Breaking news about the religion of Darwinian evolution.
Recent news stories about the inconvenient truth of fossil discoveries in Africa illustrate the hypothetical guesswork in Darwinian evolution that passes for science. Extracts from coverage by the New York Times, hardly an unfriendly voice for atheistic materialism, are representative:
Fossils in Kenya Challenge Linear Evolution
By John Noble WilfordAugust 9, 2007
New York Times
Two fossils found in Kenya have shaken the human family tree, possibly rearranging major branches thought to be in a straight ancestral line to Homo sapiens. Scientists who dated and analyzed the specimens — a 1.44-million-year-old Homo habilis and a 1.55-million-year-old Homo erectus found in 2000 — said their findings challenged the conventional view that these species evolved one after the other. Instead, they apparently lived side by side in eastern Africa for almost half a million years . . .
If this interpretation is correct, the early evolution of the genus Homo is left even more shrouded in mystery than before . . . Although the findings do not change the relationship of Homo erectus as a direct ancestor of Homo sapiens, scientists said, the surprisingly diminutive erectus skull implies that this species was not as humanlike as once thought. Other paleontologists and experts in human evolution said the discovery strongly suggested that the early transition from more apelike to more humanlike ancestors was still poorly understood . . .
Dr. Spoor, speaking by satellite phone from a field site near Lake Turkana, said the evidence clearly contradicted previous ideas of human evolution “as one strong, single line from early to us.” The new findings, he added, support the revised interpretations of “a lot of bushiness and experimentation in the fossil record."
The point here is not that inconsistent data have been encountered. Even in true sciences such as nuclear particle physics, inconsistencies crop up. But, in the true sciences, scientists rethink their basic assumptions, seeking a new hypothesis that will account for the inconsistency. Then they devise experiments to test the new hypothesis.
In sharp contrast, all data, no matter how contradictory, must be warped to fit within the original Darwinian framework.
To those who ask if this is real science, Darwinian champion Richard Dawkins replies in the typical, open-minded Darwinian fashion, It is absolutely safe to say that, if you meet someone who claims not to believe in evolution, that person is ignorant, stupid or insane (or wicked, but I’d rather not consider that).
Professor Dawkins not withstanding, Darwin's hypothesis of evolution is one very large circular argument:
(1) Darwinians start with the assertion that there is no God Who created the universe and imposed upon it the laws of mathematics, chemistry, and physics. This they "prove" by declaring that they don't believe in God.
(2) Next they assert that life on earth commenced by a chance combination of chemicals and environmental conditions, but they have found no documentable set of conditions at the presumed beginning of life that could have supported any chain of chemical reactions that would have produced living tissue.
(3) Next they assert that all life forms on earth evolved from the single, exceedingly simple, original life form. How do they "know" this? Well, because there are so many life forms on earth that they "must have" evolved from the original life form; see (2).
But what if there were no single, exceedingly simple, original life form? What if God created many different life forms when He created the universe?
(4) This is impossible, assert Darwinians; see (1).
In short, Darwinians just make it up as they go along, always relying on compelling "logic": it might have been, it must have been, we may speculate that it was so, etc.
Darwinian evolution is thus, not a scientific field, but a branch of the atheistic religion of materialistic determinism. Because they cannot prove a single part of their ideology, evolutionary biologists must accept the words of their Prophet Darwin on faith alone.
viewfrom1776@thomasbrewton.com
http://www.thomasbrewton.com/
Read more articles by Thomas E. Brewton
The author forgets that it doesn't matter that there are problems with macro evolutionary theory. It is not important that seemingly significant fossils have been discovered that call into question the basic assumptions of evolutionists. Macro evolutionary theory has the magical ability to accomodate contrary evidence, so that the theory itself always remains intact.
But beyond that, your quote from Dawkins encapsulates the unscientific attitude of many evolution proponents. That is, those who disagree must be silenced, lampooned, marginalized, or ignored. They embody the worst of what religionists are combined with the certainty of faith offered by "true believers" in science.
I'm sure that at least a few comments from evolutionists to your article will be condescending, arrogant, and smug.
Comment by Mountain Man | August 16, 2007
Excuse me, but doesn't this article prove exactly the opposite of what Mr. Brewton is saying? Doesn't it show that when the evidence undermines what Darwinian biologists previously thought, Darwinian biologists do not, in fact, ignore it?
Mr. Brewton and Mountain Man seem frustrated that the assumptions evolutionists are now questioning are not the assumptions Mr. Brewton and Mountain Man would like to see discarded. That, presumably, is because scientists regard the evidence for those "assumptions" (the ones support the basic hypothesis of macro-evolution) remains overwhelming, and no scientist would discard all that evidence unless no simpler, more likely explanation could be found. The scientists might be wrong and their presumption false, but it nonetheless deserves the attention of Mr. Brewton. Instead, he carefully and steadfastly avoids taking evolutionary theory seriously.
For instance, "Darwin's hypothesis of evolution" does not so boldly claim that "there is no God Who created the universe and imposed upon it the laws of mathematics, chemistry, and physics."
As Stephen Jay Gould (a Darwinist) wrote:
"Either half my colleagues are enormously stupid, or else the science of Darwinism is fully compatible with conventional religious beliefs—and equally compatible with atheism, thus proving that the two great realms of nature's factuality and the source of human morality do not strongly overlap." http://www.stephenjaygould.org/reviews/gould_darwin-on-trial.html
There is nothing in Darwinian theory to contradict the idea that God is the force behind evolution–that God invented natural selection as a means to His creative ends. There is also nothing to support that idea. The question of God's existence is utterly irrelevant to the question of whether evolution is real.
But while we're demanding that people question their basic assumptions, I note that these new fossils were each over a million years old. So when will those who insist that the Earth can be no more than several thousand years because the Bible says so, who get so offended when no one takes them seriously, either admit they were wrong or provide evidence of their own?
Comment by Katzen | August 16, 2007
I can understand your doubt of evolutionary theory if that's what you believe it actually consists of. Fortunately, however, it doesn't. To take your points in order:
1. Biological evolution has no bearing on the origin of the universe, or on the existence of God.
2. Biological evolution is a separate topic from the origin of life. There are hypotheses of abiogenesis that are being actively researched, but there's no solid theory yet. Life being planted from elsewhere (aliens, gods, etc.) cannot be disproven at this point.
3. The evidence for common descent, however, is massive and overwhelming: http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/
Relevant to this particular article, look at the skulls as shown here: http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/section1.html#morphological_intermediates_ex3
Note that Habilis still appeared earlier than Erectus; the new evidence seems to indicate that Habilis lived alongside Erectus for longer than had previously been supposed. (We see examples of things like this today, e.g. here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ring_species - this isn't as surprising as the mass media is portraying it as being.)
As to 4, there's no evidence for any specially-created organisms. Everything on Earth uses the same genetic code, and oddly enough the tree of inheritance derived from studying the differences and relations between the genes very closely matches the independently-generated tree derived from morphology. Both form a nested hierarchy of relationships, and both form essentially the same nested hierarchy. And then both of those trees match what we find in the fossil record. That's why common descent is so widely accepted, because the data actually argues for it.
For example, based on morphological and genetic evidence, it was clear that ungulates like cows and whales had a common ancestor. This was, for a decade or two, used as a 'talking point' by creationist lecturers who would get a laugh out of the audience, e.g. saying that was "udderly ridiculous". Indeed, it's still used, despite the fact that fossil finds have largely filled in the predicted intermediates: http://www.talkorigins.org/features/whales/
Scientists don't just 'assume that evolution happened' and then shoehorn the data into that model. The data actually supports the model. Some people apparently believe that evolutionary scientists all just adhere to evolution because of malice in their hearts, but that's simply not the case.
Comment by Raymond Ingles | August 16, 2007
The author has defined a group he calls "Darwinians" and has made up a set of beliefs (or rejections of belief) for them, which have little to do with evolution. I have not personally met any of his "Darwinians", but I agree that the set of beliefs the author ascribes to them sound silly and self-contradictory. But evolution is not that made-up set of beliefs.
Evolution is only called "theory" by those who believe the Bible and other religious texts are 100% factual exactly as written.
Evolution is a process of changes occurring to DNA, which cause tiny/hidden or larger/more obvious differences in offspring from their parents. Some of these differences help the offspring to survive, and may be passed on; other differences do not help survival, or are lost when the offspring die before reproducing.
There are various theories about the exact progress of evolution in various species, but the fact that evolution has occurred and is still occurring, is proven.
Evolution is a complex, non-linear process; and the exact history of development of most species, including Homo sapiens sapiens, is not known. This is because the remains (fossils) of every individual cannot be studied in detail since the vast majority have been destroyed by decay and geologic processes. Finding a new fossil adds to the evidence, and may contradict "family tree" theories constructed from scanty data; but does not conflict with our understanding of the underlying process of change to DNA.
Since DNA and how it functions was unknown when he was alive, Darwin could never have proven his theories. But now that scientists are able to analyze DNA differences between individuals and species, they have done experiments to test how evolution occurs in simple organisms. Darwin did not get it exactly right, but his thinking spurred a lot of study which eventually lead to understanding of the processes of how evolution happens.
Comment by gz9gjg | August 16, 2007
The mere fact that you wrote an article that would question the currently held belief in Darwinism will bring the wrath of "science" upon you. Of course science in this case will be defined as a belief in incremental small mutational steps of nonlife into complex life forms.
To follow the Darwinist logic one would believe the following:
1.Since life exist then a naturalistic origin must be true.
2. Life can be organized into a tree with no evidence in the branches or trunk.
3. All life came from one source with intermediate steps between all known life forms. This is true without any of those intermediate life forms ever being found.
4. All life rose from nothing to something even though this violates the law of entrophy.
5. All complex life hold vast amounts of stored information. This information came from nothing and self organized. This has never been seen but is true none the less.
6. Darwinist believe that no supernatural event has ever taken place and never will.
7. All of everything in the universe evolves; This includes morals, laws, ethics, and truth.
8. Life has no meaning, this is all there is.
9. The only universal truth is evolution.
10. Darwinist do not believe in a God that we could have a personal relationship. They make God out to be a naturalist at best and nonexistent at worst.
Comment by fbaginski | August 16, 2007
Actually Katzen, I did not say that evolutionists will ignore this new issue, although a case could be made that the MSM as well as school textbook writers probably will. What I said was that evolutionary theory will magically accomodate it so that the theory itself will always remain intact.
You know, there are so few people who believe in a young earth that your offhand comment amounts to a straw man. No one here has suggested that the earth is a only a few thousand years old. In fact, the prevalent ID theory takes no regard of the Genesis account of creation at all, and accepts the billions of years proposed by evolutionists.
Comment by Mountain Man | August 16, 2007
Actually, Mountain Man, I did not accuse you of saying that evolutionists will ignore this new issue. I accused Mr. Brewton of saying that. I concede that he did not actually say scientists would "ignore" the evidence, though he did say they would "warp" it (thus effectively ignoring what Mr. Brewton thinks is the obvious import of the evidence), though that is plainly not what they are doing.
Will the mainstream media ignore this new evidence? It seems like a silly question, given that Mr. Brewton directs us to a New York Times article announcing the discovery. Did the NYT thereby forfeit its mainstream status?
I don't know whether the number of young earthers is so small that they don't merit any attention, but I seem to recall some posts responding to an earlier article on this website favoring young earth. Any resemblance to a straw-man is, I can assure you, unintentional. If you don't believe the young earth account, as I take it you don't, then you can simply ignore that last paragraph of my first post.
Comment by Katzen | August 16, 2007
Katzen
This new evidence if indeed it is true, will not change one small part of the belief in evolution. The belief in Darwinism has never relied on evidence. The lack of fossil evidence has not changed the belief one bit. Someone will just say it is a separate branch or some other nonprovable nonsense and it will past into the history of all of the other facts that show the theory to be in error.
The opinion of Stephen Jay Gould means nothing to me because there is no substance to his comment.
Young earth or old earth does not enter into the arguement. Although a young earth makes it more difficult for evolution to take place.
The whole assumption of evolution is a slap in the face of God. To deny God His creation is placing man with his belief, with no evidence above God. The belief in evolution is antiGod.
In Texas an evolutionist was shown fossilised footprints. Side by side were man's and dinosaurs. He thought for a moment and the said "Man must have evolved then died out, then evolved again". Data is nothing compared to a belief.
Comment by fbaginski | August 16, 2007
Ingles
An ordered universe and ordered life stand in opposition to probability and the basic laws of physics. Both required a supernatural event to come into existence.
One cannot use an absense of data to prove a point. So in your world every meteor in the untire universe would have to searched out to disprove a theory. Thats pretty weak.
Your point about a common descent is weak, if all you have is talkorigins and wikipedia you need to get out more often.
Let me get this straight. Cows jumped in the ocean. Their legs turned into fins. They turned into flesh eating monsters. This was done with no trace. How come this is so easy to believe but having God create all of life is so difficult to believe?
Comment by fbaginski | August 16, 2007
Katzen,
Let's split hairs, or let's simply address the arguments presented. I quote: "Mr. Brewton and Mountain Man…" Waddya know, there I am!
One reference buried in the back of the NYT hardly counts as being shouted from the rooftops. In typically leftist fashion, no one in the MSM will even remember such a thing two weeks from now.
I know there are young earthers out there. What I object to is the way it is inevitably tossed into the discussion by evolutionists in a their typically dismissive manner, as if it was the majority view of creationists. I am simply pointing out that it is not representative of ID proponents.
Comment by Mountain Man | August 16, 2007
Mountain Man,
"Mr. Brewton and Mountain Man…" …Waddya know, there you are! Oh, wait, look at that! The sentence continues with an actual claim! Let's go ahead and not dishonestly omit it… "…seem frustrated that the assumptions evolutionists are now questioning are not the assumptions Mr. Brewton and Mountain Man would like to see discarded." Hmm, that's not the same as saying that Mountain Man said evolutionists would ignore evidence. It looks like I only make that claim about Mr. Brewton, before I even mention Mountain Man. Boy, am I glad I didn't dishonestly omit that second part of my sentence!
You, Mountain Man, claimed that the MSM will ignore the new evidence. You apparently withdraw that, and replace it with a new claim: the MSM isn't shouting from the rooftops. I concede that, as far as I know, this is true. What?!? No rooftop shouting? What is this, a cover-up?
I promise not to bring up young earth theory again, unless someone else does first. Deal?
fbaginski,
As Mr. Ingles has amply demonstated, what you understand to be Darwinian theory is not, in fact, Darwinian theory. So when you say, "The belief in Darwinism has never relied on evidence," it means even less to me than Mr. Gould's very substantive and obviously true statement means to you.
I say you've got Darwin wrong. You prove it with this sentence: "The whole assumption of evolution is a slap in the face of God. To deny God His creation is placing man with his belief, with no evidence above God. The belief in evolution is antiGod."
I'll say it again. Nothing in evolutionary theory supports or contradicts the proposition that evolution is the tool with which God creates. The theory does not "deny God His creation." It has nothing to say about that whatsoever. God's existence and responsibilty for the universe go beyond the scope of the question addressed by evolution. What Mr. Gould was saying was that half of his fellow evolutionary biologists believe in God. Somehow, belief in evolution doesn't force them to abandon their religious beliefs.
I did a google search to find out what you were talking about regarding Texas and dinosaurs and footprints and such. I can't speak as to the opinion of the anoymous person you cite in your anecdote, but it appears to me that the general consensus is that no actual fossilized human footprints exists alongside fossilized dinosaur footprints. And, lest you think evolutionists are too agenda-drived to be trusted, this opinion is apparently shared by the Institute for Creation Research.
Comment by Katzen | August 16, 2007
Fbaginski, let's assume you're right, and the origin of the universe and the specific form of the physical laws in it does require an intelligent designer. Let's further assume that the origin of life also required an active intelligent agent. Neither would, as I said, have anything to the truth or falsity of common descent and evolution.
And an absence of data can prove a point if a hypothesis predicts the data should be there. If you theorize that someone was poisoned with cyanide, but the autopsy doesn't detect any, that's evidence that they were not poisoned with cyanide. You don't have to examine all bodies everywhere. Nor do we have to examine all planets everywhere to detect if there's specially-created life on this planet.
It's even more puzzling that you'd bring that up when the general allegation (and yours specifically) is that all life on Earth was specially-created. To check that out, we could examine any living thing, right?
I'd also like to point out that I didn't just refer to talk.origins; as I said: "…the tree of inheritance derived from studying the differences and relations between the genes very closely matches the independently-generated tree derived from morphology. Both form a nested hierarchy of relationships, and both form essentially the same nested hierarchy. And then both of those trees match what we find in the fossil record."
But your complete mischaracterization of the evolutionary model of whale and ungulate evolution is too far off for me to accept that it's just a misunderstanding; it seems to me more a willful refusal to understand. Let's see if I can patch it up, adapting your words:
"[Millions of years ago, there was a population of mammals spread across a fairly broad geographical region near (freshwater) shorelines. They gradually developed subpopulations over their geographic range (see the "ring species" link I gave above) and then for some reason (e.g. a natural disaster eliminating an intermediate subspecies or landslide cutting off a pathway) they became reproductively separated. One line eventually developed into] Cows [, horses, and other ungulates. Another line began specializing to live] in the ocean [; gradually this population started to develop aquatic features such as blowholes, altered sinuses to allow directional hearing underwater, and so forth. The rear legs atrophied completely; the front] legs turned into fins [over the course of a few million years. The original population was omnivorous; some cetaceans specialized to eating krill, others became aquatic,] flesh-eating [hunters.] This was done [leaving numerous] trace [s in morphology, genetics, and biochemistry. Because of this evidence, biologists predicted that fossils of intermediates should exist, many of which have only in the past decade or so been discovered, confirming the predictions dramatically.]" That's a little better.
Evolution does not involve 'hopeful monsters' and 'saltationist' leaps. The original common ancestor population of ungulates and whales didn't have a cow baby and an orca baby, and only someone trying to misrepresent evolution would say that's what's claimed.
Comment by Raymond Ingles | August 17, 2007
Yes, yes, the sentence continues with a claim, and continues with the rest of the paragraph, and another paragraph, and it has another paragraph before it. Subsequent the subject in question, I am put together with Mr. Brewton, ergo, I share Mr. Brewton's perspective. Except that you now admit that neither of us made the claim. Ok, I am beginning to understand.
So now that you have expended your best efforts to avoid the subject, let's get down to the nitty-gritty. Can you conceive of an archeological discovery, a breakthrough in evolutionary science, or a scientific experiment that would disprove macro evolution? Is there something that could come to light that a "simpler, more likely explanation could be found" for explaining things?
I want to have you give me two or three specific examples. My instincts tell me that there is absolutely nothing that could happen that would shake macro evolutionary thought, since it can be molded to accomodate pretty much everything that comes down the pike.
Give it a shot.
Comment by Mountain Man | August 17, 2007
Mountain Man, one example of something that would (if confirmed and supported by solid evidence) disprove evolution would be J.B.S. Haldane's example, "Fossil rabbits in the Precambrian!" We don't find massively out-of-order fossils like that. We do find occasional surprises, but (for example) even many young-Earth creationist types (and no, I'm not saying you are one at all) have abandoned claims that fossil human footprints are found next to dinosaur footprints around Paluxy, Texas.
I already explained why the archaeological find that prompted this discussion doesn't mean what Mr. Brewton said it means. But more than that, we find fossils in a specific order everywhere, along with all the attendant phenomena (e.g. we find fossil pollen only associated with the specific plants it came from). That order shows that there was a time when none of the life currently found on this planet existed. Instead, there were entirely different ecosystems. Life has changed over the course of billions of years, and there's a massive amount of evidence supporting that.
Finding a biological structure that could not have evolved would also indicate that evolution was, at best, an incomplete explanation. People have been trying to put forth examples, but I'm not aware of any that have actually stood up to examination. The bacterial flagellum, the eye, the clotting cascade, the immune system. None of them are unevolvable and we have good evidence for how several of them did, in fact, evolve. (The vertebrate immune system is actually a wonderful example of how random mutations, subject to selection, can generate specific antibodies.)
To be honest, your question is a bit like, "The heliocentric model of the solar system is unscientific. No matter what scientists find, they shoehorn the data into that model. Can you name something that would disprove the idea that the Earth revolves around the Sun?" Yes, one can imagine observations that would prompt reevaluating something that fundamental. No, we don't see such things, and we don't waste any time worrying about the chances of finding something like that. Even if the heliocentric model turned out to be wrong, it's very unlikely that it would turn out to be completely wrong. As I've pointed out before, the models of a flat Earth and a spherical Earth are both incorrect. But the spherical model is much less wrong than the flat one. At this point, with so much evidence in its favor, something like evolution must be at least part of the picture. Perhaps it's not the complete picture, but I haven't seen a good case for that made.
Comment by Raymond Ingles | August 17, 2007
Katzen,
In 1959 at the Centennial Celebration marking 100 years of Darwinism in Chicago Sir Julian Huxley, grandson of T.H. Huxley (Darwin's bulldog) gave a speech. He was an honored speaker and expressed the common views of the Darwinist elite.
"Future historians will perhaps take this Centennial Week as epitomizing an important critial period in the history of this earth of ours - - the period when the process of evolution, in the person of inquiring man, began to be truly conscious of itself . . . This is one of the first public occasions on which it has been frankly faced that all aspects of reality are subject to evolution, from atoms and stars to fish and flowers, from fish and flowers to human societies and values - - indeed, that all reality is a single process of evolution . . .
In the evolutionary pattern of thought there is no longer either need or room for the supernatural. The earth was not created; it evolved. So did all the animals and plants that inhabit it, including our human selves, mind and soul as we; as brain and body. So did religion . . . Finally, the evolutionary vision is enabling us to discern, however incompletely, the lineaments of the new religion that we can be sure will arise to serve the needs of the coming era."
One needs only to listen to the leaders of the religion called Darwinism to see the truth of the movement. Once God is removed then things like unalienable rights go away. Man is free to rule over man in anyway he sees fit.
Before Darwin came along the atheist of the world viewed the complexity of life as a stumbling block. It was hard to really believe in no god in the face of life. Darwin provided a worldview that removed the stumbling block. In a cleaver way the theory was crafted with circler logic so no matter what the future held it would not upset the theory. By dividing natural things from supernatural and claiming that we exist as proof of the effect a wall was built around the idea.
To bring in a set of data that implies evolution is a waste of time. The gaps in the data can always be seen as proof of creation. I don't agree with this arguement because I feel the idea of naturalism at its core is weak. One can argue forever and never get anywhere because we have a clash of worldviews which prevent any common ground to view the data.
Comment by fbaginski | August 17, 2007
Mountain Man,
I'll let the first issue come to rest simply by clarifying that by including your name together with Mr. Brewton's in that one sentence, I did not mean to claim about you what I had previously claimed about Mr. Brewton.
I will answer your question, but first I will explain my own thoughts on the matter. I am not a scientist, and don't claim to be one, which is why in my first post I readily allowed that "The scientists might be wrong and their presumption false…" However, I accept evolution because almost every reputable biologist equipped with the knowledge necessary to evaluate the evidence finds the evidence in support of evolution overwhelming. I, recognizing the limitations on my ability to evaluate scientific evidence, defer to the virtually unanimous judgment of the scientific community.
I accept evolution, in other words, on the same grounds that I accept the heliocentric theory, the evidence for which I have given equally little personal attention. That theory seems to me to be so well established that I have difficulty thinking of what evidence could, at this point, cast serious doubt on it. The same applies to evolution. To call it into serious question, I gather that much of what has been observed would have to be unobserved. This, of course, is not possible.
Nothing is science, as you know, unless it could theoretically be disproven–to the extent that anything can be disproven. Both evolution and heliocentricity can, theoretically, be disproven. But given the existing evidence, doing so would be a very difficult task.
But I'll give it a shot. If certain fossils that are necessary to demonstrate the change in species were re-evaluated and shown to be fraudulent creations of an obsessed Darwinian god-hating atheist, macro-evolution would be greatly undermined or even practically disproven. If scientists in Anarctica discovered remains of an asteroid with a whale fossil in it, that would strongly suggest that whales did not evolve on earth.
Both of these, obviously, are unlikely. Theories that are true are unlikely to be disproven. Nevertheless, it is possible to conceive of theoretical evidence that would explode evolution.
Comment by Katzen | August 17, 2007
fbaginski,
You write, "One needs only to listen to the leaders of the religion called Darwinism to see the truth of the movement." Yet you dismiss a statement from Stephen Jay Gould as worthless.
Despite the opinion of Mr. Huxley, belief in evolution does not entail disbelief in God. As Mr. Ingles says, the theory of how life evolved is wholly separate from the theory of how life origniated. Gould is right about the relationship between God and evolution, and Huxley is wrong. The evidence of this is the existence of evolutionary biologists who believe in God, and that Darwin himself, as his least faithful, was agnostic and not atheist. Presumably, Darwin knows as much about Darwinism as the grandson of his "bulldog."
Lastly, I will point out that though atheists might have found convenience in Darwin's theory, it does not follow that the theory itself is atheistic.
Comment by Katzen | August 17, 2007
Katzen,
You wrote:
As Stephen Jay Gould (a Darwinist) wrote:
“Either half my colleagues are enormously stupid, or else the science of Darwinism is fully compatible with conventional religious beliefs—and equally compatible with atheism, thus proving that the two great realms of nature’s factuality and the source of human morality do not strongly overlap.” http://www.stephenjaygould.org/reviews/gould_darwin-on-trial.html
In this carefully prepared comment Gould makes some interesting connections. He equates the division of the group with a statement that the theory does not cause a division. He also ties the religion of Darwinism to "natures factuality" and ties conventional religious beliefs to "source of human morality". Indeed he pulled most of the belief in the creator out of religion by referring to morality only to place all of religion back into his conclusion. I have to say he is cleaver. This is similiar to the way evolution was passed off as truth. Because microevolution is in our face and can be proven, macroevolution was wrapped with it and then a naturaistic wall was placed around the two. The argument which could be seen by all in microevolution was extended to macroevolution. There is no proof that microevolution makes macroevolution. The theory rest on the obvious proof of one and the assumed connection of the two. In the beginning the assumed connection between microevolution and macroevolution had gene drift over time and incremental steps leading to massive changes from one species to another. Since this could not be observed because of the assumed large time frames it had to be taken on faith. Now we know that the theory must have mutations as the active agent of change. The problem is the math does not add up. There is not enough time and chance mutations to make evolution possible.
Comment by fbaginski | August 17, 2007
The problem I have is that macro evolution is the premise, not the explanation. The premise came fires, the explanation comes after. It is built upon the premise.
All the interpretations of fossil data, all the observations regarding DNA, etc., etc., are all interpeted through the lens of the basic premise. Therefore, the majority of scientists are evolutionists (pardon me, but it is nowhere near a virtually unanimous judgment), because a majority of scientists are steeped in evolutionary assumptions from the get-go (Besides, since when is science determined by majority vote?).
The premise is not refutable. The premise is not falsifiable. Substitute a different premise and you reach different conclusions from the same evidence, the same research, and the same fossils.
There is no way to determine which premise is superior, because a premise is akin to a world view. Everyone interprets what they see, hear, and understand based on their fundamental assumptions about the way the world operates.
That is why macro evolution has more in common with religion than with science. That is why it needs to be questioned. That is why I don't accept these explanations for the way things are, because they are contrary to MY world view. And I have seen nothing yet that has demonstrated that it is better than my own fundamental premise.
Comment by Mountain Man | August 17, 2007
Once upon a time on a shoreline not far from here a cow stood in the water and wished he could swim like the fish. His friend the cricket told him that only good cows got their wish so he must be careful to obtain the favor of the fairy. Every day the cow wished and wished to become a fish. One day his wish was granted by the fairy and his DNA was changed. The cow looked and saw he was still a cow. The cow said "How can this be fairy, you said I could become a fish". The fairy said that he could only change one part of the DNA at a time and he would be back every day for one more change. The cow said when will I swim. The fairy said "Oh you will never swim but in 400,000,000 generations your offspring will". The cow thought about this for moment and said "What a crock". He then went back to the field and ate grass just like a cow.
I wrote this little story about a species somehow wanting to change. Much like stretching ones neck and then expecting your offspring to have longer necks. Although this seems silly to us, this was a common belief with early Darwinist.
Just having a little fun.
Comment by fbaginski | August 17, 2007
Mountain Man, the premise of evolution did not come first - the prevailing premise (with a few notable exceptions, e.g. Leondardo Da Vinci: http://www.colorado.edu/eeb/courses/4800armstrong/Leonardo%20on%20Fossils.pdf) was a young Earth, with everything laid down by the Flood. But by the late 1800's this had become untenable due to the weight of geological evidence. More, the evidence of the fossils showed that the life in times past was different from now. There was also the hierarchical arrangement of living things - Animals, Chordates, Vertebrates, Mammals, each containing traits diagnostic of their type. But why? Why no lizards with nipples? Why no insects with fur, or feathers? Evolution tied together a lot of different data like this.
And it seems odd that you would ask for potential observations refuting evolution, be provided with at least four examples of things that would do so, and then you would say "The premise is not refutable."
Comment by Raymond Ingles | August 17, 2007
The current body of scientific knowledge disagrees with Darwin's theories, which he first published in 1859.
So what?
Darwin knew nothing about DNA - nobody did while he was alive. He theorized that there was a mechanism by which life evolved. His ideas were supported by observations he made of living bird populations, and by discoveries of fossil remains of various kinds of animal, plants, fish, etc as described in earlier comments by Ray Ingeles.
Adding scientific knowledge does not require the use of the classic "Scientific Method" for every addition. Darwin's theory of evolution has in fact been disproved and supplanted by modern explanations based on understanding DNA and how it functions. Evolution of DNA resulting in observable, inheritable differences between parents and their offspring, has been proven.
People like Dawkins, Huxley, Haldane and Gould have written & given speeches as scientific philosophers - but those writings do not constitute doing scientific investigation. They give their opinions and interpretations of other people's scientific work and writings - but do not necessarily add to the body of knowledge. What they have said about evolution may be incorrect in light of newer scientific evidence. Feel free to ignore what they said if it bothers you!
Many non-scientists simply do not understand how scientific facts are obtained, or the difference between scientific fact and theory. A scientific theory is an Interpretation of scientific facts. Nothing more. It is useful to help understand and make use of data.
Scientific facts are data which can be observed by anyone who follows the same method as the discoverer. For example, we can both look at a group of fossil remains and agree on the similarities and differences, though we may have different theories how those occurred. We can both perform scientific experiments, and we will get the same results; and anyone else who follows the same method will also get the same results.
In contrast, legal "fact" is determined by the opinions of observers, specifically a judge and / or jury; but different juries can see the same evidence and have different opinions and so decide different legal "facts".
That cannot happen with scientific facts. Scientific theories are modified or new ones thought of, all the time; but the facts that the theory was attempting to explain, do not change.
Comment by gz9gjg | August 17, 2007
gz9gjg,
You say;
Adding scientific knowledge does not require the use of the classic “Scientific Method” for every addition. Darwin’s theory of evolution has in fact been disproved and supplanted by modern explanations based on understanding DNA and how it functions. Evolution of DNA resulting in observable, inheritable differences between parents and their offspring, has been proven.
I have studied this subject for a while. Please let me know where I can find this proof you talk about?
I do not want an opinion, raw data is what I am looking for. I have a bet with my friend in the office that you don't have any proof.
I once read an article that said that the process of egg development was found and science now knew how organs and other parts of the body were formed. The article referenced another article. I looked that up. It then referenced another article. I looked that up. It referenced some basic research. The basic research was; an egg had part of its DNA destroyed. The egg developed into a mutated mess. The conclusion of the research was that this part of the DNA had something to do with egg development. No other conclusions were listed. So just how did a research project with no real conclusions turn into a new found understanding of developing life. The simple answer is the raw data need not represent the conclusions as long as they support the closely held beliefs of the majority of scientist.
The scientific method is the factual pillar which science rest. On the other hand pseudoscience which does not use the scientific method is ladden with worldview opinions. The pseudosciences use the perceived factual basis of science to push their worldview. The intelligent design movement is uncovering the veil of the pseudosciences. To be open to the general public is not what pseudoscientist want.
Comment by fbaginski | August 17, 2007
The footprints found in the old mud in Texas do not conclusively have human prints next to dinosaur prints. Until new prints that can show a human origin in the mud are found the logical assumption is to declare all of the prints dinosaurs. The point I was making earlier is how easy it is for a Darwinist to twist raw data. It does not matter if the data is found to be wrongly interpreted. There are many sets of "facts" on both sides of the evolution debate that are myth. Don't get me wrong, both sides twist data or conveniently leave data out for a wrong conclusion to form. It makes for a swamp of junk science that one must wade through to form an educated opinion on the subject. The website icr.org does a good job of presenting data in a fair manner. I cannot say that about some other sites referenced in these comments.
Comment by fbaginski | August 18, 2007
fbaginski,
"In Texas an evolutionist was shown fossilised footprints. Side by side were man’s and dinosaurs."
"The footprints found in the old mud in Texas do not conclusively have human prints next to dinosaur prints. Until new prints that can show a human origin in the mud are found the logical assumption is to declare all of the prints dinosaurs. The point I was making earlier is how easy it is for a Darwinist to twist raw data."
I am having great difficulty reconciling these two statements.
Comment by Katzen | August 19, 2007
Katzen,
You should have no trouble with these two statements that say two different things. The first statement is an intro to a statement by an evolutionist, the assumed truth of the first statement was a lead to the main subject. The response I received focused on the lead in. Since these artifacts are subjective I will always side with caution.
There are many fine people who do believe that the footprints found in Texas are human next to dinosaurs. I will not disagree with them but I could not use this to base an argument. I could however use this to frame a statement by an evolutionist. In this particuliar science there are many subjective sets of data and artifacts. If you follow closely the statements I make you will find I always have a good reference or raw data to back me up. I would hope but would never expect to change your world view. So the level of data and logical argument will never be complete. This forum is not the place for such an effort.
I was an evolutionist with a slight hold on the idea of a god. Then I saw the world through the lens of particle physics. This forced a reset of my beliefs and a rebuilding occurred. I tossed most of everything. I rebuilt my world view looking past opinion and examined raw data. It has been a great ride.
Comment by fbaginski | August 27, 2007