evolution?

quote:

---

Originally posted by Brachinus:
It seems to me that the general consensus here is that rsmith is a troll posing as an "evolutionist."

​

But who are "all those who have chosen creation with an open mind because of the evidence"? Can you provide an example? I've never seen a person who rejected evolution until after they'd already embraced Christianity.

---

Gary Parker (yes Ibhandli, the lying heathen)He claims that he was atheist and evolution was his basic religion.

quote:

---

Originally posted by thatstretchyguy:
I didn't call him a troll, I merely stated that his post probably insulted some very intelligent minds on this message board.

---

Don't worry, to those of us who have read a bit of anti-creation literature, this statement is hardly offensive. Most of the "proffessional" evolutionists are actually the best at spewing forth childish ad hominem.

He claims that he was convinced because of biological evidence, then became a Christian, then he looked into fossils.

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Quetzal:
Oh really? Care to rephrase that?[/B][/QUOTE]Sorry, I wasn't referring to you. You seem to be quite reasonable in my opinion.

quote:

---

Originally posted by mark24:
& me?

---

I hate you. I wasn't really referring to people on these boards. I was talking about the proffessional evolutionists like Gould and Dawkins.

quote:

---

Originally posted by schrafinator:
I wonder, have you read any entire books by Gould or Dawkins, not just selected quotes found in Creationist literature?

​

---

I must admit that I have never read entire books by them, but I have read a bit of the Blind Watchmaker. I have also read Abusing Science, written by Philip Kitcher, which was supported by Stephen Jay Gould.What's wrong with selected quotes found in Creationist literature?

​

[This message has been edited by Cobra_snake, 04-08-2002]

Just so you know, Behe has responded:"Professor Coyne seems really to have been traumatized by being quoted in my book (page 29). He should relax. My purpose in quoting him and others was to show that many thoughtful biologists found Darwinism to be an incomplete theory of life. I did not say that Coyne or the others agreed with intelligent design. Indeed, for several of the people I quoted (Stuart Kauffman and Lynn Margulis) I specifically discuss their alternative theories to Darwinism. I start off the section by saying A raft of evolutionary biologists examining whole organisms wonder just how Darwinism can account for their observations. After a few other people, I quote Coyne as saying, We concludeunexpectedlythat there is little evidence for the neo?Darwinian view: its theoretical foundations and the experimental evidence supporting it are weak. In Coyne’s paper, the sentence did not stop there; it continued with and there is no doubt that mutations of large effect are sometimes important in adaptation. I do not see, however, where that changes the sense of the sentence at all. In my manuscript I had his quote ending with an ellipsis, but the copy editor took out all ellipses in this section and put in periods, so I assume that it is in keeping with standard editorial practices. It is extremely difficult for me to understand why Coyne thinks his idea is anything other than a doubt about the efficacy of Darwinism, or what context could possibly change its plain meaning. Coyne goes on to quote the entire paragraph in which the sentence appeared, but that changes nothing of the basic thrust as far as I can see."

"Thank you CS."You bet."I agree that Behe's response has considerable truth to it. The question is: When quotes are taken out of context, are the being used to be a blow to evolutionary theory in general, or are they being used mearly to illustrate that there is scientific debate over the details of evolutionary theory."I believe that such quotes are used in order to display to the everyday person that there is a considerable debate even among the evolutionary community. I don't think the everyday Joe is aware that there is such an intense debate about evolution.I think that this is why Creationists and IDers use such quotes. Unfortunately, many evolutionists interpret this as misquotation and quoting out of context.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Quetzal:
Hi Cobra: I think you've literally hit the nail on the head, here. This is the principal problem with creationists using quotations from actual researchers and scientists on evolution. Because the political agenda of the main creationist organizations and writers is to cast doubt on evolutionary sciences, their use of selected quotations is at the very least disengenuous.

---

I don't think that the quotation problem is due to the political agenda of creation scientists. I really don't think that they are attempting to be dishonest. I simply think it is a large misunderstanding.First of all, creation scientists generally quote authorities that are casting doubt upon NEO-DARWINIAN theory, which is the primary textbook orthodoxy as of right now. I don't think this is dishonest at all. For example, Lynn Margulis may very well believe in the "Gaia theory", however, these personal beliefs are of little importance. Creation scientists are trying to show that the current textbook orthodoxy is incorrect, or at least under serious debate.Obviously, anyone who quotes an evolutionists in order to convey the idea that they don't believe in evolution- that is dishonest. However, in my experience, almost every time a creationist quotes an authority, they are sure to indicate that authorities stance on the creation/evolution issue. So, if a quoted authority is an evolutionist, and they say something like "the neo-Darwinian view has little scientific support", they are obviously going to have some sort of other explanation.Stephen Jay Gould is often enfuriated by creationist quotations of him. This is because he has given some frank admissions of the large gaps in the fossil record. Of course, he has a substitute theory- punctuated equilibrium. But every time I've read creationist literature, the author makes sure to include the fact that Gould believes in punctuated equilibrium, and they generally include a critique of that theory. The overall effect is very persuasive, because here we have an expert admitting huge gaps in the fossil record, followed by a critique of the theory in which this expert thinks solves the problem. I don't see any problem with this technique.I'm sure that there are creationists who are guilty of misquotation and quoting out of context. But I don't believe that this is the rule."In other words, how can the "everyday Joe" be expected to recognize or understand the intent of the quoted scientist without further clarification?"I agree with you that the scientists should generally provide details as to the authors beliefs concerning the issue. However, sometimes the quote is accompanied with the scientist's views on the subject. Once again, though, the vast majority of quotes are used to show that many scientists (or at least some) disagree with the mainstream view of evolution.

Hehe, lot's of discussion going on around here while I'm away! I'd just like to clarify my position.There is no misquote or anything involved in what I said about Richard Dawkins' position on design. It was actually just very bad wording on my part.When I said that Richard Dawkins acknowledges design in nature, what I meant was that he acknowledges the "apparent" design in nature. Of course Richard and I may disagree as to what to attribute such "apparent" design, and I would obviously be more inclined to suppose that a Creator is the reason. Sorry for the confusion everybody.

"So, demonstrate it. So far, this has not been done."It shall never be done. The problem is, it is impossible to PROVE that a certain structure cannot evolve. However, when certain structures appear to be difficult to explain under a Darwinian model, one has every right to become skeptical of the notion of evolution. It's actually pretty significant that evolutionists can't even create a just-so story to explain some structures!

"Lack of evidence for a scientific theory doesn't constitute positive evidence for anything."Unfortunately, nothing constitutes "positive evidence" in your mind. What evidence would you accept? If you won't accept any kind of evidence for Creation, then you are purposeslessly ommitting a priori a possibility.Obviously, such an ommission can be very beneficial for your point of view, since disregarding the possibility of evidence for creation basically means that evolution is victorious. However, such an ommission is not founded on any principle of science, but founded on bias.

"1) Real evidence of men and cambrian organisms co-existing, this wuold also hold true for mankind in many of the earlier ages. This is one reason for the fraud of Baughs "Man-Tracks", if they were real then evolution would likely be wrong puting some form of a creation event more likely"This always tends to pop up as one of the best potential falsifications of evolution. However, it is very possible for Creation to be true, and also no human remains in lower strata."2) Real evidence for the Noachian flood, of which none currently exists."Yes, but is there any evidence that would convince you? I can't think of any evidence that could be found that would falsify the uniformitaranian concept."3) A biosphere created as we watch."Hmmm? Sounds interesting, but I don't really know what you mean.Also, even if your above examples are valid, what I was really looking for was evidence of design in nature. In other words, it is possible that the Earth is millions of years old, yet Creation is still true."there are probably some others but I would need to consider a little longer and it is time to go."I appreciate your input.