Field sold on evolution-Theory solid for scientists, religiously motivated critics have no faith

Chicago Sun-Times ^ | June 25, 2007 | TOM McNAMEE Sun-Times Columnist

[badgerbengal]

All religions are faith based, including evolution. Saying God did it is no different as saying it takes millions of years. The only difference is we admit we believe because of faith while evolutionists wont admit.

[NonZeroSum]

Interestingly enough it's barely been a century now since Einstein questioned the theory of gravity and came up with something entirely different.

It wasn't "something entirely different." It was a refinement to handle some special cases for which Newton's theory proved inadequate. For most physics and engineering work, Newton's theory works fine, and is still used every day.

[Non-Sequitur]

Still, as far as I know, no proof of any species evolving into another species based on any evidence. I’m asking honestly though if there is a claim that there is proof one species evolving into another, I have just read that there is none . . . that the “missing link” is still missing . . . for every species on the planet.

Depends on what you consider proof. Paleoanthropologists believe that they have tracked the evolution of man from Homo Habilis through Homo Erectus to Homo Heidelbergensis and Homo Neanderthalensis on to Homo Sapien. And they've published their evidence to support their hypothesis. As for the evolution of life through amphibian to reptile to bird and mammal, scientists have identified hundreds of what they believe are transitional fossils indicating that progression. You may not accept their evidence as accurate but that's a far cry from saying no evidence exists at all.

[Non-Sequitur]

Saying God did it is no different as saying it takes millions of years.

Except that you can test the theory that it took millions of years through dating. But how do you test "God did it?"

[ahayes]

Here is one example with mosquitoes. The underground mosquitoes evolved since the subways were built.

[Cedric]

C’mon, Greg, be reasonable. You can’t expect just a few million of the self-described smartest people in the world, working full time for a scant 150 years to produce the confirmatory fossil record Darwin promised. Be patient, dude.

[ahayes]

Out there in libraries and on the web, if only people would go look. *sigh*

[petro45acp]

Best supported?

PSHAW!

1. “Theory”
2. Evolution of the eye animation.....non-existent
3. Cambrian jump... big hole.
4. Lack of fossil record... proven.
... list continues in “GODLESS” by Ann Coulter.

Just more “consensus” science, the doctrine of secular religionists.

Ruefully,

[Non-Sequitur]

Correct - that’s why I like how intelligent design has come forward in the last few years.

From what I've seen of Intelligent Design it consists of trying to poke holes in Evolution and then saying that if Evolution is wrong then ID just has to be right. Science doesn't work by default.

[ahayes]

Please explain how you find the Cambrian problematic.

[ROLF of the HILL COUNTRY]

“’The theory of evolution,’ Grande says, ‘benefits a society interested in improving.’”

Yeah, Like the Nazis! There’s no coincidence that Darwin and Nietzsche were the favorites with the 20th-century monster men.

[badgerbengal]

Are they still mosquitoes?

[ahayes]

Should they not be?

[Non-Sequitur]

... list continues in “GODLESS” by Ann Coulter.

Now there's a science textbook if ever I saw one. </sarcasm>

[MrB]

To quote one scientist:

It’s as if millions of species just suddenly appeared!

Yeah, they did.

[ahayes]

Please provide a source for your quotation.

[badgerbengal]

If they are still mosquitos then this is a case of adaptation not macro-evolution. I have no problem with micro-evolution and I think all species adapt and change, just not into a new species.

[Chi-townChief]

That’s why I’m agreeing with you - it’s about evolution, not ID.

[js1138]

You have to wonder that why, if this theory of evolution is all that great, do these sycophant "journalists" like McNamee need to continuously shill for it and talk down others to try to make it look good.

You could ask the same question about capitalism and conservatism.

[BibChr]

“Logic weak: ratchet up rhetoric”