National Geographic Ignores The Flaws in Darwin's Theory

Discovery Institute News ^ | 11/8/04 | Jonathan Wells

[aruanan]

National Geographic Ignores The Flaws in Darwin's Theory

National Geographic, like Scientific American, ceased being a science magazine a long time ago.

[WildTurkey]

I gave you one: Homo sapiens.

Apparently some Homo Sapiens have evolved a litter further than others.

[dartuser]

I was at the Dayton Planetarium and the speaker starting going on about the "lightening bolt in the soup of chemicals experiment" that proves life.

Its now known that there WAS oxygen in the "early" atmosphere ...

But it was great for my children, they spent the next 3 days disproving the infamous 1950s proof ...

[MoonMullins]

Agreed. But evolutionary theory goes further - it claims to explain how ALL life, species, etc., came to be.

So I ask again, how did LIFE begin?

[StJacques]

". . . You should read the post to which I replied before responding. The author makes a claim that is unsubstantiated. . . ."

I believe that I am the "author" to whom you refer and, if I backtracked correctly, this is the question you raise as indicating something unsubstantiated:

"Can the scientific community name one species whose origin is explained by evolution?"

The answer is an overwhelming "yes." You can refer to my earlier post on Archaeopteryx to see the evidence of evolutionary transition.

[BikerNYC]

Can you give me the name of a real science magazine?

[StJacques]

Paco I suggest you post your source for that discourse on Archaeopteryx. There are real problems with it, especially its "certainty" of language -- which is alien to scientific inquiry - and its use of the term "evolutionists" in its introduction, which is a pejorative.

To put it simply; that piece doesn't "fly." . . . . Lol!

Sorry Paco, I couldn't resist.

[MoonMullins]

I assume you are familiar with Professor Michael Behe's work, Darwin's Black Box. He has issued a challenge to anyone in the scientific community to prove the existence of a single species whose origin can be explained by evolutionary theory.

No one has done so yet. But if you can provide proof, I'll gladly change my view on this.

[WildTurkey]

No one has done so yet. But if you can provide proof, I'll gladly change my view on this.

No one has ever proved the existence of God.

[RS]

" Millions of fossils later not one transitional one (i.e. frog growing wings etc.) has ever been found and all the Neanderthals such as java man have been based on things like the tooth of a dog found fifty yards from the jaw bone of a monkey. Evolution will one day be laughed at as every major scientific discovery points to divine design, just as Albert Einstein found."

LOL - but you forgot the /sarcasm tag - some people might believe you were serious -

[bondserv]

It is no more miraculous than oxygen and hydrogen combining to form water.

Plain chemistry is plain chemistry. The laws of the physical universe govern the reactions of chemical interaction. Life has an underlying body of information that is literally a chemistry lab that is way beyond anything man can yet conceive. A vast majority of mankind's advances in medical science is borrowed from living mechanisms dealing with the basic chemistry.

Do a study of the human liver. It is a veritable chemistry laboratory.

[MoonMullins]

That's right. But one theory (evolution) asserts that the other theory (intelligent design) has no place in the discussion.

[StJacques]

". . . check out Post #13, to which I replied. That Freeper said evolutionary theory explains the origin of life, not me. What a dope. . . ."

Well I'm the "dope" who put up post #13 and this is what it said in its entirety:

"There are two things that must be separated when dealing with Darwin's Theory of Evolution; evolutionary change as the origin of species and natural selection as the engine of evolutionary change. There is almost no serious debate within the scientific community about whether evolutionary change is responsible for the origin of new species. But there is a very serious debate about whether natural selection is the means by which that change is effected.

Though I must confess I read the above article at a much more rapid speed than I should have to give a proper commentary, it seems to me that by raising real problems with Darwin's Theory of Natural Selection as the means of evolutionary change it attempts to challenge the Theory of Evolution itself as the origin of species, though it does not say so outright. This is problematic, because any challenge to the Theory of Evolution must present an alternative, which I do not see proposed in the above article."

There is quite a bit about the "origin of species" but absolutely nothing about the "origin of life." So if you have problems reading the English language, please be careful who you call a "dope."

[Timm]

Ugh. Here we go. The great embarrassment to Republicans today: religious obsessives demanding their fairy stories get taught in science classes.

[orionblamblam]

> most engineers are creationists

Hogwash. I've worked with engineers nonstop for the past ten years, from one side of the country to the other. Out of more than a hundred I've gotten to know, three, *maybe* five were creationists, while at least 80% were pretty clear evolutionists. You see, engineers don't have the experience of animals, plants, stars or anything else simply "poofing" into existence.

On the other hand, engineers have generally had the experience of natural forces working away on things.

[orionblamblam]

Are you being intentionally dense?

[MoonMullins]

My apologies for lack of clarity - you are not the one I was referring to.

But you proved my point to orion..., I was not the one who made the assertion. I suspect he has since traced it back to your post and discovered his error.

[orionblamblam]

> evolutionary theory goes further - it claims to explain how ALL life, species, etc., came to be.


No, it doesn't. Repeating a lie does not make it true.

[StJacques]

By the way, just to clear the air on the subject of the "Origin of Life."

Because God, however defined, must be considered the "first cause" of the creation of the universe, something on which I agree with both Newton and Einstein, God must be credited with the "Origin of Life." This in no way contradicts the Theory of Evolution.

[hawkaw]

This is just one of those subjects about which good Freepers can choose to disagree.

As a Professional Geoscientist, I think your comment on this db is a comment that I, for one, agree with.