Wired: “Birth of New Species Witnessed by Scientists”

AiG ^ | November 21, 2009

[YHAOS]

“The FRevos seem to be a bit than more confused about what they think science is . . . ” (“more than a bit”?).

Maybe more what they represent science to be rather than the state of their own thinking. Anyway, my point.

[YHAOS]

“Textbook example of reductio ad absurdum.”

What is?

“This quote shows the fallacy of your argument”

And that argument is . . . ?

[Tramonto]

Ira,

I took a class on evolution in college and read Icons of Evolution at the same time. Many of the examples of fraud Wells cited were in my text book. The fact is that Wells is telling the truth and the text books are telling lies. The critics of the book are lying.

My favorite Icon is homologies because it is so ridiculous. I read the chapter in Wells’ book and thought that there was no possible way a college text would use a circular argument as proof of evolution. I turned to the chapter in my text and sure enough, the first sentence was a circular argument.

[Tramonto]

Here is a link to where Wells addresses the criticisms to Icons of Evolution. Im not going to cut and paste spam it here but you should read it. Its a point by point rebuttal that is very convincing.

http://www.discovery.org/a/1180

Any open minded person who reads this book while taking a class on evolution will come to the conclusion that the writers of text books are purposely lying and trying to deceive students. Why would a theory that is ‘fact’ need to resort to deceiving students.

[fish hawk]

Not to mention where in The Cosmos, Carl Sagan states that evolution is not a theory but a fact. I guess he died before he could show us the “fact”. I'm sure though, that by now he does know there is a God.

[metmom]

In fact, Darwinism has all the trappings of a secular religion. Its priests forgive a multitude of sins in their postulants--manipulating data, overstating results, presenting assumptions as though they were conclusions--but never the sin of disbelief.

One high priest of Darwinism, Oxford Professor Richard Dawkins, wrote in 1989: “It is absolutely safe to say that if you meet somebody who claims not to believe in evolution, that person is ignorant, stupid or insane (or wicked, but I’d rather not consider that).” [1]

Just another day at FR.

I wonder what Dawkin's screen name is. So many choices, so little time.

[metmom]

I didn’t say anything about evos MAKING personal attacks, even though a significant portion of them do.

But you certainly fall into some of the rest of the categories, especially the lecturing about making personal attacks one.

Shall I provide links for THOSE, or is a generic link to your posting history enough?

[metmom]

A rather well cited article. Perhaps some of the points he makes could be refuted if they are wrong.

One at a time would work so we could examine the proofs and consider the arguments for and against thoroughly.

[Jaime2099]

Where do I even begin, you explained Evolution in 14 points, that's exactly what the problem with Evolution is. Darwinist's hide false theory inside of the true parts of Evolution, and then refer to everything as Evolution. Are there changes in species that are observable? Of course there are, does that have anything to do with all species from one origin or Human Evolution? Certainly not in any way! Bacteria and viruses adapt and change, but does that mean that everything behaves the same way as they, no! To think otherwise is insanity, unless one lumps all of Evolution into one big pile of confusion.

These Darwin scientists research one thing (bacteria) and say their conclusions show results that have nothing to do with what they researched in the first place (all species must behave this way). They do this by lumping everything under the umbrella of Evolution and it happens all the time in peer reviewed papers. It is not science. It's part science and part philosophy, which is only half science.

[Ira_Louvin]

That’s what Evolution IS! If you have a problem with Evolution you have a problem with one or more of these fourteen points. Which one is it? Provide any evidence of any of the points that are incorrect

[metmom]

Gee, it got awfully quiet around here. I guess none of the evos want to take the textbook challenge....

[metmom]

Evolution is everything and anything that evos want it to be defined as, that way it is everything and there is never going to be any way to disprove it.

The same goes for the elastic, universal term *species*. Label every little change in something as a new species, and viola’ evolution is observed, even if it has that complicating little factor of only variation within species and not actual macroevolution (for lack of a better term).

Somehow, evos never seem to get that the problem most people have with the TOE is not the concepts of natural selection and variation within species, but the major species to species changes that they extrapolate out of those observations.

It’s just beyond their comprehension that others don’t assume as much as they do.

[count-your-change]

It’s like Global Warming.....”Our comments were taken out of context”, “the common folk just don’t understand”, “it’s science and only smart people like us can grasp it”.

[metmom]

But it’s interesting the number of people on this forum with degrees and careers in science who don’t follow every pronouncement of science lockstep.

We’re constantly being told that science is about investigating,and challenging, and yet when someone does, they’re ostracized.

[count-your-change]

Here's a comment by Henry Gee. I've been reading his book, “In Search of Deep Time” as I've had time to do so.
He writes on page 9:

“Today we see fossils as the remains of creatures that once lived. However, this nature is not inherent in the fossils. It is our immersion in a century and a half of Darwinian thought, not the fossils themselves, that gives us the capacity to see see fossils as kin to things that were once as alive as you or I.”

On page 8 Gee had commented on why the evolution story depicted as history by paleontology is unscientific:

“Whether you believe the conventional wisdom that our own species, homo sapiens, descended in seamless continuity from the preexisting species, homo erectus, depends not on the evidence(because the fossil evidence is moot) but on the deferment of your lack of knowledge to the authority of the presenter or whether the presentation of the evidence resonates with your prejudices. The assumption of authority is profoundly, mischievously, and dangerously unscientific.”

The excesses of Darwinism are sometimes too much even for its believers.

[Scythian]

I beleive it, my cousin Cletus just shot one of this in his back yard the other day ...

[Jaime2099]

"That’s what Evolution IS! If you have a problem with Evolution you have a problem with one or more of these fourteen points. Which one is it? Provide any evidence of any of the points that are incorrect"

Evolution is far more than the little tidbits that you posted previously. I have a problem with it because it is an overused term that has almost no real scientific meaning anymore. If something has questionable scientific evidence, say Human Evolution, then it is lumped in with Evolution as a whole and treated on the same standing as all Evolution research. I have a problem with it, yes, but you do not truly understand the scope of Evolution if you think those 14 points are everything the scientific community thinks Evolution is and how it can be used as a term.

[count-your-change]

But it is suitably flexible definition, like climate change, to be able to be seen no matter where one looks.

[Ira_Louvin]

That’s what Evolution IS! If you have a problem with Evolution you have a problem with one or more of these fourteen points. Which one is it? Provide any evidence of any of the points that are incorrect"

[Jaime2099]

'That’s what Evolution IS! If you have a problem with Evolution you have a problem with one or more of these fourteen points. Which one is it? Provide any evidence of any of the points that are incorrect"'

In the famous words of Charlie Brown, "Good grief". You completely missed my entire point. Evolution is far more than what you posted to most Darwinist scientists. If you cannot comprehend that, then you have my sympathy.