Evolution....Now a "Fact"???

[Hollie]

Evolution is a Fact and a Theory

Evolution is a Fact and a Theory
by Laurence Moran
Copyright © 1993-2002
[Last Update: January 22, 1993]

hen non-biologists talk about biological evolution they often confuse two different aspects of the definition. On the one hand there is the question of whether or not modern organisms have evolved from older ancestral organisms or whether modern species are continuing to change over time. On the other hand there are questions about the mechanism of the observed changes... how did evolution occur? Biologists consider the existence of biological evolution to be a fact. It can be demonstrated today and the historical evidence for its occurrence in the past is overwhelming. However, biologists readily admit that they are less certain of the exact mechanismof evolution; there are several theories of the mechanism of evolution. Stephen J. Gould has put this as well as anyone else:

In the American vernacular, "theory" often means "imperfect fact"--part of a hierarchy of confidence running downhill from fact to theory to hypothesis to guess. Thus the power of the creationist argument: evolution is "only" a theory and intense debate now rages about many aspects of the theory. If evolution is worse than a fact, and scientists can't even make up their minds about the theory, then what confidence can we have in it? Indeed, President Reagan echoed this argument before an evangelical group in Dallas when he said (in what I devoutly hope was campaign rhetoric): "Well, it is a theory. It is a scientific theory only, and it has in recent years been challenged in the world of science--that is, not believed in the scientific community to be as infallible as it once was."

Well evolution is a theory. It is also a fact. And facts and theories are different things, not rungs in a hierarchy of increasing certainty. Facts are the world's data. Theories are structures of ideas that explain and interpret facts. Facts don't go away when scientists debate rival theories to explain them. Einstein's theory of gravitation replaced Newton's in this century, but apples didn't suspend themselves in midair, pending the outcome. And humans evolved from ape-like ancestors whether they did so by Darwin's proposed mechanism or by some other yet to be discovered.

Evolution as Fact and Theory"; Discover, May 1981

 

[PoliticalChic]

Evolution is a FACT
God is a THEORY

Yes, you'd think the PC types would put their energies into proving God exists instead of bad mouthing his creation.

This is the science forum.

Seems I'm the only one conversant with same.

Actually, you're typically confused and befuddled. You confused this forum with the "Those Really Wacky Young Earth Creationists", forum.



“People cited violation of the First Amendment when a New Jersey schoolteacher asserted that evolution and the Big Bang are not scientific and that Noah's ark carried dinosaurs. This case is not about the need to separate church and state; it's about the need to separate ignorant, scientifically illiterate people from the ranks of teachers.”
― Neil deGrasse Tyson

I can't begin to tell you how much I enjoy making you dance and jump through hoops.

I only post the truth.

You can't abide by that.....seems typical of haters like you.


When I do it, I feel like a puppeteer, pulling your strings! And I know exactly what each string is for:


One string is when you tell lies about what I've said or believe


Another string, making you blurt out something called 'Hockum pokem' or close to it


And a string is the where you attack any experts who post other than your hatred of religion....that may be the best one: attack the person who says it, don't deny the truth of what they say.


I love the one where you tries to insert creationism, or Intelligent Design, or something about gods.....anything but the subject at hand.

That's my show: I'm Abbot, you're Costello!

Your show is a Young Earth Creationist freak show.


“And to think of this great country in danger of being dominated by people ignorant enough to take a few ancient Babylonian legends as the canons of modern culture. Our scientific men are paying for their failure to speak out earlier. There is no use now talking evolution to these people. Their ears are stuffed with Genesis.”
― Luther Burbank




“Inveterate creationists, then or now, never allow their faith to fall victim to facts.”
― Robert T. Bakker, The Dinosaur Heresies: New Theories Unlocking the Mystery of the Dinosaurs and Their Extinction




“The biblical account of Noah's Ark and the Flood is perhaps the most implausible story for fundamentalists to defend. Where, for example, while loading his ark, did Noah find penguins and polar bears in Palestine?”
― Judith Hayes




“[N]early every creationist debater will mention the second law of thermodynamics and argue that complex systems like the earth and life cannot evolve, because the second law seems to say that everything in nature is running down and losing energy, not getting more complex. But that's NOT what the second law says; every creationist has heard this but refuses to acknowledge it. The second law only applies to closed systems, like a sealed jar of heated gases that gradually cools down and loses energy. But the earth is not a closed system -- it constantly gets new energy from the sun, and this (through photosynthesis) is what powers life and makes it possible for life to become more complex and evolve. It seems odd that the creationists continue to misuse the second law of thermodynamics when they have been corrected over and over again, but the reason is simple: it sounds impressive to their audience with limited science education, and if a snow job works, you stay with it.”
― Donald R. Prothero, Evolution: What the Fossils Say and Why It Matters

Hey....exactly what I said about you in post #78...
"I love the one where you tries to insert creationism, or Intelligent Design, or something about gods.....anything but the subject at hand."


Good little puppet!

 

[PoliticalChic]

Evolution is a Fact and a Theory

Evolution is a Fact and a Theory
by Laurence Moran
Copyright © 1993-2002
[Last Update: January 22, 1993]

hen non-biologists talk about biological evolution they often confuse two different aspects of the definition. On the one hand there is the question of whether or not modern organisms have evolved from older ancestral organisms or whether modern species are continuing to change over time. On the other hand there are questions about the mechanism of the observed changes... how did evolution occur? Biologists consider the existence of biological evolution to be a fact. It can be demonstrated today and the historical evidence for its occurrence in the past is overwhelming. However, biologists readily admit that they are less certain of the exact mechanismof evolution; there are several theories of the mechanism of evolution. Stephen J. Gould has put this as well as anyone else:

In the American vernacular, "theory" often means "imperfect fact"--part of a hierarchy of confidence running downhill from fact to theory to hypothesis to guess. Thus the power of the creationist argument: evolution is "only" a theory and intense debate now rages about many aspects of the theory. If evolution is worse than a fact, and scientists can't even make up their minds about the theory, then what confidence can we have in it? Indeed, President Reagan echoed this argument before an evangelical group in Dallas when he said (in what I devoutly hope was campaign rhetoric): "Well, it is a theory. It is a scientific theory only, and it has in recent years been challenged in the world of science--that is, not believed in the scientific community to be as infallible as it once was."

Well evolution is a theory. It is also a fact. And facts and theories are different things, not rungs in a hierarchy of increasing certainty. Facts are the world's data. Theories are structures of ideas that explain and interpret facts. Facts don't go away when scientists debate rival theories to explain them. Einstein's theory of gravitation replaced Newton's in this century, but apples didn't suspend themselves in midair, pending the outcome. And humans evolved from ape-like ancestors whether they did so by Darwin's proposed mechanism or by some other yet to be discovered.

Evolution as Fact and Theory"; Discover, May 1981

You dope....I posted that in the OP:

Gould: " Well evolution is a theory. It is also a fact. And facts and theories are different things, not rungs in a hierarchy of increasing certainty. Facts are the world's data. Theories are structures of ideas that explain and interpret facts. Facts don't go away when scientists debate rival theories to explain them. Einstein's theory of gravitation replaced Newton's in this century, but apples didn't suspend themselves in midair, pending the outcome. And humans evolved from ape-like ancestors whether they did so by Darwin's proposed mechanism or by some other yet to be discovered.

Moreover, "fact" doesn't mean "absolute certainty"....."
http://courses.washington.edu/anth599/Evolution as Fact and Theory Gould 1981.pdf

 

[Steven_R]

What is the proof that makes Darwin's theory....the commonly accepted meaning of 'evolution,' a fact?

It's called science.

By all means present the last peer-reviewed scientific paper that rejected evolution as a concept.

Right after you provide proof of one species becoming another.

Ring species fit the bill nicely. You have populations of the same species that over time can no longer interbreed with other populations of the same species. Since one of the classic definitions of a species involves the ability to interbreed with others, (and neverminding the arbitrary nature of human creation of classification systems including species) and you have observed populations that no longer fit in that definition over time...

Ring species - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

 

[Hollie]

Yes, you'd think the PC types would put their energies into proving God exists instead of bad mouthing his creation.

This is the science forum.

Seems I'm the only one conversant with same.

Actually, you're typically confused and befuddled. You confused this forum with the "Those Really Wacky Young Earth Creationists", forum.



“People cited violation of the First Amendment when a New Jersey schoolteacher asserted that evolution and the Big Bang are not scientific and that Noah's ark carried dinosaurs. This case is not about the need to separate church and state; it's about the need to separate ignorant, scientifically illiterate people from the ranks of teachers.”
― Neil deGrasse Tyson

I can't begin to tell you how much I enjoy making you dance and jump through hoops.

I only post the truth.

You can't abide by that.....seems typical of haters like you.


When I do it, I feel like a puppeteer, pulling your strings! And I know exactly what each string is for:


One string is when you tell lies about what I've said or believe


Another string, making you blurt out something called 'Hockum pokem' or close to it


And a string is the where you attack any experts who post other than your hatred of religion....that may be the best one: attack the person who says it, don't deny the truth of what they say.


I love the one where you tries to insert creationism, or Intelligent Design, or something about gods.....anything but the subject at hand.

That's my show: I'm Abbot, you're Costello!

Your show is a Young Earth Creationist freak show.


“And to think of this great country in danger of being dominated by people ignorant enough to take a few ancient Babylonian legends as the canons of modern culture. Our scientific men are paying for their failure to speak out earlier. There is no use now talking evolution to these people. Their ears are stuffed with Genesis.”
― Luther Burbank




“Inveterate creationists, then or now, never allow their faith to fall victim to facts.”
― Robert T. Bakker, The Dinosaur Heresies: New Theories Unlocking the Mystery of the Dinosaurs and Their Extinction




“The biblical account of Noah's Ark and the Flood is perhaps the most implausible story for fundamentalists to defend. Where, for example, while loading his ark, did Noah find penguins and polar bears in Palestine?”
― Judith Hayes




“[N]early every creationist debater will mention the second law of thermodynamics and argue that complex systems like the earth and life cannot evolve, because the second law seems to say that everything in nature is running down and losing energy, not getting more complex. But that's NOT what the second law says; every creationist has heard this but refuses to acknowledge it. The second law only applies to closed systems, like a sealed jar of heated gases that gradually cools down and loses energy. But the earth is not a closed system -- it constantly gets new energy from the sun, and this (through photosynthesis) is what powers life and makes it possible for life to become more complex and evolve. It seems odd that the creationists continue to misuse the second law of thermodynamics when they have been corrected over and over again, but the reason is simple: it sounds impressive to their audience with limited science education, and if a snow job works, you stay with it.”
― Donald R. Prothero, Evolution: What the Fossils Say and Why It Matters

Hey....exactly what I said about you in post #78...
"I love the one where you tries to insert creationism, or Intelligent Design, or something about gods.....anything but the subject at hand."


Good little puppet!

Oh my. I can see you're incensed at your "science is a conspiracy" views being dismantled. What's a Harun Yahya groupie to do?



“The most preposterous notion that Homo sapiens has ever dreamed up is that the Lord God of Creation, Shaper and Ruler of all the Universes, wants the saccharine adoration of His creatures, can be swayed by their prayers, and becomes petulant if He does not receive this flattery. Yet this absurd fantasy, without a shred of evidence to bolster it, pays all the expenses of the oldest, largest, and least productive industry in all history.”
― Robert A. Heinlein, Time Enough for Love


“In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.”
― Anonymous, Holy Bible: King James Version

 

[PoliticalChic]

I've often posted that, rather than science, Darwinism is a political theory, and a darling one to the Leftists.

Want an example?



7. In 2002, Cobb County, Georgia Board of Education, got these stickers placed in biology textbooks:

"This textbook contains material on evolution. Evolution is a theory, not a fact, regarding the origin of living things. This material should be approached with an open mind, studied carefully, and critically considered."


a. The ACLU got a judge to find the sticker unconstitutional.
Got that?
That's a judge finding that evolution is a fact.

So...turns our it isn't science or religion...it's political!

How often have we seen the Left get a tyrant in black robes to rubber stamp something they couldn't get the people to agree to?






8. The battle is on! In this 2006 book, "Evolution: The Triumph of an Idea,"by Carl Zimmer, paleontologist, evolutionary biologist, and historian of science, as well as atheistic Marxist, Stephen Gould wrote the introduction, in which he backed off a little:

"We should make a distinction, as Darwin explicitly did, between the simple fact of evolution- defined as the genealogical connections among all earthly organism, based on their descent from a common ancestor....and theories (like Darwinian natural selection) that have been proposed to explain the causes of evolutionary change."


Do I detect a degree of separation between Gould and Darwin?
He's admitting that Darwin's is only a theory???



Has to be, since Gould wrote "Sudden appearance. In any local area, a species does not arise gradually by the steady transformation of its ancestors; it appears all at once and ‘fully formed.’”
(Gould, Stephen J. The Panda’s Thumb, 1980, p. 181-182.)."

Seeeeee....just what I've been saying! "...a species does not arise gradually by the steady transformation of its ancestors..."


Now...... how to combine
a. "... their descent from a common ancestor..."

with.... " a species does not arise gradually by the steady transformation of its ancestors; it appears all at once and ‘fully formed.’”




So....if, one of the pillars of Darwinian theory states, all life came from one source....via a series of changes from the simplest to greater and greater complexity....
...then how does a new species "appear all at once, fully formed"????????

And both came from the same guy???



The only possible explanation is that....once again.....I am 100% absolutely and totally correct.
Did you notice I relied on nothing but science and logic to prove my point.

Darwin: bogus.



What's new? Another day, another dollar.

 

[PoliticalChic]

For purposes of clarity....are you a liar or simply stupid?

"A science based on the collection of millions of fossils..."

Are you under the misapprehension that there are a " collection of millions of fossils" that support Darwin's theory?

There are not.

No, actually, they are, when they are put in CONTEXT the shows life forms change over time.

But this isn't about science, it's about faith.

If Evolution is true, the bible is false.

If the Bible is false, then there is no God.

Did you mistake this for the Religion Forum?

 

[PoliticalChic]

What is the proof that makes Darwin's theory....the commonly accepted meaning of 'evolution,' a fact?

It's called science.

By all means present the last peer-reviewed scientific paper that rejected evolution as a concept.

Right after you provide proof of one species becoming another.

Ring species fit the bill nicely. You have populations of the same species that over time can no longer interbreed with other populations of the same species. Since one of the classic definitions of a species involves the ability to interbreed with others, (and neverminding the arbitrary nature of human creation of classification systems including species) and you have observed populations that no longer fit in that definition over time...

Ring species - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

When you get to junior high school you'll learn about the Scientific Method.

 

[JoeB131]

Actually, just looking at the titles of this guys books on Amazon, you can tell he's a nut.

Any asshole who can write a review on Amazon. And some of them might have even read the book.

You said he was a 'creationist.'

You lied, huh?

Well, the guy is some kind of crank. But he's gotten good reviews on Amazon by other cranks.

 

[JoeB131]

[
Did you mistake this for the Religion Forum?

No, did you? Only religious nuts are still trying to argue this point.

 

[PoliticalChic]

[
Did you mistake this for the Religion Forum?

No, did you? Only religious nuts are still trying to argue this point.

Now....focus like a laser: only one of us has brought up religion....and brought it up constantly.

Not I.

I have quoted a number of scientists, and can quote numerous others, whose religious perspectives I know not.....
...but they,and I understand the lack of science with regard to Darwinian evolution.

You don't.



That, in and of itself, is not a problem....but it is amusing when you attempt to post on this subject and all you can do is try to tie it to religion.


Of course, the silver lining is that you have no reputation to lose.

 

[JoeB131]

Now....focus like a laser: only one of us has brought up religion....and brought it up constantly.

Not I.

No, sweetie, I know it's been an attempt to take your superstition and dress it in a lab coat and call it a science, but it just ain't so.

Getting quacks who don't even practice in the field to endorse creationism isn't an argument.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Now....focus like a laser: only one of us has brought up religion....and brought it up constantly.

Not I.

No, sweetie, I know it's been an attempt to take your superstition and dress it in a lab coat and call it a science, but it just ain't so.

Getting quacks who don't even practice in the field to endorse creationism isn't an argument.

You're not smart enough to know if it 'ain't so.'

Actually, everything I post in this forum is science, and critiques thereof.

Get rid of the hate and you might, finally, get an education.

 

[Hollie]

For purposes of clarity....are you a liar or simply stupid?

"A science based on the collection of millions of fossils..."

Are you under the misapprehension that there are a " collection of millions of fossils" that support Darwin's theory?

There are not.

No, actually, they are, when they are put in CONTEXT the shows life forms change over time.

But this isn't about science, it's about faith.

If Evolution is true, the bible is false.

If the Bible is false, then there is no God.

Did you mistake this for the Religion Forum?

Not at all. When your "quotes" are stolen from the most notorious of the fundamentalist creation ministries, why would think anyone misunderstands your agenda?


“Finally, from what we now know about the cosmos, to think that all this was created for just one species among the tens of millions of species who live on one planet circling one of a couple of hundred billion stars that are located in one galaxy among hundreds of billions of galaxies, all of which are in one universe among perhaps an infinite number of universes all nestled within a grand cosmic multiverse, is provincially insular and anthropocentrically blinkered. Which is more likely? That the universe was designed just for us, or that we see the universe as having been designed just for us?”
― Michael Shermer, Why Darwin Matters: The Case Against Intelligent Design




“We can allow satellites, planets, suns, universe, nay whole systems of universe, to be governed by laws, but the smallest insect, we wish to be created at once by special act.”
― Charles Darwin, Notebooks




“To put it bluntly but fairly, anyone today who doubts that the variety of life on this planet was produced by a process of evolution is simply ignorant—inexcusably ignorant, in a world where three out of four people have learned to read and write.”
― Daniel C. Dennett, Darwin's Dangerous Idea: Evolution and the Meanings of Life

 

[Steven_R]

What is the proof that makes Darwin's theory....the commonly accepted meaning of 'evolution,' a fact?

It's called science.

By all means present the last peer-reviewed scientific paper that rejected evolution as a concept.

Right after you provide proof of one species becoming another.

Ring species fit the bill nicely. You have populations of the same species that over time can no longer interbreed with other populations of the same species. Since one of the classic definitions of a species involves the ability to interbreed with others, (and neverminding the arbitrary nature of human creation of classification systems including species) and you have observed populations that no longer fit in that definition over time...

Ring species - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

When you get to junior high school you'll learn about the Scientific Method.

Your pithy insults don't explain why observed populations are able to cross-breed with neighboring populations of the same species, but several generations later descendent populations care incapable of breeding with the original population. One of the hallmarks of a species is the ability to breed with others of its kind, so if the descendants are still the same species, why can't they mate with what is supposedly the same species?

 

[PoliticalChic]

What is the proof that makes Darwin's theory....the commonly accepted meaning of 'evolution,' a fact?

It's called science.

By all means present the last peer-reviewed scientific paper that rejected evolution as a concept.

Right after you provide proof of one species becoming another.

Ring species fit the bill nicely. You have populations of the same species that over time can no longer interbreed with other populations of the same species. Since one of the classic definitions of a species involves the ability to interbreed with others, (and neverminding the arbitrary nature of human creation of classification systems including species) and you have observed populations that no longer fit in that definition over time...

Ring species - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

When you get to junior high school you'll learn about the Scientific Method.

Your pithy insults don't explain why observed populations are able to cross-breed with neighboring populations of the same species, but several generations later descendent populations care incapable of breeding with the original population. One of the hallmarks of a species is the ability to breed with others of its kind, so if the descendants are still the same species, why can't they mate with what is supposedly the same species?

9. So....evolution: is it a fact or a theory?


a. Well....to move beyond 'theory,' until alternative evidence is discovered, the Scientific Method is the test:

hypothesis is formed,

it is tested,

and the results of the test must be reproducible

voila! a conclusion......

It may then become a part of the panoply of scientific theories....




"Evolution" hasn't even met that level of authentication.

Elegant though it may be....it is merely conjecture....and conjecture that has not done well over time: lots of counter-evidence has been found.





b. In 1997, evolutionary biologist Keith Stewart Thomson wrote: “A matter of unfinished business for biologists is the identification of evolution's smoking gun,” and “the smoking gun of evolution is speciation, not local adaptation and differentiation of populations.”
Before Darwin, the consensus was that species can vary only within certain limits; indeed, centuries of artificial selection had seemingly demonstrated such limits experimentally. “Darwin had to show that the limits could be broken,” wrote Thomson, “so do we.”
Keith Stewart Thomson, “Natural Selection and Evolution’s Smoking Gun,”American Scientist85 (1997): 516-518.


OK....so, the change from one species into another has to be shown...and that process, able to be reproduced.

Hasn't yet.






10. Two quotes are relevant here.

a. Alan H. Linton, a bacteriologist, said in a 2001 article,

"Throughout 150 years of the science of bacteriology, there is no evidence that one species of bacteria has changed into another. Since there is no evidence for species changes between the simplest forms of unicellular life, it is not surprising that there is no evidence for evolution...throughout the whole array of higher multicellular organisms."
(From an April, 2001 article entitled “Scant Search for the Maker” Times Higher Education Supplement, 2001.)
Kreacjonistyczna krytyka ewolucjonizmu


"... there is no evidence for evolution..."


And this:

b. Also, William Dembski, with doctorates in both mathematics and philosophy, in his book, ``Uncommon Dissent’’, which is a collection of articles denouncing many of the claims Darwinists make, says, in reference to speciation, "That’s the problem with Darwinism: In place of detailed, testable accounts of how a complex, biological system could realistically have emerged, Darwinism offers just-so stories about how such systems might have emerged in some idealized conceptual space far removed from biological reality."


"...just so stories...."


Sooo.......It's been a fun afternoon, but...
...I'm gonna stick with "theory," rather than "fact."

 

[PoliticalChic]

For purposes of clarity....are you a liar or simply stupid?

"A science based on the collection of millions of fossils..."

Are you under the misapprehension that there are a " collection of millions of fossils" that support Darwin's theory?

There are not.

No, actually, they are, when they are put in CONTEXT the shows life forms change over time.

But this isn't about science, it's about faith.

If Evolution is true, the bible is false.

If the Bible is false, then there is no God.

Did you mistake this for the Religion Forum?

Not at all. When your "quotes" are stolen from the most notorious of the fundamentalist creation ministries, why would think anyone misunderstands your agenda?


“Finally, from what we now know about the cosmos, to think that all this was created for just one species among the tens of millions of species who live on one planet circling one of a couple of hundred billion stars that are located in one galaxy among hundreds of billions of galaxies, all of which are in one universe among perhaps an infinite number of universes all nestled within a grand cosmic multiverse, is provincially insular and anthropocentrically blinkered. Which is more likely? That the universe was designed just for us, or that we see the universe as having been designed just for us?”
― Michael Shermer, Why Darwin Matters: The Case Against Intelligent Design




“We can allow satellites, planets, suns, universe, nay whole systems of universe, to be governed by laws, but the smallest insect, we wish to be created at once by special act.”
― Charles Darwin, Notebooks




“To put it bluntly but fairly, anyone today who doubts that the variety of life on this planet was produced by a process of evolution is simply ignorant—inexcusably ignorant, in a world where three out of four people have learned to read and write.”
― Daniel C. Dennett, Darwin's Dangerous Idea: Evolution and the Meanings of Life

"...."quotes" are stolen from the most notorious of the fundamentalist blah blah blah...."


That's funny, in light of the fact that I embarrassed you with a quote from your own link....

OK.....time for you to get back into that straight jacket....

 

[Steven_R]

Explain the observations biologists have made in ring species. If evolution is a sham, why can't descendent populations breed with their original populations? The species don't change if evolution is a lie, so what's the deal?

Surely there's some mined quote you can find that gets to the heart of what's going on with ring species.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Explain the observations biologists have made in ring species. If evolution is a sham, why can't descendent populations breed with their original populations? The species don't change if evolution is a lie, so what's the deal?

Surely there's some mined quote you can find that gets to the heart of what's going on with ring species.

I believe I'll wait until you avail yourself of enough education in this subject to digest the points made about speciation, post #96.


Your understanding of same is far too elementary.

 

[Hollie]

For purposes of clarity....are you a liar or simply stupid?

"A science based on the collection of millions of fossils..."

Are you under the misapprehension that there are a " collection of millions of fossils" that support Darwin's theory?

There are not.

No, actually, they are, when they are put in CONTEXT the shows life forms change over time.

But this isn't about science, it's about faith.

If Evolution is true, the bible is false.

If the Bible is false, then there is no God.

Did you mistake this for the Religion Forum?

Not at all. When your "quotes" are stolen from the most notorious of the fundamentalist creation ministries, why would think anyone misunderstands your agenda?


“Finally, from what we now know about the cosmos, to think that all this was created for just one species among the tens of millions of species who live on one planet circling one of a couple of hundred billion stars that are located in one galaxy among hundreds of billions of galaxies, all of which are in one universe among perhaps an infinite number of universes all nestled within a grand cosmic multiverse, is provincially insular and anthropocentrically blinkered. Which is more likely? That the universe was designed just for us, or that we see the universe as having been designed just for us?”
― Michael Shermer, Why Darwin Matters: The Case Against Intelligent Design




“We can allow satellites, planets, suns, universe, nay whole systems of universe, to be governed by laws, but the smallest insect, we wish to be created at once by special act.”
― Charles Darwin, Notebooks




“To put it bluntly but fairly, anyone today who doubts that the variety of life on this planet was produced by a process of evolution is simply ignorant—inexcusably ignorant, in a world where three out of four people have learned to read and write.”
― Daniel C. Dennett, Darwin's Dangerous Idea: Evolution and the Meanings of Life

"...."quotes" are stolen from the most notorious of the fundamentalist blah blah blah...."


That's funny, in light of the fact that I embarrassed you with a quote from your own link....

OK.....time for you to get back into that straight jacket....

Actually, no. Your demonstrated habit is to edit, alter and parse the "quotes" you steal from crank fundie websites.

I was putting the comments from Gould in context.

You're just dishonest.