Ennis Daily News

Response to Phil Banker on science education column


“To suppose that the eye with all its inimitable contrivances for adjusting the focus to different distances, for admitting different amounts of light, and for the correction of spherical and chromatic aberration, could have been formed by natural selection seems, I freely confess, absurd in the highest degree.”  Charles Darwin.

If Darwin had his doubts about the eye, then what else can we surmise he doubted about the rationality of his own theory, i.e., that nobody  X  nothing = everything?

Two points to your comment:  “In countries like Finland, Norway, and China, evolution isn’t treated like some hot-button controversial theory: it’s fact.  There’s actual evidence in the fossil record supporting evolution …”

What and where is the actual evidence in the fossil record supporting evolution to which you refer?

Is this empirical, theoretical, or conjectural evidence?

How do you explain the refutation of the “missing links of man”?

Does the evolutionist believe information is vital for life?

If so, then how does the evolutionist’s specie of any life matter know about the pre-existing information and the conditions by which it must draw from in order to:  Know that it even exists. Determines its superiority or deficiency to fellow species.

Recognizes specie as friend or foe for the survival of the fittest?

…not to mention in our own bodies (early fetuses have gills and a tail, for example).”

Regardless of the different appearances throughout fertilization/conception and development stages, has a human fetus ever developed into something other than a human being?

Or for that matter has a rainbow trout ever developed into a human being?

Does science have the power/intellect/ability to create anything out of nothing or does science merely observe what is already created and revealed? Is it science you believe in or science fiction?

Exactly what about creationism or intelligent design offends and/or frightens you?

“And God said; Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth.

So God created man in His own image, in the image of God created He him; male and female created He them.” Genesis 1:26-27

Know this, there is a God in heaven, Creator of all life, you included.  You aren’t the first nor the last to fight against Him on this subject.

But know this, He wants you to know Him in the most real and intimate way possible through His Son, Jesus Christ.

If you want to learn more feel free to email me at [email protected]  I’m not a preacher; I’m a believer and want to share the gospel with you.

Bill Hull

 

Post to Twitter

Comments

comments

Posted by on Aug 5 2011. Filed under Letters to the Editor. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0. Both comments and pings are currently closed.

11 Comments for “Response to Phil Banker on science education column”

  1. Michael

    Buddy,

    I have news for you, there is no refutation of the missing links of man, perhaps if you read actual science journals instead of religious propaganda sites, you wouldn’t have so many laughable and glaring mistakes in your letter. The author of the piece is not scared of ID, the FACT is, it is not science, period. With that fact in mind, why would you want it taught in science class?

    Also, where is proof that this god guy exists? In the future, I suggest you not write on subjects in which you are incredibly ignorant about. Brush up on your 8th grade science and get back to me

  2. Mr. Hull, I’ll not use your email- we can discuss this in public.

    First, it is obvious you never read Darwin’s books. Following the fragment you quoted, he continued, “When it was first said that the sun stood still and the world turned round, the common sense of mankind declared the doctrine false; but the old saying of Vox populi, vox Dei, as every philosopher knows, cannot be trusted in science. Reason tells me, that if numerous gradations from a simple and imperfect eye to one complex and perfect can be shown to exist, each grade being useful to its possessor, as is certainly the case; if further, the eye ever varies and the variations be inherited, as is likewise certainly the case; and if such variations should be useful to any animal under changing conditions of life, then the difficulty of believing that a perfect and complex eye could be formed by natural selection, though insuperable by our imagination, should not be considered as subversive of the theory.” (Darwin’s following discussion of how this might have occurred was very near the facts as we know them today).

    Mr. Hull, you should not pretend that you have read Darwin, nor pretend he had expressed this as a doubt about his theory based on the evolution of the eye. Remember 1 Peter 2:12. “Having your conversation honest among the Gentiles:”

  3. Mr. Hull asked, “What and where is the actual evidence in the fossil record supporting evolution to which you refer?
    Is this empirical, theoretical, or conjectural evidence?
    How do you explain the refutation of the “missing links of man”?

    Mr. Hull, The fossil evidence supporting evolutionary theory is the total sum of all fossils. There are no fossils that do not support evolutionary theory. I was the curator of a natural history museum with at least ten times more fossil material in our warehouse than we had floor space to display. I have had the very serious chore of moving literal tons of this fossil evidence, and can personal promise you that it is not at all “conjectural.” By “literal” I mean flatbed truck loads that needed a crane to off-load.

    I have read several creationist “refutations” of human evolution. Based on my personal, and professional experience these creationist “refutations” are at best “pious frauds.” Which creationist “refutation” in particular have you been mislead by. There is a good chance I have read it.

    Let me recommend looking at;
    The Smithsonian Institute’s “Human Origins Project”
    http://humanorigins.si.edu/

    And,

    “Becoming Human” by the Institute for Human Origins
    http://www.becominghuman.org/

  4. Michael

    Dr Hurd,

    You know as well as I do that lies and deception is the only thing idiot creationists have going for them. Their lies were fully exposed in the Dover, PA case several years ago that was presided over by a very conservative judge appointed by George W. Bush, which meant that was their best hope to win, and they were still soundly defeated.

    People like this have their agenda, and I can only discern that they want their religion legitimized by scientific methods, which of course cannot be done. There has never been one testable hypothesis put forth by laughable creation scientists, not one peer reviewed article in any scientific journal….and there never will be.

    People do not seem to understand that the same scientific method that gives us gravitational theory, gives us the theory of evolution, and both have stood the test of time and been proven correct at each and every turn.

    By the way, most of the laughable arguments put forth here by Mr. Hull have long been abandoned by creationists…it’s impossible for people with closed minds to learn.

    And people wonder why Ennis High School recently graded unacceptable? here is the answer right here

  5. Mr. Hull asks, “Does the evolutionist believe information is vital for life?”

    It is not clear what Mr. Hull means by “information.” If he means something like the “information” in creationist books, that would have two problems; “meaning” is not the same as “information” in the technical sense as “information” in either DNA or mathematical information theory. The second problem is of course that creationist books are misinformation, or anti-meaning.

    Many popular accounts try to explain the function of genes in a cell as “information.” But, they all suffer from the need to avoid the real chemistry of a cell. This is because fewer than one percent of Americans can follow that chemistry, and “popular” means “enough books sold to make some money.” Some creationist accounts use more chemistry than real efforts by scientists, but, this is because the creationist wants to confuse people, and then claim victory because they are confusing. This leads to the answer to Mr. Hull’s next problem: the “pre-existing information and the conditions by which it must draw from.” This is chemistry, Mr. Hull. The properties of matter do in fact limit the sorts of life that can exist. When you think of all the strange forms of life that exist today, and the even stranger ones that have become extinct, you should be even more amazed to learn that life on Earth has used only a fraction of the potential variation of such simple chemicals as amino acids. The 20 (plus 4) amino acids in Earth life are a fraction of those we have extracted from meteorites, or detected around distant stars.

  6. Michael, Thanks for your encouraging words. I have one other comment stuck in “moderation” regarding fossils and evolution. Perhaps the newspaper objects to the University of Arizona, or the Smithsonian Institution. Or maybe they are not allowing any links to nationally and internationally famous scientific institutions.

    I was the Curator, and Director of Education for a natural history museum. We had more fossils than space to show them.

  7. Mr. Hull wondered how living organisms, “Know that it even exists. Determines its superiority or deficiency to fellow species. Recognizes specie as friend or foe for the survival of the fittest?”

    Here are some important confusions. Nearly all life on Earth lacks any neurons, let alone a brain. This unavoidably means that most life on Earth does not “Know that it even exists,” and yet the trees, and mushrooms, and the ~80% of life that is single celled are doing just great. As for knowing “its superiority or deficiency to fellow species,” the question rarely ever comes up does it? Does the fly need to “know” if it is superior to the elephant? Is Mr. Hull’s nail fungus superior to him? I am sure that if they had minds, they would be totally certain that they were the “superior” critter. And, if it can’t kill you I suppose it isn’t a threat, and if it tastes good it might be a “friend.”

    In fact, that sort of thinking has not been part of scientific thinking about evolution since the 1930s. That was when we joined the discoveries of genetics with the observations leading to evolutionary theory. The breakthrough was realizing that individuals do not evolve. Evolution is a property of populations of organisms, not isolated individuals.

  8. Michael

    Dr Hurd,

    I’ll let you take on the blowhard who wrote a letter to the editor today. You are obviously more qualified than I to speak on the subject. And if you will, find out what this ‘liberal agenda’ means, because it’s certainly a mystery to me.

    • Sorry Michael, but I have not found this “liberal agenda” letter on-line. Some newspapers have a delay between the print and on-line editions. I’ll keep an eye out for it.

      Do you think there is much reason to continue exposing Mr. Hull’s arguments as nonsense? I doubt he can reply as it is.

      I will point out that IF “a rainbow trout ever developed into a human being,” it would be the utter end of evolutionary theory, or any belief that the universe was sane or rational.

  9. Michael

    Dr Hurd,

    Closed minds don’t learn, the guy has had the opportunity like everyone else to learn and yet has dragged his heels. This guy that wrote in today has some serious issues, damn letter goes all over the place and he seems totally clueless about science basics. Also seems to be a conspiracy theory dope…….let’s hope abortion stays legal, as the guy is the poster child for birth control.

  10. Michael, the “abortio” remark is a little harsh. (OK, a lot).

    In 1871, Charles Darwin observed that, “The aid which we feel impelled to give to the helpless is mainly an incidental result of the instinct of sympathy, which was originally acquired as part of the social instincts, but subsequently rendered, in the manner previously indicated, more tender and more widely diffused. Nor could we check our sympathy, if so urged by hard reason, without deterioration in the noblest part of our nature. The surgeon may harden himself whilst performing an operation, for he knows that he is acting for the good of his patient; but if we were intentionally to neglect the weak and helpless, it could only be for a contingent benefit, with a certain and great present evil.”

    He went on to note that the mentally incapable members of society had generally less opportunity or success at reproduction unless they were hereditary millionaires. As to the survival of America in the face of the dangers presented by creationists, and “teajadists,” I’ll have to trust evolution. If our society falls due to these lunatics, then it deserved to fall.

Comments are closed

Featured Links

    Search Archive

    Search by Date
    Search by Category
    Search with Google
    Log in

     

    Copyright: All rights reserved. Users may download and print extracts of content from this website for their own personal and non-commercial use only. Republication or redistribution of Ennis Daily News content, including by framing or similar means, is expressly prohibited without the prior written consent of Ennis Daily News. Ennis Daily News and its logo are registered trademarks or trademarks of the Ellis County Newspapers, Inc.

    © Ellis County Newspapers, Inc. 2014