Darwin's Apparatchiks

[PoliticalChic]

Can I be a Conservative Darwinist and still remain a viable member of society?

Sign me Confused and Conflicted...

I have no problem with any beliefs in this connection....

..my contention is that one must know all that goes into a calculation in order to come up with the correct answer.


For example.....those who champion Darwin probably had no knowledge of the connections to communism, and such views from 'evolutionary biologists.'

There are no connections whatsoever between a scientific fact and communism.

Your post is a ludicrous joke.

You could not be more wrong. You could try, but you would not be successful.

As the OP clearly proves you to be in error, either you cannot read, or you cannot comprehend.

Please advise as to which is the case.

 

[Hollie]

No it isn't.

It is philosophy rather than science.


Work this idea through those congealed cogs in your brain: Darwin claimed that the accumulation of mutations would result in one species evolving into another.

"And let us dispose of a common misconception. The complete transmutation of even one animal species into a different species has never been directly observed either in the laboratory or in the field." Dean H. Kenyon (Professor of Biology, San Francisco State University), affidavit presented to the U.S. Supreme Court, No. 85-1513, Brief of Appellants, prepared under the direction of William J. Guste, Jr., Attorney General of the State of Louisiana, October 1985, p. A-16.



BTW.....'scientists' have proposed numerous bird-brained theories that would be acceptable to bird-brains like yourself.

Here's one:

Dr. Francis Crick of DNA fame suggested that life was 'dropped' here by aliens from another planet......

Directed Panspermia - postulates that the roots of our form of life go back to another place in the universe, almost certainly another planet; that it had reached a very advanced form there before anything much had started here; and that life here was seeded by microorganisms sent on some form of spaceship by an advanced civilization. Crick, Francis 'Life Itself: Its Origin and Nature', p.141


According to Crick, this is the only alternative that satisfactorily explains what Darwinism and punctuated equilibria do not - this planet's absence of transitional forms; transitional forms being the evidence for evolution which, "would only have existed on the sender planet, not on Earth," p.144



Stupid enough for you to accept?

You just got burned by your own ignorance.

Kenyon was wrong.

Speciation has been observed on numerous occasions.

Check this link. Observed Instances of Speciation

It's also simply untrue that there is an absence of transitional forms. There are literally thousands of transitional forms in both the living and fossil record.

I destroyed that link earlier....as follows:




The example you provide is exactly the bogus double talk that convince the uninformed....

....that would be you.

In this case, there is no disrespect involved....simply that you are uninformed, and therefore easily convinced.



From your link:

"A discussion of speciation requires a definition of what constitutes a species. This is a topic of considerable debate within the biological community."

This alone should warn you that the rest will be double talk.


Then, there's this:
"What a biologist will consider as a speciation event is, in part, dependent on which species definition that biologist accepts."


Do you have a definition of 'species'?


This is it:
spe·cies
ˈspēsēz,-SHēz/Submit
noun
1.
BIOLOGY
a group of living organisms consisting of similar individuals capable of exchanging genes or interbreeding.



Science is based on evidence, not polls.

"...the literature contains many instances where a speciation event has been inferred."

Do you know what 'inferred' means?


And, the uninformed accept things like this:
"Most biologists are convinced that speciation occurs."

If you accept this as science, you probably accept 'global warming,' too.



Again....no speciation has been been observed.


"NOT ONE of the examples studied documents the origin of large-scale biological change. The vast majority of the examples do NOT even show the production of new species, where a "species" is defined by the standard definition of a "reproductively isolated population."
Thus, not a single bona fide example of speciation in animals -- e.g. the establishment of a completely reproductively isolated population -- was found. - Specious Speciation: The Myth of Observed Large-Scale Evolutionary Change - Evolution News & Views

How not surprising. Evolution News & Views. Lovely folks from the fringe creationist / Flat Earth crowd.

 

[PoliticalChic]

You just got burned by your own ignorance.

Kenyon was wrong.

Speciation has been observed on numerous occasions.

Check this link. Observed Instances of Speciation

It's also simply untrue that there is an absence of transitional forms. There are literally thousands of transitional forms in both the living and fossil record.

I destroyed that link earlier....as follows:




The example you provide is exactly the bogus double talk that convince the uninformed....

....that would be you.

In this case, there is no disrespect involved....simply that you are uninformed, and therefore easily convinced.



From your link:

"A discussion of speciation requires a definition of what constitutes a species. This is a topic of considerable debate within the biological community."

This alone should warn you that the rest will be double talk.


Then, there's this:
"What a biologist will consider as a speciation event is, in part, dependent on which species definition that biologist accepts."


Do you have a definition of 'species'?


This is it:
spe·cies
ˈspēsēz,-SHēz/Submit
noun
1.
BIOLOGY
a group of living organisms consisting of similar individuals capable of exchanging genes or interbreeding.



Science is based on evidence, not polls.

"...the literature contains many instances where a speciation event has been inferred."

Do you know what 'inferred' means?


And, the uninformed accept things like this:
"Most biologists are convinced that speciation occurs."

If you accept this as science, you probably accept 'global warming,' too.



Again....no speciation has been been observed.


"NOT ONE of the examples studied documents the origin of large-scale biological change. The vast majority of the examples do NOT even show the production of new species, where a "species" is defined by the standard definition of a "reproductively isolated population."
Thus, not a single bona fide example of speciation in animals -- e.g. the establishment of a completely reproductively isolated population -- was found. - Specious Speciation: The Myth of Observed Large-Scale Evolutionary Change - Evolution News & Views

How not surprising. Evolution News & Views. Lovely folks from the fringe creationist / Flat Earth crowd.

You act as if stupidity were a virtue

The same problem that you usually evince.

What difference who said it if you cannot show that it isn't true?


It is as totally correct as you are totally ignorant.

 

[Hollie]

I destroyed that link earlier....as follows:




The example you provide is exactly the bogus double talk that convince the uninformed....

....that would be you.

In this case, there is no disrespect involved....simply that you are uninformed, and therefore easily convinced.



From your link:

"A discussion of speciation requires a definition of what constitutes a species. This is a topic of considerable debate within the biological community."

This alone should warn you that the rest will be double talk.


Then, there's this:
"What a biologist will consider as a speciation event is, in part, dependent on which species definition that biologist accepts."


Do you have a definition of 'species'?


This is it:
spe·cies
ˈspēsēz,-SHēz/Submit
noun
1.
BIOLOGY
a group of living organisms consisting of similar individuals capable of exchanging genes or interbreeding.



Science is based on evidence, not polls.

"...the literature contains many instances where a speciation event has been inferred."

Do you know what 'inferred' means?


And, the uninformed accept things like this:
"Most biologists are convinced that speciation occurs."

If you accept this as science, you probably accept 'global warming,' too.



Again....no speciation has been been observed.


"NOT ONE of the examples studied documents the origin of large-scale biological change. The vast majority of the examples do NOT even show the production of new species, where a "species" is defined by the standard definition of a "reproductively isolated population."
Thus, not a single bona fide example of speciation in animals -- e.g. the establishment of a completely reproductively isolated population -- was found. - Specious Speciation: The Myth of Observed Large-Scale Evolutionary Change - Evolution News & Views

How not surprising. Evolution News & Views. Lovely folks from the fringe creationist / Flat Earth crowd.

You act as if stupidity were a virtue

The same problem that you usually evince.

What difference who said it if you cannot show that it isn't true?


It is as totally correct as you are totally ignorant.

I have shown it isn't true.

You haven't disproved it.

There, thumpy. Double negative^2.

 

[PoliticalChic]

How not surprising. Evolution News & Views. Lovely folks from the fringe creationist / Flat Earth crowd.

You act as if stupidity were a virtue

The same problem that you usually evince.

What difference who said it if you cannot show that it isn't true?


It is as totally correct as you are totally ignorant.

I have shown it isn't true.

You haven't disproved it.

There, thumpy. Double negative^2.

You're a liar.....

...but this is amusing: I'm both defrosting a turkey, and posting to one at the same time.

 

[PoliticalChic]

"The greater part of the debate over Darwin’s theory is not in service to the facts. Nor to the theory. The facts are what they have always been: They are unforthcoming.

And the theory is what it always was: It is unpersuasive.

Among evolutionary biologists, these matters are well known. In the privacy of the Susan B. Anthony faculty lounge, they often tell one another with relief that it is a very good thing the public has no idea what the research literature really suggests.
“Darwin?” a Nobel laureate in biology once re-marked to me over his bifocals. “That’s just the party line.”
Berlinski, "The Devil's Delusion"


Pretty much says it all......

 

[Hollie]

You act as if stupidity were a virtue

The same problem that you usually evince.

What difference who said it if you cannot show that it isn't true?


It is as totally correct as you are totally ignorant.

I have shown it isn't true.

You haven't disproved it.

There, thumpy. Double negative^2.

You're a liar.....

...but this is amusing: I'm both defrosting a turkey, and posting to one at the same time.

You behave this way when your fraudulent claims, appeals to fundie cranks and lies are exposed.

 

[PoliticalChic]

I have shown it isn't true.

You haven't disproved it.

There, thumpy. Double negative^2.

You're a liar.....

...but this is amusing: I'm both defrosting a turkey, and posting to one at the same time.

You behave this way when your fraudulent claims, appeals to fundie cranks and lies are exposed.

Beat it, turkey...you've been spanked enough today.

 

[Hollie]

"The greater part of the debate over Darwin’s theory is not in service to the facts. Nor to the theory. The facts are what they have always been: They are unforthcoming.

And the theory is what it always was: It is unpersuasive.

Among evolutionary biologists, these matters are well known. In the privacy of the Susan B. Anthony faculty lounge, they often tell one another with relief that it is a very good thing the public has no idea what the research literature really suggests.
“Darwin?” a Nobel laureate in biology once re-marked to me over his bifocals. “That’s just the party line.”
Berlinski, "The Devil's Delusion"


Pretty much says it all......

Yes. It does. Quote-mining Berlinski. What a joke.

Encyclopedia of American Loons: #24: David Berlinski

 

[Foxfyre]

The really angry fundamentalists such as PC don't understand that the sciences of biology, chemistry, paleontology, etc., have progressed substantially since Darwin's time.

This is the issue that Christian fundies refuse to come to terms with. It is often a result of profound ignorance and / or a refusal to understand the terms being used: that the theory and fact of evolution is not contingent upon whatever mechanism ignited the first cell. Similatly, the really notion of trying to link the science of evolution with Marxism is among the more really goofy notions furthered by the fundamentalist crowd.

Creationism is not a theist vs. atheist controversy. It is a Fundamentalist Christian vs. everybody else controversy. It is a single biblical literalist perspective versus even other Christians who have no trouble with the scientific perspective.

It is not the issue of abiogenesis that actually concerns the creationist movement. It is irrelevant to the actual disagreement with science, and many creationists already know that. The disagreement fundamentally is about evolution, not abiogenesis. And specifically, the issue is about the evolution of human beings, not the origin of the first cell.

Organisms still evolve through a combination of genetic mutation and natural selection. And all the relevant evidence still reflects a common origin for all living things from a common ancestor via a process of descent with modification, no matter how life arose in the first place. That is the problem for creationists.

And it is the problem they are running from when they are unable to reconcile the relevant subjects of abiogensis vs. evolution.

Well, sorry Hollie, but you lost all credibility with me when you labeled PC as an "angry fundamentalist." She is anything but. Lord knows she and I don't agree on everything, but on this issue I will happily say I am much more in her camp than yours. But you do illustrate the point being made that the dedicated Darwinists are really REALLY hatefully negative about any Christian who doesn't share your point of view.

That was a flaccid attempt on your part to avoid addressing my comments.

But honestly, I suspected you might. When people use terms such as "Darwinist", they practically shout out their biases and their agenda.

As to losing credibility, you might try defining your terms here. Are you suggesting that the relevant science community is going to abandon the various science disciplines that support evolution?

Please identify for us the various teaching universities that are trashing evolutionary biology in place of Christian fundamentalist notions.

Defining terms? A Darwinist is one who makes a religion of it and declares as ignorant heretic anyone who dares to question any tenet of that religion. Such people are unwilling to have a reasoned discussion on any component of Darwin's theories, but lash out, accuse, and/or trash anybody who doesn't fully embrace it. I don't know any teaching universities that are trashing evolutionary biology though I know a number that are trashing Christian concepts in various ways. And I know a number of scientists, some who are teaching in universities, who not only question some of Darwin's theories but embrace some concepts of Creationism as well. To believe Darwin got it wrong sometimes does not dismiss what he got right.

Even Einstein refused to be labeled an "Atheist" because, though he could not accept a concept of a personal God, he definitely saw characteristics in nature that could not be explained by evolutionary biology and embraced a concept of some kind of intelligent design being integrated into the whole.

I am not the least bit threatened by theories of natural selection and made sure that my own kids had a solid grounding in it. But I also allow the theories to be questioned and challenged because all science should be subject to question and challenge. I encouraged my kids to question and challenge that and everything else somebody was trying to brainwash them with as fact. They knew what the prevailing wisdom was/is and they understood that there is really no such thing as completely settled science. There is no scientific truth that we know everything there is to know about it. Being trained in critical thinking is quite preferable to brainwashing and indoctrination.

And because Darwin himself and all of science I believe to be creations of God, I won't use religion to dismiss that. And I won't use Marxist theory or anything else to try to convince people that those who believe in intelligent design or who embrace religious faith are somehow delusional or fanatic or fundamentalist or anti-science. As USAF said, there is no conflict between science and religion for those of us who are willing to keep an open mind and recognize all the nuances and possibilities.

 

[PoliticalChic]

"The greater part of the debate over Darwin’s theory is not in service to the facts. Nor to the theory. The facts are what they have always been: They are unforthcoming.

And the theory is what it always was: It is unpersuasive.

Among evolutionary biologists, these matters are well known. In the privacy of the Susan B. Anthony faculty lounge, they often tell one another with relief that it is a very good thing the public has no idea what the research literature really suggests.
“Darwin?” a Nobel laureate in biology once re-marked to me over his bifocals. “That’s just the party line.”
Berlinski, "The Devil's Delusion"


Pretty much says it all......

Yes. It does. Quote-mining Berlinski. What a joke.

Encyclopedia of American Loons: #24: David Berlinski

Must I remind you, only a fool criticizes the source when the statement is true.


Oh....right....you're a fool.

 

[Hollie]

"The greater part of the debate over Darwin’s theory is not in service to the facts. Nor to the theory. The facts are what they have always been: They are unforthcoming.

And the theory is what it always was: It is unpersuasive.

Among evolutionary biologists, these matters are well known. In the privacy of the Susan B. Anthony faculty lounge, they often tell one another with relief that it is a very good thing the public has no idea what the research literature really suggests.
“Darwin?” a Nobel laureate in biology once re-marked to me over his bifocals. “That’s just the party line.”
Berlinski, "The Devil's Delusion"


Pretty much says it all......

Yes. It does. Quote-mining Berlinski. What a joke.

Encyclopedia of American Loons: #24: David Berlinski

Must I remind you, only a fool criticizes the source when the statement is true.


Oh....right....you're a fool.

I should remind you that a fool keeps company with fools.

Berlinski and the creationist / Flat Earth crowd appeals to your sensibilities.

 

[Hollie]

Well, sorry Hollie, but you lost all credibility with me when you labeled PC as an "angry fundamentalist." She is anything but. Lord knows she and I don't agree on everything, but on this issue I will happily say I am much more in her camp than yours. But you do illustrate the point being made that the dedicated Darwinists are really REALLY hatefully negative about any Christian who doesn't share your point of view.

That was a flaccid attempt on your part to avoid addressing my comments.

But honestly, I suspected you might. When people use terms such as "Darwinist", they practically shout out their biases and their agenda.

As to losing credibility, you might try defining your terms here. Are you suggesting that the relevant science community is going to abandon the various science disciplines that support evolution?

Please identify for us the various teaching universities that are trashing evolutionary biology in place of Christian fundamentalist notions.

Defining terms? A Darwinist is one who makes a religion of it and declares as ignorant heretic anyone who dares to question any tenet of that religion. Such people are unwilling to have a reasoned discussion on any component of Darwin's theories, but lash out, accuse, and/or trash anybody who doesn't fully embrace it. I don't know any teaching universities that are trashing evolutionary biology though I know a number that are trashing Christian concepts in various ways. And I know a number of scientists, some who are teaching in universities, who not only question some of Darwin's theories but embrace some concepts of Creationism as well. To believe Darwin got it wrong sometimes does not dismiss what he got right.

Even Einstein refused to be labeled an "Atheist" because, though he could not accept a concept of a personal God, he definitely saw characteristics in nature that could not be explained by evolutionary biology and embraced a concept of some kind of intelligent design being integrated into the whole.

I am not the least bit threatened by theories of natural selection and made sure that my own kids had a solid grounding in it. But I also allow the theories to be questioned and challenged because all science should be subject to question and challenge. I encouraged my kids to question and challenge that and everything else somebody was trying to brainwash them with as fact. They knew what the prevailing wisdom was/is and they understood that there is really no such thing as completely settled science. There is no scientific truth that we know everything there is to know about it. Being trained in critical thinking is quite preferable to brainwashing and indoctrination.

And because Darwin himself and all of science I believe to be creations of God, I won't use religion to dismiss that. And I won't use Marxist theory or anything else to try to convince people that those who believe in intelligent design or who embrace religious faith are somehow delusional or fanatic or fundamentalist or anti-science. As USAF said, there is no conflict between science and religion for those of us who are willing to keep an open mind and recognize all the nuances and possibilities.

I feel bad on your behalf that your views of science and knowledge are reduced to silly terms such as “Darwinist”.

Millennia of philosophers and theologians have constructed elaborate and ultimately futile models of reality and truth, with next to no positive impact on the human condition. Science in dramatic contrast is among the youngest of human endeavors, and yet has achieved things no previous discipline has approached. It has fed the hungry, cured disease, created technology that four generations ago would have been unimaginable. It has literally changed our world, while religions like Christianity and Islam have done little more than churn human misfortune in a static embrace of past error. Unlike all the philosophies and religions that came before it, science actually works.

This is why “scientific facts” deserve so much deference in comparison to the imaginary “absolute facts” delivered by philosophy and faith. They have evidence that affords them some qualification for our rational allegiance. Even if evolution is completely negated (and that is not likely given it adheres consistently to the principles of rationality and science to qualify it both as a Theory of Science [not a hypothesis], and knowledge) -- so what? It doesn't add a single factor in favor of any religious assertion.

Evolution being disproved does not equal Christianity or Judaism or Hinduism or Islam being "right". There are a few just-as-likely possibilities that are being ignored if evolution is not the mechanism by which life came about. Secondly, It is an identifiable fact that there is genetic variation within species. It is an identifiable fact that this genetic variation is passed on. That, essentially, is evolution. It is a fact that the earth is billions of years old, and that the oldest known microfossil is 3.8 billion years old. That leaves a lot of time for genetic variation to be shaped by selective pressures.

 

[Foxfyre]

That was a flaccid attempt on your part to avoid addressing my comments.

But honestly, I suspected you might. When people use terms such as "Darwinist", they practically shout out their biases and their agenda.

As to losing credibility, you might try defining your terms here. Are you suggesting that the relevant science community is going to abandon the various science disciplines that support evolution?

Please identify for us the various teaching universities that are trashing evolutionary biology in place of Christian fundamentalist notions.

Defining terms? A Darwinist is one who makes a religion of it and declares as ignorant heretic anyone who dares to question any tenet of that religion. Such people are unwilling to have a reasoned discussion on any component of Darwin's theories, but lash out, accuse, and/or trash anybody who doesn't fully embrace it. I don't know any teaching universities that are trashing evolutionary biology though I know a number that are trashing Christian concepts in various ways. And I know a number of scientists, some who are teaching in universities, who not only question some of Darwin's theories but embrace some concepts of Creationism as well. To believe Darwin got it wrong sometimes does not dismiss what he got right.

Even Einstein refused to be labeled an "Atheist" because, though he could not accept a concept of a personal God, he definitely saw characteristics in nature that could not be explained by evolutionary biology and embraced a concept of some kind of intelligent design being integrated into the whole.

I am not the least bit threatened by theories of natural selection and made sure that my own kids had a solid grounding in it. But I also allow the theories to be questioned and challenged because all science should be subject to question and challenge. I encouraged my kids to question and challenge that and everything else somebody was trying to brainwash them with as fact. They knew what the prevailing wisdom was/is and they understood that there is really no such thing as completely settled science. There is no scientific truth that we know everything there is to know about it. Being trained in critical thinking is quite preferable to brainwashing and indoctrination.

And because Darwin himself and all of science I believe to be creations of God, I won't use religion to dismiss that. And I won't use Marxist theory or anything else to try to convince people that those who believe in intelligent design or who embrace religious faith are somehow delusional or fanatic or fundamentalist or anti-science. As USAF said, there is no conflict between science and religion for those of us who are willing to keep an open mind and recognize all the nuances and possibilities.

I feel bad on your behalf that your views of science and knowledge are reduced to silly terms such as “Darwinist”.

Millennia of philosophers and theologians have constructed elaborate and ultimately futile models of reality and truth, with next to no positive impact on the human condition. Science in dramatic contrast is among the youngest of human endeavors, and yet has achieved things no previous discipline has approached. It has fed the hungry, cured disease, created technology that four generations ago would have been unimaginable. It has literally changed our world, while religions like Christianity and Islam have done little more than churn human misfortune in a static embrace of past error. Unlike all the philosophies and religions that came before it, science actually works.

This is why “scientific facts” deserve so much deference in comparison to the imaginary “absolute facts” delivered by philosophy and faith. They have evidence that affords them some qualification for our rational allegiance. Even if evolution is completely negated (and that is not likely given it adheres consistently to the principles of rationality and science to qualify it both as a Theory of Science [not a hypothesis], and knowledge) -- so what? It doesn't add a single factor in favor of any religious assertion.

Evolution being disproved does not equal Christianity or Judaism or Hinduism or Islam being "right". There are a few just-as-likely possibilities that are being ignored if evolution is not the mechanism by which life came about. Secondly, It is an identifiable fact that there is genetic variation within species. It is an identifiable fact that this genetic variation is passed on. That, essentially, is evolution. It is a fact that the earth is billions of years old, and that the oldest known microfossil is 3.8 billion years old. That leaves a lot of time for genetic variation to be shaped by selective pressures.

If that is what you got out of my post, I'm not the one folks should be feeling sorry for. Sheesh.

I might just save this sequence to use in my classes as an example of major non sequitur and disconnect.

 

[Sunshine]

The open enlightened mind knows that Darwin got some things right; Darwin got some things wrong; and Darwin left many questions unanswered. That is how honest science generally evolves.

The open enlightened mind knows that the Creationists have some things right; they interpret some things wrongly; and they leave many questions unanswered. That is how honest theology generally evolves.

The open enlightened mind knows that Marx and Engles got some things right; they got some things wrong; and so far we have witnessed that implementation of their concepts generally produces mostly unintended but nevertheless really bad consequences. That is how honest history is generally understood.

In my readings I found Engles much more of a Darwinist than Marx who was actually rather cool to the concept but went along with it because it wasn't all that important to him one way or the other. But I hadn't considered that those who most embrace Engles and Marxian theories, whether or not they know that is what they embrace, do all seem to be Darwin religionists and many are quite hostile to religious concepts or theories.

Maybe there's something to it. But at any rate, it is an interesting subject.

The big problem with Darwin's theory is that he knew nothing of genetics. He had no idea how complex DNA is, nor how impossible until the last number of years, to change. His theory is based solely on observation of whole organisms and drawing conclusions based upon their similarities. He didn't even know those organisms had DNA, a blueprint for the organism itself, to decode before it could be understood.

Creationism does not claim to be fact. Religion is based on faith and nothing more.

 

[Sunshine]

The open enlightened mind knows that Darwin got some things right; Darwin got some things wrong; and Darwin left many questions unanswered. That is how honest science generally evolves.

The open enlightened mind knows that the Creationists have some things right; they interpret some things wrongly; and they leave many questions unanswered. That is how honest theology generally evolves.

The open enlightened mind knows that Marx and Engles got some things right; they got some things wrong; and so far we have witnessed that implementation of their concepts generally produces mostly unintended but nevertheless really bad consequences. That is how honest history is generally understood.

In my readings I found Engles much more of a Darwinist than Marx who was actually rather cool to the concept but went along with it because it wasn't all that important to him one way or the other. But I hadn't considered that those who most embrace Engles and Marxian theories, whether or not they know that is what they embrace, do all seem to be Darwin religionists and many are quite hostile to religious concepts or theories.

Maybe there's something to it. But at any rate, it is an interesting subject.

The really angry fundamentalists such as PC don't understand that the sciences of biology, chemistry, paleontology, etc., have progressed substantially since Darwin's time.

This is the issue that Christian fundies refuse to come to terms with. It is often a result of profound ignorance and / or a refusal to understand the terms being used: that the theory and fact of evolution is not contingent upon whatever mechanism ignited the first cell. Similatly, the really notion of trying to link the science of evolution with Marxism is among the more really goofy notions furthered by the fundamentalist crowd.

Creationism is not a theist vs. atheist controversy. It is a Fundamentalist Christian vs. everybody else controversy. It is a single biblical literalist perspective versus even other Christians who have no trouble with the scientific perspective.

It is not the issue of abiogenesis that actually concerns the creationist movement. It is irrelevant to the actual disagreement with science, and many creationists already know that. The disagreement fundamentally is about evolution, not abiogenesis. And specifically, the issue is about the evolution of human beings, not the origin of the first cell.

Organisms still evolve through a combination of genetic mutation and natural selection. And all the relevant evidence still reflects a common origin for all living things from a common ancestor via a process of descent with modification, no matter how life arose in the first place. That is the problem for creationists.

And it is the problem they are running from when they are unable to reconcile the relevant subjects of abiogensis vs. evolution.

And how many of those sciences that you spout off have you actually taken. I'm guessing in the range of the goose egg. You cannot have organisms without some kind of biogenesis. So, biogenesis is exceedingly important. You have no understanding of genetics.

 

[Hollie]

Defining terms? A Darwinist is one who makes a religion of it and declares as ignorant heretic anyone who dares to question any tenet of that religion. Such people are unwilling to have a reasoned discussion on any component of Darwin's theories, but lash out, accuse, and/or trash anybody who doesn't fully embrace it. I don't know any teaching universities that are trashing evolutionary biology though I know a number that are trashing Christian concepts in various ways. And I know a number of scientists, some who are teaching in universities, who not only question some of Darwin's theories but embrace some concepts of Creationism as well. To believe Darwin got it wrong sometimes does not dismiss what he got right.

Even Einstein refused to be labeled an "Atheist" because, though he could not accept a concept of a personal God, he definitely saw characteristics in nature that could not be explained by evolutionary biology and embraced a concept of some kind of intelligent design being integrated into the whole.

I am not the least bit threatened by theories of natural selection and made sure that my own kids had a solid grounding in it. But I also allow the theories to be questioned and challenged because all science should be subject to question and challenge. I encouraged my kids to question and challenge that and everything else somebody was trying to brainwash them with as fact. They knew what the prevailing wisdom was/is and they understood that there is really no such thing as completely settled science. There is no scientific truth that we know everything there is to know about it. Being trained in critical thinking is quite preferable to brainwashing and indoctrination.

And because Darwin himself and all of science I believe to be creations of God, I won't use religion to dismiss that. And I won't use Marxist theory or anything else to try to convince people that those who believe in intelligent design or who embrace religious faith are somehow delusional or fanatic or fundamentalist or anti-science. As USAF said, there is no conflict between science and religion for those of us who are willing to keep an open mind and recognize all the nuances and possibilities.

I feel bad on your behalf that your views of science and knowledge are reduced to silly terms such as “Darwinist”.

Millennia of philosophers and theologians have constructed elaborate and ultimately futile models of reality and truth, with next to no positive impact on the human condition. Science in dramatic contrast is among the youngest of human endeavors, and yet has achieved things no previous discipline has approached. It has fed the hungry, cured disease, created technology that four generations ago would have been unimaginable. It has literally changed our world, while religions like Christianity and Islam have done little more than churn human misfortune in a static embrace of past error. Unlike all the philosophies and religions that came before it, science actually works.

This is why “scientific facts” deserve so much deference in comparison to the imaginary “absolute facts” delivered by philosophy and faith. They have evidence that affords them some qualification for our rational allegiance. Even if evolution is completely negated (and that is not likely given it adheres consistently to the principles of rationality and science to qualify it both as a Theory of Science [not a hypothesis], and knowledge) -- so what? It doesn't add a single factor in favor of any religious assertion.

Evolution being disproved does not equal Christianity or Judaism or Hinduism or Islam being "right". There are a few just-as-likely possibilities that are being ignored if evolution is not the mechanism by which life came about. Secondly, It is an identifiable fact that there is genetic variation within species. It is an identifiable fact that this genetic variation is passed on. That, essentially, is evolution. It is a fact that the earth is billions of years old, and that the oldest known microfossil is 3.8 billion years old. That leaves a lot of time for genetic variation to be shaped by selective pressures.

If that is what you got out of my post, I'm not the one folks should be feeling sorry for. Sheesh.

I might just save this sequence to use in my classes as an example of major non sequitur and disconnect.

I can't be held responsible for your what you write. I responded to your comments and I'm now left with you trying to excuse your hapless and ill-conceived argument.

 

[Sunshine]

The open enlightened mind knows that Darwin got some things right; Darwin got some things wrong; and Darwin left many questions unanswered. That is how honest science generally evolves.

The open enlightened mind knows that the Creationists have some things right; they interpret some things wrongly; and they leave many questions unanswered. That is how honest theology generally evolves.

The open enlightened mind knows that Marx and Engles got some things right; they got some things wrong; and so far we have witnessed that implementation of their concepts generally produces mostly unintended but nevertheless really bad consequences. That is how honest history is generally understood.

In my readings I found Engles much more of a Darwinist than Marx who was actually rather cool to the concept but went along with it because it wasn't all that important to him one way or the other. But I hadn't considered that those who most embrace Engles and Marxian theories, whether or not they know that is what they embrace, do all seem to be Darwin religionists and many are quite hostile to religious concepts or theories.

Maybe there's something to it. But at any rate, it is an interesting subject.

The really angry fundamentalists such as PC don't understand that the sciences of biology, chemistry, paleontology, etc., have progressed substantially since Darwin's time.

This is the issue that Christian fundies refuse to come to terms with. It is often a result of profound ignorance and / or a refusal to understand the terms being used: that the theory and fact of evolution is not contingent upon whatever mechanism ignited the first cell. Similatly, the really notion of trying to link the science of evolution with Marxism is among the more really goofy notions furthered by the fundamentalist crowd.

Creationism is not a theist vs. atheist controversy. It is a Fundamentalist Christian vs. everybody else controversy. It is a single biblical literalist perspective versus even other Christians who have no trouble with the scientific perspective.

It is not the issue of abiogenesis that actually concerns the creationist movement. It is irrelevant to the actual disagreement with science, and many creationists already know that. The disagreement fundamentally is about evolution, not abiogenesis. And specifically, the issue is about the evolution of human beings, not the origin of the first cell.

Organisms still evolve through a combination of genetic mutation and natural selection. And all the relevant evidence still reflects a common origin for all living things from a common ancestor via a process of descent with modification, no matter how life arose in the first place. That is the problem for creationists.

And it is the problem they are running from when they are unable to reconcile the relevant subjects of abiogensis vs. evolution.

Well, sorry Hollie, but you lost all credibility with me when you labeled PC as an "angry fundamentalist." She is anything but. Lord knows she and I don't agree on everything, but on this issue I will happily say I am much more in her camp than yours. But you do illustrate the point being made that the dedicated Darwinists are really REALLY hatefully negative about any Christian who doesn't share your point of view.

I am fairly certain that the scientists who have come to realize that evolution is not possible based upon genetics are not Christians of any stripe.

 

[Sunshine]

Well, PC, I love it when they declare science 'settled' and then call us all 'ignorant.' Science is anything BUT settled. Man cannot as of yet make it out of his own solar system, nor can he see far enough with even the best telescopes to truly explain the universe. When we see a star explode, we have to realize based on Einstein that the event occurred thousands of years ago and we are just now seeing it as the light reaches us. Even knowing the speed of light, we cannot see things like that in 'real time' because they are too far away. AND we do not know what has occurred in that spot in the interim thousands of years. Research in all fields is ongoing as it should be. I have two degrees the foundation of which are biological science. We have medicines that treat the human brain, and how they work, although they do work, is still largely a matter of theory. Some of them work and we can't even postulate a theory of why they work. The FDA only requires that they beat placebo. We don't know any more about the brain today than we did 100 years ago. We do know a little more about the substances that act upon it.

We are taught by science that life cannot be generated from inorganic matter, then we are told, 'oh well it DID happen once.' And there are people who are clueless enough and dense enough to buy that contradictory shit. Bottom line, we don't really know how life on earth came about. We also don't know if there is life outside our own solar system, and if there is even how to find it or how to get there.

I find the board know it alls most boring indeed. They have it all sewn up in their microscopic little two celled minds and make great haste to label those of us who have a real education in science, and the ability to think critically about such things as religion and the origin of the species as stupid. And yet they cannot cite one single study to show probability that their theory is correct. Not one. One theory is as good as another. None of them have been shown to be scientifically valid. None of them. Evolution is not even mathematically possible as shown in another thread. (And those who published this are mainstream scientists completely aware that Darwin had no knowledge of genetics.) Therefore, those who religiously and relentlessly cling to it are nothing more than religious fanatics themselves.

Can't find one study where the theory of evolution has been shown to be scientifically valid?

How about a whole basic college biology textbook?

Would a 600 page biology textbook be enough for you?

Try reading one before spouting your total ignorance.

LOL. A biology text is not a study. Name one scientific study which validates evolution. And for your information, I have more than a few college hours in science - biology, chemistry, organic and inorganic, (strange how they separate those two isn't it), microbiology, anatomy, physiology, advanced pharmacology, advanced psychopharmacology, and advanced pathophysiology, as well as algebra and statistics.

Good luck on your Biology 101 class. Your text will be outdated in just a few years. Might want to just sell it when you are done.

 

[Hollie]

The open enlightened mind knows that Darwin got some things right; Darwin got some things wrong; and Darwin left many questions unanswered. That is how honest science generally evolves.

The open enlightened mind knows that the Creationists have some things right; they interpret some things wrongly; and they leave many questions unanswered. That is how honest theology generally evolves.

The open enlightened mind knows that Marx and Engles got some things right; they got some things wrong; and so far we have witnessed that implementation of their concepts generally produces mostly unintended but nevertheless really bad consequences. That is how honest history is generally understood.

In my readings I found Engles much more of a Darwinist than Marx who was actually rather cool to the concept but went along with it because it wasn't all that important to him one way or the other. But I hadn't considered that those who most embrace Engles and Marxian theories, whether or not they know that is what they embrace, do all seem to be Darwin religionists and many are quite hostile to religious concepts or theories.

Maybe there's something to it. But at any rate, it is an interesting subject.

The really angry fundamentalists such as PC don't understand that the sciences of biology, chemistry, paleontology, etc., have progressed substantially since Darwin's time.

This is the issue that Christian fundies refuse to come to terms with. It is often a result of profound ignorance and / or a refusal to understand the terms being used: that the theory and fact of evolution is not contingent upon whatever mechanism ignited the first cell. Similatly, the really notion of trying to link the science of evolution with Marxism is among the more really goofy notions furthered by the fundamentalist crowd.

Creationism is not a theist vs. atheist controversy. It is a Fundamentalist Christian vs. everybody else controversy. It is a single biblical literalist perspective versus even other Christians who have no trouble with the scientific perspective.

It is not the issue of abiogenesis that actually concerns the creationist movement. It is irrelevant to the actual disagreement with science, and many creationists already know that. The disagreement fundamentally is about evolution, not abiogenesis. And specifically, the issue is about the evolution of human beings, not the origin of the first cell.

Organisms still evolve through a combination of genetic mutation and natural selection. And all the relevant evidence still reflects a common origin for all living things from a common ancestor via a process of descent with modification, no matter how life arose in the first place. That is the problem for creationists.

And it is the problem they are running from when they are unable to reconcile the relevant subjects of abiogensis vs. evolution.

And how many of those sciences that you spout off have you actually taken. I'm guessing in the range of the goose egg. You cannot have organisms without some kind of biogenesis. So, biogenesis is exceedingly important. You have no understanding of genetics.

You make the common mistake of not understanding that the TOE is completely silent on biogenesis, abiogenesis or the beginning of life.

Further, you are welcome to deny the overwhelming evidence for evolution. We discriminate between ideas based on evidence and reason. There are a certain number of ideas in science in which we have such overwhelming evidence that confidence regarding the underlying theory is at the highest level. Man’s evolution from apelike ancestors is one of those ideas.

There will always be a significant number of people who for religious or philosophical reasons reject that idea. Some of them may even become politically influential. But there is a reason the ID / creationist crowd are dismissed as cranks, because they tell us nothing about what is actually true.