quote:
Originally posted by Cobra_snake:
The whole "Creation scientists find facts to fit around a theory" is total hypocrisy. I'm sure most evolutionists start out with their theory, and then find facts to fit. If you can prove me wrong about this, I will be very suprised. Just because evolutionists don't have a statement of faith, they still are subject to the act of bias. And not all Creation scientists have signed a statement of faith. Gary Parker actually CONVERTED after he re-analyzed the facts!
Please, somebody prove me wrong or stop claiming this silly argument!
http://www.ucmp.berkeley.edu/history/buffon2.html
Georges-Louis Leclerc, Comte de Buffon (1707-1788)
Sometimes it is hard to imagine how revolutionary an idea was, especially when that idea is currently accepted as common knowledge. Many such ideas appear simple and are often taught at the elementary school level, yet the simplicity of these ideas belies the complexity involved in their origins.
During the eighteenth century, two church doctrines provided sweeping biblical explanations for most questions about biological diversity: Separate Creation, the idea that all creatures have been created independently of one another by God and organized into a hierarchy ("chain of being") with Man occupying the most elevated rank beneath God; and the 6,000 year limit on the age of the planet.
It is not the average person who questions two thousand years of dogma, but that is what Buffon did: 100 years before Darwin, Buffon, in his Historie Naturelle, a 44 volume encyclopedia describing everything known about the natural world, wrestled with the similarities of humans and apes and even talked about common ancestry of Man and apes.
Evidence : Morphological similarity between organisms. Heritable traits.
http://www.ucmp.berkeley.edu/history/Edarwin.html
Erasmus Darwin (1731-1802)
Charles Darwin's grandfather, Erasmus Darwin, was one of the leading intellectuals of eighteenth century England, a man with a remarkable array of interests and pursuits. Erasmus Darwin was a respected physician, a well known poet, philosopher, botanist, and naturalist.
As a naturalist, he formulated one of the first formal theories on evolution in Zoonomia, or, The Laws of Organic Life (1794-1796). He also presented his evolutionary ideas in verse, in particular in the posthumously published poem The Temple of Nature. Although he did not come up with natural selection, he did discuss ideas that his grandson elaborated on sixty years later, such as how life evolved from a single common ancestor, forming "one living filament". He wrestled with the question of how one species could evolve into another. Although some of his ideas on how evolution might occur are quite close to those of Lamarck, Erasmus Darwin also talked about how competition and sexual selection could cause changes in species: "The final course of this contest among males seems to be, that the strongest and most active animal should propogate the species which should thus be improved". Erasmus Darwin arrived at his conclusions through an "integrative" approach: he used his observations of domesticated animals, the behaviour of wildlife, and he integrated his vast knowledge of many different fields, such as paleontology, biogeography, systematics, embryology, and comparative anatomy.
Evidences : paleontology, biogeography, systematics, embryology, and comparative anatomy.
http://www.ucmp.berkeley.edu/history/lamarck.html
Jean-Baptiste Lamarck (1744-1829)
While the mechanism of Lamarckian evolution is quite different from that proposed by Darwin, the predicted result is the same: adaptive change in lineages, ultimately driven by environmental change, over long periods of time. It is interesting to note that Lamarck cited in support of his theory of evolution many of the same lines of evidence that Darwin was to use in the Origin of Species. Lamarck's Philosophie zoologique mentions the great variety of animal and plant forms produced under human cultivation (Lamarck even anticipated Darwin in mentioning fantail pigeons!); the presence of vestigial, non-functional structures in many animals; and the presence of embryonic structures that have no counterpart in the adult.
Evidences : Vestigial structures, & embryo developemental structure.
We haven’t even reached his nibs, Charlie Darwin yet, & we already have :
Morphological similarity between organisms, heritable traits, paleontology, biogeography, systematics, embryology, vestigial structure, and comparative anatomy.
All these observations BEFORE Charles Darwin came along with natural selection, & the seed of the modern ToE.
Now, what had the bible got at the same period in history? Alleged divine revelation.
Charles Darwin based his theory on EVIDENCE.
EVIDENCE FIRST, THEORY LATER. The scientific method, no less.
quote:
Originally posted by Cobra_snake:
"Please, somebody prove me wrong or stop claiming this silly argument!"
My pleasure.
It really is intellectually bankrupt to try to claim evolutionary theory is based on pure faith & bias. The theory has had prediction after prediction come true, this is not faith or bias.
All you are attempting to do is drag true science down to creation "sciences" depth, & it is simply too bouyant.
If you claim scientific bias at the point of delivery, then produce a paper that you think has such bias, after being put through the rigours of peer review, having predictions born out, etc.
If you can't, the conventional wisdom is to retract your accusation.
Mark
------------------
Occam's razor is not for shaving with.
™ Version 4.2