Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

DARWIN THEORY IS PROVED TRUE

Posted on 03/31/2007 1:09:59 AM PDT by Ethan Clive Osgoode

DARWIN THEORY IS PROVED TRUE!

That headline is from the New York Times. Have you seen similar headlines? I have. Many. "New Fossil Find Bolsters Evolution"... "DNA Proves Camels took to the Seas"... "Darwin Vindicated: Top Scientist evolves Yeast into Yeast", and so on.

I have seen many such headlines in the media, in the last few years alone. But this is, to the best of my knowledge, the original "Darwin Proved True" headline. One can say, in a sense, that all subsequent "Darwin Proved True" articles evolved from this one, the common ancestor of them all, dated (by carbon dating) to Sept 22, 1912.

This is an important fossil find. You will note the similarities to modern-day "Darwin Proved True!" reports, clearly indicating common descent with little modification. The ingredients of a fine modern "Darwin Proved True" tale are all here, of course - the waffling, the exaggeration, the impressive buzz-words, the fantastical embellishments, the self-contradictions, the fairytales. Such as...

A race of ape-like and speechless man, inhabiting England hundreds of thousands of years ago, when they had for their neighbors the mastodon and other animals now extinct is the missing link in the chain in man's evolution, which leading scientists say they have discovered in what is generally described as "the Sussex skull." To this Dr. Woodward proposes to give the name of "eoanthropus," or "man of dawn."

Yes sir, upon this fairytale, the New York Times put the headline "DARWIN THEORY PROVED TRUE", even though the article ends with the lines

There is, he thinks, a point of doubt as to the jawbone. It was not found in the same place as the skull, and he holds it possible that it does not belong to the skull. It is unquestionable apelike and it is not impossible that further examination may show that it does not fit the skull at all.

In other words, it is all nonsense, but nevertheless, DARWIN PROVED TRUE!! And thus began the classic genre of reporting on evolutionary matters, a trend which continues to this day.

This is an important archeological find, of special interest to participants and spectators of the ever-entertaining Darwin wars. But in case you are not familiar with this news article (you should be), I'll tell you what the punchline is. Scroll down to the end of the article...

And this great discovery, upon which it was announced that "DARWIN THEORY PROVED TRUE"! is also affectionally known as...

PILTDOWN MAN !

Before you reply to this, ponder carefully this quote from Scott "Dilbert" Adams:

I should add that the first person to explain that science continuously revises itself -- and that’s what makes it so great! -- has no free will.


TOPICS: Culture/Society; Philosophy
KEYWORDS: darwinian; darwinism; evolution; fsmdidit; uselessvanity
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-80 ... 141-143 next last
To: Ethan Clive Osgoode
You know sir that we have some beliefs in common but I find your approach is ineffective.

It's simple enough to discuss these issues without ruffling feathers.

41 posted on 03/31/2007 5:40:51 AM PDT by Earthdweller (All reality is based on faith in something.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: Eclectica
"I'm not going to pile on except to state, "Ask your Medical Doctor about Evolution. Please!"."

Exactly.

It is truly a myth (or possibly a culturally motivated fabrication) that those of greater intelligence are more likely to to be atheist.

I have found in my experiences that those who are of the middle intelligence level tend to take the sciences more literally and as the intelligence scale goes up things become more relative.

There is simply no perfect man-made explanation for the infinite complexity of things.

The more you learn about science and the world around you the more you understand how little we know.

42 posted on 03/31/2007 5:51:28 AM PDT by Earthdweller (All reality is based on faith in something.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: Sandy

You sound like the sort of person that believes a *Creationist* can't be a scientist...


43 posted on 03/31/2007 6:22:26 AM PDT by RaceBannon (Innocent until proven guilty: The Pendleton 8...down to 3..GWB, we hardly knew ye...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: Oztrich Boy
No becaise Evolution says everything happens by random chance (It's right there somewhere in Oriole of Specie)

There's a Baltimore baseball player who gets paid in gold?

44 posted on 03/31/2007 7:56:24 AM PDT by Gumlegs
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: Darkwolf377

This entertainment starts and I don't even have my air-pop popcorn popper to carry me through the clinches.


45 posted on 03/31/2007 8:11:55 AM PDT by MHGinTN (If you've had life support. Promote life support for others.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Ethan Clive Osgoode

Excellent article ping...


46 posted on 03/31/2007 8:13:50 AM PDT by DouglasKC
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Earthdweller

Ah, but that is the exquisite power of Science.


47 posted on 03/31/2007 8:14:43 AM PDT by MHGinTN (If you've had life support. Promote life support for others.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: Ethan Clive Osgoode

Uh, does this raise to the level of "hugh and series" on FR?


48 posted on 03/31/2007 8:18:28 AM PDT by lexington minuteman 1775
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: MHGinTN
As my son would say, it's "Ominotness"
49 posted on 03/31/2007 8:19:06 AM PDT by Earthdweller (All reality is based on faith in something.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 47 | View Replies]

To: Ethan Clive Osgoode
Upon further reflection, here's why I thought it was good.

By and large most members of the media are leftists and by and large most leftists are anti-religious...or rather anti-Christian.

Therefore they (the press) seize upon any and all opportunities to promote their anti-God agenda. Evolution, as commonly taught and understood, is the ultimate "God didn't do it" statement.

"See", they say, "we don't need God to explain the world. We have another explanation that doesn't require a God."

This belief gives them justification for establishing their own rules of right and wrong. Their own rules for morality.

This article shows that this is nothing new.

50 posted on 03/31/2007 8:20:54 AM PDT by DouglasKC
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Ethan Clive Osgoode

http://bevets.com/PiltdownDarwin.htm


51 posted on 03/31/2007 8:22:12 AM PDT by bevets
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Ethan Clive Osgoode
I should add that the first person to explain that science continuously revises itself -- and that’s what makes it so great! -- has no free will.

If the first person to explain that had no free will, how did he come up with the explaination?

52 posted on 03/31/2007 8:23:05 AM PDT by tacticalogic ("Oh bother!" said Pooh, as he chambered his last round.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: tacticalogic
"If the first person to explain that had no free will, how did he come up with the explaination?"

Absolutely tantalizing discussion point. This is why I love FR!

53 posted on 03/31/2007 8:26:03 AM PDT by Earthdweller (All reality is based on faith in something.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 52 | View Replies]

To: Earthdweller
Again you are incorrect on your understanding of scientific terms. Try reading over these definitions (from a google search, with additions from this thread). Pay particular attention to "theory" and "data" and "fact" and you will be better able to make your points on these threads:

Theory: a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world; an organized system of accepted knowledge that applies in a variety of circumstances to explain a specific set of phenomena; "theories can incorporate facts and laws and tested hypotheses." Addendum: "Theories do not grow up to be laws. Theories explain laws." (Courtesy of VadeRetro.)

Theory: A scientifically testable general principle or body of principles offered to explain observed phenomena. In scientific usage, a theory is distinct from a hypothesis (or conjecture) that is proposed to explain previously observed phenomena. For a hypothesis to rise to the level of theory, it must predict the existence of new phenomena that are subsequently observed. A theory can be overturned if new phenomena are observed that directly contradict the theory. [Source]

When a scientific theory has a long history of being supported by verifiable evidence, it is appropriate to speak about "acceptance" of (not "belief" in) the theory; or we can say that we have "confidence" (not "faith") in the theory. It is the dependence on verifiable data and the capability of testing that distinguish scientific theories from matters of faith.

Hypothesis: a tentative theory about the natural world; a concept that is not yet verified but that if true would explain certain facts or phenomena; "a scientific hypothesis that survives experimental testing becomes a scientific theory"; "he proposed a fresh theory of alkalis that later was accepted in chemical practices."

Proof: Except for math and geometry, there is little that is actually proved. Even well-established scientific theories can't be conclusively proved, because--at least in principle--a counter-example might be discovered. Scientific theories are always accepted provisionally, and are regarded as reliable only because they are supported (not proved) by the verifiable facts they purport to explain and by the predictions which they successfully make. All scientific theories are subject to revision (or even rejection) if new data are discovered which necessitates this.

Law: a generalization that describes recurring facts or events in nature; "the laws of thermodynamics."

Model: a simplified representation designed to illuminate complex processes; a hypothetical description of a complex entity or process; a physical or mathematical representation of a process that can be used to predict some aspect of the process; a representation such that knowledge concerning the model offers insight about the entity modelled.

Speculation: a hypothesis that has been formed by speculating or conjecturing (usually with little hard evidence). When a scientist speculates he is drawing on experience, patterns and somewhat unrelated things that are known or appear to be likely. This becomes a very informed guess.

Conjecture: speculation: a hypothesis that has been formed by speculating or conjecturing (usually with little hard evidence); guess: a message expressing an opinion based on incomplete evidence; reasoning that involves the formation of conclusions from incomplete evidence.

Guess: an opinion or estimate based on incomplete evidence, or on little or no information.

Assumption: premise: a statement that is assumed to be true and from which a conclusion can be drawn; "on the assumption that he has been injured we can infer that he will not to play"

Impression: a vague or subjective idea in which some confidence is placed; "his impression of her was favorable"; "what are your feelings about the crisis?"; "it strengthened my belief in his sincerity"; "I had a feeling that she was lying."

Opinion: a personal belief or judgment that is not founded on proof or certainty.

Observation: any information collected with the senses.

Data: Individual measurements; facts, figures, pieces of information, statistics, either historical or derived by calculation, experimentation, surveys, etc.; evidence from which conclusions can be inferred.

Fact: when an observation is confirmed repeatedly and by many independent and competent observers, it can become a fact.

Truth: This is a word best avoided entirely in physics [and science] except when placed in quotes, or with careful qualification. Its colloquial use has so many shades of meaning from ‘it seems to be correct’ to the absolute truths claimed by religion, that it’s use causes nothing but misunderstanding. Someone once said "Science seeks proximate (approximate) truths." Others speak of provisional or tentative truths. Certainly science claims no final or absolute truths. Source.

Science: a method of learning about the world by applying the principles of the scientific method, which includes making empirical observations, proposing hypotheses to explain those observations, and testing those hypotheses in valid and reliable ways; also refers to the organized body of knowledge that results from scientific study.

Religion: Theistic: 1. the belief in a superhuman controlling power, esp. in a personal God or gods entitled to obedience and worship. 2. the expression of this in worship. 3. a particular system of faith and worship.

Religion: Non-Theistic: The word religion has many definitions, all of which can embrace sacred lore and wisdom and knowledge of God or gods, souls and spirits. Religion deals with the spirit in relation to itself, the universe and other life. Essentially, religion is belief in spiritual beings. As it relates to the world, religion is a system of beliefs and practices by means of which a group of people struggles with the ultimate problems of human life.

Belief: any cognitive content (perception) held as true; religious faith.

Faith: the belief in something for which there is no material evidence or empirical proof; acceptance of ideals, beliefs, etc., which are not necessarily demonstrable through experimentation or observation. A strong belief in a supernatural power or powers that control human destiny.

Dogma: a religious doctrine that is proclaimed as true without evidence.

Some good definitions, as used in physics, can be found: Here.

Based on these, evolution is a theory. CS and ID are beliefs.

[Last revised 9/26/06]

54 posted on 03/31/2007 8:34:28 AM PDT by Coyoteman (Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: DouglasKC
This article shows that this is nothing new.

So why don't you supply us with something new: tell us why you think Piltdown man is a hoax.

55 posted on 03/31/2007 8:35:10 AM PDT by Gumlegs
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 50 | View Replies]

To: All

Energy is recognized as the key to all activity on earth. Natural science is the study of the sources and control of natural energy, and social science, theoretically expressed as economics, is the study of the sources and control of social energy. Both are bookkeeping systems: mathematics. Therefore, mathematics is the primary energy science. And the bookkeeper can be king if the public can be kept ignorant of the methodology of the bookkeeping.

All science is merely a means to an end. The means is knowledge. The end is control. Beyond this remains only one issue: Who will be the beneficiary?

Once upon a time it was particles.
Now it's strings.
A long, long time ago it was a "universe".
Now it's a "multiverse".


56 posted on 03/31/2007 8:36:39 AM PDT by milkncookies (Molon Labe)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 47 | View Replies]

To: bevets
http://bevets.com/PiltdownDarwin.htm


http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/piltdown.html

57 posted on 03/31/2007 8:44:03 AM PDT by Coyoteman (Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 51 | View Replies]

To: Coyoteman
Too simplistic a definition. Think outside the box.

To support my position I will give you some examples.

If you believe that gravity is a scientific fact, you are basing that fact on the well know theory of gravitation.

In addition, if you look at the sky you may theorize that it is in fact blue or the grass is in fact green. This may well be a fact at present because currently the majority of the population is not color blind. Two thousand years from now people with color blindness may be dominate and at that time the grass and the sky will "in fact" be colors of gray.

"Facts" are as fluent as osmosis.

58 posted on 03/31/2007 8:45:55 AM PDT by Earthdweller (All reality is based on faith in something.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 54 | View Replies]

To: Ethan Clive Osgoode

Fossil find shows human inbreeding. That should be the head liner.


59 posted on 03/31/2007 8:47:34 AM PDT by gbs
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Earthdweller
If you believe that gravity is a scientific fact, you are basing that fact on the well know theory of gravitation.

That things fall toward the earth when you drop them is a fact.

The theory of gravitation explains that, and many other facts.

60 posted on 03/31/2007 8:51:14 AM PDT by Coyoteman (Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 58 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-80 ... 141-143 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson