Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article

To: Soliton; Fichori
I understand having differing opinions, but how does someone ignore mountains of scientific evidence?

"Mountains of evidence." "93000 links and citations." Etc.

The fact is that from what I can tell, the transitional fossils we have are in the range and scale which could easily have been caused by "microevolution." See this quick lineup here

The fact is that the evidence available to the general public is just really skinny. The nicest I've seen so far is a photo with a bunch of bone fragments stuck on balls of fixall [grin.] being passed around. But the variation there could well be explained by variation within a kind. (or even within multiple kinds - for example, notice that the biggest dog is bigger then the smallest horse, and the smallest dog is smaller then the biggest frog, and the smallest frog is smaller then the biggest bumblebee, and so on. The variation within kinds is huge and causes overlapping in size scale of completely different (and similar) kinds.)

The other fact is that the general public does have to take it by faith - they cannot know because they haven't majored in evolutionary history and yet they believe it with all their hearts - to them it is a faith, a religion. I suspect it is to the professors as well -- I mean I've seen first hand that people who don't have a clue about the evidence of ASBE (All Species By Evolution) still believe it and argue for it as being scientific. And I have no reason to believe that the professors don't do exactly the same thing.

So while we talk about these mountains of evidence, we need to remember that for the majority of people, it is nothing more then a faith which has been dishonestly indoctrinated under the name "science." -- and I have no evidence that this isn't true for all believers in ASBE, including the professors.

But why go to such great lengths? I think Thomas Nagel (Professor of law and philosophy, Ph.D) is very close when he says:
In speaking of the fear of religion, I don't mean to refer to the entirely reasonable hostility toward certain established religions and religious institutions, in virtue of their objectionable moral doctrines, social policies, and political influence. Nor am I referring to the association of many religious beliefs with superstition and the acceptance of evident empirical falsehoods. I am talking about something much deeper--namely, the fear of religion itself. I speak from experience, being strongly subject to this fear myself: I want atheism to be true and am made uneasy by the fact that some of the most intelligent and well-informed people I know are religious believers. It isn't just that I don't believe in God and, naturally, hope that I'm right in my belief. It's that I hope there is no God! I don't want there to be a God; I don't want the universe to be like that. My guess is that this cosmic authority problem is not a rare condition and it is responsible for much of the scientism and reductionism of our time. One of the tendencies it supports is the ludicrous overuse of evolutionary biology to explain everything about life, including everything about the human mind. Darwin enabled modern secular culture to heave a great collective sigh of relief, by apparently providing a way to eliminate purpose, meaning and design as fundamental features of the world. (The Last Word, page 130)
And indeed, my own efforts some months ago to get to the bottom of it and find out just what was the greatest proofs for ASBE (All Species By Evolution) in a thread here on FR was actually quite disappointing. I had expected that with all the people who fervently fight for ASBE, I would be presented with at least one great irrefutable evidence - but that was not to be. I found that there is no great or even good evidence. It's just a lot of little tidbits that by themselves couldn't stand, but only as a group which cover many areas do they point in a general direction. But most of these little evidence could each also indicate just the opposite, or at least something entirely different!

And remember, until I can see something myself, I can at best accept it by faith. I'm sorry but for most (and maybe all) people, "All life from a single life form" is a matter of pure faith and is held on to vigorously because of its moral implications of moral freedom, or more specifically the freedom from the restrictions of such a thing existing as wrong.

And as an added bonus, once one decides that no such thing exists as wrong, then it's no longer important to tell the truth for the sheer sake thereof. If the truth is the best tool to use, then the atheist uses it. If it's not the best tool in a certain case, then it's not used.

How does one atheist try to logically argue to another that he must always tell the truth? That would be a very interesting discussion. What force or moral rule causes you to always tell the truth? or do you only tell it when that's the best way to accomplish your goal?

Regards,

-Jesse
90 posted on 08/02/2008 2:12:11 AM PDT by mrjesse (Could it be true? Imagine, being forgiven, and having a cause, greater then yourself, to live for!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 86 | View Replies ]


To: mrjesse

Even if you ignore the entire fossil record that clearly shows a progression from single cell organisms to complex critters like us, you still would have to explain the genetic record. The genetic record makes all of the old Darwin arguments moot.

“Here we present a draft genome sequence of the common chimpanzee (Pan troglodytes). Through comparison with the human genome, we have generated a largely complete catalogue of the genetic differences that have accumulated since the human and chimpanzee species diverged from our common ancestor, constituting approximately thirty-five million single-nucleotide changes, five million insertion/deletion events, and various chromosomal rearrangements. We use this catalogue to explore the magnitude and regional variation of mutational forces shaping these two genomes, and the strength of positive and negative selection acting on their genes. In particular, we find that the patterns of evolution in human and chimpanzee protein-coding genes are highly correlated and dominated by the fixation of neutral and slightly deleterious alleles. We also use the chimpanzee genome as an outgroup to investigate human population genetics and identify signatures of selective sweeps in recent human evolution.”


91 posted on 08/02/2008 5:50:09 AM PDT by Soliton (Investigate, study, learn, then express an opinion)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 90 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson