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

Skip to comments.

Evolutionists Fear Academic Freedom
Townhall.com ^ | July 5, 2008 | Floyd and Mary Beth Brown

Posted on 07/05/2008 5:23:33 AM PDT by Kaslin

click here to read article


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 41-6061-8081-100 ... 141-143 next last
To: Non-Sequitur; Coyoteman

Looking at the photo of the reconstructed skull above reminded me that in a real sense the only evidence for Darwinism is forensic—typically fossilized bones alleged to be extremely ancient. Unlike the TV show CSI though very old forensic evidence often does not yield intelligible proof, be it about a crime, or a theory.

The existence of evidence for similar hominids to Homo Sapiens Sapiens no more proves we are descended from them any more than the existence of the Chinese proves my family is descended from them.


61 posted on 07/05/2008 8:49:23 AM PDT by AnalogReigns (Philosophies of science have a religious foundation.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 54 | View Replies]

To: rustbucket

Duane T. Gish, quoting the evolutionist Errol White:

“We still do not know the mechanics of evolution in spite of the over-confident claims in some quarters, nor are we likely to make further progress in this by the classical methods of paleontology or biology; and we shall certainly not advance matters by jumping up and down shrilling ‘Darwin is God and I, So-and-so, am his prophet’—the recent researches of workers like Dean and Henshelwood (1964) already suggest the possibility of incipient cracks in the seemingly monolithic walls of the Neo-Darwinian Jericho.”


62 posted on 07/05/2008 8:49:26 AM PDT by reasonisfaith (Liberalism is service to the self disguised as service to others.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 50 | View Replies]

To: reasonisfaith
Of all this evidence, which is the strongest?

Their evidence is asking stupid questions like "If God created the universe, then who or what created God"? (Evolutionists try to corner you into believing you must provide scientific evidence for God's existence.)

Answer: God is God. God is the Creator. If God needed someone or something to create Him, He would not be God. You don't need science to explain God.

63 posted on 07/05/2008 8:52:58 AM PDT by mtg
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: Kaslin
Evolutionists use a variety of methods to silence alternate viewpoints

Such as finding useful explanations, which probably would seem to silence something but doesn't silence anything except by contrast with useless conjecture.

64 posted on 07/05/2008 8:53:51 AM PDT by RightWhale (I will veto each and every beer)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: reasonisfaith
If you read Gish’s book, or research the fossil record, you will see that there is no (zero) fossil evidence for transitional forms. Not just transitional forms between fish and amphimbians, but also between amphibians and reptiles, reptiles and mammals, and all the countless species between which transitional forms must have existed in the path of commmon descent if evolution is true.

Gish is a creationist. You can't expect him to tell the truth about the theory of evolution, can you?

65 posted on 07/05/2008 8:57:11 AM PDT by Coyoteman (Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 60 | View Replies]

To: AnalogReigns
Evolution, as a theory of what happened in the (very) distant past, cannot be directly tested by repeatable contemporary experimentation, in the good old here and now.

On the contrary, it can be tested by experiment (I'm not sure what you mean by "directly tested"-- is it one of those impossible hurdles made just for evolution?).

I can dig (today) in cambrian strata looking and predict that I will find no mammalian fossils there. I can examine the DNA of lizards and birds in Africa and South America and predict that in their introns (which have no effect on an animal's form) the African lizards will resemble the South American lizards more than the African birds.

If I find a mammalian fossil in a cambrian stratum or a lizard with more intron-proximity to a nearby bird than to a distant lizard, it will rock the scientific world, it will force us to rethink everything we think we know about evolution and the tree of life. We might have to scrap evolution entirely, or at least demote it to the status of a useful approximation. Evolution is testable and falsifiable.
66 posted on 07/05/2008 9:02:28 AM PDT by xenophiles
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 54 | View Replies]

To: reasonisfaith

Just because an old fool says something doesn’t make it true.

You can purchase invertebrate fossils here
http://www.paleodirect.com/invertebratefossils.htm


67 posted on 07/05/2008 9:03:37 AM PDT by Soliton (Investigate, study, learn, then express an opinion)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 60 | View Replies]

To: Soliton
Maybe with so many competing stories of creation, Christian churches should be required to teach alternatives like evolution and the Hindu, Norse, and Aztec stories.

Apparently it escapes you that people can choose their faith. When children walk into a classroom, and they are told ["Here is the theory of evolution. Accept it as fact. There will be no discussion about it's reliability."]; that's indoctrination. Wait until evolution is proven to be fact before teaching it as fact.

68 posted on 07/05/2008 9:06:30 AM PDT by mtg
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: Soliton

The question is: what life forms preceded the creatures of the Cambrian explosion, and where is the evidence?


69 posted on 07/05/2008 9:12:59 AM PDT by reasonisfaith (Liberalism is service to the self disguised as service to others.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 67 | View Replies]

To: mtg
Wait until evolution is proven to be fact before teaching it as fact.

In science, how is a theory "proven to be a fact?"

Please explain the process for those of who are not familiar with how this is accomplished.

70 posted on 07/05/2008 9:13:48 AM PDT by Coyoteman (Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 68 | View Replies]

To: Coyoteman

“Gish is a creationist. You can’t expect him to tell the truth about the theory of evolution, can you?”

If your first priority is to protect a worldview based on either Darwinism or atheistic naturalism, do not read Gish’s book. Don’t go anywhere near anything written by Michael J. Behe, either, and you must completely ignore the major arguments presented by both Gish and Behe.

Sarcastic tone aside—I would say with great enthusiasm yes, look with careful focus into the writings and thinking of these men, as well as that of any serious scientists and philosophers you encounter along the way.

If you find yourself criticizing them based on labels alone or defaming their character, I would suggest you take note of this tactic.


71 posted on 07/05/2008 9:15:28 AM PDT by reasonisfaith (Liberalism is service to the self disguised as service to others.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 65 | View Replies]

To: P8riot
So the debate must go on in order to be true to the scientific process.

It's not a debate. It's a movement to put religion into public schools and the attacks on Darwin prove that beyond a reasonable doubt.
They preach "intelligent design" while attacking Darwin...the father of intelligent design.

72 posted on 07/05/2008 9:20:38 AM PDT by radioman
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: reasonisfaith
The question is: what life forms preceded the creatures of the Cambrian explosion, and where is the evidence?

"It's important to remember that what we call "the fossil record" is only the available fossil record. In order to be available to us, the remains of ancient plants and animals have to be preserved first, and this means that they need to have fossilizable parts and to be buried in an environment that will not destroy them.

It has long been suspected that the sparseness of the pre-Cambrian fossil record reflects these two problems. First, organisms may not have sequestered and secreted much in the way of fossilizable hard parts; and second, the environments in which they lived may have characteristically dissolved those hard parts after death and recycled them. An exception was the mysterious "small shelly fauna" -- minute shelled animals that are hard to categorize -- that left abundant fossils in the early Cambrian. Recently, minute fossil embryos dating to 570 million years ago have also been discovered. Even organisms that hadn't evolved hard parts, and thus didn't leave fossils of their bodies, left fossils of the trails they made as they moved through the Precambrian mud. Life was flourishing long before the Cambrian "explosion".

The best record of the Cambrian diversification is the Burgess Shale in British Columbia. Laid down in the middle-Cambrian, when the "explosion" had already been underway for several million years, this formation contains the first appearance in the fossil record of brachiopods, with clamlike shells, as well as trilobites, mollusks, echinoderms, and many odd animals that probably belong to extinct lineages. They include Opabinia, with five eyes and a nose like a fire hose, and Wiwaxia, an armored slug with two rows of upright scales.

The question of how so many immense changes occurred in such a short time is one that stirs scientists. Why did many fundamentally different body plans evolve so early and in such profusion? Some point to the increase in oxygen that began around 700 million years ago, providing fuel for movement and the evolution of more complex body structures. Others propose that an extinction of life just before the Cambrian opened up ecological roles, or "adaptive space," that the new forms exploited. External, ecological factors like these were undoubtedly important in creating the opportunity for the Cambrian explosion to occur.

Internal, genetic factors were also crucial. Recent research suggests that the period prior to the Cambrian explosion saw the gradual evolution of a "genetic tool kit" of genes that govern developmental processes. Once assembled, this genetic tool kit enabled an unprecedented period of evolutionary experimentation -- and competition. Many forms seen in the fossil record of the Cambrian disappeared without trace. Once the body plans that proved most successful came to dominate the biosphere, evolution never had such a free hand again, and evolutionary change was limited to relatively minor tinkering with the body plans that already existed.

Interpretations of this critical period are subject of lively debate among scientists like Stephen Jay Gould of Harvard University and Simon Conway Morris of Cambridge University. Gould emphasizes the role of chance. He argues that if one could "rerun the tape" of that evolutionary event, a completely different path might have developed and would likely not have included a humanlike creature. Morris, on the other hand, contends that the environment of our planet would have created selection pressures that would likely have produced similar forms of life to those around us -- including humans".

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/evolution/library/03/4/l_034_02.html

73 posted on 07/05/2008 9:22:24 AM PDT by Soliton (Investigate, study, learn, then express an opinion)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 69 | View Replies]

To: reasonisfaith
If your first priority is to protect a worldview based on either Darwinism or atheistic naturalism, do not read Gish’s book. Don’t go anywhere near anything written by Michael J. Behe, either, and you must completely ignore the major arguments presented by both Gish and Behe.

I have read quite a bit of creationist literature, and studied a number of creationist websites.

When it comes to science they are either willfully self-deluded or they are lying.

They make the most outrageous claims about science, things that are documented to be incorrect, and when corrected they continue to make those same claims.

The reason for this is that they are not doing science; they are promoting their particular religious views. They are not bound by the rules of science, nor by evidence. This leads to repetition of the same falsehoods over and over.

Some of these claims have been seen, and refuted, so often that they have been numbered for easier reference. See Index to Creationist Claims by Mark Isaak.

74 posted on 07/05/2008 9:26:42 AM PDT by Coyoteman (Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 71 | View Replies]

To: mtg
Apparently it escapes you that people can choose their faith. When children walk into a classroom, and they are told ["Here is the theory of evolution. Accept it as fact.

BS. Science provides evidence to back up its rational claims. Religion does not. Religious indoctrination is the reason Hindu children are Hindus, Christian children are Christians, and why you believe a big daddy in the sky created everythinhg by speaking words in a vacuum.

75 posted on 07/05/2008 9:26:56 AM PDT by Soliton (Investigate, study, learn, then express an opinion)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 68 | View Replies]

To: mtg

“Their evidence is asking stupid questions like “If God created the universe, then who or what created God”?”
Yes you do! You do if you’re talking about God in a class that purports to be about science. For example, if the class is called “biology” or “General Science” or “Creation Science”

“Evolutionists try to corner you into believing you must provide scientific evidence for God’s existence.)”

Not necessarily, if the class is about “Religion” or “Philosophy”.


76 posted on 07/05/2008 9:29:05 AM PDT by haroldeveryman
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 63 | View Replies]

To: reasonisfaith
If you read Gish’s book, or research the fossil record, you will see that there is no (zero) fossil evidence for transitional forms.

An excellent reason not to read books by the old fool: "Tiktaalik roseae, was recently discovered on Canada. The fossil is important because it fills in a gap in the transition from fish to amphibians and provides clues as to how the transition took place". See pictures here:

http://afarensis.blogsome.com/2006/04/19/tiktaalik-roseae-and-the-origins-of-tetrapods/

77 posted on 07/05/2008 9:32:23 AM PDT by Soliton (Investigate, study, learn, then express an opinion)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 60 | View Replies]

To: reasonisfaith
What... about the lack of fossil evidence for transitional forms?

Ah! That's a very interesting question. Some people ask this in a dishonest way, defining "transitional form" as transitional between the closest specimens that have been found, so that a transitional form is by definition one that hasn't been found, and if we find it it ceases to be transitional. But I'll assume you ask in an honest sense.

Some species (and genera, and body forms, and so on) leave many fossils, some leave very few, and it is reasonable to assume that some leave none at all --at least, I've never heard a plausible argument that every species must leave a fossil, or that every fossil must survive and be found. So the fossil record is not complete. (This is to be expected, whether evolution is true or not.) So why is there so much clustering? We do find transitional forms, but why are they rare? Part of the explanation is that some forms are bound to be rarer that others, so those are the ones that appear to be transitional between the better-known types. Another part is that some strategies just don't mix very well, so the transitional form tends to be less successful than either by itself: fish are successful, amphibians are successful, but fish that sometimes walk on land (as some do today) are less so, because they're invested it terrestrial life but don't yet take full advantage of it. Recently the scientific community has developed the idea of punctuated equilibrium, the idea that species tend to be stable over their lifetimes, and that speciation is brief and infrequent. This is still a matter of debate, but it would explain a lot about the fossil record.
78 posted on 07/05/2008 9:35:45 AM PDT by xenophiles
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: reasonisfaith
If you read Gish’s book, or research the fossil record, you will see that there is no (zero) fossil evidence for transitional forms. Not just transitional forms between fish and amphimbians, but also between amphibians and reptiles

Transition from amphibians to amniotes (first reptiles)

The major functional difference between the ancient, large amphibians and the first little reptiles is the amniotic egg. Additional differences include stronger legs and girdles, different vertebrae, and stronger jaw muscles. For more info, see Carroll (1988) and Gauthier et al. (in Benton, 1988)

Proterogyrinus or another early anthracosaur (late Mississippian) -- Classic labyrinthodont-amphibian skull and teeth, but with reptilian vertebrae, pelvis, humerus, and digits. Still has fish skull hinge. Amphibian ankle. 5-toed hand and a 2-3-4-5-3 (almost reptilian) phalangeal count.

Limnoscelis, Tseajaia (late Carboniferous) -- Amphibians apparently derived from the early anthracosaurs, but with additional reptilian features: structure of braincase, reptilian jaw muscle, expanded neural arches.

Solenodonsaurus (mid-Pennsylvanian) -- An incomplete fossil, apparently between the anthracosaurs and the cotylosaurs. Loss of palatal fangs, loss of lateral line on head, etc. Still just a single sacral vertebra, though.

Hylonomus, Paleothyris (early Pennsylvanian) -- These are protorothyrids, very early cotylosaurs (primitive reptiles). They were quite little, lizard-sized animals with amphibian-like skulls (amphibian pineal opening, dermal bone, etc.), shoulder, pelvis, & limbs, and intermediate teeth and vertebrae. Rest of skeleton reptilian, with reptilian jaw muscle, no palatal fangs, and spool-shaped vertebral centra. Probably no eardrum yet. Many of these new "reptilian" features are also seen in little amphibians (which also sometimes have direct-developing eggs laid on land), so perhaps these features just came along with the small body size of the first reptiles.

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-transitional/part1b.html

79 posted on 07/05/2008 9:42:16 AM PDT by Soliton (Investigate, study, learn, then express an opinion)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 60 | View Replies]

To: mtg

I wasn’t very clear in my reply to your post. I’m not against discussion of religion in public schools. However, my point was that assertions based on faith do not belong in classes that are supposed to be about science. By definition, science is restricted to empirical evidence and the rules of logic. T


80 posted on 07/05/2008 9:43:04 AM PDT by haroldeveryman
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 63 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 41-6061-8081-100 ... 141-143 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