Book: The Hoax Called Evolution

[johnhenry]

Liquidpele, you have been condescending to most of the “Hoax” respondents. I am not anti-evolutionist, but it seems that anyone who questions evolution theory must be challenging the very belief system which functions, for you, as a god. You claim not to fear God, but it seems that evolution/atheism is a type of god for you. I think that you worship at the altar of Evolution, for you feel that this theory undergirds and proves your religion of Atheism. Evolution, as incontrovertible proof, functions as ultimate apologetic–crushing the pitiable theists. The religion of evolution/atheism cannot tolerate any other gods before it. This is why all who question it must be be silenced and ridiculed. Not just creationists, no, even intelligent design advocates, must not ever enter a classroom. Even the Courts will be pressured to prevent the latter from presenting their material in the classroom. A scientist questions evolution? The religion of atheism wraps the robes of its priests and archbishops about themselves in indignation, saying: Oh, but there are just a very few heretics who question the Faith. Look at the many who remain faithful! We will threaten the others by destroying their academic careers if they dare question the Faith. No, evolution theory has become much more than scientific inquiry. It is the Dogmatic, atheistic foundation for Materialism, anti-theism, and relativism. The theory with a small e is inoffensive. But it is the theory with the big E which atheists are interested in. This is where the big money is for the religion of atheism. They assume that they have the ultimate anti-Christian weapon by trotting out Evolution. This is why the faithful of this religion of atheism constantly troll throughout the Christian-oriented blogs, making thousands of posts, hoping to undermine the faith of even one theist.

 

[edwest2]

Thank you, johnhenry. Your post is accurate. The (name removed by moderator)ut of the time and energy required to spread the dogma on this and other Christian boards bears this out. On occasion, the pill, if you will, is given a God coating to make it easier to swallow for theists.

I must thank those who promote evolution for making me aware of how unlikely it is to actually work as described in the biology textbook. If something like it occurred, God was a direct causal agent. But schools have become God free zones. The protest by Rally for Reason outside of the Creation Museum was vague and unproductive. Gasp! People might go in and < believe > what they see. One of the protesters gave me the real reason for their presence: “If they try to get this into schools, I’ll sue. They’re not using my tax money for this.”

So what we have is a Clash of Orthodoxies. We have the living Creator God and the nonliving Blind Mechanism with, supposedly, infinite possibilities.

Peace,
Ed

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

You mean like this:

So insects only had four legs back then. Must have evolved the other two after the flood.

The bad taxonomy is not that bad, given the complete lack of the advantages we enjoy today. Linnaeus is very recent - the 18th century was a mere 200+ years ago, and this was written at least 12 times as long ago as that. There are fragments of a treatise on horse rearing which are about a thousand years older again.​

• [Error Page | International Museum of the Horse (Error Page | International Museum of the Horse)|

People overlook comparison with other cultures - this mistake is no dafter than the classification of the lion among dogs and not cats; the Babylonian scholars called the animal UR.MAH, “big dog”. If that had been found in an OT text, we would never be done with hearing of it - just as we are never done with hearing of how stupid the authors of Leviticus were. There is stupidity, granted - it’s that of the modern reader, not of the ancient author.

 

[liquidpele]

Liquidpele, you have been condescending to most of the “Hoax” respondents. I am not anti-evolutionist, but it seems that anyone who questions evolution theory must be challenging the very belief system which functions, for you, as a god. You claim not to fear God, but it seems that evolution/atheism is a type of god for you. I think that you worship at the altar of Evolution, for you feel that this theory undergirds and proves your religion of Atheism. Evolution, as incontrovertible proof, functions as ultimate apologetic–crushing the pitiable theists. The religion of evolution/atheism cannot tolerate any other gods before it. This is why all who question it must be be silenced and ridiculed. Not just creationists, no, even intelligent design advocates, must not ever enter a classroom. Even the Courts will be pressured to prevent the latter from presenting their material in the classroom. A scientist questions evolution? The religion of atheism wraps the robes of its priests and archbishops about themselves in indignation, saying: Oh, but there are just a very few heretics who question the Faith. Look at the many who remain faithful! We will threaten the others by destroying their academic careers if they dare question the Faith. No, evolution theory has become much more than scientific inquiry. It is the Dogmatic, atheistic foundation for Materialism, anti-theism, and relativism. The theory with a small e is inoffensive. But it is the theory with the big E which atheists are interested in. This is where the big money is for the religion of atheism. They assume that they have the ultimate anti-Christian weapon by trotting out Evolution. This is why the faithful of this religion of atheism constantly troll throughout the Christian-oriented blogs, making thousands of posts, hoping to undermine the faith of even one theist.

Nice rant. If you have specific questions for me about my beliefs or thoughts, I’ll be glad to answer, but keep your strawmen and ad hominems to yourself.

 

[liquidpele]

People overlook comparison with other cultures - this mistake is no dafter than the classification of the lion among dogs and not cats; the Babylonian scholars called the animal UR.MAH, “big dog”. If that had been found in an OT text, we would never be done with hearing of it - just as we are never done with hearing of how stupid the authors of Leviticus were. There is stupidity, granted - it’s that of the modern reader, not of the ancient author.

Well said

 

[StAnastasia]

Much more sound argument are least. Want a list that believe in Evolution? It’s loooooong.
Honestly, it’s expected that some biologists would change their minds. There are so many that believe in evolution that statistically it would be odd if some didn’t decide against it.

Liquidpele, this list of evolution-doubters is no more relevant than would be a comparable list of gravity-doubters, or of plate tectonics-doubters.

More important is the fact that over 100,000 biologists presume the cogency of evolution on a daily basis, including numerous priest-biologists. Accepters of evolution include virtually every scientific society in the world, the prestigious 10,000-member American Academy of Religion, and the hundreds of Evangelical Protestant members of the American Scientific Affiliation. The Discovery Institute’s list of Darwin doubters is basically a list of obscure nobodies; they pale into microscopic insignificance in comparison with the stellar membership of the International Society of Science and Religion (ISSR).

StAnastasia

 

[reggieM]

Liquidpele, this list of evolution-doubters is no more relevant than would be a comparable list of gravity-doubters, or of plate tectonics-doubters.

The best way to evaluate your claim here would be to review the list of gravity-doubters and plate tectonics-doubters and then compare the relevance of that list. Have any scientists publicly added their names to lists that doubt the theories in those fields? If not, then the fact that a list of scientists who are evolution-doubters has far more relevance (since it is the kind of public statement which does not exist for other branches of science).

The Discovery Institute’s list of Darwin doubters is basically a list of obscure nobodies;

Are scientific truths only discovered by “somebodies”? Or perhaps it’s a popular vote. Evolution is true because a majority say it is true. If the doubters can rally more votes, then evolution will no longer be true.

they pale into microscopic insignificance in comparison with the stellar membership of the International Society of Science and Religion (ISSR).

As pointed out previously, there are evolution doubters within the stellar ranks of the ISSR.

Anyone who could review the evidence that does not fit into Darwinian theory and not harbor at least some doubts about the power of Darwinian mechanisms, has been convinced to an unreasonable level of certainty.

If there were no doubts about evolutionary theory, then all of the evidence that is gathered would fit as expected and it would achieve a continually greater level of certainty.

 

[buffalo]

Liquidpele, this list of evolution-doubters is no more relevant than would be a comparable list of gravity-doubters, or of plate tectonics-doubters.

More important is the fact that over 100,000 biologists presume the cogency of evolution on a daily basis, including numerous priest-biologists. Accepters of evolution include virtually every scientific society in the world, the prestigious 10,000-member American Academy of Religion, and the hundreds of Evangelical Protestant members of the American Scientific Affiliation. The Discovery Institute’s list of Darwin doubters is basically a list of obscure nobodies; they pale into microscopic insignificance in comparison with the stellar membership of the International Society of Science and Religion (ISSR).

StAnastasia

and this is all you need to know that the theory is correct. It is the same reason that believing in God is correct, because most do.

 

[StAnastasia]

As pointed out previously, there are evolution doubters within the stellar ranks of the ISSR.Anyone who could review the evidence that does not fit into Darwinian theory and not harbor at least some doubts about the power of Darwinian mechanisms, has been convinced to an unreasonable level of certainty.If there were no doubts about evolutionary theory, then all of the evidence that is gathered would fit as expected and it would achieve a continually greater level of certainty.

Reggie, thanks for your reply.

(1) I never mentioned Darwin

(2) I haven’t met anyone in the ISSR who doesn’t accept the theory of evolution, and that includes Owen; I was a respondent to a great paper he gave at a recent conference. He is a believer in God, of course, but he by no means rejects or doubts evolution.

(3) I’m not sure what you mean by “no doubts about evolution.” Of course, all theories undergo constant testing – that’s the nature of science. Geologists constantly test the theory of plate tectonics; physicists constantly test the theory of gravity; biologists and paleontologists constantly test the theory of evolution. Evolution has been further strengthened year after year, not weakened as a theory.

StAnastasia

 

[reggieM]

(1) I never mentioned Darwin

Do you make distinctions between Darwinian theory, the theory of evolution and Theistic Evolution? If so, which ‘theory of evolution’ are you referring to? If not, then when you mention the theory of evolution, you’re implying Darwinian mechanisms.

(2) I haven’t met anyone in the ISSR who doesn’t accept the theory of evolution, and that includes Owen; I was a respondent to a great paper he gave at a recent conference. He is a believer in God, of course, but he by no means rejects or doubts evolution.

I pointed out for you a quote from him (in context, available on the web) where he said that mutations could have been “inspired” (directed) by God. If that is true, then the theory of evolution (Darwinian theory) is false since it claims that mutations are random and non-directed. I can provide you a list of definitions from various evolutionary sources which define evolution as a blind, undirected process. Owen’s idea conflicts with that.

Of course, many will say that they “fully accept evolutionary theory” while at the same time, they either reject evidence that contradicts it, or claim that there is no such evidence, or claim that the contradictory evidence does not cast the theory in doubt.

This happens for the same reason that 16 million people think that Joseph Smith found sacred golden tablets on a hillside in Palmyra, New York.

So, I accept that it is impossible to argue rationally with people who accept evolution on that kind of dogmatic basis.

I’m not sure what you mean by “no doubts about evolution.”

You used the term “evolution-doubters” so you might actually have some idea about what it means. Or, perhaps you used the term having no idea about what it could mean and simply because you saw someone else use it and you though it might fit in your sentence.

Of course, all theories undergo constant testing – that’s the nature of science.

All scientific theories should have lists of scientists that oppose them publically accessible on the internet also. But evolutionary theory stands out as the exception here.

Evolution has been further strengthened year after year, not weakened as a theory.

How often do you read material from “evolution-doubters”?

 

[liquidpele]

Liquidpele, this list of evolution-doubters is no more relevant than would be a comparable list of gravity-doubters, or of plate tectonics-doubters.

More important is the fact that over 100,000 biologists presume the cogency of evolution on a daily basis, including numerous priest-biologists. Accepters of evolution include virtually every scientific society in the world, the prestigious 10,000-member American Academy of Religion, and the hundreds of Evangelical Protestant members of the American Scientific Affiliation. The Discovery Institute’s list of Darwin doubters is basically a list of obscure nobodies; they pale into microscopic insignificance in comparison with the stellar membership of the International Society of Science and Religion (ISSR).

StAnastasia

You’re preaching to the choir

While I honestly don’t think the number of people believing in something makes it necessarily true, I do think it gives something merit.

The problem I have with evolution doubters is not that they doubt or challenge the status quo - I actually respect those attributes. The problem I have is that they tend to mis-interpret data (either dishonestly or ignorantly) and scream about being some kind of prosecuted minority. No one is stopping them from believing evolution is a lie or that the Earth is flat even, but demanding others pay attention or accept their claims without proper scientific process is an insult. To put it simply…

http://science.kukuchew.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/05/fullimage_200593012528_307.jpg

 

[buffalo]

You’re preaching to the choir

While I honestly don’t think the number of people believing in something makes it necessarily true, I do think it gives something merit.

The problem I have with evolution doubters is not that they doubt or challenge the status quo - I actually respect those attributes. The problem I have is that they tend to mis-interpret data (either dishonestly or ignorantly) and scream about being some kind of prosecuted minority. No one is stopping them from believing evolution is a lie or that the Earth is flat even, but demanding others pay attention or accept their claims without proper scientific process is an insult. To put it simply…

http://science.kukuchew.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/05/fullimage_200593012528_307.jpg

Actually it is the Catholic faith that has led to the demise of pseudocience such as magic and astrology.

 

[StAnastasia]

You’re preaching to the choir

While I honestly don’t think the number of people believing in something makes it necessarily true, I do think it gives something merit.

… No one is stopping them from believing evolution is a lie or that the Earth is flat even, but demanding others pay attention or accept their claims without proper scientific process is an insult. ]

Liquipele, I agree. I didn’t mean evolution is true because virtually all scientists and most theologians accept it; what I meant is that they accept it because it rings true. Brushing teeth is not good because hundreds of millions do it; rather, hundreds of millions do it because they find it prevents tooth decay.

And I agree about the "paying attention " bit: the whiners in “Expelled” claimed that no one is paying attention to ID; no one is paying attention to it because it’s not science; it has produced not one single useful result.

StAnastasia

 

[buffalo]

Liquipele, I agree. I didn’t mean evolution is true because virtually all scientists and most theologians accept it; what I meant is that they accept it because it rings true. Brushing teeth is not good because hundreds of millions do it; rather, hundreds of millions do it because they find it prevents tooth decay.

And I agree about the "paying attention " bit: the whiners in “Expelled” claimed that no one is paying attention to ID; no one is paying attention to it because it’s not science; it has produced not one single useful result.

StAnastasia

Sure - if you are told something over and over again you might begin to believe it. It doesn’t mean it is true.

Intelligent creation itself has produced many many useful results.

 

[StAnastasia]

Do you make distinctions between Darwinian theory, the theory of evolution and Theistic Evolution? If so, which ‘theory of evolution’ are you referring to? If not, then when you mention the theory of evolution, you’re implying Darwinian mechanisms.

Evolutionary biologists don’t refer to “Darwinism” – that’s largely a term used by evolution deniers. Biologists today refer to the “NeoDarwinian synthesis” or to “evolutionary theory.” Darwin was a great man, but he didn’t know about genetics, and history has moved well on since his time. As a theologian I accept evolution. I guess that makes me a theistic evolutionist. But the biology I follow would be the same biology followed by biologists, theistic, atheistic, or agnostic. I would not expect to insert “God did it” as part of a research proposal; neither would Owen Gingerich.

StAnastasia

 

[StAnastasia]

Sure - if you are told something over and over again you might begin to believe it. It doesn’t mean it is true. Intelligent creation itself has produced many many useful results.

(1) I don’t believe it because I’ve been told it; I believe it because I’ve seen and read the results. Perhaps you don’t read science journals, but every week they are packed with articles exploring, confirming, and redirecting research into evolutionary theory.

(2) I’m not sure what “Intelligent creation” means, nor have I seen reference to any results stemming from it.

 

[buffalo]

(1) I don’t believe it because I’ve been told it; I believe it because I’ve seen and read the results. Perhaps you don’t read science journals, but every week they are packed with articles exploring, confirming, and redirecting research into evolutionary theory.

(2) I’m not sure what “Intelligent creation” means, nor have I seen reference to any results stemming from it.

I read them all the time. Please list all these articles in the last 30 days that are packed with articles that confirm evolution.

I have no doubt that the religion of evolution redirects research into evolutionary theory. That is part of the issue.

God’s creation comes from an intelligence? No?

 

[StAnastasia]

I read them all the time. Please list all these articles in the last 30 days that are packed with articles that confirm evolution.

I have no doubt that the religion of evolution redirects research into evolutionary theory. That is part of the issue.

God’s creation comes from an intelligence? No?

(1) Way too many to list from all the science journals. Certainly far more then the ID articles published last week in Science and Nature.

(2) Evolution is the province of science, not religion.

(3) Yes.

 

[buffalo]

(1) Way too many to list from all the science journals. Certainly far more then the ID articles published last week in Science and Nature.

(2) Evolution is the province of science, not religion.

(3) Yes.

Come on you can list them - say the top five.

Evolution is now a religion.

1. I am glad we agree that God’s intelligent design has produced much fruit.

 

[StAnastasia]

Come on you can list them - say the top five.

How Beach Life Favors Blond Mice, Elizabeth Pennisi
Science 11 September 2009: 1330-1333.
Hopi Hoekstra, a young evolutionary biologist at Harvard University, has been tackling the genetic complexity of a classic case of adaptation in mice.

Evolutionary Biology: Melding Mammals and Molecules to Track Evolution
Elizabeth Pennisi
Science 11 September 2009: 1332.
Harvard University evolutionary biologist Hopi Hoekstra’s first college summer job—as a tick target for researchers assessing where and when hikers were most susceptible to attacks by Lyme disease–transmitting ticks—made her itch for more fieldwork and, eventually, a life as a biologist.

Coelacanth fossil sheds light on fin-to-limb evolution
A 400 million-year-old fossil of a coelacanth fin, the first finding of its kind, fills a shrinking evolutionary gap between fins and limbs.
Date: 13 Apr 2009, Rating: 3.00

Study questions ‘cost of complexity’ in evolution
Higher organisms do not have a “cost of complexity” - or slowdown in the evolution of complex traits - according to a report by researchers at Yale and Washington University in Nature.
Date: 13 Apr 2009, Rating: 2.00

Scientists fix bugs in our understanding of evolution
What makes a human different from a chimp?
Date: 13 Apr 2009, Rating: 1.00

Tuatara, the fastest evolving animal
New DNA research has questioned previous notions about the evolution of the tuatara
Date: 13 Apr 2009, Rating: 3.00

Europeans’ understanding of science, evolution, more advanced than Americans
SAN FRANCISCO — When it comes to scientific literacy, Americans aren’t nearly as evolved as they may think. In fact, only about 40 percent of American adults accept the basic idea of evolution, a figure much lower than any European country.
Date: 13 Apr 2009, Rating: 3.00

Reverse evolution in real-time
Instituto Gulbenkian de Ciencia scientists turn back clock on evolution in fruit fly to provide key insights into basic mechanisms of evolution
Date: 13 Apr 2009, Rating: 5.00

Does evolution select for faster evolvers?
It’s a mystery why the speed and complexity of evolution appear to increase with time.
Date: 13 Apr 2009, Rating: 3.67

Auto-immunity as Evolutionary by Product of Adoptive Immunity and Source ofAnti-tumor Immunity Failure
One of the biggest threats to survival is infection, so that the immune system is under permanent
and strong evolutionary pressure to be highly responsive.
Date: 2 Mar 2009, Rating: 4.00, 5 pages

Comparative Oncology and Comparative Tumor Immunology
Comparative oncology is a branch of comparative pathology that is relatively new biomedical
discipline.
Date: 1 Mar 2009, Rating: 1.00, 5 pages

A Look Into Natural Selection and its Mechanisms
The paper briefly introduces Darwin and his voyage aboard the HMS Beagle. Evolution, and its tool, natural selection, are discussed. Methods of natural selection, such as genetic drift and allopatric speciation are also discussed.
Date: 16 Feb 2009, Rating: 3.20

Failure of anti-tumor immunity inmammals - evolution of the hypothesis
Anti-tumor immunity failure in mammals can be defined as an immunoreproductive phenomenon, which is developed under the evolutionary pressure of autoimmunity and reproductive effectiveness.
Date: 16 Feb 2009, Rating: 5.00, 6 pages

Origin and evolution of viruses: EscapedDNA/RNA sequences as evolutionaryaccelerators and natural biological weapons
Knowledge of the origin and evolution of viruses could provide a better understanding of a number of phenomena in the field of evolution, such as the origin and development of multi-cellular organisms…
Date: 16 Feb 2009, Rating: 4.33, 6 pages

Tale of two snails reveals secrets about the biochemistry of evolution
Researchers in Spain are reporting deep new insights into how evolution changes the biochemistry of living things, helping them to adapt to new environments.