A Revolution in Evolution Is Underway

Thomas More Lawcenter ^ | Tue, Jan 18, 2005

[Lurking Libertarian]

Thankful placemarker.

[Purple GOPer]

Agreed, I also think it would be a good idea to teach students that the greatest thinkers of all time could only work with the information available to them. Unfortunately most high schools do not teach it.

[Old Landmarks]

This is all that Darwin ever had to say on the subject of life's origin.

So are you suggesting that the -modern theory of evolution- and Darwinism are the same thing?

[BedRock]

I was simply trying to understand the statement Darwin made in his book Origin of Species, the 6th edition.

What I posted was quoted from the book by fellow freeper, Patrick Henry.

:-)

[js1138]

So are you suggesting that the -modern theory of evolution- and Darwinism are the same thing?

What part is different? There have been a lot of details filled in, but I'm not aware of any great divide between Darwin and current theory.

Darwin had no knowledge of genetics, but he was clear on that. He had no way of knowing the source or processes of modification, but he was clear on that.

[Dimensio]

So are you suggesting that the -modern theory of evolution- and Darwinism are the same thing?

Their scope and overall theme is the same: the diversity of life on Earth today originated from common ancestry. The theory of evolution does not cover abiogenesis.

[Purple GOPer]

There is a great essay on what to tell High School students at http://paulgraham.com/hs.html.

Sorry I am new here and I am not sure how to post new subjects or I would make it a separate topic.

[Dimensio]

Still dishonestly asserting that evolution has ever tied itself to abiogenesis.

But, hey, I'll bite. I'm sure that I won't get a logical or rational answer, but I'll ask anyway.

Say that tomorrow, biologists determine that it is completely impossible for life to emerge from non-life. That abiogenesis is impossible (I know that you assert that it is impossible now, but I'm speaking of a hypothetical scenario where your claim is actually backed by reality). How does this falsify common descent? Be specific in explaining the mechanisms of common descent that are falsified, and make sure that you explain how the (hypothetical) fact that abiogenesis is impossible makes them false.

[BedRock]

An argument was made that Abiogenesis and Evolution cannot be used in the same discussion to discredit the other. And the original intent of this thread of discussion was on entertaining the discussion of an alternate theory for life's existance today.

It was stated that Intelligent Design could not be introduced into the classroom because it was theism. Many today that post on these threads will claim that Darwin never implied that the existance of a "Creator" was even plausible, let alone had anything to do with the creation of the existance of life on earth.

Yet here is a paragraph in his own writings that conveys that the "Creator" breathed life into whatever it was He created....

[Dimensio]

It was stated that Intelligent Design could not be introduced into the classroom because it was theism.

Well, yes. Many of its proponents reveal this, sometimes even deliberately.

Many today that post on these threads will claim that Darwin never implied that the existance of a "Creator" was even plausible, let alone had anything to do with the creation of the existance of life on earth.

I've never said such a thing. I've actually quoted Darwin to counter morons who claim that Darwin came up with evolution simpy as a means of "explaining away a Creator".

[ThinkPlease]

Why should I? If you were just guessing just say so, your credibility can't get any lower at this point anyway.

[Dimensio]

You're the one making a claim about the content of the theory of evolution. The onus is upon you to demonstrate that your claim is true. Attempting to shift the burden of proof is fundamentally dishonest of you.

[js1138]

Evolution was widely accepted before Darwin. What caused the stir was natural selection and common descent. Prior to darwin, evolution was assumed to have been the result of special creation. ID, in other words.

[BedRock]

If you feel that "many" includes you; then sobeit...

[BedRock]

It wasn't the "idea" that caused the stir.

It is in the way it is being presented....

[js1138]

Are you suggesting that an idea that has withstood 145 years of controversy and testing should be presented as if it were a wild-eyed hypothesis?

[BedRock]

In the arena of "theoretical science" one can make a claim based on any number of "assumptions." As long as postulates are obtained that are somewhat based on factual evidence, the theory will stand in the scientific field. As a matter of fact, it doesn't even have to rise to the level of probability, just a "likelihood" that it happened that way.

[BedRock]

Are you suggesting that an idea that has withstood 145 years of controversy and testing should be presented as if it were a wild-eyed hypothesis?

Are you suggesting that an idea that has withstood 2000+ years of controversy and testing should be presented as if it were a wild-eyed hypothesis?

[Fester Chugabrew]

. . . your credibility can't get any lower at this point anyway.

Unless you are the ultimate judge of other people's credibility I suggest you take your high horse some other direction, preferably down wind.

[js1138]

Are you saying you have put God to the test?