Tuesday, November 03, 2009

Rule: Publication of the Civil

There is some new activity on this blog in light of comments about and participation in the recent conference on Darwinism and ID. As is typical, Darwinists insult, condescend, and label anyone who disagrees as an ignoramus. The policy of this blog is to not post insults and invective. If you have an argument, make it without assassinating any one's character. For some strange reason, Darwinists usually have difficulty doing this. Richard Dawkins is the poster boy on this, and serves as a model for many. I know from long experience.


Anonymous said...

You stated “If you have an argument…”

Based on the quality of the responses I have seen in other blogs to the Theory of Intelligent Design, I think you may well have to define what you mean by an argument. There seem to be a lack of understanding of the concept.

My question to the “noise makers” is simple…Can anyone give me a credible, rational, scientific explanation as to how a eukaryotic cell developed mitochondria using the Theory of Darwinian Evolution; e.g. small, incremental changes caused by random mutation? And in helping this along, we go with the understanding that a eukaryotic cell cannot function without the mitochondria present.

I do ask this with the hope that those reading this blog have actually some understanding of Biology or are willing to stop listing to sound bites and actually read whole books.

Bill said...


I’m disappointed with your statement, “As is typical, Darwinists insult, condescend, and label anyone who disagrees as an ignoramus … For some strange reason, Darwinists usually have difficulty doing this.”

As a non-Christian, I could make the exact same claims towards Christians given the way I have been treated, both in electronic format and in-person. I don’t make comments like that because I believe a vocal minority does not represent most Christians, just as the unintelligent banter of Internet bloggers or computer hackers don’t represent most Darwinist/non-believers/non-Christians.

Although I have been threatened, condescended, and mocked by Christians in my long experience, I believe most are thoughtful, considerate people—and I would say the same about Darwinist/non-believers, too.

Sadly, this type of behavior is a reflection of our society today and not just one particular group. Both sides of the argument are guilty of the same sin.

Douglas Groothuis, Ph.D. said...


I agree and nothing I said contradictions what you said. It also saddens me that this has happened to you, Bill. If I can do anything to get you to consider Christ, please let me know. You can email me off line.

However, consider the lengths that the Darwinian establishment will go to silence or browbeat the competition. See the movie "Expelled," for instance. These stories are true. I know several of the people mentioned and it can be documented in Jerry Bergmans' new book, "Slaugher of the Dissidents."

Personally, the anti-ID posts on this blog have been the most virulent and scatological. That is why I banned two people. Notice the recent anti-ID post with the F-Bomb. Consider also that the ID conference in Castle Rock was attacked by people trying to thwart its very existence.

But that won't stop us from getting the word out: Darwnism is supported more by just-so stories and ideology than by good science or empirical facts.

Of course, Darwinian rudeness does not invalidate their theory. But I never said that either. Nor did you accuse me of saying it. I just wanted to make that clear.

Thanks for writing.

Neil said...

I've seen a lot of dialogues and it isn't even close: The Darwinists are far more rude. The Christians shouldn't be rude either, of course.

I visit sites like PJ Myers once a year or so. It is comical how he'll throw out some fallacious attack against IDers or Christians that generates 200 comments of back-slapping "Christians are so stupid" comments.

You can remind them that some Christians do say stupid things, but that doesn't disprove Christianity any more than stupid atheist comments prove that there is a God. It just bounces off them, though.

Gabriel Hanna said...

I would love to leave some answers to Lisa's questions, but none of my comments are allowed to appear.

I will try again.

Can anyone give me a credible, rational, scientific explanation as to how a eukaryotic cell developed mitochondria using the Theory of Darwinian Evolution; e.g. small, incremental changes caused by random mutation?

This question was answered in great detail by Lynn Margulis in her 1970 book "Origin of Eukaryotic Cells". In short, mitochondria are a sort of parasite or symbiont with their own evolutionary lineage, and were not developed by cells at all.

1970 is nearly 40 years ago.

I can also explain the "fitness" tautology if I am allowed.

Anonymous said...


Yes, I have heard that very same explanation in high school biology, not to be repeated in college. The explanation I was told was this; a “proto” amoeba engulfed a prokaryotic cell (a common bacteria) and then instead of digesting it, it then began a symbiotic relationship to provide the amoeba with its energy supply in the form of the ATP-ADP energy exchange. There is only one problem with that scenario, and it is this—how did the amoeba maintain life without having a way to produce energy to begin with?

Unfortunately, Margulis’ explanation falls apart at that point.

Abschaum said...

Endosymbiotic theory, Lynn Margolis' great contribution to Darwinism, is essentially a "just so" story, about how two warring cells learned to work together for the common good. Its power lies in two areas:

1. The theory's first and greatest strength is its emotional or mythic appeal, which coincides with politically-correct pieties. Instead of infecting or eating one another, two contrasting types of cells began to work together for the greater good. The smaller cell even gave up much of its own DNA for the good of the greater cell.

Wouldn't it be wonderful if we could all join together like those little cells and give up our own individuality for the sake of a wise global authority? Not to me, but for Margolis and her spiritual and intellectual ilk, this would seem to hold much appeal.

"Life did not take over the globe by combat, but by networking" -- Lynn Margolis

See also her work on the Gaia hypothesis, which postulates that the planet Earth itself is a single living organism. This would seem to be a "macro" variation on the same theme, with the same politically-correct and even "New Age" connotations.

(Do not dismiss the importance of a scientific theory's aesthetic, emotional or metaphysical appeal. This is also one of the strengths of Darwinism).

2. The theory's second strength is that it doesn't have to be very good, because there is no other plausible idea of how mitochondria, those miraculous miniature power cells, could have otherwise developed.

Yes, there is the question of how a slow cell with no power plants managed to engulf a faster, more powerful cell and convince it to stay forever and give up most of its DNA. Never mind that this solution only temporarily defers the question of how the mitochondria originally developed in cells which sacrificed themselves.

None of these objections matter. Darwinists are committed to an atheistic explanation of life. If no strong explanations exist, a weak one will be celebrated.

*** Afterword ***

My points are made, but I would like to take this occasion to point out another illuminating detail related to Lynn Margolis. Namely this: she is a respected scientist, despite holding peripheral views which would discredit her entirely in scientific circles if she also doubted Darwin.

For instance, she is an AIDS skeptic:

As well as a 9/11 conspiracy theorist:

She has been criticized, yes, but she is by no means a pariah in scientific circles. She gets a respectful hearing on P.Z. Myers' blog Pharyngula, of all places:


Is it not illuminating how even rabid Darwinists become models of tolerance, as long as their atheistic faith is not threatened?

Abschaum said...
This comment has been removed by the author.