The Evolution of Man Scientifically Disproved [Finally!]

Website ^ | 1928 | REV. WILLIAM A. WILLIAMS

[RightWingAtheist]

Intelligent design couches itself in the rhetoric of science, but that doesn't make it scientific.

[Cicero]

I don't agree. It IS science. You can disagree on how good the science is, but it uses scientific and mathematical methods to argue its case and to argue against the likelihood of general evolution. Basically it argues that intelligent design is the best and simplest way (Ockham's Razor) to account for the nature of things as they are, but it does not argue what kind of intelligence may have been at work. It could be God, it could be super space aliens.

Similarly, if you landed on an alien planet and found a wall around a pasture, the simplest explanation would be intelligent design. Conceivably the wall could have been pushed together there by some odd quirk of glaciation, but the more regular the wall looked the more astronomical would be the odds against that theory. What kind of intelligence built the wall would be a question requiring further investigation, or it might possibly never be answered.

Creationism is the one that is fake science, although I don't entirely blame its inventors. Creationism was a desperate way of trying to get religion in the back door of schools disguised as science, after the judges kicked religion out. The joke is that freedom of religion should PERMIT discussion of religion in schools, as long as it isn't coercive, and then religious people would never have had to resort to this device.

[GretchenM]

For anyone seeking facts on the debate, I highly recommend this book.

Tornado in a Junkyard: The Relentless Myth of Darwinism, by James Perloff
Dr. EMMETT L. WILLIAMS, PRESIDENT, CREATION RESEARCH SOCIETY, EDITOR, CREATION RESEARCH QUARTERLY "Tornado in a Junkyard is a unique presentation of the scientific case against Darwinism, informally written for laymen. If you are looking for a user-friendly explanation of the facts supporting creation, this book is for you."

Product Description: In an easy-to-read text, this book examines growing scientific evidence that is challenging Darwin's theory of evolution: lack of transitional forms in the fossil record, the impossibility of mutations (almost universally destructive) serving as evolutionary building blocks, the bad logic of natural selection theory, the stunning lack of evidence for "ape-men," the mathematic impossibility of life beginning by itself, [and] more. Also explores how Darwinism helped foster Hitler's racial policies and examines how Inherit the Wind grossly misled Americans about the Scopes trial. Addresses the ever-vital question: Are we here by chance or are we created by God? Indexed, over 80 illustrations, hundreds of quotes from scientists.

[bobdsmith]

A tornado in a junkyard is as bad an analogy to evolution as you can get. The fact it is the title of this book doesn't give me any confidence about the contents.

[GretchenM]

I hated the title but the book contains a thorough scientific smackdown and refutation of the theory of evolution. Please look past the title's analogy. It was written by a former atheist who used to believe in evolution. It was his research and scientific data that spoke the most to me.

[balch3]

BUMP!

[Diamond]

Isaac Asimov said that "faith is believing what no one in their right mind would believe.

Since Isaac Asimov had no basis for and could not account for any notion of "right mind", his proposition is a self-contradictory, irrational statement of faith.

I am an agnostic...

Are you sure about that?:^)

... and scientific rationalist.

Scientific reason can be valid, but it is not the only valid kind of reasoning. There are necessary presuppositions of the scientific method that are not themselves scientific phenomena; noncontradiction, truth, validity, value, meaning, purpose, to name a few.

I wish FR would ban creationist threads altogether.

Why? Do you wish to silence people who disagree with you?

Cordially,

[jennyp]

These picts look suspiciously like Yellowstone (?)

Hey, you're good! They're from our 1999 vacation.

[PatrickHenry]

Can't find a decent article to post & ping for the weekend.

P L A C E M A R K E R

[furball4paws]

I'm a long day's drive from Yellowstone. I try to make it there every other year. It is the most fantastic place I've been on Earth (and I've seen the original "Geyser" in Iceland).

[rkhampton]

Thanks for the laugh. I got through the first argument about how man could not have been around for 2,000,000 years; otherwise, the world's population would be 2^1240 by now and practically spewed my coffee over the keyboard. The whole argument is naiveté at its best.

[stremba]

I think you have misunderstood Occam's Razor. It simply states that you shouldn't multiply entities needlessly. In other words, if you can account for the observations without postulating an intelligent entity, that should be the scientific theory. Furthermore, ID as it currently is constituted is not scientific. There is no hypothetically possible observation that would lead to the abandonment of ID. A test for design would make ID scientific. Also, some information about the capabilities of the designer might do the trick. However, that information has been quite carefully left out of any formulation of ID that I am familiar with, probably since specifying information about the designer would hinder the real agenda of most of the people involved in the ID movement, which is to get creationism into classrooms through the back door (most cynical option) or possibly because ID proponents don't have the confidence in their idea to subject it to test that potentially could falsify it.

[Cicero]

Well, people are likely to disagree about how Occam's razor should be applied.

I was thinking, for example, of the increasingly evident fact that if you changed various physical constants only slightly, then life as we know it could not have evolved. One of the arguments in response to that objection to the random development of life is that perhaps there are an infinite number of universes. If so, then as an intelligent life form we naturally find ourselves living in a universe where the constants are favorable to life.

That strikes me as stretching things, and it's also essentially a circular argument or a conjecture not subject to refutation.

[The Shootist]

Again, my comment is not "non-sequitor" as it fits very nicely with my assertion that darwinism is based on faith in humans. I cannot trust humans to make the most logical of decisions; to protect human life - who in their right mind would base biological science on such fallible humans? Especially when we have numerous records of the intentional fraud perpetrated by these "scientists" in the past. Why would I trust them now? Especially when their ever-morphing thories are, in many cases, in direct opposition to my faith and my own deductions.

There is no such thing as "Darwinism", not for 80 years anyway.

Evolution is a fact. There is a "Theory of Evolution" to help explain how evolution happens.

Gravity is a fact. We have a "Theory of Gravity" to help explain HOW gravity works.

There is no difference (other than time) between your, so-called, macro-evolution and, again so-called, micro-evolution.

I have to assume that you refer to Pildown because it is the only example of widespread fraud (and it "only" happened 93 years ago).

Your deductions are flawed (how many theories of gravity have come and gone since Newton? The number of wrong theories has NO IMPACT WHATEVER on the FACT that gravity, or evolution for that matter, exits).