Why evolution is a political question

During the May 3 Republican presidential debate, moderator Chris Matthews asked the candidates “How many of you don’t believe in evolution?” Sen. Sam Brownback, Gov. Mike Huckabee, and Rep. Tom Tancredo all raised their hands indicating that they did not believe in it. Rep. Barney Frank raised the same question in 2004 when he accused me, his opponent that year, of questioning the theory of evolution. Liberals are confident that those who question the theory of evolution will be held up for public ridicule and scorn. Many liberals pride themselves on questioning everything in life except when it comes to the theory of evolution, which they accept as bedrock science. But is it?

The theory of evolution is just that, a theory. There is not a shred of evidence to indicate that mankind evolved from the amoeba, which evolved into the fish, which evolved into the bird, which evolved into the mouse, which evolved into the monkey, which evolved into man. While there is evidence of inter-species evolution, there is no proof of the basic thesis presented by Charles Darwin which is that one species evolves into another. In fact, science seems to favor creationism, also just a theory, as recent DNA evidence indicates that mankind is descended from one mother.

It could be therefore argued that the theory of evolution, since it is not science in the sense that there is no documented or empirical evidence to back it up, is based as much on religious belief as is creationism. Both theories are based on faith as opposed to scientific certainty and, I would argue, creationism contains better science. Yet the liberal establishment demands that the federal government mandate by law that only evolution is to be taught in the public school science class.

I would argue that Intelligent design, which is the theory that mankind was created by divine intervention, could be introduced into education in tandem with the theory of evolution without getting into any particular religious scenario, such as the Genesis story in the Bible, and without endorsing any particular religious denomination. If intelligent design were to be given equal time with evolution, the faith of the atheist would be no more compromised than that of the theist. In fact, such a presentation would be more honest and balanced since scientific inquiry is supposed to be open to all plausible theories.

The theory of evolution is a political question in American politics because liberal supporters demand that the federal government mandate it’s teaching and insist on a gag order when it comes to any discussion of intelligent design in the classroom. This is contrary to American traditions of free speech and the free and open expression of ideas. This also violates the right of the taxpaying citizen to have a say in the education of their own children and supplants the ability of local educators and elected local school board officials to determine curriculum.

Teaching intelligent design alongside evolution would open doors to important thought and inquiry. When the young student contemplates the possibility that mankind is more than just an evolving animal, amoral and bound to nature like other animals, than perhaps the student becomes aware of the uniqueness and value of every single human life. Implied in the theory of a divine creator is that there is a larger purpose to life and that there is a moral code. Intelligent design sets the stage for the individual to look to a higher power than the government, which is perhaps why liberals so adamantly oppose it. In these times of rampant school violence and moral relativism, the teaching of intelligent design, in a non sectarian way and alongside the teaching of the theory of evolution, would serve many positive purposes besides a simple striving for truth.

all of those meetings were important scientific meetings on record, and the fact is that contrary to stultis’ assertion that not one scientist that he knows of has a problem with the model of evolution is refuted by pointing out these meetings in which reporters and folks who attended gave accounts for the meetings anjd voiced their observations of the sentiments and statements of the scientists in attendance. If you dig deep enough and are really interested in the meeting itself on record, I’m sure you can find more but what I’ve posted is plenty to suffice and show that several important meetings took place in which scientists expressed their doubts and concerns with the model of evolution. The other links provided, of which there are plenty to investigate further if you like- just add more evidence that scientists don’t all subscribe to the mammal from reptile hypothesis

An increasing number of scientists, most particularly a growing number of evolutionists . . argue that Darwinian evolutionary theory is no genuine scientific theory at all . . Many of the critics have the highest intellectual credentials.

Well, I found a bit more of the quotation:

Although still a minority, an increasing number of scientists, most particularly, a growing number of evolutionists, particularly academic philosophers, argue that Darwinian evolutionary theory is no genuine scientific theory at all."

I still have not found the last part that was deleted.

It is interesting that every source but one on the web has the shortened quotation. It looks like creationists don't want those hidden sections revealed. The only source that had what I added above was a court case in which part of that quotation was included as part of a question.

You might check out the author's testimony in McLean v. Arkansas (Testimony of Dr. Michael Ruse, Professor of Philosophy, University of Guelph, Ontario Canada). A couple of passages are quoted below:

Q In your book, The Philosophy of Biology, you state that the modern synthesis theory of evolution is true beyond a reasonable doubt, do you not?
A: Right.
Q And you further state that the falsity of its rivals is beyond a reasonable doubt?
A: Right.
Q Is not the so-called punctuated equilibrium theory a rival to some degree to the modern synthesis theory?
A: I'm not sure that it's a rival in the sense that I was talking about it in the book, quite honestly. I dealt with a number of alternatives, and punctuated equilibrium theory certainly wasn't one of those which was there to be considered when the book was written.
What I was saying was things like the original Lamarckism, you know, are false beyond a reasonable doubt. It certainly holds to that.
What I also said was that the importance of selection, mutation, so on, are true beyond a reasonable doubt.
Q Again, to my question, is not the punctuated equilibrium theory a rival, contrasting to the modern synthesis theory which you think has been proven beyond a reasonable doubt?
A: Well, that's a nice point. I think some people would think of it as such. I don't personally think of it as such, and I'm glad to find that a lot of evolutionists like Ayala doesn't think of it as such.
Q Others do, do they not?
A: Well, quite often I think some of the people who put it up like to think of it as a rival. But, you know, we're still- I mean, the punctuated equilibria theory is a very new theory. We're still working on the sort of conceptual links between it and the original theory. And I think it's going to take us awhile yet to decide whether we are dealing with rivals or complements or whatever.
But of course, let me add that in no sense does this at any point throw any doubt upon evolution itself. We are talking just about causes.

Looks like the author you cited is not as much against evolution as your quotation made it sound.

that was just the ny meeting you say there are only two (’i’m not even sure why that is relevent) but there were the other meetings as well as well as the numerous other links I provided that can be investiggated as I explained- As i said, I could make a career out of documenting all the dissenting voices- but what’s the point? The other side will do just what you’ve done- insinuate that everythign was quotemined- taken out of context, and therefore not valid as if stating that undoes the damning statements and sentiments of the scientists. I never ‘denied quotemining’ i DID state that the quotes are damining enough in and of themselves that any such attempt made at accusing someone of quotemining amounts to nothing but a diversionary tactic in hopes of misdirecting the argument away from the facts.

You can for yourself view more testimony from others who were at the meetings which amount ot more than just the ‘two sentances from someone who was apparently there” that you contend there were. Are you suggesting that simply because every jot and tittle of the one ny metting wasn’t posted on that site that the other meetings must therefore not have had anyone attend them and report as well? You are seeing a report by people who attended, who spoke with those who attended and who reported on what others have said. It seems as though there must be a certain number of actual eyewitness accoutns in order to be a true statement of what took place at those meetings?

I gave you more than enough links to investigate further if you’re itnerested-

If you would like more individual accoutns from the sceintists themselves- you’ll have to do some digging, however I’ll steer you in the right direction- look up ‘wistar meeting’ for accounts from the scientists present at the meeting who mathematically showed evolution could not have happened. As well you could subscribe to the journals that were cited in the links I provided, as well as google ‘scientists who have problems with the evolution model and find all the statemnts you like-

Well by golly you’ve managed to show that just one of the numerous folks metnioned isn’t totally against the idea, yet still has doubts- phew- I guess that nullifies all the other’s doubts then- and I had read his ‘testimony’ before, and couldn’t for the life of me see how it undermined his uncertainty.

By the way 49% is still a minority but a significant minorty, so what’s your point? That there isn’t a ‘growing number’ of scientists? or thaT perhaps their voice isn’t valid because they aren’t in the over 51%? or that their facts and evidenbces don’t have any validity because they aren’t majority? And the one case that you zero in on and point out that he isn’t 100% undoes all the other cases listed how? If that one case refutes the ‘growing number of scientsits who are dissatisfied with trhe evolution model’, then please- do point out how- this aught to be an interesting excusrsion into the minutia of diversionary tactics.

it is apparent from your posts that you adopt the argumentative’ tactics’ of some others on this forum who ignore the truly problematic issues while rummaging the building over looking for spider webs with which to accuse the owner of being an unfit caretaker when the majority of what is accomplished by the caretaker is more than adequate to maintain the building in fine fine shape. In other words- it seems apparentr that you’re willing to ignore the bulk of evidence just for the chance to fine moot points with which to argue- apparently it’s your hope to disuade others from from taking the bulk seriously by pointing out that some moot points aren’t entirel;y 200% spot on.

Stultis said he knew of noone who doubted the model of evolution, I provided enough evidences to show that secular scientists do infact have doubts, you seem bent on trying to undermine just one example by asserting that you’re not 100% satisified that the meeting resulted in scientific doubts about the model of evolution simply because a certain number of eyewitness accounts wasn’t cited by just one of the websites I listed. This is akin to you saying something like “I don’t beleive a rock can be over 10 lbs” and My showing you a rock that is infact over 10 lbs, but you refusing to beleive it because a certain number of people haven’t verified that the rock in question is indeed a rock. IU then state that there is a fella that has examined it in detail, has gone on record, and has put his entire career on the line doing so, yet has indeed done so. You fire back that you know of noone personally who knows tyhis fella, I state that there are folks who know this fella personally and who have given testimony to this, which I then show you, and then you basically calling me a liar because because the folks I show testimony from wrote about the original scientist’s findings after he did the actual annalysis.

You see how that goes? It’s nothign more than petty asrguing just for the sake of arguing, and results in nothing more than avoidance of the central issue of whether the rock is indeed over 10 lbs or not. It’s a merry-go-round ride for kids.

Your assumed doubt asbout the fact that the htree major scientific meetings I mentioned didn’t result in serious doubts about the model of evolution has no credence because of your refusal to investigate the facts further. The findings of the mathemeticians in the Wistar meeting can be found by anyone who isn’t content to just rest in their denial/doubt and refuse to search. Heck- even their methematical equasions can easily be found. I’ve run across them numerous times myself. Heck, even Their comments on the methematical impossibilities of random mutations creating NEW information can be found.

I’m equally confident that the reporters who attended the other meetings (as mentioned by the site I listed) did not lie, did not invent, and did not twist their observations in an effort to falsely report something that didn’t take place, and I’m just as convinced that further digging into the matter will corroberate their accounts of the meetings.

If you would like to sign up to the following site, you can obtain a copy of the 1967 wistar meeting here: http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/reprint/160/3826/408.pdf

Otherwise, you can find the information about the meeting in places all over the net such as sites like: http://www.icr.org/article/493/

or as thjis site points out

“When I first came across the title of a book, Mathematical Challenges to the Neo-Darwinian Interpretation of Evolution, I assumed it was a piece of creationist propaganda. But I could hardly have been more wrong. It was the proceedings of a high-level international conference, where some of the world’s greatest Darwinists and a number of mathematicians met to discuss whether Darwinism made mathematical sense.

The mathematicians present were not merely eminent in their own fields. They were invited because of their specialist knowledge of biology, many of them having done mathematical research related to one of the life sciences. Even so, the conference proceedings make rather sad reading. The two groups seemed unable to find much common ground: instead, they kept restating their opposing points of view.”

http://karws.gso.uri.edu/JFK/the_critics/griffith/Eye_Refutes_Evolution.html

We’re not talking about pro-creation scientists at that wistar meeting, we’re talking about the top scientists in their fields who had doubts and explained why they had doubtsd with their evidences to back up their doubtsd.

But as I said- you can investigate the other meetings further or not- I don’t care which, but what I said about those meetings I stand by.

It's spring, and we've had lots of rain. I've got a couple of acres of grass that needs cut, fence rows that need cleared, and trees that need trimmed and brush cleaned up. I don't have time to worry about your "spider webs". You're showing me the mailbox and trying to tell me it's the foundation, and I don't have time to play right now.

I checked out just one of your quotes; it did not support your argument.

tacticalogic did the same with another quote, with the same results.

When it comes to research, you have shown yourself to be untrustworthy. When you post a quote, it appears that we can't trust it until we research it for ourselves to see what it really says.

If you were a scientist, your career would be over.

Obviously apologetics has a different standard.

lol Bzzzzzt wrong- all you managed to do was show that ONE person wasn’t 100% certain one way or the other and you IGNORED- per usual- the rest of what was posted and you glommed onto a moronic argument by another as your ‘proof’ against everythign that was posted- I’d say your career as a field researcher should be over for playing the little games, but alas- the bulk of careers in those fields do the exact same thing and you’re in like-company apparently.

Do please show where the scientists didn’t have doubts in ALL those meetings presented- until you can- my assertions stand solid and yours are nothign but hot air! per usual. The magic wand of dismissal doesn’t negate anything I’ve said abotu those meetings nor does the fact that one person in that list not being sure one way or the other as much as you’d like to blanket-discredit the whole lot. But we’re used to having the magic wand of dismissal waved whenever the evidences don’t suit the liberal bias of intellectually not so honest arguers. Your argument tactics don’t rise to the level of apologetics sir. They’re mired in blind dogma and silly little symantics games.

Not with an attitude like yours I don’t- I’ve read numerous enough examples and run across plenty enough statements to back up what I said and won’t cater to your little games and argumentative blanket dismissal. As I said- what I said stands and you can either go on along in blind denial of the evidence that is readily available to you or you can check them out and quite frankly, again, I could care less which you choose. You can level all the petty little accusations about me and those of whom I speak all you like- it still doesn’t negate the fact that the info is freely avsailable to you or anyone else. Had you presented yourself more civily I’d have more gladly undertaken some research for you- however I’ll take a pass given your redienss to symantically dismiss everythign you read because they don’t meet your unrealistic requirements. You fully accept that Darwin said the things he said simply based on other’s testimony that he said them to them, however, you fully dismiss anything that you we’ren’t there to personally witness and document for yourself if it was reported by someone else that scientists don’t all have a dogmatic beleif that mammals evolved from reptiles? Double standards there? Why yes, I do beleive it is. I gave you plenty of evidences and even gave you leads to others- that’s all you’ll get from me, and you can cry about there not being more, and dismiss all the others because you ‘haven’t the inclination’ to read through them, all you like, but that’s fine- I’m used to arguing against nonsense like that and know when to wash my hands of such frivelousness. Good day to you sir-

You fully accept that Darwin said the things he said simply based on other’s testimony that he said them to them, however, you fully dismiss anything that you we’ren’t there to personally witness and document for yourself if it was reported by someone else that scientists don’t all have a dogmatic beleif that mammals evolved from reptiles? Double standards there? Why yes, I do beleive it is. I gave you plenty of evidences and even gave you leads to others- that’s all you’ll get from me, and you can cry about there not being more, and dismiss all the others because you ‘haven’t the inclination’ to read through them, all you like, but that’s fine- I’m used to arguing against nonsense like that and know when to wash my hands of such frivelousness. Good day to you sir-

I'm not making any assumptions in that regard you haven't made yourself. You're asserting that buried somewhere in the collected works of these three major symposiums is the proof that Darwin's theory is disproven. You cannot profess to have disproven a theory that was never put forth in the first place so you have to have assumed he did, without having actually witnessed it yourself, at the outset.

You seem impressed with the idea that an since attempt to prove his theory mathematically failed, we should assume that theory to be disproven. Let's try that methodology out. You have a theory that the evidence you claim is somewhere in that collective works from these symposiums. Unless we can come up with mathematical proof that it exists, we should assume that theory is flawed.

[I’m not making any assumptions in that regard you haven’t made yourself. You’re asserting that buried somewhere in the collected works of these three major symposiums is the proof that Darwin’s theory is disproven.]

WRONG!!! Once again you’ve either intentionally deceitfully misintrpetted what I’ve said, or you simply misunderstand what was said. NOWHERE did I state those major scientific symposiums DISPROVED evolution- not one hting I’ve said even hinted at that- As I said- go play your games elsewhere-

[You seem impressed with the idea that an since attempt to prove his theory mathematically failed, we should assume that theory to be disproven.]

Bzzzzt- WRONG again!!!!! Arguing with you is like a trip through fantasy land where red is green and blue is chartrues If I say red you claim I said green. Do you intentionally have trouble following a line of argument? I’m not being degrading here- I’m honestly asking because this is seems to be a pattern with you. Stultis said he didn’t know of one qualified scientist who didn’t think the model of evolution was through common descent- I showed that there are indeed qualified scientists who have problems with evolution through mutation + natural selection.

You and Coyoteman seem content to make issue out of botrh non issues and issues that I never assigned any importance to or even suggested importance should be attached to. Coyoteman is content dismissing all the major symposiums simply based on the fact that one person in attendance did beleive in the mechanism of evolution and seems to think it a major victory in defeating the whole notion that scientists met at major scientific meetings to weigh in on their differing opinions about evolution. NOWHERE did I state that every single person in attendance disbeleived the model of evolution- yet Coyoteman apparently thinks I did and that because he showed that one person apparently does beleive it that non of the evidence presented can therefore be trusted.

rying out loud- I’m not even for or against the idea of evolution here- ALL I’m simply doing is showing that there are indeed qualified scientists who have problems with the model of evolution through common descent. I provided with you and everyone else with ample evidence and quotes from noted scientists and statements of ‘faith’ if you will from more than 700 major scientsits and educators who signed an agreementr that they have problems with the model of evolution as proposed by Darwin.

When you have a legitimate argument to present- come on back and we’ll talk- however, as I told you- if you’re insistent on playing your games- I’m done with you because it’s apparent that you can’t argue honestly and continue to drive down lanes that I never even hinted that we should drive down.

Coyoteman is content dismissing all the major symposiums simply based on the fact that one person in attendance did beleive in the mechanism of evolution and seems to think it a major victory in defeating the whole notion that scientists met at major scientific meetings to weigh in on their differing opinions about evolution. NOWHERE did I state that every single person in attendance disbeleived the model of evolution- yet Coyoteman apparently thinks I did and that because he showed that one person apparently does beleive it that non of the evidence presented can therefore be trusted.

I am challenging the quality of your evidence.

You do a post with a series of quotes, so I check one and find that the real quote does not say what you claim it does. It has been altered to change its meaning.

tacticalogic checks another quote and finds the same thing.

Why should we trust the material you are posting if we check the original quotes and consistently find they either have been altered or quote mined to change the original meanings?

And when we present you with the evidence, you just shrug it off and claim, "Well, the other quotes are accurate!"

You can only get away with that kind of "research" in apologetics. A scientist would be drummed out of the profession for such behavior.

that’s a lie- the words stand for themselves- IF he didn’t say “An increasing number of scientists, most particularly a growing number of evolutionists” Then you have an arguemnt- Fact is, He did state that and THEN lied about it under oath and waffled on the issue.

[tacticalogic checks another quote and finds the same thing.]

He did? Again- when you feel like being honest- come on back and we’ll talk- until then all you’re presenting are lies and symantics trying to claim the statements weren’t made and ALL you’re attempting to do is dismiss all the evidences provided by pointing out a NON issue- I NEVER claimed that everyone present at the major scientific meetings dissagreed with evolution, did I coyote? You’re attempting to make an argument out of nothign and to malign me over a NON ISSUE that is entirely made up by yourself.

[Why should we trust the material you are posting if we check the original quotes and consistently find they either have been altered or quote mined to change the original meanings?]

The meaning was altered? Is it, or is it not true that he said a growing number of evolutionists “argue that Darwinian evolutionary theory is no genuine scientific theory at all”

This isn’t even relevent to the intentions of my posts to Stultis-= but apparently you are feebly trying to make it so by arguing symantics AND not telling the truth about those symantics that you are arguing, so I’ll ask you the same- why should we trust anything yuou say when you blatantly state falsehoods?

[You can only get away with that kind of “research” in apologetics. A scientist would be drummed out of the profession for such behavior.]

But aPPARENTLY, lying and outright falsehoods are the staple of the sciences? When you prove he didn’t state those things, or that the remainder of what he said ‘altered’ the FACT that he said a growing number of evolutionists’ let me know- because quite frankly- your predictable accusations and non issue arguments are getting quite tiresome. You can pat yourself on the back and pretend you’re sanctimoniously above the ‘poor deluded masses who dissagree with you’ but you are infact telling outright lies.

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.