What Are The Darwinists Afraid Of?

The Post Chronicle | 8\07\05 | Patrick J Buchanan

[RepublicNewbie]

In the "Monkey Trial," 80 years ago, the issue was: Did John Scopes violate Tennessee law forbidding the teaching of evolution? Indeed he had. Scopes was convicted and fined $100.

But because a cheerleader press favored Clarence Darrow, the agnostic who defended Scopes, Christian fundamentalism -- and the reputation of William Jennings Bryan, who was put on the stand and made to defend the literal truth of every Bible story from Jonah and the whale to the six days of creation -- took a pounding.

[walden]

Agreed!

[CarolinaGuitarman]

"If you read my posts you would see that I have acknowleged it is fully within Popper's capacity and prerogative to change his mind. Frankly I don't care which direction. This quote does not make it clear."

It couldn't be more explicit. He used to think that Natural Selection, while being a fine and productive research program, was a tautology and didn't meet the requirements of a scientific theory. The quotes of him here clearly state he changed his mind about that, and came to believe that it was not a tautology. There is NO other interpretation of the quote. There was only ONE direction his position COULD change to, if it was going to change, and that was toward accepting Natural Selection as scientific. To say that it is uncertain what his position was is to willfully ignore the evidence, something which you are a master at.

Again, Popper's clear statement that he changed his mind about the testability and tautological status of Natural Selection,

"Influenced by what these authorities say, I have in the past described the theory as "almost tautological", and I have tried to explain how the theory of natural selection could be untestable (as is a tautology) and yet of great scientific interest. My solution was that the doctrine of natural selection is a most successful metaphysical research programme. It raises detailed problems in many fields, and it tells us what we would expect of an acceptable solution of these problems. I still believe that natural selection works this way as a research programme. Nevertheless, I have changed my mind about the testability and logical status of the theory of natural selection"

Only a creationist would argue Popper's mature position was that Natural Selection was not a scientific theory.

"Meanwhile you should understand that I hardly consider Karl Popper to be the sole spokesman for what does, or does not, constitute science. To the extent he embraces an "amoeba to man" history of the biosphere (if, in fact he even does) he is outside the bounds of science in the strict sense anyway, whether he realizes it or not."

Too late, you and your Creationist buddies have already claimed him as being the arbiter of science. That is why it is so important to distort what he said to fit your Bible Fantasy. Look at the way you butchered his quote above and tried making it say exactly what it didn't say.

That *Lying for the Lord* thing isn't going to well for you :)

[woodb01]

Please show me from where you get the notion that evolution is supposed to answer the origins of the universe.

---

If you can't explain where the raw material for the inputs to the "evolutionary process" come from, then you have no process. If you can't tell me how life started, and where its components came from, then you have no process to stand on.

What it comes down to is that evolution is the opiate for the atheists. It is their way to excuse their denial and rejection of god, and it is their religion.

No amount of proving atheism, er, I mean evolution wrong will ever satisfy the secular fundamentalist religion. Even when Christians are willing to engage in a diolog on the issue, the secular fundamentalists come out of the woodwork and shriek from the high heavens about how they refuse to prove one iota of their religious philosophy, but demand that ANYTHING that dares challenge it must be proven beyond any doubt at all...

This is the essence of religious zealotry and blind religious fundamentalism. Evolution is the opiate of the atheists...

By the way, if you have an incomplete process, including the inputs to that process, you have an unverifiable, and therefore unprovable process from a scientific perspective. You MUST at that point insert your suppositions and BELIEFS (i.e. secular fundamentalist religious beliefs) into the process or demand that you will not answer it. Either way there is no science involved, it is all superstition and blind religious faith...

The secular fundamentalist religion of evolution, the opiate for the atheists!

[Fester Chugabrew]

You can re-post Popper's statement as many times as you wish. It still is not clear where he stands.

[shuckmaster]

The origins of the universe is a different subject for a different topic. Evolution is the observable process through which an interbreeding population slowly changes over multiple generations. Darwin's theory of evolution is that when a population splits into two separate groups, the pressures of natural selection will cause the separated groups to change in different ways. You don't have to give up your religion to observe that. There's nothing in the bible that says you must be deliberately ignorant of this simple scientific process and it's an insult to religious people for you to dishonestly imply that they should.

[CarolinaGuitarman]

"You can re-post Popper's statement as many times as you wish. It still is not clear where he stands."

Right now he stands nowhere, he's been dead since 1994. As for where he stood in the decades before he died about Natural Selection, there is no amount of creationist lying that can change the fact that he did accept Natural Selection as a testable, logically non-tautological scientific theory, as the quote you have been shown explicitly states. Here is an even more explicit endorsement of evolution from Popper,

"Published:
POPPER, Karl, 1980. Evolution. New Scientist 87(1215):611.


“In the 17 July issue of New Scientist (p. 215) you published an article under the title “Popper: good philosophy, bad science?” by Dr Beverly Halstead. This article, it appears had two purposes:

1. To defend the scientific character of the theory of evolution, and of palaeontology. I fully support this purpose, and this letter will be almost exclusively devoted to the defence of the theory of evolution.

2. To attack me.

As to (2), I find this uninteresting and I shall not waste your space and my time in defending myself against what are in my opinion hardly excusable misunderstandings. and wild speculations about my motives and their alleged history.

Returning to (1), it does appear from your article (provided its quotation from Colin Patterson’s book – which I do not know – is not as misleading as your quotations from my book) that some people think that I have denied scientific character to the historical sciences, such as palaeontology, or the history of the evolution of life on Earth; or to say, the history of literature, or of technology, or of science.

This is a mistake, and I here wish to affirm that these and other historical sciences have in my opinion scientific character: their hypotheses can in many cases be tested.

It appears as if some people would think that the historical sciences are untestable because they describe unique events. However, the description of unique events can very often be tested by deriving from them testable predictions or retrodictions.

Karl Popper Penn”


Reference

HALSTEAD, Beverly, 1980. Popper: good philosophy, bad science? New Scientist 87(1210):215-217.


This page:

POPPER, Karl, 2000. [Letter on] Evolution. [A reply to Halstead, 1980]. Available on the internet: http://www.geocities.com/geocities/9468/popper80.htm. 14 April 2000 (publication). First published: New Scientist 87(1215):611, 21 Aug. 1980."

Lie that one away.

[PatrickHenry]

P L A C E M A R K E R

[Revolting cat!]

"The Truth! You can't handle the truth!"

[Fester Chugabrew]

Yet more quotes from Popper that do not clarify his stand as to the nature and extent of evolutionist teaching. Interestly, he had to deal with attacks on his person at the same time. Whatever. He shifted in his opinions as he was entitled to do and as he would be inclined to do since he had no anchor other than his own reason and experience.

[Trimegistus]

In the News/Activism forum, on a thread titled What Are The Darwinists Afraid Of?, bvw wrote:

"You are right. The statement "You are a liar ... Hell for it" is factually untrue. It is most curious that you brought it up."

And now you're lying _again_. _Another_ thousand years in boiling sulfur just to score cheap debating points on an Internet forum.

[woodb01]

The origins of the universe is a different subject for a different topic. Evolution is the observable process through which an interbreeding population slowly changes over multiple generations.

---

How very convenient to simply omit the basis and foundations of the secular fundamentalist religious beliefs in evolution...

But then again, the origins of life are a pre-requisite to a belief in atheism, er, I mean evolution. How did the first one-celled entity come about? What were the raw materials for its formation? No matter how many "accidents" occurred to bring it about, where did the material come from?

Secular fundamentalists ALWAYS ignore the very basic issue of where did the material for their foundation of sand come from? However it is understandable that this would be ignored because it demonstrates just how preposterous the whole issue of evolution truly is.

In other words, why do the secular fundamentalists so vehemently attack intelligent design? ID answers the questions to the origins of the raw material that evolution is unable to ever answer. Therefore evolution is based on religious presuppositions and superstition...

Evolution is a science FRAUD! It's a classic used car salesman's "just trust me" when it comes to its sources.

Evolution, the opiate for atheists and the biggest hoax and fraud ever perpetrated on the Western World in History...

[CarolinaGuitarman]

"Yet more quotes from Popper that do not clarify his stand as to the nature and extent of evolutionist teaching"

His stating that it is both testable and scientific isn't clear enough?

"This is a mistake, and I here wish to affirm that these and other historical sciences have in my opinion scientific character: their hypotheses can in many cases be tested.

It appears as if some people would think that the historical sciences are untestable because they describe unique events. However, the description of unique events can very often be tested by deriving from them testable predictions or retrodictions." (KP)

It doesn't get any more explicit than that. You just can't handle it, it bursts a creationist bubble. Creationists like to twist a few quotes from legitimate scientists and philosophers of science to buttress their pathetic ideas. Popper is one of the clearest examples where they have refused to acknowledge his mature opinion about evolutionary theory. I just gave you the clearest, plainest English statements from Popper showing that he accepts evolution as a testable science, and all you can do is keep repeating your disproved assertion that it *Doesn't clarify his stand as the nature and extent of evolutionary teaching*. You need to stop chugging those pints and stop *Lying for the Lord*.

[bvw]

Such a coherent discourse! Not.

[Fester Chugabrew]

I just gave you the clearest, plainest English statements from Popper showing that he accepts evolution as a testable science . . .

Congratulations. What you did not give is any statements showing how far Popper would admit such testing, and whether it is supportive of an "amoeba-to-man" evolution in the wide sense, or is a means of generally discerning the course of history. Besides, I am not one to count Karl Popper as the final word in what does, or does not, constitute science, just as I do not count you capable of discerning the difference between reasonable conjecture and direct observation, or discerning the difference between science and philosophy.

[Fester Chugabrew]

. . . these and other historical sciences have in my opinion scientific character: their hypotheses can in many cases be tested.

Leaves a loophole or two, doesn't he? What does he mean by "scientific character?" I'll be the first to admit evolutionism has "scientific character." How else is one going to slip philosophy into the science room without notice? What does he mean by "many cases?" How many? Most? Who knows? I can rest assured you do not.

[eleni121]

Darwin is dead...Jesus is alive.

Darwinism/evolution is an absolutely useless science...except for those who make money on it and the anti Christians.

[Just mythoughts]

"Darwinism/evolution is an absolutely useless science...except for those who make money on it and the anti Christians."


When one follows the money, it is the US taxpayer that funds evolution. Some religions are protected and funded at the taxpayer expense.

[shuckmaster]

How very convenient to simply omit the basis and foundations of the secular fundamentalist religious beliefs in evolution...

Your ignorant and idiotic presumption that evolution is a fundamentalist religious belief is an extremely bizarre fundamentalist religious belief and as such merits no further intelligent discussion.

[jwalsh07]

He wanted to know where the "stuff" in the Universe came from, and I've provided the scientific answer.

No you didn't. Not even close.

[Quix]

1) They are afraid of someone bigger than them . . . i. e. God

2) Especially obedience to Him

3) Especially putting and end to their control freak and sexual acting out escapades . . . the latter, as Huxley had the integrity to admit.

And, as Joshn McDowell has discovered repeatedly, when he challenges them with the question--

IF I COULD PROVE BEYOND A REASONABLE DOUBT THAT JESUS CHRIST WAS LORD OF LORDS AND KING OF KINGS, WOULD YOU FOLLOW HIM?

They usually instantly and fiercely insist NO!

That's the issue--REBELLION and IDOLATRY of THEMSELVES and their hedonistic impulses they are slaves to.