Posted on 05/03/2010 6:22:25 AM PDT by Need4Truth
A major storm of protest against the myth of evolution has been building for many years, as proved by almost a thousand major scientists, all with doctorates who have signed on to the following statement as of 2010: “We are skeptical of claims for the ability of random mutation and natural selection to account for the complexity of life. Careful examination of the evidence for Darwinian theory should be encouraged.”
Those scientists threw down the gauntlet to evolutionists by publishing a two-page ad in a national magazine with the heading, “A Scientific Dissent From Darwinism.” Fevered, fanatical, and foolish evolutionists will charge that those dissenting scientists were backwoods yokels (maybe even a few snake handlers and flat earthers mixed in) dug up by pushy creationists to promote their cause. Not so, I have gone over the list and if certification and accreditation are so important, impressive, and indispensable, then those people will give evolutionists a perpetual heartburn.
(Excerpt) Read more at canadafreepress.com ...
And yet Evolution so far is the best answer we have so my statement that “Until a better theory is stated Evolution will be the champ.”
Sorry for your loss.
How about an approach along these lines --
Science is a bold and exciting field. Through experimentation, we have learned a great deal about chemistry, magnetism, electricity, and biology. But there is still much to learn! No one yet understands how the universe came into being. Did anything exist before the Big Bang? There are competing theories (assign classwork). Also, no one understands how life arose on planet Earth. There are competing theories (assign classwork). In addition, the tremendous abundance of life is still the topic of much debate. Does all life on Earth share a common ancestor? Or does life exist as "kinds" with variations within a particular "kind" but no overlap between the "kinds"? What do we mean when we declare something to be a "species"? Can one species give rise to another species? There are competing theories (assign classwork).
Teach science as an exploratory task, and stop saying that complex issues have been decided one way or the other, because we just don't have anything like proof.
Been done in the lab.
Most Christian homeschoolers that I know of
teach the “opposing” materialist-based assumed “truths”
in order that their students can effectively refute
those ideas when confronted with them.
In other words, teach evolution, its holes, and why it’s
not a viable theory and why it is not going to work for
its primary purpose of promoting atheism.
“Evolution is the greatest engine of atheism ever invented.” ~ William Provine
Single-celled organisms have been shown to adapt to changing environmental pressures in the lab. No lab experiment has shown one species turning into something radically different - unless you have some citation I’m unaware of?
“I don’t think I’ll change your mind, but i d@mn well sure want to strengthen your logic.”
Because your logic is so much better? Ahhh, right the supeior intellect trying to teach those less capable. Where have I seen this before?
I acknowledge the example I chose was not clear enough. I’m not an expert in natural sciences, so while I know there is clear deliniation between dogs and cats, my description would be less than rigorous. My line of thought was, dogs and cats are similar, therefore evolving one into the other shouldn’t be a huge task. Clearly there are those here that are zealots about their belief system, so this simple example is not clear enough.
So, lets make this simple. Breed a fish, yield a mouse. Evolve a fish into a mouse. Do that, and I’m sold on evolution. Or as I said before, make life from primordial soup. Why hasn’t that been done?
By the way, does any of this really matter? I mean, you could believe we are the spawn of space aliens, so what? We can’t evolve things, evolutionists conveniently tell us the process is way too slow. So, it has no impact on us.
Science is not “worldview neutral”, nor is every opinion in science equally valid, as postmodernism would instruct.
No, in science we prefer ideas that lead are of use and lead to further ideas and information. Creationism, as an idea, is not science, is not equally valid, and is of absolutely no use in leading to further gains in knowledge.
Falsified? Er... not quite. I understand that some of the original ideas Darwin had as to HOW traits were passed were disproved or at least they have fallen out of favor.
However those ideas were better answered by Genetics and Darwin’s natural selection still holds as a core to Evolution.
“Does that mean you have abandoned your ‘cross breeding is necessary for evolution’ stance? It seems obvious that even you have seen that such a position is indefensible.”
Reread what I said. I didn’t say cross breeding was essential. You interpreted it that way. I noted that cross breeding seemed to be not favored in our reality. I also noted that while cross breeding isn’t evolution as strictly defined, it is part of the mosaic that is life.
Carrying on a discussion with you, and several others all with flawed assumptions is time consuming and not productive.
Your approach is flawed, just like your reasoning.
Fish to mouse has been done.
We almost did mouse to fish (d@mn gills)
But seriously, there is a point of no return with biology, you can’t burn a tree and rebuild it from the remains.
The purpose behind evolution is to show us how cancer mutates and changes, how viruses respond to vaccines, how pests adapt to poison. Evolution provides the scientific and logical framework to better understand our world.
Ask yourself, who would you want treating your child, the “too complex” crew who’ll just throw up their hands say “Cancer is too complicated, it was God’s will, you better pray.”
Genetics and Darwinism assume opposite origins.
Genetics assumes that all information necessary for adaptative traits was already present in the original breeding stock,
and Darwinism assumes that little information can yield gradually greater information in the adaptive traits observable in the world today.
That's a pretty arrogant assumption about creationists and biologists who base their studies of the cell based on creationism.
On what do you base this view?
It depends on your definition of "radically different". The specific experiment I refer to was done with fruit flies. The result of the experiment was two species of flies that could NOT interbreed at all (i.e. matings produced no offspring), which is by the very definition, two species. Those two strains of fruit flies were thus less related than dogs and wolves or lions and tigers, both of which pairs of species which are considered separate species, but which CAN interbreed and produce viable offspring.
One might conclude from your statement that you saw species cross breeding producing fertile offspring as somehow indicative of how nature was “set up” for evolution.
Cross breeding between species, especially in plants, is quite favored in our reality; but it is neither a necessary or a sufficient mechanism of evolution.
It is your assumption that was flawed. Correcting you was time consuming and evidently not productive. The problem with most creationists is not just that they don’t know, it is that they refuse to learn. You seem to be a case in point.
Oh no that was the hand of God that made them.
Tell me, ever seen a 'Nene' before? It is a Hawaiian goose that doesn't fly, doesn't honk, and has clawed feet to grip the lava rock.
Looks like a strange Canadian Goose right? That's because it evolved from a Canadian goose over 5000 years ago.
Gee wonder how much the bird would evolve if it survived another 30,000-40,000 years isolated like that? 
“One might conclude from your statement that you saw species cross breeding producing fertile offspring as somehow indicative of how nature was “set up” for evolution.”
And one would be making conclusions without all the evidence. My statement doesn’t say that cross breeding was essential for evolution. But you read it that way. Interesting that someone with such a great intellect, and what I assume to be a disciplined, scientific mind, would make such a leap.
“Cross breeding between species, especially in plants, is quite favored in our reality; but it is neither a necessary or a sufficient mechanism of evolution.”
So, we are now going to include flora with the fauna. Ok, evolve a mammal from a plant?
“It is your assumption that was flawed. Correcting you was time consuming and evidently not productive. The problem with most creationists is not just that they don’t know, it is that they refuse to learn. You seem to be a case in point.”
Once again, you assume too much. My statement of belief in creation versus evolution makes me a “creationist”? Do you mean that with all the connotations of that word? By casting me with a larger lot? I’ll not bore you with my belief system, or where I am in the specturm of creation vs. evolution. You wouldn’t be able to assimilate the information anyway, you seem to be too invested in the fight.
By the way, I take the use of my own words in reply as a high compliment. You were unable to do better, and we all know immitation is the sincerest form of flattery.
“The mistake you make is the assumption that people who are skeptical of evolution would actually wish to teach science is a completely one-sided fashion.”
I think I made it pretty clear in other posts that if another theory better answered what we see in the fossil record than Evolution I would not be against it. I would be quite open to it as a matter of fact.
If you have a better alternative then WHY don’t you people arguing against it just SAY it? Why make ME GUESS at what you are getting at?
But that isn’t what people are saying here and generally speaking that isn’t what people ever say here. Every argument I ever have always ends up bashing Evolution to support some form of ID which is just plain bunk.
See my point? So please enlighten me with an idea that is radically different than the modern theory of Evolutionary.
Darwin said that natural selection alone could account for evolution. Are you saying that's possible?
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.