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
It’s more an overview on how it happened.
There’s lots of secondary literature to the bible ;-)
Thank you for your post. Said it better than I could have.
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.
There are tens of thousands of actual scientists out there who would disagree with your assessment.
By smart ones, do you mean those who think that humans were alive at the same time as brontasaurus and T. Rex?
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!
read later
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.
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.
Global Warming is a political movement, with it's current leader the politician Al Gore.
When evolution is used as the excuse to justify regulating the economy of the world, with major politicians and movies made in it's promotion, then you might have a point.
“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.
and that’s it in a nutshell. All the rest is foolish men making there own idols.
The theory of evolution is cut from the same phony whole cloth as the theory of man made global warming.
“It’s an atheistic cult, promoted by communists, atheists, the ACLU, and fellow minions.”
It’s really quite amusing when those espousing a religious point of view attack science as a “cult”.
Science is the anti-cult.
As to who’s the “minion”, I’ll leave that as an exercise for the reader.
Sorry, didn’t mean to ping you. Forgot to delete your name while bookmarking...
Yeah, we know -- they were all pussycats like Richeleiu. The corruption and usurpation of power by the Church are so well documented you have to have come this far in life blindfolded.
In fact I’ll bet you can’t come up with one documented example.
Did or did not the Church play an active, in fact a dominant, part in these instances? 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.
ALBEGENSIANS
The Inquisition, however, operating unremittingly in the south at Toulouse, Albi, Carcassonne and other towns during the whole of the 13th century and a great part of the 14th, succeeded in crushing the heresy. The repressive measures were terrible, in 1245 the royal officers assisting the Inquisition seized the heretical citadel of Montsegur, and 200 Cathari were burned in one day. Moreover, the church decreed severe chastisement against all laymen suspected of sympathy with the heretics (council of Narbonne, 1235; Bull Ad extirpanda, 1252).
http://nostalgia.wikipedia.org/wiki/Albigenses
In February 1244, Hugues des Arcis captured the barbican to Montségur. The defenders surrendered at the end of month. The fortress, called by non-Cathars 'Satan's synagogue', was emptied on 16 March, and 210 Cathars were burned in a fire at the base of the mountain.
http://xenophongroup.com/montjoie/albigens.htm
HUGENOTSUnder Louis XIV ‘. Many Huguenots were burned at the stake. Many Huguenots who did not find their death in local prisons or execution on the wheel of torture, were shipped to sea to serve their sentences as galley slaves, either on French galley ships, or sold to Turkey as galley slaves.
http://www.geocities.com/hugenoteblad/hist-hug.htm?200717
KNIGHTS TEMPLAR
King Philip IV of France, deeply in debt to the Order, began pressuring Pope Clement V to take action. On Friday, October 13, 1307, King Philip had many of the Order's members in France arrested, tortured into "confessions", and burned at the stake.[
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Knights_Templar
Second phase: The papal commission
The second phase of the process was the papal inquiry, which was not restricted to France, but extended to all the Christian countries of Europe, and even to the Orient. In most of the other countries -- Portugal, Spain, Germany, Cyprus -- the Templars were found innocent; in Italy, except for a few districts, the decision was the same. But in France the episcopal inquisitions, resuming their activities, took the facts as established at the trial, and confined themselves to reconciling the repentant guilty members, imposing various canonical penances extending even to perpetual imprisonment. Only those who persisted in heresy were to be turned over to the secular arm, but, by a rigid interpretation of this provision, those who had withdrawn their former confessions were considered relapsed heretics; thus fifty-four Templars who had recanted after having confessed were condemned as relapsed and publicly burned on 12 May, 1310. Catholic Encyclopedia
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/14493a.htm
And I suppose Joan of Arc stood out in the sun too long and died of heat stroke.
No. Want to try again?
I notice you’ve abandoned this thread for greener pastures. Curious.
This could be one of those smart ones: One day, an ape escaped from the zoo. His escape was announced on the nightly news and in the newspapers. But no one reported seeing the ape. Eventually, zoo officials found him reading at the library. He had two books open and a puzzled look on his face. One book was the Bible. The other was written by Darwin. When the zookeepers asked him what he was doing, the ape replied, "I'm trying to figure out if I'm my brother's keeper or my keeper's brother."
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.