Dismantling Darwinism

Decisions Magazine ^ | August 2003 | by Jim Dailey

[Tribune7]

ping

[don'tbedenied]

Gee, I thought the Scopes trial was old news.

[Abcdefg]

I wonder about how critters with no teeth could have evolved them. I just don't understand how the variety of life evolved upward.

[Batrachian]

I don't see that children who can barely read or add 2 plus 2 should be taught evolutionary theory, sex education, how to cope with death, or any of the other crap that is used in place of education these days.

However, I do think that the theory of evolution adequately explains the origins of species. The questions posed in the piece are irrelevent to the discussion because no alternative answer is given other than that "God did it", which is not a scientifically defensible answer.

[Tribune7]

Where does the article mention the Scopes Trial?

[Tribune7]

I don't see that children who can barely read or add 2 plus 2 should be taught evolutionary theory, sex education, how to cope with death, or any of the other crap that is used in place of education these days.

Very good point.

The questions posed in the piece are irrelevent

Of course not. Suppose the scientific establishment declared as fact that all combustible material contained an odorless, weightless substance that disappeared during burning, and someone questioned it by asking why burning caused smoke.

And they were challenged to explain combustion without the existance of this substance. And they replied they couldn't but the conventional wisdom was still wrong.

There questions and comments would of course have merit and would be very important.

[don'tbedenied]

I rest my case.

[Tribune7]

The Scopes Trial is old news. It's not relevant to the article.

[don'tbedenied]

Seriously, I'm sorry you missed my sarcasm. My point is that this issue is over, not quite as far over as the flat earth theory but close.

[I got the rope]

Of course not. Suppose the scientific establishment declared as fact that all combustible material contained an odorless, weightless substance that disappeared during burning, and someone questioned it by asking why burning caused smoke.

And they were challenged to explain combustion without the existance of this substance. And they replied they couldn't but the conventional wisdom was still wrong.

There questions and comments would of course have merit and would be very important.

[templar]

I saw a show on one of the Public stations last night (missed the first part so I don't know the name of it). It pretty much tore up the evolution idea and proposed intellegent design as the up and coming theory. It was a fascinating scientifically based show and, after watching it, the whole idea of evolution to explain life and the diversity of species seems laughable.

[PatrickHenry]

PING. [This ping list is for the evolution side of evolution threads, and sometimes for other science topics. FReepmail me to be added or dropped.]

[PatrickHenry]

I saw a show on one of the Public stations last night ...

It may have been the one put together by "Discovery Institute," a creationist (or perhaps ID) group. It's been the subject of a thread or two.

[templar]

My point is that this issue is over, not quite as far over as the flat earth theory but close.

Flat Earth Society>

[Batrachian]

I don't quite follow your point. Science explains the physical world with facts and figures, and if a scientific theory is disproven, then all well and good. Some other theory then explains things better. No theory of science has explained the origins of species better than Darwin's theory because, IMO Darwin's theory is the correct one.

If it is your contention that the theory of evolution is wrong because the bible says so, then again, all well and good, but you haven't explained anything scientifically.

BTW, I favor school prayer and religion in our public lives, but I don't think it explains the "nuts and bolts" of the universe very well. Religion never built a TV set or a rocket or a medicine, but it is valid in immaterial things, such as morality.

[VadeRetro]

Gee! Hot news flash! Trial lawyer Johnson doesn't believe in evolution.

More and more each year, Behe, Johnson, Dembski, and Meyer are turning from Darwinism to ID!

[PatrickHenry]

More and more each year, Behe, Johnson, Dembski, and Meyer are turning from Darwinism to ID!

The same five or six guys are abandoning evolution in droves. It's a crisis! It must be so, because I read about it in a Jack Chick comic book.

[I got the rope]

Of course not. Suppose the scientific establishment declared as fact that all combustible material contained an odorless, weightless substance that disappeared during burning, and someone questioned it by asking why burning caused smoke.

And they were challenged to explain combustion without the existance of this substance. And they replied they couldn't but the conventional wisdom was still wrong.

There questions and comments would of course have merit and would be very important.

Whoops! I double tapped. I think a better analogy would be this:
Suppose the entire ground of the earth was burned. We didn't see it burn, but we can deduct that it did burn based on reason and scientific experiment. We use our knowledge of the natural laws of physics to do this. Some scientists may try to use what they know of the combustion process to come up with a theory of a large nuclear bombardment. Some may try to say it was a slow burning grass fire started by lightning. There are lots of theories, but we still know that the earth burned.

By observation we can say that the "mechanism" for the end result (scorched earth) was burning. The how or why is something that is in question. Scientists are restricted to the use of natural law for their answers.

Creationist should leave the science to real scientists and stop distorting the message of Genesis. They should spend more time witnessing to others about the beauty of salvation, and less time writing outrageous pseudo-scientific papers.