Free Republic
Browse · Search
Bloggers & Personal
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Why Do You Keep Boring Us with Darwinism?
From Sea to Shining Sea ^ | 5/19/08 | Purple Mountains

Posted on 05/19/2008 1:50:52 PM PDT by PurpleMountains

I’ve written several columns about my skepticism regarding Darwinism. Each time I do I receive snooty comments attesting to my stupidity and my ignorance. The Darwinists never seem to want to discuss any of the points I have tried to make, just to ridicule the very thought that there may be some kind of guiding intelligence behind the structures, the amounts of information, the complexities, the fine balance and the mysteries of life and our universe.

If anything is subject to ridicule, it is the answer that the world’s leading proponent and defender of Darwinian dogma, Richard Dawkins, gave to Ben Stein when Stein asked him about the origin of life.

(Excerpt) Read more at forthegrandchildren.blogspot.com ...


TOPICS: Religion; Science
KEYWORDS: benstein; darwinism; expelled; richarddawkins
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 61-8081-100101-120121-124 next last
To: Coyoteman
Some see the information content of organisms subject to diversification according to the second law (Brooks and Wiley 1988), so organisms diversify to fill empty niches much as a gas expands to fill an empty container.
Do you offer any rigorous mathematical proof whatsoever of that assertion?

Or do you regard ENTROPY AS A PHILOSOPHY as applied to evolution?
81 posted on 05/20/2008 12:07:26 PM PDT by Milhous (Gn 22:17 your descendants shall take possession of the gates of their enemies)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 78 | View Replies]

To: Coyoteman

Excuse me. Pinning moths on the trunk of a tree to prove your point, when they naturally only land in the leaves is FRAUD! Don’t care how you spin it!


82 posted on 05/20/2008 12:16:13 PM PDT by LiteKeeper (Beware the secularization of America; the Islamization of Eurabia)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 75 | View Replies]

To: PurpleMountains; All
I’ve written several columns about my skepticism regarding Darwinism. Each time I do I receive snooty comments attesting to my stupidity and my ignorance. The Darwinists never seem to want to discuss any of the points I have tried to make, just to ridicule the very thought that there may be some kind of guiding intelligence behind the structures, the amounts of information, the complexities, the fine balance and the mysteries of life and our universe.
Don't be fooled. Darwinism is a scientifically disguised attack on Christianity which is why it is not going away.

From a related thread...

Unfortunately, based on everything I've heard about Mr. Stein's much needed movie, even Mr. Stein seems to be unaware of the broader problem of the USSC's unlawful stifling of free religious speech in public schools.

In 1987, The Supreme Court of the United States ruled that teaching creationism in public schools violated the separation of church and state in Edwards vs. Aquilard.
If anybody wants to see the USSC's bogus separation of church and state disappear before their eyes, a politically correct perversion of our constitutional religious freedoms that was wrongly legislated from the bench when the Court decided Cantwell v. Connecticut in 1940, then please read the following post. Note that while the post concerns a 10 Commandments issue it is also applicable to this thread.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1992174/posts?page=22#22
Note, for instance, that the states have the constitutional power (10th A.) to authorize public schools to lead non-mandatory (14th A.) classroom discussion on the pros and cons of evolution, creationism and irreducible complexity, as examples, regardless that atheists, separatists, secular judges and the MSM are misleading the people to think that doing such things in public schools is unconstitutional.

The bottom line, as mentioned in the referenced post, is that the people need to reconnect with the Founder's division of federal and state powers, particularly where the wrongly ignored 10th A. power of the states to address religious issues is concerned, power now limited by the honest interpretation of the 14th Amendment. The people then need to get in the faces of renegade justices and do a major spring cleaning where USSC respect for our religious freedoms is concerned.

Lincoln put it this way.

"We the People are the rightful master of both congress and the courts - not to overthrow the Constitution, but to overthrow the men who pervert the Constitution." --Abraham Lincoln (Political debates between Lincoln and Douglas), 1858.

83 posted on 05/20/2008 12:33:45 PM PDT by Amendment10
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Amendment10
Darwinism is a scientifically disguised attack on Christianity which is why it is not going away.

Which is I guess why it was devised by a man who at the time was such a devout Christian that other Christians would laugh at him.

84 posted on 05/20/2008 1:28:31 PM PDT by antiRepublicrat
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 83 | View Replies]

To: antiRepublicrat; All
Which is I guess why it was devised by a man who at the time was such a devout Christian that other Christians would laugh at him.

Darwin's ideas were pirated by atheists and secularists who now hide behind the lab jackets of scientists from where they fling their politically correct mud at Christians.

85 posted on 05/20/2008 1:40:59 PM PDT by Amendment10
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 84 | View Replies]

To: Amendment10
pirated by atheists and secularists who now hide behind the lab jackets of scientists from where they fling their politically correct mud at Christians.

I don't know any atheists or secularists like this, but I do know they exist given the likes of Dawkins. Too bad it's religion haters like him who are the ones who get on the news.

86 posted on 05/20/2008 1:44:59 PM PDT by antiRepublicrat
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 85 | View Replies]

To: antiRepublicrat; All
I don't know any atheists or secularists like this, but I do know they exist given the likes of Dawkins. Too bad it's religion haters like him who are the ones who get on the news.

People who unthinkingly pass along macroevolution ideas can be considered as helping to mudsling Christians. After all, most macroevolution ideas have never been properly verified with the results of repeatable, scientific-method experimentation. This is for the simple reason that experiments that would conclusively substantiate the claim by evolutionists that it took billions of years for single-cell organisms to evolve into humans, for example, would likewise take billions of years to conduct; an impossibility.

And then there is the "minor" problem of repeating such time-consuming experiments in order to verify outcome.

Also, when experiments that were said to simulate long periods of time were devised to observe long-term evolution processes at work, scientists discovered that harmful mutations could not be ignored.

87 posted on 05/20/2008 2:02:10 PM PDT by Amendment10
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 86 | View Replies]

To: Amendment10
People who unthinkingly pass along macroevolution ideas can be considered as helping to mudsling Christians.

What's with the persecution complex? The theory itself is not an attack, only a perceived threat by some Christians just as "the world is round" was considered a threat. Almost all of your religion has come to terms with that scientific finding, and most have come to terms with this one.

88 posted on 05/20/2008 2:08:15 PM PDT by antiRepublicrat
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 87 | View Replies]

To: LiteKeeper; knightforhire; LetTruthBeTold
Here is another example of recent fraud from the scientists of evolutionary belief.

History of modern man unravels as German scholar is exposed as fraud

And here, another example demonstrates how findings can be skewed when viewed through the filters of evolutionary beliefs. The Rise and Fall of Skull KNM-ER 1470

‘Creationists’ when they get the chance to examine the findings, can and will find the error in them.

89 posted on 05/20/2008 2:12:43 PM PDT by valkyry1
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 73 | View Replies]

To: antiRepublicrat; All
What's with the persecution complex? The theory itself is not an attack, only a perceived threat by some Christians just as "the world is round" was considered a threat. Almost all of your religion has come to terms with that scientific finding, and most have come to terms with this one.

Where are you coming from?

Constitution-ignoring judges are stifling the right of Christians and others to discuss ID, for example, in public schools.

90 posted on 05/20/2008 2:24:57 PM PDT by Amendment10
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 88 | View Replies]

To: Amendment10
Where are you coming from?

The idea that an explanation doesn't include your god is somehow an attack on your religion. Hint: all of science doesn't include "God did it" because then it wouldn't be science.

Constitution-ignoring judges are stifling the right of Christians and others to discuss ID, for example, in public schools.

I only disagree with ID being taught as science, because it isn't. I'm fine with ID being taught in a "Religious Origins" or philosophy class. I don't agree with the complete exclusion of religion from schools as an academic subject.

91 posted on 05/20/2008 4:06:10 PM PDT by antiRepublicrat
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 90 | View Replies]

To: Coyoteman

92 posted on 05/20/2008 4:15:35 PM PDT by dread78645 (Evolution. A doomed theory since 1859.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 56 | View Replies]

To: Amendment10
Darwinism is a scientifically disguised attack on Christianity which is why it is not going away.

"Thanks to evolution, the truths have come and are coming in their good time... The organic action of society is the foundation of all social and individual progress. Only by this mediator and savior, Humanity, is there any hope or salvation for the individual... The true Bible is no longer those old Hebrew and Greek documents... The Creed is not any number of Church Articles, but the conclusions of science... " Evolution in Science, Philosophy, and Art. pg.47-49.

"In addition to the truth of the doctrine of evolution, indeed, one of its greatest merits in my eyes, is the fact that it occupies a position of complete and irreconcilable antagonism to that vigorous and consistent enemy of the highest intellectual, moral, and social life of mankind--the Catholic Church" - T.H Huxley, Darwiniana.

"We teachers of evolution in the colleges have no sinister designs upon the religious faith of our students." - Horatio Hackett Newman, Evolution, Genetics, and Eugenics.


93 posted on 05/20/2008 7:14:41 PM PDT by Ethan Clive Osgoode (<<== Click here to learn about Darwinism!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 83 | View Replies]

To: Coyoteman; Milhous
"The only processes necessary for evolution to occur are reproduction, heritable variation, and selection. All of these are seen to happen all the time, so, obviously, no physical laws are preventing them."

That argument is specious. It is like saying we see pistons, wires, gears and batteries all the time, and no physical laws prevent them from working, so this here perpetual motion machine, made of pistons, wires, gears and batteries, does not violate any physical laws either.

94 posted on 05/20/2008 7:46:17 PM PDT by Ethan Clive Osgoode (<<== Click here to learn about Darwinism!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 78 | View Replies]

To: freespirited
Darwin was adamantly opposed to human intervention in the reproductive process

Let's put some context to it.

Man scans with scrupulous care the character and pedigree of his horses, cattle, and dogs before he matches them; but when he comes to his own marriage he rarely, or never, takes any such care. He is impelled by nearly the same motives as the lower animals, when they are left to their own free choice, though he is in so far superior to them that he highly values mental charms and virtues. On the other hand he is strongly attracted by mere wealth or rank. Yet he might by selection do something not only for the bodily constitution and frame of his offspring, but for their intellectual and moral qualities. Both sexes ought to refrain from marriage if they are in any marked degree inferior in body or mind; but such hopes are Utopian and will never be even partially realised until the laws of inheritance are thoroughly known. Everyone does good service, who aids towards this end. When the principles of breeding and inheritance are better understood, we shall not hear ignorant members of our legislature rejecting with scorn a plan for ascertaining whether or not consanguineous marriages are injurious to man. The advancement of the welfare of mankind is a most intricate problem: all ought to refrain from marriage who cannot avoid abject poverty for their children; for poverty is not only a great evil, but tends to its own increase by leading to recklessness in marriage. On the other hand, as Mr. Galton has remarked, if the prudent avoid marriage, whilst the reckless marry, the inferior members tend to supplant the better members of society. Man, like every other animal, has no doubt advanced to his present high condition through a struggle for existence consequent on his rapid multiplication; and if he is to advance still higher, it is to be feared that he must remain subject to a severe struggle. Otherwise he would sink into indolence, and the more gifted men would not be more successful in the battle of life than the less gifted. Hence our natural rate of increase, though leading to many and obvious evils, must not be greatly diminished by any means. There should be open competition for all men; and the most able should not be prevented by laws or customs from succeeding best and rearing the largest number of offspring.

Darwin, Descent of Man


95 posted on 05/20/2008 7:57:29 PM PDT by Ethan Clive Osgoode (<<== Click here to learn about Darwinism!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 74 | View Replies]

To: antiRepublicrat
You are misunderstanding Darwin's work as applied to human society just as badly as these people did.

"These people" include Leonard Darwin, Florence Henrietta Darwin, Maud de Puy Darwin, Francis Darwin, Horace Darwin, George Howard Darwin, Charles Galton Darwin, Milo Keynes (son of Margaret Darwin), Francis Galton (Darwin's cousin and Darwin Medalist), Karl Pearson (Darwin Medalist), R.A. Fisher (Darwin Medalist), Sewall Wright (Darwin Medalist), Henry Fairfield Osborn (Darwin Medalist), Julian Huxley (Darwin Medalist), Edward Poulton (Darwin Medalist), Albert Seward (Darwin Medalist), Grafton Elliot Smith, Sir Arthur Keith, Cyril Darlington, and many others. They were members of eugenic societies.

96 posted on 05/20/2008 8:31:32 PM PDT by Ethan Clive Osgoode (<<== Click here to learn about Darwinism!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 79 | View Replies]

To: Coyoteman

You dismissed Haeckel’s embryos. They were complete frauds and are still being used as ‘proof’ of evolution in modern text books.

Any time an alleged science text book uses the pope, circular logic and 100 year old fraudulent drawings to promote a theory, I will be skeptical.

http://www.discovery.org/a/3935


97 posted on 05/20/2008 8:33:06 PM PDT by Tramonto (Huckabee FairTax Huckabee FairTax Huckabee FairTax)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 51 | View Replies]

To: Coyoteman
I admire your zeal for evolution and your adherence to the presupposition that science has proved evolution.

You seem to have a good education in the theory and appear to be able to quote it like scripture.

I was wondering though has science proved reality yet?

Can science tell for certain that God who is supernatural does not exist?


You got me on that one about fakes. But not next time, I will be sure to read a little closer as you appear to like to trick up others with word games to prove your point.

Because you are committed to a belief that everything can be explained by naturalistic causes has hardened your mind to any other explanation.

I am OK with your degrading those who have grow up being taught evolution and later discovering from reading (which by the way much of your education came from reading in fields that you never touched an experiment or observed yet you took and still do as fact this information because educated men and women said it was so) that there is another explanation for the visible evidence before our eyes.

It could be construed as arrogant to say that what is read in a creationist site as useless information. I would bet that many of the people that write for those sites are scientist themselves or got information from them.
98 posted on 05/20/2008 9:00:32 PM PDT by LetTruthBeTold (The strands of information that make up evolution are easily unraveled)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 70 | View Replies]

To: Tramonto
You dismissed Haeckel’s embryos. They were complete frauds and are still being used as ‘proof’ of evolution in modern text books.

See post #19.

And the Discovery Institute, the source of your link, is not a very good website to go to for unbiased information on science. They are peddling religion. See the Wedge Strategy for the details.

99 posted on 05/20/2008 9:40:05 PM PDT by Coyoteman (Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 97 | View Replies]

To: Coyoteman
See post #19.

I saw the link. The information from Talk origins is false.

When Haeckel's inaccuracies were exposed, authors started using corrected versions. Science tends to be self-correcting.

Similar drawings are still being used in modern texts. The discover link I posted simply proves that many texts are still using slightly altered versions of the fraudulent pictures. These texts use the pictures as proof of common decent. This is extremely dishonest but is par for the course for Darwinists who have been falsifying evidence for 150 years.

Here is a link from one of those websites you dismiss with contempt that compares the fraudulent embryos similar to those used in science texts and actual photos of embryos.

http://workgroups.cwrl.utexas.edu/visual/files/p50_embryo.jpg

100 posted on 05/20/2008 9:59:06 PM PDT by Tramonto (Huckabee FairTax Huckabee FairTax Huckabee FairTax)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 99 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 61-8081-100101-120121-124 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
Bloggers & Personal
Topics · Post Article

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