Posted on 03/29/2008 6:54:19 PM PDT by wastedpotential
Of all the factors that led to Mike Huckabee's demise in the 2008 presidential sweepstakes (insufficient funds, lack of foreign policy experience), there's one that has been largely overlooked: Huckabee's disbelief in the theory of evolution as it is generally understood – without the involvement of the Creator.
Perhaps you're thinking: What's evolution got to do with being president? Very little, as Huckabee was quick to remind reporters on the campaign trail. But from the moment the former Baptist minister revealed his beliefs on evolutionary biology, political commentators and scientists lambasted him. Some even suggested those beliefs should disqualify him from high office.
We believe most Americans
(Excerpt) Read more at worldnetdaily.com ...
Maybe you are right but he was scared silly of women.
Ring species are an example of speciation, or macroevolution as creationists are fond of calling it.
Creationists believe that speciation is impossible, and that there are no transitionals (or intermediates). Ring species show that this religious belief is incorrect. Ring species also show that "macroevolution" is not only possible, but show the mechanism, with intermediate populations still living.
Ring species do not, as you point out, show "where the species came from beforehand or what will happen with it" -- but the example of ring species I provided was not intended to show that. It was intended only to show how incorrect are the religious beliefs that there are no transitionals and that speciation is impossible.
But I fully expect that no amount of evidence will convince creationists of this. They are fully committed, for religious reasons, to their beliefs and no amount of evidence will change those beliefs. I post mainly for the lurkers, who may still be willing to look at the evidence.
This takes the discussion back to my original point. He isn't right about everything simply because of his great contributions to physics.
Quoting him as an authority on biology is entirely unconvincing.
Creationists believe that speciation is impossible, and that there are no transitionals (or intermediates).
Only by a definition which is carefully constructed to support the theory of evolution is ring species an example of speciation. The two non-interbreeding end-of-ring species are still the same kind of animal. The only reason that they are a different species is because the word species is defined as "Non interbreeding."
So to say that the two ends of a ring species are different species really is a little shaky (although popular) because the animals are really all the same kind. Evidence of this is that they are all interbreedable around the long way of the ring.
Maybe Creationists are skeptical of transitional because the best transitional species in evidence just don't provide much to be desired?
Lets say the Creationist is right, and that God did create each kind of animal. In that case, we would still see genetic drift in ring species, which could cause the open ends of the ring to be noninterbreedable, and yet they would still be the same kind of animal.
So it sure looks to me like the idea that a ring species somehow proves evolution only works if evolution is already proven. This, Sir, is circular reasoning. No pun intended.
As to transitional species, I do wonder why we don't see the thousands of missing links in the fossil record. The fossil record plus the living evidence just don't provide much evidence without needing a lot of hope for things not seen (In other words, faith.)
Thanks,
-Jesse
Trying to discredit Newton when it suits an evo’s purpose by referring to his work in alchemy is intellectually dishonest.
We can look back NOW and see that it was a waste of time because we know NOW that alchemy isn’t possible, but they didn’t then. Applying today’s knowledge of things and judging someone as a *real kook* for what he believed or practiced THEN, because he didn’t know then what we know now, is disingenuous. If someone TODAY purported that alchemy was valid and worked on it as Newton did, yes, that person could be classified as a real kook.
He was doing the best he knew how with the knowledge he had. What he was doing WAS the prevailing science of the day, like it or not. If you’re going to discredit some of what Newton said because of his work in alchemy, why not all? Why pick and choose based on what you like? And why not apply the same standard to everyone who participated in work in alchemy? Are they all kooks as well? That would eliminate a huge chunk of scientists throughout history. Alchemy was finally discredited in the 18th century. Until then, it was still the prevailing scientific consensus of the day.
Besides, was his actual work in alchemy that gets the criticism or the belief that it was possible? Was there something wrong with his methodologies in doing those experiments? Do you think scientists today would not try experiments to turn other common substances into gold if it were though possible? As a matter of fact, rumor has it that this was indeed tried in the 20th century. See the section labeled *Modern Alchemy*.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alchemy
You can’t write off Newton as a kook for believing and practicing what the scientific consensus of the day was just because we know better. What’s going to happen in 500 years when prevailing scientific consensus has changed? Would you like them to judge us as kooks for working in what is considered legitimate scientific endeavors today, that will likely turn out to be wrong, just because they know more?
"Missing link" is a newspaper term, not a scientific term. What we do see in the fossil record are "transitionals" -- and there are a lot of them.
If you can deny their existence, after having been shown the evidence in popular science magazines and television programs for decades it can only be that you choose, for religious reasons, not to accept that evidence.
But it won't make that evidence go away.
Imaginary, just like Dr. Gould said.
Pasting pictures is not evidence of anything but time wasted. Keep on raving, and pasting, but your throbbing headache will never go away. Evolution is imaginary, and so are your foolish hopes.
Get aboard the reality train; the cost is only emotional, and lasts but a fleeting moment, then you’re good to go for eternity.
Hello retread!
How many times is this for you?
No matter; you’ll be zapped again soon, and you’ll have another sobb card to hang on the memory wall at Darwin Central.
Oooo, you’re being mean.... ;)
There is no such thing as excess vit D, but dark skinned people do have a much higher incidence of many kinds of cancer that appears to be due to their minimal production of Vit. D.
Nothing in this has any connection to evolution, since for both groups, the effect is the same regardless of where they live.
You’re missing the point. It’s not an effort to discredit Newton. It is merely to point out that he was right about some things and dead wrong about others.
“Quoting him as an authority on biology is entirely unconvincing.”
I did not quote Newton as an authority in biology. I quoted him as a great scientist who saw not just evidence but proof of ID in nature. Had he known about the great discoveries yet to occur in biology and the amazing complexity of the simplest living cell, I’m confident that he would have been even more convinced of ID in nature, not less.
I agree. This whole idea that Newton’s work in alchemy somehow diminishes him as a scientist is utter baloney. Scientific experimentation involves trial and error, and even great scientists have many “failed” experiments. The mere fact that he was trying so hard in alchemy is a credit to his dedication as a scientist.
I brought up the red shift as one example of *evidence* (note: I did not say “proof”) of an “old” universe. I did not intend to dwell on it. Please just forget I even brought it up.
So Dr. Gould is right and nearly everyone else is wrong?
I understand that all that work in alchemy wasn’t without benefit, even though it never produced the desired result. For one thing, it showed that it couldn’t work. For another, I don’t have any doubt that they learned a LOT from all those experiments about other aspects of chemistry.
Isn’t that why you run experiments anyways? To learn things and find out if they work or not?
Sure, the Big Bang theory could certainly be incorrect (and, while a good chunk of of astronomy would need to be revisited, it’s certainly not impossible to provide for other causes of expansion), but why would that prove Evolution to be false, or the universe to be young?
We have plenty of proof that the world is old, after all, and so much of science - science that has proven valid through contributions to the world - is reliant on an old earth, that it would require a miracle to explain why these sciences worked.
God could have created the world with the appearance of age, I suppose, but that would involve God deliberately deceiving us. That, in turn, would lead me to only one rational conclusion (ignoring, of course, the possibilities that God is malicious or incompetent); that God WANTS us to believe that the world is old, for reasons unknown, in which case I ought treat it as such.
In short, I believe you to be railing against a position not represented amongst normal believers in evolution. Certainly, the extreme naturalist god-hating crowd believes in evolution (other than one or two who have found their own answers to life, I suppose), as well as an old earth and the big bang, but none of these positions are incompatible with God. One can believe both, and they certainly work very well together; isn’t a grand design spanning billions of years that works so perfectly, with such simple mechanisms, not proof of a higher hand at work? And wouldn’t such a work demonstrate the hand of its designer to be perfect?
Some people worship Science, but that doesn’t mean one MUST worship science to accept certain facts and theories about the universe to be true. Nor does acceptance of such facts and theories force one to accept a set of ethics, any more than the motion of tectonic plates requires us to relocate every year or our observations of cats require us to toy with our food before we eat it, regardless of what some may say.
Calling Newton a *kook* about some things in an effort to invalidate what he says about others IS trying to discredit him. Scientists wouldn’t know for several hundred years that alchemy wouldn’t work.
If he had claimed that in his day, his peers would have labeled him a *kook* instead, just like evos do to anyone who doesn’t buy the macroevoltion/speciation, naturalistic, random mutation, natural selection, no God allowed, version of the ToE today.
Newton was doing science according to the prevailing scientific wisdom of the day. If that makes him a kook, then it makes ALL the rest of them kooks, as well.
The scientific community does not allow for much room for dissent or out of the box thinking.
I don’t think I’m the one missing the point.
From Merriam-Webster Online:
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/discredit
Main Entry:
dis·cred·it
Function:
transitive verb
Date:
1559
1 : to refuse to accept as true or accurate : disbelieve *discredit a rumor*
2 : to cause disbelief in the accuracy or authority of *a discredited theory*
3 : to deprive of good repute : disgrace *personal attacks meant to discredit his opponent*
************************************************************
Calling him a kook is trying to discredit him. It is not merely showing that he was wrong about something.
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.