Skip to comments.Evolution debate persists because it's not science
Posted on 02/22/2009 10:58:04 PM PST by GodGunsGuts
Monday, Feb. 23, 2009
Evolution debate persists because it's not science
By Raymond H. Kocot
But did you ever wonder why Darwinism's general theory of evolution, sometimes called macroevolution, has been debated for over 150 years without resolution? The surprising answer is Darwin's macroevolution theory is not a legitimate science. The National Academy of Sciences clearly defined science in its 1998 guidebook for science teachers. The definition begins with [stating that] science is a particular way of knowing about the world, and ends with, "Anything that can be observed or measured is amenable to scientific investigation. Explanations that cannot be based on empirical evidence are not part of science." In other words, a legitimate scientific theory (a hypothesis or idea) must be observable in real time and must be testable, yielding reproducible results. That is the core of the scientific method that has brought man out of the Dark Ages.
Because confirmable observations and generating experimental data are impossible for unique events like life's origin and macroevolution theory, world-famous evolutionary biologist Ernst Mayr prompts evolutionists to construct historical narratives to try to explain evolutionary events or processes. In other words, stories are all evolutionists can muster to support macroevolution theory. If macroevolution theory, which must rest on faith in a story and is considered to be scientific, why not the creation story. With that in mind, it is no wonder the molecules-to-man debate has persisted for 150 years...
(Excerpt) Read more at myrtlebeachonline.com ...
Hitler, and the majority of Germans during the time of Nazi Germany, were Christians.
When looking at the language Hitler used to whip up hatred of the Jews “blood upon the Cross” and “cast the vipers out of the Temple” took center stage.
As such the Nazi’s were drawing upon a long and storied tradition of prevalent anti-Jewish sentiment among European Christian communities.
How could such insignificant ignoramuses have any appreciable impact on public opinion? And such a small number of insignificant ignoramuses at that.
Which is not to say that Hitler or the Nazi’s were “good” Christians; but they thought of themselves as such, wore crosses, prayed, carried Bibles, put crosses on their equipment, wrote “God is with us” on their belt buckles, etc, etc.
All the trappings of Christianity, but none of the spirit of Christ.
Reminds me of several posters on this forum.
Cedric, once again I see that one of your cut’n’paste posts has been demolished by the actual facts. Thanks doc, for doing the dirty work this time.
Quote mining is a tired, annoying, dishonest creationist practice we are all very familiar with. You won’t get anywhere with it in life (except in the eyes of fellow dolts such as yourself.)
And your response to being shown how dishonest your post was was to snidely remark that he “missed one.” You are yet another embarrassment to conservatism.
As predictable as the sun rising.....
Never laid a glove on me.
Sorry, but I think medical quackery is a bit over the top, even for FR.
If you have a problem with it I suggest you take it up with those who post bizarre medical advice.
Hint: it isn't anyone I hang out with.
The interesting fact is that the same people you hang out with seem to think HIV doesn't cause AIDS, that AIDS treatment is the cause of AIDS, and that your "perverse practices" are appropriate treatment for a wide range of diseases.
Personally, I think that all forms of science denial are new age mumbo jumbo. Some comes from the left wing, some from the right wing, but it's all the same rubbish.
But nice attempt at misreading a word used in the 1860’s with an eye to the modern meaning.
Is your understanding of the subject really as shallow as THAT?
“Evolution [is] a theory universally accepted not because it can be proven by logically coherent evidence to be true, but because the only alternative, special creation, is clearly incredible.” (Professor D.M.S. Watson, leading biologist and science writer of his day.)
“My attempts to demonstrate evolution by an experiment carried on for more than 40 years have completely failed.....It is not even possible to make a caricature of an evolution out of paleobiological facts...The idea of an evolution rests on pure belief.” (Dr. Nils Heribert-Nilsson, noted Swedish botanist and geneticist, of Lund University)
“Scientists who go about teaching that evolution is a fact of life are great con-men, and the story they are telling may be the greatest hoax ever! In explaining evolution we do not have one iota of fact.” (Dr. Newton Tahmisian, Atomic Energy Commission.)
“When you realize that the laws of nature must be incredibly finely tuned to produce the universe we see, that conspires to plant the idea that the universe did not just happen, but that there must be a purpose behind it.”
(John Polkinghorne, Cambridge University physicist, “Science Finds God,” Newsweek, 20 July, 1998)
“Many have a feeling that somehow intelligence must have been involved in the laws of the universe.”
(Charles Townes, 1964 Nobel Prize winner in physics, “Science Finds God,” Newsweek, 20 July, 1998)
“250,000 species of plants and animals recorded and deposited in museums throughout the world did not support the gradual unfolding hoped for by Darwin.” (Dr. David Raup, curator of geology at the Field Museum of Natural History in Chicago, “Conflicts Between Darwinism and Paleontology”)
“The miracles required to make evolution feasible are far greater in number and far harder to believe than the miracle of creation.” (Dr. Richard Bliss, former professor of biology and science education as Christian Heritage College, “It Takes A Miracle For Evolution.”)
“Scientists at the forefront of inquiry have put the knife to classical Darwinism. They have not gone public with this news, but have kept it in their technical papers and inner counsels.” (Dr. William Fix, in his book, “The Bone Peddlers.”)
“In the meantime, the educated public continues to believe that Darwin has provided all the relevant answers by the magic formula of random mutations plus natural selection-—quite unaware of the fact that random mutations turned out to be irrelevant and natural selection tautology.” (Dr. Arthur Koestler)
“Contrary to the popular notion that only creationism relies on the supernatural, evolutionism must as well, since the probabilities of random formation of life are so tiny as to require a ‘miracle’ for spontaneous generation tantamount to a theological argument.” (Dr. Chandra Wickramasinge, cited in, Creation vs Evolution, John Ankerberg, pg. 20.)
“Complex molecules that are essential to particular organisms often have such a vast information content as...to make the theory of evolution impossible.” (Bird, Origin of Species Revisited, Vol. 1, pg. 71)
“A further aspect I should like to discuss is what I call the practice of infinite escape clauses. I believe we developed this practice to avoid facing the conclusion that the probability of self-reproducing state is zero. This is what we must conclude from classical quantum mechanical principles as Wigner demonstrated” (Sidney W. Fox, “The Origins of Pre-Biological Systems)
“In terms of their basic biochemical design....no living system can be thought of as being primitive or ancestral with respect to any other system, nor is there the slightest empirical hint of an evolutionary sequence among all the incredibly diverse cells on earth.” (Dr. Michael Denton, molecular biochemist)
“We have always underestimated the cell...The entire cell can be viewed as a factory that contains an elaborate network of interlocking assembly lines, each of which is composed of a set of large protein machines...Why do we call [them] machines? Precisely because, like machines invented by humans to deal efficiently with the macroscopic world, these protein assemblies contain highly coordinated moving parts.”
(Bruce Alberts, President, National; Academy of Sciences “The Cell as a Collectrion of Protein Machines,” Cell 92, February 8, 1998)
“We should reject, as a matter of principle the substitution of intelligent design for the dialogue of chance and necessity; but we must concede that there are presently no detailed Darwinian accounts of the evolution of any biochemical system, only a variety of wishful speculations.” (Biochemist, Franklin M. Harold “The Way of the Cell,” page 205)
“Evolutionary biologists have been able to pretend to know how complex biological systems originated only because they treated them as black boxes. Now that biochemists have opened the black boxes and seen what is inside, they know the Darwinian theory is just a story, not a scientific explanation.” (Professor Phillip E. Johnson)
“The simplicity that was once expected to be the foundation of life has proven to be a phantom; instead, systems of horrendous, irreducible complexity inhabit the cell. The resulting realization that life was designed by an intelligence is a shock to us in the twentieth century who have gotten used to thinking of life as the result of simple natural laws. But other centuries have had their shocks, and there is no reason to suppose that we should escape them. Humanity has endured as the center of the heavens moved from the earth to beyond the sun, as the history of life expanded to encompass long-dead reptiles, as the eternal universe proved mortal. We will endure the opening of Darwin’s Black box” (Michael j. Behe, Biochemist “Darwin’s Black Box, pg. 252”)
“An honest man, armed with all the knowledge available to us now, could only state that in some sense, the origin of life appears at the moment to be almost a miracle, so many are the conditions which would have had to have been satisfied to get it going.” (Dr. Francis Crick, biochemist, Nobel Prize winner, Life Itself: Its Origin and Nature, pg. 88)
“A close inspection discovers an empirical impossibility to be inherent in the idea of evolution.”
(Dr. Nils Heribert-Nilsson, Swedish botanist and geneticist, English Summary of Synthetische Artbildung, pg. 1142-43, 1186.)
“The idea of spontaneous generation of life in its present form is therefore highly improbable even to the scale of the billions of years during which prebotic evolution occurred.” (Dr. Ilya Prigogine, Nobel Prize winner)
“The complexity of the simplest known type cell is so great that it is impossible to accept that such an object could have been thrown together by some kind of freakish, vastly improbable event. Such an occurrence would be indistinguishable from a miracle.” (Dr. Michael Denton, molecular biochemist)
“The probability of life originating from accident is comparable to the probability of the unabridged dictionary resulting from an explosion in a printing shop.” (Dr. Edwin Conklin, evolutionist and professor of biology at Princeton University.)
“Hypothesis [evolution] based on no evidence and irreconcilable with the facts....These classical evolutionary theories are a gross over-simplification of an immensely complex and intricate mass of facts, and it amazes me that they are swallowed so uncritically and readily, and for such a long time, by so many scientists without a murmur of protest.” (Sir Ernst Chan, Nobel Prize winner for developing penicillin)
“All of us who study the origin of life find that the more we look into it, the more we feel it is too complex to have evolved anywhere. We all believe as an article of faith that life evolved from dead matter on this planet. It is just that life’s complexity is so great, it is hard for us to imagine that it did.” (Dr. Harold Urey, Nobel Prize winner)
“The world is too complicated in all parts and interconnections to be due to chance alone. I am convinced that the existence of life with all its order in each of its organisms is simply too well put together. Each part of a living thing depends on all its other parts to function. How does each part know? How is each part specified at conception? The more one learns of biochemistry the more unbelievable it becomes unless there is some type of organizing principle-—an architect.” (Scientist Allan Sandage)
“One may well find oneself beginning to doubt whether all this could conceivably be the product of an enormous lottery presided over by natural selection, blindly picking the rare winners from among numbers drawn at utter random.....nevertheless although the miracle of life stands “explained” it does not strike us as any less miraculous. As Francois Mauriac wrote, “What this professor says is far more incredible than what we poor Christians believe.” (French Biochemist and Nobel Prize winner, Jacques Monod, “Chance and Necessity.”)
“To insist, even with Olympian assurance, that life appeared quite by chance and evolved in this fashion, is an unfounded supposition which I believe to be wrong and not in accordance with the facts.”
(Dr. Pierre-Paul Grasse, University of Paris & past-president of French Academy of Science.)
“It is emphatically the case that life could not arise spontaneously in a primeval soup from its kind.” (Dr. A.E Wilder Smith, chemist and former evolutionist)
“Science...has become identified with a philosophy known as materialism or scientific naturalism. This philosophy insists that nature is all there is, or at least the only thing about which we can have any knowledge. It follows that nature had to do its own creating, and that the means of creation must have included any role for God.” (Professor Phillip E. Johnson, “The Church Of Darwin,” Wall Street Journal, August 16, 1999)
Chance Renders Evolution Impossible
“The probability of a single protein molecule being arranged by chance is, 1 in 10-161 power, using all the atoms on earth and allowing all the time since the world began...for a minimum set of required 239 protein molecules for the smallest theoretical life, the probability is, 1 in 10-119,879 power. It would take, 10-119,879 power, years on average to get a set of such proteins. That is 10-119,831 times the assumed age of the earth and is a figure with 119,831 zeros.” (Dr. James Coppege from, “The Farce of Evolution” page 71)
“The likelihood of the formation of life from inanimate matter is one to a number with 40,000 nought’s after it...It is big enough to bury Darwin and the whole theory of Evolution. There was no primeval soup, neither on this planet nor on any other, and if the beginnings of life were not random, they must therefore have been the product of purposeful intelligence.” (Sir Fred Hoyle, highly respected British astronomer and mathematician)
“I could prove God statistically; take the human body alone; the chance that all the functions of the individual would just happen, is a statistical monstrosity.” (George Gallup, the famous statistician)
“The chance that higher life forms might have emerged through evolutionary processes is comparable with the chance that a tornado sweeping through a junk yard might assemble a Boeing 747 from the material therein.”
(Sir Fred Hoyle, Highly respected British astronomer and mathematician)
“The probability for the chance of formation of the smallest, simplest form of living organism known is 1 to 10-340,000,000. This number is 1 to 10 to the 340 millionth power! The size of this figure is truly staggering, since there is only supposed to be approximately 10-80 (10 to the 80th power) electrons in the whole universe!”
(Professor Harold Morowitz)
“The occurrence of any event where the chances are beyond one in ten followed by 50 zeros is an event which we can state with certainty will never happen, no matter how much time is allotted and no matter how many conceivable opportunities could exist for the event to take place.” (Dr. Emile Borel, who discovered the laws of probability)
“The more statistically improbable a thing is, the less we can believe that it just happened by blind chance. Superficially, the obvious alternative to chance is an intelligent Designer.” (Professor Richard Dawkins, an atheist)
“The only competing explanation for the order we all see in the biological world is the notion of special creation.” (Dr. Colin Patterson, evolutionist and senior Paleontologist at the British Museum of Natural History, which houses 60 million fossils)
“The vast mysteries of the universe should only confirm our belief in the certainty of its Creator. I find it as difficult to understand a scientist who does not acknowledge the presence of a superior rationality behind the existence of the universe as it is to comprehend a theologian who would deny the advances of science.”
(Werner von Braun, father of space science, “Gone Bananas,” World September 7, 2002)
“Faith does not imply a closed, but an open mind. Quite the opposite of blindness, faith appreciates the vast spiritual realities that materialists overlook by getting trapped in the purely physical.”
(Sir John Templeton “the Humble Approach,” page 115)
“It is hard to resist the impression that the present structure of the universe, apparently so sensitive to minor alterations in numbers, has been rather carefully thought out...The seemingly miraculous concurrence of these numerical values must remain the most compelling evidence for cosmic design.” (Physicist Paul Davies, “God and the New Physics,” page 189)
“Would it not be strange if a universe without purpose accidentally created humans who are so obsessed with purpose?” (Sir John Templeton, “The Humble Approach: Scientists Discover God,” page 19)
“Set aside the many competing explanations of the Big Bang; something made an entire cosmos out of nothing. It is this realization—that something transcendent started it all—which has hard-science types...using terms like ‘miracle.’” (Gregg Easterbrook, “The New Convergence”)
“Perhaps the best argument...that the Big Bang supports theism is the obvious unease with which it is greeted by some atheist physicists. At times this has led to scientific ideas...being advanced with a tenacity which so exceeds their intrinsic worth that one can only suspect the operation of psychological forces lying very much deeper than the usual academic desire of a theorist to support his or her theory.” (C. J. Isham, “Creation of the Universe as a Quatum Process” page 378)
“Science and religion...are friends, not foes, in the common quest for knowledge. Some people may find this surprising, for there’s a feeling throughout our society that religious belief is outmoded, or downright impossible, in a scientific age. I don’t agree. In fact, I’d go so far as to say that if people in this so-called ‘scientific age’ knew a bit more about science than many of them actually do, they’d find it easier to share my views.”
(Physicist John Polkinghorne, “Quarks, Chaos, and Christianity”)
“There are gaps in the fossil graveyard, places where there should be intermediate forms, but where there is nothing whatsoever instead. No paleontologist..denies that this is so. It is simply a fact, Darwin’s theory and the fossil record are in conflict.” (Dr. David Berlinsky)
“Scientists concede that their most cherished theories are based on embarrassingly few fossil fragments and that huge gaps exist in the fossil record.” (Time Magazine, Nov. 7, 1977)
“Contrary to what most scientists write, the fossil record does not support the Darwinian theory of evolution because it is this theory which we use to interpret the fossil record. By doing so we are guilty of circular reasoning if we then say the fossil record supports this theory.” (Dr. Ronald R. West)
“The evolutionary establishment fears creation science, because evolution itself crumbles when challenged by evidence. In the 1970s and 1980s, hundreds of public debates were arranged between evolutionary scientists and creation scientists. The latter scored resounding victories, with the result that, today, few evolutionists will debate. Isaac Asimov, Stephen Jay Gould, and the late Carl Sagan, while highly critical of creationism, all declined to debate.” (Dr. James Perloff, Tornado in a Junkyard (1999), p. 241)
“I doubt if there is any single individual within the scientific community who could cope with the full range of [creationist] arguments without the help of an army of consultants in special fields.”
(David M. Raup, “Geology and Creation,” Bulletin of the Field Museum of Natural History, Vol. 54, March 1983, p. 18)
“I think in fifty years, Darwinian evolution will be gone from the science curriculum...I think people will look back on it and ask how anyone could, in their right mind, have believed this, because it’s so implausible when you look at the evidence.” (Dr. Johnathan Wells, author of the book, “Icons of Evolution”)
“As we survey all the evidence, the thought insistently arises that some supernatural agency—or, rather, Agency—must be involved. Is it possible that suddenly, without intending to, we have stumbled upon scientific proof of the existence of a Supreme Being? Was it God who stepped in and so providentially crafted the cosmos for our benefit?” (Astronomer George Greenstein, “The Symbiotic Universe,” page 27)
“Astronomy leads us to a unique event, a universe which was created out of nothing, one with the very delicate balance needed to provide exactly the conditions required to permit life, and one which has an underlying (one might say “supernatural”) plan.” (Nobel laureate Arno Penzias, “Cosmos, Bios, and Theos,” page 83)
“Human DNA contains more organized information than the Encyclopedia Britannica. If the full text of the encyclopedia were to arrive in computer code from outer space, most people would regard this as proof of the existence of extraterrestrial intelligence. But when seen in nature, it is explained as the workings of random forces.” (George Sim Johnson “Did Darwin Get it Right?” The Wall Street Journal, October 15, 1999)
“The likelihood of the formation of life from inanimate matter is one to a number with 40,000 nought’s after it...It is big enough to bury Darwin and the whole theory of Evolution. There was no primeval soup, neither on this planet nor on any other, and if the beginnings of life were not random, they must therefore have been the product of purposeful intelligence.” (Sir Fred Hoyle, highly respected British physicist and astronomer)
“Everyone who is seriously interested in the pursuit of science becomes convinced that a spirit is manifest in the laws of the universe a spirit vastly superior to man, and one in the face of which our modest powers must feel humble.” (Albert Einstein)
“Unfortunately, in the field of evolution most explanations are not good. As a matter of fact, they hardly qualify as explanations at all; they are suggestions, hunches, pipe dreams, hardly worthy of being called hypotheses.”
(Dr. Norman Macbeth, Darwin Retried (1971), p. 147)
“Evolution is baseless and quite incredible.” (Dr. John Ambrose Fleming, President, British Association for Advancement of Science, in “The Unleashing of Evolutionary Thought”)
“The fact is that the evidence was so patchy one hundred years ago that even Darwin himself had increasing doubts as to the validity of his views, and the only aspect of his theory which has received any support over the past century is where it applies to microevolutionary phenomena. His general theory, that all life on earth had originated and evolved by a gradual successive accumulation of fortuitous mutations, is still, as it was in Darwin’s time, a highly speculative hypothesis entirely without direct factual support and very far from that self-evident axiom some of its more aggressive advocates would have us believe.” (Dr. Michael Denton, Evolution: A Theory in Crisis (1986), p. 77)
“In conclusion, evolution is not observable, repeatable, or refutable, and thus does not qualify as either a scientific fact or theory.” (Dr. David N. Menton, PhD in Biology from Brown University)
“The success of Darwinism was accomplished by a decline in scientific integrity.” (Dr. W.R. Thompson, world renowned Entomologist)
“I myself am convinced that the theory of evolution, especially to the extant that it’s been applied, will be one of the greatest jokes in the history books of the future. Posterity will marvel that so flimsy and dubious a hypothesis could be accepted with the incredible credulity that it has.” (Malcolm Muggeridge)
“George Bernard Shaw wisecracked once that Darwin had the luck to please everybody who had an axe to grind. Well, I also have an axe to grind, but I am not pleased. We have suffered through two world wars and are threatened by an Armageddon. We have had enough of the Darwinian fallacy. (Dr. Kenneth Hsu, “Reply,” Geology, 15 (1987), p. 177)
“Unfortunately for Darwin’s future reputation, his life was spent on the problem of evolution which is deductive by nature...It is absurd to expect that many facts will not always be irreconcilable with any theory of evolution and, today, every one of his theories is contradicted by facts.” (Dr. P.T. Mora, The Dogma of Evolution, p. 194)
“Ultimately the Darwinian theory of evolution is no more nor less than the great cosmogenic myth of the twentieth century...The origin of life and of new beings on earth is still largely as enigmatic as when Darwin set sail on the [ship] Beagle.” (Dr. Michael Denton, molecular biochemist, Evolution: A Theory in Crisis (1986), p. 358.)
“It is inherent in any definition of science that statements that cannot be checked by observation are not really saying anything or at least they are not science.” (George G. Simpson, “The Nonprevalence of Humanoids,” in Science, 143 (1964) p. 770.)
“The theory [of evolution] is a scientific mistake.” (Dr. Louis Agassiz, quoted in H. Enoch, Evolution or Creation, (1966), p. 139. [Agassiz was a Harvard University professor and the pioneer in glaciation.]
“There is no evidence, scientific or otherwise, to support the theory of evolution.” (Sir Cecil Wakely)
“The theory of life that undermined ninteenth-century religion has virtually become a religion itself and in its turn is being threatened by fresh ideas...In the past ten years has emerged a new breed of biologists who are scientifically respectable, but who have their doubts about Darwinism.” (Dr. B. Leith, scientist)
“A growing number of respectable scientists are defecting from the evolutionist camp.....moreover, for the most part these “experts” have abandoned Darwinism, not on the basis of religious faith or biblical persuasions, but on strictly scientific grounds, and in some instances, regretfully.” (Dr. Wolfgang Smith, physicist and mathematician)
“It must be significant that nearly all the evolutionary stories I learned as a student....have now been debunked.” (Dr. Derek V. Ager, Department of Geology, Imperial College, London)
“One must conclude that, contrary to the established and current wisdom, a scenario describing the genesis of life on earth by chance and natural causes which can be accepted on the basis of fact and not faith has not been written.” (Dr. Hubert P. Yockey)
“I have always been slightly suspicious of the theory of evolution because of its ability to account for any property of living beings (the long neck of the giraffe, for example). I have therefore tried to see whether biological discoveries over the last thirty years or so fit in with Darwin’s theory. I do not think that they do. To my mind, the theory does not stand up at all.” (H. Lipson, “A Physicist Looks at Evolution,” Physic Bulletin, 31 (1980), p. 138.)
“The more one studies paleontology, the more certain one becomes that evolution is based upon faith alone; exactly the same sort of faith which is necessary to have when one encounters the great mysteries of religion....The only alternative is the doctrine of special creation, which may be true, but irrational.” (Dr. Louis T. More, professor of paleontology at Princeton University)
“Evolution is faith, a religion.” (Dr. Louist T. More, professor of paleontology at Princeton University)
“Darwin’s theory of evolution is the last of the great nineteenth-century mystery religions. And as we speak it is now following Freudians and Marxism into the Nether regions, and I’m quite sure that Freud, Marx and Darwin are commiserating one with the other in the dark dungeon where discarded gods gather.” (Dr. David Berlinski)
“In fact, evolution became in a sense a scientific religion; almost all scientists have accepted it and many are prepared to “bend” their observations to fit in with it.” (H.S. Lipson, Physicist Looks at Evolution, Physics Bulletin 31 (1980), p. 138)
“A time honored scientific tenet of faith.” (Professor David Allbrook)
“Darwinism has become our culture’s official creation myth, protected by a priesthood as dogmatic as any religious curia.” (Nancy Pearcey, “Creation Mythology,”pg. 23)
“When students of other sciences ask us what is now currently believed about the origin of species, we have no clear answer to give. Faith has given way to agnosticism. Meanwhile, though our faith in evolution stands unshaken we have no acceptable account of the origin of species.” (Dr. William Bateson, great geneticist of Cambridge)
“Chance renders evolution impossible.” (Dr. James Coppedge)
“It (evolution) is sustained largely by a propaganda campaign that relies on all the usual tricks of rhetorical persuasion: hidden assumptions, question-begging statements of what is at issue, terms that are vaguely defined and change their meaning in midargument, attacks of straw men, selective citation of evidence, and so on. The theory is also protected by its cultural importance. It is the officially sanctioned creation story to modern society, and publicly funded educational authorities spare no effort to persuade people to believe it.” (Professor Phillip Johnson, “Objections Sustained: Subversive Essays on Evolution, Law and Culture,” pg. 9)
“Therefore, a grotesque account of a period some thousands of years ago is taken seriously though it be built by piling special assumptions on special assumptions, ad hoc hypothesis [invented for a purpose] on ad hoc hypothesis, and tearing apart the fabric of science whenever it appears convenient. The result is a fantasia which is neither history nor science.” (Dr. James Conant [chemist and former president of Harvard University], quoted in Origins Research, Vol. 5, No. 2, 1982, p. 2.)
“Scientists who utterly reject Evolution may be one of our fastest growing controversial minorities...Many of the scientists supporting this position hold impressive credentials in science.” (Larry Hatfield, “Educators Against Darwin,” Science Digest Special, Winter, pp. 94-96.)
And you take "Preservation of Favoured Races" to mean . . . ?
Evo-Atheists like people to forget that fact! Darwin was talking about “favoured races”, which he assumed he a member. That’s exactly what he meant and what his disciples have pushed! Hitler was just following the direct teachings of Darwin, who was inspired by Satan himself! Evo-atheists want to be the ones running the camps of the future. Their *science* can only lead to the gas chambers. Their bigotry can never be tolerated!
So why did Hitler order Darwin’s books burned?
As if I, or anyone, is going to read that cut and pasted crap. Do me a favor, google “Creationist quote mining” and cut and paste the actual contexts that all your dishonest quoting is actually from.
Here’s a hint, anytime you see ellipses, you know off the bat the quote is dishonest.
Regardless, is this how creationists do “science?” Sit on their lazy dumb asses and pick and nit at other people’s work?
You're on the endangered list.
Guidelines from Die Bücherei 2:6 (1935), p. 279
1. Die Werke von Landesverrätern, Emigranten und von Autoren fremder Völker, die glauben, das neue Deutschland bekämpfen bekämpfen und herabsetzen zu können. (H.G. Wells, Rolland). 1. The works of traitors, emigrants and authors from foreign countries who believe they can attack and denigrate the new German (H.G. Wells, Rolland).
2. Die Literatur des Marxismus, Kommunismus, Bolschewismus. 2. The literature of Marxism, Communism and Bolshevism.
3. Die pazifistische Literatur. 3. Pacifist literature.
4. Die liberalistisch-demokratische Tendenz- und Gesinnungsliteratur und die Propagandisten des Weimarer Staates (Rathenau, Heinrich Mann). 4. Literature with liberal, democratic tendencies and attitudes, and writing supporting the Weimar Republic (Rathenau, Heinrich Mann).
5. Alle Werke zur Geschichte, die darauf angelegt sind, die Herkunft, das Wesen und die Kultur des deutschen Volkes herabzusetzen, die deutsche Volksordnung in ihrer Art und Rasse aufzulösen die Kraft und Bedeutung großer Führergestalten zugunsten der Masse infolge Gleichheitsgedanken zu verneinen und deren Größe in den Schmutz zu ziehen (Emil Ludwig). 5. All historical writings whose purpose is to denigrate the origin, the spirit and the culture of the German Volk, or to dissolve the racial and structural order of the Volk, or that denies the force and importance of leading historical figures in favor of egalitarianism and the masses, and which seeks to drag them through the mud (Emil Ludwig).
6. Schriften weltanschaulichen und lebenskundlichen Charakters, deren Inhalt die falsche naturwissenschaftliche Aufklärung eines primitiven Darwinismus und Monismus ist (Häckel). 6. Writings of a philosophical and social nature whose content deals with the false scientific enlightenment of primitive Darwinism and Monism (Häckel).
7. Bücher über Künste, deren Vertreter der entarteten blutleeren, rein konstruktiven ‘Kunst’ positiv gewürdigt werden (Grosz, Dix, Bauhaus, Mendelsohn). 7. Books that advocate “art” which is decadent, bloodless, or purely constructivist (Grosz, Dix, Bauhaus, Mendelsohn).
8. Schriften der Sexualpädagogik und zur sexuellen Aufklärung, die sich in den Dienst des Genußegoismus der Einzelperson stellen und damit volks- und rassezerstörend im höchsten Grade wirken (Hirschfeld). 8. Writings on sexuality and sexual education which serve the egocentric pleasure of the individual and thus, completely destroy the principles of race and Volk (Hirschfeld).
9. Die dekadente, zersetzende, volksschädliche Literatur der “Asphalt- und Zivilisationsliteraten! (Graf, H. Mann, Stefan Zweig, Wassermann, Franz Blei). 9. The decadent, destructive and Volk-damaging writings of “Asphalt and Civilization” literati! (Graf, H. Mann, Stefan Zweig, Wassermann, Franz Blei). [transl. note: a derogatory term for writers dealing with upper middle class urban society].
10. Die Literatur jüdischer Autoren, gleichviel welcher Gebiete. 10. Literature by Jewish authors, regardless of the field.
11. Die Gesellschafts- und Unterhaltungsliteratur, in der das Leben und die Lebensziele auf dem Grunde einer bürgerlichen oderfeudalen Lebensauffassung in oberflächlicher, unwahrer und süßlicher Weise dargestellt werden. 11. Popular entertainment literature that depicts life and life's goals in a superficial, unrealistic and sickly sweet manner, based on a bourgeois or upper class view of life.
12. Der nationalistische, patriotische Kitsch in der Literatur (P.O. Höcker!).
That’s an Evo-atheist lie! Hitler worshipped at Darwin’s Altar!
So why did Hitler order Darwin’s books burned?
Unfortunately for you and your ignoramus club, your word makes nothing so, and we are not stupid enough to place any creedence in your statements.
We have you well figured out.
Do you suppose he’s no kin to monkeys?
He didn’t order them burned! It’s a lie! Why do you feel the need to spread Satan’s lies on a conservative website! Have you no shame??
Where do you think “glare” comes from?
Coming from the biggest lying spammer on this board, GGG most likely will take that as a complement. I know that I would.
Whence do we get the right to believe, that from the very beginning Man was not what he is today? Looking at Nature tells us, that in the realm of plants and animals changes and developments happen. But nowhere inside a kind shows such a development as the breadth of the jump, as Man must supposedly have made, if he has developed from an ape-like state to what he is today.
I provided the documentation. Why did Hitler ban Darwin and Haeckel?
It’s hard for me to take a link miner with a user name like yours seriously.
So I’m not.
Wasn't that some forgery created by a Christian monk that was quickly recognized by scientists as not plausible and relegated to some dark closet?
Non-British scientists recognized Piltdown as a “composite,” but it took four decades for someone to get permission to test the Piltdown materials and determine they had been artificially stained and filed.
Much has been made in pseudoscientific circles about the position of Archae within the evolutionary scheme of things. The usual “argument” put forward is that Archae cannot be a transitional fossil between birds and dinosaurs because it is a bird. This simplistic line belies the fact that, whilst Archae is indeed classified as a bird, it has been done so on the strength of 4 main characters - 2 of which are not unique to birds. This classification ignores the fact that Archae has numerous characters which are unique, unique in that they are not possessed by birds. Archae’s avian affinities are allowable on the strength of the following 4 main characters:
It took decades for the technology to develope to accurately test.
It was recognized by scientist right away to be a fake.
“Almost from the outset, Woodward’s reconstruction of the Piltdown fragments was strongly challenged. At the Royal College of Surgeons copies of the same fragments used by the British Museum in their reconstruction were used to produce an entirely different model, one that in brain size and other features resembled modern man. Despite these differences however, it does not appear that the possibility of outright forgery arose in connection with the skull.
Approximately 1915, French paleontologist Marcellin Boule concluded the jaw was from an ape. Similarly, American zoologist Gerrit Smith Miller concluded Piltdown’s jaw came from a fossil ape.
In 1923, Franz Weidenreich examined the remains and correctly reported that they consisted of a modern human cranium and an orangutan jaw with filed-down teeth. Weidenreich, being an anatomist, had easily exposed the hoax for what it was. However, it took thirty years for the scientific community to concede that Weidenreich was correct.
In 1915, Dawson claimed to have found fragments of a second skull (Piltdown II) at a site about two miles away from the original finds. So far as is known the site has never been identified and the finds appear to be entirely undocumented. Woodward does not appear ever to have visited the site.
You are quite correct. Animus from those who have set themselves up as enemies is one of the sincerest forms of flattery.
Are you being purposefully enigmatic? Threatening? Clever? Or is it just none of my business? If the latter, just tell me. If any of the former, please explain; I'm slow.
When you see the Admin Monitor CC’d, you are on the endangered list.
Piltdown was spotted immediately as a false interpretation. Elaborate hoaxes are rather rare in science, so when additional specimens were found, people tended to believe Dawson, the finder. Having Catholic monk along for one of the finds added to his credibility.
De Chardin remained silent on Piltdown for forty years, never mentioning in his writings what should have been the highlight of his career — assuming he didn’t know it was a hoax.
The hoax ruined the careers of several people who trusted them.