Posted on 12/05/2004 1:16:27 AM PST by OnlyinAmerica
Poll shows Americans divided over question of evolution vs. creation By Kevin Eckstrom
Religion News Service
WASHINGTON (RNS)--A Gallup Poll suggests Americans are divided over how the world was created--either through evolution or at the hand of God--but either way, they appear skeptical that it happened exactly as described in the book of Genesis.
The poll found Charles Darwin's theory of evolution remains controversial among Americans. About one-third say it is supported by evidence, one-third see it as bunk and one-third don't know enough to judge.
A plurality of Americans--45 percent--say man was created by God in his present form, while 38 percent say man developed over time as God guided the process. Just 13 percent said God had no role in the process.
Yet a smaller percentage, 34 percent, said the Bible is the actual word of God and should be read literally.
Pollsters said that discrepancy suggests Americans believe man was created as-is, but not because the Bible says so.
Breaking down the numbers, Gallup officials said about one-quarter of Americans are "biblical literalists" who believe man was created 10,000 years ago in his present form. They tend to be women, conservatives, Republicans and attend a Protestant church at least once a week.
A slightly smaller number--one in five Americans--believe man was created in his present form 10,000 years ago, but not because they read the Bible literally. Just 9 percent of the country read the Bible literally but are open to the theory of evolution.
The largest group--46 percent--do not read the Bible literally and believe humans may have evolved over time. This group tends to be male, urban, more educated, Catholic and seldom or never attend church.
"It is not surprising to find that the biblical literalists who believe that God created humans 10,000 years ago tend to be more religious and Protestant," said Frank Newport, Gallup's editor-in-chief.
The survey of 1,016 adults has a margin of error of plus or minus 3 percentage points.
Sure I've read them. Half are wrong; half are irrelevent (the usual two methods of argumentation by hard-core mechanomorphs).
Obviously, you've never bothered to read Behe's refutation of his critics, or David Berlinski's articles in "Commentary" refuting Darwin, the Big Bang, evolutionary psychology, and ad hoc computer models purporting to "prove" that random mutation plus natural selection can actually cause simple organisms to evolve on their own into complex organisms, or Sir Fred Hoyle's book "The Mathematics of Evolution," or Hubert Yockey's "Information Theory and Molecular Biology," or Sir Francis Crick's statements favoring Intelligent Design, or Soren Lovtrup's "Darwinism: Refutation of a Myth," or Anthony Flew's statements favoring Intelligent Design, or Sir Karl Popper's outrageous declaration that Darwinism is a "metaphysical programme" -- a worldview -- not a science.
No doubt these are all on your reading list.
Darwinism was simply the 20th century's version of a creation myth; it's a materialist's retelling of a Kipling "Just So" story. Biologists in the U.S. were actually going to drop the theory in the 1930s because of lack of evidence. In the 1940s, a meeting of the top honchos (Mayr, Lewontin, etc.) revived the myth under the name of "neo Darwinism," combining the traditional circular reasoning of Darwin regarding "fitness" and "survival" with specious and irrelevent statistical reasoning regarding "population genetics." Mathematics, by the way, is a great tool for obfuscating logical reasoning, and has been used with great success toward that end (as we all know) in other subjects, such as economics.
The most honest explanation of Darwinian evolution was given (probably unwittingly) by Carl Sagan on a public TV special ("Discovery" perhaps) many years ago. In describing evolution, he waved a pointer -- sort of like a wand -- and magically, one species would change into another! Probably just wishful thinking on Sagan's part.
http://www.reviewevolution.com/press/pressRelease_100Scientists.php?PHPSESSID=ebb9c0d45337081a9ba8c1ec242e2e97
100 Scientists, National Poll Challenge Darwinism
Monday, September 24, 2001
Contact: Mark Edwards 206.292.0401 x107 / medwards@discovery.org
SEATTLE--In an ironic greeting to the seven-part public television series "Evolution" that begins tonight, 100 scientists have declared that they "are skeptical of claims for the ability of random mutation and natural selection to account for the complexity of life." The signers say, "Careful examination of the evidence for Darwinian theory should be encouraged."
Discovery Institute, a Seattle-based public policy center, compiled the list of statement signers (attached). Among other things, the long list may help to answer the contention of designated spokespeople for the series "Evolution" that "virtually all reputable scientists in the world" support Darwin's theory. Institute officials charge that officials of WGBH/Clear Blue Sky Productions have used that contention to keep any scientific criticism of Darwinism from being acknowledged or examined in the eight-hour series. "They want people to think that the only criticism of Darwin's theory today is from religious fundamentalists," said Discovery president Bruce Chapman. "They routinely try to stigmatize scientists who question Darwin as 'creationists'."
Chemist and five time Nobel nominee, Henry "Fritz" Schaefer of the University of Georgia, commented on the need to encourage debate on Darwin's theory of evolution. "Some defenders of Darwinism," says Schaefer, "embrace standards of evidence for evolution that as scientists they would never accept in other circumstances." Schaefer was on the roster of signers of the statement, termed "A Scientific Dissent on Darwinism."
Meanwhile, a Zogby Poll released today shows overwhelming public support--81 percent--for the position that "When public broadcasting networks discuss Darwin's theory of evolution, they should present the scientific evidence for it, but also the scientific evidence against it." Only 10 percent support presenting "only the scientific evidence that supports" Darwin's theory. (Less than 10 percent said "Neither" or "Not sure.")
"Public television producers are clearly at odds with overwhelming public sentiment in favor of hearing all scientific sides of the debate," said Chapman, a former Director of the US Census Bureau. "The huge majorities in the poll cross every demographic, regional and political line in America." The national sample of 1,202 adults was conducted by Zogby International from August 25-29. The margin of error is +/-3.0%.
Discovery Institute commissioned the Zogby poll, though the survey itself was designed by the Zogby organization. It also included questions on education and "intelligent design," a theory that some scientific critics of Darwin support. (That theory makes no religious claims, but says that the best natural evidence for life's origins points to design rather than a process of random mutation and natural selection.) Discovery Institute last week also opened a special website (www.reviewevolution.org) to critique the WGBH/Clear Blue Sky series in a scholarly "Viewer's Guide." Discovery officials say that the website analyzes all program segments in the series and has uncovered numerous scientific and historical errors, exaggerations and omissions. Full results of the Zogby poll also are available on the website.
"The numbers of scientists who question Darwinism is a minority, but it is growing fast," said Stephen Meyer, a Cambridge-educated philosopher of science who directs the Center for the Renewal of Science and Culture at Discovery Institute. "This is happening in the face of fierce attempts to intimidate and suppress legitimate dissent. Young scientists are threatened with deprivation of tenure. Others have seen a consistent pattern of answering scientific arguments with ad hominem attacks. In particular, the series' attempt to stigmatize all critics--including scientists--as religious 'creationists' is an excellent example of viewpoint discrimination."
Signers of the statement questioning Darwinism came from throughout the US and from several other countries, representing biology, physics, chemistry, mathematics, geology, anthropology and other scientific fields. Professors and researchers at such universities as Princeton, MIT, U Penn, and Yale, as well as smaller colleges and the National Laboratories at Livermore, CA and Los Alamos, N.M., are included. A number of the signers have authored or contributed to books on issues related to evolution, or have books underway.
Despite repeated requests, the series' producers refused to cover scientific objections to Darwinism. Instead, the producers offered only to let scientific dissenters go on camera to tell their "personal faith stories" in the last program of the series, "What About God?" According to Discovery's Chapman, "This was almost an insult to serious scientists. Some of these dissenting scientists are not even religious. When you watch that last program, you realize they were wise to refuse to take part in it."
Jed Macosko, a young research molecular biologist at the University of California, Berkeley, and a statement signer, said, "It is time for defenders of Darwin to engage in serious dialogue and debate with their scientific critics. Science can't grow where institutional gatekeepers try to prevent new challengers from being heard."
A Scientific Dissent on Darwinism
"I am skeptical of claims for the ability of random mutation and natural selection to account for the complexity of life. Careful examination of the evidence for Darwinian theory should be encouraged."
Henry F.Schaefer: Director, Center for Computational Quantum Chemistry: U. of Georgia • Fred Sigworth: Prof. of Cellular & Molecular Physiology- Grad. School: Yale U. • Philip S. Skell: Emeritus Prof. Of Chemistry: NAS member • Frank Tipler: Prof. of Mathematical Physics: Tulane U. • Robert Kaita: Plasma Physics Lab: Princeton U. • Michael Behe: Prof. of Biological Science: Lehigh U. • Walter Hearn: PhD Biochemistry-U of Illinois • Tony Mega: Assoc. Prof. of Chemistry: Whitworth College • Dean Kenyon: Prof. Emeritus of Biology: San Francisco State U. • Marko Horb: Researcher, Dept. of Biology & Biochemistry: U. of Bath, UK • Daniel Kubler: Asst. Prof. of Biology: Franciscan U. of Steubenville • David Keller: Assoc. Prof. of Chemistry: U. of New Mexico • James Keesling: Prof. of Mathematics: U. of Florida • Roland F. Hirsch: PhD Analytical Chemistry-U. of Michigan • Robert Newman: PhD Astrophysics-Cornell U. • Carl Koval: Prof., Chemistry & Biochemistry: U. of Colorado, Boulder • Tony Jelsma: Prof. of Biology: Dordt College • William A.Dembski: PhD Mathematics-U. of Chicago: • George Lebo: Assoc. Prof. of Astronomy: U. of Florida • Timothy G. Standish: PhD Environmental Biology-George Mason U. • James Keener: Prof. of Mathematics & Adjunct of Bioengineering: U. of Utah • Robert J. Marks: Prof. of Signal & Image Processing: U. of Washington • Carl Poppe: Senior Fellow: Lawrence Livermore Laboratories • Siegfried Scherer: Prof. of Microbial Ecology: Technische Universitaet Muenchen • Gregory Shearer: Internal Medicine, Research: U. of California, Davis • Joseph Atkinson: PhD Organic Chemistry-M.I.T.: American Chemical Society, member • Lawrence H. Johnston: Emeritus Prof. of Physics: U. of Idaho • Scott Minnich: Prof., Dept of Microbiology, Molecular Biology & Biochem: U. of Idaho • David A. DeWitt: PhD Neuroscience-Case Western U. • Theodor Liss: PhD Chemistry-M.I.T. • Braxton Alfred: Emeritus Prof. of Anthropology: U. of British Columbia • Walter Bradley: Prof. Emeritus of Mechanical Engineering: Texas A & M • Paul D. Brown: Asst. Prof. of Environmental Studies: Trinity Western U. (Canada) • Marvin Fritzler: Prof. of Biochemistry & Molecular Biology: U. of Calgary, Medical School • Theodore Saito: Project Manager: Lawrence Livermore Laboratories • Muzaffar Iqbal: PhD Chemistry-U. of Saskatchewan: Center for Theology the Natural Sciences • William S. Pelletier: Emeritus Distinguished Prof. of Chemistry: U. of Georgia, Athens • Keith Delaplane: Prof. of Entomology: U. of Georgia • Ken Smith: Prof. of Mathematics: Central Michigan U. • Clarence Fouche: Prof. of Biology: Virginia Intermont College • Thomas Milner: Asst. Prof. of Biomedical Engineering: U. of Texas, Austin • Brian J.Miller: PhD Physics-Duke U. • Paul Nesselroade: Assoc. Prof. of Psychology: Simpson College • Donald F.Calbreath: Prof. of Chemistry: Whitworth College • William P. Purcell: PhD Physical Chemistry-Princeton U. • Wesley Allen: Prof. of Computational Quantum Chemistry: U. of Georgia • Jeanne Drisko: Asst. Prof., Kansas Medical Center: U. of Kansas, School of Medicine • Chris Grace: Assoc. Prof. of Psychology: Biola U. • Wolfgang Smith: Prof. Emeritus-Mathematics: Oregon State U. • Rosalind Picard: Assoc. Prof. Computer Science: M.I.T. • Garrick Little: Senior Scientist, Li-Cor: Li-Cor • John L. Omdahl: Prof. of Biochemistry & Molecular Biology: U. of New Mexico • Martin Poenie: Assoc. Prof. of Molecular Cell & Developmental Bio: U. of Texas, Austin • Russell W.Carlson: Prof. of Biochemistry & Molecular Biology: U. of Georgia • Hugh Nutley: Prof. Emeritus of Physics & Engineering: Seattle Pacific U. • David Berlinski: PhD Philosophy-Princeton: Mathematician, Author • Neil Broom: Assoc. Prof., Chemical & Materials Engineeering: U. of Auckland • John Bloom: Assoc. Prof., Physics: Biola U. • James Graham: Professional Geologist, Sr. Program Manager: National Environmental Consulting Firm • John Baumgardner: Technical Staff, Theoretical Division: Los Alamos National Laboratory • Fred Skiff: Prof. of Physics: U. of Iowa • Paul Kuld: Assoc. Prof., Biological Science: Biola U. • Yongsoon Park: Senior Research Scientist: St. Luke's Hospital, Kansas City • Moorad Alexanian: Prof. of Physics: U. of North Carolina, Wilmington • Donald Ewert: Director of Research Administration: Wistar Institute • Joseph W. Francis: Assoc. Prof. of Biology: Cedarville U. • Thomas Saleska: Prof. of Biology: Concordia U. • Ralph W. Seelke: Prof. & Chair of Dept. of Biology & Earth Sciences: U. of Wisconsin, Superior • James G. Harman: Assoc. Chair, Dept. of Chemistry & Biochemistry: Texas Tech U. • Lennart Moller: Prof. of Environmental Medicine, Karolinska Institute: U. of Stockholm • Raymond G. Bohlin: PhD Molecular & Cell Biology-U. of Texas: • Fazale R. Rana: PhD Chemistry-Ohio U. • Michael Atchison: Prof. of Biochemistry: U. of Pennsylvania, Vet School • William S. Harris: Prof. of Basic Medical Sciences: U. of Missouri, Kansas City • Rebecca W. Keller: Research Prof., Dept. of Chemistry: U. of New Mexico • Terry Morrison: PhD Chemistry-Syracuse U. • Robert F. DeHaan: PhD Human Development-U. of Chicago • Matti Lesola: Prof., Laboratory of Bioprocess Engineering: Helsinki U. of Technology • Bruce Evans: Assoc. Prof. of Biology: Huntington College • Jim Gibson: PhD Biology-Loma Linda U. • David Ness: PhD Anthropology-Temple U. • Bijan Nemati: Senior Engineer: Jet Propulsion Lab (NASA) • Edward T. Peltzer: Senior Research Specialist: Monterey Bay Research Institute • Stan E. Lennard: Clinical Assoc. Prof. of Surgery: U. of Washington • Rafe Payne: Prof. & Chair, Biola Dept. of Biological Sciences: Biola U. • Phillip Savage: Prof. of Chemical Engineering: U. of Michigan • Pattle Pun: Prof. of Biology: Wheaton College • Jed Macosko: Postdoctoral Researcher-Molecular Biology: U. of California, Berkeley • Daniel Dix: Assoc. Prof. of Mathematics: U. of South Carolina • Ed Karlow: Chair, Dept. of Physics: LaSierra U. • James Harbrecht: Clinical Assoc. Prof.: U. of Kansas Medical Center • Robert W. Smith: Prof. of Chemistry: U. of Nebraska, Omaha • Robert DiSilvestro: PhD Biochemistry-Texas A & M U., Professor, Human Nutrition, Ohio State University • David Prentice: Prof., Dept. of Life Sciences: Indiana State U. • Walt Stangl: Assoc. Prof. of Mathematics: Biola U. • Jonathan Wells: PhD Molecular & Cell Biology-U. of California, Berkeley: • James Tour: Chao Prof. of Chemistry: Rice U. • Todd Watson: Asst. Prof. of Urban & Community Forestry: Texas A & M U. • Robert Waltzer: Assoc. Prof. of Biology: Belhaven College • Vincente Villa: Prof. of Biology: Southwestern U. • Richard Sternberg: Pstdoctoral Fellow, Invertebrate Biology: Smithsonian Institute • James Tumlin: Assoc. Prof. of Medicine: Emory U. Charles Thaxton: PhD Physical Chemistry-Iowa State U.
My list is bigger than yours:
http://www.ncseweb.org/resources/articles/3697_the_list_2_16_2003.asp
over 500 scientists named Steve who agree with the following statement:
"Evolution is a vital, well-supported, unifying principle of the biological sciences, and the scientific evidence is overwhelmingly in favor of the idea that all living things share a common ancestry. Although there are legitimate debates about the patterns and processes of evolution, there is no serious scientific doubt that evolution occurred or that natural selection is a major mechanism in its occurrence. It is scientifically inappropriate and pedagogically irresponsible for creationist pseudoscience, including but not limited to "intelligent design," to be introduced into the science curricula of our nation's public schools."
Consider that "steve's" only make up about 1% of the population
I have read several of Behes refutations online and also the rebuttles to those refutations. It goes on and pointlessly on.
No I missed David Berlinski's articles in "Commentary" refuting Darwin, the Big Bang and evolutionary psychology. Seriously its a joke that anyone can claim to refute the Big Bang or evolution. The fact that they claim to be able to refute not one, but two independant and well regarded scientific theories should ring alarm bells. Oh wait they will probably claim that the theory of continental drift is a lie too so make that 3 theories they dispute. Possibly they also don't accept radiodecay or the natural mechanisms for formation of stars either. Lets just be honest and say they disagree with science, not any specific scientific theory - they just hate science.
"and ad hoc computer models purporting to "prove" that random mutation plus natural selection can actually cause simple organisms to evolve on their own into complex organisms"
The computer models simply show that random mutation and natural selection can create design indistiguishable from intelligent design. They also show that ireducible complexity can evolve too.
Fred Hoyle has said many things about evolution. Most just show his ignorance of biology and genetics - he is way outside his field. These appeals to authority are laughable because if we are going down that route, it is science that has much more numerous scientific authority figures behind it.
"Darwinism was simply the 20th century's version of a creation myth; it's a materialist's retelling of a Kipling "Just So" story."
It was inevitable given the evidence. If Darwin hadn't have done it, someone else would of. Biology in the late 19th century was converging towards the hypothesis of evolution.
"In the 1940s, a meeting of the top honchos (Mayr, Lewontin, etc.) revived the myth under the name of "neo Darwinism," combining the traditional circular reasoning of Darwin regarding "fitness" and "survival" with specious and irrelevent statistical reasoning regarding "population genetics."
So you don't think it had anything to do with the discovery of DNA and confirmation of common descent of species then?
On the otherhand Creationism didn't really exist until early 20th century. The belief that the universe is only thousands of years old is a recent belief encouraged by a political movement.
The fact is that the evidence for evolution is overwhelming. The fossil evidence, genetic evidence and distribution of life on earth all show overwhelming evidence for common descent of species. This evidence largely consists of the existance of many coincidences that needn't be true if common descent was false. The sheer weight of these coincidences is more than any prosecution in court could ever hope for.
Anti-evolutionists like to focus on specific examples and saying "that doesn't prove common descent - its just a coincidence". Yet if they actually addressed all these coincidences perhaps they would see that common descent is overwhelmingly the likeliest explaination.
I trust the scientific community on this because I think scientists are the best people to know what the state of science is, not SUV mums, or political hacks. I wonder who you think should decide what is science and what is not. Mathmaticians?
NCSE is not interested in scientific truth; they are (according to the "mission statement") interested in defending the teaching of evolution in the classroom. I have no problem with the "teaching of evolution in the classroom," and neither do Behe, Berlinski, Flew, et al. You're misrepresenting the NCSE's agenda. They want the teaching of evolution in the classroom, and NO OTHER VIEWPOINTS. It's their way or the highway. Sounds rather narrow minded and bigoted to me.
And indeed it is. I doubt if most of those scientists would really accept that the fossil record really proves neo-Darwinism. I know for a fact that most embryologists are deeply troubled by the theory, since their knowledge of how embryos develop mostly contradicts it. Lucky for most of them . . . they NEED NOT know that much about neo-Darwinism, or feel one way or the other about to carry on their research. It's only when they actually stop to THINK about the theory, and it's relationship to their own work that they often end up writing a book like "Darwinism: Refutation of a Myth" by an important Swedish embryologist, Soren Lovtrup.
The same is true of many eminent scientific philosophers, such as Karl Popper and Anthony Flew. The NCSE's bigotry (as well as yours) comes out when it assumes that the serious questioning of Darwinism implies the serious acceptance of creationism or intelligent design. In education -- as in the courtroom -- you need not prove what IS the "correct" theory. All you need to do is present that facts and show the many places in which they either are NOT adequately explained by the theory, or where they directly contradict the theory. To say -- as knee-jerk Darwinists do -- "yes, it's true that much of the fossil record is not in accord with the assumptions of Darwinism, and much of embryology is unexplainable by the theory . . . but that's only because we haven't got all the facts yet! The theory is sound; it's the facts that are wrong (or rather, "incomplete"). We're working diligently on that problem! Any day now -- we swear it -- all the relevant fossils will be discovered, and all the relevant facts on embryo development will be at hand; and THEN the theory will be proved beyond the shadow of a doubt. However, since we already know (or rather, "feel") that the theory is already correct -- correct in advance of relevant data -- it's safer to be "on the side of science" than on the side of SUV drivers (you know, the same hicks who voted Bush back into office)."
Yep. That's exactly the mentality. As for your own position, you haven't advanced a single cogent argument either in favor of Darwinism, or against intelligent design; which leads me to believe that you accept the theory on faith.
I have read several of Behes refutations online and also the rebuttles to those refutations. It goes on and pointlessly on.
Too bad. That's the nature of scientific debate; it's SUPPOSED to go "on and on." If you're not excited by the debate, or find the entire topic boring, why express an opinion on it in a public forum like this one?
Seriously its a joke that anyone can claim to refute the Big Bang or evolution.
"Seriously, it's a joke that anyone can claim to refute the phlogiston theory of heat. It's so well supported by experience and facts." (Refuted by Boltzmann and others)
"Seriously it's a joke that anyone can claim to refute the particle theory of light. It's so well supported by experience and facts. Besides, a Really Big Genius named Newton proved it." (Refuted by Huyghens).
"Seriously it's a joke that anyone can claim to refute the wave theory of light. It's so well supported by experience and facts. Besides, a Really Big Genius named Huyghens proved it. (Refuted by Planck)
"Seriously it's a joke that anyone can claim to refute the idea that gravity is a force acting at a distance. It's so well supported by experience and facts. Besides, a Really Big Genius named Newton (him again!) proved it." (Refuted by Einstein and Michaelson/Morley)
"What makes a belief 'scientific' is precisely the fact that it can, at least in principle, be REFUTED. If a belief is so air-tight that there is no conceivable set of circumstances that could disprove it, then it is a metaphysical belief, or a religious belief, or an 'axiomatic' belief; but it is not a 'scientific belief.' The essence of science is that it is a set of beliefs about how the world works that is disprovable. The attempt to disprove a scientific belief is precisely the function of a scientific experiment. All experiments -- whether or not the experimenter realizes it or not -- are attempts to DISPROVE a certain belief; logically, an experiment can never conclusively PROVE a belief." (paraphrase from various statements by Karl Popper).
Lets just be honest and say they disagree with science, not any specific scientific theory - they just hate science.
(Yawn) After Einstein published his general theory of relativity, he was accused of hating science too (as well as practicing something called "Jewish physics"). Twelve eminent German scientists -- some Nobel Laureates -- signed a decree condemning the theory as anti-scientific (not just incorrect, mind you; the theory went against established and accepted beliefs, so it was ANTI-scientific). It was actually published as a monograph and titled "Twelve Against Einstein." When he found out about it, Einstein remarked, "It doesn't take twelve to prove that I'm wrong . . . it just takes one."
The computer models simply show that random mutation and natural selection can create design indistiguishable from intelligent design.
Wrong. What ALL computer models show is that they require a programmer to input the relevant criteria for selection. These criteria are then labeled "random," when in fact they were pre-SELECTED BY A DESIGNER -- the damn programmer! So all the models do is prove that IF there were a Big Programmer in the Sky, and IF He chose this-or-that as criteria, then things -- ceteris paribus -- would develop a certain way. But without a programmer pre-selecting "relevant" criteria -- if you just left the computer running, hoping that some random cosmic rays would create enough random mutations on the hard drive to write program randomly -- you get NOTHING as a result. Clearly not "random." Berlinski is very good at pointing out the fallacies in all such models. Read his essay in Commentary titled "A Scientific Scandal."
Fred Hoyle has said many things about evolution. Most just show his ignorance of biology and genetics - he is way outside his field.
(Yawn) Yeah, but he was a noted astrophysicist who rejected the Big Bang theory, and you also thought that indicated hating science. By the way, he rejected the Big Bang for much the same reason that he later came to reject Darwinism, and he saw the two theories as being closely connected, as they posit "Chance" as the ultimate cause of things. Now, "chance" is a mathematical concept and can be calculated mathematically. When a Darwinist starts spouting things about "chance" and "randomness" (another mathematical concept) he better be willing and able to crunch some relevant numbers and have them come out in his favor. The fact is, most biologists stink at math, and don't want to calculate relevant numbers. When the professional number crunchers do so, however, (such as Hoyle, Berlinski, Yockey, Bohm, and others), it turns out that the numbers don't add up; or rather, they DO add up, but not to anything that remotely equals Darwinism. Many evolutionists were at first shocked by this, because they had simply ASSUMED that their theory -- being materialist at root, and therefore, by definition, the only correct way of looking at things -- was airtight, and that the numbers would (ahem!) "fall into place." When the professional number guys said, e.g., "Sorry. There's not enough time in the entire universe to have created even a single molecule of cytochrome-c by random mutation -- they backpeddled and did a lot of throat clearing, and finally said, "Oh, well, uh, it's not REALLY 'chance' we're talking about in the mathematical sense -- you know, the sense that proves us wrong -- it's 'chance' in a different sort of sense; the sense that cannot be calculated mathematically and therefore proves us right."
Very scientific.
Anyway, you're a hypocrite. There are plenty of physics and astro guys on the NCSE website who favor Darwinism. If biology and genetics are out of Fred Hoyle's field, they are out of theirs as well. That rather shortens your list.
If Darwin hadn't have done it, someone else would of. Biology in the late 19th century was converging towards the hypothesis of evolution.
No. There were many competing theories of evolution at the the time Darwin came on the scene. Some of these -- such as the idea of an "archetype form" -- are returning, especially in light of discoveries such as the "ey gene," which might be a sort of architectural "bauplan" or blueprint for an eye -- not a "human eye" or an "ape eye" or a "fish eye"; but ANY eye; the eye "as such"; the eye in general. This is a very un-Darwinist idea. Darwin's importance in the history of ideas is simply that he was the first MODERN thinker to write a creation myth without reference to a Creator. In the materialistic Victorian Age, that was very comforting. He was the modern version of Lucretius, who wrote a famous treatise in antiquity titled "On the Nature of Things." He was one of the earliest, at least in the west, to posit a creation and an evolion by reference to "matter and motion." When you study the history of ideas, you learn that there's nothing new under the sun.
So you don't think it had anything to do with the discovery of DNA and confirmation of common descent of species then
As usual, you're reading your desired conclusion into the data. You are staring out with the arbitrary assumption that some primal DNA started out in some primal organic "soup" (a theory long exploded, by the way) and that "chance" made some of the DNA go the human-way, the rest of the DNA, the ape-way. And that, therefore, we are "closely related." Actually, human DNA is also very close to other species, such as guinea pigs and one or two others -- which proves, beyond a shadow of a doubt exactly what botanist Rupert Sheldrake has been saying for some time: genetics is a very interesting science with some very interesting technological applications but it has zero to do with origins, because any HONEST observer will conclude that we DIFFER from apes and guinea pigs far more than we are like them. We differ from them IN SPITE of genetic similarity. That shows that genetics is ultimately irrelevant to explaining these differences -- the important differences; the interesting differences. Besides, you have your dates wrong. DNA was not discovered until the 1950s. The neo-Darwinist meeting occurred at least 10 years earlier, and was held for a very unscientific reason: "Guys, traditional Darwinism is full of cracks; it's falling apart; the fossil record doesn't support it. BUT WE NEED TO SAVE IT. What can we come up with -- what "synthesis" of Darwin + other theories can we concoct to save the materialist explanation of things?" "Well, we can throw in some genetics, and we can throw in lots of statistics, and we can throw in new, hot ideas like 'sexual selection' as explanatory 'causes' of things. Ultimately, these will be exposed as sham explanations, even by their practitioners, but at least it will buy us a few years. By then, something else will no doubt come on the scene to 'explain' how life began and how it changes." Norman Macbeth, a lawyer with a very deep knowledge of evolutionary theory, used to attend (and give) lectures at the Museum of Natural History when it was run by a guy named Niles Eldridge (a big name in evolution). Macbeth used to lecture before the systematics people; those responsible for taxonomic classification of fossiles. Macbeth's "Darwin on Trial" has many examples of the private statements of scientists who used to attend these lectures. Most were VERY cynical about the theory amongst their peers; but to the PUBLIC, they were full of optimism. This is obviously not "science" at work here, but an agenda. For them, a materialist explanation of the universe -- even one not well supported by any of the available evidence in any of the relevant fields (archeology, biology, biochemistry, molecular biology, anatomy, embryology, anthropology) was better than (1) no theory at all, or (2) a non-materialist explanation.
On the otherhand Creationism didn't really exist until early 20th century. The belief that the universe is only thousands of years old is a recent belief encouraged by a political movement.
Um, heh? "In the beginning, God created Heaven and Earth . . ." Seems as if a belief in an Intelligent Designer (a PC name for . . . you know who) goes back rather further back than the early 20th century. What you perhaps meant to say is that a belief in an Intelligent Designer as part of a scientific explanation for things was itself politicized starting around the early 20th century, but whose fault was that? Most of them just wanted the academics to be HONEST: teach evolutionary theory as a THEORY -- which it is. The issue, of course, has been confused by media circus events like the Scopes trial. Much has come out on that as well, and there several good books about it. According to Macbeth, the 1920s were actually a terrible time for Darwinism, and biologists were seriously thinking of dropping it altogether. The humilation of Wm. Jennings Bryant by Clarence Darrow (and the even more humiliating way the trial -- and all of the South -- was portrayed by H.L. Mencken) convinced them not to do so. No one wanted to appear to be "pro-Bryant" or "pro-South." It just wasn't intellectually stylish.
The fact is that the evidence for evolution is overwhelming. The fossil evidence, genetic evidence and distribution of life on earth all show overwhelming evidence for common descent of species. This evidence largely consists of the existance of many coincidences that needn't be true if common descent was false. The sheer weight of these coincidences is more than any prosecution in court could ever hope for. Anti-evolutionists like to focus on specific examples and saying "that doesn't prove common descent - its just a coincidence". Yet if they actually addressed all these coincidences perhaps they would see that common descent is overwhelmingly the likeliest explaination.
It's the exact opposte. It is Darwinism that posits miracles explained by "random mutations" and ignores the hardcore fact that 99.9999999% point-mutations are harmful to the organism. In a large population, point mutations (as proved, ironically, by popluation genetics) generally get lost in the statistical "noise" of the rest of the population and don't influence either the geno/pheno type at all; they are merely "fluctuations", "exceptions." The only way a one-in-a-quadrillian beneficial point mutation MIGHT make an evolutionary difference is if we are dealing with populations that are very small; this way, the "exception" becomes much more noticeable -- but wait! The study of populations also teaches us that small populations are precisely the ones that tend NOT to survive, because ANY natural disaster -- a flood, a storm, etc. -- can wipe out the entire species in one fell swoop! Well, well, that inconvenient fact is dealt with swimmingly enough by the True Believers: the populations were isolated -- on a nice warm island somewhere (or in a convenient cave, or under a convenient log), hidden, hidden, hidden, DEEP, away from terrible Mother Nature with her storms. . . Um. so, you mean ALL these species -- plants, animals, microscopic organisms, etc. -- were ALL in conveniently small populations, with convenient beneficial point mutations, conveniently tucked away in, on, or under, a convenient "safe haven" to protect them? ("Well sure! It MUST have happened that way, otherwise evolution could not have occurred, at least, not along Darwinian lines. And since the theory MUST be true to begin with, we have to assume an unlikely scenario. There's nothing wrong with that! I mean, it's better than believing in . . you know who!!). I can cite dozens of examples of such poppycock -- in which a male porcupine and a female (who like each other!) just happen to find themselves on a log crossing many miles of ocean to get from Australia to Africa. Even many knee-jerk evolutionists throw their hands up in despair and say "Oh, c'mon!!!!"
Very scientific.
DesU/MoM ping.
|
That "Steve" list is a joke! Most those guys were probably pressured into signing-on, or have ulterior motives. The bottom line is, hundreds if not thousands of scientists think it's bunk! That doesn't mean anything to you?
Think about that and then consider that evolution by definition requires me to believe that life, in all its wonderous forms, the earth, the solar system, the universe, all these things came about by mere chance? That notions seems a whole lot more preposterous than creation by a higher power and intelligence.
Blue State = "I evolved from a Slime Puddle or a Monkey"Blue State = "I am the highest expression of a 4 billion year evolutionary process"Red State = "I am fearfully and wonderfully made"
Red State = "I am a marionette fashioned for my maker's amusement"
Bumpersticker philosophy is fun. :-)
BTW, what does "fearfully made" mean, exactly? Who's supposed to be fearful? And what does that have to do with being made?
Your analogy is more accurate if you allow the beads already on the string to remain there for the next trial.
As has been said here many times over: NOBODY (except creationists) believes organisms sprang up intact all in one shot. Evolution holds that life evolves in many intermediate steps (one or two beads at a time as per your analogy).
Which one? Here are Greek, Hebrew, Aramaic, Syriac, Latin, Shakespearean English, Chaldee, an assortment of choices. Which is the actual literal Word?
LOL! They're pressured into signing by the noted molecular biologists, Guido & Knuckles.
Its a vast and powerful conspiracy. And if you believe that youre one step away from the black helicopters.
You should have kept reading, and not simply stopped when you found a point you liked.
"I have changed my mind about the testability and logical status of the theory of natural selection; and I am glad to have an opportunity to make a recantation." - Popper, Dialectica.
They probably signed-on as more of a joke than anything. Still, the *fact* is, hundreds if not thousands of scientists believe that the theory has serious holes in it. Would you like to discuss the credentials of the scientists referenced on the Discovery.org website? Are they ignorant of the "theory?"
Pure Flapdoodle!
"Red State = "I am fearfully and wonderfully made""
In other words I have nothing to offer the scientific community other than superstition.
"Blue State = "I evolved from a Slime Puddle or a Monkey"
Red State = "I am fearfully and wonderfully made"
or in this case
Blue State = "My mind is open"
Red State = "My mind is closed"
Oy, we humans are an embarrassment to ourselves (hmm...kind of a circular context reference). Even if evolution is dead wrong and God exists, which could very well be the case, biblical creationism is an assinine belief any way you slice it.
Thanks for the ping!
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.