Scientist forced to resign by evolution absolutists

The theory of Darwinian evolution is one of the least rigorous scientific theories in modern memory.

It cannot address the mathematical probability problems associated with the development of favorable new structures by means of successive mutations.

The fossil record looks nothing like it should look if Darwinian evolution were actually the mechanism for the creation of new species.

Scientists have never been able to reproduce the development of a new species in a laboratory, even with the simplest life forms.

There are no indications, in the laboratory or the fossil record, of anything other than micro-evolution (change within a species).

The record of Darwinian science is also rife with hoaxes, including

the peppered moths
the existence of a computer simulation of the development of the eye
archaeoraptor
Earnst Haeckel's woodcuts of embryonic development
piltdown man
Ardepithecus ramidus

And yet, if you deviate in any way from belief in this theory, you put yourself at grave risk. Even scientists who merely approach the question with scientific skepticism are at risk. You can lose your job, your funding, be denied tenure, have your career ruined or be sued by the ACLU.

But how about if you are a scientist who SUPPORTS the theory of evolution yourself, but suggest that maybe it would be okay if kids in a classroom were allowed to ask challenging questions?

Nope.

Reiss resigns as Royal Society stifles debate on evolution

This week, in Britain, we have had the highest profile proof that even a hint that your views on evolution might differ from those of the scientific establishment is enough to force you out. Prof. Michael Reiss, an evolutionist and the Royal Society’s director of education, resigned under pressure (given the push) within a couple of days of merely suggesting that creationism and ID could be discussed in classrooms—even if it was in order to explain why they were, in his view, wrong.

Immediately, atheistic scientists called for him to be ousted, claiming he was wanting creationism to be taught as an alternative to evolution. This was not his position, so he was not pushed out because of what he actually said, but because other people misrepresented what he had said. The Royal Society should have defended Reiss against those who were twisting his words, but instead they gave in, thus saving their own reputation for evolutionary orthodoxy.

Note, at the risk of repetition, that Reiss is an evolutionist himself. He was simply saying it was OK for pupils to express their own opinions. He said, ‘There is much to be said for allowing students to raise any doubts they have—hardly a revolutionary idea in science teaching—and doing one’s best to have a genuine discussion.’

You don't have to be a six-day creationist, or any kind of creationist at all, or even a believer in God to see that at least some of the believers in Darwinian evolution are members of a self-created orwellian cult.

First, your premise is incorrect. Evolution by natural selection has an enormous amount of supporting evidence that is growing steadily. For example, the molecular biology revolution of the past two decades has added enormous support. Scientists can now trace at the DNA level the evolution of specific traits such as color vision and the ability to smell pheromones.

On the larger issue of teaching creationism in the UK schools you should note that despite Reiss being a Christian most of the pressure to do this is coming from Muslims. It's part of the slow, creeping Shariah-fication of the UK and the realization of this fact was one of the motivations of the opposition (the other being scientific).

You have not studied quantum mechanics.

In quantum mechanics, if something can occur, IT ABSOLUTELY WILL OCCUR, given enough time.

for example, if you hold a uranium 238 atom in your hand, it is not going to be radiactive. If you hold it in your hand for about 4 billion years, you have a 50% chance it will decay.

it is the same with evolution, just because something is extremely unlikely to happen, does not mean it won’t.

After studying QM, and given 4 billion years and billions, maybe trillions of life forms, it is almost a certainty evolution does take place on a grand scale.

Then debunk them in fair and open debate, if they are so offbase, and Darwinism is so airtight, then what is there to fear from such a discussion?

Its been done, but creationists just refuse to accept the answers science comes up with because their beliefs are not based on evidence.

Just look in the scientific journals. That is where scientific debate takes place, not on internet chat rooms. The evidence has been accumulating in those journals for a couple of hundred years.

But creationists, having lost in the realm of science, are now pushing their ideas in the world of public opinion. They are trying to impose their views through school boards and state legislatures. Look at how many lawyers and PR flacks the Discovery Institute has on staff, as opposed to working scientists. Look at their PR budget vs. their research budget. How many laboratories do they have in their little Seattle office vs. how many lawyers blogging from their cubicles?

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.