Evolutionists Fear Academic Freedom

Townhall.com ^ | July 5, 2008 | Floyd and Mary Beth Brown

[xenophiles]

If you read Gish’s book, or research the fossil record, you will see that there is no (zero) fossil evidence for transitional forms.

An excellent reason not to read books by the old fool: "Tiktaalik roseae, was recently discovered on Canada. The fossil is important because it fills in a gap in the transition from fish to amphibians and provides clues as to how the transition took place".

Ah Soliton, you fail to see the cleverness of the creationist argument; now that a transitional form between fish and amphibians has been found, it's no longer transitional. It will be quietly removed from the the list of fossils that should exist but don't (like reptiles->birds or land mammals->whales) and they won't admit they ever challenged science to find it. From now on when they say that there is no (zero) evidence for transitional forms, they'll mean between fish and tiktaalik roseae, and between tiktaalik roseae and amphibians.

[aruanan]

Ah Soliton, you fail to see the cleverness of the creationist argument; now that a transitional form between fish and amphibians has been found, it's no longer transitional.

Ah, xenophiles, you fail the see the cleverness of the evolutionist argument by Stephen Jay Gould of explaining the paucity of so-called transitional forms by positing periods of evolution that are so fast and furious that there is not sufficient time to preserve them in the fossil record. Don't be so smug.

[xenophiles]

The question is: what life forms preceded the creatures of the Cambrian explosion, and where is the evidence?

That is a question, and the answer is: acritarchs, bacteria, probably a bunch of other stuff I don't know about (and much more that nobody knows about). We have fossils of these things.

But I suspect the real question you're trying to form is "what were the latest life forms that left no fossils, and where are the fossils of them? Tell me what they were, and then show me a fossil of them, or else I win."

[pabianice]

What a stupid argument. If your thesis cannot be proven consistently by different observers, then it’s trash.

[Soliton]

From now on when they say that there is no (zero) evidence for transitional forms, they'll mean between fish and tiktaalik roseae, and between tiktaalik roseae and amphibians.

The space for cretion gets smaller though doesn't it?

[AnalogReigns]

You’re talking about indirect evidence. Evolution is a theory about a PROCESS, not the current (testable/falsifiable) DNA in lizards today or fossils deposited in the past. As a process that hypothetically takes millions of years, unless humanity lives for a few more millions of years (and keeps a constant state or progress of civilization, observation, and records), or develops a time machine, one cannot observe the process happening. Do organisms mutate, adapt and change? Of course, no one denies that as it’s testable and falsifiable. But do they change for the better by progressively becoming more complex? In spite of thousands of studies on fruit flies, bacteria and the like, I know of no study that proves that...

This idea is not original to me. Dr. Norman Geisler, a respected conservative philosopher, brought this out: Since both creationist AND evolutionist hypotheses are about the distant and pre-historic past, which as the past is NOT subject to falsifiable experimentation and testing, theories need to be kept more humbly and without dogmatism. The fact is, neither you nor I KNOW what happened millions of years ago—since all we have is bones and layers of dirt—so are ideas are testable only in a most indirect way, and it’s sheer arrogance to profess that we do or even can know any pre-history for certain.

If legitimate historians argue about how Custer lost the Battle of Little Bighorn, a bit over a century ago, in an era of written records, and lots of forensic evidence and even eye witnesses, why do we have such overconfidence to describe events many million more times farther away?

To posit a bottom line that random processes made the Universe, and even more fantastically, that these made the scientifically proven unimaginable complexities of organic life, is, at its core a religious, albeit materialistic, faith. Even some great evolutionary scientists have acknowledged this problem (Jasper and the pan-spermia idea—which merely puts origins somewhere else, not solving the problem). Lacking that time machine, origin issues are, by their very nature religious issues, and scientific knowledge, like religious knowledge, but in different ways, is limited.

I simply don’t have enough faith to believe order “arose” from disorder, especially when a scientifically accepted law (and testable/falsifiable) on energy (2nd Law of Thermodymics) says just the opposite. Order arose from an Orderer...and is that religious? Yes, it is where religion and science meet, as there logically they must.

[mtg]

I’m not against discussion of religion in public schools. However, my point was that assertions based on faith do not belong in classes that are supposed to be about science.

I agree with you. Religion does not belong in a science class. But I do believe that full discussion about evolution needs to be presented to students. The problems confronting the theory evolution need to be addressed, as well as evidence for evolution. Evolutionists do not want this kind of discussion presented to students in the study of evolutionary science.

[mtg]

In science, how is a theory "proven to be a fact?"

That's the whole problem. In schools across the nation, evolution is presented as scientific fact. It is therefore, the schools that are teaching "evolution" wrongly.

[mtg]

Religious indoctrination is the reason Hindu children are Hindus, Christian children are Christians, and why you believe a big daddy in the sky created everythinhg by speaking words in a vacuum.

Silly statement. No one is forced to believe any religious teaching (at least in a free society). I choose to believe in God, you don't.

As far as God speaking words in a vacuum, if there is a God then there never was a vacuum (not to mention that God transcends any scientific explanation). Of course, if you can prove to me there is no God, then I'll gladly eat my words.

[Non-Sequitur]

Of all this evidence, which is the strongest?

That would depend on which question you're trying to answer.

[Non-Sequitur]

Supporting" does not equal "proving." While I agree that the accepted interpretation of existing evidence supports evolution, it does not yet prove evolution.

Many believe the evidence proves the hypothesis. What would you require for it to be 'proven'?

Thus the need to open up discussion.

How far would you open it?

[Non-Sequitur]

What do the evolutionists say—to those who would like to be certain that their belief in evolution is based on firm science—about the lack of fossil evidence for transitional forms?

I can't speak for all but if I were asked that question then I would point to that hundreds of transitional fossils have been identified, most of which are listed here.

[Non-Sequitur]

Is the theory of Evolution falsifiable?

Certainly. I could think of several things that would destroy evolution. If you were to find a fossil of a homo sapien in with Brontosaurus, for example. Of if you found a fossile of a modern horse that is millions of years old. Both would refute evolution as we know it.

[gusopol3]

so why doesn’t the outcome of an experiment consistent with Lamarckian transmission of acquired characteristics ,and not conistent with Darwinian theory ,falsify Darwinism as the comprehensive explanation you purport it is?

[Coyoteman]

In schools across the nation, evolution is presented as scientific fact. It is therefore, the schools that are teaching "evolution" wrongly.

The theory of evolution is being taught as a theory.

In science, a theory incorporates the following:

Theory: a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world; an organized system of accepted knowledge that applies in a variety of circumstances to explain a specific set of phenomena; theories can incorporate facts and laws and tested hypotheses. Theories do not grow up to be laws. Theories explain laws.

Theory: A scientifically testable general principle or body of principles offered to explain observed phenomena. In scientific usage, a theory is distinct from a hypothesis (or conjecture) that is proposed to explain previously observed phenomena. For a hypothesis to rise to the level of theory, it must predict the existence of new phenomena that are subsequently observed. A theory can be overturned if new phenomena are observed that directly contradict the theory.

When a scientific theory has a long history of being supported by verifiable evidence, it is appropriate to speak about "acceptance" of (not "belief" in) the theory; or we can say that we have "confidence" (not "faith") in the theory. It is the dependence on verifiable data and the capability of testing that distinguish scientific theories from matters of faith.

There is generally only one theory going in a particular field at a given time. There are often hypotheses being raised and studied and these are often incorrectly referred to as theories, using the layman's use of the term.

The theory of evolution is taught not as a fact (although it certainly is; see the definition below), but as the best explanation for the observations that have been made. There are no competing theories. There are religious beliefs that run counter to the theory of evolution, but within science there are no competing theories.

But what creationists are really demanding is that their religious beliefs be accorded the status of scientific theories without going through the rigorous process to be accepted as a scientific theory. (Kind of like a special affirmative action program for religion, eh?)

So, given that the theory of evolution is the only theory covering its field, and there is only religious belief without scientific evidence or standing in opposition, its only appropriate to teach the theory of evolution in schools and religion in churches.

Fact: when an observation is confirmed repeatedly and by many independent and competent observers, it can become recognized as a fact.

[gusopol3]

Here’s someone who agrees with you that academic freedom has constraints imposed by elite consensus:

“Writing to Houghton Mifflin Company, Hansen asks for changes in the textbook to reflect what he considers to be the truth and consensus:

http://wattsupwiththat.wordpress.com/2008/04/11/hansen-pressures-textbook-publisher/

Apparently, there is no room for debate in the classroom on these issues. Apparently also there is no uncertainty. Hansen also makes a mention of “so called activist scientists”. I think he proved the point about activist scientists quite well with this letter.”

[mtg]

The question is: what life forms preceded the creatures of the Cambrian explosion, and where is the evidence?

That is an interesting question. It's like life begins, then almost nothing happens for billions of years. Then all of sudden, one day, the Cambrian explosion begins. Almost all phyla appears in a short span of geological time. Then its back to stasis. Now if it was the increase of oxygen (which scientists have theorized) that caused the explosion, then why aren't new phylum being created all the time?

It's like nothing happened, nothing happened, nothing happened. Then one day, "Surprise!". A big surprise party that lasts for a short time, then everyone goes home. Instead of the "theory of evolution", maybe it should be called the "theory of surprise parties". Only that these surprise parties happen only once every few billion years. (Oh, and BTW, when they do happen we'll give them a fancy name such as "punctuated equilibrium". Not that it really explains anything, but it sounds nice.)

[mtg]

The theory of evolution is being taught as a theory.

First of all, evolution in not a fact, as you claim! It is only a possibility.

Secondly, it is being taught in many schools that there is absolutely no other explanation for our existence other than evolution. That is not teaching a theory. Don't get me wrong, I am not saying we should teach Creationism in science class. But as someone pointed out earlier, a theory is not fact.

So how about this? We start off teaching evolution by explaining just exactly how the first cell evolved. Remember though, it has to be more than just pointing out the components of a cell and how they function.

[lonestar67]

just checking

[Fichori]

"My research comes from VERY old books and LOTS of beople believe it too. Shouldn't that be good enough?

Belief does not equate truth.