Intellectuals Who Doubt Darwin

The American Prowler ^ | 11/24/2004 | Hunter Baker

[stylin19a]

Darwin doubted Darwin

[Puckster]

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/behe.html

"Darwin's Black Box: The Biochemical Challenge to Evolution"

Irreducible Complexity, the enigma that only creation explains.

[Carling]

For far too long, the apologists for Darwin have relied on a strategy of portraying challengers as simple-minded religious zealots

That is my biggest complaint. In any discussion on evolutionary theory, I am painted as a "Creationist", when in reality I tend to believe evolutionary theory as well as God's hand.

The absolute, scientific proof is simply not there for evolutionists, no matter what they say.

[PianoMan]

Here we go...

[GLDNGUN]

For far too long, the apologists for Darwin have relied on a strategy of portraying challengers as simple-minded religious zealots

When in reality, it is the apologists for Darwin who are anti-religous zealots.

[geopyg]

I say we just let the Scopes Trial Verdict be the last word.

[The Spirit Of Allegiance]

Institute for Creation Research -- http://icr.org/

[quantim]

The absolute, scientific proof is simply not there for evolutionists, no matter what they say.

What about cosmologists?  Its a rather big place out there.

Barrel, meet fish.

[I got the rope]

Stephen J. Gould and Niles Eldridge thought Darwin was wrong too.

[shibumi]

Absolutely. A careful reading of "Origin" shows a Darwin who would have been dismayed at the underwhelming lack of evidence for his theory.

Those who cling to it blindly normally do so as it affords them the luxury of viewing themselves as merely animals, acting instinctively, without the consequence or judgement of a Creator.

[GSlob]

"The absolute, scientific proof is simply not there for evolutionists"
The best proof and argument for evolution are the creationists, for they have not evolved.

[Busywhiskers]

Sure no problem. Scopes was convicted.

[StJacques]

"Here we go..."

I hear you PianoMan.

I'm prepared to discuss any alternative to Darwin that does not attempt to tell me:

--That the Grand Canyon was formed by the Great Flood of Noah.

--That the concept of Geologic Time is flawed and that the earth is not millions of years old.

--That oolitic hematite and oolitic limestone deposits found at high altitudes in mountain ranges do not present proof of prehistoric oceans.

--That the earth's surface is not divided into tectonic plates.

--That the dinosaurs . . .

I could go on.

As I understand the Theory of Intelligent Design, none of the preceding are argued and it has relevance to true science. If that's true, then I'm prepared to discuss it. But maybe later because it's almost past my bedtime.

[geopyg]

Just wanted to make sure someone was awake out there! Most folks think that the evolutionists WON that trial. However, Scopes was only fined $100, and the Supreme Court later ruled it a faulty verdict on a technicality (but not on the constitution).

[Carling]

What about cosmologists? Its a rather big place out there.

Did you miss the part where I said I'm not a Creationist? It boggles the Darwinist mind, but the fossil record doesn't exactly remove all doubt on evolution. I'm agnostic on the subject of Darwinist evolutionary theory, and if we are going to go on blind faith, as Darwinists also do, I'll also say my faith in God has a role.

[A6M3]

Existence and that which makes it possible is far to perfect, complex, and the same, to have randomly evolved. The theory of evolution will ultimetely take its proper place alongside the theory of the flat earth.

[Carling]

I'm not a Creationist.

Try again...and try reading the original article.

[Citizen James]

Out of 2 million known species on Earth, isn't it amazing that only one has evolved enough to care about how it got here?

[Carling]

A careful reading of "Origin" shows a Darwin who would have been dismayed at the underwhelming lack of evidence for his theory.

DingDingDing

We have a winner. Try telling this to the Darwin freaks who refuse to believe there may be holes in their theory.

Again, I'm not a Creationist, I'm more agnostic, but it is funny to see scientific types accept Darwinist Evolutionary theory as it relates to "Origin" on their own faith.