Some questions about evolution.

[LuisDantas]

"If they disagree with the theory of evolution they are unreasonable by definition."
No, they are people who are willing to investigate the facts for themselves, rather than accept the ToE propaganda without question.

Trouble is, ToE propaganda is irrelevant for pretty much everyone, because the facts support Evolution all the way.

 

[Photonic]

My point exactly. Many of the ToE adherents would like to quash all questioning of their theory. Ben Stein's movie exposed this repressive and wide-spread attitude. Opposing views to the ToE are routinely suppressed, ridiculed, and otherwise punished.
But we digress. You asked for a scientific paper and this is but one of many readily available online.

I feel I need to step in here because apparently you are operating out of complete ignorance of what the Theory of Evolution actually is.

Why aren't you out ridiculing the Theory of Gravity? You obviously have about as much knowledge of evolution as gravity. (Probably way less)

Make sure you don't reproduce. You'll just be feeding into the TOE Proponents "Propaganda."

 

[johnhanks]

No, they are people who are willing to investigate the facts for themselves, rather than accept the ToE propaganda without question.

Now, rusra, I'm sure you're a person who investigates the facts for himself, rather than accepting the ToE propaganda without question. Perish the thought that you are merely relying on the 'authority' of others.

So, share with us please, a salient fact you've uncovered that casts doubt on ToE.

(Rusra will either ignore this post, or loftily inform us that us there are lots of references to such 'facts' out there (but we knew that already, didn't we?).)

 

[johnhanks]

My point exactly. Many of the ToE adherents would like to quash all questioning of their theory. Ben Stein's movie exposed this repressive and wide-spread attitude. Opposing views to the ToE are routinely suppressed, ridiculed, and otherwise punished.

Ah, the good old 'ToE fanatics are suppressing the truth' scenario.

Tell us, rusra, just when in their careers do all these ToE Sturmabteiler get recruited? In my experience, students of biology start off starry-eyed about the beauty and wonder of the subject, and want no more than to play a part in uncovering truth; when is it, in your view, that they get so traumatised and intimidated by the need to conform to the party line that they collude in suppressing contrary views? Do newly accredited Bio PhDs undergo some bizarre rite of passage in which they trade in their integrity for tenure? Has it never occurred to you that just one whistle-blower in the whole shabby charade would be set up (in book and movie deals alone) for life?

 

[camanintx]

Ben Stein's movie exposed this repressive and wide-spread attitude.

Ben Stein's movie was a farce which presented imaginary stories of persecution to support a preconceived notion that opponents to ToE are being repressed. Funny, but I don't see anyone shutting down the Discovery Institute or the Biologic Institute. Anyone who's interested in exploring creationism is free to do so.

 

[Alceste]

"If they disagree with the theory of evolution they are unreasonable by definition."
No, they are people who are willing to investigate the facts for themselves, rather than accept the ToE propaganda without question.

If it is facts they are investigating, they have little choice but to conclude the ToE is not only factually correct and supported by an enormous amount of evidence (read: ALL the evidence), but that there is virtually no dissent about it among professionals within the relevant scientific fields.

If, on the other hand, they're choosing to read and repeat a bunch of unscientific creationist garbage from Awake! instead of looking at the facts for themselves, I can only imagine what kind of nonsense they will come to believe.

 

[Alceste]

My point exactly. Many of the ToE adherents would like to quash all questioning of their theory. Ben Stein's movie exposed this repressive and wide-spread attitude. Opposing views to the ToE are routinely suppressed, ridiculed, and otherwise punished.
But we digress. You asked for a scientific paper and this is but one of many readily available online.

It's not personal. ALL unsubstantiated ideas are rejected by science. The entire purpose of the scientific method is to weed out errors and assumptions that lack evidence. The moment ID proponents come up with evidence that can stand up to scrutiny that supports their hypothesis, it will be published.

 

[Revoltingest]

It's not personal. ALL unsubstantiated ideas are rejected by science. The entire purpose of the scientific method is to weed out errors and assumptions that lack evidence. The moment ID proponents come up with evidence that can stand up to scrutiny that supports their hypothesis, it will be published.

They don't even need that much.
Alls they gotta do is figger out a theory that's falsifiable.
Until then, it's as Wolfgang Pauli would'a said.....it ain't right....it ain't even wrong!
(That guy had a wicked sense of humor.)

 

[Alceste]

They don't even need that much.
Alls they gotta do is figger out a theory that's falsifiable.
Until then, it's as Wolfgang Pauli would'a said.....it ain't right....it ain't even wrong!
(That guy had a wicked sense of humor.)

I understand why they might choose not to. The second they come up with a falsifiable hypothesis they take the risk of having it falsified. When you're dealing with faith-based factual claims, the more vague the better.

 

[Matthew78]

First, I am not a YEC, and don't believe the Bible teaches the earth was created in 6 24-hour days about 10,000 years ago.

Okay, my apologies. I was under the impression that you were one. It's usually the YECs who not only strongly attack evolution but resort to accusing evolutionists of ulterior motives such as misotheism.

To the contrary, the Bible supports the fact the universe had a beginning and the earth was created prior to it's preparation for life. (Genesis 1:1)

Having a beginning and the earth being created prior to its preparation for life is something that YECs believe, too.

As to a scientist who examined the evidence, Antony Flew comes to mind. An avowed atheist for some 50 years, he changed his mind after studying DNA. When questioned about the effect his change may have on other scientists view of him, he reportedly said "That’s too bad. My whole life has been guided by the principle . . . [to] follow the evidence, wherever it leads.” Associated Presss Newswires, "Famous Atheist Now Believes in God" by Richard N. Ostling, 12/9/04.

Oh my goodness. Where do I begin? I have some points in response:

First off, Anthony Flew is not a scientist. He was a philosopher and an expert on David Hume. Flew was an atheist for most of his adult life.

Secondly, I asked for scientists who became Christians. Granted, you're not an YEC so I respectfully withdraw my earlier question since it was based on the assumption that you were.

Third, I hope that Christians look at both sides of the argument. Before parading Flew as a great example of an atheist who found his way, intellectually, to belief in a divine being, I would encourage readers to read Richard Carrier's article on the subject. It is very instructive.

Forth, even if Flew did become convinced of a divine being for perfectly compelling philosophical reasons, it's apparent that Flew adopted a type of deism. Flew did not convert to Christianity or any of the Abrahamic religions for that matter. So it's not really of supreme value for Christian apologists who want to parade an excellent example of a skeptic who saw the errors of his way. Apologists could use it as a stepping stone for encouraging skeptics to at least consider the possibility of a divine being and then try to steer them in the direction of Christian theism.

Another is Wolf-Ekkehard Lonnig.

I have never heard of this fellow. But given the poor quality of arguments that I have seen made against evolutionists by Christians, who, in my judgment, should know better, I'm not expecting to be impressed. I'd be willing to take a look and give my comments but it would take a lot to impress me.

(Now let the character assassinations begin)

Character assassinations?!? By who? I hope you're not thinking that I will indulge in it; character assassinations aren't my style unless you're someone like Jonathan Sarfati (a really despicable excuse for a Christian and a very loathesome individual; I"m convinced that this guy is an evil man and is fair game for any attacks he comes under).

I don't engage in character assassinations when it comes to people who convert to Christianity. I regret their decision and try to find out what convinced them and where we may disagree. But, other than that, I just feel sorry for them. I don't know how else to put it without sounding condescending; but I just feel that they're being irrational. Other than that, they can be really kind, very smart, and of highly reputable character. I try to treat such folks with dignity.

 

[rusra02]

Trouble is, ToE propaganda is irrelevant for pretty much everyone, because the facts support Evolution all the way.

Of course, the assertion that "the facts support evolution all the way" is simply ... an assertion. In fact, the opposite is true. The facts (sans the propaganda) support intelligent design; that life was created, not evolved.

 

[rusra02]

Ah, the good old 'ToE fanatics are suppressing the truth' scenario.

Tell us, rusra, just when in their careers do all these ToE Sturmabteiler get recruited? In my experience, students of biology start off starry-eyed about the beauty and wonder of the subject, and want no more than to play a part in uncovering truth; when is it, in your view, that they get so traumatised and intimidated by the need to conform to the party line that they collude in suppressing contrary views? Do newly accredited Bio PhDs undergo some bizarre rite of passage in which they trade in their integrity for tenure? Has it never occurred to you that just one whistle-blower in the whole shabby charade would be set up (in book and movie deals alone) for life?

Have you seen Ben Stein's movie "Expelled"? There is more than one whistle-blower disputing the smug certitude of the ToE party. Is it your claim that contrary views are not being suppressed? Court cases have been fought to keep alternatives to the ToE out of classrooms. Many churches, the media, most scientists, and most educators beat the ToE drum ceaselessly, proclaiming "evolution is a fact. Question not."
As to the motivations for belief, many do not want to believe what the evidence is saying, that there is a Creator to whom we are responsible. (Romans 1:18-20)

Richard Lewontin wrote that many scientists are willing to accept unproven scientific claims because they “have a prior commitment, a commitment to materialism.” Lewontin writes, “we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door.” (NY Times Review of Books "Billions and Billions of Demons" by Richard C. Lewontin,1/9/97 pp.28-32

Sociologist Rodney Stark is quoted in Scientific American: “There’s been 200 years of marketing that if you want to be a scientific person you’ve got to keep your mind free of the fetters of religion.” He states that in research universities, “the religious people keep their mouths shut." Hmmm... I wonder why...​

Scientific American,9/91 p.91

 

[rusra02]

Now, rusra, I'm sure you're a person who investigates the facts for himself, rather than accepting the ToE propaganda without question. Perish the thought that you are merely relying on the 'authority' of others.

So, share with us please, a salient fact you've uncovered that casts doubt on ToE.

(Rusra will either ignore this post, or loftily inform us that us there are lots of references to such 'facts' out there (but we knew that already, didn't we?).)

I will remind you (not loftily) that a simple internet search "evidence against evolution" will provide a wealth of reference material that provides such evidence. Further, this matter has been discussed at length in this RF. And I suspect you knew that already when you asked for evidence against the ToE, didn't you?

As to a salient fact that casts doubt on the ToE, this simple but irrefutable statement in the Bible; "Of course, every house is constructed by someone, but he the constructed all things is God." (Hebrews 3:4)
We might similarly reason that as every house has a builder, every book has an author. While no human was alive to see the first life on earth, the Bible reasons from effect to cause. If you see a hand-written journal with no author named, do you conclude the book wrote itself somehow?
The DNA within a cell is a remarkably complex and well designed and engineered 'book' that can read itself, copy itself, and make corrections to itself. Reportedly,
a study of DNA is what convinced Andrew Flew that life must have had a Creator.
(Please don't use the cop-out that the ToE doesn't address how life began. That plow, as Lincoln said, doesn't scour.)

 

[lunakilo]

(Please don't use the cop-out that the ToE doesn't address how life began. That plow, as Lincoln said, doesn't scour.)

Why not?
What is the reasoning behind that?

 

[rusra02]

Okay, my apologies. I was under the impression that you were one. It's usually the YECs who not only strongly attack evolution but resort to accusing evolutionists of ulterior motives such as misotheism.



Having a beginning and the earth being created prior to its preparation for life is something that YECs believe, too.



Oh my goodness. Where do I begin? I have some points in response:

First off, Anthony Flew is not a scientist. He was a philosopher and an expert on David Hume. Flew was an atheist for most of his adult life.

Secondly, I asked for scientists who became Christians. Granted, you're not an YEC so I respectfully withdraw my earlier question since it was based on the assumption that you were.

Third, I hope that Christians look at both sides of the argument. Before parading Flew as a great example of an atheist who found his way, intellectually, to belief in a divine being, I would encourage readers to read Richard Carrier's article on the subject. It is very instructive.

Forth, even if Flew did become convinced of a divine being for perfectly compelling philosophical reasons, it's apparent that Flew adopted a type of deism. Flew did not convert to Christianity or any of the Abrahamic religions for that matter. So it's not really of supreme value for Christian apologists who want to parade an excellent example of a skeptic who saw the errors of his way. Apologists could use it as a stepping stone for encouraging skeptics to at least consider the possibility of a divine being and then try to steer them in the direction of Christian theism.



I have never heard of this fellow. But given the poor quality of arguments that I have seen made against evolutionists by Christians, who, in my judgment, should know better, I'm not expecting to be impressed. I'd be willing to take a look and give my comments but it would take a lot to impress me.



Character assassinations?!? By who? I hope you're not thinking that I will indulge in it; character assassinations aren't my style unless you're someone like Jonathan Sarfati (a really despicable excuse for a Christian and a very loathesome individual; I"m convinced that this guy is an evil man and is fair game for any attacks he comes under).

I don't engage in character assassinations when it comes to people who convert to Christianity. I regret their decision and try to find out what convinced them and where we may disagree. But, other than that, I just feel sorry for them. I don't know how else to put it without sounding condescending; but I just feel that they're being irrational. Other than that, they can be really kind, very smart, and of highly reputable character. I try to treat such folks with dignity.

Andrew Flew did not express belief in creation for philosophical reasons. He himself said he followed the [scientific] evidence. Whether scientists embrace Christianity or not, many scientists do believe the evidence supports creation, and some do become true christians. I appreciate your not engaging in personal attacks; however, personal attacks are a common ploy used by ToE proponents toward those who dare question their theory.

 

[rusra02]

Why not?
What is the reasoning behind that?

How life began is the foundation for examining whether life was created or started as one-celled organisms that evolved into all life as we know it. If the ToE cannot address the fundamental issue of when and how evolution began, the theory hasn't a leg to stand on. Further, the complexity and intelligence in the basic building blocks of life must be accounted for if the ToE is to be believed. And branding these basic questions as irrelevant to the theory will not make them go away.

 

[johnhanks]

Is it your claim that contrary views are not being suppressed? Court cases have been fought to keep alternatives to the ToE out of classrooms.

A not-very-subtle moving of goalposts here. The point at issue was the alleged suppression of anti-ToE evidence in scientific journals. The court cases you refer to are related to exclusion of religious doctrines from science classrooms (but you knew that, didn't you?).

As to the motivations for belief, many do not want to believe what the evidence is saying, that there is a Creator to whom we are responsible. (Romans 1:18-20)

Richard Lewontin wrote that many scientists are willing to accept unproven scientific claims because they “have a prior commitment, a commitment to materialism.” Lewontin writes, “we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door.” (NY Times Review of Books "Billions and Billions of Demons" by Richard C. Lewontin,1/9/97 pp.28-32

Sociologist Rodney Stark is quoted in Scientific American: “There’s been 200 years of marketing that if you want to be a scientific person you’ve got to keep your mind free of the fetters of religion.” He states that in research universities, “the religious people keep their mouths shut." Hmmm... I wonder why...​

Scientific American,9/91 p.91

All this flim-flam boils down to the simple fact that science is a discipline that defines its subject matter strictly in terms of the material and the empirically verifiable. Once a scientist admits supernatural explanations for phenomena, (s)he is no longer practising science. It's a matter of definition, not of bias. To accuse scientists of closing their minds to religious explanations is akin to accusing the compiler of a German dictionary of closing her mind to French.

 

[lunakilo]

How life began is the foundation for examining whether life was created or started as one-celled organisms that evolved into all life as we know it. If the ToE cannot address the fundamental issue of when and how evolution began, the theory hasn't a leg to stand on. Further, the complexity and intelligence in the basic building blocks of life must be accounted for if the ToE is to be believed. And branding these basic questions as irrelevant to the theory will not make them go away.

The questions ar far from irrelevant, but they have nothing to do with evolution.

The theory of evolution ONLY adresses how life forms evolve, NOT how life came to be.

Edit: I know you told me not to say that, but it happens to be the truth so I will say it regardless...

 

[johnhanks]

The DNA within a cell is a remarkably complex and well designed and engineered 'book' that can read itself, copy itself, and make corrections to itself. Reportedly, a study of DNA is what convinced Andrew Flew that life must have had a Creator.
(Please don't use the cop-out that the ToE doesn't address how life began. That plow, as Lincoln said, doesn't scour.)

Quote Lincoln to your heart's content, you will not force a merger between abiogenesis and evolution; the two are quite separate theories. But OK, let's accept that, like a short-sighted hunter aiming at a moose with a tree behind it, you have difficulty telling them apart and have both in your sights.

Theories of abiogenesis are so far much less well developed than ToE, but none suggests that DNA as it is found in modern-day cells, complete with all its replicatory accessories, somehow sprang intact into existence. What we see in cells today is the end result of thousands of millions of years of incremental modification.
(Others have pointed out, I think, that Andrew Flew was not a scientist.)

 

[tumbleweed41]

I'll say it.
Biological Evolution addresses biological changes over billions of years, and the common ancestry of all life.

It does not address the existence or non-existence of God(s).
It does not address the origins of life itself.