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

Skip to comments.

Don't let Darwin make a monkey out of you
Crossrhythms ^ | July 16, 2007 | Steve Maltz

Posted on 07/17/2007 2:30:26 AM PDT by balch3

There are plenty of things in this life that we accept as true. Sometimes we grow out of them as we grow up, as in the case of Father Christmas, the tooth fairy and a decent postal service. As we become more aware of the world around us, then some previously accepted truths are discarded. Yet some are not and we go through life believing the same old stuff mainly because nothing else has come along to teach us otherwise. This is fine as long as there's some semblance of truth in what we're believing, but there are some things that we may have been taught that were untrue because the world has moved on and better explanations have been put forward. This can be more important than you think.

Does the term 'primal soup' stir any brain cells? It was an experiment by Stanley Miller in the 1950s that claimed to produce life out of a 'soup' of chemicals placed into a container full of gases and energised with a swift bolt of electricity. The idea was that this combination reproduced the conditions all those millions of years ago on Earth when life first appeared and the experiment attempted to do the same thing in a laboratory. Remember it now? Still believe that it's the best explanation of how life came to be? Think again.

This experiment has, for the last 20 or 30 years, been totally discredited by the scientific community, yet that little gem of information hasn't filtered through to us, or to our education system. Objections include the fact that they made wrong assumptions about the gases and the amount of electricity that would have been needed to make it work. In other words they managed to get most of the experiment wrong. Doesn't fill us with much confidence, does it? Yet some school textbooks still feature the experiment and, although others may feature it with a warning that it's not the best fit for the data, it is included because the scientists haven't found a better fit for the data and they had to provide some explanation that reflected their world view!

But there are deeper questions raised about the theory that life on Earth could have started in such a way. Such questions as where did we come from are answered these days by scientists following principles first proposed in the mid-nineteenth century by Charles Darwin under the all-encompassing umbrella of the Theory of Evolution. It has held sway ever since, with a firm grip on the hearts and minds of scientists the world over. Is that because it was a good theory? Not exactly. The problem is that it has been the only theory that science has come up with and, for many scientists, it has to be the only game in town because, for many of them, the alternative is unthinkable.

Make no mistake, despite its billing as the enemy of organised religion, for most scientists working today in a whole variety of disciplines, the Theory of Evolution has become a religious system of the highest order. With a set of dogmas firmly entrenched in the past, based around the holy book, "The Origin of the Species", Evolution is put forward as a mechanism to explain all the mysteries of life. It even has its priests, self-proclaimed spokesmen such as the biologist Richard Dawkins, to organise its worship. Dawkins has said, "it is absolutely safe to say that if you meet somebody who claims not to believe in evolution, that person is ignorant, stupid, or insane (or wicked, but I'd rather not consider that)." If that is not blind faith then I don't know what is! What it does remind you of, though, is the medieval Church, zealous to protect its dogmas by vilifying the slightest deviation from them and burning "heretics" at the stake.

A basic assumption of Evolution is that life appeared by blind chance. The usual process, as already described, is that, given a few million or billion years, a hotch-potch of chemicals, swirling away in the right atmosphere will eventually produce the simplest form of life, from which will evolve, given a few more millions of years, into simple organisms, which will, after a few more million years, modify and change, with succeeding generations, into more complex organisms, eventually producing mankind.

It's the process whereby the "primal soup", given enough time, would eventually produce little old you and me, by way of amoeba, fish, small mammals and a variety of monkeys. It has reigned supreme in the scientific and educational community. The Natural History Museum is a virtual shrine to these ideas and schoolkids are spoon-fed on evolution as the explanation of the origins of life and humankind. Yet it is only a theory and any scientist will tell you that a theory is the best fit of available facts to explain a set of phenomena.

But it has not survived the scrutiny of impartial scientific discovery. The fossil record did seem to offer proof but, despite frantic searching over the last century and a half, vital 'missing links' that bridged species such as humankind and whatever came before us, have failed to emerge. Of course there is no time here to provide a solid, comprehensively reasoned rebuttal of the theory of evolution but the point I wish to make is that, if the theory of evolution had been judged like any other scientific theory, it would have fallen apart by now, its credibility all shot through because of its shaky foundations. But it has stood firm. Why?

To answer this question, we must realise that today, the Theory of Evolution is the scientific worldview, the status quo in the classrooms, the research labs, the libraries and colleges. But the Emperor has no clothes, or, at least, they are full of holes and the one abiding reason for this is a great fear. It's a fear that 'perhaps much of what I base my life's work on is a false foundation'. It's also a fear of peer pressure, of anticipated scorn, rejection and loss of livelihood. But the fear goes deeper than that and can be explained when we consider the 'half way' house proposed by many who have openly doubted the truths of evolution. They argue the case against blind chance and instead introduce the idea of an Intelligent Designer, a controlling presence, creating and guiding life as we know it.

In July 2005 more than 400 scientists put their name to the following statement: "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". They have voluntarily "out-ed" themselves, they have "come out of the closet", willing to declare openly what their consciences and scientific integrity have told them is true. One man, Professor Anthony Flew, has gone further. A firm disciple of Charles Darwin for fifty years, he has done an about-turn in his twilight years. Science "has shown, by the almost unbelievable complexity of the arrangements which are needed to produce life, that intelligence must have been involved" he says. "The argument for Intelligent Design is enormously stronger than it was when I first met it ... it now seems to me that the findings of more than 50 years of DNA research have provided materials for a new and enormously powerful argument to design."

The Professor is sure that there is an Intelligent Designer, but is not going any further. He stops just short of pondering metaphysical issues, but it doesn't mean we should do the same. Because, If Intelligent Design is a valid alternative to the Theory of Evolution, then who on earth is this Intelligent Designer? CR


TOPICS: Culture/Society; Editorial; News/Current Events; United Kingdom
KEYWORDS: anthonyflew; creation; darwin; evolution; fsmdidit; id; intelligentdesign; monkey
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-100101-116 next last

1 posted on 07/17/2007 2:30:31 AM PDT by balch3
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: balch3
A basic assumption of Evolution is that life appeared by blind chance.

The basic assumption of Evolution is tiny changes over time. Are those changes "blind chance", or are they the actions of a loving God? Believers in Evolution can go either way on this.

2 posted on 07/17/2007 2:47:05 AM PDT by agere_contra
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: balch3

Maybed finally the smart ones are beginning to confront the snake oil salesmen.


3 posted on 07/17/2007 2:56:47 AM PDT by Turret Gunner A20
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: balch3
"What it does remind you of, though, is the medieval Church, zealous to protect its dogmas by vilifying the slightest deviation from them and burning "heretics" at the stake."

Except that never happened. The writer is doing the same thing he accuses "scientists" from the religion of evolution of doing.

4 posted on 07/17/2007 3:03:27 AM PDT by Nathan Zachary
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: balch3

There is nothing unscientific in believing in a supreme being AND evolution (in all its miriad permutations and possibilities).

As a Catholic the 2 are not mutually exclusive.

The Lord works in myterious ways.


5 posted on 07/17/2007 3:05:22 AM PDT by Vaquero (" an armed society is a polite society" Heinlein "MOLON LABE!" Leonidas of Sparta)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: balch3
A basic assumption of Evolution is that life appeared by blind chance. The usual process, as already described, is that, given a few million or billion years, a hotch-potch of chemicals, swirling away in the right atmosphere will eventually produce the simplest form of life, from which will evolve...

This is exactly the scenario given on almost every television documentary and news magazine that most people see dealing with evolution and the origin of life. It was in my public school textbooks and had me convinced.

This nonsensical fantasy is what the naturalistic evolutionist wants the children and adults to believe about the origins of life.

This is also what most children, including myself, were taught in the videos in my taxpayer funded public schools before I went to private school.

The hardcore fantical evolutionists never raised a big objection about this silly fairy tale about the origin of life.

They don't raise a stink and shout it down when public school children are subjected to it or television is full of it.

They only talk about it and bother to mention this foolishness when they tell someone evolution does not deal with the origin of the very first microscopic speck of life.

Then suddenly, for the first time, they express objection. Not objection that this fairytale is taught, but objection that someone who has seen it included in story after story about evolution their whole life would think that evolution deals with the origin of the first speck.

Only then will they find their voice about the subject when blowing hot air on Free Republic, Democrat Underground or the Daily Kos.

6 posted on 07/17/2007 3:19:35 AM PDT by OriginalIntent (Undo the ACLU revision of the Constitution. If you agree with the ACLU revisions, you are a liberal)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Nathan Zachary
"What it does remind you of, though, is the medieval Church, zealous to protect its dogmas by vilifying the slightest deviation from them and burning "heretics" at the stake."

"Except that never happened."

Are you saying that the medieval Church did not burn and heretics?

7 posted on 07/17/2007 3:33:40 AM PDT by Turret Gunner A20
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Vaquero

That isn’t a basic assumption of those who believe in God’s inspired word. We are as we always have been, and adapt to our environment within the limits built into that original design.

The only “evolution” as far as the church is concerned, is our evolution into being wiser children of God, that we learn from past generations that sin always leads to ruin, that when nations turn away from God and return to pagan ways they romove themselves from the protection of God’s grace.

As the record shows, we don’t aren’t really any more advanced, changed, smarter than we were since the biblical record begins. Man has built great cities, developed building techniques that that are still amazing by todays standards.

Only in the last 200 years, -100 especially- have we been on a rapid development spree. The reason for this is because we’ve been able to retain a relatively stable society, and several generations of living knowledge that we can collectively draw on. We are born with the same ability to learn as we were from the beginning of the biblical record.

If something were to happen and we lost our libraries and generations of the living professionals, teachers, doctores, electricians, engineers etc, we would step back into history accordance to the level of retained knowlage.

We may even be worse off because we have lost a lot of the know-how that was needed in those time to survive. How to build things for ourselves, care for horses and livestock, grow our own good, etc.


8 posted on 07/17/2007 3:44:36 AM PDT by Nathan Zachary
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: balch3

So much ado about nothing.

Theres group pressure in science ?

There’s new technologies and new findings that we have to set against scientifical modells to verify them ?

There’s people searching god in their observations ?

What else is new ?

Until today there’s no community as the one once founded by newton and leibnitz - we call it the scientific world - and this community is the only one I know where criticism is a part of the culture as well as experiment and proof.

I would take their findings and their guidelines for our live over those coming out of the vatican and over those of every religion at any given day - allthough and because of how these people deal with global warming and darwins findings and allthough they might be on the wrong track sometimes (but never for long and never without knowing they might be)


9 posted on 07/17/2007 3:45:40 AM PDT by Rummenigge (there's people willing to blow out the light because it casts a shadow)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Rummenigge

Darwin would liked to have had a photo of me this weekend. I was doing carpeting repairs, and found the easiest way to move around was on my knuckles and rump!


10 posted on 07/17/2007 3:49:40 AM PDT by Does so
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: balch3
But it has stood firm. Why?

Lifestyles. The fruit fly experiments should have been the end of it.

11 posted on 07/17/2007 3:52:00 AM PDT by rickdylan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: balch3
Because, If Intelligent Design is a valid alternative to the Theory of Evolution, then who on earth is this Intelligent Designer?

Who indeed? And how do you prove it is who you say it is?

12 posted on 07/17/2007 3:53:46 AM PDT by Non-Sequitur (Save Fredericksburg. Support CVBT.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Turret Gunner A20

That’s what I’m saying. The church did no such thing. In fact that “mid evil” period is largely a bunch of bunk.

The only burning at the stake going on was done by the rulers of the day, not the church, nor at the command of the church.

In fact I’ll bet you can’t come up with one documented example.


13 posted on 07/17/2007 3:54:28 AM PDT by Nathan Zachary
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: Rummenigge
"I would take their findings and their guidelines for our live over those coming out of the vatican and over those of every religion at any given day"

Have you quit eating meat, are you growing your own organic veggies, recycling your urine back into drinking water? Have you sold your car and stopped using electricity because YOU are destroying the earth, causing "global warming"?

Have you donated money to the "save the Sahara desert" project?

The guideline to living life is found in the bible, BTW, not the Vatican. The Vatican follows the Gospel and merely repeats what it says.

You probably don't know it, but you are most likely following quite a lot of what the bible says about living life. You should read it sometime, you might suprise yourself and see how "science" these days is merely confirming what the bible has been saying all along.

14 posted on 07/17/2007 4:07:51 AM PDT by Nathan Zachary
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: balch3

Where to start with this gem...

“Does the term ‘primal soup’ stir any brain cells? It was an experiment by Stanley Miller in the 1950s that claimed to produce life out of a ‘soup’ of chemicals placed into a container full of gases and energised with a swift bolt of electricity.”

The ‘primal soup’ experiment most certainly did NOT claim to ‘produce life’. It claimed to produce large protein molecules, which are potential precursors to RNA and DNA.

Whether or not it exactly reproduced primeval Earth (or some microclimate, as near a volcanic vent) is n”ot so relevant as the general result. A vast array of conditions are no doubt present on the billions of planets throughout the universe.

“But there are deeper questions raised about the theory that life on Earth could have started in such a way. Such questions as where did we come from are answered these days by scientists following principles first proposed in the mid-nineteenth century by Charles Darwin under the all-encompassing umbrella of the Theory of Evolution.”

Somehow we’ve now made the jump from the “origin of life” to the “origin of species”. Darwin never theorized (as far as I can recall) on the origin of life.

“Make no mistake, despite its billing as the enemy of organised religion, for most scientists working today in a whole variety of disciplines, the Theory of Evolution has become a religious system of the highest order. With a set of dogmas firmly entrenched in the past, based around the holy book, “The Origin of the Species”, Evolution is put forward as a mechanism to explain all the mysteries of life.”

My hyperbole meter pegged on this sentence. Evolution is a general theory to explain how life has changed over time. Many details of that process still aren’t well understood. What seems clear from what we can see is that life has changed over time. Any theory of life will have to account for that, as well as a generous dose of Occam’s Razor.

“What it does remind you of, though, is the medieval Church, zealous to protect its dogmas by vilifying the slightest deviation from them and burning “heretics” at the stake.”

Nothing like melodramatic over the top rhetoric. I haven’t seen too many scientists calling for capital punishment of intellectual dissenters lately. ;-)

“A basic assumption of Evolution is that life appeared by blind chance.”

No. Evolution makes no assumption about the origin of life. That is a different area.

It is true that prevailing scientific opinion is that life began through some natural series of events, rather than (say) due to the magic incantations of pink bunnies from Aldeberan. This is mainly since scientists generally don’t invent more elaborate explanations than necessary unless there are supporting facts, as in observable phenomena.

“They argue the case against blind chance and instead introduce the idea of an Intelligent Designer, a controlling presence, creating and guiding life as we know it.”

In which star system did this “ID” originate? Oh, you mean you’re positing an all-powerful, omniscient, supernatural being as the ID? I’m afraid from a strictly scientific viewpoint that is a wild leap of imagination completely unsupported by any evidence. Produce some, and I think you have a much more interesting and compelling argument.

‘In July 2005 more than 400 scientists put their name to the following statement: “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”.’

Honest and open inquiry into all facets of nature should be the goal of science. I’m sure most young biologists spend many hours pondering evolution and the details of its various mechanisms. Just bear in mind that any competing theories will have to account for all the evidence, such as the general progression from simpler life forms to more complex in the fossil record. Constant intervention from Aldeberanian pink bunnies seems unlikely.

‘One man, Professor Anthony Flew, has gone further. A firm disciple of Charles Darwin for fifty years, he has done an about-turn in his twilight years. Science “has shown, by the almost unbelievable complexity of the arrangements which are needed to produce life, that intelligence must have been involved” he says. “The argument for Intelligent Design is enormously stronger than it was when I first met it ... it now seems to me that the findings of more than 50 years of DNA research have provided materials for a new and enormously powerful argument to design.”’

The cynic in me says that he’s hedged his bets in his waning years, but I suppose that’s uncharitable... ;-)

However, the statement ‘The argument for Intelligent Design is enormously stronger than it was when I first met it ... it now seems to me that the findings of more than 50 years of DNA research have provided materials for a new and enormously powerful argument to design.’ seems quite unsupported. I’d like to hear his “enormously powerful argument” - where has it been published? What as the reaction been in the scientific community at large?

From my perspective, DNA research has done rather the opposite of what he claims. Artifacts left by ancient retroviruses are evident in DNA, and can be seen matching most frequently in related species, and less frequently in more diverse species. This is thought to correspond to the length of time since the two species shared a common ancestor. What is the ID explanation for these observations?

The fact that over 90% of the DNA in a chimp and a man is the same is scarcely a strong argument for custom, ground-up design of each, is it? Why would chimp and human DNA have many of the same retrovirus artifacts?

“The Professor is sure that there is an Intelligent Designer, but is not going any further. He stops just short of pondering metaphysical issues, but it doesn’t mean we should do the same. Because, If Intelligent Design is a valid alternative to the Theory of Evolution, then who on earth is this Intelligent Designer?”

I vote for Pink Bunnies from Aldeberan. Any other theories?


15 posted on 07/17/2007 4:11:32 AM PDT by PreciousLiberty
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Rummenigge
"and allthough they might be on the wrong track sometimes (but never for long and never without knowing they might be)

wrong track SOMETIMES? and not for long? What planet are you living on? They must have better scientists there.

16 posted on 07/17/2007 4:14:02 AM PDT by Nathan Zachary
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: balch3
Orthodox Darwinism is dead. Neo-Darwinism, as postulated by the late Stephen Jay Gould, asserts that life began in a series of fit and start events, with new species coming seemingly out of nowhere and then the ecosystems settle down for a long period of time in a state of equilibrium. Then as if out of nowhere, entire species die off and there's another ecosystem born. In the face of these developments, you have "punctuated equilibrium." It reorders classical Darwinism by realizing the idea of gradual and transitional change is complete nonsense. And yet, evolutionary theory, while spectacular at explaining the processes of life and how living things adapt to their environment, has failed to achieve the task Darwin set out in his famous work: to explain the origin of life. Life did not just begin to be out of nothing; its very existence is a miracle that defies the laws of random chance. If we leave the naturalist framework of biological science, we are forced to admit there must be an Intelligent Designer. The existence of such a phenomena cannot be adequately explained by the process framework posited by evolution. The theory has changed and enlarged our appreciation for the wonders of the natural world. But it cannot explain how that world came into being in the first place.

"Show me just what Mohammed brought that was new, and there you will find things only evil and inhuman, such as his command to spread by the sword the faith he preached." - Manuel II Palelologus

17 posted on 07/17/2007 4:14:19 AM PDT by goldstategop (In Memory Of A Dearly Beloved Friend Who Lives In My Heart Forever)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Vaquero
As a Catholic the 2 are not mutually exclusive.

You do know many of the fundies here on FR don't consider RC's as christian? In their eyes you're almost as bad as an evil scientist, and only slightly better than a islamderthal or heathen.

18 posted on 07/17/2007 4:14:52 AM PDT by ASA Vet
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: Non-Sequitur
That's not provable anymore than evolution is provable. They both fail the test of falsifiability. Karl Popper said the key to science is being able to determine if theoretical assumptions are wrong so you can see if they are correct. Neither evolution or intelligent design meet that definition of science. It begs the question of why evolution is true but intelligent design isn't. Neither excludes the other and they are both keys to understanding different aspects of the issue of life on earth.

"Show me just what Mohammed brought that was new, and there you will find things only evil and inhuman, such as his command to spread by the sword the faith he preached." - Manuel II Palelologus

19 posted on 07/17/2007 4:19:18 AM PDT by goldstategop (In Memory Of A Dearly Beloved Friend Who Lives In My Heart Forever)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: agere_contra
The basic assumption of Evolution is tiny changes over time. Are those changes "blind chance", or are they the actions of a loving God? Believers in Evolution can go either way on this.

There appears to be a concerted effort deny that possibility.

The author asserts that evolution is a "religious system of the highest order" - right up there with the other major religions.

Once this is accepted it becomes axiomatic that with respect to other religions it is heresy, and believing in it is apostasy.

20 posted on 07/17/2007 4:24:10 AM PDT by tacticalogic ("Oh bother!" said Pooh, as he chambered his last round.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Nathan Zachary; Turret Gunner A20
That’s what I’m saying. The church did no such thing. In fact that “mid evil” period is largely a bunch of bunk. The only burning at the stake going on was done by the rulers of the day, not the church, nor at the command of the church.

It is dangerous to make false claims that are easily verifiable... and that's the biggest bunch of revisionist bunkum I've ever read.

First, the Papacy had enormous influence over "rulers of the day." So, when, for example, Innocent III publicly ordered a crusade to exterminate the Albigensian heretics, the more pious "rulers of the day" were happy to comply.

Second, you're forgetting that the Pope himself was one of the "Rulers of the Day." Up until the unification of Italy in the late 19th century, the Pope controlled a country, the Papal States, in which the death penalty was frequently administered for heresy. One, of many possible examples: the scientist Giordano Bruno, burned at the stake by the Church, in Rome, in 1600.

Maybe you should learn a little more about what you're talking about before you go pontificating (no pun intended) to others.

21 posted on 07/17/2007 4:42:10 AM PDT by Alter Kaker (Gravitation is a theory, not a fact. It should be approached with an open mind...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: goldstategop
Karl Popper said the key to science is being able to determine if theoretical assumptions are wrong so you can see if they are correct.

Yet the theories behind evolution may be testable. The basic premise of ID - God did it - is not.

22 posted on 07/17/2007 4:44:25 AM PDT by Non-Sequitur (Save Fredericksburg. Support CVBT.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: Nathan Zachary

I try to.

I try not to kill, to lie etc... therefore I practice foregiveness... you know all the catchy stuff you could write on a single sheet of paper that is basic to good manners and behaviour.

But most of the bible is political - full of contradictions, written by so many people that followed so many ideas of how a scociety might work or should work -

-it’s nearly impossible not to life by it. Because it’s so wage.

And thenyou wrote:

+++ Have you quit eating meat, are you growing your own organic veggies, recycling your urine back into drinking water? Have you sold your car and stopped using electricity because YOU are destroying the earth, causing “global warming”? Have you donated money to the “save the Sahara desert” project? +++

No I am not personally recycling my urine. That’s what our cities sludge treatment is for. I do eat meat and I grow some veggies that I don’t bother to poison (an old sort of tomatoe - very tasty but with a tender skin - so it wouldn’t be marketable). I am using a car but I don ‘t posses one. Electricity is still my friend and what on earth is the sahara desert project ?

And one more question - what are these questions about ?


23 posted on 07/17/2007 5:45:45 AM PDT by Rummenigge (there's people willing to blow out the light because it casts a shadow)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: Alter Kaker

that’s but a nice tagline....


24 posted on 07/17/2007 5:48:59 AM PDT by Rummenigge (there's people willing to blow out the light because it casts a shadow)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: Vaquero

“The Lord works in myterious ways.”

But not really in ths case. Genesis 1 tells us how He did it, and he did not use evolution at all.


25 posted on 07/17/2007 5:58:49 AM PDT by FoolNoMore
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: Nathan Zachary

Your problem is, that scientists are human and fail ? Well that’s why science is so great - because the principle of science is, as I said, proof and verification.

Therefore a scientific hoax is quite a short lived one, whereas the pope can’t fail.


26 posted on 07/17/2007 6:02:40 AM PDT by Rummenigge (there's people willing to blow out the light because it casts a shadow)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: PreciousLiberty

Glad you went through this POS so I didn’t have to.


27 posted on 07/17/2007 6:05:12 AM PDT by ElectricStrawberry (1/27 Wolfhounds...cut in half during the Clinton years.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: balch3

What exactly is the theory of “Intelligent Designer”?

The author is a nutcase with demonstratably has ZERO knowledge or understanding of Evloution.


28 posted on 07/17/2007 6:06:04 AM PDT by Gengis Khan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: FoolNoMore

“The Lord works in myterious ways.”

But not really in ths case. Genesis 1 tells us how He did it, and he did not use evolution at all.


Ahhh, so a book written by men is less infaliable than a science theorized by men?


29 posted on 07/17/2007 6:14:45 AM PDT by BritExPatInFla
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: FoolNoMore

yes genesis 1..right.

stories past down from one sandle wearer to another with all of the inaccuracies of word of mouth and finally written on goat parchment for all to enjoy.

sure.


30 posted on 07/17/2007 6:23:28 AM PDT by Vaquero (" an armed society is a polite society" Heinlein "MOLON LABE!" Leonidas of Sparta)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: Nathan Zachary

“In fact I’ll bet you can’t come up with one documented example.”

Giordano Bruno


31 posted on 07/17/2007 6:37:23 AM PDT by stormer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: balch3
The theory of evolution is cut from the same phony whole cloth as the theory of man made global warming.

Both are chock full of holes, yet are trumpeted as untouchable by their adherents who claim they have been settled by "scientific consensus". Unfortunately for them, the facts don't bear them out, only their own assumptions do.

32 posted on 07/17/2007 6:38:13 AM PDT by Gritty (Where were you when I laid the earth's foundation? - God to Job, Job 38:4)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: FoolNoMore
Genesis 1 tells us how He did it....

It's all there in Gen. 1 eh? Only a few hundred words to describe the origin of the entire universe?

They say a picture is worth a thousand words. But Christians claim that the creation of the entire universe and all species that live in it can be described in a few hundred words.

It takes real faith to accept such a claim.

33 posted on 07/17/2007 6:41:56 AM PDT by narby
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: balch3
Wow - there are so many things wrong with what is written here, I don’t know where to begin. Good thing media consultant and tour guide Steve Maltz feels qualified to comment on evolutionary biology.
34 posted on 07/17/2007 6:42:32 AM PDT by stormer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Nathan Zachary; Turret Gunner A20
The only burning at the stake going on was done by the rulers of the day, not the church, nor at the command of the church.

I don't mean to rub your nose in your mistake, but even a cursory investigation would have shown that you're 100% wrong.

The Papal Synod of Verona established execution by burning as the standard Papal-sanctioned punishment for heresy.

This was affirmed later by the Fourth Lateran Council and the Synod of Toulouse and was a feature of Canon Law until the formal re-codification in the early 20th century.

35 posted on 07/17/2007 6:43:25 AM PDT by Alter Kaker (Gravitation is a theory, not a fact. It should be approached with an open mind...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: stormer; Nathan Zachary
Giordano Bruno

We both named the same case. In the event Nathan thinks this was the only case (it was most certainly not), he is welcome to examine other cases: Diego de Enzinas, Guillaume Bélibaste, Carlos Ometochtzin are three more. But there are a great many. It is unbelievably absurd to claim that the Church never ordered the execution of anybody for heresy, when burning at the stake was an official punishment for heresy in canon law for nearly a thousand years.

36 posted on 07/17/2007 6:54:27 AM PDT by Alter Kaker (Gravitation is a theory, not a fact. It should be approached with an open mind...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: PreciousLiberty
“I vote for Pink Bunnies from Aldeberan.”

Idiot. Only a person who attended Iowa State would believe that a K5 red-orange giant could support lagamorphs OF ANY COLOR! Clearly (and rather obviously, I think) they are from Alpha Leporis.

37 posted on 07/17/2007 6:58:07 AM PDT by stormer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: Alter Kaker; Nathan Zachary
“We both named the same case.”

I probably should have read the whole thread before I put in my two cents, but as you have stated, there are a great many well documented examples of this taking place. I was quite surprised to read Nathan’s comment.

38 posted on 07/17/2007 7:06:47 AM PDT by stormer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

To: balch3
With a set of dogmas firmly entrenched in the past, based around the holy book, "The Origin of the Species",

I'd be a lot more impressed with this galoot if he actually knew what he was criticizing

39 posted on 07/17/2007 7:10:01 AM PDT by Oztrich Boy ("We can categorically state that we have not released man-eating badgers into the area...")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Non-Sequitur
Orthodox Darwinism has been discredited. The idea life arose through random chance and slow gradual modifications is belied by the fossil record and by the fact no one has seen species change or new ones, emerge with a few human lifetimes. Scientists have not been able to produce empirical evidence macro-evolution exists. Now, its true, you can't empirically demonstrate the existence of God either. The difference between those who champion evolution and those who believe in God is the former refuse to acknowledge they have to believe in atheist interpretation of reality because their theory compels them to while those who believe in God are honest enough to admit all they have is faith. As I said, neither theory excludes the other but Richard Dawkins and Daniel Dennett have said there is no scientific basis for religious belief. One could inform these gentlemen with equal authority there is no scientific basis either for evolution - at least the Orthodox Darwinian account of it.

"Show me just what Mohammed brought that was new, and there you will find things only evil and inhuman, such as his command to spread by the sword the faith he preached." - Manuel II Palelologus

40 posted on 07/17/2007 7:20:39 AM PDT by goldstategop (In Memory Of A Dearly Beloved Friend Who Lives In My Heart Forever)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: narby

It’s more an overview on how it happened.

There’s lots of secondary literature to the bible ;-)


41 posted on 07/17/2007 7:31:30 AM PDT by Rummenigge (there's people willing to blow out the light because it casts a shadow)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: PreciousLiberty

Thank you for your post. Said it better than I could have.


42 posted on 07/17/2007 7:35:13 AM PDT by highball ("I never should have switched from scotch to martinis." -- the last words of Humphrey Bogart)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: stormer; Alter Kaker; Nathan Zachary

And I am most shocked (not!) that Nathan has not responded with a reason why your evidence is wrong, made-up, bunk, and rabid anti-Catholicism.


43 posted on 07/17/2007 7:36:00 AM PDT by dmz
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies]

To: goldstategop
Orthodox Darwinism has been discredited.

There are tens of thousands of actual scientists out there who would disagree with your assessment.

44 posted on 07/17/2007 7:37:25 AM PDT by Non-Sequitur (Save Fredericksburg. Support CVBT.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 40 | View Replies]

To: Turret Gunner A20
Maybe finally the smart ones

By smart ones, do you mean those who think that humans were alive at the same time as brontasaurus and T. Rex?

45 posted on 07/17/2007 7:43:20 AM PDT by Rodney King (No, we can't all just get along.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: stormer
Yesterday we had an intern lawyer at the Discovery Institute doing book reviews and trying to engage in scientific debate, now we have a "media consultant and tour guide" doing the same thing.

Its so easy, everybody is getting into doing science. You know what's coming next, don't you?

Science: so easy a Neanderthal can do it!

Barbie lecturing us on science from the mall!

46 posted on 07/17/2007 7:45:43 AM PDT by Coyoteman (Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: balch3

read later


47 posted on 07/17/2007 7:46:47 AM PDT by LiteKeeper (Beware the secularization of America; the Islamization of Eurabia)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: balch3

I believe in God. I work with genetic material daily. I don’t see why the endless debate is necessary. God is real, and evolution is real. You can have faith and be a scientist.


48 posted on 07/17/2007 7:48:36 AM PDT by mysterio
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Coyoteman
Neanderthal!? - Isn’t that just another one of the frauds perpetrated in order to destroy Christianity and Western culture? I’ve seen those pictures of old bones you post, they all look like monkeys or people with arthritis to me - and yes, I do have a scientific background, I took biology my sophomore year in high school.
49 posted on 07/17/2007 8:18:32 AM PDT by stormer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 46 | View Replies]

To: Rummenigge
[Genesis is] more an overview on how it happened.

Then why do many discount the possibility that evolution was a tool created by God?

There’s lots of secondary literature to the bible ;-)

You mean like a universe full of evidence? If you believe the universe was created by God, what better way to study how he created it than by studying it directly. The Bible has been passed down along many generations, translated into a feeble human language called "English". While it could be said that studying the universe directly is studying Gods work, written in His own hand, in His native tongue.

50 posted on 07/17/2007 9:44:08 AM PDT by narby
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 41 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-100101-116 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