Book: The Hoax Called Evolution

  • Thread starter Thread starter buffalo
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
“When I use a word,” Humpty Dumpty said, in a rather scornful tone, “it means just what I choose it to mean - neither more nor less.”
xkcd.com/169/

In short, you can choose to use whatever words you want, but unless you use them in accordance with the agreed upon definitions people are not going to understand you, so don’t be surprised when people are confused or think you’re a loon.
 
ReggieM, you are correct – that’s precisely how science works! As apparently anomalous data come in, either they are shown not to be anomalous, or the theory is revised in response to the new data, or the theory itself is abandoned and replaced with a new theory.
Actually, you’re missing one part here. When anomalous data comes in which cannot be explained by the existing theory or by any revised version of it – there is no need to postulate a new theory. The topic of the study can be classified as having an “unknown origin”.
In 150 years of research, no data have yet been discovered that have compelled biologists to abandon the theory of evolution.
Yes, that’s definitely true for everyone – except for the biologists who have abandoned the theory, but they are anomalous. Actually, that’s a good example of “how the evolutionary paradigm works”. It’s not a theory but a worldview. There is a great deal of data that contradicts the claims of evolutionary theory. One means of “revising” the theory is simply to ignore those contradictions as “irrelevant”.
 
If you read somebody like Behe more closely, you will find that even he signs up to some kind of evolutionary process. He just has God occasionally butting in to help it over the odd hurdle or two. I suppose the evidence for evolution is too strong even for him to ignore.
As I said, the proof given for molecules-to-man macro-evolution is the evidence of adaptation within species. If that’s what you mean by “some kind of evolutionary process” then you should have no problem accepting Michael Behe’s ideas.
 
As I said, the proof given for molecules-to-man macro-evolution is the evidence of adaptation within species. If that’s what you mean by “some kind of evolutionary process” then you should have no problem accepting Michael Behe’s ideas.
The reason I do not accept Behe’s ideas is that none of the examples of “irreducible complexity” he has given are, in fact, irreducibly complex. (And even if there were no current explanations, that would mean nothing more than that there were no current explanations. Science moves on - you know?)
 
In the space of a few weeks, scientists suddenly realized that birds have a fundamental skeletal difference between the arrangement of their bones and the bones of the dinosaurs they supposedly descended from. No problem. We’ll just assume that birds evolved in parallel to the dinosaurs.
Excellent example. A decades-long claim of evolutionary certainty (fact) is overturned but this is “no problem” for them. Birds simply assembled themselves in a parallel process. That’s it – evolutionary theory is saved and the problem goes away.

A few weeks ago, news items explained that the evolutionary story of the origin of man is being “rewritten” by the finding of a human skull in Eastern Europe. So, the decades-old claim that humans evolved first in Africa could be refuted. But again, no problem! The story merely adds a new chapter where the characters evolved from monkeys in Africa, left Africa, travelled to Europe – lived there for over million years, then decided to return to Africa. Now, the story-tellers didn’t say that they devolved back into monkeys and then back to humans again – but why not? That would certainly help preserve “the original factual certainty” that humans evolved in Africa, from monkeys. But perhaps the tale doesn’t need to be that complicated. We just revised our timeline by a million years. That’s not bad at all. Nothing to worry about here at all!
Then mammals, which proliferated after the dinosaurs were wiped out, did not become more numerous because the dinosaurs were gone but due to a change in temperature, and as one poster pointed out, a change in oxygen level. May I respectfully ask: What was everyone breathing before this?
This was another “minor change” in the theory. For decades the “evolutionary fact” taught to children was that mammals proliferated due to catastrophic events causing extinctions. Now, the new claim is that they evolved so rapidly because of an “increase in oxygen”. Again – no problem! Perhaps a new lab experiement will show that when we increase oxygen levels, then single-celled organisms evolve into multi-celled animals. Now we know the “real facts” and only an idiot could deny the truth of what evolutionists found this time. The new findings are “more correct”. The new facts are just “better facts” – and that’s how science works, didn’t you know that you dummies! Go get a university degree so you can learn how to proclaim contradictory ideas with a smile on your face. 🙂
People like to quote Pope John Paul II, but what I rarely see is his statement that there is actual design in nature.
I rarely see his condemnation of “many theories of evolution” which are “materialist”. The only theories which are permitted are “theistic”. But I’m struggling to find those in the current scientific literature.
This makes me sincerely question why people are posting in favor of theistic evolution when all they are endorsing is the Biology textbook. The linkage between God and the text is fictional. It does not exist. The Church tells us that by using natural (non-God) human reason, we can detect God in nature.
Exactly right. I have not yet given up asking for scientific information about “theistic evolution”, but perhaps TE’ers are honest enough to know that there is none. They could be more honest by admitting that ID literature has a far deeper scientific foundation.
I’m reminded of Paul in the Bible, telling people: If Christ is not risen then your faith is in vain. Got that? If this did not actually happen, for real, you’ve got nothing.
The heresy of fideism.
 
The reason I do not accept Behe’s ideas is that none of the examples of “irreducible complexity” he has given are, in fact, irreducibly complex.
Can you point me to your peer-reviewed papers that refute the lab tests on the claims?
 
I rarely see his condemnation of “many theories of evolution” which are “materialist”. The only theories which are permitted are “theistic”. But I’m struggling to find those in the current scientific literature.
Evolution is not theistic or atheistic; it is just evolution. If you stick a label like “theistic” or “materialist” in front of it, that is a matter of philosophical interpretation; not science.
 
Evolution is not theistic or atheistic; it is just evolution. If you stick a label like “theistic” or “materialist” in front of it, that is a matter of philosophical interpretation; not science.
This is your way of explaining the difference between theistic-evolution and atheistic-evolution.

In other words, there is no difference at all. Theistic evolution and atheistic evolution are the same thing.
The term “theistic” adds nothing to evolutionary theory.
 
Do a web search yourself. I am sure Ken Miller or Francis Collins could oblige you.
Sure, I’ll be glad to. What is your name and where did you publish?

(It might be good to read my post more carefully. When I look for “your” peer-reviewed papers, that is different than looking for Ken Miller’s.)
 
This is your way of explaining the difference between theistic-evolution and atheistic-evolution.

In other words, there is no difference at all. Theistic evolution and atheistic evolution are the same thing.
The term “theistic” adds nothing to evolutionary theory.
Well you catch on quick, don’t you? Perhaps you now understand that “atheistic” also adds nothing to evolutionary theory.
 
Well you catch on quick, don’t you? Perhaps you now understand that “atheistic” also adds nothing to evolutionary theory.
What is the difference between theistic-evolution and atheistic-evolution and why do scientists like Ken Miller and Francis Collins use the term “theistic evolution”?
 
Sure, I’ll be glad to. What is your name and where did you publish?

(It might be good to read my post more carefully. When I look for “your” peer-reviewed papers, that is different than looking for Ken Miller’s.)
My name is of no concern to you. If you really wanted to know what Behe’s peers have to say about his ideas you would google the names I gave you. But of course you won’t do that, because you want to carry on believing that Behe has a case.
 
What is the difference between theistic-evolution and atheistic-evolution and why do scientists like Ken Miller and Francis Collins use the term “theistic evolution”?
Theistic evolution: A process which happened as a result of God’s ordination.

Atheistic evolution: A process which happened because of a fluke chance that the conditions happened to be right for it to happen.

As theists Miller and Collins unsurprisingly give evolution a theistic interpretation. Doesn’t take a lot of working out, does it?
 
My name is of no concern to you. If you really wanted to know what Behe’s peers have to say about his ideas you would google the names I gave you. But of course you won’t do that, because you want to carry on believing that Behe has a case.
Some of Behe’s peers accept his views and believe that he has a case. You, however, are not a micro-biologist and have done no peer-reviewed work on the topic. That helps me to measure the value of your opinion.
 
Because as theists they unsurprisingly give evolution a theistic interpretation. Doesn’t take a lot of working out, does it?
No, on the contrary – it takes a lot of working out. What, precisely, is this “theistic interpretation” of scientific data?
 
No, on the contrary – it takes a lot of working out. What, precisely, is this “theistic interpretation” of scientific data?
Theistic evolution: A process which happened as a result of God’s ordination.

Atheistic evolution: A process which happened because of a fluke chance the conditions were right for it to happen.
 
What is the difference between theistic-evolution and atheistic-evolution and why do scientists like Ken Miller and Francis Collins use the term “theistic evolution”?
The only difference is how you want to explain the mutations occurring. Is it God’s hand? Is it just the forces of nature? Who cares, evolution is happening either way, which is the whole argument.
 
Theistic evolution: A process which happened as a result of God’s ordination.

Atheistic evolution: A process which happened because of a fluke chance that the conditions happened to be right for it to happen.
That is an excellent response – thank you.

Darwinian evolution claims that the process happens and continues through fluke chances. That is part of the scientific literature.

Theistic evolution disagrees with this. What evidence can TE provide to show that evolution does not occur by fluke chances?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top