Skip to comments.Darwinist Ideologues Are on the Run
Posted on 01/30/2006 10:27:35 PM PST by Sweetjustusnow
The two scariest words in the English language? Intelligent Design! That phrase tends to produce a nasty rash and night sweats among our elitist class.
Should some impressionable teenager ever hear those words from a public school teacher, we are led to believe, that student may embrace a secular heresy: that some intelligent force or energy, maybe even a god, rather than Darwinian blind chance, has been responsible for the gazillions of magnificently designed life forms that populate our privileged planet.
On behalf of the Grand Master, I am,
If you want to try to claim those people are frauds, go right ahead, but few would agree with you.
...by removing Him as the cause.
Just as when you added the last part (above) to my post, it is your view of the theory which gives you problems, not the theory itself.
You are starting with the assumption that there is a God, that his is a creator, that he created, etc., etc. Fine. But that's just your belief. It isn't a fact; it isn't based on any data. It's just your belief. But when you start with that bias, you can't rightly complain when science looks at nature without that bias. The problem with the absence of the bias is you bringing it to the table in the first place.
You can't assume a premise for which there is no evidence, and complain when someone doesn't agree to that assumption. And that's what you're doing here.
Actually, there are a number of critters, even today, that sometimes reproduce sexually and sometimes asexually. The most commonly known is the paramecium, a one-celled animal that reproduces normally by fission. Sometimes, however, under crowded conditions, two paramecia get together and exchange genetic material to reproduce.
You can read all about it here:
Yes, I am. However, starting with the assumption that there is no God is just as wrong. Is it possible to restate the TOE without either assumption?
And it's backed by the US Constitution.
The Congress shall have Power...
To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries;
Art.I Sec.8 Cl.8
No scientific theory requires a god. Why single out evolution?
My reading comprehension is just fine, thank you. The point is that if we don't know everything about the human body (and we certainly don't) then perhaps the appendix has a function that we don't fully understand. You know, like the other "vestigals" that used to be cited by evolutionists. How does that list compare now as to say 100 years ago? Gee, the list is sure getting short. But don't let that stop you. Why not come up with something really silly like "hey, how about GOOSE BUMPS!"
Quick, why do you get goosebumps when you're cold or scared? Hint: It was functional back when our distant ancesters had fur. It's useless now that we have sparse fuzz on most of our skin.
Well, there we go, right on que. All you've done is repeat the addendix mistake which is a repeat of dozens of other mistakes. So God made all mammals with hair, the ability to get goose bumps. SO?! LOL But you, the wisest of all, KNOWS FOR A FACT that this function is completely useless in humans. Well, you'll have to excuse me if I don't take your word for it. With the evolutionary track record on these sort of things, it would be more logical to assume that you are wrong (again) than correct. So then what is the function of goose bumps in humans? Well, I'm surely not going to make the same mistake of those who claim to know the full extent of all bodily functions; however, I can easily consider at least one possibility. We get goose bumps when were cold, frightened, or experiencing other strong emotions. They are not under conscious control. Maybe, must maybe goose bumps are designed as a way of bringing to consciousness various stresses that need attention. In other words, goose bumps may assist in raising our consciousness of a serious situation. Maybe, must maybe, when you get goose bumps, your body is telling you something, and is working as designed.
Of course, if humans didn't get goose bumps, evolutionists would trumpet it as sure sign that evolution works and that that feature was "de-selected". You see, the evolutionists claim victory either way. If humans exhibit similarities to animals, they say "SEE!? EVOLUTION!". When humans don't share a certain trait with animals, they say "SEE!? EVOLUTION!".
Yes, we DO notice. ;-)
Actually the common yeast falls into this category also. There are very few microbes that don't have some sort of sexual cycle and acquiring it or losing it happens all the time.
Good article. Thanks for posting it. I'd like to get my hands on the piece in the February issue of Commentary.
Then you unequivocally reject much of modern science. Given that, why should we take seriously any scientific arguments you might make?
I may be wrong in some of the arguments I present. For all I know it is possible for the very beginning asexually-reproducing creatures to produce a sexually-reproducing creature. I wouldn't bet on it, though.
But then, you reject the ordinary, demonstrable-in-a-laboratory processes of radioactive decay. Why would we argue something as complex as sexual reprodcution with you, when you don't accept well defined, well understood, basic physics?
How so? IMO it addresses Wells' disinformation piece rather nicely.
The initial charge stands, even though the article tries to dance around it. Exposed bark is key to the study.
Which initial charge? That peppered moths never rest on tree trunks?
Well, that's not true. They do rest (occasionally) on tree trunks. They also rest (more often) on branches or twigs which are also covered with bark that in turn has also been darkened with a layer of sooth. And they don't have to rest on exposed bark in order to be seen by birds. If birds were that bad at detecting prey they'd have died out a long time ago.
However, it's also true that they can spot the light moths better than the dark ones which means that on average they eat more light moths than dark ones.
Those staged photos were only taken to illustrate the detectability of lighter and darker moths. The fact that those photos were staged doesn't change the fact that the lighter moths are better to spot than their darker brethren no matter where they rest.
I just chose the paramecium because there was such a nice web page explaining how it works.
Wait until someone brings up parthenogenesis and we get to discuss lizards that sometimes mate the two sexes, but mostly the female lizards reproduce with no need of males. Now that one often creates a real problem of understanding among people ignorant of the variety of animal reproductives strategies.
No, it's not. This is basic logic. The equation F=ma does not assume a god. It does not assume there is no god. The question of the existence of god is irrelevant to the truth of F=ma.
The facts in favor of evolution are often held to be incontrovertible; prominent biologists shake their heads at the obduracy of those who would dispute them. Those facts however, have been rather less forthcoming than evolutionary biologists might have hoped.By the way, our new word for the week is lacunae!
Biologists often affirm that as members of the scientific community they positively welcome criticism. Nonsense. Like everyone else, biologists loathe criticism and arrange their lives so as to avoid it. Criticism has nonetheless seeped into their souls, the process of doubt a curiously Darwinian one in which individual biologists entertain minor reservations about their theory without ever recognizing the degree to which these doubts mount up to a substantial deficit. Creationism, so often the target of their indignation is the least of their worries.
Unable to say WHAT evolution has accomplished, biologists now find themselves unable to say WHETHER evolution has accomplished it. This leaves evolutionary theory in the doubly d*amend position of having compromised the concepts needed to make sense of life complexity, adaptation, design while simultaneously conceding tha the theory does little to explain them.
Berlinski, David, The Deniable Darwin, Commentary, vol. 101 (June 1996), pp. 19-29)
|la·cu·na ( P ) Pronunciation Key (l-kyn)
n. pl. la·cu·nae (-n) or la·cu·nas
Yes, indeed, that's a good question. As far as I know the first who said: "Sire, je n'ai pas eu besoin de cette hypothèse." was Laplace, an astronomer ;-)
No, I don't. I may interpret it differently than you do, though.
But then, you reject the ordinary, demonstrable-in-a-laboratory processes of radioactive decay.
Yes, you do. Science is not art or literature, where matters of opinion and interpretation count.
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.