Why Darwin was wrong about the tree of life (Creationists have been saying this for decades!)

New Scientist ^ | January 21, 2009 | Graham Lawton

[GodGunsGuts]

...

The tree-of-life concept was absolutely central to Darwin's thinking, equal in importance to natural selection...Without it the theory of evolution would never have happened. The tree also helped carry the day for evolution.

...

For much of the past 150 years, biology has largely concerned itself with filling in the details of the tree. "For a long time the holy grail was to build a tree of life," says Eric Bapteste, an evolutionary biologist at the Pierre and Marie Curie University in Paris, France. A few years ago it looked as though the grail was within reach. But today the project lies in tatters, torn to pieces by an onslaught of negative evidence. Many biologists now argue that the tree concept is obsolete and needs to be discarded. "We have no evidence at all that the tree of life is a reality," says Bapteste. That bombshell has even persuaded some that our fundamental view of biology needs to change...

[Ken H]

I suspect that Cedric tacked Dr. onto the name because he assumed NM is a scientist, which most people assume = Ph.D. = Dr. And I have full confidence that Cedric is going to admit his mistake and apologize.

Doesn't allmendream have a point about the reason for citing Luke.10 [19]? That was the way I read it as well.

If not, what do you think the reason for the citation was?

[mdmathis6]

The theories of evolution have been used by non scientist socialist types to justify their monstrous activities over the past 150 years or so. Discussions of evolution vs the Biblical accounts of creation are important in understanding the motivations and psychology of the Dem liberals who are “hell bent” on destroying the Judeo Christian principles on which our nation were founded.

While the average biologist might be appalled at how Darwin has often been misused in the political arena, the top academics in the field have suppressed any meaningful scientific criticism of the subject. These top scientists in the field simply follow the money, advocating politically leftist “scientific opinions” that bolster the Dem socialist politicians’ anti christian view points in order to keep the funds flowing for the scientists’ pet projects.

These evolution discussions do belong here. The evolutionists who consider themselves fiscally conservative FREEPERS have got to understand that Christians’ biggest concerns with the subject have to do with attempts by socialist change agents and politicians to misuse the science to separate Americans from their godly heritage. George Washington said best when he stated “Religion and Morality were the twin props of liberty.”

There can be no morality derived from the theory of Evolution, only a chilling utilitarianism that declares the greatest good for the geatest number with wars being fought over the definition of “good”. A good and moral people ensures a free open society. A society that declares war on religion and morality in the name of evolutionary science ensures that a population arises that is unrestrained in evil and murder. Natural compassion and love are seldom found in such a people and consequentially the sick, weak, old, and the politically unfavored are in the cross hairs for elimination.

It is the attempt to derive a new type of morality from what is supposed to be morally neutral science that has Christians on edge concerning evolution. The ten commandments teaches a man not to steal and that there are eternal consequences for it. Science has no such restraints to teach men other than survival by tooth or claw or the supression of individuality for the greater survival of the hive(the socialist mindset).

I will say again it is the misuse of science and indeed evolution particularly by the socialist minded politicians (and their “scientist money grubbing toadies”) that have caused the most damage to the reputation of science in the minds of serious sober minded thinking Christians. True reason can be likened to a virgin that would never prostitute itself with a priori bias; the a priori biased thinkers would never like her anyway...she forces them to be intellectually honest with themselves!

[Rebel_Ace]

"The theories of evolution have been used by non scientist socialist types to justify their monstrous activities over the past 150 years or so."

I'll grant you that such justifications have occurred from time to time in the last 150 years or so, if you'll grant me that religions have been used to justify equally monstrous activities for the last 5000 years of recorded human history. There is no religious belief or scientific principle that is "stain free" with regards to people wanting to subjugate and abuse their fellow man. To claim that a belief or theory or scientific principle is false because people mis-use it falls flat, because EVERY belief or scientific principle has been so abused, therefore EVERYTHING must be false.

Science and Religion are not democracies. Appealling to numbers is a flawed argument. If I get a thousand scientists to agree with me, it does not make me right. If I have a thousand followers of my religion, it does not make it true. Saying a thousand people did something bad with this thing does not make the thing bad, it makes the thousand people bad. This same argument is used against GUN CONTROL LAWS.

You imply that these threads serve to as a springboard for discussions of morality. That is not what these threads do here, if you read them critically. What DOES happen is that someone (in the case of this thread, GGG) posts an article claiming to disprove some aspect of the SCIENTIFIC basis for evolutionary theory. Usually, the sources lead back to such places as "Answers in Genesis" or others with the pre-determined answer of Creationism as their starting point. Proponents of SCIENTIFIC investigation respond to these threads by saying such sources are academically irrelevant, and have no credibility.

The thread then "devolves" if you will into variations of the following 'dialog', if you want to call it that:

"I just know ALL eviloutionists are fact distorting LIARS!"

"I just know ALL YEC's are fact distorting LIARS!"

"AMEN! Preach it, Brother!"

"Your [fill in the blank] Expert is a FRAUD!"

"Your [fill in the blank] citation is a HOAX!"

Now, that does not sound like a discussion on the foundations of morality.

"True reason can be likened to a virgin that would never prostitute itself with a priori bias; the a priori biased thinkers would never like her anyway...she forces them to be intellectually honest with themselves!"

Since you bring up "intellectual honesty", here is probably what sticks in the craw of most of the people here on the "SCIENCE" side of the argument, and that is the lack of intellectual honesty on the part of most YEC proponents on this fundamental issue:

BY DEFINITION the process of SCIENTIFIC INVESTIGATION starts with a QUESTION, then derives ANSWERS based on where the EVIDENCE best leads. This is why science will end up revising and refining man's understanding as it progresses. That is also why an argument that some scientist from 150 years ago did not get EVERYTHING right the first go-around does not carriy much weight.

BY DEFINITION DOGMATIC BELIEF STARTS with the answer then cherry picks or discards evidence to fit the desired result. This is why the YEC's answer NEVER changes, NO MATTER WHAT evidence you put before them.

This is America, and you can BELIEVE what you want. But if you are a YEC, your Bible should inform you to have the INTELLECTUAL HONESTY to admit that what you are practicing DOES NOT FIT THE DEFINITION OF "SCIENCE". When you get "lectured" on morality from someone who refuses to admit, or is intellectually incapable of understanding this, it carries a lot less weight.

[headsonpikes]

Since what you say is true, I do not believe that these divisive threads deserve your thoughtful post.

But “Bravo!”, anyways.

[mdmathis6]

Let’s remember that you asked a question whether or not evo questioners should be raising religious questions on what is a political commentary site. My response was that the politicization of evolutionary science, principally by non scientist socialist types who were using evolution a a means to justify the destruction of bed-rock American principles, was very much valid topic of discussion.

I do agree with you that the arguements get a bit ad hominem on both sides of the arguement. I certainly agree that self honesty about personal motives and beliefs must be above board.

I also was not attacking or supporting evolution or change theories in any way shape or fashion. I was argueing about how the politicians and certain members of the “chattering class” always misuse science and try to fashion social policies based on theories and discoveries that have been “tortured and twisted” to fit an anti-American or anti chrisitan agenda. That is where a lot of Christians show concern. It’s not so much the science, but where evil men will try to take the science. A humourous line from a Tom Lehrer song illustrates the point; it has von Braun stating...”vonce da rockets go up, who carehhs vheres dey goes down...that’s not my depahhhrtment, says Verner von Braun”

[allmendream]

Not holding my breath.

Creationists truly have no shame.

“Liars for the Lord” ping.

[Fichori]

“Not holding my breath.

Creationists truly have no shame.

“Liars for the Lord” ping.”

Did you just call JR a liar?

[allmendream]

Not in the slightest. I am pointing out that Cedric apparently lied, and then attempted to give a scriptural justification for lying.

A sort of “Al-taqiyya” for Creationists.

[Rebel_Ace]

"Let’s remember that you asked a question whether or not evo questioners should be raising religious questions on what is a political commentary site..."

What I was trying to ask (apparently with less clarity than I hoped for) whether it was worthwhile to post nearly the SAME THING OVER AND OVER again. If I had some obsession with Clinton's old cat "Socks", as mentioned in some earlier reply, and kept posting the same thing over and over about Socks dying, readers might legitimately question why I would do that. The might suggest I take my posts to a site devoted to pets, where the subject of a pet cat posted over and over would be the "norm". The specific example I cited was another Freeper from days long gone who did the same thing with Magnetic Levitating Trains. Worthy of discussion when public funding is considered, but a tad excessive when posted OVER AND OVER with essentially no new information or events.

"...I was argueing about how the politicians and certain members of the “chattering class” always misuse science and try to fashion social policies based on theories and discoveries that have been “tortured and twisted” to fit an anti-American or anti chrisitan agenda. That is where a lot of Christians show concern. It’s not so much the science, but where evil men will try to take the Science..."

Careful where you bandy about the

...“tortured and twisted” to fit... by evil men

generalization, as these threads have seen more than enough obvious and laughable "torturing and twisting to fit" particular beliefs held dear. When every geological formation that is jumbled becomes "evidence" for a world wide flood, when clearly stacked layers of ancient rock are simply passed off as "God Made Them Look Old", many YEC's need to look in the mirror with regard to "torturing and twisting to fit".

In closing, let me state that I greatly appreciate your polite and respectful replies, as a few others here could find a lesson in them. Thanks, and have a good rest of the day!

-RA

[Cedric]

“No rational man, cognizant of the facts, believes that the average Negro is the equal, still less the superior, of the white man. And if this be true, it is simply incredible that, when all his disabilities are removed, and our prognathus relative has a fair field and no favour, as well as no oppressor, he will be able to compete successfully with his bigger-brained and smaller jawed rival, in a contest which is to be carried out on by thoughts and not by bites.”

Dr. Thomas Henry Huxley
(Dr. Darwin’s Bulldog)

[mdmathis6]

“tortured and twisted” to fit... by evil men”

I had in mind the Stalins,Sangers,Lenins,Pol Pots, and a whole host of socialist western politicians that are intellectually enfeebling their nations so that their peoples grope blindly without vision having been readied for enslavement.

Governments who engineer the whole sale slaughter of undesirable people groups, I tend to call “evil”. Individuals who apply a pseudo scientific sophistry in support of the abortion and sterilization of undesired people groups, bastardizing true science, I tend to call evil! When science is twisted to support a leftist agenda in the name of the threats of global warming, I call the folks doing that evil, especially when they lead the less scientifically grounded astray! I hate the leftist/socialist politicization of science because it has leading our world into great evil.

I am a fan of pure science guided by personal honesty and integrity. I am a fan of the unsung heros, the scientists who realize they have spent a few years of time going down a blind alley, and admit it because even in failure they have contributed greatly to general knowledge.

The world of science has been co-opted in many areas as it has no restraining ethic other than the voluntary personal ethics of the practitioners. Thus we have the Hansen types(director of Nasa) who quite regularly call for political leftist change based on his twisted notions of global warming.

I am a Christian and a fan of science, but more importantly a fan of reason. Reason has limits as she enforces personal honesty but she can not help bridge epistomological gaps between knowledge and objects. Faith and hope ultimately bridge those gaps and as for one’s sense of meaning and direction in life, charity can provide instruction and ethical reinforcement!

[Cedric]

Job 34:6 (a)
Although I am right, I am considered a liar

[allmendream]

And rightly so considered Mr. Al-taqiyya.

As shrewd as a dove and as honest as a serpent.

[Cedric]

The clock is ticking.

[allmendream]

Yes, and GGG’s confidence that you would admit your error must be running rather low at this point.

[Cedric]

Matthew 7:5
Hypocrite, cast out first the beam out of thine eye, and then thou wilt see clearly to cast out the mote out of the eye of thy brother.

[Ken H]

Job 34:6 (a) Although I am right, I am considered a liar

From GodGunsGuts:

And Cedric, don't be bashful, I looked up NM's quote, and that website you most likely took his quote from has him listed as a scientist in error. Just admit you made a mistake and move on. It's the right thing to do, and if you don't, these guys will never let you live it down.

--#153 GodGunsGuts

And I have full confidence that Cedric is going to admit his mistake and apologize.

--#155GodGunsGuts

[allmendream]

A liar thinks you have to catch them in EVERY lie, but in reality you only have to catch them in one lie to know that nothing they say is to be trusted.

[Cedric]

So, now we know that GGG doesn’t tell me what to do, don’t we ladies?

[Cedric]

allmendream is a heterosexual.