Skip to comments.Churches urged to back evolution
Posted on 02/20/2006 5:33:50 AM PST by ToryHeartland
click here to read article
I'm sure I noticed some Philip Johnson quotes on that list too, and I don't think you picked them up. You know who Johnson is?
I guess you find it boring to be asked to back up your claims. In "I'm a devout Christian" world presumably it's enough just to have an emotional feeling that your beliefs are true. No need for any evidence. So, for the rest of us who like some evidence when extraordinary allegations are made, when are you going to produce some backup about early evolutionary theorists leaping at evolutionary theory because they liked its sexual and moral implications? Or did you just make that claim up?Holy cow, are you really as stupid as you pretend? Or are you this pathetic that you refuse to let go of the point because you want to roll in it as a dog in rotting flesh? If you want me on my knees, pleading for forgiveness, you can forget it. Come back when you are sober.
Are you now admitting that you made up the thing about early evolutionary theorists leaping at the theory of evolution because they liked the moral implications? It isn't absolutely clear if I can draw that conclusion from your apparent admission that the Huxley claim is a creationist fabrication.
And biologist :)
This isn't spam, because it seems apparent to me that you actually took the time to write it yourself.
Thank you for the time; I'll check into it and get back to you.
Oh, say it ain't so, Joe!
We don't write our own stuff? I have copied large articles into these threads when it was a direct refutation of something that was just plain wrong, and when links were being ignored, but mostly what I say is mine. Same with Ichneumon, except we do not do our own illustrations.
"We don't write our own stuff?"
It's all really written by the Grand Master and emailed to us for use here. Let's give the credit where it's due.
I suspect yet another example of someone pretending to be a creationist Christian posting economical actualities in order to make Christians look bad. There seems to be a lot of it around.
It wouldn't be possible to be a Loki Troll Creationist would it. The actual behaviour of these people is already beyond parody. No-one would be able to tell the difference between the straight posters and the Loki Troll.
Rereading that carefully I apologise wholeheartedly, because I see that you are finally clearly admitting that you have no evidence for the evo-morality assertion, despite your subsequent claim after the Huxley quote was exposed as a fabrication that "There are more where those came from". (Perhaps by then it would have been wise to have checked whether you had anything at all that would back your claims up, but wisdom doesn't appear to be your strong suit either). You do realise that even if the quote itself had been true that neither of the Huxleys in any way match the description "early evolutionary theorists"?
Anyway. Congratulations. Honesty late is a lot better than honesty never. I bet it feels a lot better now.
I can track them down and place adequate comments on them.
The first quote is a fabrication. The second is out of context.I cannot find a source for the first quote, and remove my support of it. Here, instead, are some other gems of wisdom from Dr. Wald, specifically addressing the question of spontaneous generation:
If life comes only from life, does this mean that there was always life on the earth? It must, yet we know that this cannot be so. We know that the world was once without life that life appeared later. How? We think it was by spontaneous generation.Yet in The Physics and Chemistry of Life Wald wrote that the spontaneous generation of a living organism is impossible.
Dr. Nils Heribert-Nilsson's quote. I can't find anything on him, other than that he's a creationist.Because he is a creationist does not discount his credentials or his writings. Let me add to some of his quotes:
The proof of the occurrence of mutations is by no means a proof of a current evolution.
It is therefore absolutely impossible to build a current evolution on mutations or on recombinations.
It may, therefore, be firmly maintained that it is not even possible to make a caricature of an evolution out of paleobiological facts.Interesting.
Dr. Newton Tahmisian, Atomic Energy Commission. Enough said.Meaning ?
5) John Polkinghorne is a theistic evolutionist. While the quote is correct, he did not have a problem with evolution.I believe the point behind that quote is that a Cambridge University physicist asserting the need for a Designer/Creator.
I can't find the rest of this online. It goes without saying that Raup is not saying evolution is wrong. He is arguing for PE. He is also wrong about Darwin, who understood that evolution could work in spurts.Once again, the point would be to highlight the need for a Designer. I cannot help that you do not agree or that you feel he was wrong. Funny how being wrong about such things are excusable for those guys, but one misguided quote sends everyone into a feeding frenzy.
Written in 1925. By a physicist who had no training in biology.Biology isnt the only science dealing with the probability/impossibility of evolution.
Dr. Arthur Koestler is a neo-lamarckian; he doesn't represent anything about the ToE as it has been for over 100 years.It stands to reason that you will reject and distance yourself from him, but his quotes are still on record. It seems that, when you find quotes not taken out of context or misquoted or fabricated, you merely shift to attacking of the source and excusing the quotes and demonstrating why you personally do not accept them.
Not sure this is even Patterson. I get multiple people as the author when I google this. Usually a sign of a made-up qoute.Weve already been over this. Niles Eldrendge was the author of that quote, in Time Frames: The Rethining of Darwinian Evolution and the Theory of Punctuated Equilibria. Specifically, on page 240.
Dr. Wolfgang Smith. A mathematician specializing in aerodynamics. Also, not at all an evolutionist. This list sure is getting padded with creationists. :)They are not evolutionists because of the quotes. The quotes are because they are not evolutionist. (Huh?) Maybe it is because the quotes can be used to argue against contemporary interpretations of the evolutionary model. Further quotes of interest by Dr. Smith:
We are told dogmatically that evolution is an established fact; but we are never told who has established it, and by what means. We are told, often enough, that the doctrine is founded upon evidence, and that indeed this evidence is henceforward above all verification, as well as being immune from any subsequent contradiction by experience; but we are left entirely in the dark on the crucial question wherein, precisely, this evidence consists. And the salient fact is this: if by evolution we mean macroevolution (as we henceforth shall), then it can be said with the utmost rigor that the doctrine is totally bereft of scientific sanction. Now, to be sure, given the multitude of extravagant claims about evolution promulgated by evolutionists with an air of scientific infallibility, this may indeed sound strange. And yet the fact remains that there exists to this day not a shred of bona fide scientific evidence in support of the thesis that macroevolutionary transformations have ever occurred.
Dr. Hubert P. Yockey. Information theorist and non-biologist.Where do you get off thinking that only biologists can critique evolution?
Nice use of elipses. Where's this from? How many pages separate the cut pieces?As best I can learn, it was in "How evolution became a scientific myth," New Scientist, 11 September 1980, p.765. I cannot find the original source to confirm any unscrupulous cutting or excising of important context. Let me know if you can.
BTW, this has nothing to do with evolution anyway.How do you figure?
Dr. Pierre-Paul Grasse was an evolutionist, but a neo-lamarkian. Your quote is from a crank who is pushing ideas disproved 100 years ago. Nice going!Now you (again) are just showing your personal disagreement with the man based on your dislike of him or his quotes or his stance. Like it or not, he was once the president of Academie des Sciences. He edited Traite de Zoologie. He held the Chair of Evolution at the Sorbonne in Paris for thirty years. Not misquoted, misattributed or fabricated. Further, Grasse wrote:
The opportune appearance of mutations permitting animals and plants to meet their needs seems hard to believe. Yet the Darwinian theory is even more demanding: A single plant, a single animal would require thousands and thousands of lucky, appropriate events. Thus, miracles would become the rule: events with an infinitesimal probability could not fail to occur.
There is no law against daydreaming, but science must not indulge in it.
Directed by all-powerful selection, chance becomes a sort of providence which, under the cover of atheism, is not named but which is secretly worshipped.
The fruitfly, (Drosophila melanogaster), the favorite pet insect of the geneticists, whose geographical, biotopical, urban and rural genotypes are now known inside out, seems not to have changed since the remotest times.
The explanatory doctrines of biological evolution do not stand up to an objective, in-depth criticism. They prove to be either in conflict with reality or else in capable of solving the major problems involved. "The system has become functional only when all its components have come together and adjusted themselves to one another. The Darwinian hypothesis compels us to postulate a preparatory period during which selection acts upon something that does not, physiologically speaking, yet exist. Under the necessary conditions of the postulate, the action can only have been prophetic! Any explanation ruling out the active intervention of the organism in the acquisition of regulating systems may be regarded as inadequate. To take as an evident truth the fact that the control mechanisms attenuating or neutralizing the actions of the environment (these are, let it be remembered, complex systems having several coordinated elements) could have been assembled by successive and lucky strokes of chance without the slightest need for the organism to play any role whatsoever, is to sacrifice objective scientific analysis to wholly verbal magic trick" Naturalists must remember that the process of evolution is revealed only through fossil forms. A knowledge of paleontology is, therefore a prerequisite; only paleontology can provide them with the evidence of evolution and reveal its course or mechanisms. Today, our duty is to destroy the myth of evolution, considered as a simple, understood and explained phenomenon which keeps rapidly unfolding before us.
To insist, even with Olympian assurance, that life appeared quite by chance and evolved in this fashion, is an unfounded supposition which I believe to be wrong and not in accordance with the facts.(Above quotes by Grasse were taken from Evolution of Living Organisms, New York: Academic Press 1977) In reviewing Grasses work, David Kitts (Professor of Science, University of Oklahoma) wrote:
The fossil record doesnt even provide any evidence in support of Darwinian theory except in the weak sense that the fossil record is compatible with it, just as it is compatible with other evolutionary theories, and revolutionary theories and special creationist theories and even ahistorical theories.
20) ""I suppose the reason we leaped at the origin of species was because the idea of God interfered with our sexual mores." A complete fabrication. Julian Huxley never said this.Geee, no fooling.
Attributed to Sir Arthur Keith, it's a fabrication.Ill give you that too, since rigorous searching does not reveal any actual citation of Keith on this. Doesnt mean the quote doesnt exist, just like the Eldrendge quote. Of course, this doesnt mean some of Keiths reasonings were not damaging to the cause of evolution:
The German Führer, as I have consistently maintained, is an evolutionist; he has consciously sought to make the practice of Germany conform to the theory of evolution.
Out of context quote [by Dr. George Gaylord Simpson].As far as I can tell, youre right. Of course, Dr. Simpson also wrote:
"Man is the result of a purposeless and materialistic process that did not have him in mind. He was not planned. He is a state of matter, a form of life, a sort of animal, and a species of the Order Primates, akin nearly or remotely to all of life and indeed to all that is material."And people tell me that I am reaching by applying the philosophical meanings of evolution to life and finding meaninglessness.
He was a creationist in that respect. Pathetic that you included this.Note first of all the above quotes showing Darwin incorporating actions based on Darwinism. The preservation of favored races, I wonder? Many people have tried to ply Hitlers invocation of God to ally him with Christians and demonize them. No action taken by Hitler is consistent with the Christian paradigm, and his actions were clearly influenced by the Darwinian ideas of races.
Yes, Darwin was a typical Victorian man. So?So we can excuse his views based on the era in which he lived, just like we excuse pro-slavery and pro-racist opinions because they were the fare of the time. (Huh?)
Here's what the recently deceased Henry Morris thought about raceAhh, ad hominem tu quoque.
Of course, as Gould and modern science in general has rejected the recapitulation theories he is talking about, this quote is moot.Youd better slip that bit of information on down the line to the classroom teachers, because they recently tried to hand me recapitulation as fact too.
(Dr. Duane Gish, Biochemist.) Why is he on this list? Shameless, yet again.Considering he is a creationist, Im not sure why he would be classified as evolutionist under the list at all.
(Albert Fleishman, professor of zoology & comparative anatomy at Erlangen University) He was last main holdout against evolution, and died in 1942. He was always a creationist. Yet MORE padding.His opinions disagreed with evolution. He was a scientist. I think his quotes are useful.
(Dr. Hsu, geologist at the Geological Institute in Zurich.) Yet more *misspeaking* from the creationists. He was attacking social darwinism, not evolution.He was a geologist writing in Volume 14 of Geology. Heres the full context:
"Darwin's three mistakes were that (1) he dismissed mass extinction as artifacts of an imperfect geologic record; (2) he assumed that species diversity, like individuals of a given species, tends to increase exponentially with time; and (3) he considered biotic interactions the major cause of species extinction. Those mistakes led to the theory propounded in his book On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life (Darwin, 1859), which has been adopted by many as the scientific basis of the social philosophies. The Darwinian theory of evolution has two themes: common descent and natural selection. Creationists are barking up the wrong tree when they question common descent, which is amply documented by scientific evidence. Darwin's mistakes were in his emphasis on biotic competition in natural selection. We learned evolution in school, along with aphorisms about the struggle for existence, natural selection, adaptation, and survival of the fittest. Few of us have found it necessary to check the scientific basis of the Darwinian theory. I did not bother to read Origin of the Species until I started to write a book on the terminal Cretaceous mass extinction. Only then did I realize how wrong Darwin was on some critical issues and how unfortunate it is that his mistakes have been misused by ideologists for their propaganda. This essay is an attempt to renounce social Darwinism... Darwin's theory in biology, transferred to Germany and nurtured by Ernst Haeckel, inspired an ideology that led eventually to the rise of the Nazis... We have suffered through two world wars and are threatened by an Armageddon. We have had enough of the Darwinian fallacy. It is about time we cry: 'The Emperor Has No Clothes.'"
(Dr. Louist T. More, professor of paleontology at Princeton University) Sorry, he was a phsyicist at the University of Cincinnati. And he was writing in 1925. Again, more padding.I believe the mix-up originates in the fact that he delivered a series of lectures at Princeton.
(Dr. David Berlinski) from the Discovery institute. More padding with creationists.Because he is affiliated with an institute which believes in Intelligent Design, we must immediately discard anything he says, because no person who believes in either ID or Creation can make any comment scientifically sound in nature. (Huh?) I agree, however, that he doesnt belong under the heading of evolutionist. (Even though ID accepts most tenets of the contemporary evolutionary model)
Ok, there's 40 quotes that are *veracity-challenged*. I didn;t do them all; some I couldn't find anything on, other than re-quoting at creationist websites. I am sure you will go through this and point out where I am wrong, in detail.You werent sure of that at all, in fact you were quite confident that I would not. Sorry to disappoint.
Rereading that carefully I apologise wholeheartedly, because I see that you are finally clearly admitting that you have no evidence for the evo-morality assertionThank you. Sometimes I think your predisposition against me can get in the way when you read my remarks, but you came around. One petty statement based on what seems to be common misattribution/misquoting doesnt wipe away everything I stand for, after all.
wisdom doesn't appear to be your strong suit eitherNow THAT was a cheap shot. You ruined an otherwise almost decent post. Thats a shame.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.