AIG: The Truth About Human Origins

It’s always good to hear from the creation scientists at Answers in Genesis (AIG). That’s the creationist ministry of Ken Ham (ol’ Hambo) — the ayatollah of Appalachia, the world’s holiest man who knows more about religion and science than everyone else.

Their latest post is titled Ape-Men, Adam, and the Gospel. The author is Dr. Terry Mortenson, who “holds an MDiv and a PhD in the history of geology. He has lectured in over 28 countries and formerly served for 26 years with Campus Crusade for Christ in the United States and in Eastern Europe. He now serves as an author, speaker, and researcher with Answers in Genesis.” Here are some excerpts from Terry’s post, with bold font added by us for emphasis, and occasional Curmudgeonly interjections that look [like this]:

How many times have you seen pictures showing a sequence of monkey-to-ape-to-man evolution? Evolutionists dogmatically claim that Lucy (the famous australopithecine), Homo erectus, Cro-magnon, Neanderthal man are our part-ape, part-human ancestors. They also tell us that the DNA of chimpanzees and humans is 98–99% the same. It’s a proven scientific fact, they constantly say.

That stuff must be very upsetting to folks like Hambo and his creation scientists. Terry says:

And those images and claims have been very effective. A 2017 Gallup poll revealed that 57% of Americans believe that we did evolve from less advanced forms of life over millions of years.

It hasn’t changed much according to the Gallup Poll Creationism Results for 2019. Terry tells us:

Although creationists and evolutionists look at the very same fossil and genetic evidence, they interpret that evidence very differently because of different starting assumptions. Creationists start with the eye-witness testimony of the Creator in Genesis. Evolutionists start with an anti-biblical, naturalistic (atheistic) worldview.

Creationists start with The Truth, and evolutionists are all fools! Terry continues:

So, which view really fits the facts and makes sense of the evidence? [Can you guess, dear reader?] During my presentation at the 2019 Answers for Pastors and Christian Leaders conference, October 8–10, I will present compelling evidence that human evolution is a lie by:

• showing that “Lucy” was 100% ape [See Ken Ham Ain’t No Kin to Lucy];

• showing that Neanderthals were 100% human [See Hambo Says Neanderthals Were Fully Human];

• exposing revealing statements by leading evolutionists [quote-mining];

• illustrating the deceptive nature of evolutionist art [in contrast to religious art];

• explaining that human evolution is absolutely incompatible with God’s Word and that real science [i.e., creation science] confirms the literal, historical truth in Genesis about Adam and Eve;

• revealing why this issue matters enormously for the gospel and how it relates to the catastrophic, moral revolution in America.

That’s going to be a great presentation! Let’s read on:

Young people in particular have lots of questions about human origins. [Yeah, they wanna know about the birds and the bees.] I encourage you to come and glean solid scientific and biblical answers on this vital question so that the adults and kids in your church are not part of the 57% of deceived Americans.

Don’t be part of the deceived 57%, dear reader. And now we come to the end:

Register online [Link omitted.] to ensure your place at this conference!

And when you register, tell ’em the Curmudgeon sent ya.

Copyright © 2019. The Sensuous Curmudgeon. All rights reserved.

add to del.icio.usAdd to Blinkslistadd to furlDigg itadd to ma.gnoliaStumble It!add to simpyseed the vineTailRankpost to facebook

. AddThis Social Bookmark Button . Permalink for this article

45 responses to “AIG: The Truth About Human Origins

  1. Anselm Kersten

    “I encourage you to come and glean solid scientific and biblical answers”. This is fine if you replace the second “and” with “or”.

    Seriously, though: has any scientist anywhere in the last, say, century ever become convinced that the earth is only thousands rather than billions of years old purely on the evidence, without religion sticking its nose in?

    And has any scientist anywhere ever become convinced that humans were created rather than evolving, purely on the evidence, without being prompted by religious cues?

  2. “holds an MDiv and a PhD in the history of geology. OH MY….Those credentials must be VERY useful when reconstructing the geologic history of a basin or region and when applying the scientific method. I really wish they’d listed his publications in the American Association of Petroleum Geologists Journal or the Journal of Geology. I wonder why he can’t get published in one of those?? Its a giant conspiracy by godless atheist scientists again! Shocking !

  3. Wack a doodle says • “revealing why this issue matters enormously for the gospel and how it relates to the catastrophic, moral revolution in America.”
    Like being willfully ignorant about the findings of science and using fake pseudoscientific religious arguments with zero scientific merit to preach fundamentalism and science hatred… Got it. …………..Because if Mortensen’s worldview isn’t adhered to by his listeners then its the “Lake of Fire” for you.

  4. Does anyone know where he got those degrees from?

    Lucy (I checked back) climbed trees, which proves she wasn’t ancestral to humans. I used to climb trees; I shall look at my children now with an entirely new perspective

  5. the eye-witness testimony of the Creator in Genesis
    There is nothing in Genesis which claims that it is an eye-witness account. It is written as a third-person account: The creator in Genesis is not referred to by the first person, but by the noun “elohim” in Genesis 1, and by other names. There is no trace of the history of the path over probable centuries from the first accounts to the present form of the Book of Genesis, which would, at best, mark it as a “hearsay” account, not “eye-witness”. (Not to mention the probable centuries from the supposed events and the the first accounts. For examle, if Moses wrote it, he wrote it several generations after the events last mentined in the book.)
    Of course, the creatinists do not adhere to the strict text of Genesis. They explain away unconvenient statements and add their own ideas.

  6. Michael Fugate

    PhD, History of geology, Coventry University, Coventry, England, 1996
    MDiv, Systematic theology, Trinity Evangelical Divinity School, Deerfield, Illinois, USA, 1992
    BA, Math, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, Minnesota, USA, 1975

    His dissertation is on young earth “geologists” from the early 19th c.

  7. TomS, do you mean to say that you don’t actually believe that God dictated the Pentateuch to Moses? And if he did so, does not that make Genesis an eyewitness account?

    Sarcasm aside, I’m reminded of the fact that a while back, a learned rabbi was blocked in his progress to become Chief Rabbi of the (Orthodox) United Synagogue of the UK, by people who objected to his liberal views. My stepfather was among them, objecting that this rabbi accepted scholarly analysis of the biblical Hebrew text, and therefore did not believe that the Pentateuch was written by Moses. Did my stepfather believe that? No, but a Chief Rabbi should be held to a higher standard.

  8. @Michael Fugate, thanks. I remember now. He managed to dig up some Young Earth theologians with geological pretensions from the early 19th Century. My friend the Reverend Michael Roberts, in extensive writings regarding the history of church (mainly Anglican/Episcopalian) reactions to the geological discoveries of the nineteenth century, exposes Mortenson as having cherry picked among nonentities. His Ph.D. is perfectly valid and from a reasonably respected university, implying that he gave a competent account of their arguments. Of course, it does not follow that those arguments themselves were competent.

  9. chris schilling

    What “evolutionist” in their right mind ever dogmatically claimed Cro-magnons and Neanderthals as part-ape, part-human ancestors?

    My birthday gift to Mortensen: a coffee mug with the slogan “you don’t have to be incompetent to work around here, but it helps.”

  10. These “history of geology” and “history of science” fashioned as academic “degrees” seem to crop up whenever we’re working with a dyed in the wool creationist. “Babs” Cargill of SBOE fame has some such degree from TWC
    (Texas Women’s). And, if I don’t miss my ability to remember details, I believe at least one Discoveroid has some such degree from, Cambridge of all places.Meyers or some other magician . Interesting how absolutely obsessed they are. That said , I believe the obsession with magical “science” led them to pursue the “degree”. Bizarre stuff.

  11. “History of Geology” ????

    Here’s a summary of the curriculum:

  12. No, och will and Kosh; these PhDs are genuine earned degrees. Meyer’s from Cambridge, https://www.worldcat.org/title/of-clues-and-causes-a-methodological-interpretation-of-origin-of-life-studies/oclc/53502789, builds up to a critique, presumably hostile and if so probably with good reason, of the methodology of Oparin’s work in Russia in 1924.

    By the late 1980s, when Meyer arrived in Cambridge, Oparin’s approach had long since been rejected by the origins of life community (of which I was part) for many reasons. But for all I know (I’m not going to read the thing to find out) Meyer’s thesis may be an admirable piece of scholarship relevant to our perspective on scientific thinking in the early 20th century. But about as relevant to evolution as phlogiston is to biochemistry

  13. Chris Schilling, “What “evolutionist” in their right mind ever dogmatically claimed Cro-magnons and Neanderthals as part-ape, part-human ancestors?”

    Not part ape, but completely ape, and so is Mortenson. Neanderthal is an iterbreeding sister species. Cro-Magnon is not a well defined term, but my reading suggests that the group may well be ancestral to modern humans

  14. @Paul Braterman
    I am not a lawyer, so would someone help me with this. If I have an account which describes an event, and we have knowledge that the account was dictated by an eyewitness to someone who was not; and then the document has been copied over several generations by unknown people to result in the present document …. Is that present document an eye-witness account?
    As far as Mosaic authorship, I believe that Maimonides said that that is a mandatory belief of Judaism. I understand that that extends even to the final words of Deuteronomy. Moses is said to have copied, with tears in his eyes, the dictation of God about Moses’ death and stature in later generations. I do not understand how one can deny that that is possible.

  15. Dave Luckett

    “Cro-magnon” is the name of the place where the earliest “modern” (ie anatomically within the range of variability of the present European population) human remains were found, associated with stone tools of a type and form distinct from earlier ones in Europe. Like “middle ages” , “classical”, “gothic” or “baroque”, the term is applicable only to Europe.

    I might be able – if I were minded to do the necessary research from obscure and primary sources – to write a history of the rise of the phlogiston theory, and a detailed exposition of its degree of acceptance. If I had that accepted as the subject of a PhD thesis – which is quite possible, if it met the the requirements for originality and academic rigour – would the award of the degree grant me authority to argue that the phlogiston theory is correct?

    That’s Mortenson’s position. That’s how idiotic this is.

  16. @TomS, Maimonides also said that belief in the resurrection of the flesh was an essential part of Jewish faith, but I doubt if many outside the Haredi cult would still say that. The rabbis were aware that copying errors creep in, but this would not vitiate the entire document. Whether you call the present document “eye-witness” is a nice question.

    The modern scholarly view that the Bible is a mangled collection of multiple texts is a fairly recent idea, but even at that it is consistent with the idea that the redactors, as well as the original authors, were divinely inspired. However, it does make straightforward literalism seem silly

  17. Dave Luckett

    TomS: I have been told by strictly observant Jewish people that despite their own regard for the Torah and all the Mosaic laws, that only one belief is indispensable: “Hear, oh Israel, the Lord our God, the Lord is One.” Mosaic authorship of the Torah is not accepted by many rabbis and scholars. Others disagree with them, certainly, but neither party would deny that the others are Jewish.

  18. chris schilling

    @PaulB
    It can get very semantic defining some of these terms and distinctions (though it’s useful for accuracy’ sake);
    but agreed, you and I would define ourselves — taxonomically, at least — as apes. Culturally, though, Cro-magnons (and Neanderthals, for the most part) would be classed as “human”.

  19. Although creationists and evolutionists look at the very same fossil and genetic evidence, they interpret that evidence very differently because of different starting assumptions.

    I would note that although creationists consistently interpret hominid fossils as either “human” or “ape” (with no middle ground between), they are very inconsistent in which pigeon-hole they place individual specimens: http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/homs/compare.html

  20. “Although creationists and evolutionists look at the very same fossil and genetic evidence, they interpret that evidence very differently because of different starting assumptions.”
    Yup. Terry’s assumption is that the Bible as interpreted by Ol’Hambo is true, no matter what. What’s more, this assumption is also the conclusion.

  21. @TomS: “If I have an account which …..”
    Probably closest is what happened at the Nürnberg Trials. For logistical reasons it was impossible for several witnesses to give testimony themselves. So accounts dictated by eyewitnesses to someone who was not” were accepted. However

    1) there was a protocol for such accounts;
    2) the Soviets still managed to abuse this protocol to fabricate false evidence regarding the Katytn massacre.

    Of course creacrappers have a much better guarantee – their infallible god himself. Because when ever did a creacrapper shy away from a circular argument?

    @DaveL: ha, I can write such a dissertation about the Flat Earth Theory – it’s sources are anything but obscure. Of course that will bring me in the right position to argue that sphericalism is false! I’ll send my dissertation to Terry, add some essays by prominent FET theologians and voila – do you think Terry will see the errors of Ol’Hambo’s ways?

    @ChrisS: ” you and I would define ourselves — taxonomically, at least — as apes.”
    If we accept cladistics we have no choice and I’m pretty sure we both do.

    “Culturally, though, Cro-magnons (and Neanderthals, for the most part) would be classed as “human”.
    Which runs into the problem of defining culture.
    Evolution is gradual. Cultural essentialism is wrong; so something like Dutch culture has changed over time. This means attempts to accurate definitions are futile and useless. It should be a warning sign that right wing nuts always are cultural essentialists.
    So the question if Lucy, the Neanderthals and the Cro Magnons were human is irrelevant and uninteresting. Creacrappers need it to uphold their beloved baraminology nonsense, so that they can keep on dancing the micro macro mambo. We can draw the line between human and not-yet human wherever we want; it never adds to our understanding of human evolution.

  22. @FrankB
    But this is not a circular argument, for Genesis does not say that it is an eye-witness account. It does not have anything about its own provenance. What internal evidence is there for it having any authority, whether being the word of an eye-witness, or handed down from Adam through Abraham, or based on Moses’ knowledge of the wisdom of the Egyptians? It is not written in the first person: it does not say, “In the beginning I …”.
    I looks like the product of, with its intended audience being, a culture of the Ancient Near East.
    Nothing wrong with that. But what it does not say, or even look like, an eye-witness account. Is “eye-witness” an anachronism?

  23. Karl Goldsmith

    Terry admits his PhD, history of geology from Coventry University is just an excuse to be used as a creationist authority.

    He has twenty one years between his maths BA in 1975, and his PhD in 1996. His PhD thesis got edited into a creationist book, presumably because his thesis had to include reality that was not included in the book.

    He is one of those that Ken used as an authority in the Bill Nye debate, and Terry seems to have no published research since getting his PhD.

  24. Karl Goldsmith

    Oh did you not click on the register link? They have the title as “Answers for Pastors Conference: One Race, One Blood” So it’s the usual Ken Ham b*s* of one race so no racism, from the man who once claimed on twitter he wasn’t white.

    And recently they have this lovely scam going where you get a ticket to each AiG theme park, so buy a conference ticket and you become a statistic counted at both venues for ticket sales. For this one they have flipped that as if you buy an annual pass $149 it allows you a free conference, so the pastors are supposed to go back to their congregations and arrange trips for the year.

  25. @Dave Luckett, exactly. I should have referred to “traditionalist” or “observant” rather than “orthodox” Jews. Thoughtful observant Jews may well recognise the unhistorical nature of the patriarchs and Moses, and that Jewish daily practice for the past two thousand years is a rabbinical superstructure superposed on a narrow and dubious biblical base, and yet embrace that practice as a way of sacramentalising daily life.

    The verse you refer to is interesting. It comes from Deuteronomy, and is incorporated into thrice-daily prayers. It asserts the identity of YHWH and Elohim; describes the latter as “our” Elohim, and concludes with the oneness of the deity as opposed, for example, to Zoroastrian dualism or pagan pluralism. It must have an interesting history.

  26. @TomS: “But this is not a circular argument, for Genesis does not say that it is an eye-witness account. ”
    That’s just what you say. And what do you know? You, like me, are too stubborn to accept the near-infinite wisdom of the world’s holiest man who knows more about religion and science than everyone else. With him Terry says that the Bible is an eyewitness account. Which results in circularity. Which creationists totally think OK.
    Note that for circularity not even “eyewitness account” is necessary. “Divinely inspired” is enough: divinely inspired, hence the Bible is true (whatever true means in this context) hence the christian god who inspired the Bible.
    It’s not that I’ve anything against your “the Bible is not an eyewitness account”, on the contrary. This postulation of yours simply doesn’t undo the circularity I pointed out. Yours is just another way of exposing creacrap, one I’ll leave to you.
    You’re not contradicting me. Everything in your comment seems correct to me except the first half of this sentence. Cross “but ……, for” out and I will only say “yup”. Let me correct it for you:

    “YECers s**k at exegesis too, for Genesis does not say that it is an eye-witness account.”
    They fail from about every possible angle.

  27. Paul. Yup. I’m quite aware that those degrees are genuine. And as the recipient’s “work” reveals, understanding how to apply the scientific method clearly is not a requirement of those degrees.. My comments stand as written and they are accurate.

  28. @FrankB
    Of course, we are in agreement.
    I just like to point out that the anti-evolutionists are not so concerned about the continuity of their rhetoric that the meanderings that they take are like a person lost in the woods. It is as if one is going in a circle. But it isn’t so geometrically precise. At times, I have suggested a Mobius strip or a Klein bottle (because it doesn’t hold water).

  29. Michael Fugate

    Speaking of interpreting Bible passages – one always wonders if “morality” determines the interpretation or if the interpretation determines “morality”…
    https://religionnews.com/2019/05/23/there-is-more-than-one-religious-view-on-abortion-heres-what-jewish-texts-say/

  30. Eddie Janssen

    @ Paul Braterman:
    “Lucy (I checked back) climbed trees, which proves she wasn’t ancestral to humans”.
    If Ken Ham thinks she was an ape because she climbed trees, she must have been a lousy ape (or an ape who had forgotten some features of her ‘apeness’) because she died of a fall from a tree.

  31. Ashley Haworth-roberts

    If Mortenson or perhaps one of his AiG colleagues has really made evidence-based scientific discoveries about Australopithecus afarensis and about neanderthals and so on why on earth is he waiting for an ‘answers’ for pastors’ conference in October to announce the discoveries?

  32. chris schilling

    It wouldn’t matter or greatly affect Lucy’s status if A. afarensis was strictly ancestral, or not. Lucy reveals transitional features — a combination of adaptations for both arboreality and bipedality. Alice Roberts, among others, has covered this.

  33. Christine Marie Janis

    @ Paul Braterman. It’s interesting that you discovered that link to Meyer’s thesis. I have always believed, perhaps led to do so by Meyer’s comments, that his thesis related to his pet notions about the Cambrian Explosion

  34. Michael Fugate

    Ok this is long…

    Of clues and causes: a methodological interpretation of origin of life studies
    Meyer, Stephen C. University of Cambridge (United Kingdom), ProQuest Dissertations Publishing, 1990. U027429.
    Abstract
    During the last two centuries, a number of questions previously assigned to the realm of speculation have entered the domain of the natural sciences. Perhaps chief among these has been the question of origins. Beginning in the last century with Laplace’s version of the Nebular-Hypothesis, Lyell’s historical geology, and the Lamarckian and Darwinian theories of evolution, the investigation of origins emerged as a powerful new strain of scientific discourse. During this century, this trend has continued as natural scientists have developed methods of investigating questions concerning the origin of language, man, the universe and life. While the historical development of disciplines concerned with such questions has received considerable attention from historians of science, the philosophical and methodological questions raised by them have so far received scant attention from philosophers and philosophers of science. In short, while many have examined the history of natural history, few have addressed its philosophy and methodology. The purpose of this thesis is to begin to redress this imbalance by examining the methodological character of one particularly fundamental science of origins: origin-of-life research. In particular, this thesis argues that the investigation of the origin of life as initiated by its most prominent twentieth century practitioner, Soviet scientist Alexander I. Oparin, constitutes what I call an `historical science.’ In order to make this claim, and to give it philosophical significance, the first section of the thesis constructs a methodological characterization of the historical sciences as a distinctive class. In support of this end, Chapter One uses an examination of two nineteenth century philosophers of science, Whewell and Peirce, to characterize historical science as a distinctive type by virtue of: (a) its use of a distinctive form of explanation, (b) its use of a distinctive form of inference, and (c) the distinctive interests of its practitioners. Chapter Two presents a refined and expanded characterization of historical explanation. Using the work of Scriven and others, it advances several reasons for distinguishing historical explanations from other types of scientific explanation and for regarding the use of historical explanation as a necessary (though not sufficient) feature of any historical science. Chapter Three presents a similarly refined characterization of historical inference or reasoning. Building upon a Peircian understanding of abductive inference, it describes how historical scientists (including Darwin) establish or have established claims about the causal past when they do not have observational access to it. As a result, Chapter Three provides a statement of historical method and several criteria of good historical argument that will prove useful in the subsequent analysis of origin of life studies. The second section of the thesis applies the characterization of the first to analyze the historical development of origin of life research from a methodological point of view. As noted, its primary concern is to show the historically scientific character of the discipline as it has developed since Oparin. In order to underscore the methodological importance of Oparin’s research programme, Chapter Four provides a discussion of the work of Oparin’s nineteenth century predecessors. It notes that with a few exceptions the nineteenth century discussion of abiogenesis was not concerned with specifically historical questions, but instead contented itself with postulating causal conditions that seemed capable of producing life under some circumstances, but not necessarily under the particular circumstances that existed on the early earth. Chapter Five then argues that, in contrast, Oparin’s work manifested a distinctively historical mode of reasoning and explanation. Additionally, this chapter shows that experiment…..

  35. @Michael Fugate, thanks. Do you know who his PhD advisor was?

    He makes a real and important distinction between two kinds of questions; how could life have originated by natural processes, and how *did* life in fact originate on Earth. He also seems to be making very heavy weather of all this.

    So there is a real distinction between historical science and rule-seeking science. Carole Cleland at University of Colorado Boulder has written interestingly about this, and my own take is at https://paulbraterman.wordpress.com/2018/05/10/why-historical-science-is-the-best-kind-of-science/

  36. “the first section of the thesis constructs a methodological characterization of the historical sciences as a distinctive class.”
    Well well, a fine example of an IDiot inspiring YEC.

  37. @PaulB: I’ve one comment. It’s not criticism; rather you should take it as an addition.
    It’s peculiar that the discussion historical science vs. rule-seeking science (or operational science or whatever) is always about events that happened a very long time ago. This seems to suit creationists and whatever suits them makes me wonder. So when starting such discussions I always like to consider a simple example first: for instance the German Army invading Poland on Sept 1, 1939 or the Brexit referendum of June 23, 2016.
    Nobody doubts these events, except for conspiracy nuts. It’s easy to see where our certainty comse from: exactly because they were one time events. When you can repeat an observation over and over again there’s always the possibility that next time this observation will deviate. Bertrand Russell calls this the problem of Induction by Simple Enumeration. This problem doesn’t occur with that German invasion or with that referendum, exactly because n = 1. From here it’s easy to understand that the same applies to the Big Bang, the fossil record and to various Ice Ages.
    Hence historical sciences are more certain indeed – as long as we have sufficient empirical data, as every police inspector can tell you. With rule-seeking science it’s totally unclear when empirical data are sufficient. To paraphraze Stephen Hawking: rule-seeking science always has a temporary character.

  38. @FrankB, agreed on all counts.

    Regarding historical events, some are clearly attested by the documentary record, and we refer to the study of these as “history”. But when the record requires interpretation, as does the fossil record, that is when we talk of historical science, much as we talk of forensic science in court cases.

    Repeatability may be an essential part of the argument in both historical and forensic science. We find *repeatedly* that there are dinosaur fossils close below the K/Pg boundary layer, but none above, and if any were found above it, that would require at least modification of the currently accepted account. And think of what would happen to forensic science if fingerprint assignments were not repeatable. [There are differences between these two last cases, but exploring these properly would require a very boring Ph.D. thesis]

  39. But what I said about repeatability does not do justice to what you yourself said. We cannot *repeatedly* test the hypothesis that large enough impacts cause mass extinctions. Though actually we can imagine worlds where impacts of such a nature are sufficiently common for that to emerge as a generalisation, which will be tested by examining enough data, and if we were exploring the palaeontology of such a world, we would find ourselves crossing whatever boundary exists between historical science and rule-seeking science.

  40. Michael Fugate

    Paul, that portion of the abstract is all that is available through ProQuest. For some US dissertations, they include pdfs of portions of the text. As you show on WorldCat they show only 4 places with copies.

  41. You may well be able to get Cambridge to prepare a photocopy, if you think it’s worth it (I wouldn’t bother). A search on Stephen Meyer Oparin came up with http://www.arn.org/docs/meyer/sm_origins.htm The Origin of Life and the Death of Materialism The Intercollegiate Review 31, no. 2 (spring 1996) and http://www.arn.org/docs/meyer/sm_methodological.htm The Methodological Equivalence of Design & Descent: Can There Be a Scientific “Theory of Creation”? Reprinted from The Creation Hypothesis, ed. by J.P. Moreland (InterVarsity Press, 1994)

    Intervarsity Press is the organ of Intervarsity Christian Fellowship. ARN (Access Research Network) is an ID resource.

    All rather sad, really

  42. Michael Fugate

    One does wonder – what he said in the dissertation – did he hide his creationism? The Intercollegiate Review article is pure creationism – he cites creationist engineer Werner Gitt – who has claimed that information can only be generated by a mind e.g. DNA is a gift from God. https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Werner_Gitt

    This site has an interesting discussion of information
    http://www.informationphilosopher.com/introduction/ – to continue the Weiner quote Meyer uses to conclude – Boyle says “Abstract information is neither matter nor energy, yet it needs matter for its concrete embodiment and energy for its communication.”

  43. Michael Fugate

    From Meyer’s bio – everything he has published has been in conservative and/or religious books/journals.
    In this article – he merely asserts since demarcation is hard, creationism is science.
    Meyer, S.C. (2000) “The Demarcation of Science and Religion,” in The History of Science and Religion in the Western Tradition: An Encyclopedia. Edited by Ferngren, G., (Garland: New York) pp. 12-23.

    And look at this ID fun-fest – Marvin Olasky was on the journal board. ID – inbreeding disaster?

    Rhetoric and Public Affairs
    Vol. 1, No. 4, Winter 1998
    Special Issue on the Intelligent Design Argument
    Published by: Michigan State University Press
    Intelligent Design, Darwinism, and the Philosophy of Public Education (pp. 469-502)
    John Angus Campbell
    Reinstating Design within Science (pp. 503-518)
    William A. Dembski
    DNA by Design: An Inference to the Best Explanation for the Origin of Biological Information (pp. 519-556)
    Stephen C. Meyer
    Some Things in Biology Don’t Make Sense in the Light of Evolution (pp. 557-563)
    Jonathan Wells and Paul A. Nelson
    Intelligent Design as an Alternative Explanation for the Existence of Biomolecular Machines (pp. 565-570)
    Michael J. Behe
    Respondents
    Intelligent Design and Irreducible Complexity: A Rejoinder (pp. 571-578)
    David Depew
    Intelligent “Dasein” (pp. 579-585)
    John Lyne
    The Rhetorical Problem of Intelligent Design (pp. 587-591)
    Phillip E. Johnson
    The Rhetoric of Intelligent Design: Alternatives for Science and Religion (pp. 593-602)
    Celeste Michelle Condit
    An Intelligent Person’s Guide to Intelligent Design Theory (pp. 603-610)
    Steve Fuller
    Biochemical Complexity: Emergence or Design? (pp. 611-616)
    Bruce H. Weber
    Literature Review
    Intelligent Design: A Look at Some of the Relevant Literature (pp. 617-637)
    Thomas M. Lessl

  44. Michael Fugate

    This paper looks especially good – taking apart ID’s rhetorical ploys.
    The Rhetoric of Intelligent Design: Alternatives for Science and Religion (pp. 593-602)
    Celeste Michelle Condit

  45. Ashley Haworth-roberts

    And these people lie ad nauseum about climate change:
    http://forums.bcseweb.org.uk/viewtopic.php?f=18&t=2967&p=52505&hilit=pretty#p52505