Search This Blog

Wednesday, December 3, 2008

Ebbs and Flows

"There's no proof, it's just projections, and if you look at the models people such as [evolutionary scientists] use, you can see they cherry pick the ones that support their beliefs. To date, the way the so-called [academia] and the BBC, and Royal Society and even political parties have handled this smacks of McCarthyism at its worst."

One of the defences used against the arguments of 'Six Day, Young Earth Creationists' by Atheists, Skeptics and even the compromising Church is to cite the absence of published research of 'Six Day, Young Earth Creationists' in "reputable" scientific journals. To reply saying that secular journals refuse to publish work of 'Six Day, Young Earth Creationists' just doesn't cut it with accusers. Either the accusers believe that 'reputable' journals are thoroughly objective or accusers just want reasons for sticking with the world view.

The aforesaid quote may well have been made by numerous 'Six Day, Young Earth Creationists' because it reflects what they have encountered when attempting to have their work published in scientific journals of international reputation. However, the quote, except for my insertions, were those of David Bellamy, Botanist, author of 35 books and presenter of 400 television programs and the topic under discussion was Global Warming. Instead of saying evolutionary scientists Bellamy said "Gore" [Al] and instead of saying academia Bellamy said "Greens".

David Bellamy was lamenting that he no longer gets television work after having criticised the case for Global Warming. He said "When I first stuck my head up above the parapet to say I didn't believe what we were being told about global warming, I had no idea what the consequences would be. I am a scientist and I have to follow the directions of science, but when I see the truth is being covered up I have to voice my opinions."

He went on to say "It was in 1996 that I criticised wind farms while appearing on children's program Blue Peter, and also had an article published in which I described global warming as poppycock. The truth is, I didn't think wind farms were an effective means of alternative energy, so I said so. Back then, at the BBC, you had to toe the line, and I wasn't doing that."

"At that point, I was still making loads of TV programs and I was enjoying it greatly. Then I suddenly found I was sending in ideas for TV shows and they weren't getting taken up. I've asked around about why I've been ignored, but I found that people didn't get back to me" Bellamy said. See http://www.google.com/search?sourceid=navclient&aq=t&ie=UTF-8&rlz=1T4SUNA_en___AU209&q=david+bellamy+global+warming+australian

Such is the penalty for swimming against the tide. You may be 100% correct in your assertions but if you aren't in with the flow you are an outcast and given no recognition at all. This has been going on almost since the dawn of time. Noah was mocked for building an ark for refuge from a forthcoming event - the concept of which was outside the world view, then and now. I can write pages of examples from history of those who spoke against a particular world view, who suffered abuse for it but were later proven correct. Even then, in spite of the later acknowledged merit of a work or assertions one can still receive scorn or abuse because of being "not one of us."

An example is that of Mary Schweitzer, Paleontologist, who found T rex dinosaur bone only partially fossilised and containing what she observed to be Red Blood Cells, bearing soft tissue and having a cadaverous odour. Such a find fits well with a 'Six Day, Young Earth Creationist' view of Origins and poses problems for the world view that has dinosaurs dying out 65 million years ago. Schweitzer remains convinced that the current world view is valid in spite of her find yet she has lamented her difficulty in getting her worked published in 'reputable' journals because of the perceived difficulties her find presents for the current world view. See http://creationontheweb.com/content/view/5363/

Take the case of Richard Damadian, key scientist in the development of the Magnetic Resonance Imaging (MRI) scanning machine. This machine has been of enormous benefit in the detection of cancers and other disorders within the human body. Such has been the perceived benefit to humanity that a Nobel Peace Prize for Physiology and Medicine ensued. However, the award did not go to Damadian but to his lesser assistants in the development of the MRI scanner. Why? Why would such an anomaly and injustice occur? Simply because Richard Damadian is on record for having declared his agreement to the 'Six Day, Young Earth Creationist' position on Origins. It was an embarrassment to Damadian's colleagues who received the award and it brought disgrace to the whole process of awarding the Nobel Peace Prize. See http://creationontheweb.com/content/view/4705/

You might bestow on the world the greatest benefit the world has ever seen but if you are not in with the flow you will suffer for it. Jesus of Nazareth is a prime example.

David Bellamy would do well to utilise his most recent experience as impetus for reviewing how the world treats those who "buck the system" and he ought apply a more objective test to what dissidents are producing in the way of research which speaks against the evolutionary model for the origin of life and how long ago it was that life emerged on earth.

As for Episcopalians of the Sydney Diocese take this advice. Stop running with those ravenous, wild dogs who think nothing of devouring lone Sheep. Trust the Word of God for it will be proven right.

Sam Drucker

7 comments:

neil moore said...

Sam, it is just as you say. You can't even expect peer review because having a Reformed approach to Scripture and consequent world view you are not regarded as a peer in secular circles.

I remember a story of a chap some 20 or more years ago writing to the Editor of National Geographic expressing concern over the bias toward the naturalistic evolutionary content of articles published in the magazine to the complete exclusion of a theistic alternative. The writer also threatened to cancel his subscription.

The response from the Editor was to ridicule a theistic alternative and to say that if the writer gave any credence to this view then the publication was better off not having him as a subscriber.

Neil

Healyhatman said...

An example is that of Mary Schweitzer, Paleontologist, who found T rex dinosaur bone only partially fossilised and containing what she observed to be Red Blood Cells, bearing soft tissue and having a cadaverous odour. Such a find fits well with a 'Six Day, Young Earth Creationist' view of Origins

Since when has there been a "cadaverous odour" or "soft tissue" ? Never seen those words inserted into the story anywhere but there.

And I've read some of those articles you claim aren't getting their due consideration. There's a reason they don't get in: usually the science is flawed (ignoring anything that doesn't fit with a 6kyo earth). But how could the science be anything BUT flawed? You lot don't want to promote SCIENCE... you want to destroy it and replace it with worshipping and praying and Jesus.

Just admit that it's not important to you how rigorous the science behind your creationism is, as long as it says "the Earth is 6000 years old praise Jesus"

John said...

Oh, Healy, got up on the wrong side of bed this morning, did we young man? All this Xmas cheer starting to peeve you? Let me whistle you a tune..

"Noel, Noel, Noel, Noel, Born is the King of ISraeeellllll."

We're still all praying for, mate. The bus hasn't left yet.

Warwick said...

Healy welcome back.

I think it was you who said my understanding of the implications of the Kaibab Upwarp was wrong. I remember you were going to show me where I was wrong. Maybe you or one of thhe other blogers can let me know. Maybe if occurred during my long absence in France.

Anyway welcome back H-man, and Merry Christmas.

sam drucker said...

Healy Hatman need only do a google for Discover Magazine April 2006 and look for the article headed Schweitzer's Dangerous Discovery.

Sam Drucker

neil moore said...

Healy's criticism of the science of writers here must be his little joke. Every time in the past here when he has proferred his understanding of some scientific issue he's been hit for six. He then runs for cover and re-emergessome while later when he feels safe.

Neil

freefun0616 said...

酒店經紀人,
菲梵酒店經紀,
酒店經紀,
禮服酒店上班,
酒店小姐兼職,
便服酒店經紀,
酒店打工經紀,
制服酒店工作,
專業酒店經紀,
合法酒店經紀,
酒店暑假打工,
酒店寒假打工,
酒店經紀人,
菲梵酒店經紀,
酒店經紀,
禮服酒店上班,
酒店經紀人,
菲梵酒店經紀,
酒店經紀,
禮服酒店上班,
酒店小姐兼職,
便服酒店工作,
酒店打工經紀,
制服酒店經紀,
專業酒店經紀,
合法酒店經紀,
酒店暑假打工,
酒店寒假打工,
酒店經紀人,
菲梵酒店經紀,
酒店經紀,
禮服酒店上班,
酒店小姐兼職,
便服酒店工作,
酒店打工經紀,
制服酒店經紀,
酒店經紀,

,