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

Skip to comments.

Why Darwinism Is Doomed
WorldNetDaily ^ | 09/27/2006 | Jonathan Wells

Posted on 09/27/2006 9:56:09 AM PDT by SirLinksalot

Why Darwinism is doomed

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Posted: September 27, 2006 1:00 a.m. Eastern

By Jonathan Wells, Ph.D.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

© 2006

Harvard evolutionary biologist Stephen Jay Gould wrote in 1977: "Biology took away our status as paragons created in the image of God." Darwinism teaches that we are accidental byproducts of purposeless natural processes that had no need for God, and this anti-religious dogma enjoys a taxpayer-funded monopoly in America's public schools and universities. Teachers who dare to question it openly have in many cases lost their jobs.

The issue here is not "evolution" – a broad term that can mean simply change within existing species (which no one doubts). The issue is Darwinism – which claims that all living things are descended from a common ancestor, modified by natural selection acting on random genetic mutations.

According to Darwinists, there is such overwhelming evidence for their view that it should be considered a fact. Yet to the Darwinists' dismay, at least three-quarters of the American people – citizens of the most scientifically advanced country in history – reject it.

A study published Aug. 11 in the pro-Darwin magazine Science attributes this primarily to biblical fundamentalism, even though polls have consistently shown that half of the Americans who reject Darwinism are not biblical fundamentalists. Could it be that the American people are skeptical of Darwinism because they're smarter than Darwinists think?

On Aug. 17, the pro-Darwin magazine Nature reported that scientists had just found the "brain evolution gene." There is circumstantial evidence that this gene may be involved in brain development in embryos, and it is surprisingly different in humans and chimpanzees. According to Nature, the gene may thus harbor "the secret of what makes humans different from our nearest primate relatives."

Three things are remarkable about this report. First, it implicitly acknowledges that the evidence for Darwinism was never as overwhelming as its defenders claim. It has been almost 30 years since Gould wrote that biology accounts for human nature, yet Darwinists are just now turning up a gene that may have been involved in brain evolution.

Second, embryologists know that a single gene cannot account for the origin of the human brain. Genes involved in embryo development typically have multiple effects, and complex organs such as the brain are influenced by many genes. The simple-mindedness of the "brain evolution gene" story is breathtaking.

Third, the only thing scientists demonstrated in this case was a correlation between a genetic difference and brain size. Every scientist knows, however, that correlation is not the same as causation. Among elementary school children, reading ability is correlated with shoe size, but this is because young schoolchildren with small feet have not yet learned to read – not because larger feet cause a student to read better or because reading makes the feet grow. Similarly, a genetic difference between humans and chimps cannot tell us anything about what caused differences in their brains unless we know what the gene actually does. In this case, as Nature reports, "what the gene does is a mystery."

So after 150 years, Darwinists are still looking for evidence – any evidence, no matter how skimpy – to justify their speculations. The latest hype over the "brain evolution gene" unwittingly reveals just how underwhelming the evidence for their view really is.

The truth is Darwinism is not a scientific theory, but a materialistic creation myth masquerading as science. It is first and foremost a weapon against religion – especially traditional Christianity. Evidence is brought in afterwards, as window dressing.

This is becoming increasingly obvious to the American people, who are not the ignorant backwoods religious dogmatists that Darwinists make them out to be. Darwinists insult the intelligence of American taxpayers and at the same time depend on them for support. This is an inherently unstable situation, and it cannot last.

If I were a Darwinist, I would be afraid. Very afraid.

Get Wells' widely popular "Politically Incorrect Guide to Darwinism and Intelligent Design"

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Jonathan Wells is the author of "The Politically Incorrect Guide™ to Darwinism and Intelligent Design" (Regnery, 2006) and Icons of Evolution (Regnery, 2000). He holds a Ph.D. in biology from the University of California at Berkeley and a Ph.D. in theology from Yale University. Wells is currently a senior fellow at the Discovery Institute in Seattle


TOPICS: Culture/Society; Editorial; Philosophy
KEYWORDS: backwardsthinking; crevolist; darwinism; darwinismhasfailed; doomed; evofury; fishwithfeet; headinsand; pepperedmoths; scaredevos; wearealldoomedputz; whyreligionisdoomed; wingnutdaily
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-50 ... 651-700701-750751-800 ... 1,151-1,195 next last
To: Last Visible Dog
That is not true - the author provides some evidence in the form of a quote from a famous evolutionist.

Do you consider a quote from one evolutionist, who was in no way involved in the development of the theory, to be definitive proof of the validity of conclusions drawn about the theory and the motives of it's authors? The quote from the evolutionist is no better than the evidence upon which it is based, and that evidence is not there.

I understand I am arguing with someone's qualitative opinion. What is it in the article you disagree with, and on what basis do you disagree with it? You've implied that I have no basis to disagree with anything he's said unless I possess at least equal credentials in biology and theology.

701 posted on 09/29/2006 6:29:33 AM PDT by tacticalogic ("Oh bother!" said Pooh, as he chambered his last round.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 699 | View Replies]

To: freedumb2003
Evolution cannot be pro- or anti- ANYTHING. It is a theory, not a person. it is no more anti-religious than mathematics.

Nobody claimed a theory has an option they were speaking of those the are big in the field. Your point is nothing but silliness and you demonstrating you don't understand the topic of the thread.

Straw man. That is evidence that a person can USE TToE to push an anti-religion agenda.

Far from a straw-man (to quote Frank Zappa) this is the crux of the biscuit. That is the point the author is making.

So if there is one false Christian minister then all of Christianity is false?

You are not even close. Your example is a bogus analogy since the statement in question does not conclude that Evolution is false.

You are trying to twist and distort. A valid example would be if there is one false Christian minister than it is invalid to claim there are no false Christian ministers.

702 posted on 09/29/2006 6:37:42 AM PDT by Last Visible Dog
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 546 | View Replies]

To: finnman69
If anyone does not believe in Darwinism, i'll take them on a tour in the Museum of Natural History and explain it.


Oh man....


That line is going to be way too long.
703 posted on 09/29/2006 6:40:14 AM PDT by dagoofyfoot
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Al Simmons
Gould came from a family of Marxist atheists. So his views on the matter were fixed long before he became a scientist. Evolution is a theory that is religion-neutral. Therefore "evolution is anti-religious" IS a false statement.

So you think you are mind-reader and know Gould's secret motives - whatever

If there is one "pusher" of evolution that is anti-religion then it is a false statement to claim Evolution is not anti-religion. Unless you want to argue the nonsensical position that "theories have no options"

This is simple logic.

704 posted on 09/29/2006 6:42:07 AM PDT by Last Visible Dog
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 547 | View Replies]

To: stands2reason
Why didn't you answer the question about the hypothetical anesthesiologist?

Because nobody asked me a question about a hypothetical anesthesiologist.

What are you rambling about?

705 posted on 09/29/2006 6:48:09 AM PDT by Last Visible Dog
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 566 | View Replies]

To: Last Visible Dog
Not sure what you are rambling about. Many evolutionists are very anti-religion.

1. Define "many."

2. Some Mathemetians are anti-religious. Some Bus drivers are anti-religious. Some doormen are anti-religious. There is no linkage.

706 posted on 09/29/2006 6:48:29 AM PDT by freedumb2003 ("Critical Thinking"="I don't understand it so it must be wrong.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 700 | View Replies]

To: freedumb2003
By demonstrating to the Left we are willing to substitute religion for science.

Who wants to SUBSITUTE?


Ad hominem "rebuttals" also make conservatives look bad.

But....

Ad hominem statements (creationist goons) made by EVOLUtionists are ok?!

Sheesh!!!

707 posted on 09/29/2006 6:51:36 AM PDT by Elsie (Heck is where people, who don't believe in Gosh, think they are not going....)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 585 | View Replies]

To: js1138
That settles it then: Hubert P. Yockey has spoken!
708 posted on 09/29/2006 6:53:50 AM PDT by Elsie (Heck is where people, who don't believe in Gosh, think they are not going....)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 611 | View Replies]

To: Last Visible Dog
If there is one "pusher" of evolution that is anti-religion then it is a false statement to claim Evolution is not anti-religion. Unless you want to argue the nonsensical position that "theories have no options"

Repeating a non sequiteur doesn't make it so. Since you have a problem understanding logic, let me do the work for you:Substitute the word "Mathematics" for "Evolution." Now lets run the statement again:

If there is one "pusher" of Mathematics that is anti-religion then it is a false statement to claim Mathematics is not anti-religion.

Well, I can guarantee you that of the hundreds of thousands of Mathemeticians there will be at least one who is anti-religion.

Thus, by your "logic" Mathematics is anti-religion. In fact, virtually every single branch of science (and all other trades and professions) are also anti-religious since almost all will have at least one anti-religious adherent.

709 posted on 09/29/2006 6:54:10 AM PDT by freedumb2003 ("Critical Thinking"="I don't understand it so it must be wrong.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 704 | View Replies]

To: freedumb2003

YOU got the NUMBER!!


710 posted on 09/29/2006 6:55:44 AM PDT by Elsie (Heck is where people, who don't believe in Gosh, think they are not going....)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 666 | View Replies]

To: Elsie

Who said "creatonist goons?"

I must have missed it (it doesn't sound like something I would say).

And the fact that someone who understands TToE said it doesn't change the validity of my statement.

"They did it too" is a very childish response.


711 posted on 09/29/2006 6:56:01 AM PDT by freedumb2003 ("Critical Thinking"="I don't understand it so it must be wrong.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 707 | View Replies]

To: Elsie

LOL -- I am sure that represents a lovely symmetry for many here.


712 posted on 09/29/2006 6:56:44 AM PDT by freedumb2003 ("Critical Thinking"="I don't understand it so it must be wrong.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 710 | View Replies]

To: freedumb2003
Who said "creatonist goons?"

finnman69

713 posted on 09/29/2006 6:58:51 AM PDT by Elsie (Heck is where people, who don't believe in Gosh, think they are not going....)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 711 | View Replies]

To: Elsie

Well that was just mean.


714 posted on 09/29/2006 6:59:48 AM PDT by freedumb2003 ("Critical Thinking"="I don't understand it so it must be wrong.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 713 | View Replies]

To: freedumb2003
"They did it too" is a very childish response.

True, but only if the original tale teller wants to appear much more pure than whom(?)ever is being told upon.

715 posted on 09/29/2006 7:00:23 AM PDT by Elsie (Heck is where people, who don't believe in Gosh, think they are not going....)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 711 | View Replies]

To: freedumb2003

LOL!

;^)

(But... sometimes very accurate!)


716 posted on 09/29/2006 7:01:03 AM PDT by Elsie (Heck is where people, who don't believe in Gosh, think they are not going....)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 714 | View Replies]

To: Elsie
That settles it then: Hubert P. Yockey has spoken!

I prejudged him based on the fact that anti-evolutionists bring up his name every time they need a mathematician to prove that evolution can't happen.

Imagine my surprise to read his actual words and find that he says information theory proves Darwinian evolution.

At least Wells is reliable. Unless the Moonies accept evolution.

717 posted on 09/29/2006 7:04:40 AM PDT by js1138 (The absolute seriousness of someone who is terminally deluded.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 708 | View Replies]

To: stands2reason
Group attacks aren't personal. Only personal attacks are disallowed. When I said, "What a dumba$$" that wasn't personal

That is not how the English language works - you said "what a dumba$$" The use of "a" makes it an attack on one person (although this is not necessarily the definition of a personal attack). What you were doing is attacking the person that made the statement rather than attacking the statement - this is a textbook example of a personal / ad hominem - you are not going to be able to spin your way out of this.

But you aren't that stupid, you know that is a personal attack, just like your bozo alert was.

Alert - to warn

All I said is "warning, Evo-Bozo's may infiltrate this thread". I directed it at no one person (unlike you)

Spin all you want, you are clearly the one hurling personal ad hominem attacks

Using you warped logic - who is the person you think my "personal attack" is directed toward? That would be Evo-Bozo's so unless you think you are an Evo-Bozo than it is not directed at you. (you did not think that out, did you) See how deep of a hole you dug?

So do you also think the terms "Terrorist Alert" or "Moonbat Alert" are also personal attacks - if so, who is the person it is directed at?

what else can one expect from a creo

I don't know - I am not a creo

718 posted on 09/29/2006 7:07:37 AM PDT by Last Visible Dog
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 568 | View Replies]

To: stands2reason
Not bitter or angry. I just don't like to waste my time on fools.

...then don't talk to yourself?

Evo's sure to like to use ad hominem attacks.

When the going gets tough, some Evo's turn to personal attacks as they dive for the tall grass

I would like to say "sorry to see you leave" but this thread does not need you ad hominem personal attacks.

719 posted on 09/29/2006 7:11:54 AM PDT by Last Visible Dog
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 569 | View Replies]

To: Stultis
"Not of the mudskipper(s) in particular, but I know these fish are Gobies, and I have a pretty strong recollection that Gobies don't appear rather late (for a major group of rayfin fish), I wanna say as late as the Eocene, and in any case long after the first amphibians."

Cool - I was just curious.

720 posted on 09/29/2006 7:14:32 AM PDT by Last Visible Dog
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 599 | View Replies]

To: tacticalogic
Do you consider a quote from one evolutionist, who was in no way involved in the development of the theory, to be definitive proof of the validity of conclusions drawn about the theory and the motives of it's authors? The quote from the evolutionist is no better than the evidence upon which it is based, and that evidence is not there

Actually I mean the inverse of what you said. I am not addressing Well's comment - I am addressing the Evo retorts. If one person in the Evolution field is anti-religion, one can not logically or validly say "Evolution is not anti-religion". You do understand this is a matter of opinion on both sides?

That is the only point I am making.

If you quantify the Evo retort your might have a valid statement.

721 posted on 09/29/2006 7:26:12 AM PDT by Last Visible Dog
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 701 | View Replies]

To: freedumb2003
1. Define "many."

Well we know of at least one and that is all that matters.

2. Some Mathemetians are anti-religious. Some Bus drivers are anti-religious. Some doormen are anti-religious. There is no linkage.

Linkage to what?

722 posted on 09/29/2006 7:34:37 AM PDT by Last Visible Dog
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 706 | View Replies]

To: freedumb2003
Repeating a non sequiteur doesn't make it so.

Just as claiming something is a non sequitur (no second "e") doesn't make it so

You have yet to demonstrate any statement was a non sequitur so your comment is of no value.

Since you have a problem understanding logic

Will you please stop with the ad hominem attacks?

If there is one "pusher" of Mathematics that is anti-religion then it is a false statement to claim Mathematics is not anti-religion.

That would be a true statement. Your statement demonstrates that you do not fully understand logic. If one of a group has a trait - you can not claim nobody in the group has the trait. Simple logic.

Seems all of your spinning has left you very confused.

723 posted on 09/29/2006 7:48:04 AM PDT by Last Visible Dog
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 709 | View Replies]

To: Last Visible Dog
Actually I mean the inverse of what you said. I am not addressing Well's comment - I am addressing the Evo retorts. If one person in the Evolution field is anti-religion, one can not logically or validly say "Evolution is not anti-religion". You do understand this is a matter of opinion on both sides?

Then it is no less valid to say that as long as on person in the Creationist field is anti-science you cannot logically say that "Creationism is not anti-science." I understand it is a matter of opinion on both sides, but I don't consider conclusions drawn from the personal opinions of a single source to be of any particular value. It would be just as valid for me to make sweeping generalizations about Christianity based on the words and actions of Jim Jones.

That is the only point I am making.

If you quantify the Evo retort your might have a valid statement.

My response to Mr. Well's argument is every bit as quantified as his original assertions.

724 posted on 09/29/2006 7:52:24 AM PDT by tacticalogic ("Oh bother!" said Pooh, as he chambered his last round.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 721 | View Replies]

To: Al Simmons
Yeah, well, so long as you don't "park your brain in neutral" after finding The Truth. God gave it to you for a reason. To USE it.

Why do you feel the NEED to take an authoritative stance towards me?
725 posted on 09/29/2006 7:54:56 AM PDT by presently no screen name
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 697 | View Replies]

To: tacticalogic
Then it is no less valid to say that as long as on person in the Creationist field is anti-science you cannot logically say that "Creationism is not anti-science."

Absolutely! It is just simple logic.

but I don't consider conclusions drawn from the personal opinions of a single source to be of any particular value.

Good for you - not sure what that has to do with this thread.

It would be just as valid for me to make sweeping generalizations about Christianity based on the words and actions of Jim Jones.

What are you claiming are "sweeping generalization(s)"?

This is simple logic - you can't argue with simple logic. If one in a group has a trait, it is invalid and illogical to claim nobody in the group has the trait.

Examples of illogical invalid statements:

Christians are not murderers
Catholics are not lawbreakers
Evolution is not anti-religion

starting to see the light?

726 posted on 09/29/2006 8:03:57 AM PDT by Last Visible Dog
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 724 | View Replies]

To: Last Visible Dog
What are you claiming are "sweeping generalization(s)"?

"Biology took away our status as paragons created in the image of God."

and from that the conclusion that:

"The truth is Darwinism is not a scientific theory, but a materialistic creation myth masquerading as science. It is first and foremost a weapon against religion – especially traditional Christianity."

Christians are not murderers
Catholics are not lawbreakers
Evolution is not anti-religion

starting to see the light?

Indeed. What I don't understand is your willingness to accept the inverse in the case of evolution, when it is no less illogical to do so.

A single instance of someone using the TToE as a "weapon against religion" does not justify characterizing it as being "first and foremost" for that purpose.

727 posted on 09/29/2006 8:20:49 AM PDT by tacticalogic ("Oh bother!" said Pooh, as he chambered his last round.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 726 | View Replies]

To: Last Visible Dog
When the going gets tough, some Evo's turn to personal attacks as they dive for the tall grass

Well said.
728 posted on 09/29/2006 8:22:19 AM PDT by presently no screen name
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 719 | View Replies]

To: Last Visible Dog
(Opening note: Non Sequitur doesn't show up on spell check, bit of a pain since I admit to being spelling challenged at times)

If one of a group has a trait - you can not claim nobody in the group has the trait. Simple logic.

Ah. I see what is happening here. We don't have a logic problem, we have a language problem. The statement "Evolution is anti-religion" we have to look closer at the term "Evolution." Your interpretation seems to be "At least one person in the Evolution community."

That is a rather odd and somewhat disengenuous interpretation. As I pointed out, this means that virtually ALL professions are anti-religion, since virtually all professions (short of the non-laity in religious organizations) will probably meet your "1 person" rule.

What this ends up doing is making the statement "Evolution is anti-religious" meaningless, since almost everything is anti-religious. Unless that is your point: that almost everything is anti-religious. But if that is your point and we are discussing TToE, it becomes moot, like saying "Evolutionists breathe air."

Seems all of your spinning has left you very confused.

I love it when someone who asks "Will you please stop with the ad hominem attacks?" ends their post with an ad hominem attack.

729 posted on 09/29/2006 8:31:34 AM PDT by freedumb2003 ("Critical Thinking"="I don't understand it so it must be wrong.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 723 | View Replies]

To: tacticalogic
"Biology took away our status as paragons created in the image of God."

How is that a gross generalization? Looks pretty specific to me.

and from that the conclusion that: "The truth is Darwinism is not a scientific theory,

You are twisting and distorting again. That statement has no direct connection to the first statement - it happens nine paragraphs after the first statement. NOTE: I am in no way trying to support the statement "The truth is Darwinism is not a scientific theory"

Indeed. What I don't understand is your willingness to accept the inverse in the case of evolution, when it is no less illogical to do so.

I have done no such thing - you do know if you present a claim with zero supporting evidence, it is considered an empty accusation?

A single instance of someone using the TToE as a "weapon against religion" does not justify characterizing it as being "first and foremost" for that purpose.

True, but I never mentioned anything about "first and foremost" - what are you talking about?

730 posted on 09/29/2006 8:35:12 AM PDT by Last Visible Dog
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 727 | View Replies]

To: presently no screen name; Last Visible Dog
When the going gets tough, some Evo's turn to personal attacks as they dive for the tall grass

Well said.

If you believe that something that is untrue, ad hominem, disengenuous and specious is "well said."

I assure you, on these threads the trophy for attacks (what else do CR/IDers have?) goes to CR/IDers -- hands down.

731 posted on 09/29/2006 8:37:42 AM PDT by freedumb2003 ("Critical Thinking"="I don't understand it so it must be wrong.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 728 | View Replies]

To: Last Visible Dog
How is that a gross generalization? Looks pretty specific to me.

The entire field of biology? That sounds pretty sweeping to me.

You are twisting and distorting again. That statement has no direct connection to the first statement - it happens nine paragraphs after the first statement. NOTE: I am in no way trying to support the statement "The truth is Darwinism is not a scientific theory"

When I asked what evidence the author of the article presented in support of this statement, you replied that he provided a quote from a well-known evolutionist. Is this not the quote to which you were referring? If it has no connection, how is it to be taken as evidence?

I have done no such thing - you do know if you present a claim with zero supporting evidence, it is considered an empty accusation?

You seem to take issue with my questioning the basis upon which this statement was made. I took this to mean that you agreed with it. Is that not the case? If not why the argument over it?

True, but I never mentioned anything about "first and foremost" - what are you talking about?

This is from the article, which is supposedly the topic of discussion.

732 posted on 09/29/2006 8:45:07 AM PDT by tacticalogic ("Oh bother!" said Pooh, as he chambered his last round.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 730 | View Replies]

To: js1138

Now all you have to do is tie these cute little drawings to
real creatures and prove there was a sequential evolution.


733 posted on 09/29/2006 8:53:34 AM PDT by upcountryhorseman (An old fashioned conservative)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 457 | View Replies]

To: upcountryhorseman

They are real creatures, currently living ones.

My point is not that one is descended from another, but that functional eyes include many levels of complexity. It is unnecessary to start with the most complex version.

Humans, by the way, have nothing close to the best or most complex eyes. there are predator eyes that are far sharper and which have better color vision.


734 posted on 09/29/2006 8:58:14 AM PDT by js1138 (The absolute seriousness of someone who is terminally deluded.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 733 | View Replies]

To: SirLinksalot


735 posted on 09/29/2006 9:02:27 AM PDT by Revolting cat! ("In the end, nothing explains anything!")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: freedumb2003
(Opening note: Non Sequitur doesn't show up on spell check, bit of a pain since I admit to being spelling challenged at times)

I only point out spelling errors when I am being called ignorant of something.

The statement "Evolution is anti-religion" we have to look closer at the term "Evolution."

I have said nothing about that statement - my position applies to this statement: "Evolution is not anti-religion" which was used as proof Wells is lying. Read the thread.

The statement "Evolution is anti-religion" we have to look closer at the term "Evolution." Your interpretation seems to be "At least one person in the Evolution community."

Nope - wrong again - I said nothing about the statement "evolution is anti-religion"

That is a rather odd and somewhat disengenuous interpretation. As I pointed out, this means that virtually ALL professions are anti-religion, since virtually all professions (short of the non-laity in religious organizations) will probably meet your "1 person" rule.

Non Sequitur - since I am not supporting in any way the statement "evolution is anti-religion"

736 posted on 09/29/2006 9:18:36 AM PDT by Last Visible Dog
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 729 | View Replies]

To: Last Visible Dog
I have said nothing about that statement - my position applies to this statement: "Evolution is not anti-religion" which was used as proof Wells is lying. Read the thread.

The same issue applies. What do you mean by the word "Evolution?" Changing the meaning from "Evolution: the Theory" to "Evolution: The Community" is just as disengenuous as the "1 person standard."

You are still playing word games. Talk about spin.

737 posted on 09/29/2006 9:24:44 AM PDT by freedumb2003 ("Critical Thinking"="I don't understand it so it must be wrong.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 736 | View Replies]

To: tacticalogic
The entire field of biology? That sounds pretty sweeping to me.

So let me get this straight - whenever somebody references the field of Biology - you think it is a sweeping gross generalization? You do understand that quote is from a hard-core Darwinist?

When I asked what evidence the author of the article presented in support of this statement, you replied that he provided a quote from a well-known evolutionist.

Yes, a quote from a Darwinist is considered evidence. I made no qualitative judgment.

You seem to take issue with my questioning the basis upon which this statement was made.

What "statement" are you talking about? One I neither made not support?

This is from the article, which is supposedly the topic of discussion.

Yes but you implied I said or defended this statement - which I do not - you are wrong.

Why not present quotes (supporting evidence) with your accusations?

738 posted on 09/29/2006 9:28:04 AM PDT by Last Visible Dog
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 732 | View Replies]

To: freedumb2003
The same issue applies. What do you mean by the word "Evolution?"

Ask the person that made the statement! I just responded to it. I assume they mean the field of study related to Dawinist Evolution (based on the context of the thread)

Have you actually read any of the article or the thread?

739 posted on 09/29/2006 9:34:24 AM PDT by Last Visible Dog
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 737 | View Replies]

To: Virginia-American
Many IDers are agnostic. For example ...

David Berlinksi, Michael Denton and Richard Milton just to name 3.
740 posted on 09/29/2006 9:40:36 AM PDT by SirLinksalot
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 683 | View Replies]

To: Last Visible Dog
So let me get this straight - whenever somebody references the field of Biology - you think it is a sweeping gross generalization? You do understand that quote is from a hard-core Darwinist?

No. I do however think this particular reference is. I could care less who it came from, I still think it's wrong.

Yes, a quote from a Darwinist is considered evidence. I made no qualitative judgment.

You did when you said that this is not connected to the conclusions of the author. It cannot simultaneously be held as evidence in support of his assertions and totally unconnected to them.

What "statement" are you talking about? One I neither made not support?

I've take issue with the following statement made by the author of the article- "The truth is Darwinism is not a scientific theory, but a materialistic creation myth masquerading as science. It is first and foremost a weapon against religion".

I've never claimed you made it. You've avoided endorsing or challenging it outright but you have consistently challenged both the questions and arguments I have in opposition to it, and my qualifications and right to do so. Is your problem with my opinion, or with my assuming the right to express it?

Yes but you implied I said or defended this statement - which I do not - you are wrong.

If you're not defending it, why are you attacking me for questioning it?

Why not present quotes (supporting evidence) with your accusations?

My "accusations" are that the author does not appear to have sufficient evidence to support his assertions, and the logical consequences of the conclusions. The "supporting evidence" for my argument is the absence of evidence in the article. What kind of "quotes" do you think I need to provide?

741 posted on 09/29/2006 10:15:46 AM PDT by tacticalogic ("Oh bother!" said Pooh, as he chambered his last round.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 738 | View Replies]

To: tacticalogic
You did when you said that this is not connected to the conclusions of the author.

Nonsense. I just pointed out he did provide some sort of supporting evidence for his statement - that is all I said. I am not supporting the statement of the author.

It cannot simultaneously be held as evidence in support of his assertions and totally unconnected to them.

You are not making sense now. We were talking evidence for the positions in the article - not line by line comparisons. The author presented evidence and then took a position nine paragraphs later (the paragraphs all contain what the author seems to think is support for his position) - the totality of the evidence is used for the position. You tried to claim the conclusion had a one-to-one relationship with that one piece of evidence - you were wrong.

You really do like to pick the nit

742 posted on 09/29/2006 10:26:21 AM PDT by Last Visible Dog
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 741 | View Replies]

To: tacticalogic
You've avoided endorsing or challenging it outright but you have consistently challenged both the questions and arguments I have in opposition to it, and my qualifications and right to do so.

I think it was because some of your statements were factually incorrect.

Here is the topic of this sub-thread (paraphrased):

Evo: This aricle is full of lies

LVD: Please show us these lies

Evo: "Evolution is not anti-religion"

LVD: That is an invalid position based on information in the article.

743 posted on 09/29/2006 10:32:31 AM PDT by Last Visible Dog
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 741 | View Replies]

To: tacticalogic
If you're not defending it, why are you attacking me for questioning it?

Because your questioning was illogical. Question all you want just try not to use fallacious logic.

744 posted on 09/29/2006 10:34:07 AM PDT by Last Visible Dog
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 741 | View Replies]

To: Last Visible Dog

Apparently I have misunderstood the purpose of the thread. I assumed it was to discuss the content of the article. Apparently it is actually just supposed to be flame bait in yet another battle in the crevo wars.


745 posted on 09/29/2006 10:39:17 AM PDT by tacticalogic ("Oh bother!" said Pooh, as he chambered his last round.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 743 | View Replies]

To: tacticalogic
Apparently I have misunderstood the purpose of the thread. I assumed it was to discuss the content of the article.

You are amazing. Can you read?

The topic of the thread is the article - some Evo's claim it is full of lies but have failed to produce evidence of one lie. That topic directly relates to the article. My position is the evidence provided by the Evo side of the debate was illogical and invalid. Please explain why you think that has nothing to do with the content of the article (unless this was meant to be another empty accusation)

Apparently it is actually just supposed to be flame bait in yet another battle in the crevo wars.

Now you are just making a fool out of yourself.

746 posted on 09/29/2006 10:44:06 AM PDT by Last Visible Dog
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 745 | View Replies]

To: Last Visible Dog
Because your questioning was illogical. Question all you want just try not to use fallacious logic.

The author makes statements with no apparent supporting evidence. What is illogical about questioning what those statements are based on?

747 posted on 09/29/2006 10:44:40 AM PDT by tacticalogic ("Oh bother!" said Pooh, as he chambered his last round.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 744 | View Replies]

To: tacticalogic
The author makes statements with no apparent supporting evidence.

The Gould quote is evidence whether you like it or not.

748 posted on 09/29/2006 10:47:05 AM PDT by Last Visible Dog
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 747 | View Replies]

To: Last Visible Dog
The topic of the thread is the article - some Evo's claim it is full of lies but have failed to produce evidence of one lie. That topic directly relates to the article. My position is the evidence provided by the Evo side of the debate was illogical and invalid. Please explain why you think that has nothing to do with the content of the article (unless this was meant to be another empty accusation)

And you equate my asking for what evidence he has to back up his statements with claiming his statements are a lie?

749 posted on 09/29/2006 10:48:46 AM PDT by tacticalogic ("Oh bother!" said Pooh, as he chambered his last round.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 746 | View Replies]

To: tacticalogic
And you equate my asking for what evidence he has to back up his statements with claiming his statements are a lie?

You are not the only person in this thread.

750 posted on 09/29/2006 10:59:47 AM PDT by Last Visible Dog
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 749 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-50 ... 651-700701-750751-800 ... 1,151-1,195 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