Lawsuit Filed Against Evolution

Christian News Wire ^ | Jan. 27, 2011

[allmendream]

I don't know about that.

I wasn't just taught that DNA replicates in a semi-conservative fashion, I was shown the original experiment with heavy isotopes that showed that it was most likely true.

We have since come upon a thousand and one further confirmations that it is true, and hundreds of different results that are explained by it being true.

But the original piece of evidence that indicated it was probably true is still presented as evidence that supports the theory.

I was also taught that a theory is superior to a mere fact, because a good theory can explain or predict a thousand facts.

[allmendream]

“But it’s quite possible to believe in a Creator who set up the mechanism of evolution in order to develop life over billions of years. Many people I know believe this. They are not atheists.”

You mean the Pope isn’t an athiest???? Who knew????/s

[antiRepublicrat]

True, but it is a necessity of "naturalism", which evolutionism is based upon.

Pretty much all science is based on naturalism. This includes the work of many highly religious scientists throught the ages. Newton didn't say God is pushing the planets around, he tried to figure out a natural explanation for why they moved like they did.

[starlifter]

Reference please?

[Sopater]

Atomic interactions, how gasses work, cell biology, etc. are all observable processes.

[allmendream]

Natural selection of genetic variation to derive beneficial traits is an observable process.

What else would you call my taking a cold water bacteria and subjecting it to heat stress such that it expresses an error prone DNA polymerase instead of its usual high fidelity DNA polymerase, thus increasing the amount of genetic variation in the population at the same time selective pressures are eliminating all but those variations that enable better survival of heat stress, until I develop a hot water bacteria from a cold water bacteria?

Calling it “adaptation” instead of evolution doesn't actually change the reality of what is happening in this OBSERVABLE PROCESS.

Then it becomes “Darwin's theory of adaptation through natural selection of genetic variation” instead of “Darwin's theory of evolution through natural selection of genetic variation”; but the exact same (observable) mechanism is being described.

[antiRepublicrat]

Atomic interactions, how gasses work, cell biology, etc. are all observable processes.

All part of scientific theories, which have changed over the years.

[Sopater]

All part of scientific theories, which have changed over the years.

Changing because more details are made available is significantly different than changing because your premise is 100% unknowable.

[Notary Sojac]

And naturalism is a theology.

In a way it is, I'm willing to concede that. But it's a very general theology.

In the same way, "I believe that the universe did not arise from chance, but was created" is also a general theology, and I'm fine with that theology being discussed in school.

But "I believe that the universe was created in six days, less than ten thousand years ago" is a much more narrow, sectarian belief.

[BrandtMichaels]

I’d be more in favor of a lawsuit challenging the age of the Earth and Universe.

If it were shown that there are over 100 natural clocks indicating a young age and it were also shown the problems and limitations in carbon dating, radio-isotope dating, and starlight dating methods then most common-sense minded folks would simply see the evolution emperor has no clothes.

Where are these 101 natural clocks documented? See the links on my homepage.

[MrB]

I read the funniest thing the other day...

There was this poor deer or elk or some such, no matter, but this poor beast AGONIZINGLY died.
It seems that the front part of the beast died 2000 years before the hind part, according to carbon dating.

What a terribly, agonizingly slow death!

[MrB]

But “I believe that the universe was created in six days, less than ten thousand years ago” is a much more narrow, sectarian belief.

---

As is “billions and billions of years old”. There are plenty of [ignored] evidences to the contrary. Of course, the “old universe” sect has their “rescuing devices” in order to explain away the inconsistencies, as do all worldviews including my own.

“Young man, it’s turtles all the way down!”

[antiRepublicrat]

Changing because more details are made available is significantly different than changing because your premise is 100% unknowable.

Natural selection has also changed quite a bit since its inception over 150 years ago. Geology is also about past events, but pretty much the only people against that as "unknowable" are Young Earth Creationists.

[The_Repugnant_Conservative]

Certainly you have examples?

Where it helped to predict which bridge design would work best? Or perhaps an alternative Brake Caliper? Or maybe even an alternative treatment for Alzheimers?

Genetics and Farming counts on the World is at it appears to be. I Think therefor I am. What is observable is real and repeatable. Creationism is a belief in the divine. That the world was created in 6 days regardless of what any observation may indicate. It is by definition unprovable as a divine force is so omnipotent that it can even remove all trace that it was responsible.

[Sopater]

Natural selection has been observed. No one disputes that. Geology is the study of the solid earth. It too is observable.

[Sopater]

Creationism is a belief in the divine. That the world was created in 6 days regardless of what any observation may indicate. It is by definition unprovable as a divine force is so omnipotent that it can even remove all trace that it was responsible.

Evolutionism is a belief in the absence of the divine. That the world was created without any devine intervention regardless of what any observation may indicate. It is by definition unprovable as all evidence of any divine force is immediately dismissed so that any trace that it was responsible can explained away without supporting evidence.

[goodusername]

“Evolutionism is a belief in the absence of the divine.”

—That’s untrue. In fact, probably MOST evolutionists believe in God, including many top evolutionary scientists (Francis Collins, Keith Miller, Kenneth Miller, Francisco Ayala, Simon Conway Morris, Karl Giberson etc).

[Sopater]

“Evolutionism is a belief in the absence of the divine.”

—That’s untrue.

Perhaps you're right. Evolutionism actually teaches that divine intervention is not necessary (or even acceptable) to use as an explanation of the biological diversity we see today.

[allmendream]

ALL of science teaches that divine intervention is not necessary or even acceptable to use as an explanation for any physical phenomena.

Creationists seem to like to pretend that they only have a beef with evolution, but actually it is with physics, astronomy, paleontology, geology, archeology, etc, etc.

Science is based upon discovering physical principles that explain and predict physical phenomena.

There is no divine intervention in scientific explanation, just as there is no crying in baseball! (with apologies to Tom Hanks)

[SunkenCiv]

· GGG managers are SunkenCiv, StayAt HomeMother, and Ernest_at_the_Beach · · join list or digest · view topics · view or post blog · bookmark · post a topic · subscribe ·
	Antiquity Journal  & archive  Archaeologica  Archaeology  Archaeology Channel  BAR  Bronze Age Forum  Discover  Dogpile  Eurekalert  Google  LiveScience  Mirabilis.ca  Nat Geographic  PhysOrg  Science Daily  Science News  Texas AM  Yahoo  Excerpt, or Link only?	Thanks Sopater. Amusing at least. To all -- please ping me to other topics which are appropriate for the GGG list.
· History topic · history keyword · archaeology keyword · paleontology keyword · · Science topic · science keyword · Books/Literature topic · pages keyword ·