RE: General Response

Pim van Meurs (
Thu, 27 May 1999 20:13:19 -0700


Several of you have demanded that I provide evidence to backup my recollections about the unscientific behavior of evolutionists, then when I do you dismiss it out of hand. THAT is a perfect
example of what I am talking about.

It's a perfect example of creation "science". The unprovable based on stories.

Para: Because I am a declared anti-evolutionist you evolutionists automatically reject anything I have to say.

Not at all, your words are rejected or accepted based on their merrits.

Para: Some of you are naive enough to believe evolutionist propoganda that all anti-evolutionists are liars.

Of course that is a strawman. But it is true that I have seen many a creationist tending to "err" time after time.

Pare: No doubt the reason is to destroy my reputation before I even get a chance to make it.


Para: Or to find a way to get rid of me before I can do any real damage to evolution.


Para: Since I have declared myself anonymous, I cannot provide the kind of proof that y'all demand or I would compromise that anonymity. That allows you to imply that I am lying.

Not it allows us to doubt your claims since you cannot back them up.

Para: If however I provided the proof you wanted you would be able to find out who I am and then pressure my department chair to get me fired. So I am caught between the Devil and the deep blue sea no matter what I do.

So you claim but how will we know one way or the other?

Para: That alone should tell you I have no reason to lie. After all, why would I deliberately put myself in that position? But if you need another, being a Christian I know it is a sin to lie.

That has never stopped Christians from lying though

Para: Therefore, why would I jeopardize the fate of my immortal soul just to win a silly debate? As a Christian though I am ready to bear the slings and arrows of outraged evolutionists to bear witness to the truth. Y'all know in your hearts that what I am saying is true, even those of you hoodwinked by evolutionist propoganda. So you have no choice but to destroy me at all costs.

Why ? For what reason? That you claim to be right? That's only the more a reason to let you speak.

Some of you have demanded that I reveal what I think is wrong with evolution. Well, I've already done that, but your knee-jerk reactions were to dismiss it with the usual rhetorical clap-trap instead of providing evidence to show that I am wrong. What does that say about your biases against the truth?

Well we have seen more evidence supporting evolutionary claims than supporting yours.

Para: Part of the problem is also that there are only about 3 of y'all who would really understand a full-blown biochemically-based scientific refutation of evolution. For the rest I have to use baby talk, but that is never near as effective. So its a Catch-22.


If you do a search in MedLine you would find that Behe has coauthored some 33 papers in such journals as Biochemical and Biophysical Research Communications, the Journal of Molecular Biology, Nucleic Acids Research, Biochemistry, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, Biopolymers, the Journal of Biological Chemistry and the Biophysical Journal. If you read those papers you find that almost from the beginning he was discussing irreducible complexity. In fact, you can see the idea "evolve" right up until the time he published his book. What is interesting is that no unbiased biochemist who has read Behe's theory has found anything wrong with it, and that's partly because he refined it through his research and his publications.

Other than that many have pointed out that IC systems CAN arise gradually.

Para: Only those people who are devoted to the evolutionist doctrine oppose it, yet they can never find anything wrong with it. So they make pseudoscientific arguments or personal attacks. It's really quite sad.

Nice strawman.

Some of you have attempted to refute irreducible complexity by saying that it has been shown that IC systems can evolve, but I've never seen anything like that in the scientific literature.

That by itself is not very relevant.

ParaL I see scenarios and speculations and just-so stories, but not one piece of hardcore evidence.

Like IC itself? Speculations... But the relevance is that these speculations show that IC systems can evolve gradually. So IC systems are not enough to disprove Darwinian evolution.

I'll deal with this in another post this weekend.

Can't wait...

The only truly reliable methods of dating past events are carbon-14, dendrochronology and uranium series dating, but these are good only back to about 350.000 years.

You are dismissing quite a few good isochron methods.

Para: Based on this and other information I believe that any date for the age of the earth older than 500,000 years is questionable,

Of course, you are limiting your view to data which can not work beyond 350,000 years of age.

Para: and that its oldest possible age cannot exceed 10 million years in any event, based on geophysical evidence such as that proposed by Lord Kelvin and astrophysical evidence such as the faint young sun paradox. I believe the earth is only a million years old, but that is just a personal opinion.

Certainly not a scientific one.