Why Your Brain Has Gray Matter, and Why You Should Use It (Darwinian Evolution's Foolishness)

Creation-Evolution Headlines ^ | 1/13/2006 | Creation-Evolution Headlines Staff

[CarolinaGuitarman]

"Yet somehow the anti-evos have zeroed in on it, and they claim -- in their near-total ignorance -- that it invalidates the current 150th edition of the book."

Not only that, they usually argue it's still IN the current edition of the book. They say the same about Haeckel's drawings and Piltdown man. They mostly haven't even read the first edition yet.

[Stultis]

Come to think of it, Race is actually the one that should believe in "Nebraska Man". Not as a "man," of course, but as an ape. After all Race accepts a "classical" young-earth, flood-geology view, which includes the idea that the pre-flood earth had a more-or-less uniform and temperate pre-flood environment. And in any case the flood supposedly mixed up all the world's sediments. Why shouldn't fossil apes be found in North America, or in any particular place?

They shouldn't be based on evolution, or if they were there would be needed some particular explanation of how they got here, since they evolved in Africa after the continents divided. But there's no reason they shouldn't have been here on a creationist view.

[VadeRetro]

Nevermind...

I was going to say something here, too, but ...

[PatrickHenry]

Not only that, they usually argue it's still IN the current edition of the book.

Not only that, but they argue that it's the essential cornerstone of the whole theory, so if they just keep pointing to it, the entire edifice of evolution will collapse.

[VadeRetro]

Not as a "man," of course, but as an ape.

Or even a man. Just not anything in-between, of course.

[balrog666]

"God designed beer" placemark

Ninkasi is the goddess of brewing.

As for the rest of you wannabe poets, stop it, I'm gettin' all misty.

[js1138]

but literal interpretation of the claims of the likes of Hwang Woo-suk are de-rigoeur

The reason he was exposed is that other researchers couldn't replicate the findings. At what point did the science establishment fail?

Popular magazines don't count as the science establishment.

[Revolting cat!]

Popular magazines don't count as the science establishment.

Popular television preachers don't count as the theological establishment.

[js1138]

In an earlier post I speculated that this might even be due to some kind of actual defect, in a manner similar to dyslexia, which disrupts normal cognition and spawns the other ubiquitous behaviors.

The ability to see the process of evolution intuitively seems to be an uncommon trait. Some people seem able to follow and accept the argument, but unable to "see" it. I think this is like the ability to "hear" complex music from reading a score, or "see" a person from a description.

If you can't see the process in your mind it doesn't seem as real, even if the arguments are sound.

[js1138]

Popular television preachers don't count as the theological establishment.

But then, no one here brings up the moral failings of preachers until after creationists have said evolution is the cause of Marxism, genocide, and all the evils of the 20th century.

Bad people do bad things, and frequently look around for the most respected ideology to forge a rationalization.

In previous centuries that most respected ideology was Christianity, and all kinds of horrors were perpetrated in the name of religion. In the 20th century, the favored ideology was science, and all kinds of evil was done in the name of science. Now a whole section of the world is killing people in the name of Allah.

Bad people do bad things an blame it on someone else.

[VadeRetro]

I think it's the other way around. The inability to see evolution or model the process or even remember what the process really is stems from religious horror. You might go to Hell for knowing that stuff, letting the Devil into your head.

[Doctor Stochastic]

Perhaps it's because evolutionary theory is so simple:

A. There are inexactly replicating systems (Second Law forces the inexactness.)

B. Components of these systems (and whole systems) are exposed to differing environments leading to differential reproduction rates.

Taman Shud
Mah Jongg
C'est tout

[js1138]

Yes, but I know quite a few people who accept evolution, but can't articulate it or draw conclusions from it. I happen to be among those who believe human and animal learning operates on the same principles as evolution (but obviously with a different physical implementation). It's very rare too find anyone who sees this parallel or considers it important enough to discuss (or attempt to refute).

[js1138]

Obviously in learning, it's not inexact replication; it's the probability of an action. In one case it's allele frequency; in the other case its probability of behavior.

[Junior]

As I said, limb regeneration has never been observed or even been claimed as a miracle.

I'll make sure to claim it if I ever devise my own religion (a la Hubbard)...

[Junior]

...AECreationist...

If you hold down the ALT key and type 0198 on your kepad, you can render it "ÆCreationist." It looks a bit cooler, I think...

[Junior]

Beer is proof God loves us and wants us to be happy.

[js1138]

Malt does more than Milton can, to justify God's ways to man.

[CarolinaGuitarman]

I like beer. It makes me a jolly good fellow. I like beer. It helps me unwind and sometimes it makes me feel mellow.

[PatrickHenry]

The Grand Master generously allots a gallon of beer per day for those who toil in the janitorial pool. He himself, of course, prefers single-malt Scotch.