Posted By: Good Life on Thursday, July 03, 2008
I'm sorry but there are not "Many reputable scientists and scholars disagree with Darwin’s theory of evolution and certainly challenge it". When a group tried to put a list of those supposed against evolution in an ad, it was found that the names were not those of biologists. All it would take to supplant evolution would be to find ONE flaw and find another theory that would explain that flaw. Not ONE flaw has been found. Every time new evidence is looked at the theory becomes stronger.Now that doesn't mean it's against religion. It says NOTHING about religion.Science asks WHAT happened. Religion asks WHY it happened. There really is no conflict. Every time a scientist does an experiment or makes an observation it shows a complete order in the universe. An order that could not come from random chance. If people would quit arguing and look at the evidence there is no reason for any conflict whatsoever. Anyone who makes such an argument show their ignorance of both science and religion.
Posted By: Catholic Evolutionist(Yes, it is possible) on Friday, July 04, 2008
Sadly Good Life, many people seem to think that the bible is a literal historical and scientific document, and fail to see where the lines between what and why are. Ho hum...Anyway, to supplant your arguments Good Life, I would also ask of some journalistic integrity of Mr. and Mrs. Brown. A bold claim like 'Many reputable scientists and scholars disagree with Darwin’s theory of evolution and certainly challenge it' should have a citation. Name one of these scientists! Furthermore, I would like to point out one fact that seems to be a major cornerstone in your argument that also isn't cited, is completely incorrect. Charles Darwin was NOT, I REPEAT NOT AN ATHEIST! He was an agnostic who believed in god as a First Cause. And, because I'm responsible, I'll actually post my source: http://darwin-online.org.uk/content/frameset?viewtype=side&itemID=F1497&pageseq=94Finally, the reason why I personally have a problem with policies like the one you're writing about is because evolution is the generally accepted theory within the scientific community, and on matters of scientific education what the scientific community agrees on is what should be taught. Call it elitist if you want, but anyone can join the scientific community, regardless of their education or social status. The reason why the only theory that can possibly challenge evolution(Intelligent Design) is not taught in schools is because it has been rejected by the scientific community. Not because they are blasphemous atheists, but because that theory has no testable hypothesis. Therefore, it has no data, and no logical or reasonable conclusion can be rendered.Well, I think I've set the record straight. Continue to write, Mr. and Mrs. Brown, but actually cite your information for once.
Posted By: geoff on Friday, July 04, 2008
Darwinian evolution is not based on "atheistic naturalism" (which is what, exactly? never heard of it) it is based on personal observation, logic, analogy with the way pigeon fanciers select for certain breeds, etc. If anything, Darwin was a "natural philosopher;" he had, after all, originally planned to study for the ministry.Given their obviously poor understanding of science, Mr. & Mrs. (?) Brown could also argue that physicists silence such "alternate viewpoints" as the "flat-earth" theory, the "hollow earth" theory (which was very popular for a while: one might remember Frankenstein's monster was heading to the North Pole so he could slip into the Earth's hollow core), the one about the aether, etc.So: in the interest of fairness, will the Browns fight for flat-earthism to be taught in Louisiana's schools?How about Pastafarianism (since we all know the universe was really made by the Flying Spaghetti Monster)?
Actually, thinking about it, what is really surpising (& maybe sad, in a way) is the way these "Scientific Creationism"/"Intelligent Design" types have repackaged the same baseless arguments for the past 150 years, without ever learning from their mistakes. It's kind of like anti-Semites citing that fraud known as the "Protocols of the Elders of Zion" all the time.But they'll keep doing it, so long as people are sufficiently illiterate in science that they keep buying the same old lies every time.
Posted By: Catholic Evolutionist(still quite possible) on Saturday, July 05, 2008
Yes! All hail the Flying Spaghetti Monster.You nailed it, Geoff. The people who perpetuate these theories are very, very good at relabeling. Really, it's the only way they've survived this long.It's too bad, really. Science used to be a respectable subject to study in this country, but education now is a hollow mockery of what it once was. The widespread support for pseudo-science theories like Intelligent Design is the ultimate example. I yearn for the day when we can rightly call ourselves the most educated country on earth, instead of the most consumerist.
Posted By: Karl Priest on Saturday, July 05, 2008
Evolutionists are bluffing when they say their beliefs are scientific. Be sure to look at the list of evolutionists who refuse the debate challenge from Dr. Joseph Mastropaolo. See the list at http://www.lifescienceprize.org/
Posted By: Catholic Evolutionist on Saturday, July 05, 2008
Karl Priest, have you ever considered that these scientists have never bothered to debate this man because he's so unscientific, he's just not worth their time? He actually claims that there has to(not has to, not might be) be an organizer to the universe because he redefines the very definition of the word evolution. Take a look at this quote: "Change over time, 'definition one' of evolution, actually describes devolution to extinction, the exact opposite of evolution.... actual epidemiological data from human genetic disorders and fatal birth defects, identify 'natural selection,' the alleged 'primary mechanism' for evolution, as actually a mechanism for devolution to extinction, the exact opposite of evolution." and "Evolution is the development of an organism from its chemicals or primitive state to its present state. Devolution is the sequence toward greater simplicity or disappearance or degeneration." He's implying that biologists claim that evolution is a process that has a rewind button, when in reality scientists say that evolution is driven by unguided and random mechanisms like mutations, therefore making devolution moot as an argument against evolution because an unguided and random process doesn't go forward, so it can't go backwards. And any evidence to say that specimens simplifying over time is proof to this theory are also wrong, as this is based off another misconception that evolution is a process that inevitably leads to greater complexity. This is wrong because evolution causes flora and fauna mutated with traits adaptable to a certain en
