The creationoids will have a ball with this.
Well of course they will! This is indisputable proof that the entire work "supporting" the so-called "theory" of evolution is all a lie; it's nothing but a sham aimed at destroying our faith in God and turning us into Nazis/Communists/heathens/barbarians/homosexuals.
Why look at the facts when you can point to one case of fraud?
Yawn. Just add it to the list, which is already very long.
One does not need to be a creationist to have deep reservations about the "just so stories" that pepper the basically unfalsifiable patchwork of mythologies that go under the name of darwinism. Add to these all of the long discredited "icons" that still appear in biology texts, and one needs a lot of faith to continue to take this theory as a given.
http://www.alienryderflex.com/evolution/IconsOfEvolution.html http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0895262002/qid=1108847002/sr=2-1/ref=pd_bbs_b_2_1/103-9066210-1931033 Icons of Evolution: Science or Myth? Why Much of What We Teach About Evolution is Wrong
by Jonathan Wells, Jody F. Sjogren
The author retraces the reasoning of proponents of evolution from Darwin to the present to show what he sees as their empirically false, and frequently faked conclusions. He contends that these conclusions are presented to the public so many times and in so many ways that they become irrefutable "icons." The information conveyed by these icons is never questioned and is in fact promoted with tax dollars in many contexts. Wells is a postdoctoral biologist (with Ph.D.s from both Yale and the U. of California at Berkeley) who is currently affiliated with the Discovery Institute, Seattle, Washington)
http://www.jamesphogan.com/bb/content/072197-2.shtml EVOLUTION Posted on July 21, 1997
Some people have asked why I'm less persuaded these days by natural selection as the driving force behind evolution. The short answer is that the evidence for its being so just isn't there, and the numbers don't work: even with the age of the Earth stretched to the maximum that can be postulated to give natural selection a chance, it just hasn't got the innovative power to produce the things we see. The main reason for continuing to cling to it, it seems to me, is at root just as "religious" as literal Biblical fundamentalism: It's the only explanation that the mechanistic/materialist school has to offer.
The only one, that is, while it persists with its dogma of gradualist uniformatarianism--i.e. that the only processes permissible to think about as operating in the past are those observed today.
But the Catastrophist view, which seems to be regaining respectability after being overruled in the 19th century, avoids the extremism of both camps. Its basic tenet is that the diversity of life originated rapidly in a series of massive, cataclysmic events occurring on a global scale--for which abundant evidence exists, but is ignored. Natural selection comes into play afterward, winnowing out the less fit and reducing overall diversity, which is again what the fossil record shows. This would explain why the profusions of expected ancestral and transitional forms don't seem to be there. And what is the mechanism that generates all this variety? That's the unacceptable part: the answer just at the present seems to be, nobody really knows.
EVOLUTION Posted on May 9, 1997
Several people have responded to my comment in the last BB about being less persuaded by orthodox Darwinian evolution than I was when I wrote THE REVEALED WORD OF GOD, included in MM&E, and asked if it means I'm a Creationist. No, it doesn't--there seems little doubt that life in the past was different from life these days, so evolution of some kind evidently happens. But I'm no longer convinced that natural selection accounts for it. No doubt selection happens and has its effects, but, it seems, marginally. Wind and water might shape the surface details of landscapes, but deeper processes are necessary to explain mountain building and continent moving. An astounding book that goes into a whole science of ways in which complex systems can spontaneously order themselves and remain stable, not through selection but in spite of it, is Stuart A. Kauffman's THE ORIGINS OF ORDER (709 pp., Oxford University Press, New York, 1993).
Having said that, I ought to add that I don't have any problem with Creationism--as I see it properly defined. Scientists and much of the media treat the term as synonymous with "Biblical literalist," a needlessly narrow sense, seemingly adopted for the sole purpose of setting it up to be attacked. A broader view would see it simply as not ruling out the possibility of some kind of guiding intelligence at work behind the complexities that we see, which is not at all incompatible with creation over an extended time, i.e. evolution. Excluding it on principle seems every bit as dogmatic to me as anything the other side is accused of. The spirit of true science is simply to follow the evidence wherever it leads, not select and twist it to fit any preconceived notions. Isaac Newton didn't have any difficulty reconciling his religion with his science. You couldn't ask for a better precedent than that.
Two books that started me rethinking my ideas on the subject were:
Evolution: A Theory In Crisis, by Michael Denton (Adler & Adler, 1986)
Darwin On Trial, by Phillip E. Johnson (Regnery Gateway, 1991)
Phil Johnson is a law professor at Berkeley. What, one might ask, are the credentials of someone like that to judge a subject of science? Well, when it comes to examining the evidence, assumptions, and logic of the case being argued, quite a lot.
Yawn. Just add it to the list, which is already very long. No it isn't, but thanks for the falsehood. The number of actual frauds in the 140+ year history of evolutionary biology is extremely small. If you can list even ten (out of the hundreds of thousands of scientists in the field), I'll be amazed.
Speaking of falsehoods, however, let's look at a small sampling of the times that creationists have lied or misrepresented evolutionary biology or the evidence for it:
Summary of the ability of the two creationists (Hovind and Havoc) to present information they *know* is false, and to *fail* to retract when reminded of their falsehoods, is presented here, along with links to all appropriate documentation.
This sort of behavior, unfortunately, is *typical* of creationists. Here, want dozens of more examples of their distortions? A few more for the road? Another? Still more, perhaps? How about even more? Ooh, here are some good examples. And there's lots more where that came from, like this and this and this and lots more here and *tons* here and countless more here and yet more here, a goodie... Wait, there's more over here, etc., etc., etc., etc., etc., *ETC.*, etc., etc., etc., . How about 300 more creationist misrepresentations? Not enough, you say? Well then visit Creationist Lies and Blunders. Hey, what about Freeper metacognative's (he's a creationist) ability to accuse Daniel Dennett (evolutionary scientist) of wanting to put Christians into concentration camps for their beliefs, when Dennett was *actually* clearly writing about how RADICAL ISLAM may need to be contained? The ugly details here. Metacognative *still* shows no shame for his patently false accusation.
(Quick aside -- Blue_Ridge_Mtn_Geek, do you condone this behavior of creationists? Yes or no? Is lying for the "cause" of creationism acceptable to you?)
How many more would you like?
Icons of Evolution: Science or Myth? Why Much of What We Teach About Evolution is Wrong by Jonathan Wells, Jody F. Sjogren
Yawn. Read Icons of Evolution FAQs to learn just how badly creationist Wells misrepresents and outright lies about his subject matter. If, of course, you actually want to *learn* about this topic, instead of just reading creationist falsehoods in order to cling to the dogma that evolutionary biology "must" be a house of cards... Are you intellectually honest enough to do so?
The author retraces the reasoning of proponents of evolution from Darwin to the present to show what he sees as their empirically false, and frequently faked conclusions.
No, actually, Wells just lies about most of it. Which is sadly typical for creationists.
http://www.jamesphogan.com/bb/content/072197-2.shtml EVOLUTION Posted on July 21, 1997
...and the "expert opinion" of a science fiction novelist is worth what, exactly?
The spirit of true science is simply to follow the evidence wherever it leads, not select and twist it to fit any preconceived notions.
Contrary to the misrepresentations by creationists, that *is* exactly how science operates. It's just that the creationists screech like little girls when scientists point out that "following the evidence wherever it leads" is exactly what prompted the development of the field of evolutionary biology. BECAUSE THAT'S WHERE THE EVIDENCE LEADS. So deal with it.
Isaac Newton didn't have any difficulty reconciling his religion with his science.
That's because fundamentalists don't see any conflict between the laws of motion or calculus, and their preferred religious beliefs. And there isn't any. Evolution, on the other hand, is seen by them as a challenge to their dogma, and thus it Must Be Denied (even though many Christians have no problem reconciling their religion and evolutionary biology, and in fact the MAJORITY of Americans who accept evolution *are* Christians, contrary to the creationist canard that evolution is only promulgated by "God-hating atheists".)
Two books that started me rethinking my ideas on the subject were: Evolution: A Theory In Crisis, by Michael Denton (Adler & Adler, 1986) Darwin On Trial, by Phillip E. Johnson (Regnery Gateway, 1991)
Sigh... Both so severely flawed that I despair of the damage they've done to your knowledge. Yes, I'm serious. Both attack a misrepresented CARTOON VERSION of evolution, not the real thing, and are classic examples of what's known as a fallacious "straw man attack" (like beating up a scarecrow effigy of Arnold Schwarzeneggar instead of the real guy and then declaring "victory").
And I debated evolution with Johnson online back in the early 90's. Not to put too fine a point on it, the guy's an idiot when it comes to evolution. He has an extremely poor understanding of what the field of evolutionary biology *actually* consists of, as well as the evidence it's based on. Instead, he has a very sketchy, mistaken impression of it (probably from reading other creationist twaddle), and his only skill (typical of a lawyer) is being able to *sound* convincing when he tries to give the impression that he actually knows his topic and that the "flaws" he has identified in it are a) valid, and b) honest descriptions of what evolution actually says and the actual state of the evidence. Both are incorrect.
Denton suffers from similar hubris/incompetence.
But don't just take my word for it -- post what you feel is the STRONGEST blow that Johnson and Denton each strike against evolution, and then I'll be glad to show you why and how they're dead wrong (and likely incompetent and/or dishonest to boot).
Or if you want to start learning how badly those gentlemen have misrepresented their source material (all too common among creationists, see my links above), start here:
Review of Michael Denton's Evolution: A Theory in Crisis
The Truth, the Whole Truth, and Nothing but the Truth? Why Phillip Johnson's Darwin on Trial and the "Intelligent Design" movement are neither science—nor Christian
Critiques of Anti-Evolutionist Phillip Johnson's Views
Reviews: "Evolution: A Theory In Crisis" by Michael Denton
DARWIN ON TRIAL: A Review
Reviews: Icons Of Evolution by Jonathan Wells