Creationists & Evolutionists Should Declare Peace

Posted by: Loren Coleman on February 12th, 2009

There is a rising international declaration for peace to be called between the creationists and the evolutionists. No more arguing about whether dinosaurs in the Congo being found will prove Evolutionary beliefs and theories or Creationist beliefs and theories. No more worries about what the media will think of cryptozoologists who are creationists or evolutionists or agnostics. The battle axe needs to be buried between the camps this week, and a call for peace between the various sides is being sounded by Loren Coleman, well-known cryptozoologist.

Loren Coleman is calling on leaders of all sides of the cryptozoological creationism vs evolution points of view to call a truce from their side, as well.

Prominent scientists and leading religious figures from the UK to China have joined forces to call for an end to the debate over Charles Darwin’s legacy, main media reported. Cryptozoologists around the world need to follow suit.

This year is the 200th anniversary of Darwin’s birth, and the 150th anniversary of his evolution theory. However, the battle between Darwinists and creationists is far from over, and carries on full-swing.

Scientists and religious figures warn ahead of the anniversaries that militant atheists are using evolution theory as a weapon to attack religion, therefore, turning people away from it.

In a letter published in The Daily Telegraph on Monday, they also urge believers in creationism to acknowledge the overwhelming body of evidence that now exists to back up Darwin’s theory of how life on Earth has developed.

The letter read, in part:

Evolution, we believe, has become caught in the crossfire of a religious battle in which Darwin himself had little personal interest.

We respectfully encourage those who reject evolution to weigh the now overwhelming evidence, hugely strengthened by recent advances in genetics, which testifies to the theory’s validity. At the same time, we respectfully ask those contemporary Darwinians who seem intent on using Darwin’s theory as a vehicle for promoting an anti-theistic agenda to desist from doing so as they are, albeit unintentionally, turning people away from the theory.

In this year of all years, we should be celebrating Darwin’s great biological achievements and not fighting over his legacy as some kind of anti-theologian.

The influential signatories of the letter include two Church of England bishops, a spokesman for the Muslim Council of Britain and a member of the Evangelical Alliance, as well as Professor Lord Winston, the fertility pioneer, and Professor Sir Martin Evans, winner of the Nobel Prize for Medicine.

Loren Coleman calls on cryptozoologically-aware creationists, evolutionists, and those on the fence to also declare peace.

Loren Coleman About Loren Coleman
Loren Coleman is one of the world’s leading cryptozoologists, some say “the” leading living cryptozoologist. Certainly, he is acknowledged as the current living American researcher and writer who has most popularized cryptozoology in the late 20th and early 21st centuries. Starting his fieldwork and investigations in 1960, after traveling and trekking extensively in pursuit of cryptozoological mysteries, Coleman began writing to share his experiences in 1969. An honorary member of Ivan T. Sanderson’s Society for the Investigation of the Unexplained in the 1970s, Coleman has been bestowed with similar honorary memberships of the North Idaho College Cryptozoology Club in 1983, and in subsequent years, that of the British Columbia Scientific Cryptozoology Club, CryptoSafari International, and other international organizations. He was also a Life Member and Benefactor of the International Society of Cryptozoology (now-defunct). Loren Coleman’s daily blog, as a member of the Cryptomundo Team, served as an ongoing avenue of communication for the ever-growing body of cryptozoo news from 2005 through 2013. He returned as an infrequent contributor beginning Halloween week of 2015. Coleman is the founder in 2003, and current director of the International Cryptozoology Museum in Portland, Maine.

84 Responses to “Creationists & Evolutionists Should Declare Peace”

  1. DWA responds:

    m_m: OK, one more thing as I just saw this.

    “And it was observed first hand. It is compelling evidence.

    “Unless your definition of first hand observation is different from mine, I’d ask you to consider these cases.”

    Considered. They’re EVIDENCE. That those species do something that is very consistent with the way we believe evolution works.

    Not PROOF, however, that evolution is a universal mechanism.

    Although I’d be willing to bet money that evolution works, basically, in the way it is shown for these instances.

    But remember: if asked up or down based on evidence so far submitted, I’d place a bet on the yeti and sasquatch, too.

    Speakinawhich. 😉

  2. kittenz responds:


    I like your post. Especially ” I think that the evolution vs. creationism debate is too often presented as Atheists vs. Christians, or Atheism vs. The Bible. I think this is an oversimplification.

    I also agree that Intelligent Design is a sort of modified version of creationism. While persons of faith are welcome (in my book) to believe this, it is a religious view, and not a theory constructed through the application of the scientific method to the available evidence. This is why I feel it should not be taught alongside the theory of evolution in science class, as if it were a competing or alternate scientific theory. It may be true, it may be false, but it’s impossible to confirm either view scientifically.”

    That’s what I was trying to say, but you presented the idea in a much more articulate way. Thanks 🙂

  3. cmgrace responds:

    This may be a point, then again it may not. On the dogs descended from wolves subject, were not wolves selectively bred over time by people to produce certain aspects they found desirable? So if I am not wrong (I usually am, if anyone can enlighten me please do) then this is not a sufficient example of evolution.

    mystery_man, tell me if I have this right, evolution is simply adaptation to an environment and not species change. All the examples you listed were just adaptations of an organism to compensate for pressures in their respective environments. Not one example of yours showed one species turning into another species, no matter how many generations the process went through. E. coli was still E. coli. Except, maybe the example of the one celled bacteria becoming multi-celled. But was it still the same type of bacteria, or would it be considered a new type? I always thought (and I think taught) that evolution was a process where one species, again over a long period of time, gradually changed to a new species to live in a new environment. Please let me know if this is wrong.

  4. Scott C. responds:

    Speciation within a Family is to be expected, and is not the same thing as evolution, popularly defined.

    If there are both black and white moths to begin with, then of course environmental factors could favor the continuation of one and discontinuation of the other. Nothing evolves in that case: one of your two options simply ceases to be.

    This is a very simplistic model that sheds light on more complex examples.

    How thoroughly have you looked at creationist resources? Although there are more academic treatments, Ken Ham’s stuff–written on the popular level–is the an accessible way to get the gist.

    Poke around on, esp. their “Get Answers” tab.

    Btw, their Feb. 11 post concerns the famous Bahnsen/Stein debate. If you’ve never wrestled with the interaction that went down during that one, you need to.

    The Dawkins/Lennox debate is also worth your time:

    The scientific method (let alone a merely anecdotal knowledge of science!) is simply too small a sandbox for this sandcastle.

    There seems to be a profound misunderstanding of
    a) the role of presuppositions
    b) the limitations of induction

    Anyways, to pit the way that people arrive at evolution against the way that people arrive at creationsim, is to demonstrate a profound misunderstanding of your own thought processes. Both are faiths and both interpret science in light of themselves.

    You might enjoy “The Reason for God,” by Theistic Evolutionist Tim Keller.

  5. Revelation responds:

    cmgrace, this, I think, is one of the reasons this argument is destined to continue. No one here has bothered to define what we’re discussing. Two types of evolution are in discussion here. Microevolution can be observed and reproduced. This is the various changes to a species based on selective breeding or natural selection. But this always results in the same species with slightly differing characteristics. For example, the british moth that changed from white to brown due to it’s reccesive melanistic traits that became dominant because of a shift in it’s habitat. It was still the same species. However, macroevolution cannot be observed nor reproduced, and I would argue that since it can’t, it needs to continue to reside in the realm of theory.

  6. cmgrace responds:

    Revelation, thank you for pointing out the difference.

    Scott C., thank you for the links. I will be looking at those shortly.

  7. Revelation responds:

    Scott C., The moth example would certainly be an example of evolution. Or, rather, natural selection. The moth with the better natural charactaristics thrives and passes down those traits while the lesser moth (for lack of a better term) loses the race. Originally, in this example, the white moth had the advantage over the black because of the white trees where it made its home. But the advent of the industrial revolution caused the trees to gradually change color, shifting the advantage to the darker colored moth. This is exactly what Darwin postulated, and has been observed. However, the further speculation that this could, over vast ammounts of time, lead to new species (macroevolution) is simply that, postulation, and can’t be empirically proven. It still must reside in the realm of theory. A creator God and evolution are not really mutually exclusive, exept when it comes to humans. Myself, I don’t deny that macroevolution occurs, I just don’t see any proof that it does. I do, however, object to it being treated as fact, as much as I object to a 7 day creation being taught as fact.

  8. DWA responds:


    “However, macroevolution cannot be observed nor reproduced, and I would argue that since it can’t, it needs to continue to reside in the realm of theory.”

    What I have been saying above. In fewer and better words.

  9. mystery_man responds:

    cmgrace- I hope that has been explained for you by the other posters. I do apologize if I did not make it clear enough in my posts.

    DWA- Ah yes, you were talking about macro evolution, why didn’t you say so? 😉 The only reason why I went into all of that is that you made the blanket statement that evolution has never been observed, and I felt I had to respond. You did not specifically say macro evolution, but rather evolution in general. We do have first hand evidence of micro evolution in progress. We are not talking about PROOF, I was addressing your comment on FIRST HAND EVIDENCE. Macro evolution is inferred from loads of evidence, but no direct evidence, true. However its very nature makes our options limited on that front. But as I said, many fields in science rely almost exclusively on examining evidence for things that cannot be directly observed. The earth has not ever been directly observed rotating the earth, but we don’t doubt this happens because the evidence says it does.

    Anyway, I’m not going to sit around and nitpick on the evidence. All I will say is that there IS evidence, and this what drives science, its how we come to understand how the world really works. Evidence is the basis upon which we change paradigms and expand our knowledge. It seems you agree with me on that, so I don’t think there’s a problem. 🙂

    I have no proof that God did not get the ball rolling, any more than I do for the world being created by aliens, or an infinite amount of other possibilities. If you believe everything that could be true, you are opening yourself to endless possibilities that are impossible to verify. All we have is the evidence, which overwhelmingly points towards evolution. Whether that was guided by an outside force is unprovable, unfalsifiable, and lays with a person’s faith. I won’t CAN’T be, but as someone trying to study how the world works, I have to go where the evidence leads me.

    Again, the demeaning on evolution as a “just a theory.” Look, the buildings all around you are built around the concept of stress theory. When you fly in an airplane, the wings on the plane are kept in place by stress theory. Are you going to stop going into buildings or flying planes because it is “just a theory”?

  10. mystery_man responds:

    I meant the “Earth rotating the sun” not “the Earth rotating the Earth” in my comment above. Of course. Groan.

  11. DWA responds:


    We’re closer than you may think. But you knew that.

    Fine, I’ll say “macro” next time. 😀

    (Personal Belief Alert: I feel no need to do anything about God until The Last Trump. I figure God’s doing whatever it is God does, and needs nothing from me, if God’s there. I don’t think God feels any need to leave tracks, because it matters not, to God nor to us, whether we know of God’s existence or not. All is OK, and the universe is unfolding as it should.

    I find it a little funny that The Force Behind All That Is And Is Not feels some sort of need for us to believe in Him. Her. It. It’s almost as funny as that we are created in His/Hers/Its Image. EVERYTHING is. And isn’t. But I don’t want to get into arguments about stuff for which there is absolutely no evidence. And Books of whatever kind – even on Kindle – can offer no evidence for The Infinite. End of Personal Belief Alert.)

    “Again, the demeaning on evolution as a “just a theory.” ”

    I’ve taken pains to piont out that I’m not doing anything of the kind! That it is a theory means one thing: we and our science cannot be the vehicle for proof of evoution; we’re too ephemeral. That is our problem. For evolution – macro and micro – I find more than enough evidence to satisfy me that natural selection is the way organisms relate to environments over time. I’m good with it.

    And I say we need to make peace with those who subscribe to alternatives for which no evidence testable by the scientific method can be provided.

    And they need to make peace with us.

    Because there is no way to scientifically test their beliefs.

    And there is no absolute assurance that evolution is natural law.

    Even though – to both camps – there is more than enough to convince them of the right road, for them.

  12. mystery_man responds:

    I also think it is important to remember in the examples I mentioned that in some cases changes in form and function were quite profound. When unicellular organisms develop multicellularity, or when bacteria change into vastly different shapes to deal with predators, or when E. coli exhibit a trait for which the lack of s a defining characteristic for that bacterium, this is significant and should not be trivialized.

    DWA- I thought I mention some other thoughts on the whole proof versus evidence thing. For one, you would have to define what you mean by proof. The thing is, just as there is no absolute knowledge, there really is no absolute proof in science either. What science does is reach levels of certainty based on the evidence presented. When enough evidence is brought forward and backed up by peer review and lack of falsification, it becomes a widely accepted theory, or a working model for how things are. It is ALL based on the weight of the evidence.

    Let’s go back to the importance of what a “theory” is. They have A LOT of weight in science. Theories are widely accepted, well researched working models of how things work. Many advances in science and things that we all take for granted everyday are based on the principles outlined in theories such as the stress theory and the theory of relativity that I mentioned before. These theories are not immutable, they can be added to and refined based on evidence, but the basic premises are solid enough, and supported by enough evidence for scientists to accept them as a working model.

    Theories, in fact science in general, are based on the idea that their predictions might be wrong, in other words, they have to be falsifiable. So for example, if you wanted to falsify evolution, you could, as one biologist put it, find fossil rabbits in the Pre cambrian. Saying “prove God did NOT do it,” does not count as falsifiability. The more the evidence stands up to scrutiny, and the more this evidence bears out predictions, the more weight a theory gains. So for instance in evolution, we have millions of fossils that show exactly what evolution predicts, and so this adds weight to the model. A few concrete, verifiable exceptions would be needed to seriously challenge the theory or change paradigms.

    I find it interesting that people can take for granted all of the benefits of these “theories,” yet criticize the science that produced them or try to cheapen the principles behind them. The fact is that, theories are very important in science, and are not to be taken lightly.

    So evidence is really what it is all about, not proof (which is a tenuously defined term anyway), or the corollary of that, “absolute knowledge.” Talking about PROOF is not really useful. The long and short of it is, the more the evidence adds up, the more it bears out predictions, the stronger our level of certainty in a phenomena becomes. If this evidence is not falsified, it becomes all the stronger, and believe me scientists go to great lengths to falsify their data and record their mistakes. This is more or less why evidence is so important.

    It is all about the evidence, and at this point in time, as far as the scientific community goes, there is a very strong amount of certainty in the principle processes of evolution. I think you maybe understand what I’m getting at here. Proof is a moot point. If one wants to debunk evolution, they have to address the evidence.

    I’m not even going to try to show whether God guides that process, just that it seems the process happens. There could very well be an outside force at work, scientifically it is here nor there. I’m not atheist, in fact I’m Buddhist, but that is a philosophical and faith based debate more than a scientific one based on physical evidence.

  13. mystery_man responds:

    DWA- Some of that stuff above is not directly aimed at you, by the way. You seem to understand the importance of theories. I was throwing out some general thoughts on the matter and it just happens to be mixed in with the part addressed to you. 🙂

  14. jerrywayne responds:

    Since Darwinism is the cornerstone of modern biology, and hence of zoology as well, one would hope its importance to cryptozoology is obvious.

    I’ve had long term discussions with creationists over the years and have come to two conclusions: 1. Creationists view nature and science with one eye always focused on the Bible or they wrestle with natural history with one foot planted firmly in a position of supernatural history.
    2. Creationists simply do not visualize or understand evolutionary earth history in the same way as a mainstream scientist would.

    As to the first conclusion, creationists cannot claim to treat evidence objectively if their primary intent is to hold onto and save their religious claims, claims which on their face are anti-Darwinian. The idea that creationists “admit” their presumptions is a suspect idea because such an admission is made to political advantage and not a statement of open epistemology. Without the political context (namely, how to present creationism in a secular classroom or school text), creationists are quite happy to present their beliefs as absolute, unquestionable fact based as it is on unchallengable unbending fact (the “inerrant” Bible). Their admission of preconception is meant to soften what is really a dogmatic stand and to put creationism superficially in the company of true scientific presumption (which is bound to what we find in nature).

    As to the second conclusion, creationists seem to have a unique view of Darwinism that often muddles any real dialog with evolutionists. For instance, geographic distribution of life forms lends serious credence to evolution. If evolution is true, we would expect to find uniquely distributed animals in their natural state (habitats). Indeed, it is a PREDICTION of evolution. Yet to creationists (or to the one’s I have read and talked to), this is no evidence at all. Never mind that the known geographic distribution of life runs completely counter to what one would reasonably expect from an “answer in Genesis”, namely the Ark of Noah story, or that any generic creationist account would have to pile on ad hoc explanations for what we find in nature concerning distribution, and never mind that evolution predicts such facts and creationism has no such predictive benefit: THIS IS NOT EVIDENCE OF EVOLUTION, PERIOD.

    Also in this vein, the issue of transitional forms. Creationists are confident that the fossil record has no transitional forms. Yet their definition of a transitional form is not what would be demanded by evolutionists. They want to have forms that are perfect half-measures (for instance), showing such things as half-wings. Evolutionists, on the other hand, consider transitional forms as forms that exhibit “mosaic” characteristics, features that show a mixture of two forms (bird and reptile, for instance).

    Anyway, I would like to suggest the following books to creationists (I believe in the power of the book).

    For an overview of evolution, I highly recommend Jerry A. Coyne’s new WHY EVOLUTION IS TRUE.

    For a decisive refutation of Morris/Gish type creationism, see Arthur N. Strahler’s SCIENCE AND EARTH HISTORY: THE EVOLUTION/CREATION CONTROVERSY.

    And for a strong critique of Intelligent Design, there is Robert T. Pennock’s TOWER OF BABEL: THE EVIDENCE AGAINST THE NEW CREATIONISM.

    Happy Birthday, Charles Darwin.


  15. cmgrace responds:

    mystery_man, thank you for responding. I may not have read your previous posts correctly. How would I learn if I didn’t ask questions. 🙂

  16. mystery_man responds:

    cmgrace- I think I should explain further on the significance of the observations made on bacteria. A lot of people will tell you “but it is still just bacteria,” but this is based on the mistaken assumption that all life forms are necessarily geared towards more advanced, complex, or “better” forms. This is not true, and those who say it is show a lack of understanding of how evolution works.

    Think about it. If all organisms were constantly changing into more advanced forms, we would not have any bacteria or one celled organisms to begin with. To expect a bacteria to morph into a frog is an unrealistic expectation, it is not what evolution predicts, and this happening in the conditions of these experiments would in fact be evidence against evolution.

    Organisms evolve precisely as they must, under selective pressures, in order to better survive under the pressures of their environment. There are many species alive today that have changed very little in millions of years because they are adapted well enough to survive in their environment and there has been no selective pressure for them to radically change. Evolution does not implicitly demand that animals keep changing and getting more complex, there is nothing that says they have to get “better” or “more advanced.” This is why finding a dinosaur alive today would not be evidence that evolution is incorrect. If its form is suitable for surviving in its environment, then a dinosaur could remain a dinosaur. The fact is, after millions and millions of years, we still have bacteria, we still have one celled organisms. They have certainly undergone minor changes to deal with changes, but there is no need to expect that the ones in these experiments should become something other than bacteria.

    A bacteria changing forms, yet remaining a bacteria, does not in any way contradict evolution. But the observations that its gene pool changes, or that organisms undergo speciation, show that there are adaptive and selective processes at work.

  17. comstock responds:

    Oh, my. I never had any idea there were so many creationists here at Cryptomundo. Not a good sign of the scientific literacy of many of the above commenters, I’m afraid. I know people will take offense, but I’m really surprised to see tired, debunked creationist arguments here. Oh well. We’re united in our love of cryptids, I guess.

  18. fuzzy responds:

    WOW! What a great post! And what fascinating comments!

    Can’t help thinking, as I read everything above, that the list of possible alternative Theories I mentioned waaay above – divine manifestation, intelligent design, holographic projection, panspermia, interstellar seeding, extraterrestrial intervention, alien manipulation, miscegenation, mutation, evolution and many more – could ALL have played a part in the development of all that is and ever was (and ever may be) contained in the Universe as we think we know it, and, therefore, may all be part of the Truth Proof around which we are dancing…

    Thanks, Loren – we need a controversial shrubbery-shaker (note sly Squatch reference) like this every now and then!

  19. cryptidsrus responds:

    Not everybody here is a “creationist.” It depends on what you mean by “creationism.” I’m an IDer. Slightly different definition.

    Mystery_Man and DWA and others:
    Good points everybody!!!

    Although I must ask Mystery_Man a question:
    Do you believe that evolution occurred randomly—i.e., by chance? (As in, we’re all a “lucky accident”.)
    Or was it kickstarted by “something?” Like, a “designer” (which pretty much covers a lot of ground).

    The intellectually honest answer would be—“Don’t know.” Let’s admit that much, Ok?
    The problem is, Darwinists like Dawkins and Ruse and Dennett say it is PROVED it was a “random mutation.” Period. End of story. No need to say anything else. Please move along. Nothing to see here, folks. You get the drift. So what do you think?

    If you’ve already stated it, please understand it takes a while to read ALL the comments here. But good discussion. And I have to respectfully disagree with Kittenz. I’m through here. Toodles. Carry on, folks.

  20. cmgrace responds:

    mystery_man- I guess I have always looked at evolution in the “macro” form. I had never considered the “micro” form (although I have always accepted it as a natural process) to be evidence of macro-evolution. I like to think of myself as open-minded and willing to accept evidence as it is given to me. This thread has given me much to consider about my views of evolution.

  21. mystery_man responds:

    cmgrace- I’m glad you are considering what I have been saying here. Macro evolution is mostly represented in the fossil record, but the instances of micro evolution, unquestionable, measurable changes in many plants and animals due to changes in the environment or even human influence (such as animals or plants developing smaller sizes and shorter gestation periods in response to the bigger specimens being most likely to be harvested), certainly shows that animals develop differences in morphology across the gene pool in response to these pressures, which is the core concept of evolution in a nutshell. This is exactly what evolution predicts, and this can lead to speciation and macro evolution after a long enough time and under the right conditions. Anyway, thank you for taking the time to read my rather long posts. 🙂

    cryptidsrus- Wow, that’s a tough question. Do you want my personal view or my scientific, professional view? 🙂

    I’ll give you both views, and I’ll try to make this as concise as possible.

    Scientifically speaking, you could say that evolution is not really based solely on chance to begin with. Chance, in the form of mutations, certainly form the raw material for the process, but the process is guided by natural selection, which has nothing to do with chance. Natural selection takes these random mutations and sorts these variations out based on how beneficial (or detrimental) the mutation is to the organism’s survival. A mutation will quite simply either a) benefit the species, allowing it to spread more readily through the gene pool, b)be detrimental, in which case the mutation will likely die out, or c)become a neutral mutation which neither helps nor harms the organism and may or may not become a feature of the organisms gene pool. This is all guided by the environment and the organism’s niche. So the mutation is random, the selection is not.

    This concept follows into abiogenesis as well. Atoms and molecules do not arrange themselves by chance. They do so according to their chemical properties, and this can eventually lead to a situation where more complex molecules form. The odds of one becoming self replicating and causing life are very small, but remember you have a whole sea of these reactions going on, trillions and trillions of opportunities for this to happen. All it would take is one of these molecules to approximate a self replication process, and natural selection would take over and guide the formation of more efficient self replicators. Remember, there would be countless opportunities for this to occur and a self replicating molecule need not be particularly complex to begin with.

    That is the scientific explanation in its most basic form. My own personal opinion? Well, that is complicated. Abiogenesis has not been reproduced in a lab, but remember it is has not been possible to fully recreate those conditions either, and even if we could there is no guarantee that we could mimic the scale of what was happening and be sure to see it occur. I would have to say, personally speaking, that we don’t know with absolute certainty. It is something we may never know for sure, and I don’t think we can rule out anything absolutely.

    Now before you jump up and down as if I’ve just made some revelatory admission, remember that I am saying that we “don’t know,” which does not necessarily follow that some intelligent force in fact DID start things. No need to start a false dilemma here. I don’t want what I am saying here to be misrepresented as some sort of an admission if ID. It is simply an admission of “we don’t know for certain how life started,” no more, no less.

    Your question is a bit of a red herring, anyway. We are not discussing abiogenesis, or how life started here. This discussion is about whether evolution occurs, which by all accounts it does. Even if some sort of intelligent outside force started the “spark,” this is beside the point, and even if an intelligent kick start could be proven, it in no way debunks the process of evolution. It still does not refute the mountains of evidence that evolution occurs, that species change over time in response to their environment.

  22. mystery_man responds:

    Cryptidsrus, other IDers here- I want to take just a moment to make something perfectly clear. None of what I am saying is in anyway a dig against you. I said before, I value the opinion of many IDers here concerning cryptozoology, and I do not want to alienate these smart people.

    As I said before, I am not atheist. I’m Buddhist. I do have a sense of spirituality, I am not some kind of cold hearted robot. I know other scientists who have a spiritual side too. I appreciate that there are mysteries out there that we may never know the answer to, indeed, may not even be capable of knowing the answers to. This is a thing of faith, and I recognize it as such. I really do think it would be unfair to say that all scientists are atheists, as is often implied.

    What I am trying to do, as much as I am able to, is understand the world and the universe through the best tool I know of for doing so, science. What I have been doing here is trying to illustrate how science views these issues and how information and evidence is processed. These are important concepts to understand, and invaluable if we are ever going to get cryptozoology further out of the fringe and more accepted as a serious scientific field.

    Isn’t that what we all want?

  23. springheeledjack responds:

    I love these posts that become a group effort (I was going to say bar-room brawl, but it has been very civil).

    Really, where we will get our ceasefire and our peace is when all of us can acknowledge the validity of everyone else’s thought and stance…even when it is opposed to our own beliefs.

    Is there one source of wisdom in this world? Nope. Is there one infallible road of thought? Nope.

    Creationists, Darwin-backers, ID’ers, evolutionists, what does it all come down to?

    Trying to figure out and explain how the world works, plain and simple. Everyone’s trying to get their head around how we got here, why, and where it’s all going, and some people feel more comfortable with the God theories, while others are more of a scientific brand of thought (and while it seems that science and God are diametrically opposed, I personally don’t believe so).

    Personally, to my mind, science has all the hallmarks of a religion (hey, was that a landmine I just stepped on???:). Take it as you will, but as I said, it all comes down to trying to explain our world and our place in it, and people do it in different ways with different perspectives.

    The reason we get into trouble is when we think we have the corner on the “right answer” and everyone else does not…or those who don’t follow our line of reasoning don’t–“I believe this and I know I’m right, so everyone who doesn’t is obviously deluded and wrong.”

    If you can live with the idea that there is more than one path to knowledge, even when it seems like they don’t add up to the same thing, then we can all get along.


  24. Scott C. responds:

    Dead-horse-beating isn’t something I do for K’s & G’s; but, at the risk of doing just that:

    The science sandbox is simply too small for this sandcastle! I congratulate those of you who have dedicated your lives to the scientific method– it’s valuable. But I really hope that you weren’t deceived concerning it’s kind or degree of value.

    If you never wrestle with the limitations of induction, and the role of presuppositions…if you never come to grips with your own inescapable assumption of absolute transcendentals, and never seek satisfactory justification for them… well, then you’ll never ask the right questions.

    If your intellectualism refuses to be any more multidisciplinary than science (strictly speaking), then it is stunted indeed.
    Please step back and consider your epistemic basics. This doesn’t require a degree in philosophy: thinking along the lines I suggest should be a cinch for guys as bright you obviously are.
    The Bahnsen/Stein debate, the Dawkins/Lennox debate, and “The Reason for God” by Tim Keller, are very accessible resources at your disposal.

  25. cmgrace responds:

    Scott C.- I know you’re comment wasn’t specifically directed at me, but I must respond.

    My faith hasn’t been questioned. I still believe in God, and I do not need a scientific explanation for my faith. I was trying to get a better understanding of evolution and it’s apparent meanings (macro vs. micro) when it comes to science. I have also reviewed the evidence in favor if ID (Creation) and still have more to review on both sides of the subject. No, I don’t believe any species came into existence by a series of accidental mutations, but that is a matter of faith. However, I cannot deny that life on Earth has the ability to adapt to changes in it’s respective environment, that is a matter of science.

    I will continue to expand my knowledge, discuss all viewpoints, and ask questions. I think that this is what everyone here is trying to do.

  26. DWA responds:

    Final word.

    I’ve made my peace with science. I don’t ask any scientist to go out in the woods looking for the sasquatch or the yeti. I get it; they have jobs; they’re busy already.

    It’s individual scientists who laugh, guffaw, hee-haw (appropriate) and pooh-pooh, without having looked at the evidence, that arouse my ire. They are speaking from ignorance; they are obstructing progress; and they need to shut up.

    Same goes for anyone – creationist; IDer; evolutionist; on-the-fenceist; shoot, Darwin and Einstein themselves if they ever did it. ANYONE who, without having considered anything of the other point(s) of view, makes fun of them.

    If you cannot bring the evidence to the table and present it in a dispassionate fashion, you have no call to disparage.

    There’s been amazingly little disparagement on this thread. That’s good.

    But I don’t think anybody has convinced anybody else. That’s OK too.

    Peace is: if you are comfortable, I’m happy. I am too. Or if you aren’t, and still searching, well, so am I. Let’s continue our quests; not feel the need to enlighten the ignorant when we may be the ignorant ourselves; and maybe we’ll both find what we want to.

    The search isn’t aided by brickbats or smugness, so let’s get beyond them (which we may, from evidence presented here, be starting to do).

    Peace. Really.

  27. Munnin responds:

    kittenz responds:

    “Munnin, I like your post…” “…That’s what I was trying to say, but you presented the idea in a much more articulate way. Thanks”

    Thank YOU Kittenz, for your kind words. I appreciate them.

    mystery_man responds:

    “I appreciate that there are mysteries out there that we may never know the answer to, indeed, may not even be capable of knowing the answers to. This is a thing of faith, and I recognize it as such. I really do think it would be unfair to say that all scientists are atheists, as is often implied.”

    Well said mystery_man. I believe that more than a few scientists do also have a spiritual side. Oddly enough, I think many of those on either side of this debate would agree that science and spirituality are not mutually exclusive.

    cmgrace responds:
    “No, I don’t believe any species came into existence by a series of accidental mutations, but that is a matter of faith. However, I cannot deny that life on Earth has the ability to adapt to changes in it’s respective environment, that is a matter of science.”

    Very succinctly put, cmgrace. I agree.

  28. kittenz responds:

    springheeledjack said:

    “Personally, to my mind, science has all the hallmarks of a religion”

    Hear! Hear!

    The religion of TRUTH.

    (But I guess that’s how everyone feels about theiir own religion, isn’t it 🙂 ?)

  29. springheeledjack responds:

    My point on science and religion is that too many times (and usually in relation or reaction to cryptozoology) science or rather scientific types (I don’t know if I will actually give them the title of scientists) approach science like religious zealots/fanatics.

    While I like the scientific process, it is entirely tooooo easy to take a stance of arrogance and close mindedness. And I have no time for people who try to hide behind science…saying that science would not support the existence of cryptids because of the lack of evidence, or because someone supposedly took a scientific look at a cryptid and just decided it wasn’t there.

    Science is a really simple system of trial and error, built over time upon ideas that were explored, tried out, researched. And science has made plenty of mistakes over the centuries. Dinosaurs were first thought to be big, dumb, slow and inferior animals. We now know much more (or at least speculatively:), and that they may have been very advanced in their ability and thinking, especially to survive for so long.

    Now, the more complex an equation, the more variables and the more things that have to be factored in. With cryptozoology, there are a huge number of factors to be taken into account, and often the so-called scientific-scoffers either overlook these variables or just outright ignore them. Example? Loch Ness. Large body of water…24 miles by 1 mile wide…also the water is peaty so visibility is nil. Also depth–up to 700+ feet deep. If there is a creature (see I’m being open minded:), we know little about its appearance, intelligence, eating habits, diet, social patterns, sleep patterns, mating habits, its abilites (sight, hearing, echo location as suggested with Champ?), amphibious nature?, and that is just off the top of my head.

    From a scientific standpoint, you may be able to say that based on just the eye witness evidence you are not convinced that it exists, and that’s fine. But do not even try to talk in absolutes–that it does not or cannot exist. No one to date has enough information to be able to make a claim like that. Nuff said.

    Which brings me back to our present debate…science runs afoul of creationism so often, I think because of its own arrogance–it is too easy in science to take the same sort of stance as any religious fanatic…that science knows all and has the corner on the knowledge market about how the world works. And when that card comes out, it’s enough for creationists and IDers to laugh and scoff, because everyone knows full well that science is at a loss on way too many fronts to explain how the world works.

    The reverse is also true…and for scientific supporters, to just throw everything in the “faith” category is too neat and tidy…but hey some people like neat and tidy. That’s the point of religion…it helps you cope, helps you explain the world…and somedays it just helps you get through the crappy day.

    Bottom line again is that I don’t see that science and religion have to be at odds…as long as both can accept the idea that no one has all the answers and that the other guy’s ideas are just as valid as our own…that’s a hard one for most people:)

    Alright, enough of this, I have to go plan a trip to Lake Champlain…

  30. DWA responds:


    OK, I had to come back.

    To agree with you, every word.

  31. fuzzy responds:

    Of interest, see: “Seven signs of evolution in action.”

  32. Terrell H King responds:

    Greetings fellow cryptid fans.

    This is my first time posting, so I’ll quickly introduce myself.

    My name is Terrell and I head up Creation Science Outreach over here in London.

    It is my policy not to seek arguments, and unfruitful engagement, so in that sense I agree their should be mutual respect between both parties of Creation and Evolutionism. Respect that all have the right to their own opinion, and to pursue science and the promotion there of.

    What I am adamantly adverse to is the unwaiveringly biased, blinkered and unscientific view that some adhere to with religious zeal and faith. Namely x amount of Evolutionists.

    First we have to realise that there are 6 types of Evolution. Only one – variation within a kind – is scientific. The others – stellar, cosmic, chemical, organic and macro are purely religious.

    Cosmic – The main evidences of the Big Bang theory posited are background radiation and Red Shift. The radiation comes from every where, not from any central point of a magical ‘bang’ of nothing, and most things are Red Shifted, which is explained best by Tired Light or Gravitational Red Shift. Otherwise it would seem Earth is the centre of the nothing that exploded with magical energy from nowhere.

    Stellar – No one has conclusively seen one star form. You might see dust clear or a nova happen, but not a star being born. How can dust magically come together in frictionless space into a solid? – it doesn’t happen on Earth. Boyle’s gas law drives it apart. Plus to get this many by random chance for no reason from no here? We’d need to see 6 million defying the laws of physics every minute or so to get this many even in 20 billion years.

    Organic – A year after the publishing of Darwin’s ‘Origin…’ (in which he never discusses the origin of species), Louis Pasteur (a real scientist, not an apostate divinity student/ medical school drop out) devised an experiment that proved Biogenesis (that living matter comes from living matter), and disproved the dark ages myth of spontaneous generation. The chances of left handed amino acids being produced with or without oxygen in water by complete random chance, after being hit by lighting, and then forming itself instantly into proteins, a cell, and instantly having a way of respiring, excreting, reproducing and x amount of other essential things is so way beyond ridiculous that any man that holds to it does so simply by religious choice. No oxygen – no Ozone – UV light kills life in 0.3 seconds. Oxygen – oxidizes life and kills it. Law of Mass Action breaks apart any proteins attempting to magically form themselves for no reason. Simple protein forming by nothing but random chance chance – 1 in 10 to the power 119.

    Haven’t got time for Chemical, but simply try and cross the Mass Gap at Helium 4.

    Macro! – Dogs produce dogs, and the wolf, the dog and the coyote probably had a common ancestor. No new information is ever added to any genome that can produce a new kind. Mutations are a loss of information and there are no positive ones. Nature can by blind chance produce patterns, but never information. You need an intelligent designer to initiative a first cause of information. FARM? We still have fish, amphibians, reptiles and mammals and none of the ones we’ve observed have started to change into any other kind in the 5000 years of recorded human history (Evolutionists cry in unison – ‘that’s not long enough! it was a long, long time ago in a land far away). Where does this new genetic info and rearranging of the chromosome come from? Aliens? (No Francis). You’re staring at something physically, mathematically and scientifically impossible. It’s religious! That’s why Goldschmidt posited the ludicrous Punctuated Equilibria religious idea.

    Anyway, apologies if I was rude or crass, I can’t help if that’s my manner.

  33. lincoln s responds:

    why don’t they try to find a way merge creation and evolution if you take it from my point of view evolution fits in just fine in the bible (except for the transition from ape to man) once you do they won’t be arguing about living dinosaurs noahs ark or the missing link. and also I won’t be stumbling upon sites like stupid dinosaur and can research living dinosaurs seriously:)

  34. deadx responds:

    Mr. King,
    Well said my friend!
    I am a creationist who is an eyewitness to a cryptid sighting in Lake Michigan that makes any Loch Ness sighting I have ever heard of pale into insignificance. Myself and a friend and an unfortunate young man (or fortunate, depending on how one wishes to view this experience) saw at least 10 and possibly 12 (plesiosaurs?) in Lake Michigan on July 1966. The largest of the animals was more than 100 feet long and that portion was just the back of the animal protruding from the surface of the lake. If all of the fins or flippers that we saw coming out of the water belonged to only one animal then the creature was several hundred yards in length. The largest fin was more than 20 feet high. These creatures were only 200 yards, or less, from the shore and were plainly visible especially to the young man who was on the lake with an inflatable air mattress and who himself was only a few feet away from the creatures. I at first thought I was seeing a pod of killer whales because of the shape of the “dorsal” fins I saw coming out of the water. Of course Lake Michigan is fresh water 973 feet deep and 300 by 120 miles in size so there are no whales in that body of water. We did not observe any of the heads or necks or tails of the creatures since they were never raised out of the water but the creatures were obviously feeding on enormous schools of alewives which were everywhere easily seen.
    I have had other close encounters with cryptids, namely Big Foot on a camping-fishing trip in Illinois and a giant spider in the jungles of Cambodia during my tour of service as a Green Beret in 1969-70. I have been laughed at and mocked for my stand and for relating my experiences but I am the one amused by the resistance to the fact that these creatures exist. I thank God for my experiences and hope for more of them. I enjoy visiting this site frequently and waiting for others to come forth with their stories.

Sorry. Comments have been closed.

|Top | Content|

Connect with Cryptomundo

Cryptomundo FaceBook Cryptomundo Twitter Cryptomundo Instagram Cryptomundo Pinterest


Creatureplica Fouke Monster Sybilla Irwin


|Top | FarBar|

Attention: This is the end of the usable page!
The images below are preloaded standbys only.
This is helpful to those with slower Internet connections.