Here's what he said:
You know that old joke about lawyers? "How do you know when a lawyer is lying?" Answer: "When his lips are moving." It's basically like that with creationists, but with respect to misrepresentation/distortion of evolution (although, I'm sure for many that it's not so much intentional as just blindly and thoughtlessly repeating the words/ideas of others in their cultural circles). Frankly, it's pretty much anything and everything said by creationists on the topic of evolution that is wrong. In my experience, there is virtually no understanding of it whatsoever, and its presentation is grossly distorted every time it is discussed.And here's what I answered:
The comments in this very thread present numerous examples of this type of thing---such as B I's post above, right here on this page. He fails to understand how science works, why evolution is accepted by the scientific community, and what that means (i.e. what the realistic expectations are), and a number of other things. For example, some of the 'problems' he presents are plausibly explained in general terms by well-known evolutionary ideas, even if the specific details are not filled-in in minute detail (yet). Take all of #14: none of it would be presented as any sort of fundamental, fatal problem if the concept of co-evolution were understood. And this kind of thing is made even more ridiculous by others in fundamental Christianity through such asinine questions as, "Which came first: males or females?" The question itself positively screams lack of evolutionary understanding, and I've heard it a number of times from various Christian sources. As I have said before, some of the anti-evolutionary ideas I've heard in Christian circles are so incredibly over-the-top absurd that even a few fundamentalist Christian institutions have denounced them and said not to use them. Yet, I routinely continue to hear them.
Oh, here's a real gem I saw on TV a while back on population calculations, causing me to cringe in embarrassment for the "advanced intelligence" of the human species. It was a fundamentalist Christian show (channel, actually) that brought on an "expert" to talk about population growth and extrapolation. The distilled idea was this: if you take the simple population growth equation (such as p=c*e^(kt)), plug in the numbers for humans and extrapolate, then you can get a reasonable answer for starting with a single man and woman pair about six thousand years ago and arriving at today's population; whereas, if you plug in "the scientists'" ideas of billions of years, etc, then you get a ridiculous number of a population enormously outnumbering all the atoms in the universe. Voila! Young-Earth creation supported; old Earth science disproved! (Can you see how this type of thing makes scientists want to tear their hair out in frustration, especially since people just idiotically and uncritically accept this kind of thing as powerful 'disproof'?)
I could, quite literally, write an entire book on all the horrific distortions I have seen and heard with respect to evolution and the various related sciences that contradict Young-Earth Creationism.
(Another 'great' one: If humans came from monkeys, then why are there still monkeys? /cringe)
Thanks for your answer. I'm going to keep asking evolutionists that question because I really don't see any LIES in anything you pointed to or in anything I've seen anywhere for that matter but I want to be sure I know what is being referred to.
A misunderstanding of how evolution works, such as in the famous monkey mistake, isn't a LIE and it's not fair to call it that. A lie is an intentional untruth, of course. Do you really mean to class all these examples as lies? I'm glad you do say you think most of it is probably unintentional, but I haven't yet seen ONE creationist idea I'd call an actual lie. I'm not saying it's not possible, just haven't seen it yet.
"Horrific distortions" could probably be documented as I know there are some pretty silly creationist arguments, but I also suspect that many of those "horrific distortions" are seen through evolutionist bias, failing to get the point the creationist is trying to make. In any case "distortion" is not synonymous with "lie."
I'm sorry, I really don't see your objection to the population argument. Surely whatever rate of population growth is established by evolutionists WOULD produce drastically different totals over millions of years versus a few thousand. Did he misapply the math in your judgment or what?
As for your answer to B I:For example, some of the 'problems' he presents are plausibly explained in general terms by well-known evolutionary ideas, even if the specific details are not filled-in in minute detail (yet). Take all of #14: none of it would be presented as any sort of fundamental, fatal problem if the concept of co-evolution were understood.[This fits with my argument in the previous post that evolutionism can just morph in any direction to answer a challenge as it's all just fantasy] This is a typical conflict between the two sides of this argument. The key is in your own phrase, "plausibly explained." Co-evolution is merely a handy theory, a plausible explanation, given to account for something that on the face of it does look lethal for the theory of evolution. It seems that there is no dearth of possible theories available to "explain" the problems. Will you agree that it IS just a theory, please? A plausible construction and nothing more. The creationist observes something that looks like a big problem and the evolutionist answers with -- a plausible possible explanation. Not facts, not with anything that could be established by scientific method, experiment etc.
Most of this whole argument is between such plausible constructions. The DNA of apes and humans is quite similar so evolutionists leap to the explanation that this proves genetic relatedness. It doesn't. It just as well proves design similarity and nothing more. Can't you see this? Most of this is a war between alternative plausibilities and the only thing that makes the evolutionist plausibility more "scientific" is that it is accepted by scientists.
And that's because by now evolution has accumulated such an overwhelming collection of these mere plausibilities that it looks like it's really onto something. But they are just plausibilities, imaginative constructs, or theory of you prefer. It's now an immense structure made up of one mere plausible explanation giving "scientific" support to another.
So, I see mistakes and distortions but also simply different explanations for the data on both sides, neither of which has any actual scientific standing, though the evolutionist explanation is given the imprimatur of the establishment.
Maybe you could still come up with an example of an actual lie?