Posted on 12/18/2004 5:56:30 PM PST by PatrickHenry
Hi, Nebullis! Whatcha been up to?
This article makes the assumption that creationists are just ignorant of the THEORY of evolution. The fact is, the whole country has had this crammed down it's throat in public school for decades.
Evolution is being rejected because of what people know about it, not because of what we don't know.
Similar mistake is made by the Democrats-- they think they just didn't get their message out. Right.
Hmmm... mind if I ask you some questions about the Theory of Evolution?
Why not? It is.
In my long experience, they are. They ridicule a "cartoon version" of evolution, not the real theory. I've had to correct literally *hundreds* of misconceptions that creationists on FR *alone* have had about evolution.
The fact is, the whole country has had this crammed down it's throat in public school for decades.
Then they need to do a better job, because most people don't really know how it works or what the evidence for it might be.
Evolution is being rejected because of what people know about it, not because of what we don't know.
Actually, in my experience evolution is being rejected because the creationists keep telling so many outrageous lies about it. See my profile page for a few hundred examples just from FR alone.
Let's try a test -- tell me why what you know about evolution that has caused *you* to reject it (presuming you have).
[...]
Evolution is the religion of those who would elevate man above God.
I see... And how does your little thesis deal with the fact that the majority of Americans who accept evolution are *Christians*?
That's good. Very good.
ROFL! You've been reading too much creationist material, I see. Sorry, but "punctuated equilibrium" is neither a "hopeful monster" theory, nor did it "throw out" Darwinism. Darwin himself described punctuated equilibrium, you nut. Are you sure you know what in the hell you're talking about?
Here's part of a post I wrote in response to yet another FR creationist who didn't actually understand punctuated equilibrium as well as he thought he did:
Care to try again?Furthermore, if you're under the mistaken belief that Gould's disagreement with "Darwinian gradualism" is the same thing as a rejection of "Darwinian *evolution*", you're grossly mistaken. While Darwin did lean towards a belief that evolution would usually proceed slowly, that doesn't change the fact that even though we've learned in the past 144 years that evolution can proceed at varying rates (sometimes rapidly by geological standards, sometimes almost coming to a standstill), the processes driving the transformation are still those which Darwin laid out. In other words, "Darwinian evolution" is vindicated even though a presumption of "nothing but gradualism" is not. Gould writes:
"We believe that Huxley was right in his warning. The modern theory of evolution does not require gradual change. In fact, the operation of Darwinian processes should yield exactly what we see in the fossil record. It is gradualism that we must reject, not Darwinism."Or:
- Stephen Jay Gould, The Panda's Thumb (1980), p. 182, emphasis added."It [punctuated equilibrium] represents no departure from Darwinian mechanisms."So much for Gould "agreeing" with you and disagreeing with "Darwinian evolution", eh?
-- Gould and Eldredge 1977, Section IV, "PE as the basis for a Theory of Macroevolution", page 139Furthermore, Gould has long been faulted for overstating Darwin's belief in gradualism. The following quote from Darwin's "On the Origin of Species" makes clear that he fully expected sudden events to appear in the fossil record, *and* that evolution would proceed at varying rates at different times:
"Widely ranging species vary most, and varieties are often at first local, -- both causes rendering the discovery of intermediate links less likely. Local varieties will not spread into other and distant regions until they are considerably modified and improved; and when they do spread, if discovered in a geological formation, they will appear as if suddenly created there, and will be simply classed as new species. Most formations have been intermittent in their accumulation; and their duration, I am inclined to believe, has been shorter than the average duration of specific forms. ... During the alternate periods of elevation and of stationary level the record will be blank. During these latter periods there will probably be more variability in the forms of life; during periods of subsidence, more extinction."Or even more succinctly:Charles Darwin, "On the Origin of Species", 1859
"But I must here remark that I do not suppose that the process ever goes on so regularly as is represented in the diagram, though in itself made somewhat irregular, nor that it goes on continuously; it is far more probable that each form remains for long periods unaltered, and then again undergoes modification.In fact, it's obvious that Darwin himself foresaw at least the basics of punctuated equilibrium, if not the full scope of it.
Charles Darwin, "On the Origin of Species", 1859...
There you go again, going off the deep end. As even the above quotes should make clear, Gould hardly "split completely with Darwinian evolutionists". And again, anyone who has actually bothered to read his works couldn't possibly make such a bone-headed mistake about his position.
You would be well advised to read All you need to know about Punctuated Equilibrium (almost): Common misconceptions concerning the hypothesis of Punctuated Equilibrium. Table of contents is as follows, you might find some of the points familiar:
Much confusion has surrounded the concept of Punctuated Equilibrium (PE) as proposed by Niles Eldredge and Stephen Jay Gould in 1972. This essay addresses a few of the erroneous views held by many creationists and even some evolutionary biologists concerning PE. There are several main points I wish to make:1. There are two common uses of "gradualism," one of which is more traditional and correct, the other of which is equivalent to Eldredge and Gould's "phyletic gradualism."
2. Darwin was not a "phyletic gradualist," contrary to the claims of Eldredge and Gould.
3. PE is not anti-Darwinian; in fact, the scientific basis and conclusions of PE originated with Charles Darwin.
4. PE does not require any unique explanatory mechanism (e.g. macromutation or saltation).
5. Eldredge and Gould's PE is founded on positive evidence, and does not "explain away" negative evidence (e.g. a purported lack of transitional fossils).
No they don't. Where did you "learn" this nonsense?
What this means is there is no scientific basis for a fish to grow claws,a reptile to grow hair or feathers.
No, what it means is that you don't understand thermodynamics.
The gene that causes these traits would have to have appeared out of nothing
No, it would appear out of prior genetic material, which is not "nothing". Try again.
Mutations when occurring are almost always regressive in nature and are not beneficial to the original species.
Please quantify "almost always" if you think you can.
They are also usually sterile
False, but don't let that stop you...
Evolution cannot nor has been demonstrated by any means what so ever.
Oh... Then what is this, or this, or this, to mention just a few out of the literally millions of confirmations of evolution and common descent?
That is no one has seen or found evidence of the vast numbers of "missing links" that natural selection or random beneficial mutation would require.
You mean other than these several hundred examples, out of the countless thousands which have been discovered?
Are you sure you know what in the hell you're talking about?
That is why when challenged on the merits no rational argument is presented only assumptions and presumptions that require as much or more faith in the unseen or unprovable as intelligent creation.
Let's put your claim to the test, shall we? You "challenge evolution on the merits", and then you can see whether we respond with "rational arguments" or "assumptions...that require...faith in the unseen or unprovable". Go for it.
Wow! Thanks for the warning. I was gonna go out and buy a couple of case of dog food for my dobies, but if time's that short, I guess I'll just spend the dough on some Viagra and go out with a flourish.
You don't believe the Bible when it purports to tell the "how," then? "How" God directed Noah to build the ark, for example, or "how" Jesus was crucified, or how humanity came into sin?
I think "US" and "OUR" refer to the fellowship of the Trinity.
"I think "US" and "OUR" refer to the fellowship of the Trinity."
Why is Jeremiah told in 1:5 "Before I formed thee in the belly I knew thee; and before thou camest forth out of the womb I sanctified thee, and I ordained thee a prophet unto the nations."
Jeremiah has a history before he was formed in the womb.
Also it is written in the OLD and the NEW that Jacob I loved and Esau I hated before they were born. That as well says there is a history before being born of woman in the flesh.
Hebrews 2:14 Forasmuch then as the children are partakers of the flesh and blood, He also Himself likewise took part of the same; that through death He might destroy him that had the power of death, that is, the devil;
15 And deliver them who through fear of death were all their lifetime subject to bondage.
16 For verily He took not on Him the nature of angels; but He took on Him the seed of Abraham.
So again when were the souls created?
I'm not going too far into this argument, simply because crevo debates are not my 'hobby', so to speak.
But here's a big problem I have with it- no empirical evidence.
Never has it been demonstrated that an isolated population will mutate into a different species that can no longer breed with the larger population. Sure, organisms adapt and change behaviors and characteristics, but on a cellular level, the proliferation of species is not explained by mutation.
Even a demonstration of how this works with simple life forms would suffice. With all the gene splicing that's coming along, I would think that evolutionists could produce results in the lab that support their position.
False dichotomy. Most of the "Es" on this forum are God-fearing types. We simply don't subscribe to a literal interpretation of Genesis as it flies in the face of the physical evidence.
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.