TOE and the Reasons for Doubt

When it comes to science you don't do any study.You just accept the lies and misinformation of those creationist sources.That's why creationists posting here and elsewhere on the internet can come up with "the second law of thermal documents" and "the odds against evolution are 1⁷²⁰" and other such gems. You've come up with such gems yourself.Why should those of us who know something about science in general, and a lot about a particular field of science, take anything a creationist says about science seriously? They have no real interest in science, and the last thing they really want to do is spend the time and effort to acquire some understanding of it.Creationists have far more than "doubts" about the theory of evolution. Creationists can't tolerate any science that contradicts their religious beliefs and are seeking to destroy those sciences. They can't combat the reputation science has achieved for accuracy, and the evidence, and so are willing to lie and misrepresent in their fight against science. And they want to teach these lies and misrepresentations in public schools. They don't care if they send us back to the Dark Ages to eliminate what they see as a threat to their beliefs from real world evidence.

---

Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.

Gday, Great. But you were completely wrong.
They did not say that at all. *sigh*
No, he didn't.You just repeated the EXACT error you admitted you were wrong about.
Incredible.Sagan's paragraph clearly says the opposite.
Sadly, Peg, you just can't comprehend English.K.

Hi Coyote,Re your last post I think it's much worse than sheer willingness to ignore all the science around them (the creationists I mean). I think it is pure arrogance. Scientists spend years, decades, in their chosen fields, first by laborious study of per-reviewed science papers/journals followed by the long years of field work. In the case of biological sciences,paleontology and archeology(such as your own field) this can invole years of physically challenging endurance. From steamy tropics to freezing polar conditions, from dry deserts to high altitude environments, we find scientists toiling away actually working in the field to uncover evidence, test theories and advance knowledge.......and then some fool who has no training, knowledge, or even an honest intent to learn spends a few hours trawling the Internet (and then only reviewing the retarded junk and scientifically valueless puedo-science that is the hallmark of Creationist litery efforts) and they feel qualified to declare by fiat, that they know all about the subject...no study of peer-reviewed material, no field studies to see in detail, and at first-hand, the nature of what they are debating, and no alternative scientific theories to rival or replace....just a continuous outpouring of PRATT's some of which were debunked by Darwin himself....and they wonder why we don't take them seriously.Darwin himself started life as a theist, and were it not for a passion in life sciences would have most likely ended his days as a county parson somewhere. As it was he endured (and endured is the correct word if you read up on his Beagle adventures)unpleasant conditions in his passion to go into the field and see first-hand what life really is like - and the realities of life 'red in tooth and claw' opened up his eyes in a way no preacher from a pulpit could ever have done...can anyone point to a single Creationist who has done similar (studied intensely in the field) - and maintained their Creationist stance afterwards - I'd be interested to know if so (with references for the citation included of course).Really! Would you go to a tailor to fix your car or to a mechanic instead? Would you go to a televangelist preaching from a pulpit to ask about evolution or to a scientist qualified by years of graft and experince?It really is as simple as that...a combination of abject ignorance and dismissive arrogance. Destroy the ToE? Well to do that you really have to know something you are talking about and Creationists fall well outside the level of knowledge needed. They may feel in their closed-off minds they have achieved this but if they really want to sabotage school lessons and replace science with religion they first need to understand the science...and there's little chance of that!!

One minor problem with your post:

"...a scientist qualified by years of graft and experince?"

Perhaps an edit would be in order.Otherwise, excellent!

---

Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.

In English English the word "graft" tends to mean "hard work" rather than "bribery and corruption".

But this nonsense shows that you have studied nothing yourself. You are just reciting creationist lies and creationist gibberish.No, you're not wrong because you haven't done the "field study" yourself. You are wrong because you thought that a hyrax was "fox-like", because you thought that a salamander was a fish, and because, as that post demonstrates, you talk arrant nonsense about evolution, the fossil record, and every other biology-related subject you discuss.It's not that you "don't do the field study yourself", it's because you flatly ignore and deny the findings of the people who have. It's not that you haven't studied the evidence yourself, it's that you live in an imaginary world entirely disconnected from the findings of the people who have studied the evidence.Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

So Dr. Donald Chittick is not qualified to comment on transitional forms. Hmm, what about those who ARE geologists like Larry Vardiman and Steve Austin? But of course, since they are creationists their opinions don't count, right?How disgusting. By the way, here are Dr. Chitticks credentials:"Dr Chittick earned his Ph.D. in Physical Chemistry from Oregon State University. For many years, he served as chairman of the division of Natural Sciences at George Fox University in Oregon. Since 1988, he has been an adjunct professor of chemistry at the Institute for Creation Research in the San Diego area. He was Associate Professor of Chemistry at the University of Puget Sound. He also holds patents on alternate fuels and in ‘programmed instruction.’ He was also recognized by Outstanding Educators of America & also American Men and Women of Science."Furthermore, he wasn't lying about the lack of transitional forms. You were not being truthful. The truth is that you don't have a clue about the whereabouts of the missing stages between the first identifiable bat in the fossil record and the many that should have led up to that supposed 54 million yr old sample. The same is true of rabbits, tigers, flies, flowers of all kinds, and even bacteria. They all appear abruptly in the fossil record with no transistions. That fact has been repeatedly admitted by evolutionary scientist after evolutionary scientist through the years. I well remember the big fight between Stephen Gould & company vs Richard Dawkins & his crowd. They've tried to cover their tracks since then but the damage was done and there isn't anything they can do about it.Peg was telling the truth even if she did not list all her sources. I have read the statements by most of those whom she quoted and I can verify that she did not take them out of context and if she did happen to garnish them from creationist websites...so what?

One problem with this line of thinking is that "salamander" is not a scientific name but a general name of The order Urodela, of amphibians.
This would be that same as saying that all carnivores are the same because the level (order) Carnivora (Bears, cats, dogs, raccoons, seals, etc) is the same level of mammals as the Urodela (salamanders) are within the amphibia. Thus by your classification, bears, cats, dogs etc. are all the same.

---

There is no better love between 2 people than mutual respect for each other WT Young, 2002Who gave anyone the authority to call me an authority on anything. WT Young, 1969Since Evolution is only ~90% correct it should be thrown out and replaced by Creation which has even a lower % of correctness. W T Young, 2008

I agree with Coyote that this fight against evolution seems indicative of a larger struggle between reason and logic against stringent belief and ignorance. Allowing the creationists to win would just be the first step in setting up more theocratic society predicated on beliefs in the supernatural. Science will suffer as a result, as it suffered when the Catholic Church was in charge of Europe for all those centuries.But don't worry.As an expat living in China, I don't hear any debate here about evolution. People accept it as true because it is good science. There are no creationists arguing for a 10000 year old Earth, or people arguing that a worldwide flood occurred. Religion is essentially nonexistent here. There is no doubt.As creationists gain ground, scientists will flock to where their ideas are accepted, where they don't have to debate science against religion. And China will be more than happy to accept them, especially if it means achieving an edge in the applied sciences.Some day in the future, we will all be bowing to our Chinese overlords. They will come forth with mighty weapons, like PPCs, defensive abilties like force shields, and advanced energy technology like cold fusion.And no amount of praying to God by people like Peg will save them.

Dr. Chittick is a Physical Chemist. He deals with chemicals. He is not a biologist. There is a difference. One scientist is not just as good as another scientist.To put it another way, if you had a Porsche, would you go to a mechanic who works on Toyotas or would you go to a mechanic who works on Porches? In this day and age, you often need a mechanic trained to fix a specific make of car. You can't just go to some random mechanic. One mechanic is not just as good as another mechanic. The same principle applies to scientists.Understand?

Tunnel vision. Such baloney. I taught from a physics textbook that was written by a PhD in Psychology. But the man happens to be better in physics than the field in which he earned his doctorate.I know how evolution believers feel about creationists. But I feel much the same way about evolutionists. I am skeptical of anything they say unless I can see that it's something truly verified.

Then you don't get it. It doesn't really matter what his PhD is in. The PhD just indicates what he spent the majority of his earlier life studying. What matters is how he spent his time after. From your bio of him, he spent his time focusing on Chemistry. What you need to show is that he spent a good amount of time studying Biology.A mechanic who learned how to fix Toyotas but dedicated himself to fixing Porches for years after is probably just as good as a mechanic who went to school learning how to fix Porches and made a career of it.In the same way, someone who gets a degree in one field can still be an expert in another field if it can be shown that that person spent years dedicated to learning everything there is to know.You must prove that your Doctor in Chemistry spent years dedicating himself to the study of biology and evolutionary biology in particular. Otherwise all your bio does is suggest that one scientist is just as good as another when debating evolution.Edited by Izanagi, : No reason given.

No, you are the one who doesn't 'get it'. Look, I've been around a long time, friend. I have seen & heard Carl Sagan and Isaac Asimov wax eloquent on matters of science that had little or nothing to do with their field of expertise. Richard Dawkins is constantly speaking on topics outside of his specialty. So don't give me that nonsense.Anyway, best wishes.

And that's great for you. Pope John Paul II said that evolution is not contrary to the Bible. This was a guy, I suppose, who probably knew the Bible very well.When a scientist waxes about a field that is not within their expertise, then you are certainly within your rights to discount their words. But when a scientist talks about things within their field of expertise, then you should give their words credence.Otherwise, you are what you say other people are.

Since when did the Pope of the Catholic church look to scripture as the final authority in the first place? Not since before Constantine. I don't care what the Pope says. I care what Moses said, "For in six days the Lord God made the heavens and the earth..." Exodus 20:11 in the 10 commandments, no less. Jesus said, "But from the beginning of the creation God made the male and female", Mark 10:6. Jesus confirmed that everything Moses taught in the Pentateuch was true (Luke 24). I believe them, not the Pope.