Posted on 03/14/2006 9:29:54 PM PST by Michael_Michaelangelo
Edited on 03/15/2006 9:10:21 AM PST by Admin Moderator. [history]
As we watch the ongoing debate between intelligent design and Darwinism, we are learning why over 500 doctoral scientists have signed The Discovery Institute's "Scientific Dissent From Darwinism" statement. Slowly but surely, scientists are beginning to face the inadequacy of a long-held philosophy of science upon which Darwinism was founded.
Stephen Hawking once told a story about a scientist who was giving a public lecture on astronomy. As the scientist described what we know about the structure of the solar system, a woman at the back of the room spoke up and said, "What you have told us is rubbish. The world is really a flat plate supported on the back of a giant tortoise." The scientist asked the woman what the tortoise was standing on, and the woman's reply was, "It's turtles all the way down!"
Of course, we all know that from a scientific standpoint, the idea that Earth is perched atop a stack of large turtles is laughable for two rather obvious reasons. First, we've seen the Earth from space and indeed it is a sphere, and oddly enough, we can't see any turtles. Secondly, we recognize that this myth fails to explain where the turtles came from. We chuckle internally at the idea that someone could believe something so silly. The circular reasoning is so obvious that we wonder how any sane person could overlook it.
Everyone knows that there are more obese individuals in the United States than "normal" individuals. Thus FAT is right, and normal is abnormal. And the implications of these numbers are hardly surprising.
This is what I think of when you try to force religion into the realm of science. And that is what ID is doing.
On June 22 1633 Galileo was forced to kneel in front of the Roman Inquisition and recant his beliefs in the Copernican doctrine and the motion of the Earth. He was then sentenced to life imprisonment, which was almost immediately commuted to perpetual house arrest without visitors, ostensibly for having disobeyed a 1616 injunction by Cardinal Bellarmine "...not to defend or teach the Copernican doctrine...". Galileo's Dialogue was put on the Index of Prohibited Books, as well as Copernicus' De Revolutionibus and the books of Kepler dealing with planetary theory.
Galileo's sentence was upheld rather rigidly despites numerous appeals to the Inquisition and the Pope by Galileo himself, as well as numerous prominent scientists and statesmen in Italy and Europe. After Galileo became blind in 1637, the enforcement of his sentence was relaxed somewhat, and he was allowed to receive visitors for extended periods of time. In 1638 he completed yet another landmark work, Discourses on Two New Sciences provided the foundations for the modern science of mechanics. The manuscript was smuggled out of Italy and the book published in Holland.
Galileo died on the evening of January 8, 1642. The Roman ecclesiastic authorities vetoed the public funeral and honor planned by the Florentine state. His books, together with those of Copernicus and Kepler, were removed from the Index in 1835, and only in 1992 did the Roman catholic Church formally admitted to having erred in dealing with Galileo.
Scientists understand their fields better than "commerical artists."
Late night ping.
Ping
Thanks for the ping!
Zzzzz... Who was funding Copernicus' work? A bishop and a cardinal. Copernicus even dedicated one of his books to the pope, who he knew supported his work, in order to gain protection from many of the so-called Reformers who were opposed to his work.
Galileo's work went on through several papacies, without any papal or Church objections. In fact, Galileo was warmly received in Rome. He ran afoul of the Church when he demanded that the Church teach heliocentrism dogmatically.
The Church refused because the contemporary scientific evidence contradicted the theory. Even Galileo's purported evidence was flawed.
Finally, the condemnation of Galileo proceeded from a fallible Church tribunal, not unlike any other Church tribunal, like a marriage tribunal.
I think maybe a few dozen are Biologists working in a field relating to Evolution.
This is a miniscule percentage.
Furthermore, the wording of that statement which they signed is much lighter than what anyone here is espousing.
We are skeptical of claims for the ability of random mutation and natural selection to account for the complexity of life. Careful examination of the evidence for Darwinian theory should be encouraged.Heck, I could almost sign that. Aren't we always skeptical and aren't we always encouraging careful examination for all evidence of anything?
This manner of behavioral purloining is commonly known in credible research circles as plagiarism.
Add this trait now to the posting of lists of broken weblinks to nowhere which together form the core of what typifies the average FRevolutionist's research skills-set.
Stay "true," dude.
Actually what he lacked and you seem to also is a credible explanation or appreciation for the "cambrian explosion."
Even the noted Harvard paleontologist, Stephan J. Gould admitted:
"The extreme rarity of transitional forms in the fossil record persists as a trade secret of Paleontology. Evolutionary trees that adorn our textbooks have data only at the tips and nodes of their branches; the rest is inference, however reasonable, not the evidence of fossils." (Dr. Stephan J Gould, Harvard Paleontologist, "Evolution, Erratic Pace" Natural History, Vol. 5, May 1977, p. 14.)
"Paleontologists [fossil experts] have paid an exorbitant price for Darwin's argument. We fancy ourselves as the only true students of life's history, yet to preserve our favored account of evolution by natural selection we view our data as so bad that we almost never see the very process we profess to study." (Dr. Steven Jay Gould, The Panda's Thumb (1982), pp. 181-182)
"The absence of fossil evidence for intermediary stages between major transitions in organic design, indeed our inability, even in our imagination, to construct functional intermediates in many cases, has been a persistent and nagging problem for gradualist accounts of evolution." (Stephen Jay Gould, Professor of Geology and Paleontology, Harvard University, “Is a New and General Theory of Evolution Emerging?” Paleobiology, Vol. 6, No. 1, 1980, p. 127.)
Or as the world-famous evolutionist and senior Paleontologist at the British Museum of Natural History, Dr. Colin Patterson, noted:
"If I knew of any Evolutionary transitional's, fossil or living, I would certainly have included them in my book, 'Evolution' "
Enjoyed reading the article and found the author's logic sound. Of course, I'm a creationist and I have no problems with supernatural intervention.
I don't think we can ever expect traditional "scientists" to agree to consider anything but naturalistic explanations, because they want to be able to "test" hypotheses and reproduce evidence. God doesn't submit Himself for "testing", so they won't consider Him. The only proof of ID or Creationism are circumstantial evidences - God's handiwork. This is not acceptable evidence to "science" as it is currently practiced.
On a different note, I don't like using the terms "evolutionist" or "darwinist." These are polarizing terms and I can understand why they would make those that hold to evolutionary theory angry. As a creationist, I don't like being called a "fundie."
Therefore, I propose that since evolutionary theory (in its many forms) is the currently reigning paradigm and has been for some time. That folks here refer to those holding to evolutionary theory as "Traditional Scientists." Conversely, I think that creationists and proponents of ID should be refered to as either "Non-traditional Scientists" or "Dissenting Scientists." Of course, I don't expect anyone to buy my thoughts on proper names for the various groups.
That statement is an out and out lie.
Not one 'transitional' gap has been filled. Each new fossil that has been found has exposed yet more gaps that had not even been imagined. The gaps are widening, and the screams of the evolution promoters are becoming too shrill to tolerate.
And that means what?
The only connection between biology and evolution philosophy is the advertising that we pay for through our tax support of public indoctrination centers called universities.
It is the statisticians that hold the cards here, and they say that evolution didn't happen.
What I lacked was a credible explanation of or appreciation for the "cambrian explosion"
Actually I have a tremendous appreciation of the Cambrian explosian. Unfortunately, the fossil record leading into that event is extremely sparse, with only the Burgess Shale and the 15 million year older Chengjiang fauna, recording significant numbers for our study. The problem is that life before the Cambrian was not hard bodied or boned, and only the rarest circumstances made fossils, which are none to frequently made anyway.
Recent genetic studies and these two collections of fauna suggest that life goes back several billion years. Unfortunately, there we shall probably not find the transitional species. Nevertheless, significant numbers of finds of later species in the area of dinosaurs and whales, among others have been made in recent decades. The patterns of evolution are much more clearly established than they were 150 years ago.
It doesn't make sense to try to argue the point with references that are 24 to 29 years old, when I am discussing from references that are only 1 or 2 years old. The science in this area is moving very rapidly these days. I suggest you read the book I recommended, then if you wish you can send me a private message. It would not made much sense to have a discussion of energy production if one didn't know anything about atomic energy.
That's just frightening that you've been misled into believing that. I'm saddened that you've fallen victim to such misinformation.
It is the statisticians that hold the cards here, and they say that evolution didn't happen.
Not at all. Quite the opposite actually. Mathematicians (you're talking to one) seem to be one of the groups that can intuitively understand the mathematics behind small change over time and how that can add up to much bigger change.
Honestly, Mathematicians (and the subset of statisticians) laugh at the silly "odds" based arguments posed by IDers. They are childlike in their naivety and lack of adherence to common mathematical diligence.
Compare this trend to the trendline of the ID movement, which is 60 years older than "Origins" and has yet to suggest or complete its first research project.
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.