Gallup, Darwinism, and Scientism

American Thinker.com ^ | August 5, 2019 | Bruce Walker

[Kalamata]

nonsense; they simply don’t fall for knee jerk nonsense such as “God of the Gaps’ when confronted with an unknown...read the decision in Kitzmiller v Dover, and be informed...

******************************************************

Evolutionists use the "god of the gaps" to fill in the myriad of gaps in Charlie's so-called "tree of life" and fossil "record". Gould explained the evolutionary gaps in this way:

"The extreme rarity of transitional forms in the fossil record persists as the trade secret of paleontology. The evolutionary trees that adorn our textbooks have data only at the tips and nodes of their branches; the rest is inference, however reasonable, not the evidence of fossils. Yet Darwin was so wedded to gradualism that he wagered his entire theory on a denial of this literal record:

       "The geological record is extremely imperfect and this fact will to a large extent explain why we do not find interminable varieties, connecting together all the extinct and existing forms of life by the finest graduated steps. He who rejects these views on the nature of the geological record, will rightly reject my whole theory." [Darwin]

"Darwin's argument still persists as the favored escape of most paleontologists from the embarrassment of a record that seems to show so little of evolution directly. In exposing its cultural and methodological roots, I wish in no way to impugn the potential validity of gradualism (for all general views have similar roots). I wish only to point out that it was never "seen" in the rocks."

[Gould, Stephen Jay, The Episodic Nature of Evolutionary Change (Reprinted from Natural History 86:5, 'Evolution's Erratic Pace', May 1977, p.14), "The Panda's Thumb." W. W. Norton & Company, 1980, Chap.17, p.181]

Mr. Kalamata

[SauronOfMordor]

Nope, not a joke, he says that

http://darwin-online.org.uk/EditorialIntroductions/Freeman_TheDescentofMan.html

[Kalamata]

Even Darwin himself, being a religious man, may well have believed in some level of divine guidance.
************************************************

Charlie was not a “religious” man, except for his faith in evolutionism. This is Charlie’s words on the Old Testament, according to his son:

“But I had gradually come by this time, i.e. 1836 to 1839, to see that the Old Testament was no more to be trusted than the sacred books of the Hindoos. The question then continually rose before my mind and would not be banished, is it credible that if God were now to make a revelation to the Hindoos, he would permit it to be connected with the belief in Vishnu, Siva,&c., as Christianity is connected with the Old Testament? This appeared to me utterly incredible.” [Francis Darwin, “The Autobiography Of Charles Darwin.” Dover Publications, Inc., 1958, p.62]

Mr. Kalamata

[VanShuyten]

“The calculations of the mathematicians must be wrong since evolution happened.”

Find a mathematician who can give you the odds that you, in your present home and situation, would be reading my post at this exact time. The odds are incalculable, but yet you are doing just that.

Evolution is a great theory. Random changes in large populations over immense times are sufficient to explain biodiversity. We do not know the exact mechanism for the beginning of life, but since it happened, there must be one. I believe God created the universe through his wisdom, in what ever way he did, maybe multiple universes, until one popped up with just the right physics that would lead to life.

There’s no reason to believe the finger of God is used to control everything, every movement, every action in the universe at all times. Such a belief is deterministic and denies free will, with choice being the basis of Christianity.

[Home-of-the-lazy-dog]

True. In the past 30 years I have seen countless photos and videos of medical research looking folks manipulating test tubes and syringes full of genetic goop and other liquids. But seriously, there’s just no way any entity, extra-terrestrial or otherwise, with several thousands of years’ of head start on us could have performed any genetic feats of science and distributed them on Earth to take form, right?

There are too many cases of huge gaps in fossil records, as if somehow, a major leap in evolution must have occurred... that’s what they’ll say. One such of my favorites: the cartoon that shows the itty bitty little horse that over a huge span of time becomes the modern era horse that we’re so used to seeing. The only problem?: there’s not a fossil record from the itty bitty little horse leading to the modern day horse. It is all conjecture and wishful thinking, and it’s a cartoon drawing designed to make you believe that’s the way it must have happened. Pure horse hockey... pardon the pun.

I don’t know if it’s true or not, but I read somewhere that genetically speaking, humans have less in common with apes than they do the common garden variety daffodil!?! Though... when you think about it, it does help to explain some people.

[ClearCase_guy]

Yup. And the story with whale fossils is similar to the horse issue. We have very few whale fossils. And yet from those few pieces they have constructed an elaborate tale of evolution from land to sea and the loss of legs, and millions of years of evolution. Really, it’s based on practically nothing.

I do understand that materialists want to dismiss a belief in God as a bit of wishful thinking. They are entitled to do so.
My issue is with the materialists and their refusal to admit that their belief in evolution is also a bit of wishful thinking.

[reasonisfaith]

Only the false religions do that.

[bert]

reason is faith is an oxy moron

[bert]

As I understand it, Darwin was an observer who traveled the world and made observations in the field and in his laboratory. As a result of these observations, he drew certain conclusions. That is the basis of science. Make observations.

I do not recall and have not read any of his works beyond the Origin of Species. I do not recall his thoughts on the relation between Natural Selection and Genesis.

The reason I entered what was certain to be a post that would be attacked is because I am rereading for maybe the third or fourth time On the Origin of Species. I wanted to learn the p[oints of attack to ascertain if there is any validity.

Most who “don’t believe in evolution” have never spent one hour in the field observing or have any real hands on experience with biological or geological science. That is forgivable but classifies them as ignorant

[reasonisfaith]

You didn’t mention the fact that of all observations in the field and in the lab, none of them have ever seen evidence of one species changing to another.

This classifies evolution as consistent with fantasy.

[Agamemnon]

What science did Darwin initially espouse when it came to how everything came into being?

Darwin's "science" was so laughable, his first book should probably be renamed "The Origin of the Specious."

Poor "bert" may not realize what stupidity he has hitched his intellectual star to, but here's what passes for the kind of "science" that forms "bert"'s presently impoverished worldview:

"At some future period, not very distant as measured by centuries, the civilized races of man will almost certainly exterminate, and replace, the savage races throughout the world. At the same time the anthropomorphous apes [i.e., blacks – ed.], as Professor Schaffhausen has remarked, (Anthropological Review, April, 1867, p. 236) will no doubt be exterminated. The break between man and his nearest allies will then be wider, for it will intervene between man in a more civilised state, as we may hope, even than the Caucasian, and some ape as low as a baboon, instead of as now between the negro or Australian and the gorilla." (Charles Darwin, The Descent of Man, Chap. vi)

More drool from Darwin with which "bert", as a Darwin acolyte, we hope will not continue to identify:

"The more civilized so-called Caucasian races have beaten the Turkish hollow in the struggle for existence. Looking to the world at no very distant date, what an endless number of lower races will have been eliminated by the higher civilized races throughout the world." (Charles Darwin, 1881, 3 July, Life and Letters of Darwin, vol. 1, 316)

Darwin's contemporary and personal spokesperson, fondly named "Darwin's bulldog," Thomas Huxley, understood exactly where Darwin's "science" pointed:

"No rational man, cognizant of the facts, believes that the average Negro is the equal, still less the superior, of the white man.....it is simply incredible to think that.....he will be able to compete successfully with his bigger-brained and smaller-jawed rival, in a contest which is to be carried on by thoughts and not by bites." (Thomas Huxley, 1871, Lay Sermons, addresses and reviews)

One hopes that upon actually taking time to read Huxley and Darwin "bert" won't continue to allow his worldview to be wedded to this clearly un-scientific dreck.

FReegards!

[FiddlePig]

LOL! If a court’s involved we KNOW we’re dealing with politics not science! #RustyIrony evolution also can’t explain the “gaps”.

Kitzmiller v Dover... is the perfect example that Darwinism is ideology not science. What authority does a court have to decide what’s “science”? Questions evolutionist can’t answer... they demand to be outlawed. Evolutionist are funny folks... they admit they have testable answer to origins and evolutionary mechanisms that explain the amazing complexity of life..(they’re all just speculations)... but with odd certitude the can us how we didn’t get here... ID.

[bitt]

https://www.technologyreview.com/s/614052/scientists-are-making-human-monkey-hybrids-in-china/

https://www.conservapedia.com/Joseph_Stalin%27s_ape-men_experiments