Introducing noUCA

Welcome @noUCA.

Can you tell us about yourself?

This may be all you need to know about me. I am not the man in this article, but I esteem any intellectual who is honest. Darwin’s ideas have been dead a long time for me, and only on life-support for those who can’t seem to admit the truth about the theory. Of course, the alternative is repugnant to those people - either ID or Creationism. But to remain intellectually dishonest is not helping science progress properly. I am not a scientist, but like Gelernter, am just a member of the American working class. Unlike Gelernter, I am only pretty smart (as he is far more so). But I am ahead of him in that I am fully Christian and fully creationist in my dogma. I will make some good points that you will have to grapple with, but ultimately, it will not change your opinions because I already know you are dyed-in-the-wool evolutionists.

I will argue for awhile with you, then I will find a stepping-off point. For the one who takes the time to consider some of the things I say (and advocates like Gelernter say), you may find yoursleves broadened somewhat in your understanding of creationists who repudiate evolution and maybe know a little more about why we belief what we believe.

edit: Request to remain anonymous for my short stay here.

I think it’s worth pointing out that there are quite a few people at Peaceful Science that are not “evolutionists”. Some are creationists or ID proponents, while some others affirm evolutionary science but would not call themselves evolutionists. This latter group could be much more interesting for you to converse with as they often do not rule out other possibilities a priori and are not “dyed-in-the-wool” as you put it. Some I would even call “agnostic” towards origins to a large extent.


You have studiously avoided grappling with this, along with @Greg, so despite all your proclamations, I have considerable difficulty taking you seriously.


Did not know this was directed at me. I do not come down hard on either side - YEC or OE progressive. I do come down hard against evolution.

Glad to know that the antiquity of the universe and the earth is not a problem with you, if I’m understanding correctly.

1 Like

Am waiting on YECs to demonstrate that both are not old. They are failing me so far, but I still respect them for other points.

What, specifically, are the YEC points with which you agree?

The see a literal Adam and Eve, so do I.
They see a literal 6 day creation, so do I - though we may not concur about the details.
They see a global Flood that judged the world, so do I.
They seek to oppose evolution, so do I.

1 Like

@noUCA, have you seen the GAE yet? What do you think of it?


I don’t want to overload you with too many questions to juggle but when you get the chance, I’d be interested in learning what you consider to be the three strongest categories of evidence which you believe undermine the Theory of Evolution. (I always find such rankings interesting. The more details the better.)

Meanwhile, welcome to Peaceful Science.

By the way, I wouldn’t call myself a “dyed in the wool evolutionist.” I’m just an over-the-hill, ex-professor, ex-YEC, retired minister who affirms the Theory of Evolution but definitely needs his wool dyed.


For what it’s worth, @noUCA, I was a dyed-in-the-wool YEC for much of my life. My undergraduate education in Biology led me to examine questions about what I had been taught all my life, my PhD education began to show serious flaws in what I’d been taught all my life, and though it was an ongoing struggle for several years, I began to accept the evidence that God has made available regarding His creation. I believe the existing evidence supports development of life over millennia much better than it supports development of life over the last few thousand years.


Do I understand you oppose evolution for religious reasons? I can’t see any other reason to advocate a 6-day creation or a global flood.



I used to be a YEC, too.


You got suckered by Meyer, Axe and Berlinski. Got it.

1 Like

The “Giving Up Darwin” essay also expresses praise and relies upon yet another non-scientist, David Klinghoffer, a firebrand whose reckless rants have done great damage to the Discovery Institute.

When I saw the cartoon illustration at the top of that webpage, which melded the idea of Moses coming down from Mt. Sinai with the Ten Commandments and a vilified Darwin carrying the stone tablets labelled “Mutations” and “Natural Selection”, it struck me as yet another obsession with long ago science and one individual. It ignores how evolutionary biology had already moved on from Darwin when old guys like me were still in our youth. Of course, propaganda rarely focuses on the vast piles of evidence and peer-reviewed contemporary science. Caricatures and outdated ideas are much easier to address.


Through my love for science in HS taught me that evolution was true, so to me it was. Entered a chem major in college where i was indoctrinated to believe evolution was true more so i was additionally encouraged this direction. Then i was encouraged in the faith i was raised in (but fully rejected) by a Christian friend in my dorm and learned about God who so transcends the natural that this can cause the science of man, expecially the historical science of man confusion. I studied the Bible, and learned there that mainstream science goes well against Scripture both in principle and in historical detail. I took some theology classes at trinity then REALLY understood how a vast difference of histirical conclusions can be between a paradigm undergird by an assumed naturalistic philosophy verses one undergird by a theistic stance.

The most important thing to me that stands in the way of evolutionism is the existence of God, the most firm reality to me in all my life. God exists and for this reason alone, being swayed towards a naturalistic evolutionary perspective should most definately be out. Science is a gift, but for a Christian scientist, allowing ones conclusions towards naturalism and thus away from transcendence of our holy, supernatural Being is what i consider brash disobedience and sin before our Good God.

In other words, if you allow for enough miracles and a deceptive God, anything can be true.


So what’s your response to this specific evidence: Mutations Are Consistent With Biochemistry ?

Or this Prediction 1.3: Consilience of independent phylogenies?

1 Like

Greg, I have no intention of once again pointing out all of the logical and factual fallacies that riddle your posts. I will just repeat to you, yet again, that acceptance of evolution does not preclude the existence of God for me, for dozens of participants here, and for millions of Christians throughout the world.