothing.

As there is no heaven or hell your long winded restatement of Pascal's wager does nothing to impress me, so let's move on.

"...we're just trying to help you see that so you don't have to go through that."

If that were all there was to it, we could agree to disagree. Sadly, this is not the case. Your lot wants to erase over 150 years of scientific advancement and replace it with superstitious hokum. Look at all the advances that have come about in medicine, agriculture, aerodynamics and many other fields. They did not come about by praying or referring to such and such a passage in your bible

"By the way, there are plenty of "scientific facts" that prove Creationism,"

Name one that has not been refuted a thousand times.

"the Bible and all that is within the Bible - some of the great philosophers acknowledged the Truth of the Bible."

<yawn> that's very nice. Care to give us something useful? Where is the biblical cure for cancer? How can we feed people who happen to live in ecologically devastated nations? How can we keep the bees from vanishing? These and other fine questions will be answered by science, not by prayer and not by your bible.

old comment by

Once again, it all comes down to insults, which I will not return. Whether you believe that we evolved or were created, there are scientists in both camps whose "science" is questionable, if not downright laughable and the excuse that "evolutionary science is so lofty that we cannot possibly lower ourselves to explain it to those thick-headed creationists" is getting really old and tired (as well as insulting and hurtful)But you see, if there is no God, it really doesn't matter how you treat people does it? If Creationism is religious motivated then evolutionary theory is anti-religiously motivated. We can go back and forth like this forever. I would love to see a debate between two men who are after the truth and are not afraid of where that will lead. I wonder if Richard Dawkins and Kurt Wise would fit the bill? Most people, like myself have grown up hearing about evolution and we therefore just accepted it, but we have not heard from any good creation scientists because it is a young science and like evolution, there is a limit to how far you can go without resorting to the could haves. No, evolution has never been proven and is not likely to be. Creation has not been either, but the debate goes on and on. Much of evolutionary thought comes from ancient Greek musings regarding the origin of man and the universe. Those thoughts were accepted by the Roman Catholic church and when they were proven wrong, the bible's teachings (and people's interpretations of it) came into question. Good scientists are revisiting all of these formerly held ideas. Some have come over to the creation camp. One scientist said that the more he studied the cosmos the more it pointed to intelligent design. He refused to call the designer God and that's his choice, he was just being honest about his findings. Fringes of the two camps are moving closer together. Punctuated Equalibrium is closely alligned with the spontaneous creation theory Christians, Jews and Muslims believe in. If ego is checked at the door, scientists can work together, but first they would all have to admit where the weaknesses in their theories lie. It's a good place to start.

old comment by what's the hub bub?

Once again, it all comes down to insults. The desire to find truth has been replaced by rudeness and arrogance (sadly, both sides are guilty of this) If creation science is religiously driven,(since Jew, Christians, Muslims and others believe in a supernatural entity that has the intellect, energy and power to create) then evolutionary science must of anti-God driven since it purports a theory that leaves God out of it. Either way, both sides have an undeniable agenda. I would love to see a debate between two scientists who value truth more than their egos. Is it possible to find two such people? Can the audience give both men their attention and focus and suspend judgment? But let's be honest, much of the "science" on both sides is weak, because you can only go so far before you get the could haves, which both camps do. The ideas sound incredulous to people in the opposite camps. If you say something over and over though, people start to believe it. That doesn't make it true? Remember the flat earth theory? The bible says the earth is round, but at one time, that was an outdated idea. Much of what scientists believe today came from ancients Greek's musings about our origins. ideas that the Catholic church accepted and adopted as doctrinal truths. When these things were exposed as false by "scientists" the bibles teachings were questioned. But the Bible was not meant to be a book of science. It merely contains clues to what scientists can study when expounding on the magnificance of God, as in the verse regarding God's holding the world in place with nothing. That "nothing" is the law of gravity we all accept today. Previously, people thought the earth sat on top of something and did not move. Any way it goes on and on and that's great, just remember kids, try to play nice.

old comment by Dr. Shrinker

@ what's the hub bub?

Evolution is not "anti-god." Your protrayal of it as such is a false dichotomy (for god or against god, no neutrality allowed). The Theory of Evolution is based on observations of the natural world. It takes no position on god, which is by definition a supernatural concept. There are many religious people who acknowledge evolution. The Theory of Evolution is only a problem for closed-minded scriptural literalists.

Yes, scientists have an agenda: to study the natural world, formulate theories of how it works and apply this knowledge to improve human life. Creationists have an agenda too: the promotion of literalist dogma and the suppression of evidence that contradicts said dogma. No one denies that both camps have an agenda, but that does not mean both of them have equal weight.

As far as the science of behind TOE being weak, I would love to hear how you came to that conclusion. Evolution is a fact. It has been observed. It is supported by the study of genetics. To suggest that the evidence behind TOE and creationism is equal is laughable.

It seems that your post is nothing more than a re-statement of the "teach the controversy" apologetic. However, among those who know the facts, there is no controversy. We invite you to get an education and join us.

old comment by krasen38@abv.bg

I would like to present you information which is about to become a world sensation.As far as I`m concerned there is no connection until nowdays between Darwin`s theory and the version about the origin of the world in the Bible.According to the Bible the world has been created in six days,but according to the science this process has taken billions of years.If we exclude the difference in time and we pay attention to the SEQUENCE,we will see that there is no contradiction between both,but only the question-why in the Bible things happened so fast?There is an answer and it`s in the Bible itself.Moses described the creation from his own sight as an eyewitness.How could he have seen something happen before his existence?For forty days he has been at the mount Sinai where he got information about the past,present and future.The creation had been recreated to him there,he had seen how the already existing world had been made.The long process of evolution had been shown to him in the first six days and the SEVENTH day had been dedicated to human`s appearing.After that he had seen the difference between Adam`s origin and Eve`s one.Adam comes from the dirt in the process of evolution,but Eve comes from DNA material out his body,which marks another jump for the evolution or in other words-the missing section of the chain which science is looking for.
If I contacted to you by mistake and this is the wrong address,please make sure that you send me the correct e-mail where I can find the people who are interested in sort of information.For contact e-mail:krasen38@abv.bg

old comment by Jesus Christ

Think about it, all the things that we know about nature started out as a theory, most likely a controversial one (the earth is not the center of the universe), and every time such theories arise, crazy bible thumpers throw a fit and after they are proven wrong they revert back to their 'god of the gaps.' Meaning, science and scientists know that human knowledge is not and will never be complete, that's why it's always moving forward and revising it self, and doing so with natural/logical explanations. In order for science to progress and to gain scientific knowledge, scientists cannot do as you do and say "well, we don't quite understand a natural process, so let's stop there and say that God is the answer to all things mysterious." That's the god of the gaps.

old comment by Jesus Christ

Your god can only exist in your hopes and imagination. For example, let's say science answers the question of how the first cells evolved from non living organic compounds, then what? What will happen is bible thumpers will say, "ok fine, that makes sense, but where did all those basic molecules come from... God made them!" Then, a few decades go by, scientists come up with a good natural explanation and then again the bible thumpers will say "oh, well that makes sense, but who put the laws of physics into motion?... God did it!" So you see, real substantial knowledge that can be shared and communicated beyond fantasy laden thoughts are attained through a pursuit for logical/natural answers which require absolutely no God and especially not a particular God that a particular religion believes in, e.g. YahWeh.

old comment by Anon-e-moose

The launch of Sputnik-1 in 1957 by Soviet Atheist space scientists, at a stroke completely annihilated the Biblical model of the universe:

image

The rest of the gaps being filled (via the likes of Yuri Gagarin, Valentina Tereshkova, Alexey Leonov, messrs. Armstrong, Aldrin & Collins, to say nothing of the myriad deep space probes, especially Mariner & Voyager) were a foregone conclusion.

...but you just keep moving those goalposts, Randy & your fundie ilk. But it must be a bit of a bugger doing so, in the extremely cramped & confined space of that rusted & disused submarine in that river in Egypt, 'believing' that everyone else in the world will somehow subscribe in any way, shape or form to your Creationist 'theories'.

I suggest you start with Buzz Aldrin. Mayhaps you might succeed? One nanosecond before the realisation that you've failed sets in when you pick yourself - and your teeth - off the floor; just ask a certain journalist who last asked him that question.

old comment by Respectdecreasing

Last time I checked Astrologists, Geologist, and Paleoarcheologist did not advance medical science.
Reading through these reviews I found many claims the theory of evolution and Scientific medical breakthough go hand and hand. Many great Evolutionist have and did contribute to modern medical science, like Darwin, especially where botany is concerned, but in that same regard, Creationist did too. Also the medical field is full of Evolutionist and Creationist with spiritually diverse backgrounds, so what do origins of man beliefs have to do with medicine. Since classrooms were brought up I must say when I attended school I was taught Science meant "Truth" and theories were labeled and remained just that...theories. They pushed Science, truth and what is proven, on the students and now its is based off of theories. I find it rather easy to follow why some Scientist believe in Evolution and I understand why other Scientist accept the theory as a theory and are interested to see where it leads. There are many different theories on evolution from just Evolutionist, so its really important that everyone knows all theories and not just the current theories that have the most popularity due to the internet. These theories are ever changing. None of which were ever proven beyond a doubt, which is what I thought Science meant, that life was or was not created. The quote used about a debate may have been taken out of context so I will not comment without reading the dialogue/text in its entirety.
I prefer old Science versus new Science. In this new Science some of the most commonly used Scientific terms have multiple meanings.

old comment by Crimson Lizard

Oh wow, the Argument from Design. Never seen that before.

If that's so, Randy, I have a long list of complaints about the so-called "intelligent" design of my body. The perching of the command module on top of an inherently unstable structure, rendering concussion possible, for one. The crossing of the air and food pipes, rendering choking possible, for two. The placing of the recreation area between two sewer outlets (if you know what I mean) for three. My back hurts, my teeth are falling out, and I've worn glasses for decades - and these are extremely common among the human race, particularly the aging population! And while we're on the subject, what the fuck is up with aging anyway? Call that a perfect design? You sycophant!

Randy S. Berg #fundie earthage.org

84 comments

Confused?