The attack on evolution

The Economist ^

[gore3000]

I do not know for a fact that f. is schizophrenic

Of course you do not. And you are not a psychiatrist. And even a psychiatrist would not make such a statement from postings. What you do know is that you want to insult an opponent in the vilest way possible. What you do know is that you want to nullify what he says with vile personal attacks. In other words, your are a thugh of evolution.

[gore3000]

Well peer reviewed articles are not written for the average joe six pack. Just because you can't understand them doesn't make them garbage.

Wrong, I understand them perfectly, that's why I call them garbage. The 15 Answers, written by the Editor of Scientific American was full of blatant lies. Half the stuff these folk publish is not based on any science at all, it is just nonsense assumptions.

[Frumious Bandersnatch]

That is because here on FR any time some evidence casts doubt on a particular aspect of evolutionary theory, no matter how minor, it is immediately seized upon by the creationists who point to it and say that it disproves evolution in its entirety. The problem is that those interested in real science on this forum have to compete with the blowhards who have never even picked up a genetics textbook. There are too many people here who think they are qualified to comment intelligently on evolution "cuz they read genesis." Frustration enusues and the crevo threads degenerate into little more than shouting matches.

There are blowhards on both sides of the issue.  And you don't need to pick up a genetics book to see that some of the popular explanations for evolution are totally bogus.  OTOH, what I was specifically speaking of is when IDers bring up points about holes and/or gaps in evolutionary theory (even evolutionists cannot agree amongst themselves) then almost immediately they are attacked by being called creationists.  While there are a lot of creationists who believe in ID, ID itself is not contingent on creationism.

I have pointed out that every experiment ever done to prove evolution has had an ID source.  My assertions are quite often dismissed out of hand because my assertions are not 'falsifiable'.  Even Richard Dawkins' "Blind Watch Maker" scenario argues for ID (whether he realizes it or not), since the watch was created by design in the first place - it doesn't matter if the watch maker was blind or not.

Now I don't have any great feelings about evolution one way or another.  I can even accept quite a lot of the evolutionary theory per se.  One of the major sticking points I have is the "random chance" factor that evolutionists seem to want to push onto the world.  What especially sticks in my craw is the dishonesty of many evolutionists who state that evolution doesn't talk of random chance, but then go on to denigrate those who talk of "controlled chance" or directed evolution.

[js1138]

What you do know is that you want to nullify what he says with vile personal attacks.

First, f. called me a criminal, of said I was part of a criminal enterprise. Second, he does not say anything, because his posts are incoherent, repetitive rambles -- as opposed to yours, which are well writtten, even though I disagree with them. I have asked him politely, on a number of occasions, to put his thoughts into sentences and paragraphs.

e.e. cummings was an interesting poet, but he was unique. The rest of us get no points for typographical explosions.

[balrog666]

OTOH, what I was specifically speaking of is when IDers bring up points about holes and/or gaps in evolutionary theory (even evolutionists cannot agree amongst themselves) then almost immediately they are attacked by being called creationists.

Um? So what? Bringing up a known, or at least uncertain, 'gap' or 'hole' or any 'area where evidence or knowledge is currently severely limited (can anybody say "platypus")' doesn't assert anything about ID/IOT or creationism. So, what's the point?

While there are a lot of creationists who believe in ID, ID itself is not contingent on creationism.

Design with no designer? Again, what's the point? And, how's that different than the vast impersonal natural forces of the world (or universe) randowly trying out all potential designs at thoughout the various potential eco-niches in the universe.

I have pointed out that every experiment ever done to prove evolution has had an ID source.

Um, experiments done to "prove" evolution? That's a scientific non-sequitur.

My assertions are quite often dismissed out of hand because my assertions are not 'falsifiable'.

Okay. Now, why is dismissing groundless assertions unreasonable? Perhaps a specific example might help your argument.

[snip] Now I don't have any great feelings about evolution one way or another. [snip] One of the major sticking points I have is the "random chance" factor that evolutionists seem to want to push onto the world. What especially sticks in my craw is the dishonesty of many evolutionists who state that evolution doesn't talk of random chance, but then go on to denigrate those who talk of "controlled chance" or directed evolution.

Hummmmm, honest evolutionists pushing the "random chance" factor and dishonest evolutionists say no random chance. And denigrating those who talk of "controlled chance".

It couldn't just depend on the context of the "randomness" could it?

And they wouldn't just be denigrating the ideas instead of the person could it? (In the interest of evolutionary honesty, gore3k might be an exception here.)

Nah, I guess that would be too simple...

[Havoc]

Evolution has always been a theory and never a fact. It is a good theory as measured by the number of attempts to refute it.

Evolution is not taught as theory once you get past the theory itself. When one travels off in any direction from it, it is treated as hardset fact. And it isn't a theory, it's a collection of theories. If one set of theories is disproven a new set comes up to replace it, yet it all houses itself under the tag "theory of evolution". It's a moving target. If you want to play games over validity verses the number of attempts to refute, then the Judaic creation story of the Bible far outweighs evolution on that scale of credibility, as well as others.

[f.Christian]

Creation/God...REFORMATION(Judeo-Christianity)---secular-govt.-humanism/SCIENCE---CIVILIZATION!

Originally the word liberal meant social conservatives(no govt religion--none) who advocated growth and progress---mostly technological(knowledge being absolute/unchanging)based on law--reality... UNDER GOD---the nature of GOD/man/govt. does not change. These were the Classical liberals...founding fathers-PRINCIPLES---stable/SANE scientific reality/society---industrial progress...moral/social character-values(private/personal) GROWTH(limited NON-intrusive PC Govt/religion---schools)!

Evolution...Atheism-dehumanism---TYRANNY(pc-religion/rhetoric)...

Then came the SPLIT SCHIZOPHRENIA/ZOMBIE/BRAVE-NWO1984 LIBERAL NEO-America---the post-modern age

[Frumious Bandersnatch]

The paradox of evolutionary experimentation is that any such project is, at its core, intelligently designed.

[balrog666]

The paradox of evolutionary experimentation is that any such project is, at its core, intelligently designed.

You mean such concepts as widespread human engineering of the biosphere for agricultural (and other) use and the manufacture, distribution, and dissemination of antibiotics are "intelligently designed experiments"?

[Frumious Bandersnatch]

I was specifically referring to the "primordial soup" gang.  Such experiments, as suspect as many of the underlying assumptions may be, don't just happen by themselves. To make such an assertion is as silly as saying that guns kill. Just as guns, in and of themselves, can do nothing, neither can experimentation of any sort just happen by itself.  So while evolutionists may be able to prove through experimentation that life progressed from "soup to nuts," they cannot prove such a thing happened by random chance.  Indeed, their very experiments show ID at work.

[PatrickHenry]

Placemarker.

[balrog666]

I was specifically referring to the "primordial soup" gang. [snip] So while evolutionists may be able to prove through experimentation that life progressed from "soup to nuts," they cannot prove such a thing happened by random chance. Indeed, their very experiments show ID at work.

So, hypothetically speaking, if "evolutionists" can show that under such-and-such defined conditions, a specific combination of primoridial soup can give rise to self replicating protein chains, it means life was designed by an unknown party, which may or may not have been a deity or deities.

Is that it? Is that your thesis here?

[Gumlegs]

1) Experiments are intelligently designed, therefore
2) Everything is.

3) Intelligently designed experiments cannot happen randomly, therefore
4) Nothing can.

Got it?

[js1138]

So while evolutionists may be able to prove through experimentation that life progressed from "soup to nuts," they cannot prove such a thing happened by random chance.

So even if every step can be replicated, and every step shown to occur naturally, this would prove nothing?

[FreeLibertarian]

Isn't it time your doctor adjusted your medication?

[balrog666]

Got it?

Sounds like we're all on the same page.

[gore3000]

I have asked him politely, on a number of occasions, to put his thoughts into sentences and paragraphs.

Everybody has their style. If one does not like how someone writes, one does read it. There are many so called 'great' authors which I find infinitely boring and would not bother with. I do not call them crazy though just because I do not like their style. As to his not making sense, well let me just say this, he is against evolution and those who like evolution do not like his posts. Seems to me they understand pretty well what he is saying.

[gore3000]

Normally I'd just say "creationist", but some of 'em (like g3k) object to that as a smear.

It is indeed a smear for several reasons:
1. Those who are being referred to with that word are almost invariably Christians. Christianity is a religion not an ideology and the term is being used to degrade their beliefs to the level of an ideology.
2. Everyone that believes in a Creator is essentially a creationist. Evolutionist's use of the term though implies that such a belief is somehow disreputable since it is always used as an epithet.
3. The reason evolutionists use that term instead of Christian which is who they are really fighting is that they want to make it look like their argument is not against Christianity but against just some Christians which is false. The vituperations of evolutionists against Christianity and the Bible more than prove it.

[gore3000]

So, hypothetically speaking, if "evolutionists" can show that under such-and-such defined conditions, a specific combination of primoridial soup can give rise to self replicating protein chains, it means life was designed by an unknown party, which may or may not have been a deity or deities.

This whole nonsense about amino acids is just a fairy tale for atheists. Amino acids do not create life, life creates amino acids. Proteins do not create life, life creates proteins. Like so much of evolution and materialism, they have everything backwards.

[gore3000]

1) Experiments are intelligently designed, therefore 2) Everything is.

3) Intelligently designed experiments cannot happen randomly, therefore 4) Nothing can.

While I realize you are trying to laugh off frumius's argument, he is far closer to the truth than you wish to admit. Here's the problem - if evolution, abiogenesis, and all that nonsense are random events, how can they be subject to scientific proof? Science is about repeatable experiments therefore to propose that something that happens only at random can be the subject of a repeatable experiment seems silly.

The problem goes even deeper. Science is fruitful not just because its experiments can be repeated - which is very important since if you can find a cure for an illness say, it is important that it can be repeated otherwise what's the use of such a discovery? Science is also fruitful because it discovers universal laws of wide application which can be used not only for a specific purpose but to build upon to achieve new discoveries. If there was no order but just randomness in the world, science would be totally impossible. For this reason materialistic theories are anti-scientific.