Skip to comments.No Weaknesses in the Theory of Evolution?
Posted on 03/12/2009 8:31:17 AM PDT by GodGunsGuts
"There are no weaknesses in the theory of evolution." This was the testimony of Eugenie Scott to the Texas State Board of Education in January when the Board was debating new state science curriculum standards.1 Dr. Scott is Executive Director of the National Center for Science Education (NCSE), a watchdog group committed to exposing and ridiculing any group that questions the strange paradigm of Darwinism. Is it true "there are no weaknesses" in this particles-to-people worldview?
Clearly, there is a very real problem with what biological molecules (DNA and proteins) tell the evolutionary scientist, versus what morphology (fossils) says. Evolutionary medical journalist Trish Gura exposed this weakness when addressing a raging debate within evolutionary circles:
(Excerpt) Read more at icr.org ...
Evolution: a 150 fifty year old observation of variation WITHIN species
Evolution: an all-encompassing Rosetta stone that half-educated journalists use to blog about everything from bio-bots to baseball
Evolution: a hideous death-cult philosophy responsible for communism, Nazism and eugenics.
Sounds a bit like the way the North Koreams speak of the 'beloved leader', doesn't it?
you beat me to it!
I had a head start :o)
If evolution and global warming are no longer “debatable”, we could save a lot of money by defunding all the research.
I don’t think its fair to equate Global Warming and Evolution.
Moonbats support the former, not the latter.
Wrong theory. That's the Creationism/Intelligent Design explanation.
The theory of evolution has more holes than my Detroit Lions’ defense! Number one, none of it can be successfully tested. It is pure speculation that blind forces could have produced eyes, ears, noses, brains, livers, kidneys, lungs, etc. for any organism, let alone millions of them.
I would LOVE to take a course on evolution at a HS or college level today. I’d drive the teacher crazy with logical questions. Of course I’d fail..... Bob
Now your talking! Both of them are junk science, protected from competition, and magnified by our tax dollars.
Except the Creationists are up front about it. Life is indeed a miracle, governed by God’s regular laws, and capable of being understood by those who are created in HIS image.
The Communists decried Darwin's theory of evolution through natural selection as too capitalistic with its uneven distribution of resources and focus on individual success or failure.
Nazis banned Darwin's books in Germany, and wanted to kill Jews to “avenge my saviors blood upon the cross” to hear Hitler tell it.
Eugenics were practiced in ancient Sparta, and is not supported by anybody who understands biology and evolution to know what the term “antagonistic pleiotropy” means.
It's amazing what some people will sacrifice in order to make the grade:
You must be one of those people who thinks the Earth is round.
Evolution is not junk science. Just look at the transition between ape and man? Why were all those early humans aka neanderthals, or homo hablis etc half human and half ape like? Because it was a gradual transitioning. It is so clear.
If it were just Adam and Eve, then who were those people?
What an accident. Oops, I meant, "What a curiously infinitesimal opportunity..."
...and before that?
... something from nothing!
"in the beginning, God..."
Both Marx and Engles were Darwinists, as was Lenin. Yes, Stalin favored Lysenko’s even more crackpot ideas, but they were actually in vogue at the time, as most much of the global scientific community was ditching Darwinism in favor of other theories of evolution because it simply didn’t add up. Darwin was of course later restored to his rightful place of Communist honor a decade or so after Stalin’s death. Bottom line: whether it was Marx, Engles, Lenin, or Stalin...they all sought to replace God with one materialist form of evolution or another...just as the Evos are doing now.
So how did the Cambrian explosion occur when thousands of critters just appeared?
Sort of reminds me of Bill Gates statement to a consumer; "There are no bugs in my software, you just must not know how to use it." That occurred just before announcing an updated version that purported to fix thousands of bugs.
The majority of scientists in the USA are people of faith. Biologists have no interest in ‘replacing God’ any more than a description of stellar or planetary formation in regards to physical forces ‘replaces God’ as the creator of the Heavens and the Earth.
Thanks for the ping!
For the record, I have a doctorate of philosophy.
“Communism is based upon Marxism, a philosophy which uses materialism to explain all physical and social phenomena. The theory of evolution influenced the thinking of the Communists, including Marx, Engels, Vladimir Lenin, and Joseph Stalin. Marx wrote, “Darwin’s book is very important and serves me as a basis in natural science for the class struggle in history.” Marx offered to dedicate the second German edition of his polemic “Das Kapital” to Charles Darwin, but Darwin declined the “honour.”  ”
So why try and wrap that Intelligent Design crap around it and call it science?
And that it revolves around the sun rather than the other way around as the Bible teaches. I guess I'm going to go to hell for that.
Ah, name calling...puissant riposte, dummyhead.
lol, lol, lol Where did you get these statistics? And what "faith" exactly?lol, lol
Having worked in various scientific laboratories, I can personally attest that about 1 in 1000 believed in God, and if you did dare say that you did, you were looked at as mentally defective, which really is what scientists and other elites think about believers
Well if you consider a period of tens of millions of years as 'just appeared' then there are possible environmental, developmental, and ecological changes that might account for it.
And by coincidence too, it’s all anthropic.
The physics of these serendipities stretch the limits of the minds of the most diligent of NASCAR fans.
Yet another article that says nothing....
“There are no weaknesses in the theory of evolution,Question
#1. don’t you have to create something before it can evolve?
==The majority of scientists in the USA are people of faith. Biologists have no interest in replacing God
I can’t speak for the majority of scientists. All I know is that the vast majority of the “elite” scientists, who wield a tremendous amount of control over the ideology of science, are in fact atheists:
“A survey of all 517 NAS members in biological and physical sciences resulted in just over half responding: 72.2% were overtly atheistic, 20.8% agnostic, and only 7.0% believed in a personal God. Belief in God and immortality was lowest among biologists.”
Stats taken from:
E.J. Larson and L. Witham, Leading Scientists Still Reject God, Nature 394(6691):313, 23 July 1998.
Cast not your pearls before the swine.
I am a Christian Scientist - note that they do not exclude or over write each other. I’ve tried to argue with the latent idiocy but found that they neither understand the topic nor are they willing to learn about it. Save your breath, hold your nose, and comfort yourself that not everyone on FR is a mind-numbed zealot.
The article was written by a YEC creationist, not an IDer.
Maybe that applies to the ‘lab rat’ scientists, but I too am a scientist (geologist), a Christian, and most of my colleagues are also people of faith (I would estimate 80%). I really hate being lumped in with the atheists and communists just because of a career choice.
You are not alone.
Sorry. It's just so hard to tell the difference between one camp's theology and the other's.
You might be interested in the following:
Evo-atheists don’t want people to know the foundations of their philosophy, or its fruits. That Marx depended so obviously on Darwinist doctrine is both a fact and an embarrassment for Darwinists.
Well seeing how IDers include Chrisians, Jews, Moonies, agnostics and a few atheists, it should not be too difficult to tell them apart from Christian YECs.
Thank you. From my personal experience in the science community I agree. If there are Christians anywhere about, very few make it known, as they are looked upon as weak and needing a crutch to get through life. And God forbid they ever bring up a belief in the Creator professionally, might as well go get another job
As to where I got the stats...
Study from Rice University. Defined “scientist” as a professor at an “elite University” and found that 2/3rds believe in God. I would think that among scientists working at private labs, rather than associated with “elite universities”, one would find an even higher incidence of belief.
An overarching philosophical structure, a religion, a belief system pretending to be something else.
How? King James as opposed to New American Standard? At the end of the day, both YEC's and ID's answer to the origin of life can be summed up in the phrase "God did it." That isn't science.
A perfect example of the materialistic miracles that evo-cultists never seem to provide an explanation for.