Ron Paul on Evolution
December 28th, 2007 at 06:25pm Mark Noonan
Here’s a link to the video.
Ron Paul says:
I think its a theory. Theory of evolution and I don’t accept it, you know, as a theory. I think the Creator that I know created us…
Interesting. Libertarian. Doctor. Specialist in obstetrics/gynecology. Non-believer in the theory of evolution.
Discuss.
Entry Filed under: Campaign 2008, Religion, Republicans, Science
228 Comments
1. liberalT | December 28th, 2007 at 6:32 pm
yes the theory of gravity is also a theory. Perhaps your dad can do some calculations and let us know if we should believe that one or not
2. JHL | December 28th, 2007 at 6:36 pm
Biological evolution is a verifyable fact. Huckelberry Hound is a failed Dr. A failed biologist and a soon to be a failure in the candidates debate. The last thing our country needs is a Jesus Freak running for president. We have one already and look what he begot us. Trials and tribulations.
3. Mark Noonan | December 28th, 2007 at 6:36 pm
This ain’t my Dad - this if Ron Pau; and as I’ve said to you endlessly (some day it might sink in through that thick, bigoted, liberal skull of yours) that the calculation was just on the probability of life from lifelessness - I’ve made no judgement on whether or not we’ve evolved, merely pointed out that without guidance, the accepted theory of evolution is just not possible.
4. Mark Noonan | December 28th, 2007 at 6:37 pm
JHL,
I think you’re mixing up your candidates - this is Paul, not Huckabee…this is the doctor, not the Baptist minister…
5. liberalT | December 28th, 2007 at 6:40 pm
yes - you keep saying that but refuse to actually quantify it. You have to give details if you want me to take it seriously. My dad says it is possible so there
6. William Teach | December 28th, 2007 at 6:40 pm
Not to defend the major league bircheresque crank, but, there is a major league difference between the theory of gravity and Darwin’s theory. Gravity can be proven. It is also set up following the scientific model, something that Darwin’s theory is not. Darwiniancs cannot provide actual physical evidence. They spout platitudes (much like climahysterics,) yet fake evidence. Etc, and so on.
And the final difference is that gravity is not a theory, but a Law. Darwin’s theory is barely a hypothesis, based on the scientific model.
7. liberalT | December 28th, 2007 at 6:44 pm
NO NO NO NO NO William. The theory of gravity - either Newtonian or from General Relativity - is just that a theory. It in fact may be replaced some day. It is a theory - just like all other theories in science. No evidence? What are you talking about. There are mounds of physical evidence supporting it.
Such incredible scientific ignorance is really unbelievable
8. William Teach | December 28th, 2007 at 6:52 pm
I suppose it depends who you talk to. Scientists look at gravity as a law.
Where’s the evidence for evolution? Prove the eye.
9. liberalT | December 28th, 2007 at 6:55 pm
William - I am a scientist. The term “law” isn’t a scientific term its just an historic one it doesn’t mean anything more…
As for evolution start here:
http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/article/0_0_0/lines_01
10. Rana Quijotesca | December 28th, 2007 at 7:02 pm
Ron Paul is a nutter… I used to support him, then I read things about and by him, and now I don’t…
There’s no evidence for evolution? Well… let’s flip that logic around… where is some verifiable evidence for the truth of the Bible or the existence of any specific god?
11. Jeremiah | December 28th, 2007 at 7:27 pm
where is some verifiable evidence for the truth of the Bible
Just walk out the door at sunrise and listen.
~ Jeremiah
12. JHL | December 28th, 2007 at 7:44 pm
What kind of guidance Mark? Devine??? How can you possibly say that without guidance that evolution is not possible? You obviously know nothing about biology. The absolutism that you express is not only false, but misguided as well. You and your religious oriented ilk are so sure of yourselves, aren’t you? There is no doubt in your minds that “god” is some sort of Santa Claus living in the clouds above earth and he (or she) looks just like a human. Am I right?? And that this creature directs all human activity. You, my freind are a complete 100% intellectual cretin. God is an idea of man. Man is a creature that has created art, music and language: but no verifyable proof of a transcendent spiritual being that watches over us. That is nothing more than wishful thinking so spare us your protestations.
13. Tractatus | December 28th, 2007 at 7:44 pm
the accepted theory of evolution is just not possible.
To you. But then again, you’ve never been much for actually looking at evidence, thinking critically, accepting reality, and stuff like that, which is why you’re laughably poor at any argument regarding science and are currently sporting a .000 batting average in such matters. But I also think you put effort into being so consistently wrong about scientific matters–pure chance says you’d have to be right sometime, but that has yet to happen.
14. Ken | December 28th, 2007 at 7:57 pm
Scientific Law: This is a statement of fact meant to explain, in concise terms, an action or set of actions. It is generally accepted to be true and univseral, and can sometimes be expressed in terms of a single mathematical equation. Scientific laws are similar to mathematical postulates. They don’t really need any complex external proofs; they are accepted at face value based upon the fact that they have always been observed to be true.
Specifically, scientific laws must be simple, true, universal, and absolute. They represent the cornerstone of scientific discovery, because if a law ever did not apply, then all science based upon that law would collapse.
Some scientific laws, or laws of nature, include the law of gravity, Newton’s laws of motion, the laws of thermodynamics, Boyle’s law of gases, the law of conservation of mass and energy, and Hook’s law of elasticity.
Hypothesis: This is an educated guess based upon observation. It is a rational explanation of a single event or phenomenon based upon what is observed, but which has not been proved. Most hypotheses can be supported or refuted by experimentation or continued observation.
Theory: A theory is more like a scientific law than a hypothesis. A theory is an explanation of a set of related observations or events based upon proven hypotheses and verified multiple times by detached groups of researchers. One scientist cannot create a theory; he can only create a hypothesis.
In general, both a scientific theory and a scientific law are accepted to be true by the scientific community as a whole. Both are used to make predictions of events. Both are used to advance technology.
In fact, some laws, such as the law of gravity, can also be theories when taken more generally. The law of gravity is expressed as a single mathematical expression and is presumed to be true all over the universe and all through time. Without such an assumption, we can do no science based on gravity’s effects. But from the law, we derived Einstein’s General Theory of Relativity in which gravity plays a crucial role. The basic law is intact, but the theory expands it to include various and complex situations involving space and time.
The biggest difference between a law and a theory is that a theory is much more complex and dynamic. A law governs a single action, whereas a theory explains an entire group of related phenomena.
15. Christian Wright | December 28th, 2007 at 8:03 pm
KANSAS CITY, KS—As the debate over the teaching of evolution in public schools continues, a new controversy over the science curriculum arose Monday in this embattled Midwestern state. Scientists from the Evangelical Center For Faith-Based Reasoning are now asserting that the long-held “theory of gravity” is flawed, and they have responded to it with a new theory of Intelligent Falling.
“Things fall not because they are acted upon by some gravitational force, but because a higher intelligence, ‘God’ if you will, is pushing them down,” said Gabriel Burdett, who holds degrees in education, applied Scripture, and physics from Oral Roberts University.
Burdett added: “Gravity—which is taught to our children as a law—is founded on great gaps in understanding. The laws predict the mutual force between all bodies of mass, but they cannot explain that force. Isaac Newton himself said, ‘I suspect that my theories may all depend upon a force for which philosophers have searched all of nature in vain.’ Of course, he is alluding to a higher power.”
Founded in 1987, the ECFR is the world’s leading institution of evangelical physics, a branch of physics based on literal interpretation of the Bible.
According to the ECFR paper published simultaneously this week in the International Journal Of Science and the adolescent magazine God’s Word For Teens!, there are many phenomena that cannot be explained by secular gravity alone, including such mysteries as how angels fly, how Jesus ascended into Heaven, and how Satan fell when cast out of Paradise.
16. liberalT | December 28th, 2007 at 8:07 pm
Ken I agree with your definitions - I was just simplifying for the purpose of this discussion. The problem is that people hear the word “theory” and they assume that it means something like literary theory where you don’t need evidence, predictions, and confirmation just an argument. Scientifically a theory is much more than this of course..
17. Jeremiah | December 28th, 2007 at 8:52 pm
This from a noted Atheist…
There’s some larger phenomenon that we need to address, and scientists are ducking it.
Hmmmm, I wonder what it could be? Me such a tiny little creature in this universe. If I keep asking, and asking, and asking, and asking the question will I ever know?
Where did all these beautiful creature originate from? How many species of insects are there?
We’ve captured the atom, we can fly like a bird now. We’ve been to the moon a couple times. We can live under the ocean for short periods of time, through the invention of the sub-marine. We can roll on wheels now, (someone rolled a rock down the hill and got an idea). Chainsaws, some guy was sitting on a log one day and seen a grub inside an old piece of rotten wood moving its pincers back and forth gnawing at the wood–Andres Stihl was his name.
We’ve captured the power of moving water, combined with the turbine and huge magnets.
Yet, we’re still stuck we can’t seem to figure out the larger “phenomenon”?
Oh well, I guess I’ll never know if I keep asking the question. Right? No doubt.
Not only that, but while we’re searching for the larger “phenomenon” billions upon billions of dollars are being wasted to find it, when it was given to us long, long ago.
~ Jeremiah
18. NeoClown | December 28th, 2007 at 9:33 pm
Ron Paul is just another insane republican.
And yes I know using insane and republican in the same sentence is redundant.
19. Joe | December 28th, 2007 at 9:38 pm
I choose my candidates based on what their favorite snow cone flavor is. Or maybe their favorite food. That’s how I know whether I’ve found someone who will obey their oath to the constitution. I don’t look at their track record on protecting Liberty. Petty issues like their personal belief regarding evolution are the deciding factor for me.
If Mao se Tung believed in evolution then he’d most definetely have my vote.
20. Huck Fillary | December 28th, 2007 at 9:42 pm
My dad says it is possible so there
Like father, like son–moron and moron jr…
21. NeoClown | December 28th, 2007 at 9:49 pm
What I don’t get is why conservative Christians want to dump all over science.
Conservative Christians are always running to the scientific community begging for help with one problem or another. Help me, help me. I need a bunker buster bomb. Help me I need a stealthy airplane, a bigger bomb, a faster jet. Can you guys make a bullet out of something more dense than lead? Depleted uranium? Cool.
We all know that just as soon as the scientific community gives the conservative Christians everything they want the teaching of science will be abolished.
Men will be required to grow their beards and women will have to cover their faces and we will all have to live in caves and pray all day.
22. js | December 28th, 2007 at 9:55 pm
I think everyone needs to get thier heads our of the duffle bag and use it for something other than a space filler.
Evolution is not empirical science. While it presents theories that seem to adhere to our understanding of the world around us, it has not proven itself under the demanding proofs required. For the last 50 years, the evolution of evolutionary theory has only proven one thing, if there is a basis in empirical science for the theories proof, we dont know what it is.
God is not the same. The personal experience of individuals carries a massive weight, even so, it is also not provable under empirical science.
The difference lies in the massive volume of testimony of that religious experience, not only from the foundation of all recorded history, but right up until today, where people continue to have such religious experiences (accounting for billions of humans over more than 5 thousand years). Compared to lucy, the named skeleton, that evolutionary theory plucks down and make this claim, and later changes it to another claim, much like so many specimens, changing dates over thousands, if not tens and hundreds of thousands of years. The few skeletons that evolutionists have found, compared to the mass of testimony of generations of people in every civilization that ever existed, is no comparison.
We dont have to justify our belief in God to demand proof that evolution is an empirical science, or, a scientific fact. Thats the only way evolutionists survive, by refuting thier theory against our belief in God, because they can, and do not, have the factual proof that evolution is the answer to why we exist.
(bottom line, the missing link is still missing!!)
23. Huck Fillary | December 28th, 2007 at 10:04 pm
What I don’t get is why conservative Christians want to dump all over science.
We don’t, you moron. What I don’t get is why libgressive kooks want to dump all over religion, except the “religion of peace”–Islam.
Can you answer that, NeoJerkoff?
24. Retired Spook | December 28th, 2007 at 10:05 pm
I don’t normally get involved in these evolution/origins of life discussions, not because they aren’t fascinating, but because they generally evolve (pun intended) into name calling (no offense, keefer). That said, the theory of evolution took a couple significant hits recently.
25. Huck Fillary | December 28th, 2007 at 10:22 pm
None taken, Spook. As the attack dog, I must live up to my name. I do have a New Year’s resolution to stop insulting these kooks. Guess it’ll be the shortest resolution I’ve ever attempted…
26. Rana Quijotesca | December 28th, 2007 at 11:07 pm
Thank-You Spook, for bringing up that reputable scientific journal, Townhall.com…
What you are essentially implying is that absence of evidence is evidence of absence. There are mountains of scientific evidence (both empirically observed and through fossil records) that points toward Evolution through natural selection. I’d recommend the NOVA documentary on Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District (I think it’s called “Intelligent Design on Trial” or something like that). There have also been instances of species living with species from which they evolved (like different variations of Finches).
The analogy of “dad and grandpa were brothers” is grossly oversimplified and wrong.
27. Jeremiah | December 28th, 2007 at 11:38 pm
The greatest dowfall to the scientists who purport “evolution” and the like is they’re constantly stressing the — self-reliance.
That’s the key failure, when you get into evolution based science.
Well, I can tell them that their problems are over, once they’ve resorted to that type of thinking…
John 15:5
‘Apart from Me you can do nothing’.
~ Jeremiah
28. AAR | December 29th, 2007 at 12:20 am
Well,
It looks like the Liberal’s Darwinian Evolutionists were wrong once again — by 160 million years or so — if we can believe that their latest “theory” is any better than their past failures…
How many more erroneous and failed theories will it take before people wake up and understand that the Darwinians do not have the correct answers?!!!
AAR
29. AAR | December 29th, 2007 at 12:52 am
There are mountains of scientific evidence (both empirically observed and through fossil records) that points toward Evolution through natural selection.
It is a scientific fact that not all life on Earth was created through natural selection and evolution.
Plants and animals are alive and reproducing today which were not created through natural selection and evolution.
Intelligent Design is now a scientific fact.
It’s time to “move on” and start teaching Intelligent Design in our schools!!!
AAR
30. Christian Wright | December 29th, 2007 at 6:53 am
“The difference lies in the massive volume of testimony of that religious experience, not only from the foundation of all recorded history, but right up until today, where people continue to have such religious experiences…”
You can say the exact same thing about UFOs and ghosts.
31. Pain | December 29th, 2007 at 6:57 am
Predictable. Contrarian. Politician. Pandering to the “Idol That Looks Like Us” self worship base. Nothing new here.
It puzzles Us why some of you so far removed from the message of Peace, Love and Sustainability seek so stridently to be seen as one touch removed from the Divine. Have you no respect for the marvel that is being Human and the beauty that flows from that cognition?
Qu’ul cuda praedex nihil!
32. Eric T | December 29th, 2007 at 6:59 am
AAR-
Vouchers!!! or Our public schools need to be tolerant to religious beliefs, Look at our allies like Eygpt, and many other middle eastern countries. They are Islamic ,many of our other allied countries have Christian schools and beliefs.
I would still rather have the voucher because schools need to be competitive. And religious schools allow us to see things from the views that many others around the world also use.
My brother is a doctor in oriental medicine, some of the doctors here totally disagree on many of the issues. He focuses on what works.
I think our country will be better off if we focus on what works, instead of focusing on the cultural differances.
33. Christian Wright | December 29th, 2007 at 7:08 am
Allow me to provide an every day example of evolution.
A key factor in the development of antibiotic resistance is the ability of infectious organisms to adapt quickly to new environmental conditions. Bacteria are single-celled organisms that, compared with higher life forms, have small numbers of genes. Therefore, even a single random genetic mutation can greatly affect their ability to cause disease. And because most microbes reproduce by dividing every few hours, bacteria can evolve rapidly. A mutation that helps a microbe survive exposure to an antibiotic will quickly become dominant throughout the microbial population. Microbes also often acquire genes from each other, including genes that confer resistance.
The advantage microbes gain from their innate adaptability is augmented by the widespread and sometimes inappropriate use of antibiotics. A physician, wishing to placate an insistent patient who has a virus or an as-yet undiagnosed condition, sometimes inappropriately prescribes antibiotics. Also, when a patient does not finish taking a prescription for antibiotics, some bacteria may remain. These bacterial survivors are more likely to develop resistance and spread.
You have to ask yourself this question: is god, on a daily basis, creating new life forms in the form of antibiotic resistant bacteria?
If you don’t believe in evolution, then you have to believe the your god is using biological weapons on humanity.
34. Rana Quijotesca | December 29th, 2007 at 7:40 am
AAR-
You have any proof that ID is a fact? Or is that just what talk radio told you to think?
35. AAR | December 29th, 2007 at 8:10 am
Rana,
The Top 10 New Organisms of 2007 (click)
Go to your local pet shop, and for a couple of dollars, you can buy a zebra danio fish which contains genes from both a fish and a jellyfish or coral, and glows in the dark. It was not created by natural selection, but rather through Intellignet Design, in this case, man.
AAR
36. Rana Quijotesca | December 29th, 2007 at 8:51 am
ok, we can genetically engineer… what does that have to do with our evolution? What does that say about the origins of species?
37. Bruce | December 29th, 2007 at 8:55 am
This is kind of lame and some of you guys clearly have way too much invested in your positions. I have spoken to catholic priests who say that God might use evolution as His tool. Why not? And that eliminates the need to falsify those pesky fossil records.
On the other hand we do not have a single fossil record showing one creature turn into another creature. I want to see evidence that a bat spiecies became a rat or showing all the fossil steps between being a fish and then that same creature with little arms and legs and then that creature again with bigger arms and legs and then another fossil showing this creature developing fur and claws. It doesn’t exist. Among all the fossils we have ever found we have never found an unbroken record that proves evolution is real. Sure we can see birds who’s beaks get harder or softer over time based on drought and climatic conditions but that is hardly a bird becoming some other creature. Sure microbes may have various immunities but a microbe with a different set of immunities is not a new species. Not even close. There is absolutely no evidence of some critter ever becoming another critter. None. Doesn’t exist. That means that people who ‘beleive’ in evolution are doing so on faith alone. Until you can evolve a fruit fly into a house fly or some kind of wasp then all you have is an idea that is unprovable and unobservable. Evolution is hardly even a theory although it is interesting it has never been proven so it just kind of a proposition. Lets see someone evolve dogs into horses or bears and then you will have proof. But for now it is little more than an interesting idea.
The fact is no one knows how the species came into being. Any one who pretends to have scientific fact on their side is just misled or purposefully lying. Of course some people hate religion so they love to pretend that only the religious would argue against ‘evolution’ but that is ridiculous. I am not religious and I can see the holes in the theory of evolution and the complete lack of any evidence.
The theory of evolution does not even complete with the laws of thermodynamics or the law of gravity; I can drop an apple and watch gravity slam it into the ground. I cannot drop a bird and watch evolution it turn into a vole. All we can do is make a rose a different color rose; we cannot make a rose into a carnation. We can observe beaks getting harder or softer. We can see immunities change in an animal but those immunities do not make the animal into a new species; it just helps this speices last a bit longer.
People who defend evolution as science are just as bad as the intelligent design folks who cannot find any intelligence capable of creation. Both ideas are almost completely unfounded on anythign but wishful thinking. Real science has proofs. Evolution has yet to produce any proofs or evidence.
38. Ricorun | December 29th, 2007 at 8:58 am
Rana: You have any proof that ID is a fact?
The evidence is all over the place in the form of genetically modified plants and animals — almost certainly soon in the form of entirely synthetic organisms. AAR will say (okay, he just did) that since there is evidence now, it could have happened in the past.
And frankly, it IS possible. But the fact that it is happening now, engineered by humans, demonstrates that any past evidence could similarly be the result of another intelligent species, not God. Then the argument — were THEY created by ANOTHER intelligent intermediary or God? — starts all over again.
At its basis, ID relies on an assumption like Mark’s: evolution is deemed too improbable to explain every single gap in the fossil record. In other words, it relies on the absence of evidence rather than any positive evidence. So basically, ID is a restatement of the null hypothesis: i.e., rather than saying “we don’t know” you say, “a designer did it”. Of course, as I explained above, the designer doesn’t have to be God. Moreover, if someone comes along and unravels a complex organ system to the point where each of its component parts originated and were useful in precursor organisms before the organ system in question existed as a whole, then ID just drops its claim and moves on to some other hole. And that’s another problem with “ID theory”: it has no predictive power.
In a nutshell, for the reasons summarized above, “ID theory” is both bad science and bad theology. That’s not to say that traditional evolutionary theory constitutes any sort of proof of what it purports to explain, only that it’s the best, simplest explanation we have so far. And “ID theory” as currently formulated and expressed, adds nothing.
39. AAR | December 29th, 2007 at 9:00 am
From the moment in time that humans began manipulating, modifying, and changing DNA, Intelligent Design became an undeniable and scientific fact, and…
it will remain an undeniable fact throughout the rest of history!
The numbers of those organisms — plant, animals, and combinations — will continue to increase as humans continue to “meddle” with DNA. Many of those organisms — created through Intelligent Design — already exist in the wild today, and their numbers will continue to grow in the future.
As more and more of these Intelligently Designed organisms are introduced or escape into nature, they will interbreed with naturally occurring organisms, and they will continue to evolve. Those organisms will evolve both “naturally” and through changes incorporated through subsequent “Intelligent Design”… possibly mixing with their wild relatives… creating new variations and species… and over time, making it impossible to distinguish between those which evolved naturally and those which owe at least a portion of their existence to “Intelligent Design.”
Over time, more and more life on Earth will be a combination of Intelligent Design and natural evolution. In time, it will be impossible to determine which plants and animals, if any, are solely products of natural selection — just as it is impossible right now to say that all life on Earth is a product of natural selection and evolution.
Any changes made through Intelligent Design in the past will also have been incorporated into life and continued to evolve, making it impossible to say that organisms alive today are solely products of natural selection and evolution. Some believe changes were incorporated by highly advanced alien civilizations who visited Earth from time to time in the past. Others believe God created life and could just as easily have changed and modified that same life… adding new life along the way — humans for instance.
Questions that remain to be answered include:
Who else was or may have been involved in the “Intelligent Design” of life on Earth prior to that of humans?
When and how many times did that occur?
What was created through “Intelligent Design”, and what was created through subsequent “evolution”?
Who created the first life on Earth and added new organisms along the way?
Who created man?
Billions of people believe it was God! Some may believe it was other advanced civilizations. Darwinians believe it was random accidents of nature.
It’s time schools permit open and full discussion of the various possibilities!!!
AAR
40. Retired Spook | December 29th, 2007 at 9:37 am
Thank-You Spook, for bringing up that reputable scientific journal, Townhall.com…
That’s not like you to attack the messenger, Rana, especially without providing evidence to refute what he said. As he was referring to a study in the journal, “Nature”, did he misrepresent the facts, or can you point to some aspect of what he said that was not true?
41. Richard Ayers | December 29th, 2007 at 9:41 am
It’s clear that Ron Paul doesn’t think like other folks. I’m trying to imagine my being female and knowing how he thinks and undergoing a pelvic exam by him. Creepy!
42. Rana Quijotesca | December 29th, 2007 at 9:45 am
Spook-
In my original comment, I noted that the analogy that Townhall.com used was misleading and provided evidence contrary to their claim… reread it…
Rico-
My point about ID wasn’t that humans couldn’t genetically engineer plants and animals (I conceded as much in a previous comment); it was that there was no evidence saying that humans were intelligently designed… Your point about ID simply being a restatement of the Null Set is a point that I have made many times both on this blog and in debates. The original ID argument (IE: the Argument from Design) is based on a false analogy, and the new ID argument is just creationism in a lab coat.
43. js | December 29th, 2007 at 9:52 am
>>>>>>30. Christian Wright | December 29th, 2007 at 6:53 am
“The difference lies in the massive volume of testimony of that religious experience, not only from the foundation of all recorded history, but right up until today, where people continue to have such religious experiences…”
You can say the exact same thing about UFOs and ghosts.<<<<<<<
No you cant.
Why make up stories like this based on false assumption. Its the same thing as a lie. While you could accumulate a large volume of human testimony about ghosts (yes, God is Spirit, so it is very likely that Ghosts exist), and UFO’s (like they said in the movie “Contact”, it would be such a waste of space out there if there were no other living things in the universe) have just as much potential, but the sheer volume of religious experience dwarfs it by far.
44. js | December 29th, 2007 at 10:01 am
>>>>>33. Christian Wright | December 29th, 2007 at 7:08 am
Allow me to provide an every day example of evolution<<<<<<.
Thats not darwinian evolution. Species adapt to thier environment. Thats why there are so many sub species of monkeys out there. They, like the bacteria and virus, adapt to survive.
The point your missing is the failure of evolutionary theory to provide the proof that evolution was the only element involved in life on earth. From a darwinian standpoint, it would require science to empirically prove that life began as a single cell, and that all living beings, both plant and animal, are a result of that single cells evolution.
So far, they havent been able to docuement in thier piles of bones that men evolved from monkeys or apes, let alone, provided evidence proving cross species evolution can and does occur…..
So dont confuse the issue with adaptation and darwin’s theory of evolution. Its not the same thing.
45. Huck Fillary | December 29th, 2007 at 10:05 am
Bruce, you and I are on the same page. As I’ve stated many times in the past here, I am a believer, but I have many fences to mend with my God. I do believe He created this wonderful universe, and all living creatures, but I do not have an explanation how or why. However, I’m not so quick as to dismiss science, as I and many of my fellow believers have been, constantly, by the brain-dead trolls who have jumped on the “bash-God” train. Their religion is liberalism–anti-God, anti-thought, anti-tolerance. And they come here, spewing whatever filth they were fed by their dear leaders, in most cases, whacked-out professors who possess their almighty power–tenure.
It’s best not to engage these misled souls, so I choose to attack them–in writing, and verbally, of course. Unfortunately for me, and fortunately for them, I’ve never had a face-to-face confrontation with any lemming who’s polluted this fine blog. Maybe that day will come, but until then, I will pray for their lost souls.
46. AAR | December 29th, 2007 at 10:08 am
The “Theory of Evolution” is a cover for a mix of observations, unprovable and controversial sub-theories, unproven and unproveable assumptions, and ever changing conclusions — the majority of which have competing and/or contradictory views and opinions.
The “Theory of Evolution” — as taught in our schools today — is a key Liberal tool for indoctrinating students and teaching atheism. Liberals (Democrats) want to keep it that way by preventing even the mention or discussion of other beliefs and theories — none of which they or Scientists can disprove!
AAR
47. AAR | December 29th, 2007 at 10:18 am
Is it possible there hasn’t been enough time for all of the complex life to evolve solely through random chance and natural selection as Darwinians claim?!!!
AAR
48. liberalT | December 29th, 2007 at 10:55 am
AAR - i am not sure what you think that article proves about evolution. It states that for 7/8s of the earth’s history the oxygen in the oceans could not support oxygen breathing. That is not in conflict at all with the standard evolutionary history at all. Most of the time in the history of the earth there was very little of anything beyond single or few celled organisms.
Further I am not sure how you think this constitutes a scientific argument. “Isn’t it possible that there wasn’t enough time..” Sure - of course it is possible that there wasn’t enough time - but because something could have or may not be possible doesn’t say anything for what actually happened.
I find it distinctly disturbing that so many people in this country are under the impression that there isn’t any evidence for evolution or natural selection. The simple fact of the matter is that natural selection is one of the MOST scientifically sound theories that exists.
To all of those who say that in science you have “proofs” you clearly have not done much science. Mathematical proofs prove mathematical theorems - not scientific propositions. Scientific propositions are never proven in that sense. They are proven in the sense that the empirical evidence supports to propositions. Then based on the scientific theories predictions can be made for situations or experiments not yet done or evidence not yet found and then one can do experiments or collect evidence to see if it agrees with the prediction of the theory. That is what constitutes scientific proof. I suggest you go read the links I posted - as well that others have as well - showing all of the evidence, predictions verified, etc that evolution and natural selection have passed with flying colors.
If you choose not to believe in evolution because of your religious beliefs than thats one thing. But to try to argue that natural selection is not scientific is equivalent to arguing that newtonian or einstinian gravity is not scientific. It is just in complete contradiction with the facts.
It is actually fairly amusing. The religious right for years tried to argue against evolution in favor of creationism. It is only when it was too embarrassing for them to continue to deny science out right that they made up this ID nonsense.
49. AAR | December 29th, 2007 at 10:58 am
Ricorun,
The “Theory of Evolution” assumes that the “improbable is probable”!
AAR
50. AAR | December 29th, 2007 at 11:13 am
liberalT,
One of the assumptions with the Theory of Evolution is that anything is possible given enough time. The Theory of Evolution says life developed and evolved in the seas first.
If the seas were too toxic to permit life to exist for far longer than previously believed, there would not be enough time remaining for natural and random processes alone to create the complex life on Earth.
It was a NASA scientist, not me, who stated:
Meaning… there wasn’t enough time — when the seas were habitable — for all the complex life on Earth to develop and evolve by random chance and natural selection alone!!!
AAR
51. Ricorun | December 29th, 2007 at 11:16 am
AAR: The “Theory of Evolution” assumes that the “improbable is probable”!
Perhaps so. Either way, there’s always the Flying Spaghetti Monster!
Rana: Your point about ID simply being a restatement of the Null Set is a point that I have made many times both on this blog and in debates.
I know you have. What I tried to do was distill the argument down to its essence in a way that people unfamiliar with how science works can understand it. The idea is that the concept of “we don’t know” and “a designer did it” are essentially identical, except that the first spurs further inquiry while the second is just intellectually lazy.
The original ID argument (IE: the Argument from Design) is based on a false analogy, and the new ID argument is just creationism in a lab coat.
And it’s a particularly ill-fitting lab coat at that. One would think that would be a sufficient argument. But for many it’s not. So it seems necessary to point out that ID doesn’t look so good in vestments either. In other words, when you point out that the designer in question could just as easily be the Flying Spaghetti Monster (or some other intelligent intermediary) as it could God, the argument tends to lose its appeal.
I personally believe that God created evolution — along with everything else, both physical and metaphysical (spiritual). But I don’t feel the need to try to integrate the two in order to justify my faith. In fact, I think it’s a fool’s errand to even try. To me, the “why” and the “how” are two completely different questions that neither negate or prove the other. They simply cannot be resolved in any meaningful way. No one will ever prove beyond the shadow of a doubt that God exists, not will anyone prove beyond the shadow of a doubt that God doesn’t exist.
I spent my life in science. The more I know about nature the more I appreciate its articulated, intercalated complexity. And to me, I can’t help but be awestruck at the power and the wonder and the beauty of it all. To me, the experience of being overwhelmed by beauty in the act of contemplating mere mechanics implies a deeper purpose. But I can’t prove it. In the end, belief in a spiritual existence requires a leap of faith. And that, to me, is the very nature of free will. For those who don’t make that leap there will always be the Flying Spaghetti Monster.
52. liberalT | December 29th, 2007 at 11:38 am
AAR
–
Meaning… there wasn’t enough time — when the seas were habitable — for all the complex life on Earth to develop and evolve by random chance and natural selection alone!!!
–
that is not at ALL the conclusion of the scientist - Dr Pilcher. That is simply your biased reading of the statement. The statement is that that it COULD have profound impact on the HISTORY of evolution. That is to say - the exact time line of evolution or conditions could be different. He says nothing about there not being enough time. That is just your own projection.
Learn to read…
53. AAR | December 29th, 2007 at 11:47 am
liberalT,
I have never said that organisms can not and do not change, adapt, and “evolve” over time to their changing environment, and for other reasons — through natural selection, random mutations, or whatever.
The fact that an organism, plant, or animal can evolve and adapt to its changing surroundings and environment over time, through natural selection, does not prove that all organisms, plants, and animals were created by random chance and natural selection alone. It does not disprove Creationism or Intelligent Design — whether by God or space aliens (depending on one’s own beliefs). In fact, the ability to evolve and adapt to changing surroundings and conditions is exactly the ability a Creator or God would also include to sustain His creations!
That is also true of those organisms created through man’s limited and primitive Intelligent Design efforts… which will continue to change, adapt, and evolve in the future.
I do object, however, to teaching the atheist’s version of evolution in our public schools, and prohibiting even the discussion or mention of other beliefs, theories, and possibilities!
I do object to Liberals using our public schools to teach their atheistic beliefs, agenda, and lifestyle!
Any person who believes in God or a Creator should also object and demand that it be changed!!!
AAR
54. Diana Powe | December 29th, 2007 at 11:51 am
I have a rather small scientific hypothesis, to wit:
Persons who comment at Blogs For Victo(r)y who hold views on the topics of biological evolution, Darwinian natural selection as a mechanism for biological evolution and intelligent design do not change their views by reading the comments of those who hold views other than their own.
Now, because the size of the phenomenon is sufficiently small and statistical sampling would not be required, I could, if I were sufficiently interested in investigating the validity of my hypothesis, study the comments posted, categorize them and follow them over time to see if anyone changed their views. Then, as a sub-question, I could ask those who changed their views to explain why they did and see if they reported that it was because of an effect that I have excluded in my hypothesis.
Based on my results, I could write out a report of my investigation and ask other researchers to attempt to reproduce the results. In turn, they could write reports that would confirm, modify or refute my results. Should there be a number of researchers who all came to the same conclusion, then we could propose that we have a theory which we might call the Theory of Thinking Inflexibility at Blogs For Victo(r)y.
However, as with most of what people believe, the payoff for doing a rigorous examination of my hypothesis isn’t large enough to motivate me to do more than make the hypothesis. So, it shall remain (barring someone else taking up the question) the Hypothesis of Thinking Inflexibility at Blogs For Victo(r)y and, by gosh, I believe in it!
55. AAR | December 29th, 2007 at 11:56 am
liberalT,
I told you what that statement meant. If you prefer “may not” instead or “wasn’t”, so be it! It doesn’t change the intent or fact that it is yet another “scientific unknown” in the Theory! Deny it if you chose!!!
That was only one article. You may need to do some outside reading and research in order to understand and comprehend the full implications!
Unfortunately, I don’t have much time to spend on this today.
AAR
56. liberalT | December 29th, 2007 at 12:00 pm
no AAR - it is a completely different statement and you know it.
57. AAR | December 29th, 2007 at 12:04 pm
Diana,
Do us all a favor… post your hypothesis somewhere else!
liberalT,
Whatever you choose to believe!
AAR
58. Diana Powe | December 29th, 2007 at 12:08 pm
AAR,
That would be your hypothesis. Here is some evidence to test it against:
So, if, in fact, your hypothesis is correct (where is your evidence?) then it clearly isn’t working very effectively.
Hmm.
59. NeoClown | December 29th, 2007 at 12:14 pm
I Wonder if Phillip Johnson, the father of “Intelligent Design” knows what he’s done. In his quest to have creationism taught as science he is stepping on some really big toes.
A few short years ago God was Almighty, All Knowing, the Beginning and the End. As a Supreme Being God was omnipotent and his ability was never called into question.
Times are bad for everyone and Phil had to give God a major demotion. God is now an “Intelligent Designer.” God has been relegated to the back room. He produces blueprints for the engineers. Once engineering gives their approval Gods drawings go down to manufacturing and production begins.
Doesn’t the term “intelligent designer” imply that there are unintelligent designers running around somewhere?
Times are bad and if more cuts are required in the workforce will God be demoted again? Maybe by next Christmas God will the “Smart Handyman.”
60. liberalT | December 29th, 2007 at 12:15 pm
AAR - that is the whole point. Science is not “whatever I choose to believe” like religion is. It is scientific facts, evidence, tests, hypothesis, etc.
It is not whatever I choose to believe but what the result of 150 years of careful scientific inquiry, constant testing of assumptions, and the constant search for things we don’t understand and don’t fall under our theories. That is what is interesting in science.
61. Diana Powe | December 29th, 2007 at 12:23 pm
NeoClown,
Now I happen to be both a believer in the Nicene Creed and a faithful attender of church, but I also believe that God is powerful enough to have used any method to accomplish His purposes. So, from that perspective, your post # 59 was genuinely laugh-out-loud funny. Bravo!
62. Retired Spook | December 29th, 2007 at 12:35 pm
The analogy of “dad and grandpa were brothers” is grossly oversimplified and wrong.
Spook- In my original comment, I noted that the analogy that Townhall.com used was misleading and provided evidence contrary to their claim… reread it…
Rana, perhaps I not deciphering the intent of what you wrote because I don’t see that you said any such thing. I’d agree that Pastore’s comment about “Dad and Grandpa were brothers” is over-simplified; I suspect more of a lame attempt at humor than a serious scientific statement.
Here is more on the study from the Univerity of Utah.
I personally believe that God created evolution — along with everything else, both physical and metaphysical (spiritual). But I don’t feel the need to try to integrate the two in order to justify my faith. In fact, I think it’s a fool’s errand to even try. To me, the “why” and the “how” are two completely different questions that neither negate or prove the other. They simply cannot be resolved in any meaningful way.
Very well put, Rico.
63. AAR | December 29th, 2007 at 12:47 pm
Diana,
Your tangential quote says nothing to change my statement or facts!!!
Show me the mention of God in the “Theory of Evolution”!
To the contrary… You and the rest of your Liberal atheist friends are doing everything you possibly to prevent even the mention of God or alternative theories and beliefs from the public schools!!! The Theory teaches that all life on Earth evolved through natural selection, random chance, and natural processes. That’s atheism!!!
The Theory of Evolution — as taught today — is pure atheism!
You “claim”: Now I happen to be both a believer in the Nicene Creed and a faithful attender of church…
Then you believe that God created life on Earth — the plants, animals, and humans — as the Bible says — not random chance and evolution, right?
Then you want children taught that God was involved in the process, and not just random chance and natural selection as atheists believe, right?
AAR
64. Rana Quijotesca | December 29th, 2007 at 1:10 pm
AAR-
ID is a religious theory, not a scientific one. If you want a religious theory taught to your children, take them to church. Tax money isn’t supposed to indoctrinate children into religious belief.
65. Mark Noonan | December 29th, 2007 at 1:13 pm
Actually, a pretty good debate thus far.
Since I’ve been accused of this and that vis a vis evolution, I guess I’ll spell out my views:
I, of course, believe the following -
The above statement is, in my view, 100% true - nothing which exists in this world contradicts the above statement. As for how life arrived at its current state - God created it according to his will and his design. As to what particular mechanisms he might have used to make what we see in the world today, I have no idea and, in a large sense, couldn’t care less. My dog in this hunt - ie, the debate between Darwinism and Intelligent Design - is that the evidence from biology does not support unguided evolution and thus the alternative view - guided evolution, Intelligent Design - is a legitimate pursuit of science.
What I stand astonished before is the absolute refusal of the Darwinists to admit the severe flaws in their theory - to say that something is both scientific and unquestionable is, in my view, to negate science. There is nothing unquestionable in the physical world - our reason allows us to ask questions and seek for answers, and no question should be ignored. I can only assume that it is a dark fear on the part of some which impells them to opposition to ID - a fear that if God exists and has intervened in this world, that he might want certain actions from us; that there might, after all, be things which are inherently true.
66. Diana Powe | December 29th, 2007 at 1:22 pm
AAR,
I absolutely believe that God created the Universe which includes this planet and its life and all the other planets which, in all likelihood, have life. I also believe that God gave us some level of free will (see the arguments for determinism in a dictionary of philosophy) and that free will includes the ability to refuse to believe in God. Now I have a duty and a responsibility to be a witness to my belief but I also have no duty or responsibility to futilely attempt to impose my belief. Belief imposed from outside, even if such could be achieved, would be no belief at all.
Because of the fact that the founders of the United States of America very well understood the bloodstained story of clashes between and within religious groups, they clearly set out to establish a secular government which would allow religion to operate in its own sphere. One of the main problems with the current government in Iraq is that the Sunni Muslim population largely distrusts the Shi’a Muslim-dominated government. So, religion should not attempt to incorporate itself into our secular government as an institutional entity. Plainly, we expect members of the government to have their individual actions informed by their religious convictions so long as they don’t try to undermine the overall secularity of the government as an institution. However, the government is to be secular in its overall operation.
Public education in the United States is a function of the secular government. Religiously-based education is completely allowed as an alternative and, in some cases, is subsidized through the tax code. Therefore, I want children who go to public schools to be given the best education that can be achieved to allow them to succeed in the secular sphere. Their religious education is ultimately the responsibility of their parents and not the responsibility of the society at large.
67. AAR | December 29th, 2007 at 1:23 pm
Rana,
The Theory of Evolution, as currently taught in the public schools, is teaching and supporting atheism. That is a fact!!!
Atheism is a religious belief.
Liberals are using the public schools to indoctrinate students in atheism!
Take your atheistic teachings out of our public schools or give parents School Vouchers so they can place their children in quality schools of their choice!
AAR
68. Rana Quijotesca | December 29th, 2007 at 1:26 pm
ummm… not teaching Christianity or any religion isn’t teaching atheism… get your head checked…
69. AAR | December 29th, 2007 at 1:29 pm
Diana,
I just wanted to see how you would respond.
I don’t take anything a Liberal propagandist says as fact or the truth!
The founders of this nation never intended to remove God from our schools or public places.
That took a bunch of activist judges to misconstrue and misinterpret what those who wrote and ratified the Constitution meant and intended! But, that’s another issue.
AAR
70. AAR | December 29th, 2007 at 1:30 pm
69. AAR | December 29th, 2007 at 1:29 pm
Diana,
I just wanted to see how you would respond.
I don’t take anything a Liberal propagandist says as fact or the truth!
The founders of this nation never intended to remove God from our schools or public places.
That took a bunch of activist judges to misconstrue and misinterpret what those who wrote and ratified the Constitution meant and intended! But, that’s another issue.
AAR
71. Diana Powe | December 29th, 2007 at 1:35 pm
Mark,
A very good post. I have no quarrel with the idea that anyone conduct research and publish their findings relative to the intelligent design hypothesis. Even if they brought forth truly strong evidence for intelligent design, it wouldn’t follow that the designer was the same being spoken of in Christian scripture. It could be the Flying Spaghetti Monster.
However, the problem I think most of the discussion is about is whether the intelligent design hypothesis has enough evidence to merit its inclusion in an effective science curriculum. To date, the evidence presented in court (viz Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District) is that the intelligent design hypothesis does not have enough evidence to merit its inclusion and, furthermore, that its advocates for inclusion are less interested in its scientific merits than they are in getting religion into the science classroom because they fear rampant atheism (see AAR’s posts # 46, 53 and 67, for example) is the inevitable result of the current situation, despite the evidence against that hypothesis.
72. AAR | December 29th, 2007 at 1:35 pm
AAR
73. Eric T | December 29th, 2007 at 1:40 pm
That is the Creed from the Catholic Church. You have Catholic Universities, and high schools and hospitals, I think they should be getting tax money to help with funding just like the public schools.
The writer in #33 explains how he sees evolution every day. I see an organism adapting to it’s environment, like a vaccine. That is kinda like me putting on a coat because it is cold outside.
Evolution may be what some of you look to, for answers that you can’t explain. For me I just accept it as “God made it that way”.
74. Casper | December 29th, 2007 at 1:42 pm
I would agree with Rico on how I view evolution. The thing I find funny about the whole debate on teaching evolution is how little time is actually spent on it in the classroom. In our school system students are taught about evolution twice; First in Eighth Grade Biology, then later in High School Biology. Between the two, students might spend ten hours in their school careers discussing it. Compare that with the amount of time they spend in church or having discussions with their parents and I don’t think evolution is quite the threat some would suggest.
75. Mark Noonan | December 29th, 2007 at 1:53 pm
Diana,
But I’m never going to concede that a judge should decide what is science - that is just an absurdity. In my view, as long as what is being taught is not specifically identified with a religion or sect of a religion, then its ok to teach it in the schools, however the local school board decides to have it taught. Intelligent design, as a theory, makes no judgements on such things as the Incarnation or the Trinityl; at bottom, it only explains how things could have changed. If, though, someone wanted to teach in public school that the world was created in 6 literal days approximately 6,000 years ago, that would be something identified with a particular religious sect, and thus has no place in a sicence classroom.
76. Diana Powe | December 29th, 2007 at 2:12 pm
Mark,
Good points. Frankly, I have no problem with the reality that some number of biology teachers have and do say something like, “You’ve probably heard of the intelligent design hypothesis. It’s very controversial and it’s not in our textbook because it doesn’t have much credibility among biologists. However, there are certainly books that can be read or material on the Internet you can look at if you’re interested.” However, there’s no reason, given the fact that it isn’t considered a mainstream hypothesis to include it in a biology curriculum anymore than including the flat-earth hypothesis just because there really and truly are people today who think it is a valid hypothesis.
Your complaint about Judge Jones (appointed by President George W. Bush) is inaccurate in describing his decision. He had to judge, based on the evidence presented in the courtroom, as to whether the actions of the Dover Area School District were motivated by an attempt to add religion to the science curriculum or not. The evidence, even from the direct testimony of the board members, was that they were and thus the violation of the First Amendment was clear.
77. Tractatus | December 29th, 2007 at 3:03 pm
the evidence from biology does not support unguided evolution and thus the alternative view - guided evolution, Intelligent Design - is a legitimate pursuit of science.
Wow. Whole lotta wrong there. Let’s start with your first statement:
“the evidence from biology does not support unguided evolution”
This is, of course, false. The evidence does support evolution–you just refuse to acknowledge the evidence. Which is your deficiency, not science’s. If you refuse to be educated, that’s on you. Remember your repeated claims that transitional fossils don’t exist and then, when shown transitional fossils, you responded, “Transitional fossils don’t exist!”–that’s your problem in a nutshell. You absolutely refuse to acknowledge the mountain of evidence that runs contrary to your desires, so at the most fundamental level, your outlook on this is severely flawed.
But let’s look past that for a moment. Let’s pretend that your massive shortcoming there doesn’t exist and, just for the sake of argument, move on to the second part of your statement:
“thus the alternative view - guided evolution, Intelligent Design - is a legitimate pursuit of science.”
This is just plain absurd. Just because you poke holes in one theory (and remember–you haven’t…we’re just doing a little logic exercise here), it in no way, shape, or form follows that a given alternative is therefore by sheer virtue of those holes equally valid, more valid, or even valid at all. That’s the sort of glaring logical error you would be better equipped to avoid if you weren’t so antagonistic toward education.
In order for a theory to be a legitimate pursuit of science, it has to be demonstrated as a legitimate pursuit of science. Funny thing about creationists like you–you never provide any scientific evidence for your theory. In fact, in trying to argue for your position, you only seem to talk about evolution. Interesting–and very telling.
We know why this is, of course–you don’t have any scientific footing. Your only hope is to claim that creationism is valid because it’s an “alternative” to the actual science. So’s alchemy. So’s geocentrism. And, much like creationism, those theories have no supporting evidence. Bitch and moan about evolution all you want (and I’m sure you will, and I’m sure it’ll be quite a bit), but until you can provide actual, factual scientific evidence to support creationism, then it’s just non-scientific blather–an attempt to wrap religious dogma in a lab coat (which the Dover judge saw right through, much to your consternation).
But I’m never going to concede that a judge should decide what is science
Nor will you concede that scientists should decide what is science because they reach decisions that you don’t like. And that puts you in a bind–you only want people whose views you find agreeable to decide what science is. Which puts you on the outskirts of actual science, though that doesn’t stop you from pretending that you are being scientific.
78. Web Smith | December 29th, 2007 at 3:15 pm
It demonstrates Ron Paul’s ability to think outside of a partisan box.
The Pope has said that the Theory of Evolution and the Big Bang Theory are consistent with Catholic Beliefs.
There is no accepted Theory of Gravity other than to say gravity exists. Einstein said that gravity was the result of a space shift but did not fully explain. The current train of thought is still that all objects have gravity and they use this assumption to theorize how planets and stars are formed. Newton failed to consider cohesion in his experiments. If you sprinkle bits of fish food into an aquarium or small crackers into a bowl of soup, you will see that they are attracted to each other and to the sides of the container. This is not gravity.
Evolutionists have not yet connected all the dots for any one species. Their theory is based on logical assumption. This musta evolved into that and that musta evolved into this and so on or their closely matched DNAs show that. All DNA is closely matched because every living thing is made from the same finite set of chemicals. With a very few minor changes, you could have been a plant.
The answer is that, no one knows for sure. Some people can’t live with that.
79. AAR | December 29th, 2007 at 3:27 pm
Ricorun,
I personally believe that God created evolution — along with everything else, both physical and metaphysical (spiritual).
Then how do you rationalize teaching the children that ALL life on Earth EVOLVED from the life which existed before it, solely through NATURAL SELECTION and RANDOM CHANCE, and that life itself began by RANDOM CHANCE in some primordial sea? That is an unproven atheistic theory being taught as fact!
How do you rationalize mandating that public schools teach that theory, which excludes any mention or consideration or possibility of a God, which cannot proven, which is filled with continually changing unprovable and unverifiable assumptions, which is full of holes, and which has an un more missing links than imaginable — exclusive of anything else, and without telling students or even permitting a discussion about the fact that much of the Theory is based on unproven theories, assumptions, speculation, and that others believe differently?
Perhaps you think it is the parents role to try and re-program their own children — after the schools have worked on them!
AAR
80. js | December 29th, 2007 at 3:31 pm
76. Diana Powe
Actually DP, refusing to tell the kids the whole truth, and misrepresenting that the evolution theory is fact, is academically dishonest. The probability that God actually exists isnt that far from the possibility that evolution is true.
As a matter of fact, evolution has had to be re-written dozens of times over the last several decades because of supposed errors and faulty conclusions. It can be factually demonstrated that much of the content of modern day evolutionary theory was borne on the back of intentional deception by academics pushing to prove a theory, instead of sound, scientific investigation.
81. AAR | December 29th, 2007 at 3:35 pm
Smith,
The pope did not say the Darwinian Theory of Evolution is consistent with Catholic beliefs.
As one website put it…
AAR
82. js | December 29th, 2007 at 3:40 pm
<<<<>>>>
Could it be possible that part of evolutionary theory is correct, but not all of it? Just as we know that some people believe in money as a god, doesnt prove that God exists, hence, money exists but its not rational to think that money is God.
Just the same, evolution as defined as adaptation to the surrounding forces of nature may be factually sound, however, the evolution of all life forms on this planet, both animal and plant, microscopic and macroscopic, from a single molecule is pretty far fetched, considering that the scientific odds of even one left-sided amino acid forming by chance is 10 to the 123rd power. In other words 1 chance in 10 followed by 123 zeros. i.e. 1 in 1,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000
83. AAR | December 29th, 2007 at 3:42 pm
js,
It is Diana role as a Liberal propagandist to sweet talk, mislead, and misinform the people.
Unless and until the complacent American people wake up, understand what is happening to them and our schools, and take action… the Liberals will continue using the public schools to teach their own agenda.
AAR
84. Casper | December 29th, 2007 at 3:43 pm
AAR,
I’m glad you are such an expert on how Evolution is taught. I assume from your comments that you have observed thousands of teachers teaching evolution and that are intimately familiar with what is taught in every classroom in every state in the country.
Then again, you might not have any real idea about what you are talking about.
85. Rana Quijotesca | December 29th, 2007 at 3:52 pm
js-
They teach it as THE THEORY OF EVOLUTION for a reason. Also, I think that you are mistaken in your understanding on what is a theory in science vs what is a hypothesis. Actually, the theory of Evolution has been largely strengthened by recent research, especially in the field of genetics.
Besides, what is the “probability that [the Christian] God actually exists” anyway?
You know why ID shouldn’t be taught in a science classroom? It’s not science. You know why it’s not science? BECAUSE IT RESTS ON A WHOLLY UNVERIFIABLE AND UNSCIENTIFIC CLAIM!!!!!. It is one of the dumbest and most intellectually lazy things that anyone has tried to convince me is “science.”
86. JHL | December 29th, 2007 at 4:01 pm
Diana:
Why do you waste your time debating a world class simpleton like AAR? A person who clings to his religious beliefs like they are some sort of security blanket. It is beyond the realm of his intellect to even consider that a faith in the existence of a transcent power (or force if you will) is totally incompatable with a faith in the veracity and plausability of evolutionary science. The embrace of science does not have to exclude any recognition of the unknown or the unknowable but to AAR if one states that evolution makes sense, then one is; ipso facto an atheistic liberal. I have often wondered why those such as AAR scream the loudest when it comes to science and religion and I have concluded that it is because their faith is so weak that they feel threatened. And, consequently, they lash out in the only manner they know how. This type of reptilian behavior is well documented in Carl Sagen’s book “The Dragons of Eden.” I would dare say that people like AAR have never taken an anthropology class. Have never studied philosophy or the history of religion (plural) and yet they seem that they have some corner on the truth market. All words are metaphores. Words evolve and the concept of god, or “A” god or “gods” is nothing more than a label we humans gave in an attempt to understand the big questions of life. But we can only think about god within the limits of our own minds and our own perceptions. Science, on the other hand explains the physical-ness that surrounds us and that we are a part of. That is, until, we explore the realm of the sub-atomic. Then Newtonian physics doesn’t apply. How wondefully bizzare!
My point is, evolution exists. Random-ness exists and there is a force in the universe that is beyond our ability to comprend. But a belief in the spritual is not mutally exclusive to a belief in science. Much to AAR’s chagrin.
87. JHL | December 29th, 2007 at 4:12 pm
Reading AAR’s #83 just proves my point. Teaching is inherently “liberal” especially critical thinking. Unless, of course what is “taught” is dogmatic, authoritarian and infused with Christianist angst and paranoia. The word that describes those issues best is indoctrination. So please Diana, mislead and misinform me some more!
88. Jeremiah | December 29th, 2007 at 4:19 pm
CW,
I see it in totally the opposite direction.
Every living breathing thing is given a set code of DNA at birth–Birds, Mammals, Fish, and Insects.
No one set of DNA is compatible with other sets of DNA.
I’m sure you’ve seen tales of such things as the Mermaid, where this creature is half human, half fish and so on. That’s just totally impossible. The reason being…because, God wanted them unique. Being that He created them unique then He has set boundaries in place so that those the creatures can re-produce, and even after reproduction the organism still has its limits…in other words, He only allows the organisim to grow the required amount in order for it to be able to survive within its surroundings.
Ok, He’s allowed the ability to reproduce and grow. Now on the the next set of boundaries and limits.
What hinders us from growing outside our normal growth limit?
The changing of the seasons combined with the elements. All living things are exposed to the elements, wind, water, light, temperature and the amount of food available, and competition with competing life forms. Plants in the temperate zones only produce vegetation and fruit in their season-Spring and Summer. The Fall brings cooler weather and freezing temperatures, thus all vegetation dies. Lakes and streams freeze over, Mayflies quit hatching, thus, fish must eat off the bottom of the stream. Snows come, and grasses are covered with snow, thus, deer must eat large amounts and put on a fat reserve for winter; but during the periods when there is no food deer must dig for their food until warmer weather comes, in spring when they can get fresh shoots. Usually by that time, their fat reserve is gone, and the cycle starts all over again.
You see what I’m getting at? If it stayed warm and green all the time, stuff would grow and produce at an enormous rates. But what happens when things get over-populated? Disease and starvation wipe them out.
There are even limits to the microbial organizms, which is the same for the rest, there must be a sufficient amount of food for them to feast on, such as decaying flesh, flies and bacteria usually consume whatever it is in short order, according to the rest of the elements, primarily temperature.
Ok, now, why was there limits put in place? So that there would be balance in the earth, or else there would be no limit to the amount one could eat and grow, and no environment where it would be impossible to live. There would be no limits.
Who has that kind of power?
~ Jeremiah
89. Kahn | December 29th, 2007 at 4:32 pm
Who cares what Ron Paul thinks? What a nut job.
90. JHL | December 29th, 2007 at 4:42 pm
Jerry?
How can you be so bold! So presumptious to assume that “god” is a he? Or a she for that matter? What if “god” is an it? An indefinable unknowable entity, being or isness that is beyond the descriptive ability of language to convey? Beyond the limits that our human minds place upon our absolute selves; in the Kierkegaardian sense?
What if “god” IS randomness and chance? Then what? What if everything that you have hitched your wagon to turns out to be an illusion based upon false hope and; well prestense? What if you are wrong? If your faith is that absolute then try an experiment to test it. If you come back form the dead and report then you can revell in your certainty. Until then, a vibrant skepticisim is healthy.
91. Jeremiah | December 29th, 2007 at 5:00 pm
JHL,
I’ve acknowledged that there are limits…You haven’t…
Since you’re the big, bad skepticizer..
I challenge you…Have someone airlift you to the North Pole, Drop you, and see how long you survive without the needed necessities.
We’ll find out just how well your little skepticisms work.
~ Jeremiah
92. Jeremiah | December 29th, 2007 at 5:06 pm
And we can keep trying all you Liberals as our test rats, one at a time like that, until we’ve got you all cleaned up.
~ Jeremiah
93. Christian Wright | December 29th, 2007 at 5:19 pm
On the other hand we do not have a single fossil record showing one creature turn into another creature.
Bruce: My a tadpole and watch this fish turn into a four-legged creature.
94. JHL | December 29th, 2007 at 5:23 pm
Jerry?
What does dropping me in the Artic prove? Other than Global Climate Change. (I will bring a camera to take pixs of the melting ice.)
You are an irrefuatable bible thumper Christianist who actally believes in that books literacy, are you not? You beleive that all answers to all questions devolve to one point: That Jesus (if he actually existed as a devine being) is the be all and end all to human existence and that the way to the salvation that you presume is a requisite to enter heaven MUST be adhered to. I think not. I think that “heaven” is in my heart and that “god” as a concept is not only transcendent from my brain function but is also unknowable and an assumption to give meaning to existence when, in fact , there might not be any. But does that make my personal-subjective experience of consciouness any more-or less- meaningful to me and those in my life? NO!! It does not. Do I want to die? No. But it when we (and understandbaly so when evolution is considered in it’s full breadth) look to the ego for reassurance then what we are left with is the ultimate recognition that no matter what, no matter science or religion or anything we are going to die and our self awareness goes with it. Do we merge into the universe? Does the eons old star dust that comprises the molecules that make up our body eventually become stars again and repeat the process? I don’t know. But what I do know is that old tymey religion is a superstitious scam. Something that the vulnerable and weak minded have to subcribe to because they just don’t know any better.
95. AAR | December 29th, 2007 at 5:24 pm
Casper,
Well, we know what the Dover kids are being taught… or not taught!
Besides yourself, which other public schools do you say are teaching Intelligent Design or mentioning God? Don’t say their names too loudly or the ACLU will be on them as quickly as they can find a sympathetic judge!
AAR
96. NeoClown | December 29th, 2007 at 5:30 pm
AAR,
Way to go man!
JHL said you were “world class” in post number 86.
97. Jeremiah | December 29th, 2007 at 5:31 pm
My (buy) a tadpole and watch this fish turn into a four-legged creature.
CW,
Sure, but the same can be said for all other life forms. And still yet, the conditions, environmental compatibility criteria must be met before the growth process can take place.
~ Jeremiah
98. js | December 29th, 2007 at 5:40 pm
85. Rana Quijotesca | December 29th, 2007 at 3:52 pm
No, I have no misconceptions about what I said. Why dont you try backing up and reading the rest of my posts before making statements like you did?
And then, show us a web site that tells us that the genetic codes of every living thing on this planet came from the same origin.
Good luck. If you find it, please, email the Christian Science Monitor, its a major magazine, and Im sure they would love to hear about it. Nothing you posted points to the empirical science that would be required to prove the theory of evolution is superior to the vast testimony of billions of people recorded over the last 5000 years.
Isnt it strange how people like you will convict someone for murder on the testimony of one eye witness, yet, a billion people testimony leading to the conclusion that God exists isnt enough for you?
Weigh the balance, there is more reason to believe in the existence of God.
99. Ricorun | December 29th, 2007 at 5:53 pm
AAR: Then how do you rationalize teaching the children that ALL life on Earth EVOLVED from the life which existed before it, solely through NATURAL SELECTION and RANDOM CHANCE, and that life itself began by RANDOM CHANCE in some primordial sea? That is an unproven atheistic theory being taught as fact!
Gosh, my ears are ringing. Either you’re shouting or God’s on the phone, lol! Seriously though (okay, not so seriously), perhaps we should discuss the relative merits of God versus the Flying Spaghetti Monster as the proximal actor behind Intelligent Design. Would that make you feel better? More importantly, would it really help further your understanding of anything?
Behind your screaching lies the assumption that if science is not “faith-positive” it must be “faith-negative”. But that’s a false dichotomy. There is another option: science is faith-neutral. In fact, the philosophical foundations of science itself is based on that very “neutrality” principle. Science is not inherently atheistic, nor is it inherently deistic. Rather, it is inherently heuristic. Nothing more, nothing less. Science does not — and by its very nature cannot — deal with epistemological questions. It cannot answer questions about the “why” of being, nor should it be called upon to do so in any direct sense. But it’s pretty useful for explaining the “how” of the physical universe. That is all it’s intended to do. In fact, that is its defined constraints. And just to my mind, it has proven SO successful in that endeavor that it has demonstrated itself to be pretty effective at revealing its own limitations. To me, that is a strength not a weakness.
Anyway, the point is that science is useful for elucidating the kinds of questions it was designed to elucidate. It doesn’t represent any sort of ultimate truth, just utility. And that’s a distinction that both (a) those that attempt to extrapolate scientific principles into the metaphysical realm, and; (b) those that attempt to extrapolate metaphysical principles into science should keep in mind. If you want to teach a course in metaphysics, or epistemology, or whatever, by all means do so. It seems to me that THAT is really what is missing from the secondary education curriculum. In fact, if it were up to me, I’d require not only a course in epistemology, but TWO SEMESTERS of Logic 101. That seems to be in woefully short supply. Just don’t call it science.
100. Jeremiah | December 29th, 2007 at 5:54 pm
What does dropping me in the Artic prove?
Well, you can’t blame me, because you’re the one that says you can adapt, change, evolve, and all this other hullabalooo to the strict demands of Creation.
So, I want to see you try it, and anyone else who might want too.
I’m just trying to get it to sink in, SELF-RELIANCE is not the way to go about life, because you are a HELPLESS creature in that state of thinking.
That’s what makes mankind special, you see, we were placed with a SPIRIT given to us not by our own power, but by Jesus Christ. Given a choice, with the power to acknowledge that there is an ALL-POWERFUL CREATOR—-UNLIKE, the ANIMALS who serve God WITHOUT a WILL.
What does that mean? He wants us to love Him through our acknowledgment of Him. In other words, He’s not FORCING us to ackowledge Him, but He proved to us how much He loved us, by coming in the form of flesh to die on the Cross. The ULTIMATE form of human love.
Jesus Christ, whether people want to acknowledge it or not, has been with us from the beginning. Mark has quoted it for you above. That’s the Holy Bible.
If it’s not the Holy Bible, then it’s not the truth. Period.
~ Jeremiah
101. Jeremiah | December 29th, 2007 at 5:57 pm
faith-neutral
There is no faith-neutral, Rico.
You’re either with or against God.
~ Jeremiah
102. js | December 29th, 2007 at 5:59 pm
99. Ricorun | December 29th, 2007 at 5:53 pm
Booy oh booy, did you miss the topic.
Why attack religion if you have a sound, factual basis to teach this “theory of evolution” in schools?
Using what you just posted shows that the evolutionary clowns are interested in nothing more than disrespecting religious beliefs of the population at large rather than prove that this theory has an honorable place in the halls of empirical science.
what a joke, and your snow job is so, so amatuerish
103. Ricorun | December 29th, 2007 at 6:09 pm
js… huh?
104. Casper | December 29th, 2007 at 6:10 pm
AAR,
“Besides yourself, which other public schools do you say are teaching Intelligent Design or mentioning God? ”
I don’t know, but then that’s the point I was trying to make. We don’t know how many teachers are teaching ID of Evolution or how well they are doing it. The other point I am trying to make, is that is a very small part of what we teach. Students receive dozens of times more instruction in math than they do in biology. It’s not a major part of anyone’s curriculum.
I don’t teach ID or Evolution because I’m a social studies teacher. If either subject is brought up in class I refer the student to their parents or a science teacher. As for bringing up God, I don’t except when teaching my seventh graders the differences in some of the religions. I will talk about it if it comes up as part of a conversation.
105. Jeremiah | December 29th, 2007 at 6:18 pm
Doubt = Sin = Chaos.
~ Jeremiah
106. js | December 29th, 2007 at 6:19 pm
<<>>
Your a teacher?
107. JHL | December 29th, 2007 at 6:20 pm
(Ed. Note; Deleted)
108. Rana Quijotesca | December 29th, 2007 at 6:34 pm
Nothing you posted points to the empirical science that would be required to prove the theory of evolution is superior to the vast testimony of billions of people recorded over the last 5000 years.
Read this. You know what else billions of people testified to? Flat Earth, genetic inferiority of different ethnic groups, and lots of fun little tidbits that we know are wrong today. It’s a horrible argument for anything…
Also testimony from someone who witnessed a crime is completely different than someone testifying to an experience that may have either come from an actual divine presence or from indigestion.
“Is that god?”
“Nope, just those eggs you had for breakfast…”
109. Ricorun | December 29th, 2007 at 6:55 pm
Jeremiah: There is no faith-neutral, Rico.
Okay, you tell me — is a rock faith-positive or faith-negative? Say that same rock is used as a tool — maybe as a projectile, or as a crushing implement, or as an element to a wall — does that make it more faith-positive or faith-negative?
What about the ideas that turned said rock into a projectile, a crushing implement, or an element in a wall — are those faith-positive or faith-negative?
110. Jeremiah | December 29th, 2007 at 7:00 pm
Rana,
What about when Jesus walked on the water, and asked Peter to step down out of the boat and come to him?
Reckon science will ever explain it?
~ Jeremiah
111. js | December 29th, 2007 at 7:05 pm
108. Rana Quijotesca | December 29th, 2007 at 6:34 pm
You really dont get it. Thats not a question.
112. Mark Noonan | December 29th, 2007 at 7:05 pm
Rana,
Flat earth? I doubt that many people even thought about it - seriously: how many times per day do you consider the sphericity of the earth? In the day to day of 4,000 years ago, it probably just never came up. But pretty much as soon as anyone thought about it, they determined on a spherical earth (Pythagoras in the 6th century BC).
As for racial superiority/inferiority - that is actually a pretty recent phenomena, dating back no more than 250 years…right around the time of the alleged “enlightement” of the mid-18th century. It is good to keep in mind, for instance, that Karl Marx (a man of Jewish descent), urged the Germans to take charge of the Slavs as they were clearly inferior to the Germans. Sound familiar?
But the testimony about God is far more substantial than what you suppose - we’re not just saying “people believe in God, so God must exist”. No, we’re concerned with real tesitmony over the ages of God actually existing an manifesting himself in varied ways to his creation. Now, a lot of critics dismiss such stories - but the curious thing about that, as noted by Chesterton long ago, that they dismiss the evidence of God in the very same chronicles they use as verification of other events (so, they take the story of St. Francis going to the Holy Land as true - but in that same chronicle, they dismiss the story of St. Francis emerging unscathed from a fire…but the only rational way to go is to either assume the whole thing a myth - in which case there never was a St. Francis - or to accept that he did, indeed, emerge unscathed from a fire because while fire burns, in this case God so willed it otherwise).
Our Lady of Guadalupe, Our Lady of Fatima, Our Lady of Lourdes - all deliberate lies? Everyone who has testified about what happened at these places was making it up? If ten people tell you they saw me enter a certain building, do you discount them, or believe them? How about if one person saw me - would you tend to believe, or disbelieve, the person? Is the only level of acceptable proof that you see it happen before your own eyes?
113. js | December 29th, 2007 at 7:07 pm
Also testimony from someone who witnessed a crime is completely different than someone testifying to an experience that may have either come from an actual divine presence or from indigestion.—–RQ
How is that? Do you expect every person who has claimed they have had a religious experience is a liar?
You REALLY dont get it.
114. Jeremiah | December 29th, 2007 at 7:10 pm
What about the ideas that turned said rock into a projectile, a crushing implement, or an element in a wall — are those faith-positive or faith-negative?
That’s what I’m saying, Ricorun.
If you put more faith in the rock, than you do the Creator. You’re using the rock to glorify you own needs, not to the glory of the Lord.
And what do we accomplish by, when we use the things that God has given us to glorify and uplift self? Nothing. Because we’re still contained…bound by the Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God.
Every effort, every motion, and every thought must be used for the glorification of the Lord.
If you want to know what happened to those who used their time and talents to glorify self, read Jeremiah chapter 32 sometime.
~ Jeremiah
115. js | December 29th, 2007 at 7:11 pm
–Say that same rock is used as a tool –RR
Please, tell us exactly how your “science” attributes human characturistics to a rock, is this something in the “new” science next to evolutionary theory?
116. AAR | December 29th, 2007 at 7:25 pm
Ricorun,
Science can’t prove that one organism evolved from another, but the schools are teaching that as an absolute fact.
It is not “faith-neutral” when schools teach that ALL life evolved through natural selection, mutations, and random chance, and that life originated spontaneously from some primordial soup and energy! That is teaching faith-negative — when it can not be proven or reasonably demonstrated at the DNA level — only theorized!
Looking at a few fossils does not prove a thing, except that some bone fragments “look” similar. It does not address the specifics of the many millions of changes that would be required in the DNA and in the structure, organs, and functions to produce one organism from another. It does not even remotely show that one organism evolved naturally from another — just as it would be a false conclusion to look at a native zebra danio fish and conclude that the glofish danio evolved naturally from it, but that is exactly the false conclusion one would reach if they did not know how the glofish came to be.
Looking at a bunch of fossil fragments says nothing about how the many millions of DNA pairs may — or may not — have changed naturally from one organism to “hypothetically” produce another. Scientists can not prove, or reasonably show that by looking at some fossilized bone fragments. Scientists just conveniently “assume” those many millions of DNA changes occurred… in just the right sequence… and at just the right time — naturally and by random chance — to produce one bone fragment from another!
There are differences of 35,000,000 to 40,000,000 base pairs between the DNA of chimpanzees and humans. No scientist can say or show — let alone prove — how, when, and in what sequence those changes occurred, or even IF they occurred — naturally. Scientists can’t prove with certainty which “organism” may have been “the” common ancestor — if any — especially if asked to do so at the DNA level!
Which and how many of the body’s organs, functions, processes, cells, genes, hormones, proteins, molecules, and multitude of components can we remove and still have a healthy, living, and reproducing human? Were those which are essential to life, and without which human or other life could not exist, added at one time? If so, when and how? If not, how did life exist without them, and which sequence were they added?
Looking at a fossil fragment, and saying it evolved naturally from another, does not answer the questions! One day we read how life evolved in the oceans, and the next we read that those same oceans were too toxic. One day we read that beetles evolved 140 million years ago with flowering plants, and the next we are told they evolved 300 million years ago before the dinosaurs. One day we are told about how one “alleged” human ancestor evolved from another, and the next we find they were living together — at the same time!
In fact, the Theory of Evolution is more of one big hole than it is sound, provable fact. Scientist are always looking for “the” missing link, when in fact there are as many missing links as would be incremental changes in the DNA sequence between any potentially related organisms — many hundreds of millions, and more! Scientists find one bone fragment which they call “the” missing link and “conveniently forget” they know nothing of the millions of others, or the details that may have been required for that change to have occurred — naturally!
It’s time we start requiring the Darwinians to document and show some reasonable accounting for the many millions and billions of changes in the DNA sequences between organisms and not just the fact that a few rocky bone fragments “look” similar!
It’s time we require schools to teach students just how big of a “theory” and “assumption” the Theory of Evolution really is, and just how many and how big the holes are in the “Theory”.
Science can’t answer the hard questions, the real questions, and the detailed questions… but the Liberals are teaching it in our schools as if they can and have!!!
AAR
117. AAR | December 29th, 2007 at 7:40 pm
Casper,
Now you know full well that, with all of the uproar over Intelligent Design and the mere mention of God in relation to the Theory of Evolution, the vast majority of schools are not teaching anything remotely close to Intelligent Design or mentioning God for fear of the ACLU suing them!
While you say “that is a very small part of what we teach”, it nevertheless has a major impact on the student’s beliefs and society!
From what you’ve said before, you personally don’t appear to be taking the radical, anti-God approach Liberals want!
AAR
118. Casper | December 29th, 2007 at 8:02 pm
AAR,
The vast majority of teachers don’t teach ID or the
Theory of Evolution because it isn’t part of their curriculum. Frankly, it just isn’t that big of a thing.