Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Why Darwin's still a scientific hotshot (Nobel laureate James D. Watson on Darwin and his influence)
LA Times Calendar Live.com ^ | September 18, 2005 | James D. Watson

Posted on 09/19/2005 3:24:26 AM PDT by snarks_when_bored

Edited on 09/19/2005 3:36:21 AM PDT by Sidebar Moderator. [history]

Why Darwin's still a scientific hotshot


By James D. Watson

September 18, 2005

Editor's Note:
"Nobel laureate James D. Watson, co-discoverer of the molecular structure of DNA, has edited and provided commentary for a new anthology of Charles Darwin's four major books, collected in one volume by Running Press. Watson's essay introducing "Darwin: The Indelible Stamp: The Evolution of an Idea" is excerpted here.


I first became aware of Charles Darwin and evolution while still a schoolboy growing up in Chicago. My father and I had a passion for bird-watching and when the snow or the rain kept me indoors, I read his bird books and learned about evolution. We also used to frequent the great Field Museum of Natural History, and my fragmentary knowledge of evolution helped guide me through the myriad specimens in the museum. It is extraordinary the extent to which Darwin's insights not only changed his contemporaries' view of the world but also continue to be a source of great intellectual stimulation for scientists and nonscientists alike. His "On the Origin of Species" was rightly praised by biologist Thomas Henry Huxley as " … the most potent instrument for the extension of the realm of natural knowledge which has come into men's hands since the publication of Newton's "Principia."

When Darwin returned from his five-year voyage aboard the H.M.S. Beagle, he turned over his various collections to experts on birds, beetles, mollusks and the like. John Gould was Darwin's bird expert. Darwin was surprised to learn from him that the finches he had collected on the Galapagos Islands closely resembled similar birds on the South American continent some 600 miles away, yet the finches of one island were different from those of the other islands…"

Excerpt. Story follows: Los Angeles Times


TOPICS: Culture/Society; Extended News; Miscellaneous; Philosophy
KEYWORDS: crevolist; darwin; dna; evolution; jamesdwatson
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-100101-150151-200201-209 next last
As usual, Watson pulls no punches.
1 posted on 09/19/2005 3:24:27 AM PDT by snarks_when_bored
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: RadioAstronomer; longshadow; grey_whiskers; headsonpikes; Iris7; PatrickHenry

Ping


2 posted on 09/19/2005 3:25:50 AM PDT by snarks_when_bored
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: snarks_when_bored

"Evolution is a law (with several components) that is as well substantiated as any other natural law, whether the law of gravity, the laws of motion or Avogadro's law. Evolution is a fact, disputed only by those who choose to ignore the evidence, put their common sense on hold and believe instead that unchanging knowledge and wisdom can be reached only by revelation."

All created by the mind of man. So naturalistic and materialistic.


3 posted on 09/19/2005 3:27:50 AM PDT by Just mythoughts
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: VadeRetro; Junior; longshadow; RadioAstronomer; Doctor Stochastic; js1138; Shryke; RightWhale; ...
EvolutionPing
A pro-evolution science list with over 300 names.
See the list's explanation at my freeper homepage.
Then FReepmail to be added or dropped.

4 posted on 09/19/2005 3:37:29 AM PDT by PatrickHenry (Disclaimer -- this information may be legally false in Kansas.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Just mythoughts
All created by the mind of man.

I'll grant you that the study of evolution is created by the mind of man (at least on this planet). But the fact of evolution, as Watson describes it, is most definitely not created by the mind of man (unless you wish to defend some form of subjective idealism or even solipsism).

5 posted on 09/19/2005 3:39:09 AM PDT by snarks_when_bored
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: snarks_when_bored
that is as well substantiated as any other natural law, whether the law of gravity

That's fine but sometimes laws change.

6 posted on 09/19/2005 3:40:07 AM PDT by bkepley
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: snarks_when_bored
This has now been excerpted. All material originating from the Los Angeles Times needs to be excerpted and linked.

Updated FR Excerpt and Link Only or Deny Posting List due to Copyright Complaints

Thanks.
7 posted on 09/19/2005 3:43:47 AM PDT by Sidebar Moderator
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: snarks_when_bored
"I'll grant you that the study of evolution is created by the mind of man (at least on this planet). But the fact of evolution, as Watson describes it, is most definitely not created by the mind of man (unless you wish to defend some form of subjective idealism or even solipsism)."


Who do you give credit for the "fact" of evolution??? Who established the boundaries and the parameters of what is called evolution???
8 posted on 09/19/2005 3:43:56 AM PDT by Just mythoughts
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: snarks_when_bored
as well substantiated as any other natural law, whether the law of gravity, the laws of motion or Avogadro's law

Any chemist can go in the lab and demonstrate Avogadro's law. Has any evolutionist ever demonstrated macro-evolution under controlled circumstances? Of course not.

9 posted on 09/19/2005 3:44:28 AM PDT by ClearCase_guy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: bkepley

Well-established laws in science rarely change; rather, they are superseded by laws which take account of a wider (or more extreme) range of phenomena. Contrast the range of applicability of Newton's inverse square law of gravity with Einstein's general relativistic theory of gravity. You can send a rocket around the moon and back using Newton's law and not be off by much; but if you want to understand what happens around a neutron star or a black hole, say, Einstein's theory is essential.


10 posted on 09/19/2005 3:47:26 AM PDT by snarks_when_bored
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: Sidebar Moderator
Thanks, and very sorry for the faux pas!
11 posted on 09/19/2005 3:50:05 AM PDT by snarks_when_bored
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: Just mythoughts
Who do you give credit for the "fact" of evolution??? Who established the boundaries and the parameters of what is called evolution???

Reality.

12 posted on 09/19/2005 3:52:35 AM PDT by Skylab
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: Just mythoughts
"I'll grant you that the study of evolution is created by the mind of man (at least on this planet). But the fact of evolution, as Watson describes it, is most definitely not created by the mind of man (unless you wish to defend some form of subjective idealism or even solipsism)."

Who do you give credit for the "fact" of evolution??? Who established the boundaries and the parameters of what is called evolution???

You're asking the wrong question, I think. Asking for a 'who' in this context is mistaken. Not everything that happens happens as a result of some conscious, directing agency.

13 posted on 09/19/2005 3:53:36 AM PDT by snarks_when_bored
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: snarks_when_bored
"With some variations, this code is the same for viruses, bacteria, worms, human beings, beetles, mice and slugs."

Interesting. And just where in the world did the complicated code come from? Did this complex molecule just pop into existence all by itself?
14 posted on 09/19/2005 3:53:37 AM PDT by Ninian Dryhope
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: snarks_when_bored

And then there's Aristotle. How many years did people depend on his laws?


15 posted on 09/19/2005 3:54:13 AM PDT by bkepley
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: bkepley
"law of gravity"

Didn't Newton come up with the law of gravity? Since we have known about gravity so long, what exactly is the nature of gravity? I understand the relationship between mass and distance and all, but why is there gravity? How does it work? I do not think the best minds have been able to reconcile gravity with the forces in a unified theory have they?
16 posted on 09/19/2005 3:57:22 AM PDT by Ninian Dryhope
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: bkepley
And then there's Aristotle. How many years did people depend on his laws?

The key here is that Aristotle, as brilliant as he was, had no conception of empirical science as practiced since the late 15th century or so in the West. His results were arrived at by some observation, yes, but his theoretical conceptions were spun out of his reason and were not subject to empirical test.

So I'll point out that in my previous reply to you I wrote: "Well-established laws in science..."

17 posted on 09/19/2005 3:58:07 AM PDT by snarks_when_bored
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: snarks_when_bored
"You're asking the wrong question, I think. Asking for a 'who' in this context is mistaken. Not everything that happens happens as a result of some conscious, directing agency."

When did science become about the right or wrong question?

Whose law is it that "not everything that happens happens as a result of some conscious, directing agency".

Doesn't this mean that life is a lottery or a bad accident depending on the status of ones life???
18 posted on 09/19/2005 3:59:51 AM PDT by Just mythoughts
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: Ninian Dryhope
"With some variations, this code is the same for viruses, bacteria, worms, human beings, beetles, mice and slugs."

Interesting. And just where in the world did the complicated code come from? Did this complex molecule just pop into existence all by itself?

Uh, yes...but not all at once. 4 billion years is a very, very, very long time.

19 posted on 09/19/2005 4:00:43 AM PDT by snarks_when_bored
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: snarks_when_bored

"Not everything that happens happens as a result of some conscious, directing agency."

Your statement seems to admit that some things that happen, happen as a result of some conscious, directing agency. Or did you really mean that nothing happens as a result of some conscious, directing agency?


20 posted on 09/19/2005 4:01:51 AM PDT by Ninian Dryhope
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: snarks_when_bored
I've read up a lot on the creation/evolution debate over the past couple years and determined that evolution is the biggest heap of garbage ever perpetrated on us. I don't want to get in to a whole debate here, because it's been done to death... but I would like to give folks a couple links... I've read tons of stuff, but a few months ago, found this blog... it's not your normal blog with trackbacks, comments, ads, etc.. just check it out you'll see what I mean. Anyway, this is an awesome daily reader... and all but completely stays away from saying anything "religious" other than occasionally pointing out how Darwinists are far more religious and have to leave a lot to their faith to believe their crap, which is why they constantly assume so much.

Anyway, I don't want to ramble, but check this site out... Highly researched and scientific with great commentary on articles.
http://creationsafaris.com/crevnews.htm

Another site is this one http://answersingenesis.org/ that is more toward the "mission" side of things, but one of the biggest creationist organizations, and because of this they have a lot of good information... but it's not a blog-style site with daily updates the way the other site is, which I prefer.. I've gotten to the point where it's one of the first pages I view every day.
21 posted on 09/19/2005 4:02:35 AM PDT by rabair (Religion of Peace Strikes Again.... Sprinkling Peace Shrapnel All Over the World!")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: snarks_when_bored
"On the Origin of Species By Means of Natural Selection or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle For Life"

As it most assuredly will always struggle for life, I think we should always preserve the less favoured title of Darwin's work.

22 posted on 09/19/2005 4:03:20 AM PDT by Mobilemitter (We must learn to fin >-)> for ourselves..........)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: rabair

How many books have you read that were written by evolutionists?


23 posted on 09/19/2005 4:05:41 AM PDT by Skylab
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: snarks_when_bored
"Uh, yes...but not all at once."

Then why do even very simple forms of life such as viruses and bacteria use the same complex code? Shouldn't there be some earlier, simpler forms of the code still extant?
24 posted on 09/19/2005 4:05:42 AM PDT by Ninian Dryhope
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: snarks_when_bored

"Well-established laws in science..."

What bugs me is the complete ignorance scientists have of what history does to popular thinking. It could be that the science we are doing today will be fully accepted two thousand years from now (if we last that long), but it's also possible (in my opinion) that the science of today will seem to be amusingly prejudiced and conceited.


25 posted on 09/19/2005 4:05:59 AM PDT by bkepley
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: Ninian Dryhope
"Not everything that happens happens as a result of some conscious, directing agency."

Your statement seems to admit that some things that happen, happen as a result of some conscious, directing agency. Or did you really mean that nothing happens as a result of some conscious, directing agency?

A careful reader...excellent. What I'm writing to you now is appearing as a result of my conscious, directing agency (ignoring all of the technical conditions that have to be satisfied as well, of course). So, indeed, some things that happen happen as a result of conscious, directing agency.

26 posted on 09/19/2005 4:09:28 AM PDT by snarks_when_bored
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: snarks_when_bored
"..Evolution is a law (with several components) that is as well substantiated as any other natural law, whether the law of gravity, the laws of motion or Avogadro's law. Evolution is a fact, disputed only by those who choose to ignore the evidence, put their common sense on hold and believe instead that unchanging knowledge and wisdom can be reached only by revelation." There you go.....'nuff said.
27 posted on 09/19/2005 4:10:39 AM PDT by Vaquero ("From my dead cold hands")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Ninian Dryhope
"Uh, yes...but not all at once."

Then why do even very simple forms of life such as viruses and bacteria use the same complex code? Shouldn't there be some earlier, simpler forms of the code still extant?

Those forms have disappeared, victims of adverse circumstances to which they could not stand up. What we see now (and in the fossil record, such as it is) are the winners (at least for a time). It seems that a certain degree of complexity in their molecular structure is required for types of organisms to persist over long periods of time.

28 posted on 09/19/2005 4:12:39 AM PDT by snarks_when_bored
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: bkepley
What bugs me is the complete ignorance scientists have of what history does to popular thinking. It could be that the science we are doing today will be fully accepted two thousand years from now (if we last that long), but it's also possible (in my opinion) that the science of today will seem to be amusingly prejudiced and conceited.

I also said 'rarely' in what I wrote to you earlier. But, even so, unless the cosmos changes its current structure fairly drastically, no foreseeable future science is going to find that Newton's law of gravity doesn't do a fairly decent job of predicting how freely falling objects in a fairly weak gravitational field behave. Similarly, as Feynman wrote somewhere, in 40,000 years the only thing that will be remembered from the 19th century on Earth (if there's anybody around to remember, that is) will be Maxwell's theory of electromagnetism, which, again, is a quite accurate theory of how electricity and magnetism behave so long as the energies aren't too large and the distances over which the interactions take place aren't too short.

You must remember that the scientific method is a very young thing (a few centuries old). And yet, even in its short period of existence, it has produced remarkable results. Not that there's not more to know, of course...

29 posted on 09/19/2005 4:18:30 AM PDT by snarks_when_bored
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: Just mythoughts

If the guy says it is scientific, why is he romantic about Darwin and don't show facts and logic? The author is talking about Darwinism, an ideology, he is not talking about Darwin and the science itself.

This is the big cult of repent to entitled scientists indoctrination trick.

And as for criticizing revelation, what does this have to do with Darwin? God is a revealed person. We know Him because we know what He will do. Science is about knowing what happened in the past and projecting it in the future into gizmos. They are two different independent concepts which do not necessarily exclude each other.

The author is not promoting science but a cult of repent to the likes of him, and he cannot see that coz he does not know God nor himself and his own unethical conflict of interests to discuss the matter.

In other words, those who do not trust him are liberaly labeled and "romanticized" as people needing some form of mental incarceration he himself in fact needs and is blackmailing sensical good people against.


30 posted on 09/19/2005 4:28:16 AM PDT by JudgemAll (Condemn me, make me naked and kill me, or be silent for ever on my gun ownership and law enforcement)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: rabair
Since you're sure that evolution is garbage, perhaps you'll respond to my request on two other threads for a creationist/intelligent design solution to the so-called 'biogeography problem'. (BTW, I notice that in his second paragraph, Watson alludes to precisely that problem.) To my mind, it's the knock-down argument against any notion of special creation or intelligent design placement of organisms on this planet. Here are the links:

The biogeography problem (post #95)

The IDist trilemma with respect to the biogeography problem (post #98)

Another request for a response to the biogeography problem

I look forward to your reply (just as I looked forward to Dave's reply, which I never got).

31 posted on 09/19/2005 4:34:42 AM PDT by snarks_when_bored
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: bkepley

Indeed, there is no absolutely well established scientific discovery, just tentative approximate models. If we go into absolute we go into cult of repent and godhood.

Let us remember that there's no free lunch, and they treatscience as an emancipating free lunch. So long man is paranoid and does not trust the future actions of fellow man, such science will be used to iron that problem out.

Christ showed wondrous signs but warned those who had the "science" that crucifiction was the other side of that coin. It just does not take accepted gifts but hard work with people to manage those gifts.

What will these blackmailed scientists do or care for when nuke war occurs as a result of evolution. Mankind could very well be on a path to extinction as we know it, evolution be damned.


32 posted on 09/19/2005 4:35:01 AM PDT by JudgemAll (Condemn me, make me naked and kill me, or be silent for ever on my gun ownership and law enforcement)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: snarks_when_bored

The sensationalist liberal LA times mixes again politics, liberal cults of repent and science again using a misguided "entitled" Nobel prize "genius".

Evolution was meant to show the unsensational sensationalism of God's creation. It does take time and faith to grow a flower and make bees "evolve". Scientists retort against the religiously wise with sensationalist be all end all god theories, which really defeat the purpose of the humble "growth" of the animal kingdom. Man becomes a sensationalist artistic animal as opposed to a regular sensing one. He also is superadaptive as he can compute and engineer his own survival in environments which are not good for any animal (eg. living on the moon). Puting man under the yoke of evolution is basicaly an exercise in castration. This bodes ill if we do not note the quantum like leaps of man from animals.


33 posted on 09/19/2005 4:43:58 AM PDT by JudgemAll (Condemn me, make me naked and kill me, or be silent for ever on my gun ownership and law enforcement)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: JudgemAll
"If the guy says it is scientific, why is he romantic about Darwin and don't show facts and logic? The author is talking about Darwinism, an ideology, he is not talking about Darwin and the science itself."

Could it be that Darwin is a "god"?

"This is the big cult of repent to entitled scientists indoctrination trick. "

Could it be the base of the entitlement era??

"And as for criticizing revelation, what does this have to do with Darwin? God is a revealed person. We know Him because we know what He will do. Science is about knowing what happened in the past and projecting it in the future into gizmos. They are two different independent concepts which do not necessarily exclude each other."

One cannot ignore at its base evolution rejects the Creator, thus they are 'gods'.

"The author is not promoting science but a cult of repent to the likes of him, and he cannot see that coz he does not know God nor himself and his own unethical conflict of interests to discuss the matter.

In other words, those who do not trust him are liberaly labeled and "romanticized" as people needing some form of mental incarceration he himself in fact needs and is blackmailing sensical good people against."


Well there is at least one word from Genesis the evolutionists do adhere to and use liberally and that word is "DOMINION". Seems there is a connection in how this word evolution is applied not only to the flesh body but to the mind, those liberals do call the Constitution a living evolving document.
34 posted on 09/19/2005 4:44:58 AM PDT by Just mythoughts
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: Just mythoughts
"You're asking the wrong question, I think. Asking for a 'who' in this context is mistaken. Not everything that happens happens as a result of some conscious, directing agency."

When did science become about the right or wrong question?

Whose law is it that "not everything that happens happens as a result of some conscious, directing agency".

Doesn't this mean that life is a lottery or a bad accident depending on the status of ones life???

On your first question: Science is always about asking the right question. When a problem finally gets posed in a way that makes it amenable to study, progress usually follows. Until it does, little progress is made. (Case in point: When Galileo started asking how long does it take freely falling objects to traverse fixed distances rather than why do falling objects fall, he discovered the constant acceleration of gravity and brought modern physics into existence.)

On your second question: it's not a law, it's an observation.

On your third question: Uh, pretty much so.

35 posted on 09/19/2005 4:47:05 AM PDT by snarks_when_bored
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: snarks_when_bored

What is the punishment for one who disobeys the law of evolution?


36 posted on 09/19/2005 4:48:47 AM PDT by Just mythoughts
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: Skylab

Mankind would not survive "reality".

Reality is like enduring nuclear war and other man made and "natural" cataclisms. It cannot be done without a faith, miracles and spirit.

I always laugh at bourgeois liberal people talking about reality from the blessed comforts of their armchairs. Such romantics who do not want to admit that a love muscle or wondrous theory can be used to make oneself puke guts.


37 posted on 09/19/2005 4:52:19 AM PDT by JudgemAll (Condemn me, make me naked and kill me, or be silent for ever on my gun ownership and law enforcement)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: Just mythoughts

Punsihment for disobeying laws of evolution is the Nobel Prize. This gifted scientist sees himself eroneously as the present day appogee of evolution.


38 posted on 09/19/2005 4:54:57 AM PDT by JudgemAll (Condemn me, make me naked and kill me, or be silent for ever on my gun ownership and law enforcement)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

To: JudgemAll
"Punsihment for disobeying laws of evolution is the Nobel Prize. This gifted scientist sees himself eroneously as the present day appogee of evolution."


I don't know about this, seems as though the Nobel Prize is given to the adherents of the law of evolution. I want to know what their punishment is for breaking it, could it be to decree an unfitness, like maybe a weak mind, mental instability.
39 posted on 09/19/2005 4:59:57 AM PDT by Just mythoughts
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies]

To: JudgemAll
"Mankind would not survive "reality".


It has worked well so far. Reality, BTW, doesn't need quotes.

"It cannot be done without a faith, miracles and spirit."

Nonsense. It can't be done for long with a mystical epistemology.

" Such romantics who do not want to admit that a love muscle or wondrous theory can be used to make oneself puke guts"

So much for eating my breakfast.
40 posted on 09/19/2005 5:01:57 AM PDT by CarolinaGuitarman ("There is a grandeur in this view of life...")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]

To: Just mythoughts
What is the punishment for one who disobeys the law of evolution?
(laughing) Thanks for a good chuckle early in the morning!
41 posted on 09/19/2005 5:05:46 AM PDT by snarks_when_bored
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

To: Just mythoughts

StPaul talked about us needing to match the faith of the working ant. Jesus talked about the quasi-static growth of a plant when talking of growing spirit and spreading the word or doing anything.

So, obviously the Bible does hint at evolution, but with faith and a Creator stilting patiently and wisely those things in His own ways. Evolution by itself is Babelian miscommunication or the type of butchery that occured as a result of wanting to be as gods, blackmailing God's love.



Well there is at least one word from Genesis the evolutionists do adhere to and use liberally and that word is "DOMINION". Seems there is a connection in how this word evolution is applied not only to the flesh body but to the mind, those liberals do call the Constitution a living evolving document


They treat the constitution as if man or the world evolved in such virtues that it did not need "backward stoneage" guidelines. Truth is different. Modernity has created more savagery than ever in man and the constitutions and the founders had predicted that democracy would be used and confused into a tool to recruit troops to a party promising free loot and rape to adherants. The muslim Turks used this technique to democraticaly motivate troop invasions of Europe saying raping infidels was good thing.

Those for the "evolving constitution" constantly ignore the predictions and valid disclaimers of the Founding Fathers, and instead reject them and bring their own progressist disclaimers. God provided for many disclaimers to whatever covenant that are still valid ages later. These people are into another cult which wants to avoid these, yet claiming to be part of a "disclaimant" group, which they are not. They are part of a "no disclaimer" progressism group on looting for political gain - threats, terrorism and blackmail, that is, in nicely worded accademic "higher" language.


42 posted on 09/19/2005 5:10:21 AM PDT by JudgemAll (Condemn me, make me naked and kill me, or be silent for ever on my gun ownership and law enforcement)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: rabair
I've read up a lot on the creation/evolution debate over the past couple years and determined that evolution is the biggest heap of garbage ever perpetrated on us.

Well, lets see, on the one hand we have James Watson, discoverer of the double-helix, probably the most famous biologist who ever lived (after Darwin), who says Evolution is a fact, disputed only by those who choose to ignore the evidence, put their common sense on hold and believe instead that unchanging knowledge and wisdom can be reached only by revelation . And there thirty other Noble prizewinners who just wrote to the Kansas School Board to say the same thing.

And we have some J. Random Bozo on the Internet who says that he's found a blog that says it's all wrong.

Who has more credibility? Hmmmm...?

43 posted on 09/19/2005 5:18:27 AM PDT by Right Wing Professor
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: Just mythoughts
seems as though the Nobel Prize is given to the adherents of the law of evolution

But (as has been pointed out in these threads before) anyone who could present a scientific alternative to Darwin's basic model of evolution, which better explained all of the available data, made more accurate predictions, and was equally in accord with findings of all other sciences--that man or woman would scoop up a Nobel and a place in the history of science faster than you could say 'allele'

With respect, it is simply wrong to insist that science holds up Darwinism in the way that religions maintain dogmas. Anyone with better evidence meeting good empirical standards can knock Darwin off his perch: it hasn't happened yet. And really, refuting (as opposed to refining) the basic Darwinian model looks as likely as someone 'proving' that the earth is flat

44 posted on 09/19/2005 5:18:58 AM PDT by SeaLion ("Belief in a cruel God makes a cruel man" -- Thomas Paine)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies]

To: Just mythoughts

I want to know what their punishment is for breaking it, could it be to decree an unfitness, like maybe a weak mind, mental instability.



That's what I believe. A cult behavior is one which destroys free speech and coerces people into some form of repent program under medical guise. The attacks on those believing or merely contemplating the Bible have widespread political correctness blackmail potential. They can do anything to anyone if they show their faithful adhesion, and not merely by lipservice pledging to it, but actualy persecuting others. Woe to the one appealing for restraint in such persecutions. The romanticizing of the importance of the doctrine knows no bound.


45 posted on 09/19/2005 5:20:31 AM PDT by JudgemAll (Condemn me, make me naked and kill me, or be silent for ever on my gun ownership and law enforcement)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies]

To: Just mythoughts

I want to know what their punishment is for breaking it, could it be to decree an unfitness, like maybe a weak mind, mental instability.



That's what I believe. A cult behavior is one which destroys free speech and coerces people into some form of repent program under medical guise. The attacks on those believing or merely contemplating the Bible have widespread political correctness blackmail potential. They can do anything to anyone if they show their faithful adhesion, and not merely by lipservice pledging to it, but actualy persecuting others. Woe to the one appealing for restraint in such persecutions. The romanticizing of the importance of the doctrine knows no bound.


46 posted on 09/19/2005 5:20:52 AM PDT by JudgemAll (Condemn me, make me naked and kill me, or be silent for ever on my gun ownership and law enforcement)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies]

To: JudgemAll; PatrickHenry
Puting man under the yoke of evolution is basicaly an exercise in castration.

BWAHAHAHA!

Creationism as castration anxiety! Hilarious.

Submitted to PatrickHenry for the 'This is your Mind on Creationism' list.

47 posted on 09/19/2005 5:23:31 AM PDT by Right Wing Professor
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: Right Wing Professor

Not the believer's castration anxiety, the Darwinists'. There is a reason for things like bulimia and anorexia in our oh so evolved spece. People tend to replace a lack of potency with accumulation of things like degrees which "empower" them "independently".

Strange thing is that Darwinists contradict themselves by being against things like "overpopulation" or means of being "fruitful and multiplying".


48 posted on 09/19/2005 5:29:57 AM PDT by JudgemAll (Condemn me, make me naked and kill me, or be silent for ever on my gun ownership and law enforcement)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 47 | View Replies]

To: Right Wing Professor

Creationism as castration anxiety! Hilarious.
-----
Why make your problem my problem?

I never mentioned creationism or other sensationalizing things. You obviously have no clue and do not read, prefering instead to blackmail people into ridicule.

You have a problem, not me. That was my point on castration.


49 posted on 09/19/2005 5:32:25 AM PDT by JudgemAll (Condemn me, make me naked and kill me, or be silent for ever on my gun ownership and law enforcement)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 47 | View Replies]

To: rabair

This is indeed the big confusion: Darwin, or science, is not Darwinism.

The former are thesis requiring antithesis or fine tuning, the latter is a political cult of repent.


50 posted on 09/19/2005 5:36:49 AM PDT by JudgemAll (Condemn me, make me naked and kill me, or be silent for ever on my gun ownership and law enforcement)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-100101-150151-200201-209 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson