Posted on 08/29/2009 10:54:34 AM PDT by GodGunsGuts
Has science left Darwin so far behind that it is a complete red herring for creationist writers to analyze, discuss or rebut his views? When creationists do that, does it, as one email put it, show that such authors must be “out of touch”?
We often hear such comments from our detractors in this “year of Darwin”, but with an increasing frequency the last few weeks. Hence this weekend’s feedback will respond to such charges in general.
The usual emailed comments one sees about this seem to imply not only that referring to Darwin’s views is completely inappropriate, but that creationists somehow choose to do that as some sort of a deliberate “soft target”—perhaps to avoid having to deal with the “real” evolutionary arguments.
In reality, the increased attention to Darwin in our publications, both print and internet, is not some self-concocted scheme to attack outdated science, but is a rational response to what is coming from the secular evolutionary establishment themselves. In 2009, the Darwin year, adulation of the “patron saint” of evolutionism is nothing short of overwhelming...
(Excerpt) Read more at creation.com ...
Including some who claim Darwinian evolution is fact. What a joke!
Evolutionism is theory and fact...
mainly that living creatures ‘evolved’ to their limits and stayed the same creature....they didnt change, and never will change into anything other than what they have always been.
yes, that is a fact.
Emphasis on the second half of your response :o)
Face it, evolution is an ideological doctrine.
Test of FAITH documentary
The Faraday Institute for Science and Religion ^ | June - August 2009 | James Richard Crocker
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-religion/2326562/posts
Test of FAITH video clips online
We have just uploaded eleven video clips (totalling about a third of the entire documentary) from the Test of FAITH documentary onto our
home page http://www.testoffaith.com/ and our
YouTube site http://www.youtube.com/thetestoffaith
James Richard Crocker
The Faraday Institute for Science and Religion
St Edmund’s College, Cambridge, CB3 0BN
Tel: +44 (0) 1223 743 018 Fax: +44 (0) 1223 741285
Email: jrc65@cam.ac.uk
<>
An Obituary for the “Warfare” View of Science and Religion
Friday August 28, 2009
http://blog.beliefnet.com/scienceandthesacred/2009/08/an-obituary-for-the-warfare-view-of-science-and-religion.html
<>
Galileo Goes to Jail and Other Myths about Science and Religion. edited by Ronald L. Numbers
http://www.amazon.com/Galileo-Other-Myths-Science-Religion/dp/0674033272
LOL!
Why Stingrays were designed with barbs....
As, indeed, they are. Grenard7 actually refers to the stingray’s ‘sting’ as being ‘well-crafted’. It is made of dentin, a hard substance, just like the teeth of sharks. As he says, the ‘sting’ properly refers to the ‘spine’ plus the ‘sheath’ which envelops it, and associated venom glands. When the spine is lying flat against the surface of the ray’s tail, it is ‘bathed in a melange of venom and mucus’. Along the spine are backwards-facing serrations, or barbs. Since the spine can be up to 20 cm (8 in) long, and part of a creature that can weigh 100 kg (220 lb), it is a very nasty defensive apparatus indeed.
So how could such a highly functional apparatus have evolved? The answer is that it could not and did not, but was created. But would a loving God have designed such a weapon—a weapon obviously designed to inflict maximum trauma on its victim? As we have already explained elsewhere, defence-attack structures such as this one would have been unneeded and unused in a pre-Fall world. But God in His foreknowledge of the Fall endowed creatures at Creation with the equipment they would need for life in a post-Fall world. One can well imagine that without its venomous spine, stingrays would have been ‘easy meat’ in a post-Fall world. The stingray feeds on small creatures on the ocean floor. Sharks and other predators attacking it from above would be deterred by this lethal weapon able to ‘zap’ them from below. See also some articles about specific defence-attack structures, carnivores, pathogens etc.
What is Evolutionism? How does it differ from the Theory of Evolution?
Leave Chris Crocker alone!
YOU:
What is Evolutionism? How does it differ from the Theory of Evolution?
ME: being a creationist, i believe in creationism, due to the religious underpinnings coupled with the scientific interpretation of the evidence.
Evolutionism is the same thing, from the opposite side, a religous/philosophical belief system that underpin their interpretation of the scientific evidence.
The main difference is that we creationist will readily admit to the religious underpinnings of our belief.
I support the Theory of Evolution, but my support has nothing to do with my (lack of) religious belief.
While we’re at it, my support of the ToE isn’t dogmatic in nature, and I don’t deify Darwin.
Creationism is for immature minds.
The surface of the sun is hot enough to melt lead. That's a fact. Prove to me that Darwinian evolution is fact.
I do know for a fact that changes take place within a species. I also know animals can adapt and acclimate. But that's about as far as evolution goes. At least, according to the scientific evidence.
The surface of the sun is hot enough to melt lead. That’s a fact. Prove to me that Darwinian evolution is fact.
I do know for a fact that changes take place within a species. I also know animals can adapt and acclimate. But that’s about as far as evolution goes. At least, according to the scientific evidence.
***************
Gravity is a fact. Scientists can have differing theories about how gravity works. But any scientist (or any layman for that matter)who does not accept the existence of gravity is well.....nuts.
Evolution is a fact. Scientists may have differing theories on how evolution works but a scientist (or laymen for that matter) who does not believe in evolution is as nutty as a person who does not believe in gravity.
“Einstein’s theory of gravitation replaced Newton’s in this century, but apples didn’t suspend themselves in midair, pending the outcome. And humans evolved from ape-like ancestors whether they did so by Darwin’s proposed mechanism or by some other yet to be discovered. “
Of course nothing in science is 100% certain.
J. Muller tackles this argument:
“The honest scientist, like the philosopher, will tell you that nothing whatever can be or has been proved with fully 100% certainty, not even that you or I exist, nor anyone except himself, since he might be dreaming the whole thing. Thus there is no sharp line between speculation, hypothesis, theory, principle, and fact, but only a difference along a sliding scale, in the degree of probability of the idea. When we say a thing is a fact, then, we only mean that its probability is an extremely high one: so high that we are not bothered by doubt about it and are ready to act accordingly. Now in this use of the term fact, the only proper one, evolution is a fact. For the evidence in favor of it is as voluminous, diverse, and convincing as in the case of any other well established fact of science concerning the existence of things that cannot be directly seen, such as atoms, neutrons, or solar gravitation...
“So enormous, ramifying, and consistent has the evidence for evolution become that if anyone could now disprove it, I should have my conception of the orderliness of the universe so shaken as to lead me to doubt even my own existence. If you like, then, I will grant you that in an absolute sense evolution is not a fact, or rather, that it is no more a fact than that you are hearing or reading these words.” (2)
so in other words, you cant give a proof that he requested, and fell back on the tried and true technique of belittling the questioner....how utterly arrogant and elitist of you, with just a tad of condenscendtion.
You seem to have overlooked this part of his post………..
“So enormous, ramifying, and consistent has the evidence for evolution become that if anyone could now disprove it, I should have my conception of the orderliness of the universe so shaken as to lead me to doubt even my own existence. If you like, then, I will grant you that in an absolute sense evolution is not a fact, or rather, that it is no more a fact than that you are hearing or reading these words.” (2)”
If you possessed even the basic understanding of the Scientific method as my 7th grade son then you would know that you can never prove a Scientific Theory to a 100% certainty. You are falling into a common trap of presenting an argument from ignorance. It would be a good idea to at least have a basic understanding of a subject prior to presetting an argument against it.
Seems to me these threads spend a lot of bandwidth with each side defining the others' terms. Thus, for examples we have to learn over and over from you anti-evolutionists that:
So, it's obvious, what's needed here is an ID-Evo Cross Reference Dictionary, which defines terms of science, religion, evolution, intelligent design, creationism, theory, hypothesis, proof, belief, faith, etc., in words everyone can understand.
Then, for example, if we are talking to IDers and might wish to say, in normal English: "evolution is science and ID is religion," we'd know that in order to communicate that particular idea, we have to translate our words to say: "evolution comes from a belief in naturalism, while ID comes from the science of creationism." A Cross Reference Dictionary could then allow each side to know what was actually meant.
Sounds strange, I know, but then think about how much time saved in (sometimes incorrect) defining each others' terms... ;-)
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.