I only do this every few weeks, but I wanted to make sure that “Threads” readers noticed this wonderful article on The Loom. (Hat tip to Dispatches from the Culture Wars, where I saw it first.)
I really don’t have anything to add on this one, but I do challenge young earth/old earth creationists to produce a credible scientific explanation for this data under their models.
Dowd, Michael. Thank God for Evolution. New York: Plume, 2007. 380 pages + front and back matter. ISBN: 978-0-452-29534-6. (All numbers in parentheses are page numbers from this edition of the book.) I was interested in this book from the moment I saw the title, not because I immediately expected to agree, but because it,…
There are plenty of comments on the Dover decision going around right now. I’d like to recommend just a couple of them, though these are only examples of many good comments. Both provide some good links to more information. Best Possible Result in Dover Caught in their own Wedge I believe that the result of…
I think I’m at least in the right month this time, which is a good thing because there are some really interesting things to read on the creation-evolution controversy. Some time ago I wrote about a waste of $25 million represented by the creation museum in Kentucky. As it turns out it was a waste…
If it were a court case, Luskin would be getting the book thrown at him when penalty time came. If any readers of this blog don’t also read The Loom, you should. But in case some of you don’t, make sure not to miss this three part series by Dr. Ken Miller, (part 2, part…
Joe Meert, vice-president of Florida Citizens for Science has an excellent post on the current controversy about a creationist book sold in the Grand Canyon National Park bookstore and allegations that have been made that park rangers are not permitted to give an honest, scientific answer to questions about the age of the canyon. He…
I know, none of you readers believe I am capable of being brief, but I’m going to try! This post was triggered by my reading of Richard B. Hoppe’s post Dissent Out of Bounds on Uncommon Dissent (Oops, make that “Descent”), which is largely about Uncommon Descent’s comment censorship (because of which I do not…
Comments are closed.
Ok. Now you’ve confused me. What is an Old Earth Creationist? Is that someone who believes that “In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth. “, i.e., in a Creator? If so, I”m unclear how belief in a Creator and belief in evolution (or even ID (on which you can look at past posts on this as I’m not exactly a cannonical IDer)) are in opposition or must be disjoint.
I can see how that could be confusing, though the terms have become common in the creation-evolution debate. To summarize, young earth creationists hold that the earth was created 6-10,000 years ago in a literal week. Old earth creationists contend that the days of Genesis 1 represent long periods of time, and there’s a sort of progressive creation, but that God created new body forms and so forth through special creation. OEC is a spectrum from almost identical to young earth except for the time involved all the way to nearly identical to theistic evolution.
OEC would have a problem with the common descent aspect, especially as it relates to human beings.
Mark Olson says:
The term is generally more technical than that, as I noted. I’m a creationist according to your definition. I would only add that I regard God as a continuing creator, i.e. not only the first cause chronologically, but the continuous logical first cause.
For a summary, see my post Creation, Evolution, and Genesis 1-11.
On viruses and atheists? Honestly I can’t see a Christian proposing his idea. From the 1st century (Didache) through to today (with the exception of some modern “liberal” demoniations) abortion and euthenasia has been opposed strongly by the church.
Question though, why aren’t the rest of the biology bloggers declaiming this nutball?
Because Pianka didn’t say what Mims says he said. This has been well covered on scienceblogs.com as well as this site.
It’s interesting that these comments got into the thread on endogenous retroviruses. Just to make sure everybody is aware, Pianka’s comments have nothing to do with ERV’s, and I didn’t intend either virus thread to have anything to do with atheism.
My problem with what many Christian bloggers, especially in the ID community, are saying about Pianka is not that I support his view–I don’t. The problem is that these bloggers are not opposing Pianka’s actual suggestions, but rather things that are made up. It is one thing to say we need to vigorously control population and quite a different thing to suggest releasing a form of the Ebola virus. Pianka is proposing population control as part of a strategy to defend against the possibility of 90% of the population being wiped out by a virus.
I think that there is plenty to argue with in his comments, though I’m going to leave that to experts in the appropriate fields. I don’t think it is appropriate for Christians to not just exaggerate, but twist his words. It is defamation, and it’s a sin.