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.

[The Bard]

Ever hear of carbon dating? Probably not.

Science Magazine (Vol 224, 1984) gives an example of shells from living snails being carbon dated at 27,000 years of age. Sort of casts some doubt on how reliable Cardon dating can be.

Also, According to Dr. Kent Hovind, at least six different radiometric dating methods are available. The assumed age of the sample will dictate which dating method is used because each will give a different result. For example: when dinosaur bones containing carbon are found, they are not carbon dated because the result would be only a few thousand years. Because this would not match the assumed age based on the geologic column, scientists use another method of dating to give an age closer to the desired result. All radiometric results that do not match the pre-assigned ages of the geologic column are discarded” In essence, The bones are dated according to the system that will yield the desired result the scientist wishes, and anything that contradicts this is tossed out.

“Contrary to what most scientists write, the fossil record does not support the Darwinian theory of evolution because it is this theory (there are several) which we use to interpret the fossil record. By doing so we are guilty of circular reasoning if we then say the fossil record supports this theory.”
- Ronald R. West, Ph.D.

“In fact, evolution became in a sense a scientific religion; almost all scientists have accepted it and many are prepared to ‘bend’ their observations to fit in with it.”
- H. S. Lipson, professor of physics, University of Manchester, UK

[Still Thinking]

Oh, and not to answer a question with a question, but if there ISN'T an "intelligent designer" shouldn't we be seeing non-living matter spontaneously dancing a jig (and voting Democrat)?

[Wonder Warthog]

"Sure it does and does so quite frequently."

Prove it! Exactly what has "intelligent design" accurately predicted in biology, biochemistry, or molecular biology.

Evolutionary theory has successfully predicted the adaptation of bacteria to drugs, the similarity of DNA across species, and many other things.

[F16Fighter]

"It has been the design of atheistic evolutionary theory to drag humans into Social darwinism whereby there is no absolute truth of morality, except that which the holders of power propose."

All a part of the Evil One's plan, ain't it?

Since Eve, he's tried to convince Man he CAN be his very own "all-knowing" God and arbitor of "truth" -- all the while sowing seeds of dissent and doubt.

[UCANSEE2]

Yeah, really. It's why they call it a THEORY.

[JFK_Lib]

American Spectator - "For far too long, the apologists for Darwin have relied on a strategy of portraying challengers as simple-minded religious zealots."

neoconsareright - "Get over it. We are apes."


Hah, that is such a lame response, neocon, that all I can say is, 'Thanks!' for helping ID folks look a little more respectable, heh.

[The Bard]

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.

I posted this as part of one of my other responses, but I had to include it here again:

“Contrary to what most scientists write, the fossil record does not support the Darwinian theory of evolution because it is this theory (there are several) which we use to interpret the fossil record. By doing so we are guilty of circular reasoning if we then say the fossil record supports this theory.”
- Ronald R. West, Ph.D.

[UCANSEE2]

The question is did we start out as apes or devolve to them?

De-evolution=Democrat?

[JFK_Lib]

ostrich boy - 'Perhaps we need a "Godwin's Law" for Creation/Evolution threads: First disputant to say "Praise the Lord!" loses."


Well, ostrich boy, that would appear to be you.

[Colofornian]

...belief in the Christian God is mutually exclusive to evolutionary theory. Ridiculous. Or perhaps you can show me where in the bible it says we must accept everything it says as literal?

Not everything in the Bible is literal; but not everything in any common language is literal, either, lest we couldn't even use phrases like "he bit the dust" or "the handwriting's on the wall" or anything else like that.

If folks are going to insist that both the Bible and macro-evolution are true and mutually consistent, then why even bother citing the Bible on this theory when we instead could just cite contemporaries--you know, theory-mongers w/a beat...music groups like Devo (short for De-evolution) instead...

"God created man. God created man, but He needed the monkey to do it. Are we not men? We are devo. Are we not men? We are d-e-v-o."

Boy! Aren't we all glad the monkey was there to bail out God! (I mean, if we evolved, we could have just as easily de-evolved...and, then, and, then, snail mail would have taken on a totally different meaning to us almost-meaningless, almost-purposeless, slugs).

[Wonder Warthog]

"Evolution fails the test of empirical science, for it can neither be tested in a laboratory nor is it observable in nature."

And that statment shows that your knowledge of what science is , how it works, and how it is proven are non-existent. Guess what, dude---MANY things in science are not directly testable in lab experiments, but are inferred from evidence from other fields of science. The astronomic event that killed off the dinosaurs can't be proven in any experiment, but the fact that it happened is un-arguable.

[VadeRetro]

False!

Is this a warning label for the post that follows? It should be.

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

False! It was pretty clear that it didn't have the large, keeled sternum of modern birds, but it was unlikely to have not had a sternum at all.

Here's a typical modern flying bird, a pigeon:

The sternum is that plow blade thing hanging way below the rib cage and passing between the legs. Archaeopteryx had nothing like that. Its sternum was more like that of a dinosaur.

So was the much of the rest of its skeleton. That's why it's a transitional.

A list of Archy's dromaeosaurid characteristics.

But, lest you follow Fred Hoyle and some other "Just a dinosaur!" creationist interpreters of Archy, the avian characteristics.

In short, a true transitional.

Never mind that we had no full specimens of Archaeopteryx. Well, guess what? A specimen was found, fully intact at a site in Germany, and guess what else, it was found WITH a SOLID bony sternum, fully capable of power flight!!!!

Most people already thought Archy could fly, although probably not a strong flyer. Some recent studies have bolstered that contention.

As in one of my last posts, we now have bird fossils pre-dating Archaeopteryx.

Not so much false unlikely. Eoavis is a highly crushed specimen, a probable mosaic of more than one animal and quite possibly more than one kind of animal. The finder, Chatterjee, has refused to allow independent examination of his find. This is one fossil bird that so far doesn't fly.

[babyface00]

Joe,

Welcome to FreeRepublic!

[Quix]

No.

But some sure act a lot like it.

[Wonder Warthog]

"I didn't say carbon dating wasn't "valid", I said, as any "honest"(being the operative word there) geologist will tell you(I have known and still know a great deal of them) that carbon dating is highly inaccurate."

Sorry, but bullshit. Carbon dating as practiced today is very accurate, and the sources of deviation are well known and identified.

[VadeRetro]

Not so much false unlikely.

Not so much false as unlikely.

So much ignorance, so little time to proof.

[Still Thinking]

Ever hear of carbon dating? Probably not.

Ever hear of the "flood"? Probably not. If the Bible account of a global flood from a cloud canopy is correct, incidence of solar radiation in antedeluvian times would have been reduced, lowering the fraction of C14 from the ratio expected today. Samples of organisms from that period would date as being far older than they actually are.