Posted on 05/08/2007 9:24:03 PM PDT by Chuckmorse
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.
Yeah. I recognize ALL those quotes. I know for a certain fact you didn't read a one of them in context. I have them in my extensive antievolution library. (Where they occur many times over. Even the authors of the books probably didn't ever read the original source, but just got them from another creationist!)
They're all bollixed. There'll all entirely misrepresentive of both the facts and the authors' full assertions. I did so many times years ago, but I just don't have the time and energy any more to traipse down to the library, photocopy the original book or article, and come back here and type in a full explanation of how and exactly why it's all b.s. But it is.
Look. I've read hundreds of creationist books, articles, attended conventions, meetings of local creationist orgs, worked with antievolutionists digging up "mantracks" (misidentified dino tracks) in the Paluxy, etc, etc. Why don't you try reading at least one or two SERIOUS and comprehensive works concerning evolution. (Don't bother. It's obvious you haven't.)
But if not, that's fine too. Enjoy sitting in the choir listening to Henry Morris and Duane Gish preach.
I won’t keep ya much longer tonight- We’ve covered alot- my brain is frazzling (stop laughing)
[Creationists are always throwing out this “fully formed” phrase, and invariably attaching it to phenomena for which many, many stages of complexity, development and variation exist.]
Yep- many fully formed complexities exist for which we have no evidence to suggest any such accumulations of mutations could or did produce. Variation is no argument against design. Variation more so shows that design is a workable hypothesis. We know for example that entirely similiar systems arise through entirely different processes on both the biological and embryonic levels. Differing Cell structures and processes preoduce similiar results ie: Soem frogs start off as tadpoles, some are born fully formed-ready to go.
[I’ve never once heard or read a creationist to explain what “fully formed” actually meant in any particular instance.]
Well grab a beer nd get ready for the first answer ever then lol. Fully functioning. We don’t find the ecoli flagellum in bits and pieces- we see a fully formed, fully functional complex ‘motor’ with all the working parts inplace in the records. We find fully formed bats in the records, not examples of all the organs needed for echolocation scattered throughout an ‘evolving’ bat. Just as someone who found a motor in a junkyard and not taking the possibility of a designer seriously, so too, an evolutionist who rules out design (and the real reason they do, is based on a priori beleif), it would be a mistake to hold such a biased view.
[Again, that just not historically true. Do you have any idea of how science works? Have you ever read a research article, attended a scientific convention or seminar, etc?]
Sorry to do this- but a repost is warrented: Symantics- As you point out folks beleivedcin old age BEFORE- meaning even before they had all these so called ‘accurate dating methods’ that we have today- so of course they HAD to rely on priori beliefs as to how old the THOUGHT the earth was. And, even though we have different measuring methods today, we still MUST go with a priori beleif of wicked old age due to the fact that the mthods have nothign with which to calibrate the methods with. The priori beleif comes into play, and simply throws out any dates given that don’t support that priori belief.
[A body part doesn’t have to evolve and then sit around waiting millions of years for other parts to evolve. It has some function (or maybe no function IF it is a physiological consequence of something else that DOES have a function) all along]
And Darwin ALSO recognized that these ‘shifting functions’ have not been recorded and also ignore syatems such as the ecoli ‘motor’ in which those parts would have been useless- you’re suggesting that they remained hanging around as ‘pseudo parts’ with other functions while all the other ‘psuedo parts’ evolved until once inplace, the gene coding decided all the parts should converge and produce a whole functioning system. A motor without a piston is useless and excess baggage. A psiton in a species is uselss outside of being a part of the motor.
[Birds may have had feathers for insulation, for instance, or display, before they were later adpated for flight]
Ah, but this presumpposes all first birds had only insulation and not feathers for flight- it’s your opinion, nothing more. And even allowing this to be the case, they always remained feathers (only in your scenario, the dominent genes that produced better feathers slowly evolved overtime- but I find it odd that in the billions of years necessary for this to happen, that they were really concidered ‘better’ given the fact that the next ‘better’ feathers were still useless for flight). The rest of your bird paragraph just elaborates on your opinion.
[This is really elementary stuff. If you don’t know enough to anticipate and address these kind of points then, frankly, you don’t know enough about evolution to effectively critique it.]
easy now- Your ‘elementary’ stuff is assumption based and biased and lacks evidence. Deriding the opposition does nothing to strengthen your position.
[So what is it? Is it a notochord with an spinal nerve column but no bone? Is that fully formed or partially formed?]
Spinal nerve column? In a worm? With no spine? Ah- I see. I’m going out on a limb here and suggest that they are indeed fully formed species specific and necessary for the notochord worm. Have we found worms with evolving spinal vetebrea? Or will you present a unique centepede, point out some semi similiar system and suggest the two are related despite the immense intermediary fossils being absent in the records?
[What about some fishes were the vertebrae aren’t yet vertebrae, but are all in separate pieces just sort of vaguely surrounding the notochord?]
The vertebra are all formed and free floating and non functioning? Examples?
[What about vertebrae that are just small slivers of bone sitting on top of the notochord, serving no function in structural support but serving only as attachment points for muscles?]
They are... attachment points for muscles. Can you show the ‘slivers’ evolving into vertebre? And ‘no function’? You immediately provide a function right after claiming there is no function.
[There are OFTEN such cross disciplinary conflicts in science. But your imagination as to how they are handled is completely divorced from all reality.]
No- it’s divorced from your priori belief. Stultis, I aint stating that evolutinists are divorced from reality because they beleive in macroevolution that has no biological possibility of happening, please return the favor and refrain from petty insinuations. For hte most part you have, and I thank you- but every now and again you seem to siezure and do so.
[They’re all bollixed. There’ll all entirely misrepresentive of both the facts and the authors’ full assertions. I did so many times years ago, but I just don’t have the time and energy any more to traipse down to the library, photocopy the original book or article, and come back here and type in a full explanation of how and exactly why it’s all b.s. But it is.]
You don’;t have to do so. Tell me, did they make those statements and contradict themselves later? Because they would have to have IF, they didn’t mean what they said as you contend. Taken out of context? How in the heck do you take “And even at the organismal level, morphologically indistinguishable larvae may develop into completely different species.” out of context so that it means anythign other than “And even at the organismal level, morphologically indistinguishable larvae may develop into completely different species.”? Sorry but the ‘taken out of context’ doesn’t work here unless you can show that the original words meant somethign different back then than they do today.
[Why don’t you try reading at least one or two SERIOUS and comprehensive works concerning evolution. (Don’t bother. It’s obvious you haven’t.)]
Oh really? Ok- I have and I’ve also read the counter arguments and refutations and seen that the refutations and competing hypothesis are ALSO absolutely plausible- infact even more plausible due to the biological impossibility of descent from common design hypothesis. Have I read every ‘serious’ (a term used by evos meaning ‘books that agree completely without question that evolution did happen) book? No, because most are nothign more than rehashing points that have already been rebuttled effectively. You want to talk ‘serious-ness’? How bout not simply dismissing different hypothesis’ simply because they don’t fit a priori belief? How about allowing that assumptions play a HUGE part in explaining a process that has scant little to factually back it up? How about admitting that putting a hippo sized animal next to a rat sized one and claiming their jaws show the evolution of the hearing bones is a HUGE stretch of the imagination? How about at least ceeding that a notochord and a sinal column are completely different and that presenting a worm with a notochord and claiming it shows the evolution of the spine, and hten claiming that splinters of muscle attachment bones are both examples of the evolution of the spine is a HUGE assumption? Serious? Yes, let’s do get serious. I’m not suggesting that these aren’t plausible, I’m simpyl pointing out that deriding a differing hypothesis and deriding the one presenting it is shallow-unproductive- and quite frankly imature.
Adaptive evolution is just another way of saying natural selection, without ever describing anything physical. It's circular reasoning at best.
With all the overwhelming evidence that the theory of evolution supposedly has at it's disposal, you offer this as evidence that natural selection is a valid mechanism in a scientific theory, per your own terms.
No offense, but that's simply pathetic if you ask me.
Don't feel bad though, no one, in the years that I've been asking this question, has ever been able to answer it, and the reason is because evolution is not a valid scientific theory. If it was, then the question would easy to answer and demonstrate. It's that simple...or should I say, it's that fundamental.
annecdotal evidences are a dime a dozen. Cold hard facts are scant and elusive. A thousand people can claim the chickory plant cured their aching back, however, what they don’t tell you is that while they were takign the plant extract, they were also subcionciously more concerned about their health and took up walking, stretchign and eating right- any number of which could JUST as plausibly have ‘cured’ their aching back. The herbalist won’t admit this and will continue to claim the herb is the agent through which the good health arose. And the person ‘cured’ will be convinced that nothign else came into play. At least ceede the fact that there might be mechanisms at work that we know nothign about and they might have been the agents through which processes arose. To do otherwise is to adopt a narrow priori and is unscientific.
to be fair, he’s offered a number of models, but to be equally fair, these models are based on assumptions without enough evidences/transitions/intermediary examples to concretely state the processes happened such and such a way. The evidences he’s presented are intriguing, and present a semi plausible mechanism provided the major hurdles facing evolution in other areas can be explaiend away- which biologically, they can’t unfortunately- or at least without itnroducing lateral gene transference, which I might add has it’s own insurmountable problems
“Everybody that had a decent education in science and mathematics knows that”
"You argue like a typical arrogant leftist."
Actually, when it comes to "Proofs" it is in my experience that Math & Logic (Philosophy) are the only areas where these concepts (proof & truth) come into the Science arena.
In math and logic, one assumes that an assertion is "false" and then does what is important in order to prove it is actually not false. (Or is it the other way around?) In any case, a logical proof is done in a systematic fashion, and if something cannot be "proved" to be false, then it is considered true. It has been a long time since I was personally engaged in any such Courses, and the Proofs that are part of getting a passing grade, but it was a lot of fun working on the material back in the day.
Scientific Theory, on the other hand deals with I believe to be an accumulation of data that provides support for the particular theory. The idea being that "Science" is not etched in stone, Unlike for example the "Law" of Moses. In Science, Theories can always be "modified" in order to accommodate new information or data.
There will never be a Law of Evolution, because the concept has to be constantly modified as new information becomes available.
It is all a lot of fun in my opinion, but in the end, my opinion is that TOE is nothing but a bunch of egghead ideas that have been put together in a desperate attempt by really intelligent folks who are determined to show off their smarts while at the same time undermining the education processes all over the world by denying people the opportunity to have their children exposed to real knowledge and a path to potential wisdom.
The Evos are probably all fine people in real life, but when they go out of their way to make my children and grandchildren ignorant, then they become something less than fine people.
They become religious zealots, with an agenda.
Natural Selection is not a metric, since it has no mathematical value, therefore, it must be a mechanism, which it is according to the theory, and as such, it is required to describe and explain physical phenomena. This is simply fundamental to a scientific theory.
I don't care how much supposed evidence there is for this or that, or what reasonable intuition may tell one about the state of affairs of biological entities on this planet. The bottom line is, if you can't even establish the fundamental requirements of the structure of a scientific theory, then you just don't have one, it's that simple.
sorry for all the replies- I post then something else pops into my mind.
[Enjoy sitting in the choir listening to Henry Morris and Duane Gish preach.]
Lemme just quickly address this- I will enjoy it as do other scientists who aren’t biased enough to simply dismiss them and their science and who honestly address what they say and attempt to give coutner points, and to get respectful rebuttles in return and who will then respectfully re-rebuttle. Healthy discovery debates take place this way and should never be shunned or dismissed simply based on bias.
You know, we’re shown two species KINDS that might have similiar features, and we’re shown something like the ‘earlier’ species (I use quotes because it is assumed- based on subjective evidences and interpretation of processes), having two less toes, and we’re told that the later species ‘evolved’ the extra toes. What we’re not told is that it is JUST as plausible that the ‘ealier’ species was a product of their own KIND who gradually lost two toes, and we’re not told how the loss of the two toes advantaged the species. We’re just supposed to take it on faith that somehow two less toes was an advantage. We’re also supposed to take it on faith that the two different KINDS were somehow related, and we’re not to assume that there wasn’t a relative of the the earlier species simply because no fossils have been found.
I’m simplifying of course, but you see the problem I’m laying out here, and the assumptions that we’re taold to accept. And, again what we’re not told, is that it is equally as probable that given the fact that the earlier specimen could have had a TRUE relative with two more toes, that the species shows nothign more than information loss.
The way the media and science present the case thoguh suggests that the later differing species that has two more toes was related to the earlier species and shows a ‘gain of information’ which really isn’t the case. To explain this- I’ll go back to the two-less toed species, and use their TRUE relative and explain.
The two-less toed species shjows a loss of information, however, the coding is still available, and at any time, the two missing toes could come back- There is no ‘gain of information- only a resoration of the information that was originally present. This would entail hidden infromation which we know exist throguh exhaustive observations. The two toes mgith croip up in a KIND TRUELY related to the ealier two-toe-less species KIND, yet we’re not presented with that TRUE later relative because it would simply show that the process of simple natural selection was at work and was not infact a true macroevolutionly process. No NEW information was obtained.
While it’s intriguing to think the two original different species KINDS presented might somehow be realted, we can NOT rule out hte possibility that they are infact not related, and that there very plausibly might be a TRUE relative to the two-toe-less species. (I nkow that’s kinda confusing to follow, but my mind is tired, and is does illustrate an entoirel;y plausible possibility)
Now, we can iether express bias and rule out what I suggested, or we can take the possibiltiy seriously and conceed that the original statement that the two different KINDS of species might not be realted after all, and keep searching for better examples of what we think might be a more appropriate process between different KINDS. Seems to me that an objective scientist would at least ceede the latter, and refrain from belittling those who present the posssibility. Just a thought.
Ah thanks for clearing that up- Hadn’t thought about that line of reasoning before- interesting- will have to give it more thought
I stop arguing with evo folks when it becomes a religious discussion (ie, they aren’t arguing based on evidence and repeatable experimentation) or, like weaponeer did, go to the arrogant leftist tactic of assuming some sort of superiority on their own part.
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.