Posted on 07/22/2006 5:35:21 AM PDT by DouglasKC
David Raup is a firm believer in evolution and a respected paleontologist (scientist who studies fossils) at the University of Chicago and the Field Museum. However, he admits that the fossil record has been misinterpreted if not outright mischaracterized. He writes: "A large number of well-trained scientists outside of evolutionary biology and paleontology have unfortunately gotten the idea that the fossil record is far more Darwinian than it is. This probably comes from the oversimplification inevitable in secondary sources: low-level textbooks, semi-popular articles, and so on. Also, there is probably some wishful thinking involved. In the years after Darwin, his advocates hoped to find predictable progressions. In general, these have not been found-yet the optimism has died hard, and some pure fantasy has crept into textbooks" (Science, Vol. 213, p. 289, emphasis added)...
Professor Raup elaborates on the problem paleontologists face in trying to demonstrate evolution from the fossil record: ". . . We are now about 120 years after Darwin, and knowledge of the fossil record has been greatly expanded. We now have a quarter of a million fossil species but the situation hasn't changed much. The record of evolution is still surprisingly jerky and, ironically, we have even fewer examples of evolutionary transition than we had in Darwin's time.
"By this I mean that some of the classic cases of Darwinian change in the fossil record, such as the evolution of the horse in North America, have had to be discarded or modified as a result of more detailed information-what appeared to be a nice simple progression when relatively few data were available now appears to be much more complex and much less gradualistic [evolutionary]" ("Conflicts Between Darwin and Paleontology," Field Museum of Natural History Bulletin 50, January 1979, pp. 22-25, emphasis added).
It's clear you've never written an undergraduate college-level scientific research paper. The only primary sources you cited in that list are Origin of Species by Darwin and the Science paper. The other six sources are popular books and magazine articles.
This paper was written to convince people who know nothing of science or how it works. The scientists are then "elitists" because we refuse to take your ridiculous claims seriously.
for later
So are you claiming that the Bible lies but mankind in all his scientific splendor does not (nay can not) lie - at least not when a consensus is reached amongst the bright and intelligent professors of their own self-learned/self-taught ways?
In Romans 2:6-8, we are told that God "will judge all people according to what they have done. He will give eternal life to those who persist in doing what is good, seeking after the glory and honor and immortality that God offers. But he will pour out his anger and wrath on those who live for themselves, who refuse to obey the truth and practice evil deeds." (NLT)
There is more scientific proof of the truth of the Bible on just the few links on my profile page than is true in all your evolutionary theorem(s) combined - in my humble opinion.
You are confusing the fact of flight with the theory of flight; the former is observed, the latter explains how and why it occurs.
Same with evolution; there is the fact of evolution (change occurs from generation to generation) and the theory that explains how and why that change occurs.
>>>How about the Myth of Physics while you're at it? . . . (clip) . . . Why with a little bit of effort you can write off just about all of science as a myth, can't you?<<<
Evolutionists say the darndest things when their cult is attacked as untestable and unobservable.
For the record, I seem to recall that Physics and the other branches of science are reasonably testable or observable. Not so for evolution.
Dead give-away as to the mindset of the writer...
~~~~~~~~~~~~
My answer: "WRT evolution as a possible explanation for observed biological development -- NO!"
"OTOH, If you are simpleminded or self-centered enough to let your faith hang on disproving a scientific theory -- YES -- and that's your problem..."
Definitions (from a google search, with additions from this thread):
Theory: a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world; an organized system of accepted knowledge that applies in a variety of circumstances to explain a specific set of phenomena; "theories can incorporate facts and laws and tested hypotheses." Addendum: "Theories do not grow up to be laws. Theories explain laws." (Courtesy of VadeRetro.)
Theory: A scientifically testable general principle or body of principles offered to explain observed phenomena. In scientific usage, a theory is distinct from a hypothesis (or conjecture) that is proposed to explain previously observed phenomena. For a hypothesis to rise to the level of theory, it must predict the existence of new phenomena that are subsequently observed. A theory can be overturned if new phenomena are observed that directly contradict the theory. [Source]
When a scientific theory has a long history of being supported by verifiable evidence, it is appropriate to speak about "acceptance" of (not "belief" in) the theory; or we can say that we have "confidence" (not "faith") in the theory. It is the dependence on verifiable data and the capability of testing that distinguish scientific theories from matters of faith.
Hypothesis: a tentative theory about the natural world; a concept that is not yet verified but that if true would explain certain facts or phenomena; "a scientific hypothesis that survives experimental testing becomes a scientific theory"; "he proposed a fresh theory of alkalis that later was accepted in chemical practices."
Proof: Except for math and geometry, there is little that is actually proved. Even well-established scientific theories can't be conclusively proved, because--at least in principle--a counter-example might be discovered. Scientific theories are always accepted provisionally, and are regarded as reliable only because they are supported (not proved) by the verifiable facts they purport to explain and by the predictions which they successfully make. All scientific theories are subject to revision (or even rejection) if new data are discovered which necessitates this.
Law: a generalization that describes recurring facts or events in nature; "the laws of thermodynamics."
Model: a simplified representation designed to illuminate complex processes; a hypothetical description of a complex entity or process; a physical or mathematical representation of a process that can be used to predict some aspect of the process.
Speculation: a hypothesis that has been formed by speculating or conjecturing (usually with little hard evidence). When a scientist speculates he is drawing on experience, patterns and somewhat unrelated things that are known or appear to be likely. This becomes a very informed guess.
Guess: an opinion or estimate based on incomplete evidence, or on little or no information.
Assumption: premise: a statement that is assumed to be true and from which a conclusion can be drawn; "on the assumption that he has been injured we can infer that he will not to play"
Impression: a vague or subjective idea in which some confidence is placed; "his impression of her was favorable"; "what are your feelings about the crisis?"; "it strengthened my belief in his sincerity"; "I had a feeling that she was lying."
Opinion: a personal belief or judgment that is not founded on proof or certainty.
Observation: any information collected with the senses.
Data: factual information, especially information organized for analysis or used to reason or make decisions.
Fact: when an observation is confirmed repeatedly and by many independent and competent observers, it can become a fact.
Truth: This is a word best avoided entirely in physics [and science] except when placed in quotes, or with careful qualification. Its colloquial use has so many shades of meaning from ‘it seems to be correct’ to the absolute truths claimed by religion, that it’s use causes nothing but misunderstanding. Someone once said "Science seeks proximate (approximate) truths." Others speak of provisional or tentative truths. Certainly science claims no final or absolute truths. Source.
Science: a method of learning about the world by applying the principles of the scientific method, which includes making empirical observations, proposing hypotheses to explain those observations, and testing those hypotheses in valid and reliable ways; also refers to the organized body of knowledge that results from scientific study.
Religion: Theistic: 1. the belief in a superhuman controlling power, esp. in a personal God or gods entitled to obedience and worship. 2. the expression of this in worship. 3. a particular system of faith and worship.
Religion: Non-Theistic: The word religion has many definitions, all of which can embrace sacred lore and wisdom and knowledge of God or gods, souls and spirits. Religion deals with the spirit in relation to itself, the universe and other life. Essentially, religion is belief in spiritual beings. As it relates to the world, religion is a system of beliefs and practices by means of which a group of people struggles with the ultimate problems of human life.
Belief: any cognitive content (perception) held as true; religious faith.
Faith: the belief in something for which there is no material evidence or empirical proof; acceptance of ideals, beliefs, etc., which are not necessarily demonstrable through experimentation or observation. A strong belief in a supernatural power or powers that control human destiny.
Dogma: a religious doctrine that is proclaimed as true without evidence.
Some good definitions, as used in physics, can be found: Here.
Based on these, evolution is a theory. CS and ID are beliefs.
[Last revised 7/16/06]
"How about the Moslems who believe monkeys and apes USED TO BE human"
Yeah, how about that, huh?
They ARE pretty funny.
Here's something I am trying to understand...
Why is ID not a gradualistic theory? Whether preplanned or random, I see no reason why ID should predict sudden changes in species sans intermediates. I mean, shouldn’t a young earth creationist expect lots of transitional species to have existed –not just forming large jumps– but to make small changes leading from one species to another? Isn’t this necessary to fit all those animals on the ark, so that not all those closely related species of today would have to be represented?
Amen!
What, ultimately, does Genesis tell us? In my view, it teaches that the whole of humanity shares a common ancestor, that we are all children of God, and -- the real challenge -- that even my worst enemy is still my kinsman.
I do not see any conflict here between the teachings of the Bible, the moral injunctions of my Christian faith, and the verifiable findings of science and the theory of evolution.
I'm going to have to go ahead and disagree with this statement. This paper was written to give glory to God as the creator of life. It does this by illuminating a few of the major problems that the theory of evolution has.
I find it incredible that so many evolution believers are content to dismiss us believers as brain dead, confused, igorant savages who have somehow been duped. As if somehow we're just too stupid or deluded to face facts. That's why attitudes like yours are usually characterized as elitist.
Please re-read my posts. I said nothing about the Bible lying. I also stated that a scientific theory and scientific facts are modified when new information is found. Science doesn't lie. Its facts may need correction at times, and this correction is done by experiment or the discovery of new data. 'Lie' implies an intentional deception and a real scientist would not do that about scientific knowledge.
My posts were not to take sides, but the show the lack of understanding of the terms "theory" and "hypothesis". This has nothing to do with the Bible.
Yes indeed...but the question is:
"Who was the first man to say: I'm going to eat the first thing that comes out of that chicken's butt."?
Absolutely wrong.
Google sickle cell anemia and Thalasemia and start learning. You have a lot of catching up to do.
I've seen many evolutionist on here try to argue two things mostly:
1: Nonbelievers don't know what the definition of "Theory" is, therefore evolution happens...?
2: Gravity is a theory, so therefore, evolution MUST happen...?
People try using these vapid, strawman, arguments and they're totally ridiculous. It doesn't matter what the term "Theory" means if you're trying to convience people evolution is fact, and we witness and feel the effects of gravity daily. We do not observe evolution daily because that is impossible, and for the majority of the scientific community to argue evolution is FACT based on hypothesis and educated guesses does itself a huge disservice and turns evolution into a religious cult instead of a credible scientific theory by not admitting evolution is a belief based on the evidence at hand.
Why are there fossilized tracks between layers, if it was all laid down all at once by water?
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.
