Theory in Crisis

[`mud]

And where does the cognition go ?
How does the `spirit` leave the mind ?
Does the `spirit` take cognition with it ?
Simple minds...........Simple thoughts !

 

[Darkforbid]

 

[Ouroboros]

Yeap. I used to believe in a literal Genesis 1 creation until I took an Anthropology 101 course. Following the fossils of the primates up through the hominids, especially Homo Habilis, thoroughly thrashed that belief. No objective person can reject evolution when faced with the hard, cold facts.

Same. I was a Christian creationist for 30 years, studied my faith, creationism, anti-evolution, even went to a bible school (kind'a like a seminary) for the purpose to become a missionary. All those years, the evidence for creationism was so meager, thin, weak, but I kept on hunting for knowledge. I wanted to know. And I wanted it to be true. And I wanted proof.

One year doing Anthropology introduction and even did a lab where we measured bones and compared and such things... I got more evidence for evolution in a week than I got for creationism in 30 years...

 

[ChristineM]

“Darwin had nothing to support his theory… It is still a highly speculative hypothesis entirely without factual support and very far from that self evident axiom some would have us believe...One might have expected that a theory of such cardinal importance would have more than metaphysics and myth to offer”.
M.Denton (Molecular Biologist)1986 Theory in crisis p69

“...evolution has many dissidents, some with advanced scientific degrees, who deny that evolution is a fact and who insist that an intelligent Creator caused all living things to come into being in furtherance of a purpose.
Phillip E. Johnson Darwin on Trial p1

“Biologist indulge in unsubstantiated fantasies in denying what is obvious. Simple calculations wipe the idea of life originating spontaneously entirely out of court”.
C.Wickromasighe Evolution From Space 1983

“The results of the cumulative efforts of [biologist] to investigate life at the molecular level is a loud, clear , piercing cry of “Design!” The result is so unambiguous and so significant that it must be ranked as one of the greatest achievements in the history of science”. Darwin’s Black Box Michael J. Behe p232


Above are a few comments from scientist regarding the theory of evolution.
Often we hear of Evolutionist stating that evolution is not a theory but a scientific fact.

What do you think ?
Is evolution a proven fact, a theory or a construct to undermine belief in a creator ?

Please keep in mind that ubiquitous statements such as “everybody know it’s a fact” or “you have to be stupid not to believe in it...” are not convincing proof of evolution.

Gravity is a theory just as...

... Evolution is a theory that has myriad evidence to support it in several different fields of enquiry and no evidence against it.


But genetics is convincing proof and DNA does not lie

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Above are a few comments from scientist regarding the theory of evolution.

And all of them pulled from creationist propaganda and not a single one of these people that actually ever did any real scientific work to demonstrate their claims.

Often we hear of Evolutionist stating that evolution is not a theory but a scientific fact.

It is both. The theory of evolution explains the facts of evolution.
Just like a theory of gravity explains the facts of gravity.

Is evolution a proven fact, a theory or a construct to undermine belief in a creator ?

Evolution theory is a well-established, well-supported explanatory model that explains all the relevant facts and is contradicted by none.

It is hugely succesfull in its explanatory power. There is a case to be made that in terms of explanatory power, evolution theory has no equal in the natural sciences.

Physics doesn't have its unified field theory. Biology does. It's evolution theory.

Please keep in mind that ubiquitous statements such as “everybody know it’s a fact” or “you have to be stupid not to believe in it...” are not convincing proof of evolution.

Please keep in mind that the quotes of a few creationists (who, btw, under oath have admitted that their ID nonsense isn't science any more then astrology is) that are published in creationist propaganda channels, are not convincing evidence against a well-established explanatory model and HUGE body of knowledge like evolutionary biology

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Misinformation is “The only reason”? Really?

I'm inclined to agree.

I have yet to meet a creationist who actually has a firm grasp of evolutionary biology. All of them so far pretty much have been arguing against strawman versions of the science.

For example...Where is the evidence that reveals the origin of the bacterial flagellum? How would mindless, unguided mechanisms build such machines?

Evolution is "guided" by natural selection.

also: Evolution of flagella - Wikipedia

 

[Ouroboros]

Gravity is a theory just as...

... Evolution is a theory that has myriad evidence to support it in several different fields of enquiry and no evidence against it.

What's funny (to me at least), is that over the years studying evolution, the few conflicts and problems never really shook the fundamentals of evolution, the process itself. There's been modifications and improvements, but it's been extremely solid for a long time.

But with gravity... uhm... there's gravity in the aspect of general relativity, and then quantum gravity, and then dark matter, higgs field (graviton? god particle?)... what's the answer there? The fundamentals of gravity of how and where it comes from seems to be very much in limbo!? We know things, but it's not clear, at least not to me. I feel the theory of gravity have more serious and fundamental questions than evolution. Which means by The Department of Creationist Quality Standards of Theories that... all that we know about gravity must be false and it's really a supernatural being making things fall, intelligent falling is true. Meanwhile, the theory of evolution still stands.

 

[ChristineM]

What's funny (to me at least), is that over the years studying evolution, the few conflicts and problems never really shook the fundamentals of evolution, the process itself. There's been modifications and improvements, but it's been extremely solid for a long time.

But with gravity... uhm... there's gravity in the aspect of general relativity, and then quantum gravity, and then dark matter, higgs field (graviton? god particle?)... what's the answer there? The fundamentals of gravity of how and where it comes from seems to be very much in limbo!? We know things, but it's not clear, at least not to me. I feel the theory of gravity have more serious and fundamental questions than evolution. Which means by The Department of Creationist Quality Standards of Theories that... all that we know about gravity must be false and it's really a supernatural being making things fall, intelligent falling is true. Meanwhile, the theory of evolution still stands.

Sure what gravity actually is is unknown but it still works 100% of the time

 

[Subduction Zone]

Gravity is a theory just as...

... Evolution is a theory that has myriad evidence to support it in several different fields of enquiry and no evidence against it.


But genetics is convincing proof and DNA does not lie

Teach the controversy:

 

[metis]

...until I took an Anthropology 101 course.

I took my first anthro class during my junior year, loved it, and eventually got a grad degree in it and then taught it for about 30 years. However, I was on-board with the ToE even near the end of my high school education.

 

[Jose Fly]

Misinformation is “The only reason”? Really?

What about the “Explanatory Deficits of the Modern Synthesis”?

For example...Where is the evidence that reveals the origin of the bacterial flagellum? How would mindless, unguided mechanisms build such machines?

Huh.....in another thread you stated that asking questions is a deflection tactic. And now here you are, asking a series of questions.

Interesting, eh?

 

[Hockeycowboy]

Evolution myths: The bacterial flagellum is irreducibly complex

Science doesn't have all the answers. But to fill the gaps with 'God' is not a particularly convincing argument, imho.

Saying unguided mechanisms built it, isn’t either.

 

[Hockeycowboy]

Huh.....in another thread you stated that asking questions is a deflection tactic. And now here you are, asking a series of questions.

Interesting, eh?

More deflection.

 

[Jose Fly]

More deflection.

LOL....so when I ask questions, I'm deflecting. When I don't ask questions, I'm still deflecting. And when you ask questions, you're not deflecting. And when you habitually bail out on threads, it's justified because people are asking you questions. But when you ask questions, it's not appropriate for people to bail.

I think the term we're looking for is "double standard".

 

[viole]

“Darwin had nothing to support his theory… It is still a highly speculative hypothesis entirely without factual support and very far from that self evident axiom some would have us believe...One might have expected that a theory of such cardinal importance would have more than metaphysics and myth to offer”.
M.Denton (Molecular Biologist)1986 Theory in crisis p69

“...evolution has many dissidents, some with advanced scientific degrees, who deny that evolution is a fact and who insist that an intelligent Creator caused all living things to come into being in furtherance of a purpose.
Phillip E. Johnson Darwin on Trial p1

“Biologist indulge in unsubstantiated fantasies in denying what is obvious. Simple calculations wipe the idea of life originating spontaneously entirely out of court”.
C.Wickromasighe Evolution From Space 1983

“The results of the cumulative efforts of [biologist] to investigate life at the molecular level is a loud, clear , piercing cry of “Design!” The result is so unambiguous and so significant that it must be ranked as one of the greatest achievements in the history of science”. Darwin’s Black Box Michael J. Behe p232


Above are a few comments from scientist regarding the theory of evolution.
Often we hear of Evolutionist stating that evolution is not a theory but a scientific fact.

What do you think ?
Is evolution a proven fact, a theory or a construct to undermine belief in a creator ?

Please keep in mind that ubiquitous statements such as “everybody know it’s a fact” or “you have to be stupid not to believe in it...” are not convincing proof of evolution.

Crisis? What crisis?
I am a subscriber of several scientific magazines, but I did not get the memo. Do you have a link or something?

Ciao

- viole

 

[Jose Fly]

Crisis? What crisis?
I am a subscriber of several scientific magazines, but I did not get the memo. Do you have a link or something?

Ciao

- viole

I'm getting the sense that this was yet another creationist drive-by post.

 

[viole]

I'm getting the sense that this was yet another creationist drive-by post.

Yes, poor guys. I understand the frustration of seeing Darwin still surviving while people like Newton had to bite the metaphorical dust. I would not like to be in their shoes, really.

I would say their hope that evolution is wrong is comparable with their hope that Jesus will come soon to vindicate them.

And they both score close in the wishful thinking scale.

Ciao

- viole

 

[Hockeycowboy]

LOL....so when I ask questions, I'm deflecting. When I don't ask questions, I'm still deflecting. And when you ask questions, you're not deflecting. And when you habitually bail out on threads, it's justified because people are asking you questions. But when you ask questions, it's not appropriate for people to bail.

I think the term we're looking for is "double standard".

See...again, you provide no answers! You are deflecting.
I’ll answer your original questions, but not your redundant ones.
You, though, rarely give an answer, preferring to ask further questions, in so doing ‘taking the spotlight off’ yourself & putting it on me.

I think the objective posters on here can see thru this.

This gainsaying between us is getting nowhere. So-long, I have other important things to do today.

 

[lewisnotmiller]

Saying unguided mechanisms built it, isn’t either.

Why not?

 

[Hockeycowboy]

Why not?

Observation aways tells us that it takes intelligence to build machines; mindless processes do not.

Do you think you can prove otherwise?