My pal Stevie wanted to see the debunking of Darwin's theory of evolution.....
But this is the same Stevie who doesn't feel able to judge the debate:
".... in the court of public opinion, a place where laymen who have no idea of what the science means somehow are qualified to judge the science." http://www.usmessageboard.com/religion-and-ethics/313686-if-god-did-not-exist-17.html
See if you're 'qualified' to understand the following; I made it as simple as I could:
1. Although the adherents deny it, Darwinism is, to many of its proponents, a religion. They accept it on the basis of faith....or, convince themselves that they aren't "qualified" to make a judgment.
So fervent are they, that, for some, lying about facts that run counter is hardly beyond them. Of course, simply ignoring facts is often a method found in almost all doctrines.
a. The WSJ refers to one article that was peer-reviewed...yet still not accepted:
"Critics of ID have long argued that the theory was unscientific because it had not been put forward in a peer-reviewed scientific journal. Now that it has, they argue that it shouldn't have been because it's unscientific. They banish certain ideas from certain venues as if by holy writ, and brand heretics too. In any case, the heretic here is Mr. Meyer, a fellow at Seattle's Discovery Institute, not Mr. Sternberg, who isn't himself an advocate of Intelligent Design.
[The basis for disagreement with Darwin's theory: "...relying on only the Darwinian mechanism, there was not enough time for the necessary genetic "information" to be generated.]
Darwinism, by contrast, is an essential ingredient in secularism, that aggressive, quasi-religious faith without a deity. The Sternberg case seems, in many ways, an instance of one religion persecuting a rival, demanding loyalty from anyone who enters one of its churches -- like the National Museum of Natural History.” The Branding of a Heretic - WSJ.com
b. An echo of what David Berlinski writes in "The Devil's Delusion,"...
'So, it seems that in our time, much of science is involved in an attack on traditional religious thought, and rational men and women must place their faith, and devotion, in this system of belief. (Darwinism)
And, like any militant church, science places a familiar demand before all others:
“Thou shalt have no other gods before me.”'
2. There is no doubt that Darwin's theory is elegant, but if one wishes to move beyond philosophy, into empirical science, i.e., ideas backed up by actual physical evidence, Darwinism falls short.
Here is the source of the problem: 'Before about 580 million years ago, most organisms were simple, composed of individual cells occasionally organized into colonies.... The Cambrian explosion, or Cambrian radiation, was the relatively rapid appearance, around542 million years ago, of most major animal phyla, as demonstrated in the fossil record."
Cambrian explosion - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
a. "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.
3. Darwin posited evolution based on a gradual series of small changes, many of which would result in doom for the organism, but some which would make same better equipped to survive, and be passed on. Enough such changes, and we would have a new species. But early on, contemporary paleontologists and geologists found contrary fossil evidence: the Cambrian explosion revealed "geologically abrupt appearance of a menagerie of animals as various as any found int the gaudiest science fiction."
Meyers, "Darwin's Doubt," p. 31.
a. "During this explosion of fauna, representatives of about twenty of the roughly twenty-six total phyla present in the known fossil record made their first appearance on earth." Ibid.
Sudden: the very opposite of gradual....
Is there anyone not "qualified" to understand the difference???
4. This is a mystery as far as Darwinism is concerned, and not just because of the number of phyla that suddenly arise....but rather because of the number of unique animal forms and structures and modes of organization that unanticipatedly make an appearance!
a. Brachiopoda, Eldontia, Annelida, Ctenophora, Hyolitha, Echinodermata, Arthropoda, etc.
5. Now, just for a moment, if one can resist the knee-jerk secular reaction, how would an open-minded individual explain said surprise occurrence? And what would be its effect on a theory based on Darwinian gradualism?
Let's assume one is "qualified" to hypothesize.
So....let's review.
1. Stevie claimed Darwin was "...supported by a vast body of evidence." The opposite is true.
a. Rather than evidence of gradual change with evidence of failed attempts....new organisms and whole new body organizations suddenly appear!
2. Charles Darwin admitted the opposite of his theory is true. He was puzzled...and states so in "On The Origin of Species."
3. Evidence from geological strata debunks Darwin's premise: gradual changes that lead to speciation does not occur.
4. No one has observed one species changing into another, not in nature, nor in the laboratory.
5. In fact....the abrupt appearance in the Cambrian...known as 'the age of the trilobite,' suggests a very...very..... different explanation.
Q.E.D.
But this is the same Stevie who doesn't feel able to judge the debate:
".... in the court of public opinion, a place where laymen who have no idea of what the science means somehow are qualified to judge the science." http://www.usmessageboard.com/religion-and-ethics/313686-if-god-did-not-exist-17.html
See if you're 'qualified' to understand the following; I made it as simple as I could:
1. Although the adherents deny it, Darwinism is, to many of its proponents, a religion. They accept it on the basis of faith....or, convince themselves that they aren't "qualified" to make a judgment.
So fervent are they, that, for some, lying about facts that run counter is hardly beyond them. Of course, simply ignoring facts is often a method found in almost all doctrines.
a. The WSJ refers to one article that was peer-reviewed...yet still not accepted:
"Critics of ID have long argued that the theory was unscientific because it had not been put forward in a peer-reviewed scientific journal. Now that it has, they argue that it shouldn't have been because it's unscientific. They banish certain ideas from certain venues as if by holy writ, and brand heretics too. In any case, the heretic here is Mr. Meyer, a fellow at Seattle's Discovery Institute, not Mr. Sternberg, who isn't himself an advocate of Intelligent Design.
[The basis for disagreement with Darwin's theory: "...relying on only the Darwinian mechanism, there was not enough time for the necessary genetic "information" to be generated.]
Darwinism, by contrast, is an essential ingredient in secularism, that aggressive, quasi-religious faith without a deity. The Sternberg case seems, in many ways, an instance of one religion persecuting a rival, demanding loyalty from anyone who enters one of its churches -- like the National Museum of Natural History.” The Branding of a Heretic - WSJ.com
b. An echo of what David Berlinski writes in "The Devil's Delusion,"...
'So, it seems that in our time, much of science is involved in an attack on traditional religious thought, and rational men and women must place their faith, and devotion, in this system of belief. (Darwinism)
And, like any militant church, science places a familiar demand before all others:
“Thou shalt have no other gods before me.”'
2. There is no doubt that Darwin's theory is elegant, but if one wishes to move beyond philosophy, into empirical science, i.e., ideas backed up by actual physical evidence, Darwinism falls short.
Here is the source of the problem: 'Before about 580 million years ago, most organisms were simple, composed of individual cells occasionally organized into colonies.... The Cambrian explosion, or Cambrian radiation, was the relatively rapid appearance, around542 million years ago, of most major animal phyla, as demonstrated in the fossil record."
Cambrian explosion - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
a. "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.
3. Darwin posited evolution based on a gradual series of small changes, many of which would result in doom for the organism, but some which would make same better equipped to survive, and be passed on. Enough such changes, and we would have a new species. But early on, contemporary paleontologists and geologists found contrary fossil evidence: the Cambrian explosion revealed "geologically abrupt appearance of a menagerie of animals as various as any found int the gaudiest science fiction."
Meyers, "Darwin's Doubt," p. 31.
a. "During this explosion of fauna, representatives of about twenty of the roughly twenty-six total phyla present in the known fossil record made their first appearance on earth." Ibid.
Sudden: the very opposite of gradual....
Is there anyone not "qualified" to understand the difference???
4. This is a mystery as far as Darwinism is concerned, and not just because of the number of phyla that suddenly arise....but rather because of the number of unique animal forms and structures and modes of organization that unanticipatedly make an appearance!
a. Brachiopoda, Eldontia, Annelida, Ctenophora, Hyolitha, Echinodermata, Arthropoda, etc.
5. Now, just for a moment, if one can resist the knee-jerk secular reaction, how would an open-minded individual explain said surprise occurrence? And what would be its effect on a theory based on Darwinian gradualism?
Let's assume one is "qualified" to hypothesize.
So....let's review.
1. Stevie claimed Darwin was "...supported by a vast body of evidence." The opposite is true.
a. Rather than evidence of gradual change with evidence of failed attempts....new organisms and whole new body organizations suddenly appear!
2. Charles Darwin admitted the opposite of his theory is true. He was puzzled...and states so in "On The Origin of Species."
3. Evidence from geological strata debunks Darwin's premise: gradual changes that lead to speciation does not occur.
4. No one has observed one species changing into another, not in nature, nor in the laboratory.
5. In fact....the abrupt appearance in the Cambrian...known as 'the age of the trilobite,' suggests a very...very..... different explanation.
Q.E.D.
Last edited:
