Heir spends family fortune to discredit evolution theory

Cleveland Plain Dealer ^ | 23 December 2002 | Scott Stephens

[Stavka2]

And actually, I read in a college text book that Darwin was a religious man and his work was not published while he lived because he didnt want to face the fundies.

[Stavka2]

Lastly, this is as much of a witch hunt as what happened to Gallalo (?sp).

[forsnax5]

Always remember,

Speaking of ... I tried it with "splifford the bat" and it came back with "drab pest of filth" (among many others)... :)

[VadeRetro]

I put "Stephen C Meyer" into the anagram generator. This is a family thread, so I won't say what sorts of filth came out.

[PatrickHenry]

I tried it with "splifford the bat" and it came back with "drab pest of filth"

Some anagrams for "creationism":
A CRETIN I'M SO
A CORSET I'M IN
A SCORN ITEM I
SCREAM I INTO
SCARE I'M INTO
MANIC SORTIE
COMA INSERT I
COMA REST I IN
AM EROTIC SIN

[Dinsdale]

A fool and his money are soon parted.

A fool and his money were lucky to get together in the first place.

Spend away, perhaps someday he will need to get an honest job.

[Dimensio]

I think...I rather like it.

[PatrickHenry]

Try to remember this thread the next time one of the creos makes the claim that it's big money that keeps the "Darwinist conspiracy" going. (In fairness, if the science is good, the funding is irrelevant, but creos don't understand the science, so it's nice to have this for rebuttal.)

[Stultis]

Your interpretation obviously differs, but it seems silly to me to suggest that publishers favor the first edition of The Origin because it lacks "by the Creator". In fact my experience has generally been the opposite, i.e. that the sixth (and last) edition is more widely available in modern printings. I suppose this could be settled at Amazon.com if you wanted to trouble with that.

To the extent the first edition is favored, it is generally, I think, because it is a "cleaner" read. Darwin had systematically developed his ideas for 20 years, and the first edition of The Origin was very mature. Most of the changes in later editions contributed little to the core of the theory, and even tended toward elements (e.g. inheritence of aquired characteristics) that muddied the picture or were not correct.

[jlogajan]

Many people are coming around to the view that random mutations would be much too slow to explain the speed at which evolution occurs.

As the DNA "toolkit" expanded due to early chance mutation and natural selection, the rate of change accelerated -- by more chance mutation and a modified "natural selection." That is, if some major section was cleaved an reattached in a new way -- you'd get a significant difference quickly -- like somebody being born with a sixth finger. (Although I'm not aware if sixth fingers are hereditary -- it shows that things can appear suddenly -- you didn't need thousands of generations of people with slightly longer stubs that finally develop into a sixth finger. Some people just have complete sixth fingers (or toes) as if out of the blue.

[stanz]

Truth be told, scientifically nothing comes closer to explaining the life we see around us than the theory of evolution.

Thank you Junior, this is the reason why I asked to be included on the Evolution ping list.

[gore3000]

There's something to this. DNA/RNA is a powerful computing engine, with 4 bit states instead of 2. Surely some advanced mathmetician could create a mathmatical model of how evolution actually works.

The answer is that it cannot be done. Reason is quite simple - evolution is based on materialistic beliefs, on randomness and lack of causation. Now DNA disproves materialism completely because in order for it to work, you need symbolism which is a totally non-materialistic concept. You need the symbol of reading DNA by threes in order to code for amino acids. You need to translate these codes into particular amino acids (there is no 'reason' for this code other than that is the way RNA reads the code and translates it into amino acids.) There is also more symbolism in DNA than this since 95 of DNA is not in genes so it must have other meanings such as specifying location (numeric symbols) and no doubt instructions similar to those in computer programs (jump, copy, return, etc.) None of this is possible without symbols and therefore the materilistic base of evolution is false, there must have been a designer to set up this symbolism and there can be no doubt that the designer also has affected the creation of new species.

[gore3000]

This ping list for the evolution -- not creationism -- side of evolution threads,

It is so much easier to win an argument when you are talking to yourself eh Patrick? Heaven forbid that anyone should challenge your assumptions, you know they cannot stand up to scrutiny.

[gore3000]

First off, when Darwin initially published, it was still pretty early on in the professionalization of science, a process that continued throughout the last half of the 19th century and into the next.

Not really correct. About a year before the publication of the Origins Darwin and Wallace read a joint paper to the Linnean society on the theory of evolution. Nothing came of it. Nobody thought much of it and it was not even worth discussing. Evolution gained notice only with the popular publication of the Origins.

[gore3000]

Looks like an agenda heavily loaded with junk science.

It is evolution which is filled with junk science. Let's see:

Darwin proposed melding of traits from parents - a total assumption disproved by real science - junk science.
Darwin said that killing the feeble and genetically disabled would purify the species - a total assumption disproved by real science - junk science.
Darwin proposed that some races (the white race) were superior to others - a total assumption disproved by real science - junk science.
Evolutionists proposed that the tonsils and the appendix were useless organs, the remnants of evolution - a total assumption disproved by real science - junk science.
Evolutionists proposed that the 95% of humans not in genes was junk and could be used to prove evolution - a total assumption disproved by real science - junk science.
Paleontologists propose that brain size indicates intelligence - a total assumption disproved by real science - junk science.

I could go on and on, but the picture becomes quite clear from the above - evolutionists go around constantly making assumptions to prove their theory but once the real scientific facts are elucidated the evolutionist's assumptions are disproven. A good theory makes assumptions which are eventually verified by scientific facts. Evolution is a very bad theory and belongs in the dust bin of history.

[gore3000]

This is intellectually dishonest and exposes an agenda that attempts to eliminate God from a discussion of our existence.

Hate to tell you but Darwin was an atheist . If he changed the ending it was no doubt because of attacks on his book due to atheism. His next book the Descent of Man compares man to monkeys and says man descended from apes. His book was so atheistic that Marx wished to have Das Kapital dedicated to Darwin. Darwin declined because he did not wish to make his atheism known.

[gore3000]

The collapse of a major organizing theory like evolution could only presage some large and significant improvement in our understanding of nature.

Clearly you have not been listening. The advances in biology in the last 50 years have given us a tremendous new understanding of nature. This understanding has totally discredited the theory of evolution.

[gore3000]

One way is in studying psychology where rats and cats, dogs, and drugged-out monkeys are subjected to various testing environments to try to learn something about human behavior on the assumption that the animals are related to humans through the evolutionary chain. Were they not related, what would be the point of training rats and cats to push levers for food rewards?

Actually this same experiment was done on humans. The experiment was called the Soviet Union. As you may have heard, it did not work.

[gore3000]

Because their opposition to evolution is ultimately based on dogmatic commitments,

Total garbage. Just look at the evolutionists here, they do not know beans about science, they refuse to answer scientific questions, constantly attack religion and never, but never give scientific evidence for their theory. All they do is repeat the mantra 'evolution is science and everyone who disagrees is a know-nothing'. This is clear evidence of people who are not scientists and are just plain ideologues whose support of evolution is based on their atheistic/materialistic predispositions.

[Chemnitz]

Already described: Creation by God's Word.