Our Substitute Biology Teacher (by Mike Adams)

Townhall.com ^ | September 19, 2004 | Mike S. Adams

[Dataman]

I didn't say the theory was a matter of faith.

Most of the central tenets of Darwinism are a matter of faith. You will notice that the darwinists have, to this point, supplied support for their worldview from the realm of non-reason. This is largely because they cannot present a coherent defense of an incoherent worldview. If they could, the public would be convinced. The public is not convinced, however, and rather than present the trainload of proof they claim to have, they resort to ridicule, ad hominem fallacies, red herrings and other such scientific methods.

The easiest way to defeat Darwinism is, IMO, to point out the absurdity of their underlying presuppositions such as

The idea of eternal matter is scientific (though never observed and contrary to physics) yet the idea of an eternal God is absurd.

There can be no miracles because the laws of the universe cannot be violated yet the BB was a miracle as was spontaneous generation, the existence of the anthropic-centered earth, the beginning of time, infinite temperatures of the BB, matter traveling faster than the speed of light, etc, etc.

The existence of presently incomprehensibly complex information (DNA) generated by random chance certainly cannot have come from the same random chance that cannot assemble the 57 Chevy, cannot produce Shakespeare with monkeys and typewriters, cannot even produce a coherent paragraph.

Let us not forget the primitive and contradictory "if we cannot see it, it doesn't exist" mentality when it comes to any existence outside the universe. Yet there are many things the materialists believe in that we cannot see or have not observed: other earth-like planets, ET life forms, spontaneous generation, transitional fossils, uniformitarianism, and many other name-it-and-claim-it positions of faith.

[RightWingAtheist]

Up until now, I had a lot of respect for Mr. Adams...but he (and Phil Johnson) just demonstrated that law professors aren't necessarily qualified to comment on biology.

[RightWingAtheist]

The way in which evolution has been taught is one of the reasons why so many otherwise intelligent people are ignorant about it. Teachers should read some of T.H. Huxley's speeches to the London working classes (such as his masterpiece "On a Piece of Chalk") to see how it should be done.

[donh]

The public schools, and popularized "science" like the Discovery Channel, are still saying that a camel-sorta-thingie wanted to eat leaves from higher up in the tree, and so it streeettcheed its neck, and was more successful than the other thingies...

This is closer to Lamarkism than to Darwinism. And if you have, in fact, ever seen it, (which I doubt) you saw it on The History Channel. Primative one-celled prokariotes of one species have been transmutted by evolutionary processes into another species in the laboratory by control of their environement. What's the new micro-macro arguement about that? All prokariotes are really just one species? What's the creationist micro-macro argument about the fact the lions and tigers can interbreed? Lions and tigers are the same species? How about llamas and camels? How about zebras, horses, and donkeys? Maybe all creatures are just one species--certainly that would save the micro-macro argument.

[PatrickHenry]

That seems like apples and oranges ... You "reason" a belief in O.J. Simpson's guilt based on things you can see. You "reason" a belief in evolution based on things you can't see. It's not the same.

But it is the same. What makes you think evolution functions without evidence? The fossil record shows evidence of animals appearing in a specific sequence over hundreds of millions of years. If they're arranged in chronological sequence, the picture that emerges is striking. It screams "common descent" at least as loudly as a photo album of your own family for a few generations. And the DNA evidence supports the conclusion that biologists have drawn from the time when the fossil record alone existed.

The public schools, and popularized "science" like the Discovery Channel, are still saying that a camel-sorta-thingie wanted to eat leaves from higher up in the tree, and so it streeettcheed its neck, and was more successful than the other thingies. And then the offspring of the stretched guy streeetcched a little more, so they had necks just a little longer, etc., etc. And then there's a giraffe, don'tcha know.

If anyone is teaching that, he's an idiot.

[Tax-chick]

Gentlemen, I want to thank you (and all) for an edifying exchange, but I'm afraid I can't respond to your comments as they deserve. My baby is having a crisis (gas pains, but that's a crisis when you're 7 months old, I blame yesterday's curry sauce!), and even now is bellowing because I put him down for 30 seconds.

I hope you all have a great weekend, and please believe I'm not dismissing your comments. Real Life calls!

[jennyp]

The public schools, and popularized "science" like the Discovery Channel, are still saying that a camel-sorta-thingie wanted to eat leaves from higher up in the tree, and so it streeettcheed its neck, and was more successful than the other thingies. And then the offspring of the stretched guy streeetcched a little more, so they had necks just a little longer, etc., etc. And then there's a giraffe, don'tcha know.

Except for the fact that the streeeeetttcchhhing itself didn't do a thing for the giraffe's evolution, that's correct. The giraffe's ancestor probably looked a lot like an okapi, to which the giraffe is related:

  

(See also here)

[jennyp]

Then again, maybe giraffe & okapi skulls look very similar because of pure chance...

 

[PatrickHenry]

Man, it takes a lotta faith to see any connection between those two.
</creationism mode>

[Dimensio]

Typical eviloonist personal attacks. Clearly the Designer just decided to reuse a similar design!

Remember, EVERYTHING is evidence for design!

[PatrickHenry]

Clearly the Designer just decided to reuse a similar design!

A theory which explains the similarity between your brain and a horse's rear end. Verily, evidence of the Designer's handiwork is all around us!

[Dimensio]

A theory which explains the similarity between your brain and a horse's rear end.

Hey!

_{You owe horses everywhere an apology}

[RadioAstronomer]

However, macro-evolution, and particularly the origin of life *without* Creation, also can't be observed or duplicated. Doesn't that make acceptance of the theory also a matter of faith?

First, there are many folks here on FR that are far more qualified to answer this one. "But I will give it a go". :-)

There is a preponderance of evidence that shows species evolve. We can see it in the labs, we see it in the fossils, and we can predict and test those predictions by looking at the various strata, geological processes, and biological processes. Here is the question. Where is the dividing line between “micro” and “macro” evolution? Since at the fundamental level, an organism is “defined” by its DNA, all evolution is the same. There really is not distinction between the two. Either evolution is a process we have observed, or it is not.

The theory of evolution did not just arise with Charles Darwin. At the time there were all kinds of discoveries being made, including the age of the Earth, geology, and geological processes. One of the big sticking points was the age of the Earth. This thru many years of scientific test and discoveries is not longer an issue. We have definitive evidence for a very ancient Earth and a very ancient universe.

Before this time, it was widely accepted that the Earth was less than 10,000 years old and there was a worldwide flood as described in the Bible. This also would imply that the story of creation put forth in Genesis was an accurately recorded fact. However, the findings and discoveries started to cause folks to "scratch their heads" and begin to doubt the veracity of the stories from Genesis as being literal.

Looking back even further, there used to be Sun gods, Moon Gods, Gods of lightning, etc. As our knowledge grew, our understanding of the natural processes that govern our world superseded these “Gods”. I see no difference here. I have seen it called “The God in the gaps” theology.

As our knowledge and discoveries grew, we began to see “patterns” in the diversity of life. These “patterns” not only match the geological record, but also the genetic one as well. Charles Darwin finally put these patterns forth into two books called “The Origin of Species” and “The Decent of Man.” These volumes created quite a row in the theological camps.

This reminds me of the painful struggles of previous time when the dogma of a geocentric universe was challenged. People died over that one. Is seems to me that when cherished beliefs are challenged, people seem to be most resistance to change.

Over the years the theory has undergone refinements but in essence, it still is the absolutely best model for the diversity of life here on this planet.

As a side note:

There is often a misunderstanding of what a theory is when being used by the scientific community. This is an abstract taken from and NSF paper:

“As with all scientific knowledge, a theory can be refined or even replaced by an alternative theory in light of new and compelling evidence. The geocentric theory that the sun revolves around the earth was replaced by the heliocentric theory of the earth's rotation on its axis and revolution around the sun. However, ideas are not referred to as "theories" in science unless they are supported by bodies of evidence that make their subsequent abandonment very unlikely. When a theory is supported by as much evidence as evolution, it is held with a very high degree of confidence.

In science, the word "hypothesis" conveys the tentativeness inherent in the common use of the word "theory.' A hypothesis is a testable statement about the natural world. Through experiment and observation, hypotheses can be supported or rejected. At the earliest level of understanding, hypotheses can be used to construct more complex inferences and explanations. Like "theory," the word "fact" has a different meaning in science than it does in common usage. A scientific fact is an observation that has been confirmed over and over. However, observations are gathered by our senses, which can never be trusted entirely. Observations also can change with better technologies or with better ways of looking at data. For example, it was held as a scientific fact for many years that human cells have 24 pairs of chromosomes, until improved techniques of microscopy revealed that they actually have 23. Ironically, facts in science often are more susceptible to change than theories, which is one reason why the word "fact" is not much used in science.

Finally, "laws" in science are typically descriptions of how the physical world behaves under certain circumstances. For example, the laws of motion describe how objects move when subjected to certain forces. These laws can be very useful in supporting hypotheses and theories, but like all elements of science they can be altered with new information and observations.

Those who oppose the teaching of evolution often say that evolution should be taught as a "theory, not as a fact." This statement confuses the common use of these words with the scientific use. In science, theories do not turn into facts through the accumulation of evidence. Rather, theories are the end points of science. They are understandings that develop from extensive observation, experimentation, and creative reflection. They incorporate a large body of scientific facts, laws, tested hypotheses, and logical inferences. In this sense, evolution is one of the strongest and most useful scientific theories we have."

I have posted this before, but though it would be appropriate to posts it here as well:

I'm not sure how a persons personal belief system in anyway imparts itself onto a scientific theory. As I read many of the post of the creationists, I see a tremendous amount of credence given to a single Biblical verse or an interpretation from a particular scholar. The rub is how does anyone know if that verse is really the correct one. Is it argued from an imprinted engram, or is it argued from a personal revelation? From many observations, I have come to the conclusion that the environment directly influences the worldview taken on by the individual that this individual grew up in. This also includes the fundamental belief systems imprinted into the brain over the years. So people end up taking a particular stance on a many thousand year old writing colored by personal experiences and or a long-term environment that was inhabited.

I constantly hear from the various churches, “baby steps”. Why is this? It is because we learn this way. We have to allow the brain to build those neural interconnects to over a period of time. It’s not unlike flying an aircraft. What was so terribly difficult at first becomes absurdly simple as our brains adapt to the new directives we are imprinting on it. This is the same with the different religions. Over time people imprint the “truth” that is then defended vehemently because it’s “known to be true”.

So here is the rub. How can we determine on a pure faith based belief system, which is the correct model or “truth”? When I ask this question I get answers like; the Bible told me, my pastor stated it, or I prayed and God himself told me. Well, if there were immutable truths, wouldn’t everyone get the same answer when they prayed or read the same book? Since there is an ongoing fierce argument between the different religions, obviously this is not the case.

Now we will throw another monkey wrench into the equation. There have been a number of councils that have determined what is “truth” in scripture and what is not: i.e. the Church Councils at Hippo (393) and Carthage (397, 419), the council of Nicea, etc. So here is another rub, if the word of God had been handed down, why the requirement for the councils?

There also seems to be contradictions in the Bible. For example, the resurrection stories from each of the different Gospels. They are different enough that just to say they were seen from different perspectives does not wash. I always have wondered which is the correct one or the “truth”. If there is that kind of discrepancy in the very thing that defines Christianity (the resurrection itself), how can we not suspect the other verses in this same book? I get answers like the Bible is divine because God stated it was. Well where did he state that but in the Bible. This is not unlike me writing a letter and then stating in that letter that it’s divine because God says so. Would you take that seriously? This is in effect what you are doing with the Bible.

Now we will throw a final monkey wrench into the works. There is a body of knowledge that has been painstakingly complied over thousands of years we refer to today as science. Unlike a belief system, science is a series of models that describe the universe we inhabit from both observation and experimentation. Again unlike an immutable text such as the Bible, science will revise its models as new evidence comes to light. This also gives rise to the false belief that science is shiftless sand that has no firm foundations. This is far from the case. Over the millennia we have made discoveries that we continue to build on as we obtain further knowledge and understanding. Do old ideas get thrown out? Of course! However, not without coming up with a better model to fit the observed phenomena in question. Take gravity for instance. It is a theory and no matter how much evidence accumulates, it will always remain a theory. One of my problems is that we don’t revise (or at least re interpret) the Bible as new facts come to light.

Now if an atheist looks at this, he will see a group of individuals or a church blindly following a faith system that has been handed down over thousands of years that ignore the basic findings of science. For example, there is not one shred of Geologic evidence for a word wide flood approximately 4-6 thousand years ago. However, there are groups that vehemently will defend such to their dying breath just because the Bible told them so. No wonder he/she (the atheist) sees the religion as a foolish waste of time.

So the question is where is the line drawn? Parts of the Bible already have been modified or rejected from what once was considered scripture via the councils. So why not take into account the findings from the scientific community.

[PatrickHenry]

Excellent post!

[balrog666]

Nicely stated! So you are a philosopher after all, aren't you?

[Heartlander]

Dawkins, Dennett, et al… are all very Bright.

But who says dogma is relative only to religion is when one ‘believes’ consciousness comes from mindlessness.

This is obviously partisan politics because the liberals are running on this platform! LOL!

[Tax-chick]

Interesting point :-). I just can't "see" the materialistic perspective, so to speak.

[AndrewC]

So here is another rub, if the word of God had been handed down, why the requirement for the councils?

2Ki 22:3 And it came to pass in the eighteenth year of king Josiah, [that] the king sent Shaphan the son of Azaliah, the son of Meshullam, the scribe, to the house of the LORD, saying,
2Ki 22:4 Go up to Hilkiah the high priest, that he may sum the silver which is brought into the house of the LORD, which the keepers of the door have gathered of the people:
2Ki 22:5 And let them deliver it into the hand of the doers of the work, that have the oversight of the house of the LORD: and let them give it to the doers of the work which [is] in the house of the LORD, to repair the breaches of the house,
2Ki 22:6 Unto carpenters, and builders, and masons, and to buy timber and hewn stone to repair the house.
2Ki 22:7 Howbeit there was no reckoning made with them of the money that was delivered into their hand, because they dealt faithfully.
2Ki 22:8 And Hilkiah the high priest said unto Shaphan the scribe, I have found the book of the law in the house of the LORD. And Hilkiah gave the book to Shaphan, and he read it.
2Ki 22:9 And Shaphan the scribe came to the king, and brought the king word again, and said, Thy servants have gathered the money that was found in the house, and have delivered it into the hand of them that do the work, that have the oversight of the house of the LORD.

2Ki 22:10 And Shaphan the scribe shewed the king, saying, Hilkiah the priest hath delivered me a book. And Shaphan read it before the king.
2Ki 22:11 And it came to pass, when the king had heard the words of the book of the law, that he rent his clothes.
2Ki 22:12 And the king commanded Hilkiah the priest, and Ahikam the son of Shaphan, and Achbor the son of Michaiah, and Shaphan the scribe, and Asahiah a servant of the king's, saying,
2Ki 22:13 Go ye, enquire of the LORD for me, and for the people, and for all Judah, concerning the words of this book that is found: for great [is] the wrath of the LORD that is kindled against us, because our fathers have not hearkened unto the words of this book, to do according unto all that which is written concerning us.

2Ki 23:1 And the king sent, and they gathered unto him all the elders of Judah and of Jerusalem.
2Ki 23:2 And the king went up into the house of the LORD, and all the men of Judah and all the inhabitants of Jerusalem with him, and the priests, and the prophets, and all the people, both small and great: and he read in their ears all the words of the book of the covenant which was found in the house of the LORD.
2Ki 23:3 And the king stood by a pillar, and made a covenant before the LORD, to walk after the LORD, and to keep his commandments and his testimonies and his statutes with all [their] heart and all [their] soul, to perform the words of this covenant that were written in this book. And all the people stood to the covenant.
2Ki 23:4 And the king commanded Hilkiah the high priest, and the priests of the second order, and the keepers of the door, to bring forth out of the temple of the LORD all the vessels that were made for Baal, and for the grove, and for all the host of heaven: and he burned them without Jerusalem in the fields of Kidron, and carried the ashes of them unto Bethel.
2Ki 23:5 And he put down the idolatrous priests, whom the kings of Judah had ordained to burn incense in the high places in the cities of Judah, and in the places round about Jerusalem; them also that burned incense unto Baal, to the sun, and to the moon, and to the planets, and to all the host of heaven.
2Ki 23:6 And he brought out the grove from the house of the LORD, without Jerusalem, unto the brook Kidron, and burned it at the brook Kidron, and stamped [it] small to powder, and cast the powder thereof upon the graves of the children of the people.
2Ki 23:7 And he brake down the houses of the sodomites, that [were] by the house of the LORD, where the women wove hangings for the grove.
2Ki 23:8 And he brought all the priests out of the cities of Judah, and defiled the high places where the priests had burned incense, from Geba to Beersheba, and brake down the high places of the gates that [were] in the entering in of the gate of Joshua the governor of the city, which [were] on a man's left hand at the gate of the city.
2Ki 23:9 Nevertheless the priests of the high places came not up to the altar of the LORD in Jerusalem, but they did eat of the unleavened bread among their brethren. 2Ki 23:10 And he defiled Topheth, which [is] in the valley of the children of Hinnom, that no man might make his son or his daughter to pass through the fire to Molech.
2Ki 23:11 And he took away the horses that the kings of Judah had given to the sun, at the entering in of the house of the LORD, by the chamber of Nathanmelech the chamberlain, which [was] in the suburbs, and burned the chariots of the sun with fire.
2Ki 23:12 And the altars that [were] on the top of the upper chamber of Ahaz, which the kings of Judah had made, and the altars which Manasseh had made in the two courts of the house of the LORD, did the king beat down, and brake [them] down from thence, and cast the dust of them into the brook Kidron.
2Ki 23:13 And the high places that [were] before Jerusalem, which [were] on the right hand of the mount of corruption, which Solomon the king of Israel had builded for Ashtoreth the abomination of the Zidonians, and for Chemosh the abomination of the Moabites, and for Milcom the abomination of the children of Ammon, did the king defile.
2Ki 23:14 And he brake in pieces the images, and cut down the groves, and filled their places with the bones of men.
2Ki 23:15 Moreover the altar that [was] at Bethel, [and] the high place which Jeroboam the son of Nebat, who made Israel to sin, had made, both that altar and the high place he brake down, and burned the high place, [and] stamped [it] small to powder, and burned the grove.
2Ki 23:16 And as Josiah turned himself, he spied the sepulchres that [were] there in the mount, and sent, and took the bones out of the sepulchres, and burned [them] upon the altar, and polluted it, according to the word of the LORD which the man of God proclaimed, who proclaimed these words.
2Ki 23:17 Then he said, What title [is] that that I see? And the men of the city told him, [It is] the sepulchre of the man of God, which came from Judah, and proclaimed these things that thou hast done against the altar of Bethel.
2Ki 23:18 And he said, Let him alone; let no man move his bones. So they let his bones alone, with the bones of the prophet that came out of Samaria.
2Ki 23:19 And all the houses also of the high places that [were] in the cities of Samaria, which the kings of Israel had made to provoke [the LORD] to anger, Josiah took away, and did to them according to all the acts that he had done in Bethel.
2Ki 23:20 And he slew all the priests of the high places that [were] there upon the altars, and burned men's bones upon them, and returned to Jerusalem.
2Ki 23:21 And the king commanded all the people, saying, Keep the passover unto the LORD your God, as [it is] written in the book of this covenant.
2Ki 23:22 Surely there was not holden such a passover from the days of the judges that judged Israel, nor in all the days of the kings of Israel, nor of the kings of Judah;
2Ki 23:23 But in the eighteenth year of king Josiah, [wherein] this passover was holden to the LORD in Jerusalem.
2Ki 23:24 Moreover the [workers with] familiar spirits, and the wizards, and the images, and the idols, and all the abominations that were spied in the land of Judah and in Jerusalem, did Josiah put away, that he might perform the words of the law which were written in the book that Hilkiah the priest found in the house of the LORD.
2Ki 23:25 And like unto him was there no king before him, that turned to the LORD with all his heart, and with all his soul, and with all his might, according to all the law of Moses; neither after him arose there [any] like him.
2Ki 23:26 Notwithstanding the LORD turned not from the fierceness of his great wrath, wherewith his anger was kindled against Judah, because of all the provocations that Manasseh had provoked him withal.

[PatrickHenry]

Yet another bump for your post.

[RadioAstronomer]

Thanks :-)