Posted on 05/08/2007 9:24:03 PM PDT by Chuckmorse
During the May 3 Republican presidential debate, moderator Chris Matthews asked the candidates “How many of you don’t believe in evolution?” Sen. Sam Brownback, Gov. Mike Huckabee, and Rep. Tom Tancredo all raised their hands indicating that they did not believe in it. Rep. Barney Frank raised the same question in 2004 when he accused me, his opponent that year, of questioning the theory of evolution. Liberals are confident that those who question the theory of evolution will be held up for public ridicule and scorn. Many liberals pride themselves on questioning everything in life except when it comes to the theory of evolution, which they accept as bedrock science. But is it?
The theory of evolution is just that, a theory. There is not a shred of evidence to indicate that mankind evolved from the amoeba, which evolved into the fish, which evolved into the bird, which evolved into the mouse, which evolved into the monkey, which evolved into man. While there is evidence of inter-species evolution, there is no proof of the basic thesis presented by Charles Darwin which is that one species evolves into another. In fact, science seems to favor creationism, also just a theory, as recent DNA evidence indicates that mankind is descended from one mother.
It could be therefore argued that the theory of evolution, since it is not science in the sense that there is no documented or empirical evidence to back it up, is based as much on religious belief as is creationism. Both theories are based on faith as opposed to scientific certainty and, I would argue, creationism contains better science. Yet the liberal establishment demands that the federal government mandate by law that only evolution is to be taught in the public school science class.
I would argue that Intelligent design, which is the theory that mankind was created by divine intervention, could be introduced into education in tandem with the theory of evolution without getting into any particular religious scenario, such as the Genesis story in the Bible, and without endorsing any particular religious denomination. If intelligent design were to be given equal time with evolution, the faith of the atheist would be no more compromised than that of the theist. In fact, such a presentation would be more honest and balanced since scientific inquiry is supposed to be open to all plausible theories.
The theory of evolution is a political question in American politics because liberal supporters demand that the federal government mandate it’s teaching and insist on a gag order when it comes to any discussion of intelligent design in the classroom. This is contrary to American traditions of free speech and the free and open expression of ideas. This also violates the right of the taxpaying citizen to have a say in the education of their own children and supplants the ability of local educators and elected local school board officials to determine curriculum.
Teaching intelligent design alongside evolution would open doors to important thought and inquiry. When the young student contemplates the possibility that mankind is more than just an evolving animal, amoral and bound to nature like other animals, than perhaps the student becomes aware of the uniqueness and value of every single human life. Implied in the theory of a divine creator is that there is a larger purpose to life and that there is a moral code. Intelligent design sets the stage for the individual to look to a higher power than the government, which is perhaps why liberals so adamantly oppose it. In these times of rampant school violence and moral relativism, the teaching of intelligent design, in a non sectarian way and alongside the teaching of the theory of evolution, would serve many positive purposes besides a simple striving for truth.
[And when we present you with the evidence, you just shrug it off and claim, “Well, the other quotes are accurate!”]
Another LIE!!! I’ve not dismissed anythign he’s said! In fact I’ve fully confronted your untruths about the situation! I don’t run from problems by trying to play symantics games and stating falsehoods coyote, but apparently you do. So please- keep accusing me falsely- it’s quite amusing to witness the tactics you consistently use. Nowhere id I state that all scientists voiced problems, but I did state that all who did can’t be dismissed simply because you point out that one does infact beleive in the model of evolution. You can only get away with your petty dishonest argumetns in lesser forums that care nothing about integrity and honesty coyote (Which I’m assuming you think all ‘real’ scientists hang out lol)-
If you’d like to revise your comments to more accurately portray what has taken place- I’ll accept it as an apology- otherwise I/’ll simply assume you’re simply not interested in telling the truth.
Your allegorical “house” is imaginary. My fence rows and brush piles are real. If you’re going to be mad because I’m not inclined to stop and pursue pages of links for your benefit, then you’re just going to have to be mad.
lol- yeah- that’s why I’m ‘mad’- As I said- I gave you plenty of links so that there is NO reason to keep presenting your illogical off topic accusations- and if you are content beleiving they don’t exist and remaining in willful ignorance on the subject, then whatever, as I said- I could care less- I’ve done my part, and all your huffing and puffing about there being no evidence is as I said nothign more than willful ignorance. you can keep posting the same arguments in whatever manner youl ike, but when it comes right down to it- the evidences are there- take it or leave it- apparently you’re content not taking the info provided and doing anythign about it otyher than stomping hte foot and saying it doesn’t exist lol- now if you’lkl excuse me, I’ve got to settle down from being so ‘mad’ lol
Tell ya what- there are no scientists that have problems with the model of evolution- the meetings I mentioned are all figments of people’s imagination, scientists didn’t stand up and voice their problems with the models, mathemeticians didn’t present for the record their calculations, top scientists haven’t written books spelling out hte problems with evolition, ever. So, please- don’t investigate any furhter- don’t take the blinders off- just go along in willful informationless bliss- after all- you’re too busy to bother with details anyways apparently
I was under the impression you were presenting evidence sufficient to have a substantial impact on the debate. My mistake.
[I was under the impression you were presenting evidence sufficient to have a substantial impact on the debate. My mistake.]
Debate? You mean the evolution/creation debate? Nope- see that’s what I mean- you don’t follow a conversation well. Had you not been intent on misassigning sentiments and intentions to my posts, claiming I was saying one thing when I clearly was not, then you’d have understood that. On a different topic, the one of evolution/creation, I need not present much as the evo model breaks down all on it’s own right from the very beginnings all the way through molecular biology, fossil records and such.- but that’s a whole nother can of worms with no backbones.
[My mistake.]
Indeed, but then again that is the expected result when ‘debates’ are invented out of htin air and ignore the original intent of posts responding to subjects who presented statements with totally different issues than ones you invented simply for the sake of being difficult and unreasonable. IU give you an A+ for derailing topics
Well then get thee to a symposium and get that published. I look forward to reading all about it.
Whee!
No problem. You just go on calling me a liar and I will continue posting the facts.
Our discussion was of a quote you posted, supposedly showing the weakness of evolutionary theory. You posted:
An increasing number of scientists, most particularly a growing number of evolutionists . . argue that Darwinian evolutionary theory is no genuine scientific theory at all . . Many of the critics have the highest intellectual credentials.I asked you to post the entire quotation, but you didn't. I found a bit more of the quotation:
Although still a minority, an increasing number of scientists, most particularly, a growing number of evolutionists, particularly academic philosophers, argue that Darwinian evolutionary theory is no genuine scientific theory at all."When you examine the expanded quote, you find that the author, Dr. Michael Ruse, Professor of Philosophy, is not saying that the theory of evolution is increasingly seen as weak by scientists. He is talking about "academic philosophers."
But if you search the web, you can find what Dr. Ruse really thinks about creation science vs. evolution. Check out the court testimony from McLean v. Arkansas. It is here.
A few excerpts:
Q You say that scientists today agree that evolution happened.A: Yes.
Q Why is that so?
A: Well, quite simply, the evidence is overwhelming.
Q Doctor Ruse, do you find that creation science measures up to the methodological considerations you described earlier as significant in distinguishing scientific from nonscientific endeavors?A: No. My feeling is that really it doesn't. I think that, for example, they play all sorts of slights of hand; they quote all sorts of eminent evolutionists out of context, implying that evolutionists are not saying quite what they are saying, implying they are saying other sorts of things.
In other words, what I'm saying is, I think that the creation scientists do all sorts of things that I teach my students in introductory logic not to do.
Q Doctor Ruse, do you believe that creation science approaches its subject honestly?A: No, I don't.
Q Doctor Ruse, do you have an opinion to a reasonable degree of professional certainty about whether creation science is science?A:Yes, I do.
Q And what is that opinion?
A:That it is not science.
Q What do you think it is?
A:Well, speaking as a philosopher and speaking, also, as one who teaches philosophy of religion, I would say that it is religion.
But when we examine what the author's actual position is, as shown by court testimony, he supports evolution and agrees that creation science is neither science nor approaching its subject honestly.
Perhaps, after all of this, we can agree that Dr. Ruse's quotation should not be used to argue against the theory of evolution?
You posted:
“We cannot expect to explain cellular evolution if we stay locked in the classical Darwinian mode of thinking,” Woese says. “The time has come for biology to go beyond the Doctrine of Common Descent.”I decided to click on the link. What did I find? Well, there's this ...“Neither it nor any variation of it can capture the tenor, the dynamic, the essence of the evolutionary process that spawned cellular organization,”
The driving force in evolving cellular life on Earth has been horizontal gene transfer, in which the acquisition of alien cellular components, including genes and proteins, works to promote the evolution of recipient cellular entities.[Bolding mine; distortions yours].This is the theory of Carl Woese, a microbiologist at the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign.
Woese presents his theory of cellular evolution, which challenges long-held traditions and beliefs of biologists, in today's issue of the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.
Life did not begin with one primordial cell, Woese's theory holds. Instead, there were initially at least three simple types of loosely constructed cellular organizations.
Oh, no! The TOE is destroyed! Woese says life didn't start with a single cell, but with "at least three"!"
Here's another quote from the site: "Cellular evolution, Woese argues, began in a communal environment in which the loosely organized cells took shape through extensive horizontal gene transfer."
[Bolding mine]. Got that? Woese accepts evolution. He just says it happened in a slightly different way than classical Darwinian theory holds.
Here's more:
Such a transfer previously had been recognized as having a minor role in evolution, but the arrival of microbial genomics, Woese says, is shedding a more accurate light. Horizontal gene transfer, he argues, has the capacity to rework entire genomes. With simple primitive entities, this process can "completely erase an organismal genealogical trace."His theory challenges the longstanding Darwinian assumption known as the Doctrine of Common Descent -- that all life on Earth has descended from one original primordial form.
"We cannot expect to explain cellular evolution if we stay locked in the classical Darwinian mode of thinking," Woese says. "The time has come for biology to go beyond the Doctrine of Common Descent."
That last paragraph is the bit you posted. Did you come up with this obvious distortion all by yourself, are you someone's dupe, or are you part of some conspiracy to increase ignorance?
you know- when you’re a johnny come late to an issue being discussed- it might be good idea to make sure you understand what is going on before deciding to chime in and risk looking foolish.
Did I say Woese didn’t beleive in eovlution? Nope- Did i EVER claim ANYONE didn’t beleive in evolution who attended the symposiums? Nope- Having trouble following? Just chime in and I’ll go slower. Did I state that evolutionsits have trouble with the model of evolution as proposed by Darwin? You betcha- Why did I state this? Because Stultis said he wasn’t aware of even one accredited scientist who had problems with the model of evoluition as proposed by Darwin
Thank you for highlighting the fact that Woese PERFECTLY demonstrates his problems with evolution from common descent- His hypothesis is a MUCH MUCH different one than the old model of evolution and had you understood that you’d have not posted damning evidence that backed up my statements of fact. His assertion is not ‘slightly different’ it’s so radically differentas to be totally asnd wholly unconnected to Darwins hypothesis. I suggest stdying a bit more on what exactly lateral gene transference involves before stating it is ‘slightly different’ as you did. What you state is a massive downplaying of a major issue for the sake of petty arguing.
Apparently you sir are part of a conmspiracy to increase ignorance. And just for the record- I could care less what Weose beleives about lateral gene transference- it’s all biological garbage- the fact that he gloms onto the one last remaining hope for NEW information being introdueced to a species STILL has it’s biological problems associated with it and has NEVER been witnessed in nature EXCEPT within the same species. If you care to go completely OFF TOPIC and continue your rediculous line of arguments that have absolutely NOTHING to do with what I dsaid to stultis, and if you wish to keep deceitfully misrepresenting what I’ve said in hopes of derailing the truth about what I DID say, then perhaps it would be better for you to start a new thread relevent to your points because quite frankly, they have absolutely NO rleevence to what was being discussed here- I apparently gave you more credit in the past thasn I shoudl have for being able to follow and rationally and honestly discuss matters relevent to the topics.
Did I say scientists have problems beleivign in ANY forms ofd evolution? Nope- Got that? Understand it well becausde what I’m abotu to say is apparently difficult to understand judging by the responses of some here to my points- I said “Some Evolutionsits have problem with the model of common descent” - please let me know what it is that is throwing you for a loop concerning that statement. Next time you jump into a conversation late in the discussion- be more civil and you’ll receive a more civil respoinsde explaining your obvious error.
[When you examine the expanded quote, you find that the author, Dr. Michael Ruse, Professor of Philosophy, is not saying that the theory of evolution is increasingly seen as weak by scientists. He is talking about “academic philosophers.”]
Bzzzt lie!!! Did you not see the word evolutionists in his statement? I could care less how many accademic evolutionists are included- the word was evolutionists
But again sigh- this is entirely irrelevent to the discussion APART from the fact that RUSE Himself did say a growing number of EVOLUTIONISTS are having trouble with the model of evolution-
You seem obsessed with the quote of one man and seem content thinking that be4cause he himslef didn’t posit a complete denial of evolution in ANY form that therefore the 4 mentioned symposiums filled with scientists who presented their objections to the dartwinian model of evolution is thusly irrelevent. Good for you- you keep on beleiving the 4 major symposiums were of no consequence
[Perhaps, after all of this, we can agree that Dr. Ruse’s quotation should not be used to argue against the theory of evolution?
]
Actually no we can’t agree because it IS relevent to what Stultis claimed. Regardless of how much importance it is in a singular context when wiegghed against the numerous other evidences I showed indicating that there are indeed scientists who have problems with the model of darwin’s proposed hypothesis of eovlution.
The greatest hope for evolution right now stands with the hypothesis of lateral gene transference- why? Because the problems of mutations creating NEW information are just too damning to the old model. Gumlegs mentioned Woese- and I’m glad he did, because it highlights the biological problem that the folks at those symposiums brought out when they went on record as having doubts about the old model of eovlution through mutation, and lateral gene transference proposes the mechanism by which evolution can or did aquire the necessary NEW information. However, As I mentioned in my post to gumlegs, even lateral gene transference has it’s many impossible hurdles, but it at least addresses the problems of, and exposes why gene reshuffling, mutatiuons, or any of the other mechanisms that are attributed to the old model can’t possibly work beyuong mere genetic variability within a species own KIND.
Stultis seems to have made the mistake of arguing in absolutes. All absolutes, particularly with regards to people's opinions, can be proven false by the anomolous or trivial. You get credit for having done so.
mmm yes, it’s quite trivial that scientists are beginning to expose the truth that evolution via the old model is biologically impossible- you’re right- trivial trivial trivial. The truth is always trivial when covering up a dirty little secret
but fret not, shows like pbs NG the Discovery channel, animal planet, and places like the smithsonian and our public schools will all work in unison to keep the dirty little secret neatly tucked away from the general public and from the minds of our inquiring children, and forums will continue to berate and malign anyone that doubts evolution for even a second and points out the problems. So the secret is safe- fret not
It would ........ in a closed system.
However, the Earth is not a closed system and the Earth receives a gargantuan amount of solar energy that is then used to create order in Earthly biological systems.
The price paid for the increase in complexity of the biological changes on Earth is the increasing disorder on the Sun because of the consumption of the Sun's fuel.
The architect, the carpenters, the electricians, the masons, the roofers, etc., can build a more complex structure (a 4 bedroom house) out of a pile of disorganized materials only because they consume hundreds of pounds of food. The entropy price paid for that 4 bedroom house is the increase in the disorder of herds of cows and acres of wheat that were turned into Big Macs and the organized molecules of those Big Macs that were further disorganized into exhaled CO2 and H2O.
In the Solar System, the Sun is the equivalent of McDonald's.
Negative. There are no proofs in science. Only mathematics has proofs.
Everybody that had a decent education in science and mathematics knows that.
That seems to be the case when your sourced quotes turn out to not be as claimed. Dirty, dirty, little secrets!
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.