   SOMEWHERE  |
Posted on 06/12/2007 1:49:42 AM PDT by balch3
Very good article by a noted scientist pointing out the flaws in Dar*inism.
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/cre-error.html
“Scientific creationism differs from conventional science in numerous and substantial ways. One obvious difference is the way scientists and creationists deal with error.
Science is wedded, at least in principle, to the evidence. Creationism is unabashedly wedded to doctrine, as evidenced by the statements of belief required by various creationist organizations and the professions of faith made by individual creationists. Because creationism is first and foremost a matter of Biblical faith, evidence from the natural world can only be of secondary importance. Authoritarian systems like creationism tend to instill in their adherents a peculiar view of truth.
Many prominent creationists apparently have the same view of truth as political radicals: whatever advances the cause is true, whatever damages the cause is false. From this viewpoint, errors should be covered up where possible and only acknowledged when failure to do so threatens greater damage to the cause. If colleagues spread errors, it is better not to criticize them publicly. Better to have followers deceived than to have them question the legitimacy of their leaders. In science, fame accrues to those who overturn errors. In dogmatic systems, one who unnecessarily exposes an error to the public is a traitor or an apostate.
Ironically, creationists make much of scientific errors. The “Nebraska Man” fiasco, where the tooth of an extinct peccary was misidentified as belonging to a primitive human, is ubiquitous in creationist literature and debate presentations. So is the “Piltdown Man” hoax. Indeed, creationist propagandists often present these two scientific errors as characteristic of paleoanthropology. It is significant that these errors were uncovered and corrected from within the scientific community. In contrast, creationists rarely expose their own errors, and they sometimes fail to correct them when others expose them.
Duane Gish, a protein biochemist with a Ph.D. from Berkeley, is vice president of the Institute for Creation Research (ICR) and creationism’s best-known spokesman. A veteran of perhaps 150 public debates and thousands of lectures and sermons on creationism, Gish is revered among creationists as a great scientist and a tireless fighter for the truth. Among noncreationists, however, Gish has a reputation for making erroneous statements and then pugnaciously refusing to acknowledge them. One example is an unfinished epic which might be called the tale of two proteins.
In July 1983, the Public Broadcasting System televised an hour-long program on creationism. One of the scientists interviewed, biochemist Russell Doolittle, discussed the similarities of human proteins to chimpanzee proteins. In many cases, corresponding human and chimpanzee proteins are identical, and in others they differ by only a few amino acids. This strongly suggests a common ancestry for humans and apes. Gish was asked to comment. He replied:
If we look at certain proteins, yes, man then — it can be assumed that man is more closely related to a chimpanzee than other things. But on the other hand, if you look at other certain proteins, you’ll find that man is more closely related to a bullfrog than he is a chimpanzee. If you focus your attention on other proteins, you’ll find that man is more closely related to a chicken than he is to a chimpanzee.
I had never heard of such proteins, so I asked a few biochemists. They hadn’t, either. I wrote to Gish for supporting documentation. He ignored my first letter. In reply to my second, he referred me to Berkeley geochronologist Garniss Curtis. I wrote to Curtis, who replied immediately.
Some years ago, Curtis attended a conference in Austria where he heard that someone had found bullfrog blood proteins very similar to human blood proteins. Curtis offered an explanatory hypothesis: the “frog” which yielded the proteins was (he suggested) an enchanted prince. He then predicted that the research would never be confirmed. He was apparently correct, for nothing has been heard of the proteins since. But Duane Gish once heard Curtis tell his little story.
This bullfrog “documentation” (as Gish now calls it) struck me as joke, even by creationist standards, and Gish simply ignored his alleged chicken proteins. In contrast, Doolittle backed his televised claims with published protein sequence data. I wrote to Gish again suggesting that he should be able to do the same. He didn’t reply. Indeed, he has never since replied to any of my letters.”
I like to think of God as an Architect as opposed to a Mechanic, therefore I have no problem with the basic idea of evolution. Anyone who has read Darwin would know he believed his theories (many of which turned out to be flawed, yes) to be an example of God’s majesty. Intelligent Design is just a cute focus group name that should be beneath us.
The evo’s wont listen anyways.
Check out prions. Molecules of protein bordering life. They aren’t destroyed even by irradiation. This molecule is what causes Mad Cow Disease.
The Origin of life and the process by which life evolved are two entirely separate issues. The theory of evolution does not even attempt to explain the origin of life.
bookmark
“The Origin of life and the process by which life evolved are two entirely separate issues.”
Who says this and why do they say it?
Gish has been an adviser at some evolution/creationism trials, most notably in 1981 in Arkansas. He has never been called as an expert witness, despite his academic qualifications. Lawyers are not suicidal.
Al-Qaida is actively seeking nuclear bonbs to detonate in the US.... and we are wasting time posting this crap.
Does the term 9/11 ring a bell?
Do you think that was their endgame.... or opening gambit?
Defend your country, then worry about this garbage.
“Defend your country, then worry about this garbage”...ye who cannot walk and chew gum at the same time!
Gish is anything BUT a "noted scientist". Noted nutcase is more. The article has more scientific errors per paragraph than anything I've read recently. Simply put, it's BS.
Most have decided that we are not at war.
That war is a choice and they choose not to.
Real war is coming. When it comes and perhaps large numbers of us are dead they will come to realize that war is upon them whether they choose to fight it or not. Then, perhaps, we will fight to win without all the niceties of trying to “win the hearts and minds” of the enemy.
But not for now.
ummm...just about anyone with a clue about biology. See here for example (yes, it’s a Berkeley lib site; no, that doesn’t mean it’s wrong just because of that): http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evosite/misconceps/IAorigintheory.shtml
Abiogenesis is about the origins of life. Evolution is about the development of species thereafter. One of the biggest manipulative tricks that Creationists employ to confuse people is to say that evolution cannot be true because it can’t explain the origin of life. It doesn’t have to, and it doesn’t try to.
“one might facetiously rephrase the question as follows: given an effectively unknown reaction mixture, under effectively unknown reaction conditions, reacting to give unknown products by unknown mechanisms, could a particular product with a specific characteristic . . . have been included amongst the reaction products?”
There are known knowns, known unknowns, and unknown unknowns. We all know that.
At any rate, I continue to be a bit perplexed as to why Gods hand couldn’t be hidden within a natural process of whatever flavor. Those who’ve interpreted the Bible literally in the past to make physical predictions have gotten burned pretty badly.
As to the human condition, don’t attribute to malice what can adequately be explained by stupidity.
We CAN do more than one thing at a time , well at least most of us can....MindBender26...
Then I guess Adam and Eve wore spacesuits?
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.
