A Few Things I Noticed About Grena’s “Evolution Science”

1. It’s interspersed with two (apparently) advertisements for nursing books.
2. There is a very good reason serifed fonts are used in most books.
3. A flying snake logo is on the back cover.
4. The book is filled with falsehoods, of which you can get a taste just by reading the Amazon preview.

5. Grena calls Jefferson’s cut-and-paste job of the Gospels a “Bible”.

Needless to say, I will offer GM Grena a few answers to his questions on page 211:

Why do you think SHENAs fight so vehemently to keep not just Creation versions of history out of secular schools, but to keep non-conforming opinions & Evolution-bias warning labels out of textbooks?

The same reason we fight so vehemently to keep not just germ-theory denialist versions of biology out of secular schools, but to keep non-conforming opinions & Spherical Earth-bias warning labels out of textbooks. We are not relativists.

Why do you think they are so cautious about whom they deign to debate in public forums?

“A lie can travel halfway around the world while the truth is still putting on its shoes”.

Did they hibernate or time-travel?

-This is on p. 169. They decomposed. Also, the irony of this is delicious.

Also, Grena clearly shows his lack of understanding of evolution at the bottom of p. 83. Apparently, he cannot conceive that the sexes are not separate species, but evolve simultaneously in populations.

Author: pithom

An atheist with an interest in the history of the ancient Near East. Author of the Against Jebel al-Lawz Wordpress blog.

3 thoughts on “A Few Things I Noticed About Grena’s “Evolution Science””

  1. SHENAs don’t keep Creation versions of history out of secular schools because, as you said, “We are not relativists.” It’s relatively easy to show they are relativists because without a Creation version, they have no absolute, objective standard by which to prove they’re not relativists. Furthermore, if you’re correct that “non-conforming opinions” should be kept “out of secular schools,” you’re positing that all is already known that can be known, & that no new knowledge is possible (e.g., Mary Schweitzer’s discovery did not conform with what was known about dino fossils, & still doesn’t). The only way you can philosophically escape that position is to provide a relativistic definition of “non-conforming”, thereby proving you’re a relativist.

    Your “lie can travel” quotation presumes that the debater cannot defend his/her position, which is the purpose of the debate. When 2 (or more) people agree to a public debate, they figuratively have plenty of time to put on their shoes if the issue being debated is worthwhile to them, & they know why they religiously believe what they believe.

    Saying that the missing links for evolutionism decomposed while simultaneously arguing against creationism due to the lack of extraordinary evidence … precisely the point of my book! How convenient for every specimen of myriad species that existed for millions of years to not leave a trace, while similar processes for similarly vast periods preserved others (remember, it’s evolutionists who argue that fossils & strata are formed randomly over long periods). That’s an extraordinary claim.

    Again, you missed the p.-83 point about gender evolution, as did Myers et al. at the link you provided. Rather than support your extraordinary claim with extraordinary evidence (ad hominems against Ray Comfort don’t quite suffice), you let your inner-evolutionist run wild, while building an arbitrary cage for any creationist claim.

    I’ll continue this response with a separate comment on your April 2nd post.

    1. SHENAs don’t keep Creation versions of history out of secular schools because, as you said, “We are not relativists.” It’s relatively easy to show they are relativists because without a Creation version, they have no absolute, objective standard by which to prove they’re not relativists.

      -Please do. See point six of the comment policy.

      Furthermore, if you’re correct that “non-conforming opinions” should be kept “out of secular schools,” you’re positing that all is already known that can be known, & that no new knowledge is possible (e.g., Mary Schweitzer’s discovery did not conform with what was known about dino fossils, & still doesn’t).

      -No, I’m merely positing that conforming opinions and the facts they are based on are the best knowledge we have at present.

      Your “lie can travel” quotation presumes that the debater cannot defend his/her position, which is the purpose of the debate. When 2 (or more) people agree to a public debate, they figuratively have plenty of time to put on their shoes if the issue being debated is worthwhile to them, & they know why they religiously believe what they believe.

      -But, by the time both have figuratively put on their shoes, the lie(s) have already figuratively traveled around the world at least twice. Besides, as most debates have time limits, and those advocating truthful positions often do not know how those advocating false positions will defend those false positions, my quotation is still truthful and relevant.

      That’s an extraordinary claim.

      -No, it isn’t; it would be extraordinary if preservation of organisms was uniform at all times with all species.

      Rather than support your extraordinary claim with extraordinary evidence (ad hominems against Ray Comfort don’t quite suffice), you let your inner-evolutionist run wild, while building an arbitrary cage for any creationist claim.

      Elaborate, please. “The sexes are not separate species” is not an extraordinary claim, by any measure.

Read the Comment Policy Before Commenting.

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: