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 ...
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:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/2205083/posts?page=38#36
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...
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/8916982/
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.
Matthew 10:33
A perfect example of the materialistic miracles that evo-cultists never seem to provide an explanation for.
In the case of Biologists, they simply cannot see the Forest because the trees got in the way.
Physicists on the other hand, are more inclined to see the work of God, as well as understand the vastness of the Universe, along with the obvious laws of it’s creation.
The Big Bang was the initial point of creation and is clearly illustrated in Genesis. At the time it was written, the mind of man was severely limited in comprehending or understanding/interpreting the divine illustration of that creation.
Biologists such as Darwin are the very worst form of Scientist to base that standard of biological origin on. They are simply too arrogant in their belief that they have all the answers in regards to the physical world. Yet, they overlook all the many contradictions that refute their belief system. (Much like the Global Warming theorists.)
I didn’t say they were merely born into Christianity. They were born again in the glory of our Lord Jesus the Christ as a matter of personal faith and conviction.
Perhaps you were treated by your scientific peers as a mental defective for reasons other than your religious belief.
Would you say the same thing if I told you the maker of the shirt you are wearing was an unknown worker in China?
In terms of logical positivism, there is no difference between a 'supernatural' being and a 'natural' being that you've never met. It is a faith claim to believe that some unknown person made your shirt just as it is a faith claim to believe God made the person in the shirt.
That doesn't mean either belief is irrational. What it means is that you need to adopt the appropriate tools to evaluate the plausibility of each claim. People can be sloppy in their theorizing about an unknown designer, but increasingly we are developing the tools to more carefully assess such claims. This is because science not only tells us what natural forces can do; it equally well tells us what natural forces are incapable of accomplishing.
To deny this is to deny that there is any rational means of identifying an unknown designer, because if you believe nature is all-powerful then you can never be sure that nature is not the product of any given thing. Which means naturalists have no rational means of claiming to believe in engineers, factories, etc. apart from those they've personally witnessed in action. Such is the absurdity of refusing to reasonably investigate chance, law and design in a balanced manner.
I AM a biologist - and you are sermonizing nothing but hot air. Let me ask you - have you ever read “Origin of Species?’ If you had - you’d realize that everything you’ve said regarding biology is false.
Point of order to critics and proponents alike: LEARN the subject of the discussion. DO NOT rely on second hand web dribble and psychophantic ideologues. COPY-PASTING half baked articles do not prove points. SCIENCE is about finding the right questions - not having ALL of the answers.
Well thought out and insightful. Bump for you.
Possible environmental, developmental and ecological changes might account for it is grasping for straws, unscientific and undocumented.
I think you must have meant "kinds". If you read Darwin, he was considering the differences between species to create natural selection.
Evolution: an all-encompassing Rosetta stone that half-educated journalists use to blog about everything from bio-bots to baseball
And creationists enjoy a multibillion dollar-per-year business as a result.
Evolution: a hideous death-cult philosophy responsible for communism, Nazism and eugenics.
Actually communism predates Darwin's birth having been derived from Christians who lost their way due to the influence of Saint Sir Thomas More's, "Utopia." The beliefs of the NAZI's were not that different from the American Bible communists of the 18th and 19th centuries. And of course, the American Bible communists did the first human eugenics experiments outside of slave breeding, both of which predate Darwin's publication.
I have to completely disagree with you. I work mainly with biologists, and with the exception of the Hindus, Confucianists and Daoists, we Christians are regarded as valuable members of the organization because we possess strong professional and ethical values.
It's the atheists who struggle and frequently have to look for alternate employment.
Maybe you just need a new job. ;)
[[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.
Sincerely,
Fishtank, PhD]]
Precisely!
The Natural Limits to Biological Change
Neo-Darwinism Under Attack
Raymond G. Bohlin, Ph.D.
“One of the most significant questions in the origins debate concerns the nature of biological change. Can organisms change into an infinite array of creatures? Or are there genetically imposed limits to the amount of change which can take place? There are two major theories of evolutionary change: neo-Darwinism and punctuated equilibrium. As creationists, Lane Lester and I proposed in 1984 that indeed there are limits to change in our book, The Natural Limits to Biological Change. Theoretically, it may seem difficult to propose that immense variety may occur within a group of organisms yet this variety is constrained within certain genetically induced limits. It may seem contradictory even. But in the intervening ten years, my confidence in the proposal has only strengthened, and my confidence in any evolutionary mechanism to accomplish any significant adaptational change has waned considerably.
The arguments against neo-Darwinism center around four topics: mutation, natural selection, population genetics, and paleontology. Our major objection to the role of mutations in evolutionary change is the clear lack of data to indicate that mutations really accomplish anything new. While some weird-looking fruit flies have been created in the laboratory, they are still fruit flies. Bacteria are still bacteria. We quoted from Pierre-Paul Grasse’, the great French evolutionist. When commenting on the mutations of bacteria he said:
What is the use of their unceasing mutations if they do not change? In sum, the mutations of bacteria and viruses are merely hereditary fluctuations around a median position; a swing to the right, a swing to the left, but no final evolutionary effect.
A mechanism for the creation of new genetic material is also sadly inadequate. Sometimes, an extra copy of a gene arises due to a DNA duplication error. Evolutionists suggest that this extra gene can accumulate mutations and eventually code for a new gene with a different function. In reality, however, this fails to explain how an old gene takes on a new function and new regulation pathways by the introduction of genetic mistakes into the gene and the regulatory apparatus.
Natural selection is a conservative process, not a creative one. The famous example of peppered moths teaches us how a species survives in a changing environment by possessing two varieties adapted to different conditions. Antibiotic resistance in bacteria only instructed us in the ingenious mechanisms of different bacteria to share the already existing genes for antibiotic resistance among themselves.
Decades of research in the science of population genetics has not helped the neo-Darwinist position. The data from protein and gene variation shed only a dim light on the major problem of evolution— the appearance of novel adaptations. The major significance of population genetics has been helping to understand how an organism responds to minor environmental fluctuations. And even this can be clouded in fundamental differences in theory.
First, virtually all taxonomic levels, even species appear abruptly in the fossil record. This, it will be remembered, is one of the sharper criticisms of neo-Darwinism, and one of the two cornerstones of punctuated equilibrium. It is relevant not only that the various levels of taxa appear abruptly but also that alongside the higher taxonomic levels there are unique adaptations. This is the key. Unique and highly specialized adaptations usually, if not always, appear fully formed in the fossil record. The origin of the different types of invertebrate animals such as the sponges, mollusks, echinoderms like the starfish, arthropods like crustaceans, and others all appear suddenly, without ancestors, in the Cambrian period.”
http://www.leaderu.com/orgs/probe/docs/natlim.html
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.