Item #2: Mr. Knapp’s first article and commentary on his website -
This is my [Mr.Knapp’s] article the Daily Bee did not post in their opinion section.
Once again, Mr. Debaun’s [sic] (10-25-10) argument is to automatically disqualify those with sound scientific reasons for rejecting evolution simply because they have some sort of religious background. Many of his comments seem to reflect an anti-religious overtone. It’s interesting to note that atheism, Mr. Debaun’s [sic] religion I suspect, finds intellectual satisfaction in the theory he so admittedly defends. If you were to do a study of those most visible in promoting evolution since say World War II, a sort of "Who’s Who of Evolution," you would find that almost all of them are avowed atheists. We see, therefore, that evolution is foundational (necessary) for their faith – the fact that there is no creator and that everything made itself; i.e., evolution. This is why atheists are at the forefront in promoting the public acceptance of evolution – it promotes their atheistic faith.
The poll I presented in my previous article represents only a small portion of the thousands of scientists, yes creationists as well, who reject evolution – on purely scientific grounds, too! These are highly-educated scientists. Mr. Debaun [sic] claims I don’t grasp that his mainstream science sites are, by default, pro-evolution and that the majority of scientists hold to evolution. Of course, I do. I just make the distinction between evolution (philosophical naturalism) and real science.
Could the majority be wrong? You bet! During Galileo’s time the vast majority of scientists held to the Ptolemaic theory. The majority was wrong. There was a minority then that began to show the theory was wrong. It wasn’t until after a long, bitter struggle that new, more correct views began to win out. I believe it will be the same situation with evolution. That is why we are starting to see a defection from evolutionism today.
Mr. Knapp’s further comments:
It is interesting to note Jack Debaun [sic], who says those who oppose evolution almost always have a religious axe to grind, seems to have an antireligious axe to grind of his own. (1) What he fails to recognize is his own religious adherence to Evolution. When I have put forth evidence in past-articles against evolution, Mr. Debaun [sic] never addresses the evidence. Instead he goes into some anti-religious rhetoric and passes the buck to someone lese to answer the evidence. If someone is going to defend evolution like he does, he should at least have a basic understanding of some of the evidence in question. Never have I seen Mr. Debaun [sic] tackle any evidence. I’m not asking him to be an expert in any particular field of science, just to have a reasonably good understanding of the scientific facts related to the Creation/evolution controversy. I myself have no expertise in any field of science, However; I do have a good average understanding. I have spent a fair amount of time studying the scientific facts behind both sides of the issue.
More anti-Creationist propaganda by Jack Debaun [sic].
"The vast majority of creationists are not on an honest scientific quest to follow the evidence wherever it leads. Instead they have embarked on an anti-science crusade that involves manipulating the data to try to force it to conform to their religiouse [sic] presuppositions." (2)
Give me a list of this vast majority of Creationists Jack. Again, allegations with no proof. He is just regurgitating what he has read by anti-creation propagandists. What Jack doesn’t grasp here is that both creationist [sic] and evolutionists have a set of presuppositions that they start their thinking from. Actually we all do. Evolutionists, creationists, Christian [sic], and non-believers all have the same facts. So why such different views and interpretations? The reason why is we all start with different presuppositions. These are things that are assumed to be true, without being able to prove them. We then analyze & interpret evidence in accordance with our presuppositions. These biases influence our conclusions. So for discussions sake, keep in mind we are all bound by the same principals [sic] of bias, presupposition, and faith. Evolutionists are subject to these same principles of bias and presupposition. For instance, evolutionists believe evolution is a so called [sic] fact. Because of this presupposition, all observed phenomena can only be best understood in the light of evolution. For the creationist, creation is a fact and the Bible is true history. All evidence we observe therefore is best explained in light [of] the creation model of origins. (3)
Some of the websites that Mr. Debaun [sic] recommends are questionable at the very least. The following comes from http://www.religioustolerance.org website he refers to. The Web page name is: HOMOSEXUALITY: Chosen lifestyle of fixed orientation? The topic: is homosexual behavior normal and natural? Here is a quote:
( See quote from B.A.Robinson at www.religioustolerance.org/hom_fixe.htm#norm (4) )
What I find here is basically a defense & support of Homosexuality. The conclusions here are expected when we consider the evolutionary assumptions that we are nothing more then [sic] evolved animals. It should not surprise us then that we do things similar to animals in the wild.
(1) Jack debaun [sic]. Daily Bee 10-10-2001
(2) Jack debaun [sic]. Daily Bee 10-10-2001
(3) Timothey Wallace http://www.trueorigin.org/creatheory.asp
(4) Author; B. A Robinson – http://www.religioustolerance.org/hom_fixe.htm#norm
Back to Skirmish