Some Evidence Against Evolution

So Willowtree finally confesses that he doesn't really have any evidence against evolution. The quote mining from Richard Milton is the only "scientific" evidence that he can throw up. The rest of the "evidence" is his fantasy that anyone who does not use his preconception of a creator when studying the natural world is either one of the god-deniers involved in a conspiracy or a dupe of said conspiracy.How could we hve expected evidence from a person who can't distinguish between fact and fantasy or between observation and imagination?Willowtree, you have been a complete waste of time and effort for those such as darwin's terrior, Nosy Ned and Quetzal, to name but a few, who have provided thoughtful, informative and considered responses to you whilst receiving nothing of substance in return. Now you proclaim "victory" but again claim you will post evidence on the "scientific" level.As has been said, and repeated, time to put up or shut up.[This message has been edited by wj, 12-11-2003]

wjI wonder if there is a special interpretation inherent in the quotation marks around scientific. Perhaps we are not going to recieve evidence but rather some vague philosophical arguement that Willowtree finds impressive.

I'm saying that Professor Huston Smith author of "Why Religion Matters" identified in his book that the BRANCH of science called scientism consists totally of atheists who in their starting assumptions {everyone has them - not a matter of opinion} exclude the existence of God, whats so hard to understand about this.It seems you and the solid majority of the room are not even up to snuff on the status of the arguments. Why don't you read "An Intelligent Persons Guide to Atheism" author Daniel Harbour {2001} and the other book I mentioned then come back.This entire room seems totally ignorant of the basic claims of neo-Darwinism and Creationism - just basic stuff that is 101. This I know when the average poster here parrots the standard ignorant statement of "that is an assertion....where is the evidence for that...."Daniel Harbour is an honest atheist who is up to date on the status of all the arguments. He never once says what you all say because refutation cannot take place unless each debater already is on the same page.For example: Once I said the Bible claims to be God's word, then an avalanche of ignorance came demanding that I prove that. Every atheist debater knows that is the claim as we theists know their claim is that He doesn't exist at all.I wrongly assumed that the average person here was at least knowledgeable in these 101 areas.

The purpose of this reply is to let you know I read your reply.I believe that the best preacher in the world is Dr.Gene Scott.God speaks through him, he teaches that God will not exstinguish a smoking flax. Listen to Dr.Scott and discover what God has to say to you. Maybe that lifeline is just late - God is notoriously late.

quote:

---

Because the subject matter is not theistic evolution but the ruling body of neo-Darwinism/scientism which is presently in control of what the masses are allowed to know.

---

Let me try and get this straight. Almost half of scientists are theists, but you believe that scientists are trying to propogate atheism. This would imply that nearly half of them are unwitting dupes. Do you actually expect us to believe that?------------------
"Illuminant light,
illuminate me."

quote:

---

I'm saying that Professor Huston Smith author of "Why Religion Matters" identified in his book that the BRANCH of science called scientism consists totally of atheists who in their starting assumptions {everyone has them - not a matter of opinion} exclude the existence of God, whats so hard to understand about this.

---

Huston Smith, the professor of Religion and Philosophy is supposed to be even remotely knowlegable about science? Why is it that you keep referencing people who have no qualifications at all related to science - and in fact, no experience in it - as if they're experts on the subject? It would be like me making statements about Yak raising.------------------
"Illuminant light,
illuminate me."[This message has been edited by Rei, 12-12-2003]

Come on, tell us are YOU Dr. Gene Scott?

Rei, I'm getting the feeling WILLOW doesn't know what 'evidence' is, so it's no surprise his/her experts aren't even qualified scientists. TThough I suspect it really doesn't even matter to WILLOW - an expert is an expert.

"Scientism" is a branch of science? Like physics, or chemistry or biology is a branch of science?Once again you have picked up on a made up definition for a word which already has a definition. Scientism isn't, in the common definition, a branch of science. It is an attitude held by individuals that may or may not even be scientists in any way.In that way a physicist or a chemist or a biologist could, for personal reasons, hold ideas that would fall under the label scientism. You definition of it, as a separate branch of science suggests that one would not be a physicist or a chemist or a biologist AND be a believer in scientism. It is confused.You confuse the approach which science uses of excluding that which can not be tested to be "scientism". You also confuse science with atheism. You are, in fact, just plain confused.You say Smith says there is a branch of science called "scientism". Just what does Prof. Smith say they examine and study? And how is their approach any different from any scientist who will happily include anything testable and will, by necessity, exclude that which is not?

We're not debating the existence of god nor atheism vs. theism. We're debating the validity of Evolution. Get it straight.I don't give a stuff what you claim. You can claim anything you like. I, and most others here, will not take your claims seriously unless you can provide evidence for them.[This message has been edited by Mr Jack, 12-12-2003]

There's another possible hypothesis; that yuo don't have any knowledge of these areas.The evidence strongly indicates that you are stunningly ignorant of the basic claims of neo-Darwinism and creationism, and the rest of the crowd ranges from somewhat knowledgeable to expert.

My God-sense is tingling. I think the devil is going to throw Gwen Stacy off the George Washington Bridge.

doublepost[This message has been edited by Dan Carroll, 12-12-2003]

Okay, since this is supposedly a consolidated reply to me among others, I'll add my two cents in here. Of course it does. The evidence - freely available and accessible to anyone who wishes to take the time to look at it - supports both the overall fact of evolution (i.e., common descent and population change over time), and many but not all proposed mechanisms. A lot of the details can be (and are) argued about. The fact that so many scientists from a myriad of philosophical, national and religious backgrounds agree with the basics, and that despite 150+ years of trying, no one has successfully falsified it, tends to increase the confidence level. Details are a different animal: for example, I'll gleefully argue the MacArthur/Wilson Equilibrium Theory is nothing more than a nice theoretical exercise with no practical utility that is rebutted by observation, even tho' there are a lot of scientists who consider it a solid explanation. And I can cite a dozen - heck, a hundred - "extremely credible non-creationists" who refute Milton's contentions, both religious and atheist. So? Argument from authority is a fool's game - which is why the evidence is what is important. Argue interpretation of the data, not claim an "expert said so, therefore X". This isn't Christian apologetics or witnessing, it's science. You haven't provided any evidence, so what is there to disagree with? You quoted a couple of people. So? I can quote bunches that disagree. Does this advance the discussion, or is it an endless tail-chase? Is there an actual argument buried here somewhere? Actually, what you've done is made a specific claim that has not bee supported. Rather than quoting someone who simply makes the same claim, in this case the burden of proof is on you to show any example of any scientist in any of the main or peripheral disciplines of evolutionary biology that uses their science to conclude this. For example, you could show by specific example how Ernst Mayr - one of the doyens of modern biology - has ever attempted to use evolutionary theory to disprove God. You are continually conflating the metaphysical claims of "scientism" with "science". Not only are the two not identical, but they don't even operate in the same territory. Scientism is a philosophy (and a discredited one on logical grounds). Science is a methodology or process for understanding the world around us (and it works, which is why we keep using it). There are no "brains behind neo-Darwinism". There are quite a few people who are considered tops in the field, but anyone is free to argue with them and/or show how their ideas are false. Many of the early names in the field have been shown to be wrong, at least in the details. A few have been outspoken atheists. OTOH, a large minority are believers of one stripe or another (about 45%). Denying God doesn't seem to be in either their interest or philosophically tenable given their belief system. Neo-Darwinism remains simply the best explanation for the diversity of life. It could be overthrown tomorrow if a better one comes along. Name one religion that can justifiably make that claim. I assume this was one of those parts that wasn't directed at me. To be honest, as far as I can tell, you haven't even advanced an argument. Just a bunch of unsupported assertions backed by a couple of pseudo-authorities. Not much to go on, here. Heh. Philosphy can't explain why the natural world is the way it is. Science can (thus far, anyway). After all, philosophers can argue any number of utterly metaphysical ideas that bear no relationship whatsoever to empiricism. Put two philosophers in a room, and ask them "Why" something. You'll get at least three contradictory answers. As far as reacting like a fundy - I'd be absolutely delighted for you to "take the core of my theory to task". What shall we discuss? Common descent? Population dynamics? Biogeography? Natural Selection? Symbiosis vs competition? Heredity? Feel free to show how any of these are wrong. [qs]I question your motives because I/we do not trust you. How could a person[s] who belong to the other major opposing worldview be honest and fair to their arch-rival ? The atheists of neo-Darwinism are not about to give any help to the relgionists who raged against their machine in the formative years.[/qs]I think you may be looking at a false dichotomy here. There are substantially more than two worldviews out there. Especially when you consider that biblical literalists are an exceedingly small minority of Christians, let alone all the other philosophies that exist from animism to Islam to Shintoism. The funny thing is, there are way more religious people who accept evolution than oppose it. Don't conflate science with atheism - there's no basis whatsoever for this claim.You might find it interesting to examine the early history of Darwinism. Charles Lyell, who never accepted evolution as an explanation for the diversity of life, was the guy who put the final nail in the literalist coffin when he destroyed the notion of the biblical flood and a young earth. He was a geologist, not a naturalist (biologist). And a believer in a Creator God. Then you're condemning an erroneous strawman. Genetics actually provides much better evidence for the relationship among primates, and paleontology/anthropology only postulates that humans and apes derived from a common ancestor - which was neither the one nor the other but shared early characteristics of both. Fossil bones bear out this idea, both in the general sense (because the deeper the bones are buried, the less human they appear), and in specifics (all those latin terms used in comparative anatomy).Again, nowhere in anything I've ever read in any science book OR in any science journal has there been any reference or indication that science denies God. It's simply a question that never arises, because it is irrelevant to the process of science, and irrelevant to the conclusions of science. Atheism as well has absolutely nothing to do with science. It may be a philosophy held by individual scientists, but is not the basis of science itself. I'm sorry, but this is patent nonsense. I absolutely do NOT take everything a scientist, paleontologist or evolutionary biologist, on "faith". I may accept specific claims made by scientists without digging into the details in fields where I have little interest or training. But I don't take it as gospel or as engraved on stone tablets handed down from on high. I'm quite happy to disagree with scientists when their ideas don't appear to match my observations - in which cases I WILL dig more. And it doesn't take 20 years, but you do have to actually read enough or learn enough to understand what they're talking about if you're going to disagree with them. Which, of course, is why I suggested you pick a specific example of some claim or idea proposed by any evolutionary scientist that you think is being deliberately obfuscated through the use of jargon and I'll undertake to provide an understandable explanation for it.Evidence is evidence. The nature of the endeavor is such that examination of the evidence by independent and completely different people with completely different worldviews - if done without preconceptions or presuppositions beyond methodological naturalism - will yield similar conclusions. If they don't, then it's back to the drawing board...

All right, all right, it's time to come clean.This whole conspiracy to promote atheism thing? It was me.Yeah, that's right. It was me all along.I'm sorry, I just... geez, I didn't expect it to go this far. I had this bet going with a guy down at the bar, and I can't resist a challenge... okay, I admit it, there's no excuse.When I saw that congress had changed the pledge of allegiance to "one nation, under emptiness and despair", and saw the president slaughtering baby orphans on live TV for the heck of it (because, well, why not?) I knew my little joke had gone too far.I'm gonna do my best to fix things. I'm gonna go get all those fossils I planted around the planet, and toss 'em on the fire. All those birds I genetically modified and planted all over the Galapagos Islands? Geez, that might be tougher... I mean, they live there now, you know?But seriously, I'm gonna get all my cronies in the scientific community to knock it off. Heh... when I saw them reporting on "billions of years" and "a common ancestor"... I don't know how they managed to keep a straight face! And oh, man... when they said all that stuff about monkeys, I nearly lost it right there, I swear. Hee hee! It, ah...Okay, it's not funny.I dunno. Basically, I just wanted to say "my bad, folks". And, uh...*cough*I, uh... won't do it again.*shuffles feet*Honest.[This message has been edited by Dan Carroll, 12-12-2003]