How Much Longer Can They Sell Darwinism?

From Sea to Shining Sea ^ | 1/4/09 | Purple Mountains

[PurpleMountains]

All across the country, archeologists, paleontologists and biologists are taking part in what is perhaps the greatest example of political correctness in history – their adherence to Darwinism and their attempts to ostracize any scientist who does not agree with them. In doing so, they are not only ignoring the vast buildup of recent scientific discoveries that seriously undermines the basics of Darwinism, but they are also participating, due to politically correctness, in a belief system that indirectly resulted in the deaths of millions of people – those slaughtered by the Stalins, the Hitlers, the Maos, the Pol Pots and others who took their cue from Darwinism’s tenets.

[js1138]

Defin “adapted in the wrong direction.”

That’s a concept foreign to biology.

As for tracing lineages back to fossils, let’s look at your logic. If you dig up a human skull, do you know from it’s properties whether or not it is a direct ancestor?

Do you know if you and the person whose skull it is share a common ancestor? By what reasoning do you reach a conclusion?

[js1138]

Defin “adapted in the wrong direction.”

That’s a concept foreign to biology.

As for tracing lineages back to fossils, let’s look at your logic. If you dig up a human skull, do you know from it’s properties whether or not it is a direct ancestor?

Do you know if you and the person whose skull it is share a common ancestor? By what reasoning do you reach a conclusion?

[js1138]

I thought science wasn’t set in stone. Being a bit dogmatic, are we? I thought science wasn’t set in stone. Being a bit dogmatic, are we?

You have a reading problem. Some time this afternoon I said there are issues in science that are settled.

Such things as the cause of disease by micro-organisms are capable of being settled.

There's a reason why HIV deniers cite research from 1994 and earlier. Because nothing since then supports doubt that HIV causes AIDS, and nothing since 1997 supports doubt about the best available treatment.

[YHAOS]

”You also make the mistake of conflating the Theory of Evolution with the beginning of life, a subject the TOE specifically excludes.

Here we go again.

It seems that not all of the Science Community joins you in such a categorical separation of the Origin of Life, from the Theory of Evolution (See http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/article/origsoflife_01, a Berkeley University website entitled “From soup to cells – the origin of life”, under the rubric “evolution 101” and described as “your one-stop source for information on evolution.” A number of other universities list the Berkeley website as a recommended resource on their own Evolution websites.)

It appears that there is room for some divergence of opinion in the Science Community regarding the relation of the two issues, but it surely is clear that there is a relation, and that speculation on the origin of life is at least partially informed by what we have learned in our study of the Theory of Evolution.

[ZX12R]

In the case of the HIV/AIDS connection, I see nothing wrong with further research in the area especially considering the qualifications of the man who’s suggesting that HIV does not cause AIDS. When one of the foremost microbiologists in this country suggests something, you’d think people would at least give it a fair hearing.

This is a very good articulation of my original position. That as long as it based on a fair assessment of the facts, it is worthy of consideration. I have read good and convincing arguments, concerning HIV not being responsible for AIDS. Similarly, I once read an article many, many years ago, about the idea of geocentrism, in Sky and Telescope magazine. About how it wasn't so certain that geocentrism was crazy. The article made a very good presentation, and fair assessment of the facts at hand. In the end, I didn't decide that now the earth is the center of the universe, but I did give it consideration, because it was a fair assessment, and a reasonable argument. Any idea that is based on the facts at hand, is deserving of consideration. I still believe that the earth revolves around the sun, and most likely, HIV causes AIDS.

My original point was that I consider any position that represents a fair assessment of the facts at hand, and is deserving of consideration.

[Gumlegs]

That’s interesting. I’ve sent them an email asking about it.

[NicknamedBob]

"You have no right to define *sin*."

I would gently remind you that what Coyoteman posted was Robert Heinlein's definition or description of sin, not necessarily his own. (Although I believe he agrees.)

Heinlein also gave a very practical definition for love. In these two definitions, this master story-teller shared with us the wisdom of a long life of careful observation.

While this practical definition for sin may not agree with what a theist might prescribe, it could be a bit more practical for a discussion which is arguably, one that bridges science and theism.

[NicknamedBob]

"That quoting of Heinlein is lightweight, beyond goofy and into bizarre yote, about about as bizarre as some of your other fetishes."

"bizarre yote"

Well, I have to admit, that threw me. So I looked it up:

yote (yōt)
v. t.	1.	To pour water on; to soak in, or mix with, water.

My fowls, which well enough,
I, as before, found feeding at their trough
Their yoted wheat.
- Chapman.

But then I think I figured it out. You're saying that Heinlein's definition of "sin" is all wet.

Thanks for helping me to expand my vocabulary!

[Jaime2099]

"If you say you reject it out of faith, then if would follow that you reject true science altogether and would revert to Dark Ages when Christians were required to believe that the Earth revolved around the sun."

The Earth doesn't revolve around the Sun? What does it revolve around then, Pluto? It's laughable to hear you quote scripture when Human Evolution is in clear defiance of the Bible.

Genesis 1:26 King James Bible: "And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth."

My God is not an ape, He made us in His image. How could we evolve beyond God? That is a stupid argument to say the least.

[allmendream]

Humans are apes. There is no zoological, morphological, or molecular distinction.

In fact, in terms of similarity the orangutan is the odd man out of the ape group. Humans are closer in anatomy and DNA to both a chimpanzee and a gorilla than to an orangutan, and both the chimpanzee and gorilla are closer to humans than either is to an orangutan.

Facts do go away just because they conflict with your interpretation of the Bible. Science deals with facts and the theories that explain them, not Biblical interpretation.

[betty boop]

Put your foot down wherever you want.

Ultimately, your suggestion seems to boil down to an invitation to moral relativism, and ultimately constitutes an argument in favor of nihilism.

You seem to be an advocate of the idea that human liberty, human freedom, is a "freedom from" all natural and rational constraints. The corollary here seems to be that man is "free" to make up his own "rules" as he goes along: There's nothing to "stop him." And of course, if "God is dead," then this becomes possible. (Every Left Progressive thinker knows this.)

But for a man to say that "God is dead" is inefficacious in the act of actually "killing God." Man cannot do that: For "the tail does not wag the dog." (And if it did, the dog would die....)

(Not to mention that would be a patricidal act, were it possible in the first place; which, under the circumstances, it is not.)

At this point, I'd have to say that our interesting conversation is going just exactly nowhere. It seems we can't even get on the same page.... No personal disparagement of you intended by this remark.

I'd like to leave you with a thought, if you'd like to pursue it further. (If not, then not.)

It's the famous quip from Voltaire, which states: "If God did not exist, it would be necessary to create Him."

Do you understand what Voltaire meant by that? If you do, in this day and age, that would make you a rather unusual person....

Thank you ever so much tacticalogic, for your civil, good-faith exchange of views!

[allmendream]

If your statement is that there is “the sudden appearance of fully the formed species that the fossil record shows.”

How do you fit that into the fact that the fossil record also shows that these species are in no way contemporaneous?

The fossil record also shows that there were no mammals with wings or hoofs during the time of the dinosaurs, and dinosaurs did not live at the same time as tigers and lions and wolves or any other placental mammal, that introduction of placental mammals to Australia has been a recent development. That temperate (warm loving for those of you in Rio Linda) species used to inhabit Antarctica, but only archaic species. Do you recognize this salient feature that the fossil record also shows?

[tacticalogic]

Ultimately, your suggestion seems to boil down to an invitation to moral relativism, and ultimately constitutes an argument in favor of nihilism.

You get that from the argument that the things everyone agrees on are those things that have objectively observable, and empirically measurable properties.

[Jaime2099]

"Just like evos say that only scientists can define *theory* as scientists use it and that anyone else’s attempts to define theory in that way is invalid. So I propose that, not being qualified to define religious terms, by default your definition of *sin* is invalid."

Give em' their own medicine, they deserve it in heaps.

[metmom]

“If you say you reject it out of faith, then if would follow that you reject true science altogether and would revert to Dark Ages when Christians were required to believe that the Earth revolved around the sun.”
**********************************************************

In your dreams. The ToE does not equal all science, and rejecting the interpretation of the fossil record as proposed by the evos does not equate to rejecting all know science and wanting a return to the Dark Ages.

Nice hyperbole though.

Presuming that you really meant geocentric model of the solar system, that is just a myth that most people believed it or that the church required it to be believed. But no accusation to discredit a creationist or Christianity is too absurd to make, is it?

Flat Earth
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flat_Earth

Scientific mythology
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_mythology

If we’re going to get into that sort of thing, I could point out that it was the scientists of Simmelweis’ day who were opposed to his suggestion of handwashing between doing autopsies and childbirth. Many women and children would have survived if they had followed the OT proscription of dealing with dead bodies.

[YHAOS]

”Nobody ever left a crevo thread mad at someone they weren't mad at before it started?”

Are you suggesting that one can not harbor animosity unless they first have someone specific upon whom they objectify their animosity?

[Dog Gone]

Why not? You do! I’veseen you ‘list of’ “Solid Science” and quite frankly, there is nothing ‘solid’ about the claims and wild assumptions you point to- Don’t try to pretend they are anythign but, because We’ve investigated them and found them severely wanting for substance and actual scientific evidence-

So, it's pretty much the consensus that the folks at FR have debunked modern scientific thought? Why is it that it hasn't convinced the scientific community or society at large?

Science thrives on being challenged and changing its theories to incorporate new facts. Conversely, religion is just the opposite. So, if you think you've won the argument, there isn't any proof of it.

[Jaime2099]

"Humans are apes."

It cannot be proven through science that we evolved and apes did not evolve. It's purely speculative faith to believe in that nonsense. Apes similar DNA to humans does not prove that they failed to evolve and we did evolve. It simply proves that we are similar, to add anything else is not science.

"Facts do go away just because they conflict with your interpretation of the Bible. Science deals with facts and the theories that explain them, not Biblical interpretation."

Science deals with facts and theories not scripture, yes. I was merely showing someone where in the Bible it says that God created humans in his image. You misinterpreted my use of the scripture. And since science deals in facts and theories, then Human Evolution is only a part of incorrect science because it is a faulty theory in need of proof to make its hypothesis true.

[YHAOS]

"That’s interesting. I’ve sent them an email asking about it."

That's nice. But you lack the curiosity to check out the site for yourself? I cited the link. When you receive a reply, you'll share it with the thread, I trust?

[GodGunsGuts]

Wow...I hope you include that in your next book! What a fantastically well reasoned response. Even the atheists (at least the sophisticated ones) know we need God.