Replies

I am a HS Science teacher and consider myself about as CONSERVATIVE on political, social, economic, foreign affairs, etc.; as one could get. I am a consumate reader and like to think that my opinion is informed.

It is distressing to see some of my fellow conservatives become so vocal and adamately opposed to evolution. Evolution is the core, unifying, theme on which the science of biology is based. Without it, biologists would have to wander aimlessly. With it, biology makes sense.
Chemistry has Rutherford’s atom, math has Euclid’s geometry and Newton’s calculus, physics has Newton’s laws and Einstein’s relativity. Biology has Darwin’s evolution. Without them we’d all take a giant step backwards for our way of life. Modern, informed, biology is on the cutting edge of medicine, nutrition, vaccines, reproduction, animal and plant husbandry...you name it.

Conservatives do themselves and their OTHER causes no favors when the seek to discredit evolution. In fact, they embarrass me.

Inform yourself. The local public library probably has copies of Darwin’s On the Origin of Species and The Descent of Man. They are good reads. The man was very thorough.

No. You can be a perfectly expert biologist without adopting any of the evolutionary trappings. All you have to do is pay attention the the subject under study, and not blindly accept dogma about how species and functionality came to be. Reject the mythology and embrace the science, it is that simple. The scientists who recently discovered that the Monarch Butterfly navigates by circadian clocks housed in their antennae, did they need evolution to find this out? No, they performed experiments, not unlike J. Henri Fabre, by cutting and painting antennae and observing results. They challenged the status quo which maintained that the circadian clock function was somewhere in the brain. Without this nav aid, these butterflies would not be able to fly their ridiculously long migration. Love the scientist, hate the mythology.

I managed to understand biology perfectly well without having to make up some story about origins.

I find it no harder to understand the error of evolutionist pretending to be scientific than I do the global warming scientists pretending to be scientific.

Science has a history of political and cultural corruption.

The history of the world as written by evolutionists is in fact the natural product if your premise is that everything had to happen without any external force.

Why is it that when an evo disagrees with an IDer or a Creationist, they assume that they haven't read Darwin's outdated evo-religious creation myth?

In my experience, Creationist and ID scientists are generally far more knowledgable about evolution then their neo-Darwinian counterparts.

Having said that, the evolutionists who do understand the subject are abandoning the neo-Darwinian synthesis in droves. Darwin has lost his more important prediction, his so-called "tree of life."

But it doesn't stop there, your neo-Darwinian co-religionists also had to abandon their prediction that some 97-98.5% of the genome is functionless or "junk" DNA leftover from our supposed evolutionary past. As it turns out, the genome is almost entirely functional, just as Creation and ID scientists predicted.

I could go on and on. The long and short of it, is that the HMS Beagle is sinking and sinking fast. Even the die-hard of the die-hard evos are starting to abandon ship in search of a new God-denying explanation for our origins.

Indeed, except for the obligatory Heil Darwins from the Temple of Darwin faithful, most evos are well aware that Darwin's evo-religious creation myth has very little to do with real biological research:

‘While the great majority of biologists would probably agree with Theodosius Dobzhansky’s dictum that “Nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of evolution”, most can conduct their work quite happily without particular reference to evolutionary ideas, the editor wrote. “Evolution would appear to be the indispensable unifying idea and, at the same time, a highly superflous one.” The annual programs of science conventions also tell the story. When the zoologists met in 1995 (and changed their name to the Society for Integrative and Comparative Biology), just a few dozen of the 400 academic papers read were on evolution. The North American Paleontological Convention of 1996 featured 430 papers, but only a few included the word “evolution” in their titles. The 1998 AAS meeting organised 150 scientific sessions, but just 5 focused on evolution—as it relates to biotechnology, the classification of species, language, race and primate families.' Larry Witham, Oxford University Press, 2002

Excellent post.

Trying to understand modern biology without understanding evolution is like trying to understand the state of the modern world without any knowledge of history.

Sure you can gather all the pertinent facts of what exactly is happening right now all around the world, but rather difficult to understand those facts without any historic context.

Just have to face it, anti-evolutionism is to conservatives what socialism is to the Left...beliefs held despite the overwhelming evidence.