Ed West (organism number 29655449833060701)! Geez, just when I was going to be serious you show up.
As I said, the back rooms of the museums of the world are full of “anomalous evidence” that is loftily dismissed because it doesn’t fit “The Standard Template”, despite our evolutionist friend’s claims to the contrary. Sometimes it’s found by people within the camp, like Steen-McIntyre, and they become an outcast in their own field; sometimes it’s found by laypeople who try to get somebody’s attention, like the woman who found a spoon embedded in a vein of coal and called the Smithsonian Institution, only to be told, “Spoons do not appear embedded in coal,” and was hung up on.I’d call that explanation a keeper. Very good!
At the end it’s always; “There’s a lot of evidence against evolution, but I’m not going to show it to you.” For obvious reasons.
Not quite. The “stuff found in coal” stories have been investigated and debunked by none other than YE creationist Kurt Wise. Even knowledgable creationists don’t buy those stories.
Actually it was Haldane, who said that a rabbit in undisturbed Cambrian rock would do it. But we never get a checkable case of such things. I think I know why.
And yet, (for example) when Wegener’s theory of continental drift was verified in the 1960s, scientists completely revised geology, textbooks, opinions and the like. And no one lost a pension or a job thereby, even if we tossed out an entire section of geology. Woolsey, you are hyperventilating, now. It’s not like that, and never has been.
The paranoid notion that millions of scientists over a hundred years have effectively maintained a conspiracy to hide the truth (which however, heroic but untrained creationists can easily see) is risible. It assumes a level of secrecy and coordination never before achieved by any group of humans.
The first was Thomas Huxley who disagreed with Darwin on the pacing of evolution. He did very well. So did D. H. Morgan who established modern genetics, and whose work led to the modern synthesis that replaced classic Darwinism. So did Stephen Gould who demonstrated the mechanisms of speciation which were not quite as Darwin said. So did Motoo Kimura whose neutralist theories are now part of the theory. For them contradicting Darwin was the road to success. That is how science works. The big rewards go to those who overturn old theories and propose better new ones.
In science, that is always a possibility. All truth in science, as you see from the information above, is provisional on new evidence. But I wouldn’t hold my breath.
Actually, I do remember just reading about someone who wants to “conform the Constitution to the Law of God.” sooooo, I don’t think its quite as farfetched as you infer that theocracy is not the real goal here…And folks, I keep telling ya, it’s not gonna be a Catholic theocracy, but a fundie one, and Catholics are gonna find all about respression anew.
Why do you want evolution NOT to be true?As I said, the back rooms of the museums of the world are full of “anomalous evidence” that is loftily dismissed because it doesn’t fit “The Standard Template”, despite our evolutionist friend’s claims to the contrary. Sometimes it’s found by people within the camp, like Steen-McIntyre, and they become an outcast in their own field; sometimes it’s found by laypeople who try to get somebody’s attention, like the woman who found a spoon embedded in a vein of coal and called the Smithsonian Institution, only to be told, “Spoons do not appear embedded in coal,” and was hung up on.
Or in other words, “Your story is outlandish because we already know the dates in question, and your evidence is way out of whack. We have no need to pay attention to you.” Ergo, because the evidence doesn’t fit “The Standard Template”, it’s ignored—or, if it’s serious enough, suppressed. So much for “altering the theory to fit the evidence”.
But, you can’t really blame the Darwinists, folks. There are serious stakes riding on keeping this fable alive; even the odious Richard Dawkins admitted that if just one well-documented case of human remains were to turn up in “pre-human” strata, it would devastate the whole Darwinian construct. And cases of just that have turned up, but they have been speedily and stringently suppressed. We’re talking about careers and pensions hanging in the balance here, and even more unsettling, the possibility of having to toss out practically the entire accumulated concepts underlying vast sections of modern archaeology, anthroplogy, paleontology, geology, and zoology.
And this is why the cases in question had the lid slammed down on them hard----really hard, and really fast. There are scientists out there who know the jig is up, but they don’t dare say so, because as I said before: For a serious scientist to put forth any evidence that contradicts Darwin is professional suicide. But, sooner or later, someone is going to come forward with something that just can’t be denied any more, and the whole Darwinian-evolutionist house of cards is going to crumble overnight.
Good move, silence those whom you disagree with, and only listen to fellow travelers. Now that is a recipe for …pssst…NOT success. Why do you need evolution not to be true?
Always seemed self-defeating to me. They can’t comment on what others are saying but others can comment on them. But they have no one to blame, but themselves.
All of that is true and I am sympathetic with the Darwin-fundamentalists. It is a lot to ask of them to be reflective enough to see the absurdities that have been portrayed as “fact” over the past decades, and some of the even more ridiculous notions we see today.
True. I think it will happen in stages, over time. New generations rise up and they don’ t have the prejudices of the older people. They just look at the evidence. Things that seem blatantly obvious to the anti-Darwinists today will also be seen as blatantly obvious to future generations who won’t care about the political implications.
Then you have found a spectacular way to waste your time posting to these threads. You ought to just sit back and watch as the great idol of darwinism comes crashing down. Then we can put God in the science curriculum and solve every single question in science - God did it. All of the worlds diseases will be cured, we will know exactly when to expect an earthquake (not that it will matter because once we know the answer to everything we will just build our buildings to be earthquake proof), cold fusion, superconductivity. Heck, even all the hatred that came into the world via evolution will be gone, so we can all put our arms around each other and sing Kumbya. What a great place it will be!
If you can’t win on evolution, you might have more luck with abortion, um? I’m with you on that one.
Even Phillip Johnson admitted that the Dover trial was a “train wreck” for ID.
Michael Denton, in Nature’s Destiny recently bailed out:
Heh, when they have nothing left, they try the “atheism” ploy. Sad.
Behe kind of played into that by letting them get him under oath. Big mistake.
Odd, Huxley did very well, and is still regarded as a great scientist. So it is with Morgan, and Gould, and Kimura. And many others. You’ve been kinda snockered on that one.
Truth is always provisional in science. So it could happen. But so far, creationists have been saying that for generations, with nothing to show for it.
Quite true. Consider this poll from the Pew organization:
That is the reason, I think.
Imagination in overdrive, I see.
…was Darwin’s great discovery. Natural selection is not random.
The Barbarian, you are right that after Dover ID and YEC are confined to tiny pockets of the noosphere. And yet, I gave a workshop to a broad sepctrum of faculty at a local community college today, most of whom said that creationist views crop up frequently in tehir classes (my workshop was on how to remove creationist challenges surgically from class discussion before they metastasize).
I just think that your fears of this projected future scenario is unfounded. If Darwinian evolution is false, then it’s a benefit to everyone that it not be taught. That’s a triumph of the truth. Before Darwin there were plenty of Catholic scientists who cured people and invented useful things.
Actually, I have no fears of that happening. I think you are deluded if you think evolution is going anywhere. ID is not dead, but in many ways it is. Dover was a severe body blow to the doctrine.
I agree up until the very end of your statement. Science doesn’t deny anything about God much less deny Him.
Your continual knee-jerk replies to each and every post on this 20 page long thread is all the evidence I need to see that you’re wrong.
That alone tells us that the term “evolution” means nothing – although it’s a lot of fun to use it in comments here so perhaps someone could be shocked and surprised.
You could be right.
Well, I think science does deny things about God. If we propose that God will do something, science can test to see if it happened or not.
That is an excellent question. I have found this to be simply amazing in every forum I’ve ever been on that discussed evolution. The defenders of Darwin are so passionate – they argue with bitterness and endlessly, and it does seem that they’re trying to spread this teaching and make sure nobody ever disagrees with it. Why?