Posted on 01/18/2005 9:49:17 AM PST by Laissez-faire capitalist
Top flight scientists have something to tell you about evolution. Such statements will never be found in the popular magazines, alonside georgeous paintings of ape-man and Big Bangs and solemn pronuncements about millions of years for this rock and that fish. Instead they are generally reesrved only for professional books and journals.
Most scientists are working in very narrow fields; they do not see the overall picture, and assume, even though their field does not prove evolution, that perhaps other areas of science probably vindicate it. They are well-meaning men. The biologists and geneticists know their facts, and research does not prove evolution, but assume that geology does. The geologists know their field does not prove veolution, but hope that the biologists and geneticists have proven it. Those who do know the facts, fear to disclose them to the general public, lest they be fired. But they do write articles in their own professional journals and books, condemning evolutionary theory.
Included below are a number of admissions by leading evolutionists of earlier decades, such as *Charles Darwin*, *Austin Clark, or *Fred Hoyle. The truth is that evolutionits cannot make scientific facts fit the theory.
An asterisk (*) by a name indicates that person is not known to be a creationist. Of over 4,000 quotations in the set of books this encyclopedia is based on (see BOOKSTORE), only 164 statements are by creationists.
(Excerpt) Read more at pathlights.com ...
Which doesn't seem to inhibit scientists at all from spending the money these creationists give up to the government at the point of a gun nor does it inhibit them from enjoying the freedoms these same creationists provide at the point of a gun. So what does that say about scientists?
How some scientists are funded is one question. Science has been getting "wrong" answers from a creationist viewpoint since the geologists of the early 1800s noticed the Earth has to be old and there's no Great Flood evidence. That's some 30 or more years before Darwin and long, long before there was much government funding for science anywhere. IOW, separate issues.
He was probably the greatest single genius of scientific history, but Old Isaac was indeed a nutcase. If at no other time, he went pretty far off for a few years from heavy metal poisoning, the result of his alchemical experiments. Even before then, his obsession with alchemy, occultism, and (from the viewpoint of orthodox Anglicanism) heresy was a bit odd.
Your attempt to wrap yourself in him is of course wrong. He wasn't an antievolutionist Holy Warrior Idiot. It's anybody's guess what his views would have been had he been born in 1950, but he was born too early to be a militant crusader against the Evil Darwin.
It's hard to see what part of your post applies to any of mine.
I might add that I rather disagree with your generalizations.
What if science indicates intelligent design and the book of Genesis is never opened or even mentioned?
I'm an okay guy. But even if I weren't, my List-O-Links won't lead you astray.
Do you really want information? If so, start with the basic compilation of citations on Patrick Henry's home page. Note that in the footnotes of a great many of the listed articles, there are references to sources, such as journals, texts, articles, papers, and original research data. The material available to someone with even a casual interest is voluminous, and not at all difficult to find.
But in my experience, no amount of data or evidence will ever suffice. It will be dismissed with a wave of the hand, and the painfully juvenile pap from some creationist website will be tossed up as the "silver-bullet" that slays evolution.
I should think you would expect some mockery under the circumstances. Making a silly claim that there is no published literature documenting evolutionary observations, in the face of a veritable sea of such literature, invites the suggestion that you are willfully ignorant.
It makes no more sense to claim that Newton was a creationist than to assert that Moses wasn't a Christian. I've seen the long lists of famous creationist scientists. For some reason, all but a handful were dead before 1900. Must have been assassinated by the evo conspirators.
Please just one sequence that deonstrates continuous species change. Gould found none...and he worked with fossil shells his whole career.
oooh, calling names. Typical darwinite reaction. Just name an example.
"This is not true in the case of Evolution. In fact, the theory of Evolution makes several predictions which are not observed. For example, current speciation in the biosphere. We should be seeing it, the theory predicts it, and there is absolutely ZERO evidence of it."
So if it were seen you would accept a prediction of evolution was sucessful?
This would be the best and proper route to take in America.
That is very authoritarian of you. And what is to be done with those who refuse to obey such a foolish and stupid law? Are they to be fired? Fined? Jailed? Shot? With that attitude you would have fit right in with Stalin. Who else should we put away? Who knows, if it were not for the random circumstances of birth, you could have been a great Muslim fundamentalist.
Fortunately, people like you are where they belong, shouting at the wind on websites, eternally removed from such wetdreams of power.
Why would you call Darwin evil? He had an idea a hundred and fifty years ago. Modern scientific facts don't support him.
Why would you call Darwin evil? He had an idea a hundred and fifty years ago. Modern scientific facts don't support him. But some people [maybe you] have made his idea a Dogma
Thanks.
Of course, it will likely not scratch the granite thickness of the upper sphere on the shoulders of the RELIGION OF SCIENCE's priesthood represented hereon . . .
but it's still great to have available.
Evidence that speciation does occur: Ring Species.
There are several ring species, but the most famous example is the herring gull. In Britain, these are white. They breed with the herring gulls of eastern America, which are also white. American herring gulls breed with those of Alaska, and Alaskan ones breed with those of Siberia. But as you go to Alaska and Siberia, you find that herring gulls are getting smaller, and picking up some black markings. And when you get all the way back to Britain, they have become Lesser Black-Backed Gulls. So, the situation is that there is a big circle around the world. As you travel this circle, you find a series of gull populations, each of which interbreeds with the populations to each side. But in Britain, the two ends of the circle are two different species of bird. The two ends do not interbreed: they think that they are two different species. From Ring Species
Interestingly, for all these alleged "scientists" who have embraced creationism (or it's stealth version, ID), there is not one single example of anything ever brought forth by "creation science." Sure, there are numerous religious scientists, but the doctrines of "creation science" are sterile.
Consider: The biotech industry is large and growing. They employ maybe 100,000 scientists. They want results. I've not yet heard of a single creationist who was hired to do biotech research.
Please tell us what your best evidence of evolution is. It seems as likely as water running uphill.
Lets let Dr. Gould speak for what his views are. In his “Evolution as Fact and Theory” published in the May 1981 issue of Discover reprinted in his Hen’s Teeth and Horse’s Toes he wrote:
We [Gould and Niles Eldredge] proposed the theory of punctuated equilibrium largely to provide a different explanation for pervasive trends in the fossil record. Trends, we argued, cannot be attributed to gradual transformation within lineages, but must arise from the differential success of certain kind of species. A trend, we argued, is more like climbing a flight of stairs (punctuations and stasis) than rolling up an inclined plane.
Since we proposed punctuated equilibria to explain trends, it is infuriating to be quoted again and again by creationists—whether though design or stupidity, I do not know—as admitting that the fossil record includes no transitional forms. Transitional forms are generally lacking at the species level, but they are abundant between larger groups. Yet a pamphlet entitled “Harvard Scientists Agree Evolution is a Hoax” states: “The facts of punctuated equilibrium which Gould and Eldredge…are forcing Darwinists to swallow fit the picture that Bryan insisted on, and which God revealed to us in the Bible.”
Continuing the distortion, several creationists have equated the theory of punctuated equilibrium with a caricature of the beliefs of Richard Goldschmidt, a great early geneticist. Goldschmidt argued, in a famous book published in 1949, that new groups can arise all at once through major mutations. He referred to these suddenly transformed creatures as “hopeful monsters.” (I am attracted to some aspects of the non-caricatured version, but Goldschmidt’s theory still has nothing to do with punctuated equilibrium…) Creationist Luther Sunderland talks of the “punctuated equilibrium hopeful monster theory” and tells his hopeful readers that “it amounts to tacit admission that anti-evolutionists are correct in asserting there is no fossil evidence supporting the theory that all life is connected to a common ancestor.” Duane Gish writes, “According to Goldschmidt, and now apparently according to Gould, a reptile laid an egg from which the first bird, feathers and all, was produced.” Any evolutionist who believed such nonsense would rightly be laughed off the intellectual stage; yet the only theory that could ever envision such a scenario for the origin of birds is creationism—with God acting in the egg.
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.