There
is
no
evidence
whatsoever
for
young
earth
creationism.

It has the same level of support as alchemy and phlogiston. Young earth creationism stems from a mistranslation of the early chapters of Genesis that dates back to John Wycliffe. The modern young earth movement was started by Ellen G. White, a Seventh Day Adventist prophetess who had visions about the creation of the world and passed those on to her protege, George MacReady Price.

There is no conspiracy to hide the weaknesses of evolutionary theory. The reason that the mainstream press does not give young earth creationists as much time as evolutionary biologists is because there is OVERWHELMING evidence for evolution--biological, biogeographical, microbiological, geological, and genetic evidence abounds.

" .. on the evolutionary controversy when state school districts were considering a balanced presentation of origins .."
There is no such thing as 'balanced' presentations in science. A theory is worthless unless it reflects what we see in nature, can make predictions, and can be falsified. Creationism fails on every one of these and is therefore not a scientific theory.

"The People for the American Way admitted that most Americans want both evolution and creationism taught in public schools"
The only way to do this without running afoul of the constitution is to teach every creation story from every religion which would take more than all available hours.
The bible is not a science book. The Catholics learned the hard way (and against the advice of Augustine) that standing against science is a losing proposition.

Forget the debate about the origins of matter. Where did TIME come from?
God said: “Let there be light.” And time began.
Until God said “Let there be light”, time did not exist. God created time.
The error both evolutionists and creationists make is failure to recognize the transcendence of God. God does not exist in a universe constrained by time and space as are we. In God’s dimension, there is no past, present or future. There is only a permanent NOW. Even that fails to express God’s dimension because the word “NOW” implies a dimension that includes either a past (before NOW) or a future (after NOW).
God’s dimension is also absent of “here” or “there”. Space is God’s creation. Thus orthodoxy asserts God exists everywhere.
The miracle was God stepping out of timelessness, out of spacelessness, into our dimension, taking on flesh, living and walking among us in order to be the logos in flesh.
Most people do not realize evolution was not a theory invented by Darwin. It was a theory postulated centuries before Jesus. Darwin simply interpreted evidence to fit the hypothesis. Fitting the evidence to support the evolutionary hypothesis pays the salary of most scientists today.
Evolutionists and creationists both fail to acknowledge how big God is. None of us can fully comprehend God’s power. Some of us will spend eternity (timeless) in His presence ever increasing in awe struck wonder at God’s power. Some of us will spend a timeless eternity in unspeakably agonizing lonely regret for having refused to accept His offer of salvation.
It is appointed unto men to die once, and after this, judgment.
There is no excuse.

The pre-scientific versions of "evolution" were absurd.

The
middle 1700s saw several attempted theories. The most widely known was
proposed by Jean-Baptiste Lamarck (1744 – 1829). He thought that all
living organisms were striving toward a better condition in a rather
Platonic ideal state. He did think that they failed to reach this state
because of physical factors rather than some existential moral. Darwin
reviews the older versions of species change in the prefaces to "The
Origin of Species" starting in the second edition. These are all on
line, BTW.

The pre-scientific versions of "evolution" were absurd.

The middle 1700s saw several attempted theories. The most widely known was proposed by Jean-Baptiste Lamarck (1744 – 1829). He thought that all living organisms were striving toward a better condition in a rather Platonic ideal state. He did think that they failed to reach this state because of physical factors rather than some existential moral. Darwin reviews the older versions of species change in the prefaces to "The Origin of Species" starting in the second edition. These are all on line, BTW: http://darwin-online.org.uk/

Don't forget Alfred Wallace's race to preempt Darwin. Wallace apparently had a vision (of evolution) while in a fevered state in a South American jungle. Darwin published first. Wallace is now mostly forgotten.

I somehow deleted this???

Oh Well.

Here is what I deleted:

Wallace is better remembered by biologists as the founder of ecology, and biogeography. He sent a manuscript of his paper on natural selection to Darwin in 1858. Darwin had been privately circulating manuscripts on evolution to friends, but hesitated to publish. When Wallace asked him for advice, Darwin was finally forced to publish as well.

Papers by both men were read to the Linnean Society of London in July, 1858.

"These gentlemen having, independently and unknown to one another, conceived the same very ingenious theory to account for the appearance and perpetuation of varieties and of specific forms on our planet, may both fairly claim the merit of being original thinkers in this important line of inquiry; but neither of them having published his views, though Mr. Darwin has for many years past been repeatedly urged by us to do so, and both authors having now unreservedly placed their papers in our hands, we think it would best promote the interests of science that a selection from them should be laid before the Linnean Society."

Sir CHARLES LYELL, F.R.S., F.L.S., and J. D. HOOKER, Esq., M.D., V.P.R.S., F.L.S, &c.

What is also historically interesting is that Charles Lyell was a frequent correspondent with both Darwin and Wallace. He and Wallace were sending each other articles as early as 1853. Lyell told Darwin in a letter that the 1855 Amazon River article by Wallace had made him reconsider his objections to Darwin's work.

You're a fellow I could actually enjoy a beer with. I imagine we'd disagree on quite a lot, but you do seem reasonable and that counts for something around here.

The bible does not say anything about time being created.

Again you pre suppose a god when there is no evidence of any such being.

I'm not anti-science and I do have respect for most scientists. However, I've always wondered how seemingly intelligent people can believe that something came from nothing. It is as if "nothing" is a creative, organizing agent. Sort of like Nothing + Time = Complexity! Also, there's the word "chance" that is often used with regard to the formation of the universe. Chance is a filler word for variables too large or complex to comprehend. Chance is not an actual thing. How did the universe come from nothing/by chance? An uncreated/eternal Being with the intrinsic power to create from nothing (ex nihilo) would seem to be the only logical alternative as much as that rankles modern man. As far as evolution goes, I'm open to adaptation and variations. I'll let others argue about macro evolution and the problems with fossil record support for it.

Okay, that is beyond the scope of evolution to determine. Evolution does not address the origins of life. It addresses the changes in biodiversity over time.

No one thinks something comes from nothing so don't worry about that.

Except of course your god came from nothing.

Until you have some evidence of this god you can't claim he is an agency to create anything.

Science cannot tell you whether or not God exists. You are free to think that he doesn't but that is not germane to the question this article is addressing.

Thanks for the reassurance that "no one thinks something comes from nothing." The biblical view is that God is without beginning or end, so there was never a time when he did not exist--even before the universe that he brought into being. I understand how that seems unscientific to you.

I'm obviously a simple person, so perhaps you could explain in layman's terms the origin of matter. It would seem to me, again being simple, that it would either appear from "nothing" or that it is eternal (I suppose a third choice would be that it is an illusion). An ignorant person such as I just can't figure out how nothing (aka "nothing") creates something (matter). So, I'm left with the alternative that matter has always existed. However, those darn science classes I had in school repeatedly taught me that matter, because of its nature (and thermodynamics), must have a beginning and an end. You're an evidence-only person, so please help me out with this.

Why can't the universe have always existed. Why is your god a special case? The universe is at least real.

Again no one says something came of nothing ... so it is not part of any binary choice.

The reality is before the big bang science does not know but science is working on it. Unlike the arrogant christian who thinks he knows it all science has no problem with saying I don't know.

But the universe has evidence of its existence, The Big Bang is based on the evidence of a visible expansion of what we see in the universe. God has no evidence. So before you go on about godly creation you need to prove this fella exists.

I am sure that you have time to read. So here are some suggestions for the origin of space-time I found interesting;

Gross, David 2005 “The Quantum Structure of Space and Time: Proceedings of the 23rd Solvay Conference on Physics” Ed. David Gross (Brussels: World Scientific Pub Co Inc)

Hawking, Stephen 1988 "A Brief History of Time" Bantam Books

Hawking, & Leonard Mlodinow
2012 "The Grand Design" Bantam Books

Krauss, Lawrence 2012 “A Universe From Nothing” New York: Free Press

Susskind, Leonard 2005 "The Cosmic Landscape: String Theory and the Illusion of Intelligent Design" New York: Little and Brown Publishers

Woit, Peter 2006 "Not Even Wrong: The Failure of String Theory" New York: Basic Books

The books by Hawking are written for general readers. Krauss and Susskind think they are writing for general readers, but are less successful at it. I found Woit's book to be the last one to read because otherwise you won't know why he is so angry at the other physicists. David Gross is a string cosmologist, and the edited papers are all technical, and mostly over my head. His introduction and conclusion sections are clear, however.

The over all result is that matter/energy are a consequence of there being a space-time. It creates matter spontaneously. Some technical issues were resolved in the 1990s by experiments that showed that a "vacuum" is really just disorganized energy. Matter spontaneously emerges and then moves back to a disorganized state. Under the right conditions, these virtual particles are shown to be real in the sense that they have measurable properties. The key words here are "Vacuum Energy," "Virtual Particles," "Casimir Effect."

Thanks for the reply. I am familiar with two of the authors. I have no problem reading writings from various camps. Hawking has made several pronouncements lately that fall into the realm of philosophy. That doesn't bother me either.

I thought Hawkin and Mlodinow's book was overselling what is known. Larry Krauss and Len Susskind really disagree about physics, but are otherwise pals. Woit seems to hate everybody.

Lawrence Krauss thinks String Theory will never be falsifiable and thus of any value and Len Susskind was one of the originators of what became string theory so they do disagree. I thought Krauss' book looked like he started writing early on the morning of the day it was due at the publisher. Steven Weinberg's 'Dreams of a Final Theory' is a good read for the non-scientist.

Evolutionary theory does not posit that "something came from nothing". That is a creationist charge that is completely false. The "chance" claim is another red herring. Words like "chance" and "random" (another favorite for creationist attacks), like the word theory, have very specific meanings in science and they are not used the way creationists use them and then try to impose that usage on science.

"I debated Eugenie at least twice and on Pat Buchanan’s radio show"
I don't understand why anyone would debate a flat-earther like you. There is no debate. Evolution is the strongest fact of science.

"Major Media Refuse to Honestly Deal With Evolution"
It obvious Don Boys knows absolutely nothing about the science he doesn't like. If biologists read his nonsense they would be disgusted by Mr. Boys total ignorance of the foundation of biology. It's really pathetic there are still people who believe in magical creationism in the 21st century. The evidence for evolution is more powerful than Darwin could have imagined possible, for example the thousands of evidences just from DNA sequencing.

Whether you like it or not the Theory of Evolution is the most well established, the most well supported theory in all of science. The fact of evolution (there is no doubt about this) is explained in great detail - from virtually all fields of science - from genetics, geology, paleontology, archeology, anthropology, microbiology, molecular biology, physics, chemistry, astronomy, botany, etc - by the theory of evolution. It has more evidence to support it than the Theory of Gravity - yet we see no Christian loons complaining about gravity do we? There is not one piece of empirical evidence (NOT ONE) to suggest evolution is not the best explanation for the diversity of life on this planet. To suggest Creationism or it's sibling Intelligent Design is a viable alternative to real science is either delusional, willfully ignorant or dishonest. Which of the three are you?

Well done what you wrote. The answer to your question is all three. Especially willful ignorance. The science deniers go way out of their way to know nothing. There is nobody more lazy than a loony creationist.

Not just creationists, look at the anti-vaccine crowd and the climate change deniers. Even now when it has been absolutely proven that there was no link between vaccines and autism the anti-vaccine group is still going strong. Even when the link between CO2 and climate change has been confirmed beyond any reasonable doubt the cry is the same. All these groups want equal time in print, in television and in the schools for their non-science.

"A fanatic is one who can't change his mind and won't change the subject." Sir Winston Churchill

Yah, but the goofy thing about the anti-vaccers is that they tend to be pretty well educated. One Health Department employee was asked where pockets of anti-vaccinators were and he said, paraphrased: "Stick a pin on a map where all of the Whole Foods stores are. That is where they are."

How is it that a certain segment of the Christian population has become so confused, or allowed themselves to become so ignorant, about science and politics? Science is practiced by people of all faiths and political persuasions the world over. It is not a left wing conspiracy any more than baseball is. Evolution is not a "guess" as Mr. Boys suggests, but an explanation (which is what the word theory means in science, not "armchair guess" or supposition). This explanation is consistent with all known facts and inconsistent with none, the hallmark of great science. Creationists often attempt to mislead fellow Christians about this. The sinful aspect of knowingly practicing deception aside, Christians have an obligation to examine the facts directly, not through the lens of creationist double talk. The thing that confounds discussions of this kind is the phenomenon of confirmation bias. That is when a person only listens to, reads or otherwise obtains information from sources that already agree with a previously held belief. We see this in politics and, sadly, in discussions about science among everyday people. And let's face it most people have a limited understanding of science, which makes them ripe for the picking for such people as Mr. Boys.

Mr. Boys brags that he puts "evolutionists" on the spot. He may well ambush unsuspecting people with bogus creationists claims with which they are not familiar. But I doubt that he ever tries that against anyone who knows the subject of evolution and creationist claims. Dr. Eugenie Scott would make short work of him as would any number of others.

Given the nature of this publication, I doubt this message will be given a fair shot, but people, stop listening to nonsense rants like these. Science, and particularly American scientific work, has given us an amazing world. You dishonor it by turning to ignorance and belittlement.

Well, the author is on the right track regarding the media and bias against "creationists" but both the author and you don't go quite far enough. Science has in fact established there is evolution processes occurring constantly and slowly. However, science has not been able to explain or show a reasonable theory of several huge jumps in the human development over the very recent past of 250 thousand years.

Science and archaeologists along with geologists and historians specializing in ancient antiquities show the human species or relatives thereof existed for many millions of years but only in the last 250 thousand years has there been massive and almost immediate jumps in the evolution categories of structure and intelligence. Within that short time period of recent human history, archaeologists have unearthed examples of technology in use thousands or years ago that only until the last 50 years the same technology has been rediscovered by modern man. One example is a cataract removal tool and other brain surgery tools dating back 6,000 years has been unearthed in Mesopotamia that is virtually identical to that recently developed and in use now. (USA Today)

For some reason, present day humans (last few thousand years) seem to relish periodically destroying our own civilizations, only to start over again. Recent archaeologically digs have unearthed irrefutable evidence in Israel of atomic explosions that date to over 6000 years ago. Science has also unearthed worldwide evidence of a giant flood of biblical proportions and also of many other disasters written in the Bible, the Koran, and the Talmud. If, as it does appear, that the great religious books speak truthfully of the disasters, and of the rise and conquests of humankind, why do we as mortals believe only certain things and not the others as written?

Electronics/electricity appears to have been normal tools used to light the interiors of great Pyramids and tombs during their construction. (Baghdad battery and 4000 year old lights: Parade Magazine).

Ohm's Law states Voltage equals Resistance multiplied times current. (E=IxR) It also states that if two of the three numbers are known, then the third can easily be mathematically calculated. Einstein's Law of Relativity is also comprised of three numbers. Energy equals Mass times the speed of light squared. In this case, if you know the speed of light (it is a constant) and the energy number, Mass (physical existance) can be calculated. The human mind/brain radiates energy and is measureable. (Medical uses). When that mind is combined with many other minds exhibiting/radiating the same energy (as in structured prayer, song, or chanting in unison) that energy can be multiplied. Einstein's Law then seems to support the value of "belief" and therefore physical things can happen (miracles).

With that said, Einstein's Law indicates that someone or something with a very strong mind could create the Universe and "all things" from nothing by just thinking about it. Since
Einstein's Law and all aspects have now been proven, (Associated Press and USA Today) who are we to question settled science? Accordingly, mankind's' science along with scripture confirms "creation" (fast changes), and that same science confirms "evolution" (slow changes).

Other excellent (and dry) reading is available here:
'Worlds In Collision" by Immanual Velikovsky (1950)
"In Search of Lost Worlds" by Henri-Paul Eydoux (1972)
"The Book of Enoch the Prophet" by R.H. Charles (2003)
"The 12th Planet" by Zacharia Sitchen (1976
"The Dead Sea Scrolls" by Robert Eiseniman (1996)
"Dark Planet is believed found" AP and major news papers (2016)

Television shows:
"Through the Wormhole" Morgan Freeman. (Science channel)
"How the Earth was formed" Various scientists (History channel)

Evolution can happen slowly or quickly depending on environmental changes.

Atomic explosions in Israel ..aaahh No.

Mind energy and miracles? And you blame Einstein for the notion?
...aaaahhhh No.

Nothing Einstein has said or done validates magically strong minds creating universes either.

Nothing supports creationism. No evidence, no science, nothing.

Creationism is not the biblical creation story and no christian is required to believe phony science ... even yours.

The specific and highly debatable examples you give aside, it is certainly true that science doesn't have the answer to everything. Here's the newsflash. Science doesn't claim to have all knowledge. By definition, it is the search for knowledge and explanations. But remember this - because we do not know everything does not mean that we know nothing.

Very good response. I like that last sentence.

You are most certainly correct. I am not knowledgeable on these subjects. I just read and watch and report.

Any evidence of your god?

Science doesn't pretend to give evidence one way or the other about the existence of God. It is not capable of doing so.

There is no evidence of any god .... it they're were it could be studied ..... he is just a faith construct that disappears if you stop believing and leaves no hole.

Your faith is as real as any human behavior .. the object of that faith is not real.

Nicely put. Can I quote you giving you credit of course?

Go nuts.

Thanks!