Uncommon Dissent: Intellectuals Who Find Darwinism Unconvincing

The American Prowler ^ | 11/24/04 | Hunter Baker

[neoconsareright]

WACO, Texas -- At one time, the debate over Darwin's theory existed as a cartoon in the modern imagination. Thanks to popular portrayals of the Scopes Trial, secularists regularly reviewed the happy image of Clarence Darrow goading William Jennings Bryan into agreeing to be examined as an expert witness on the Bible and then taking him apart on the stand.

[F16Fighter]

"But you're quoting Jesus Christ from the Bible. You're using the Bible to provide the proof of it's own validity. The logoc escapes me."

To believers, Christ's quoting of the Bible, and specifically his descendancy from the First man -- Adam -- validates "Creationism."

If you need scientific "validation" of evolution, there isn't an iota's worth.

Physicist Sir Fred Hoylecalculated that the odds of producing just the basic enzymes of life by chance are 1 in 1 with 40,000 zeros after it. That my friend is a mathematical impossibility....

And FWIW: Between 1984 and 1994 about 400 papers concerning molecular evolution were published in the Proceeding of the National Academy of Sciences. NOT ONE "proposed [any] detailed routes by which complex biochemical structures might have developed" -- NOR have any been offered in any other biological journal. (perhaps you or someone else can track one down done in the last ten years?)

It's at this basic level of life that Darwinism must be defended, but evolutionists avoid the subject because they know it CAN'T BE DONE.

[VOA]

And why then did Darwin himself acknowledge intelligent design?

I enjoyed the Los Angeles Times obituary on Francis Crick (of "Watson and Crick").
Crick embraced his "panspermia" idea (really intelligent design of
non-terrestrial origin) idea for awhile, but then dropped it.
He must have gotten some really nasty notes from some colleagues!

[VOA]

Ah "neoconsareright", we hardly knew ye!

[F16Fighter]

"[Evolutionism is] just another way for depraved humans to provide themselves with an irrational system that allows them to be their own god and not answerable to the Creator in this life."

True, but not only that. Listen to what The American Atheist posited some time ago:

"But if death preceded man and was not a result of Adam's sin, then sin is fiction. IF sin is fiction, then we have no need for a Savior...

Evolution destroys utterly and finally the very reason [for] Jesus' earthly life...

...IF Jesus was not the Redeemer who died for our sins -- and this is what evolution means -- then Christianity is nothing."

[VOA]

"Get over it. We are apes."

Get over it (now Zotted) "neoconsareright"...you don't value "diversity"...
when an opinion doesn't suit your narrow worldview...

http://www.pfm.org/AM/Template.cfm?Section=BreakPoint_Commentaries1&CONTENTID=14524&TEMPLATE=/CM/ContentDisplay.cfm

[Colofornian]

But you're quoting Jesus Christ from the Bible. You're using the Bible to provide the proof of it's own validity. The logoc escapes me.

Why don't you try doin' a little historical research before you comment on the Bible? You make it sound like just because some 21st century publishing house decides to put together some anthology, that any later author's work included in the anthology who cites an earlier author's work included in the anthology is all of the same authoritative cloth just because some publishing house saw fit to include both authors in the same work. Is that what you're saying?

Jesus is not the author of the New Testament, and the authors of the New Testament were not the authors of the Old Testament. The authors of the New Testament were Jewish Christians; and the authors of the Old Testament were Messianic Jews.

Your presentation of the Bible as of One Authoritative Source, though, is heartening. I mean, here you're saying that we have at least 40 different authors who lived up to 2,000 years apart (with distinct cultures represented in that time variance), spoke three different languages and represented every vocation from shepherd to King to tax collector to physician, and yet, and yet, somehow, this 66-book volume is unified on ethics, social values, doctrine, theology (understanding of God), worldviews, purposes, man's dilemma, etc. etc. etc.

Maybe you're right. It does appear there was One Author of these 66 books after all...One Who Inspires...His initials are H.S.

[Wonder Warthog]

"I trust good science. Problem is, evolutionary theory is not good science, it is conjecture based on a false premise."

And your scientific REPLACEMENT for evolutionary theory is what??? "Intelligent design" doesn't hack it, as it fails the PRIMARY test of a scientific theory---it cannot be used to predict and/or explain facts in other fields of science. Evolution can, has, and does.

[munchtipq]

This is my first post here, though I've been regularly reading freerepublic.com for a while now. I'm pretty liberal in general, and I recognize that this is meant to be a conservative forum, so I won't post often, but I wanted very badly to say something about this.

The Theory of Evolution, as I understand it (as a scientist) does not claim any understanding of the origin of life. This is something that I think gets conflated a lot. Theories on the origin of life are, for the most part, not scientifically interesting, because they make no predictions, and so are not testable. They are the realm of philosophy, religion, whatever, but not science.

Evolution, on the other hand, deals only with the process of mutation and subsequent natural selection. Purely speaking, the mutations don't even have to be genetic, though genetics is pretty solid so we usually assume that this is in fact the source of the mutations. What makes Evolution a valid scientific theory is that it makes predictions, and those predictions have in fact been verified in the fossil record. Hence it is taught in science classes, as it should be.

Origin of life theories, however, should never see the inside of a science classroom, because without predictive capability, they're not science. I haven't read the Behe paper referenced in the article regarding an argument that there is a complexity that genetic mutation cannot overcome. I am interested to read it. If that turns out to be true, it will disprove several origin of life theories (primordial soup excited by an electric charge is a common one), but it will not affect the theory of Evolution at all.

That's all I wanted to say, and I will try not to invade the posts here with my liberal opinions, nor hide them, but post when I feel something should be said that is independent of the liberal/conservative divide. I hope that this is an acceptable position.

-joe

[Oztrich Boy]

The whole reason Archaeopteryx was considered a transitional species was because of the lack a bony sternum.

Never the whole reason

Never mind that we had no full specimens of Archaeopteryx.

Yet the largest bone, most likely to be preserved is always missing?

A specimen was found, fully intact at a site in Germany, and guess what else, it was found WITH a SOLID bony sternum

Finally one specimen, with a small sternum, not identical to modern birds is found.

Scientists consider it a new species showing evidence of evolution towarsd avian features

Creationists consider it an excuse for hand waving, "See just a bird. Pay no attention to the detials. Science is like a blabbermouth who ruins a movie by telling you how it ends. There are some things we don't want to know. Important things."

[Wonder Warthog]

"The problem with evolution is that SCIENCE DISAGREES WITH IT!!!!! If you would spend a little time RESEARCHING, rather than reading every little thing you get your hands on and BLINDLY BELIEVING, you'd see the obvious error of your beliefs."

Sorry, dude---wrong. Evolution = science. There "is" not other available SCIENTIFIC theory. "Intelligent design" ain't science.

[Wonder Warthog]

"Oh yeah, and every honest geology professor will also tell you that carbon dating is extremely highly inaccurate. But you have never heard that, have you."

Gee--my sister-in-law is a geophysicist, and she thinks the carbon dating is valid. So do I--as I used to DO carbon dating years ago.

[The Bard]

We didn't descend from apes. We share a common ancestor.

Actually, we share a common creator....

[Still Thinking]

Are all conservatives dumb?

No, just you.

Do you really think that some "intelligent designer" would have made such a botch out of this world?

He did a good job. Humans hosed it up by ignoring His instructions for living.

And if there was an "intelligent designer", don't you think that we'd see some tiny scrap of evidence of his existence?

Um, we do. Lots.