Posted on 01/20/2002 12:07:19 PM PST by PatrickHenry
In one of the most existentially penetrating statements ever made by a scientist, Richard Dawkins concluded that "the universe we observe has precisely the properties we should expect if there is, at bottom, no design, no purpose, no evil and no good, nothing but blind, pitiless indifference."
Facing such a reality, perhaps we should not be surprised at the results of a 2001 Gallup poll confirming that 45 percent of Americans believe "God created human beings pretty much in their present form at one time within the last 10,000 years or so"; 37 percent prefer a blended belief that "human beings have developed over millions of years from less advanced forms of life, but God guided this process"; and a paltry 12 percent accept the standard scientific theory that "human beings have developed over millions of years from less advanced forms of life, but God had no part in this process."
In a forced binary choice between the "theory of creationism" and the "theory of evolution," 57 percent chose creationism against only 33 percent for evolution (10 percent said that they were "unsure"). One explanation for these findings can be seen in additional results showing that just 34 percent considered themselves to be "very informed" about evolution.
Although such findings are disturbing, truth in science is not determined democratically. It does not matter what percentage of the public believes a theory. It must stand or fall on the evidence, and there are few theories in science that are more robust than the theory of evolution. The preponderance of evidence from numerous converging lines of inquiry (geology, paleontology, zoology, botany, comparative anatomy, genetics, biogeography, and so on) points to the same conclusion--evolution is real. The 19th-century philosopher of science William Whewell called this process of independent lines of inquiry converging together to a conclusion a "consilience of inductions." I call it a "convergence of evidence." Whatever you call it, it is how historical events are proved.
The reason we are experiencing this peculiarly American phenomenon of evolution denial (the doppelgnäger of Holocaust denial, using the same techniques of rhetoric and debate) is that a small but vocal minority of religious fundamentalists misread the theory of evolution as a challenge to their deeply held religious convictions. Given this misunderstanding, their response is to attack the theory. It is no coincidence that most evolution deniers are Christians who believe that if God did not personally create life, then they have no basis for belief, morality and the meaning of life. Clearly for some, much is at stake in the findings of science.
Because the Constitution prohibits public schools from promoting any brand of religion, this has led to the oxymoronic movement known as "creation science" or, in its more recent incarnation, "intelligent design" (ID). ID (aka God) miraculously intervenes just in the places where science has yet to offer a comprehensive explanation for a particular phenomenon. (ID used to control the weather, but now that we understand it, He has moved on to more difficult problems, such as the origins of DNA and cellular life. Once these problems are mastered, then ID will no doubt find even more intractable conundrums.) Thus, IDers would have us teach children nonthreatening theories of science, but when it comes to the origins of life and certain aspects of evolution, children are to learn that "ID did it." I fail to see how this is science--or what, exactly, ID-ers hope will be taught in these public schools. "ID did it" makes for a rather short semester.
To counter the nefarious influence of the ID creationists, we need to employ a proactive strategy of science education and evolution explanation. It is not enough to argue that creationism is wrong; we must also show that evolution is right. The theory's founder, Charles Darwin, knew this when he reflected: "It appears to me (whether rightly or wrongly) that direct arguments against Christianity and theism produce hardly any effect on the public; and freedom of thought is best promoted by the gradual illumination of men's minds which follows from the advance of science."
Michael Shermer [the author] is founding publisher of Skeptic magazine (www.skeptic.com) and author of The Borderlands of Science.
robust in this context means that the theory is non-testable. It can adapt to cover any evidence or lack of evidence, hence it is a meaningless theory which cannot be falsified, cannot be tested and cannot predict anything.
Evolution is the only scientific theory which has as its goal to confound a particular religion. It seem that Darwin had 'issues' that went beyond a mere concern for the promotion of science.
When an evolutionist looks at a 747 he tries to explain it in terms of a causal chain of physical events (which he can if he is detailed enough). However he misses the true explaination for the existence of the 747 which is the minds of the engineer and machinists who created it.
Facing such a reality,"
Facing what reality? All we have here in the opening statement, is one man's opinion, and suddenly it's some kind of inescapable "reality." There are other scientists who look at the same universe and see a wealth of information pointing to a vast intellect designing the universe for the support of life. The parameters for this are so narrow, that the odds of this happening on earth are next to impossible, even with billions of years of blind chance working.
You want to give Bob a try and think you can defend the liberal propaganda of evolution, we'd all love to hear you try at 1-800-8Enyart between 9 and 10 p.m. ET on weeknights. Enyart is simply looking for one piece of evidence that proves evolution occurred.
In that case he understands nothing. I could run around babbling that I'm looking for the one piece of evidence that proves the Punic Wars occurred. Then, each time you show me something, I say: "No, that's not proof. Nor that. Sorry, that doesn't do it." Etc. Anyone can play that game.
Genesis 1: And God said, "Let the land produce living creatures according to their kinds: livestock, creatures that move along the ground, and wild animals, each according to its kind." And it was so. Then God said, "Let us make man in our image, in our likeness, and let them rule over the fish of the sea and the birds of the air, over the livestock, over all the earth, and over all the creatures that move along the ground." So God created man in his own image, in the image of God he created him; male and female he created them.
Romans 1:19-21 For since the creation of the world God's invisible qualities--his eternal power and divine nature--have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that men are without excuse.
2 Timothy 3:7-9 Just as Jannes and Jambres opposed Moses, so also these men oppose the truth--men of depraved minds, who, as far as the faith is concerned, are rejected.
John 4:5-7 We are from God, and whoever knows God listens to us; but whoever is not from God does not listen to us. This is how we recognize the Spirit of truth and the spirit of falsehood.
Proverbs 26:25-27 His malice may be concealed by deception, but his wickedness will be exposed in the assembly.
James 3:13-15 But if you harbor bitter envy and selfish ambition in your hearts, do not boast about it or deny the truth.
The mind? What mind? First you gotta prove the mind exists.
"A promotion of a certain kind of science" (ie: junk science), is more accurate.
Darwin was a failed Divinity student. He may have gotten mad at God (like so many others did and still do) when he read John 6:37, 44, and 65-66. :D
They have gone so far as to suggest that life originated by means we can barely imagine tens of billions of years ago, and possibly even in other universes or other dimensions far removed from this universe.
Life moves a piece at a time, and enhances whatever other life it encounters. This includes improvements on the genome. Since life is structured, these "improvements" would be taken by the improvident to develop a belief in "evolution".
01: Site that debunks virtually all of creationism's fallacies. Excellent resource.
02: Creation "Science" Debunked.
03: Creationism and Pseudo Science. Familiar cartoon then lots of links.
04: The SKEPTIC annotated bibliography. Amazingly great meta-site!
05: The Evidence for Human Evolution. For the "no evidence" crowd.
06: Massive mega-site with thousands of links on evolution, creationism, young earth, etc..
07: Another amazing site full of links debunking creationism.
08: Creationism and Pseudo Science. Great cartoon!
09: MOVED FROM "NEW" Glenn R. Morton's site about creationism's fallacies. Another jennyp contribution.
10: Is Evolution Science?. Successful PREDICTIONS of evolution (Moonman62).
11: Five Major Misconceptions about Evolution. On point and well-written.
12: Frequently Asked But Never Answered Questions. A creationist nightmare!
13: DARWIN, FULL TEXT OF HIS WRITINGS. The original ee-voe-lou-shunist.
It is testable, and not all science involves direct observation. It can be falsified. Say, if you find a human fossil in rock that is undoubtedly from 80 million years ago. The scientists would have no choice but to change the theory, or abandon it altogether. This is the nature of science. I'm sure there are scientists out there wishing they could find this, because they would be one of the the most famous scientists of the last 100 years.
Take Creation Science, however. It's non-testable unless God starts creating stuff again. It doesn't have to adapt to new evidence because new evidence must adapt to it. In opposition to scientific method, it cannot be falsified because the first tenet is that it is true (while evolution is that this is the best we know based on what knowledge we have, subject to change). And it can't predict beyond what's already written.
Seriously, evolution has been around a long time, and while small parts have been challenged and changed over the years, the basic concept hasn't been successfully challenged yet in the open peer-review scientific community.
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.