DarkStar's Collection of Quotations - Number 1

The support of macroevolution as a viable theory is, imo, a dark blot on the credibility of the scientific community.As an offshoot of a discussion in another thread, quotes from scientists, both evolutionist and creationist, which illuminate the problems inherent in the concept of macroevolution will be offered here, along with as much information as is possible to find online regarding these same scientists position in relation to the theory of evolution, including their position on both microevolution and macroevolution, as well as their position concerning design and intelligent design theory. I shall begin with my opening statement from the original thread. I will begin this discussion with one of the final quotes offered in the original thread, as it seems most appropriate to begin with a quote from the man whose ideas are primarily responsible for the birth of the myth of macroevolution. Few will question whether or not Darwin believed in his own theory but the real questions are, if Darwin himself recognized the unscientific nature of his theory, why is it that so many neo-darwinians insist that the myth of macroevolution be accepted as a bonafide scientific theory, and how do they reconcile their position with the thousands of quotes by scientists that challenge the scientific viability of the theory of evolution and seemingly debunk this so-called theory, more accurately known as the "Myth of Macroevolution"?Although the quote above attributed to Darwin is available on numerous sites, and being as yet unable to locate the full text of the letter in which the quote appears, I direct interested parties to a pro-evolution site first, which covers this quote extensively.Quote Mine Project: Darwin QuotesSo as to be fair, the following pro-creation site will be offered as a buffer to the previous site.http://www.trueorigin.org/to_deception.aspFor those who may be interested, this site http://pages.britishlibrary.net/charles.darwin/ contains an extremely large collection of Darwin's writings.In the pages that follow, we should attempt to address these issues regarding true science vs. myth, expand on the positions of both the evolution and creation scientists, and bring to light as much data as is necessary to provide everyone with the most up to date information available from all sides, while acknowledging all viewpoints.This message has been edited by DarkStar, 08-08-2004 11:05 PM{Topic moved from "Proposed New Topics" by Adminnemooseus}This message has been edited by Adminnemooseus, 08-09-2004 02:07 AM

---

Judging by the responses thus far, I think it can be conceded that Darwin not only believed in the process of macroevolution, but that he saw it as the best explanation for the origin of species. Science has made some tremendous advances since Darwin first proposed the idea of macroevolution so let's move a little further from it's initiation and see what others has to say regarding the myth of macroevolution.Before continuing however, allow me to silence those who love to criticize condemnatory quotes concerning the myth of macroevolution as always being taken out of context by reminding them that rule #10 of the forum guidelines states:It is therefore quite difficult to keep any quote fully within the context of original thought without violating rule #10 so please, either follow whatever link may be provided or offer one of your own choice.For example, how about someone in here supplying a link to the full context of Darwin's letter to Asa Gray so as to supply all readers with the full context of Darwins thoughts introduced in said letter. I have tried to locate it through searches but have been unsuccessful thus far. Not even the talkorigin site offered the letter in it's entirety, but instead also chose snippets here and there that seemingly supported it's own position. Talkorigins should not criticize something out of one side of it's mouth while practicing the same thing out of the other side.Shortly after joining the EVC forum, I stated that the only way to understand the full context of any writing is to view the writing in it's entirety, which in many cases would require heavy cut-n-paste sequences, and as has already been noted, that would be a violation of rule #10 of the forum guidelines. Having said that, the following will have to suffice for now. Page not found | Star Lake, WisconsinDespite the expected response of hardcore neo-evo's to defend their belief in the myth of macroevolution with their dying breath, regardless of what may be presented here, I have no doubt that as we progress through the thousands of available quotes exposing macroevolution for what it is, a myth of gigantic proportions, that the truth will be made known and the occasional truly openminded individual who passes through EVC will go their way having been made more aware of the enormous fallacies so inherent in the theory of evolution, at least where the myth of macroevolution is concerned.The theory of evolution is by no means dead, but with the inclusion of the myth of macroevolution within that theory, it might as well be. Abandoning true science in favor of a myth in order to support an otherwise viable theory is pure foolishness.

---

Not only is evolution a medieval belief, it is an ancient one. http://library.thinkquest.org/18757/historyofevolution.htm What is the difference between the first living entity, or the origin of life as you put it, and the origin of species? Was not the first living thing the very first of it's own species? How narrowly do you define the term species?I have never understood how the two, origins of life and origins of species, can be separated. Even if one insists upon ignoring the initial move from a non-living entity to a living entity, once life emerged, the theory of evolution must acknowledge that moment as it's own beginning point or it is a useless theory. That simply is not true. Darwins own little piece of the pie may date back to that point but to claim that Darwin suddenly came up with this idea out of the blue, and that nothing that he claimed had ever been claimed before is to simply attempt to rewrite history.Even since Darwins time, evolutionary thinking has evolved, just as it had been evolving for over two millenia and just as it will continual to evolve. Evolutionary thinking must continually evolve or the theory risks collapse under the weight of it's own fallacies.Now when I speak so negatively about the theory of evolution, it must be understood that I am only referring to the myth of macroevolution and not the well established fact of microevolution.Living entities either learn to adapt to their environment or they die out, sometimes becoming totally extinct as a species, genus, family, kind, etc., never to rise again. However, they never become anything they have not always been, and the fossil record confirms this fact.

---

Ok crash, let's stick to the first quote. Please, if you are able, supply for us the entire text of the letter in question so that we can more appropriately address exactly what Darwins point was throughout the letter. I would supply it myself but I have still been unable to find it. My intention is not to mislead anyone, I hope your intentions are the same. My intention is to discover why so many scientists make condemnatory statements about the theory of evolution, meaning of course the myth of macroevolution.

---

The easiest rebuttal to what is viewed as an out of context quote is to counter it with the same quote in it's full context, otherwise your argument against the quote is baseless and you are merely stating your own personal opinion.

---

This gives the impression that both you and crash have read the full text of the letter in question. If so, would one of you please provide a link to the site where said letter may be found. Until I have had the opportunity to read the letter in full, I must accept that Darwin was indeed referring to his own ideas concerning evolution as being beyond the bounds of true science.

---

I will bet it wasn't difficult.....too bad it is not the letter containing the quote in question. Nice try but perhaps you should have actually read the letter before posting. If you do locate the correct letter, please provide a link so all can read it in it's entirety. Thanks in advance!

---

If you can not provide a link to the letter in question, then I will continue to accept the fact that the quote supports the idea that Darwin himself admitted to the unscientific nature of his theory. Thanks for your input anyway, I will overlook the fact that you can not refute the quote and so the quote must stand until verifiable refutation is provided.

---

Exactly who are the "we" and by what method did they "witness" this random mutation? Please explain how "random mutation" differs from adaptation, with regards to any species that is merely adapting to it's current environment which may cause said species to change slightly, only to reverse those changes as it's environment returns to it's previous state.

---

There are at least a couple of major problems with your argument. You offer no support for your contention that there was no theory of evolution in the Medieval period and you seem to have concluded that only the Greeks would have a recorded history of evolutionary thinking. Neither of your contentions is true, at least not according to recorded history. Though the theory of evolution was not as widely taught as it is today, many tribes and cultures continued to hold to a belief in evolution before, during, and after the Medieval period. Personally, I do not think your argument that theory of evolution being an ancient belief is a valid one. The reality is, evolutionary thinking as an ancient concept is unquestionable. It is an historically undeniable fact. The theory of evolution, though experiencing many changes & adaptations, in essence evolving differently in different cultures, can still be traced back to the beginning of recorded history. While the ancients ideas regarding evolution differed from that which is taught today, the basic concept remains the same with lower forms continually evolving into higher forms. That this belief is such an ancient one should be of no surprise. What is surprising is that in a day such as ours, with the scientific advances that have been made, that men continue to believe in such ancient concepts, many of them originating as religious beliefs, morphing into what we know today as secular naturalism, which consists of random mutations, natural selections, & survival of the fittest. Why anyone bothers to continue to argue that the idea of evolution is new and not an offshoot of ancient religious beliefs is astounding. Ancient historical records confirm they are either in denial or they are, wittingly or unwittingly, ignorant of the facts of history. This is not to suggest that those who adhere to the myth of macroevolution are religionists, but their predecessors surely were. http://www.answersingenesis.org/tj/v15/i2/naturalism.aspSometimes even an open minded evolutionist, such as myself, must willingly rely on the honesty provided at a creationist website due to the openly deceitful nature of so many of the neo-evolutionist web sites that exist only to perpetuate the myth of macroevolution.

---

I think the more likely possibility is that the neo-evolutionists whose main desire is to perpetuate the myth of macroevolution have purposely posted links to the wrong letter. I could be wrong, but I doubt it.

---

I believe the term you were looking for is "subjective" evidence, as in evidence that is subjected to preconceived notions and ideas which are based upon suppositions and opinions rather than scientific facts. Belief in the myth of macroevolution is faith, as much faith as is required by religious people to believe in god. I am sorry but your argument is baseless. All I have seen you do here is parrot the average neo-evo, using scientific terms in an attempt to support your own personal faith in the myth of macroevolution. How much scientific work have you performed to support your position? Are your papers published? If you are merely repeating what you have been taught to say then your argument is wasted. I can read these same misconceptions and misunderstandings of the evidence supposedly supporting the myth of macroevolution on a thousand web sites, none of which have any more scientific credibility than what you have presented.Macroevolution has never, will never be observed, neither in actuality or in the fossil record. Only those whose cling to the myth of macroevolution insist that the fossil record supports their belief, their faith in macroevolution. Science seems to agree with me as evidenced by the thousands of quotes by scientists that support my view while condemning yours. I can not be held accountable for what the scientists say and the neo-evo's claims that these thousands of quotes are taken out of context is not made more believeable by their inability to offer these same quotes in their full context, with supporting arguments revealing that the scientists did not mean what they actually said.

---

That is where I think you are wrong. It is those who cling to the myth of macroevolution that insist the quote is taken out of context but are unable to prove that this is true. Simply prove to me that this quote is taken out of context and I will most gladly concede, but until you can prove otherwise, the quote fully supports itself.

---

Sorry asgara, I would if I could but I too have been unable to locate the letter at the site I also provided. http://pages.britishlibrary.net/charles.darwin/
There is much to look through and it will obviously take some time. As I have already stated in another post, all one need do is prove to me that this quote is taken out of context and that Darwin did not mean what the quote suggests and I will gladly concede. Until then, the quote must stand as is.

---

I do not desire to push this any further and my contention was not merely that belief in evolution was present during the Medieval period but that it has been in existance for a long, long time. Much longer than you were willing to admit to, as noted by your references to Erasmus Darwin and Lamarck, hardly an acknowledgement of the ancient belief in evolution which was my main point. I am willing to concede to your position about parts of Europe, but most assuredly not all of Europe. At any rate, I will consider this discussion on the Medieval period closed.

---