Posted on 04/08/2009 7:27:21 PM PDT by GodGunsGuts
Evolutionary Explanations: Substance, Seasoning, or Storytelling?
April 7, 2009 — A scientific theory should explain why certain phenomena in nature are the way they are. This layman’s view, though simplistic, expects that a theory should also predict new phenomena before they are observed. In many science reports on evolution, however, one finds evolutionary theory tacked on as an explanation after the fact, when the theory had virtually nothing to do with the research or the conclusions (for examples a year ago, see 04/04/2008). The evolutionary interpretation also begs the question that it is the only explanation adequate to explain the phenomena under observation. Other research projects that are motivated by evolutionary theory, and claim success of the theory, leave sizable loopholes for critics.
Lest one conclude that we evolved from dogs, or they from us, the article launched into a discussion of dog-human co-evolution. “Now, perhaps for the first time, students of animal behavior, psychology, neuroscience, anthropology, philosophy and veterinary medicine will unite to provide deeper insights into the evolution of dogs and the evolution of humans,” said Marc Hauser of Harvard. If you thought you were training your dog with intelligent design, maybe Darwin was at work on both of you.
“....The fundamental difference between us and the earthworm is that our cells have evolved to utilize this process of RNA splicing to generate a whole other dimension to the transmission of genetic information.”
The same rules apply to the cheating and cooperating yeast: Like the driver who grudgingly gets out and shovels so that both she and her fellow motorist – snug inside his car – may continue on their journeys, the yeast who cooperate do so because there is a slight benefit for themselves. However, when most of the yeast are cooperating, it becomes advantageous for some individuals to cheat, and vice versa, which allows co-existence between cheaters and cooperators to arise.
What would you rather have: scientists concerned about curing cancer and building green technology, or lazy guys dropping bugs out of treetops so that they can tell stories about how technology invented itself? Re-read the principles in the 04/04/2008 commentary. The Darwinian storytellers have still not repented.
Source?
Evidence?
Proof?
I won’t be holding my breath.
The source would be the person who made the comment - that would be me.
The evidence is my talking to many people on the subject and related maters.
Proof - I could give you their contact information but I am afraid they would be harassed.
Did he drive you away from Christianity, or do you just like to complain?
That will only give them information with respect to what happened, an perhaps an order of events, simply looking at the physical evidence doesn't tell you "why".
God is infallible, but men are not.
God doesn't write articles for creationist web sites, men do.
There is nothing in the Bible that says theories have to explain why, nor is that requirement enforced by science. It is a personal opinion submitted by the author of this article, and it appears to not have been well considered.
How’s life over at DC??
Strike one.
The evidence is my talking to many people on the subject and related maters.
Strike two.
Proof - I could give you their contact information but I am afraid they would be harassed.
ROTFLMBO!!!!! Not unlike the kind and civil folks over at DC that we've heard about from their own who have left? Strike three.
Evidence like that is not good enough for frevos when presented to them as evidence of something, so the very things they say to us about that style of *evidence*.... backatcha.
Of course, that nonsense about *driving people away from Christ* is just that nonsense.
Several huge flaws exist in his statement.
One is that he is talking to people who have rejected Christianity and aren’t Christians and such people are always looking for excuses to reject Christianity. Such people have a bone to pick with God and are willing to blame ANYTHING or ANYONE for their reason to reject God.
Another thing is, it’s all just his say so. If he’s depending on memory, that’s known to be unreliable in anyone. I would not consider that he’s actually kept tally, unless he’s a compulsive God hater, looking to keep score.
The other thing is, the sample from which he’s taking his statements. I seriously doubt that he’s ever interviewed, or even encountered, anyone yu run into in your daily life. Unless those people you meet know you as GGG and have told him face to face that they know you and that your stand on creation is what has driven them from Christ, then he offers nothing but, well, unsubstantiated drivel.
If, in fact, he’s conversed with someone who is aware of you via the internet, then the only population left who knows who you are, knows you as GGG. That would be the people on this forum. The only ones that would qualify as having been *driven from Christ* would no doubt be the evos, as the creationists would not have accused you of *driving them away from Christ*. Now there’s a real unbiased sample for you. His sample is necessarily badly skewed.
So this whole exercise on DN’s in providing corroborating evidence to an unsubstantiated comment is, as my teenaged daughter likes to put it..... EPIC FAIL.
Why should the frevos object to that? They do it all the time.
Ever notice that the only time Scripture has any credibility to some is when they use it as a weapon to bludgeon believers with?
They can’t use Scripture when it conflicts with their previously held beliefs, but they sure are quick on the draw when trying to manipulate and insult believers.
Then, all of a sudden, it’s got more credibility, as if it’s the words of God Himself.
Imagine that.....
Why should I give you the courtesy of a response to that kind of question?
Just how many people have you won to Christ with your warm and charming (/s) treatment of them?
Why not?
Evos are regularly telling us what God did and how He did it- like using natural laws, evolution, billions of years- with no more dependable sources than their own conclusions.
Creationists, for their part, at least can go back to God’s Word where He tells us some of this stuff.
So why would frevos object to ID/creation scientists being in the position of having to discern God’s motives.
The subject in question fits a stereotype perfectly - the interviews I had dealt with that various stereotypes plus the study took place a few years back.
Now if you only put half as much effort into understanding science as you do into insulting others and spreading rumors.
Who have I been rude or disrespectful to?
Never been a member - I declined the invitation.
Should have pinged you to 54.
FOTFLOL!!!!!!
You can’t really be asking me that with a straight face....
Then it should be easy for you to provide examples.
If that kind of conjecture is how you do science, it's no wonder you're sucked into believing that the ToE is a sound theory.
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.