The attack on evolution

The Economist ^

[wallcrawlr]

A suburban school board declares that evolution is just another theory

NEWT GINGRICH, while he was a Georgia congressman and then as speaker of the House, was known for his interest in scientific research. Some Georgians prefer a different approach. On September 26th the school board of Cobb County, in the north-western Atlanta suburbs, voted to amend existing policy to allow discussion of “disputed views of academic subjects”, specifically the idea that God created the universe in six days—Charles Darwin, Stephen Jay Gould and the rest of them be damned.

The vote came after a month of deliberation, at a meeting crowded with concerned parents. Some 2,000 of the county's residents signed a petition last spring to have the board put stickers on biology textbooks telling students that evolution is a theory, not a fact. “What they're trying to do is appease the religious right,” says Michael Manely, the lawyer representing a local parent who wanted the stickers removed.

The war between creationists and evolutionists had recently fallen quiet. In 1999, the Kansas state board of education dropped evolution from state examinations; but by 2001 the three most prominent anti-evolutionists had been voted out of office, and the decision quietly reversed. Of late, the Christian right has focused on other topics. But the anti-evolutionists' victory in Cobb County may stimulate similar-minded people elsewhere. In Ohio, the state board of education is under pressure to include “intelligent design”—the idea that the complexity of the universe proves the existence of the divine—when it issues a new science curriculum.

Cobb County's new policy argues that providing information on “disputed views” is “necessary for a balanced education” and will help to promote “acceptance of diversity of opinion”. A poll commissioned in 2000 by People for the American Way, a liberal-minded group, shows that many Americans think this way. Nearly half of the respondents believed that the theory of evolution had not yet been proved. And of those who believe in evolution—only a fifth wanted evolution taught alone—three-quarters liberally agreed that students should be presented with “all points of view” and “make up their own minds”. In this post-modern reasoning, evolution and the Book of Genesis are equally valid.

The losers have already begun worrying aloud that this will hurt Cobb County's reputation as a place where children can get a good education. Cobb's schools consistently rank above the state average, which is not saying much. But what happens if superior schools insist that previously accepted facts have become mere theory? No comment from Mr Gingrich, who now lives in Virginia.

[gore3000]

Because maybe in that case you are right; only about one (of thousands) has failed.

Well you have failed, the writer of the article has failed, all the other evolutionists have failed in giving evidence for their theory. Where is the evidence proving it? Why do you not discuss the evidence instead of bashing religion and those who believe in the Bible?

[gore3000]

When you see an unwashed, deranged wino staggering down the street,

More ad-hominem attacks at those who disagree with your stupid theory. However since you and your friends think his postings are so ludicrous, why do you sink into the gutter to slime him instead of refuting his statements? Maybe he speaks the truth and the only thing you and your bunch of thugs can do is attack the messenger?

[RadioAstronomer]

you and your bunch of thugs

Hmmmm.. Are you saying all of us that argue for evolution are thugs"?

[PatrickHenry]

Blue-skipping placemarker..

[balrog666]

This peer review garbage is total nonsense.

Oh, yeah! Preach on, Antipope disruptor, preach on!

[AndrewC]

|                    . .                     , ,                               
|                 ____)/                     \(____                            
|        _,--''''',-'/(                       )\`-.`````--._                 
|     ,-'       ,'  |  \       _     _       /  |  `-.      `-.             
|   ,'         /    |   `._   /\\   //\   _,'   |     \        `.            
|  |          |      `.    `-( ,\\_//  )-'    .'       |         |           
| ,' _,----._ |_,----._\  ____`\o'_`o/'____  /_.----._ |_,----._ `.          
| |/'        \'        `\(      \(_)/      )/'        `/        `\|
| `                      `       V V       '                      '            

Splifford the bat says: Always remember:

A mind is a terrible thing to waste; especially on an evolutionist.
Just say no to narcotic drugs, alcohol abuse, and corrupt ideological
doctrines.

[AndrewC]

[gore3000]

Blue-skipping placemarker..

Yes, you need to ignore my posts Patrick, ignorance is bliss with you, knowledge might challenge your atheistic evolutinist beliefs. Besides, who needs to know anything in order to post the statements you make? Heck any 5 year old can hurl insults better than you.

[gore3000]

Oh, yeah! Preach on, Antipope disruptor, preach on!

Always insults balrog. Do you have anything worthwhile to say? Let's try again and see if you have anything worth discussing in that head of yours:

This peer review garbage is total nonsense. Nobody reads that nonsense and some of the stuff I have seen in Nature and Scientific American is not worthy of an 8 year old.

The newspapers love evolution, it gives lots of stupid stories to put up as new fossil found and junk like that. It makes Enquirer headlines look legit. They therefore do not want anyone to put an end to their little scam. Also, most newspapers are far left and their editors are avowed atheists. They would not countenance publicity for such a person.

Further such a person has shown up, Michael Behe who unlike the fakes that the editors loved - Gould and Dawkins, is a real PHD biologist of many years. He originated the whole irreducible complexity idea and gave proof of it. For this he has been universally attacked but never disproven.

[f.Christian]

"No one doubts the improbability of events. Your existence is highly improbable. So is mine. Think of all the events in just the past 100 generations which could have caused any of our ancestors to behave differently than they did. Yet all the past events happened, naturally, step by step, and here we are, so mere improbability is not much of an issue."

"The facts upon which evolution theory is based are rather well established. Mutations happen. They really do. And new species appear over time, really. And they appear in form and DNA to be related to pre-existing species. No joke, that's the evidence. In every generation, those best suited for the game of life are most likely to breed the next generation. Mutation and natural selection. And time, lots of time. They're the stuff of evolution."

"The results are always going to be seen as improbable in retrospect, but that's how things happen. It's such a reasonable explanation that there's no need to wave it all away and grasp instead for an external "designer" for whom there is no evidence at all.

"So I don't see ID as an "honest attempt" to deal with improbability. Rather, it's a clever attempt to confuse the poorly trained public with slick (but unscientific) patter."

353 posted on 9/19/02 2:24 PM Pacific by PatrickHenry

"Mutation and natural selection. And time, lots of time. They're the stuff of evolution."

[nightdriver]

"On September 26th the school board of Cobb County, in the north-western Atlanta suburbs, voted to amend existing policy to allow discussion of “disputed views of academic subjects”, specifically the idea that God created the universe in six days—Charles Darwin, Stephen Jay Gould and the rest of them be damned."

I don't know where the evolutionists get the idea that creationists believe that the earth was created in six days. The Bible does not teach that. It is the same old straw-man argument that has been the tactic of evolutionists since Darwin.

[PoorMuttly]

"The words I say to you are Spirit."

[dheretic]

And I do not feel bad saying that all you evolutionists know how to do is insult those who oppose your atheistic religion

Deism is a monotheistic religion that states that the universe is a machine created by God. If Deism is the true religion then evolution is nothing more than the equivalent of a function or class method in a program. It is a part of the greater machine which keeps it functional.

I for one prefer a mechanical view human civilization and the universe.

[dheretic]

why do you sink into the gutter to slime him instead of refuting his statements?

You are too generous......

[f.Christian]

Geologic columns/dating...what about the massive canyon on mars---no water/erosion!

The size---circumference of the Earth has gotten smaller(although at certain pts. it could have been changing/variable).

During initial collapse(center heating/condensing) large ridges---mountains(large rocky...vast/fast soil erosion) would protrude upwards!

Land wouldn't form evenly...continents would remain at higher levels above water level then plates would dry out(releasing water/moisture/rain)---shrink producing cracks/fissures---then layered-canyons/basins/ravines...via cooled and hot sediments would form(rise/uplift) as the shrink/sink-ing would continue...producing more mountains/hills(slight-no erosion)--'volcanoes' continously---to fill the receding excessive gaps/holes!

At the Grand Canyon older sedimentary levels are at the top and the fresher/newer ones below...those straight up 'buttes' came out of hole--soft spots in the plates like cake decorations---Ayre's Rock like a bubble in a blown tire.

All that erosion/sedimentary crap old age of the Earth is hooie-dooie!

There is not enough dust on the moon to support an old earth dating system!

[f.Christian]

Geologic column---dating??

From the evolution textbook...

Why does it look like it does(grand canyon)?

"The reason that it looks the way does is due to the sequence in which the events that help to create it happened. We already know that there was once a very tall chain of mountains in the area that occupied the Grand Canyon. These mountains were, over many millions of years, eventually eroded away to form a level plain. Fluctuations in climate then caused the oceans to move in over successive periods and each time a new rock layer was deposited. The rock layers were deposited one on top of the other and sometimes there were long periods in between in which some of the upper layers were eroded away, sometimes completely."

"We already know that there was once a very tall chain of mountains in the area that occupied the Grand Canyon. These mountains were, over many millions of years, eventually eroded away to form a level plain.

That is called science..."we already know"!

Campfire stories! Junk!!

Evolution...tall tales/legends---big lies(no comprehension)!

But the effect is permanent---zombie brains---religion/ideology---BIAS!

Govt school religion---'science'!

Bias means off the wall/page---outta reality...desire for something not true!

Evo cargo-go cult---ufo's!

[f.Christian]

The Mentality of Evolution

There seems to be a cart before the horse attitude i.e. evolution has occurred, that's a fact ( it is never stated who proved this fact ), therefore we just need to twist the evidence until it fits our pre-conceptions. Of course, science is supposed to look at the evidence, and then derive the theory, but as Karl Popper admitted, the theory of evolution has never been a scientific theory due to its lack of testability, so normal scientific standards do not and have never applied to the theory of evolution. It has always been an emotional issue and not a scientific one - on all sides it must be stated in fairness. The main difference is that the worshippers of mechanistic reductionist Newtonian materialism try to pretend they are objective, when in reality most of them are not. The following extract from Phillip Johnson's Darwin on Trial puts it quite nicely:-

It is likely that Darwinist gradualism is statistically just as unlikely as Goldschmidt's saltationism, once we give adequate attention to all the necessary elements. The advantageous micro mutations postulated by Neo-Darwinist genetics are tiny, usually too small to be noticed. This premise is important because, in the words of Richard Dawkins, "virtually all the mutations studied in genetics laboratories which are pretty macro because otherwise geneticists wouldn't notice them are deleterious to the animals possessing them." But if the necessary mutations are too small to be seen, there will have to be a great many of them (millions?) of the right type coming along when they are needed to carry on the long-term project of producing a complex organ.

The probability of Darwinist evolution depends upon the quantity of favorable micro mutations required to create complex organs and organisms, the frequency with which such favorable micro mutations occur just where and when they are needed, the efficacy of natural selection in preserving the slight improvements with sufficient consistency to permit the benefits to accumulate, and the time allowed by the fossil record for all this to have happened. Unless we can make calculations taking all these factors into account, we have no way of knowing whether evolution by micromutation is more or less improbable than evolution by macromutation.

Some mathematicians did try to make the calculations, and the result was a rather acrimonious confrontation between themselves and some of the leading Darwinists at the Wistar Institute in Philadelphia in 1967. The report of the exchange is fascinating, not just because of the substance of the mathematical challenge, but even more because of the logic of the Darwinist response. For example, the mathematician D. S. Ulam argued that it was highly improbable that the eye could have evolved by the accumulation of small mutations, because the number of mutations would have to be so large and the time available was not nearly long enough for them to appear. Sir Peter Medawar and C. H. Waddington responded that Ulam was doing his science backwards; the fact was that the eye had evolved and therefore the mathematical difficulties must be only apparent. Ernst Mayr observed that Ulam's calculations were based on assumptions that might be unfounded, and concluded that "Somehow or other by adjusting these figures we will come out all right. We are comforted by the fact that evolution has occurred.

[f.Christian]

I apoligize for my post! I didn't realize you were ill until I had read more of your postings. Please accept my apology.

Isn't freelibertarian reduntant...think you're missing a 'k' in there!

[f.Christian]

prove/disprove the age of mountains and the Earth...

or at least my theory about them!

Below the ground...there is a plate---DETECTABLE

that matches the perimeter of every mountain---range...

proving the mountain/hills(appalachia types/large openings)...

were formed from beneath---via the plate openings...

and resulted in triangular pointing up extruded masses with plate parts/residue on top.

The tops of the mountain/plateaus/buttes would match the original opening/crack(narrow) in the plates!

The bottoms(wide) of the mountain would match where the plates stopped...

probably still touching!

[f.Christian]

The real geologic column clearly explained proves evolution could not possibly have happened.

Pure fantasy---no evidence...from the start to finish!