Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

No Weaknesses in the Theory of Evolution?
ICR ^ | March 12, 2009 | Frank Sherwin, M.A.

Posted on 03/12/2009 8:31:17 AM PDT by GodGunsGuts

No Weaknesses in the Theory of Evolution?

by Frank Sherwin, M.A.*

"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 ...


TOPICS: Constitution/Conservatism; Culture/Society; News/Current Events; Philosophy
KEYWORDS: biology; creation; dna; eugeniescott; evolution; fossils; goodgodimnutz; goodgodimstupid; intelligentdesign; molecular; morphology; ncse; newscientist; systematics; trishgura
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-88 next last

1 posted on 03/12/2009 8:31:17 AM PDT by GodGunsGuts
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: metmom; DaveLoneRanger; editor-surveyor; betty boop; Alamo-Girl; MrB; GourmetDan; Fichori; ...

2 posted on 03/12/2009 8:32:07 AM PDT by GodGunsGuts
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: GodGunsGuts

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


3 posted on 03/12/2009 8:35:27 AM PDT by fishtank (Until the GOP repents of supporting Bush, people will think they're just "bashing 0bama".)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: GodGunsGuts
"There are no weaknesses in the theory of evolution."

Sounds a bit like the way the North Koreams speak of the 'beloved leader', doesn't it?

4 posted on 03/12/2009 8:35:51 AM PDT by varmintman
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: GodGunsGuts

aack!
you beat me to it!


5 posted on 03/12/2009 8:36:18 AM PDT by woollyone (I believe God created me- you believe you're related to monkeys. Of course I laughed at you!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: varmintman

LOL!


6 posted on 03/12/2009 8:36:24 AM PDT by GodGunsGuts
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: woollyone

I had a head start :o)


7 posted on 03/12/2009 8:38:46 AM PDT by GodGunsGuts
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: GodGunsGuts

If evolution and global warming are no longer “debatable”, we could save a lot of money by defunding all the research.


8 posted on 03/12/2009 8:39:17 AM PDT by ALPAPilot
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ALPAPilot

I don’t think its fair to equate Global Warming and Evolution.

Moonbats support the former, not the latter.


9 posted on 03/12/2009 8:41:16 AM PDT by ZULU (Obamanation of Desolation is President. Non nobis, non nobis Domine, sed nomini tuo da gloriam.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: GodGunsGuts
"Then a miracle occurs"

Wrong theory. That's the Creationism/Intelligent Design explanation.

10 posted on 03/12/2009 8:41:44 AM PDT by Non-Sequitur
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: GodGunsGuts
So, the Executive Director of the National Center for Science Education says “There are no weaknesses in the theory of evolution” and a group of charlatan crackpots called the Institute for Creation Research says there are.
It says a lot about your personal intelligence level when you decide which of those two to trust for the truth about science.
11 posted on 03/12/2009 8:41:50 AM PDT by shuckmaster (An oak tree is an acorns way of making more acorns.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: GodGunsGuts

http://timpanogos.wordpress.com/2008/08/13/institute-for-creation-research-still-fraudulent-after-all-these-years/


12 posted on 03/12/2009 8:43:57 AM PDT by ZULU (Obamanation of Desolation is President. Non nobis, non nobis Domine, sed nomini tuo da gloriam.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: GodGunsGuts

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


13 posted on 03/12/2009 8:44:50 AM PDT by alstewartfan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ALPAPilot

Now your talking! Both of them are junk science, protected from competition, and magnified by our tax dollars.


14 posted on 03/12/2009 8:46:40 AM PDT by GodGunsGuts
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: Non-Sequitur

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.


15 posted on 03/12/2009 8:49:28 AM PDT by GodGunsGuts
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: fishtank
PhD in revisionist history?

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.

16 posted on 03/12/2009 8:51:12 AM PDT by allmendream ("Wealth is EARNED not distributed, so how could it be redistributed?")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: alstewartfan
==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

It's amazing what some people will sacrifice in order to make the grade:


17 posted on 03/12/2009 8:52:18 AM PDT by GodGunsGuts
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: Non-Sequitur

You must be one of those people who thinks the Earth is round.


18 posted on 03/12/2009 8:52:25 AM PDT by swain_forkbeard (Rationality may not be sufficient, but it is necessary.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

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?


19 posted on 03/12/2009 8:53:20 AM PDT by TerP26
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: GodGunsGuts

becomes

What an accident. Oops, I meant, "What a curiously infinitesimal opportunity..."

...and before that?

... something from nothing!

"in the beginning, God..."

20 posted on 03/12/2009 8:57:03 AM PDT by WVKayaker (Courage is resistance to fear, mastery of fear - not absence of fear. -Mark Twain)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: allmendream; fishtank

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.


21 posted on 03/12/2009 9:00:00 AM PDT by GodGunsGuts
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: Non-Sequitur

So how did the Cambrian explosion occur when thousands of critters just appeared?


22 posted on 03/12/2009 9:00:26 AM PDT by mountainlion (concerned conservative.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: WVKayaker

Amen!


23 posted on 03/12/2009 9:00:29 AM PDT by GodGunsGuts
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: GodGunsGuts
"There are no weaknesses in the theory of evolution."

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.

Oh, well.

24 posted on 03/12/2009 9:00:36 AM PDT by itsahoot (We will have world government. Whether by conquest or consent. Obama it is then.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: GodGunsGuts

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.


25 posted on 03/12/2009 9:03:35 AM PDT by allmendream ("Wealth is EARNED not distributed, so how could it be redistributed?")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: GodGunsGuts

Thanks for the ping!


26 posted on 03/12/2009 9:03:49 AM PDT by Alamo-Girl
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: allmendream

For the record, I have a doctorate of philosophy.

http://www.conservapedia.com/Communism

“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.[9] 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.” [10] [11]”


27 posted on 03/12/2009 9:04:28 AM PDT by fishtank (Until the GOP repents of supporting Bush, people will think they're just "bashing 0bama".)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: GodGunsGuts
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.

So why try and wrap that Intelligent Design crap around it and call it science?

28 posted on 03/12/2009 9:07:42 AM PDT by Non-Sequitur
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: swain_forkbeard
You must be one of those people who thinks the Earth is round.

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.

29 posted on 03/12/2009 9:08:49 AM PDT by Non-Sequitur
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: shuckmaster

Ah, name calling...puissant riposte, dummyhead.


30 posted on 03/12/2009 9:10:09 AM PDT by Ipponed (Roe vs Wade, as in: should we row or wade through the ocean of the spilt blood of the innocent)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: allmendream
The majority of scientists in the USA are people of faith.

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

31 posted on 03/12/2009 9:13:20 AM PDT by 1000 silverlings (Everything that deceives also enchants: Plato)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: mountainlion
So how did the Cambrian explosion occur when thousands of critters just appeared?

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.

32 posted on 03/12/2009 9:17:18 AM PDT by Non-Sequitur
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: WVKayaker

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.


33 posted on 03/12/2009 9:22:00 AM PDT by Ipponed (Roe vs Wade, as in: should we row or wade through the ocean of the spilt blood of the innocent)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: GodGunsGuts
Created in WHICH image? Homo habilis was one "U-G-L-Y, you ain't got no alibi....you UGLY" kinda ugly dude.

Yet another article that says nothing....

34 posted on 03/12/2009 9:30:34 AM PDT by ElectricStrawberry (27th Infantry Regiment....cut in half during the Clinton years...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: GodGunsGuts

“There are no weaknesses in the theory of evolution,Question
#1. don’t you have to create something before it can evolve?
#2.


35 posted on 03/12/2009 9:30:40 AM PDT by Vaduz
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: allmendream

==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.


36 posted on 03/12/2009 9:30:43 AM PDT by GodGunsGuts
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: shuckmaster

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.


37 posted on 03/12/2009 9:31:03 AM PDT by FormerRep
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: Non-Sequitur

The article was written by a YEC creationist, not an IDer.


38 posted on 03/12/2009 9:31:53 AM PDT by GodGunsGuts
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: 1000 silverlings

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.


39 posted on 03/12/2009 9:34:49 AM PDT by Rockhound
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: Rockhound

You are not alone.


40 posted on 03/12/2009 9:36:57 AM PDT by FormerRep
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies]

To: GodGunsGuts
The article was written by a YEC creationist, not an IDer.

Sorry. It's just so hard to tell the difference between one camp's theology and the other's.

41 posted on 03/12/2009 9:37:11 AM PDT by Non-Sequitur
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies]

To: 1000 silverlings

You might be interested in the following:

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/2205083/posts?page=38#36


42 posted on 03/12/2009 9:38:17 AM PDT by GodGunsGuts
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: fishtank

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.


43 posted on 03/12/2009 9:38:25 AM PDT by ToGodBeTheGlory (I'll take the Word of God over "science" every time.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: Non-Sequitur

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.


44 posted on 03/12/2009 9:40:56 AM PDT by GodGunsGuts
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 41 | View Replies]

To: GodGunsGuts

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


45 posted on 03/12/2009 9:45:28 AM PDT by 1000 silverlings (Everything that deceives also enchants: Plato)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

To: 1000 silverlings
Having personally worked in numerous scientific laboratories, I can attest that the majority are people of faith, including my three most influential scientific mentors (Two Roman Catholic, one Eastern Orthodox).

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.

46 posted on 03/12/2009 9:46:34 AM PDT by allmendream ("Wealth is EARNED not distributed, so how could it be redistributed?")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: ToGodBeTheGlory
Eugenie Scott's leftist ideology is a symbiont of Darwinian evolution.

An overarching philosophical structure, a religion, a belief system pretending to be something else.

47 posted on 03/12/2009 9:51:53 AM PDT by Old Landmarks (No fear of man, none!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 43 | View Replies]

To: GodGunsGuts
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.

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.

48 posted on 03/12/2009 9:54:08 AM PDT by Non-Sequitur
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 44 | View Replies]

To: allmendream
Born into a religion doesn't make one a Christian which is why America today thinks it is still a "Christian country". I suppose it is possible those big university labs I worked at were full of secretive Christians,lol, lol, which really is no Christians at all. They're an awful quiet majority

Matthew 10:33

49 posted on 03/12/2009 9:56:02 AM PDT by 1000 silverlings (Everything that deceives also enchants: Plato)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 46 | View Replies]

To: GodGunsGuts

A perfect example of the materialistic miracles that evo-cultists never seem to provide an explanation for.


50 posted on 03/12/2009 9:59:23 AM PDT by ToGodBeTheGlory (I'll take the Word of God over "science" every time.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-88 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson