National Academies book on evolution

[surgei]

Bias? Why come here and post when the facts are the facts and are undisputed? As far as ID goes, if most are convinced that it’s not science then why mention it? Evolution fact, ID not science. All done.

But no - the rhetoric continues.

Ideology is always the issue.

God bless,
Ed

Origins, like sexuality, is the core of our human quest to find self within the context of the universe. In a certain respect it is like the debate in public forums about porn or abortion. One of the differnces is that the other discussions show the results of subscribing to the theory so quickly.
That being said the issue we are looking at is how do we deal with the evidence is there.
I start with the evidence and look for a conclusion. ID starts from a conclusion and looks for evidence.
As another posted, the agnostic leanings of Darwin were not arrived at quickly. They are less a result of the work he did and more a result of the life he lived. Watching your daughter die is not easy. Listening to your wife tell you that your final end is hell because you can’t explain how God is love and yet suffering is a part of life will make you doubt. In a lot of ways pastor Charles descent into agnostic views is less a result of science and more a result of the Christians who could not understand what it was he was saying and didn’t care to have their minds expanded.
C.S. Lewis writes in The Great Divorce about how a murderer is greatful to God that he committed a murder once he entered heaven. In the end all things speak of God’s love and goodness even genetics and evolution.

 

[edwest2]

I must disagree.

God bless,
Ed

 

[The_Barbarian]

Plunged back into the dark age.

Maybe not quite, but a good deal of damage to society would ensue.

The earth will not stop spinning on its axis if more people ignore materialistic, naturalistic evolution.

Turns out we have tested that idea. In the last century, the Stalinists decided that Darwinism was antithetical to Marxism, and suppressed it viciously. As a result, Soviet biology fell apart, which caused them to fall far behind the west in many important fields of study.

What would be lose, if Darwinism was removed? Antibiotic protocols (more would die from infections) agronomy and animal husbandry (plants and animals resistant to disease and other stresses would not be developed).

And, of course, countless findings in biology would be lost, since the system really makes sense only in terms of evolution.

The Soviets tried it. It was a disaster, with huge crop failures and an end to progress in biology.

 

[Sideline]

Plunged back into the dark age. I’ve seen that vague non-responsive response many times. It reminds me of the quote from Casablanca: He’s as honest as the day is long. The earth will not stop spinning on its axis if more people ignore materialistic, naturalistic evolution. Give me a break.

I said that we would be plunged into the dark ages if we tossed out all the sciences that I don’t use on a daily basis.

Just for fun you know what you could do? You could quote me correctly in a post. Seriously, I wouldn’t know what hit me. It’d catch me totally off guard.

 

[Sideline]

Let me play the coy game that the evolutionists here play, Sideline.

Neither of your options.

Well, you want to know the great thing? There are scads of peer reviewed articles out there that explain Evolution far better than an Internet forum ever could.

That’s the nice thing about valid scientific theories, they are backed up by evidence.

 

[reggieM]

There was nothing worth responding to in this post. Nothing even remotely like fact. If you don’t want to accept that the truth doesn’t correspond to what you believe, I’m not going to argue further with you.

(It’s clear that you have no idea about what my post meant – zero.)

 

[reggieM]

What would be lose, if Darwinism was removed?

Lies, deceptions, the belief that human beings are not different than animals, unbelief – and lots of bad science that students are brainwashed with.

So we’d be free to have the truth and thus make tremendous advances in science and in all academic disciplines where evolution has blinded people.

 

[reggieM]

There are scads of peer reviewed articles out there that explain Evolution far better than an Internet forum ever could.

I would certainly hope so because this particular forum has done an abysmal job in defending Darwinism.

I’ve seen radical contradictions from Darwinists. Then when asked for an explanation they say that I should read an 800 page book.

This is proof that they don’t know what they’re talking about. There is no evidence and proof to support Darwin’s theory. He has been discredited and his theory has been refuted by his own followers. That’s why we have “neo-Darwinism” now. Or we have “theistic evolution” which is a refutation of Darwin’s theory (and an imaginative re-writing of it).

Darwin did not even know what DNA was. He claimed everything evolved by natural causes without knowing how the biochemistry worked. His theory is absurd and laughable – since it was based on visual inspection of animals and bizarre conjectures on how one creature supposedly evolved from another.

Even the National Academies book admits that “experiments” have not been successful. I found this after an ardent-Darwinist-atheist here claimed that scientists don’t conduct experiments to try to replicate evolution. Then he reversed his position and claimed, in just as emotional terms, that yes after all scientists do experiment and that they are successful in demonstrating evolution as a “fact”.

The National Academies book contradicts this by pointing out that there is no consensus on the results of the experiments.

As in every case with these contradictions – some Darwinists might be correct while others might be wrong – or they all might be wrong. But they can’t all be correct because they claim opposite “facts”.

We are then told to “trust Darwin’s theory”.

I can see with my own two eyes that it is untrustworthy. I can see the people defending it here – their tactics are transparent. There cannot be any substance to the theory or we would have heard it by now.

Here again, you site “peer reviewed papers”. These same “peers” refute what they claimed as “fact” just 10 years ago. Every year we hear new “re-thinking of evolution”.

So the authorities are basically useless. What they claim today can and probably will be overturned tomorrow.

There are so many holes in Darwinist theory that it does take religious belief to accept it.

Meanwhile, I look first at the evidence – of God’s existence. The evidence is abundant. I then look at the evidence of God’s creative power in the world – again abundant evidence. God exists and he has created and shaped the world. His work can be seen in the beauty, order, symmetry, fine-tuning, paradoxes, laws, impossible occurences, intelligence, magnificence, scope and mysteries of the universe and the human soul (and life itself).

These things are supported with more evidence than evolution can muster.

So, when I see a theory that eliminates any role for God as it attempts to explain the origin of species, life itself and all things in the universe – I can see by merely looking at the evidence that the theory is completely false, and totally inhuman. It’s blindness.

 

[Sideline]

There was nothing worth responding to in this post. Nothing even remotely like fact. If you don’t want to accept that the truth doesn’t correspond to what you believe, I’m not going to argue further with you.

(It’s clear that you have no idea about what my post meant – zero.)

I know you are but what am I?

Good, feel like you’ve got that out of your system now?

Just for the record. If someone is unwilling to read an entire post, I don’t see any reason not to point out that they missed the point.

 

[The_Barbarian]

Darwin proposed his theory of evolution while he was a devout Anglican Christian. Indeed, he records that he was the butt of jokes for his faith while on the Beagle.

And in the last sentence The Origin of Species, he attributed the origin of life to God.

Darwinism was the work of a man convinced of God and His providence.

That Darwin’s faith faltered at the end was due to his circumstances, and apparently, depression resulting from a possible case of Chaga’s disease contracted while in Argentina.

Wallace, who co-discovered the theory, remained a theist to the end of his days.

But, as always, the truth of a theory does not depend on the beliefs of any person; it depends on evidence. Newton was not a Christian, but an Arian heretic who denied the divinity of Christ. Nevertheless, we can still appreciate the brilliance and usefulness of his theories and discoveries.

Why no one tries to avoid the evidence for gravity by denouncing Newton’s lack of faith, while they seek to avoid the evidence for evolution by citing Darwin’s doubts about God late in life, is not clear.

Evolutionary theory is, after all, more firmly established than gravity. We can describe gravity, but we don’t know why it happens. On the other hand, we can not only describe evolution, but we also know why it happens.

 

[surgei]

Darwin proposed his theory of evolution while he was a devout Anglican Christian. Indeed, he records that he was the butt of jokes for his faith while on the Beagle.

And in the last sentence The Origin of Species, he attributed the origin of life to God.

Darwinism was the work of a man convinced of God and His providence.

That Darwin’s faith faltered at the end was due to his circumstances, and apparently, depression resulting from a possible case of Chaga’s disease contracted while in Argentina.

Wallace, who co-discovered the theory, remained a theist to the end of his days.

But, as always, the truth of a theory does not depend on the beliefs of any person; it depends on evidence. Newton was not a Christian, but an Arian heretic who denied the divinity of Christ. Nevertheless, we can still appreciate the brilliance and usefulness of his theories and discoveries.

Why no one tries to avoid the evidence for gravity by denouncing Newton’s lack of faith, while they seek to avoid the evidence for evolution by citing Darwin’s doubts about God late in life, is not clear.

Evolutionary theory is, after all, more firmly established than gravity. We can describe gravity, but we don’t know why it happens. On the other hand, we can not only describe evolution, but we also know why it happens.

Very good post oh great bearded one.

 

[The_Barbarian]

I’ve seen radical contradictions from Darwinists.

But you can’t find any in evolutionary theory? Does that suggest something to you?

Then when asked for an explanation they say that I should read an 800 page book.

Not knowing what the theory is about, can be a handicap if you want to discuss it, yes.

This is proof that they don’t know what they’re talking about. There is no evidence and proof to support Darwin’s theory.

Let’s see…

• Nested hierarchy of taxa, which happens only in common descent
• DNA analyses, which give the same phylogenies as other lines of evidence, and which are confirmed to work when used with organisms of known descent
• Fossil record, showing numerous transitional organisms (details on request)
• Vestigial organs, explainable only by evolution
• Conserved organic molecules which show the same phylogenies obtained by other lines of evidence
• Embyrology, showing how evolved structures are exapted from earlier ones

There’s more, if you want more. The above, and much more is why the vast majority of biologists accept evolutionary theory. The evidence is massive and compelling.

He has been discredited and his theory has been refuted by his own followers. That’s why we have “neo-Darwinism” now.

Newton was “wrong” too. This does not take away from the fact that he discovered the mechanics of gravity. Likewise, the fact that Darwin did not understand the source of variation does not take away from his great discovery of the reason for the variety of living things.

Or we have “theistic evolution” which is a refutation of Darwin’s theory (and an imaginative re-writing of it).

Theistic evolution is a religious notion, not scientific. (which is not necessarily a bad thing) It is completely compatible with Darwin’s theory, as the Pope has noted.

Darwin did not even know what DNA was. He claimed everything evolved by natural causes without knowing how the biochemistry worked.

True. And it’s too bad that he didn’t discover Mendel’s work. It solved a knotty problem that he couldn’t explain. If inheritance was like mixing paint (as he and others at the time thought), it is hard to see how a new mutation could be passed on without being diluited out of existence. But the finding that inheritance is particulate, that solved the problem, which was then no longer an objection.

since it was based on visual inspection of animals and bizarre conjectures on how one creature supposedly evolved from another.

This is why others suggested that you read the book. Darwin provides evidence in vast detail to support the theory. Being unaware of it, is not a rational objection.

Even the National Academies book admits that “experiments” have not been successful.

Bridges have collapsed during construction. Should we then abandon civil engineering?

I found this after an ardent-Darwinist-atheist here claimed that scientists don’t conduct experiments to try to replicate evolution.

Fact is, undergraduates can do that. And since at least one investigator has observed the evolution of irreducibly complex features, that’s no longer an issue.

The National Academies book contradicts this by pointing out that there is no consensus on the results of the experiments.

The National Academy does however, point out that there is a consensus on the fact of evolution.

We are then told to “trust Darwin’s theory”.

I hope not. In science, all truth is provisional on new information. Do you have a checkable source for that quote, or is it your personal interpretation?

I can see with my own two eyes that it is untrustworthy. I can see the people defending it here – their tactics are transparent. There cannot be any substance to the theory or we would have heard it by now.

See above. Compelling evidence, which is why (based on Discovery Institute figures) about 0.3% of PhD biologists doubt evolutionary theory.

Here again, you site “peer reviewed papers”. These same “peers” refute what they claimed as “fact” just 10 years ago. Every year we hear new “re-thinking of evolution”.

Chemistry, too. I was just reviewing a new freshman chemistry text. A lot has changed since I took my first college chemistry course. Science moves on. This is one reason it’s reliable; scientists are willing to change theories when the facts so indicate.

And, as you learned earlier, evolution is entirely consistent with God. It was proposed by two Christians, and is acknowledged to be consistent with God by the majority of the world’s Christians.

It’s the way God did it. And you shouldn’t be afraid of it. A Christian should never be afraid of the truth.

 

[The_Barbarian]

I have yet to see a science, in which various practicioners of that science have not engaged ridicule, hostility, ad hom, and other aggressive behavior, at some time or another.

Often, scientific conferences, when addressing issues at the very edge of knowledge, have the verbal equivalents of barroom brawls.

Science is not a gentleman’s pasttime. Think of it as rugby. On the field, it’s pretty much free-for-all, even if the participants may then share a beer on the sidelines afterwards.

The libertarian concept of a “marketplace of ideas” is part of what makes science work. It might be hard for some laymen to believe, but what goes on in these discussions is relatively tame compared to the more boisterous controversies in science.

 

[Sideline]

I would certainly hope so because this particular forum has done an abysmal job in defending Darwinism.

O.K. instead of arguing, let’s put it this way. Ask anything you like. I’ll answer every question you through at me. Now, I’m not a geologist, but I’m sure one of the geologists or a physicist, so I’m no help there. I know about archaeology and anthropology with a smattering of logic and philosophy. So… you want answers, I’ll give them with you.

The problem is, when I started to explain some of this stuff, someone… now who could that have been… told me that I didn’t understand the discipline that I studied for four years in school. They ranted on about how archaeology works when they had obviously never taken a single class, read a single book, or been on a single dig. Not only that, but they hadn’t even guessed correctly about what archaeologists do.

I guess what I’m trying to say is. If you don’t want to learn, I can’t make you.

This is proof that they don’t know what they’re talking about.

O.K. just to save time: What would convince you? Would anything convince you? If you aren’t willing to be convinced, it’s no failure on my part that I can’t.

There is no evidence and proof to support Darwin’s theory. He has been discredited and his theory has been refuted by his own followers.

Either you are lying, or you believe someone who has lied to you. You actually think that every major university in the world has departments of discredited theories? That’s just a monumentally
silly statement.

That’s why we have “neo-Darwinism” now. Or we have “theistic evolution” which is a refutation of Darwin’s theory (and an imaginative re-writing of it).

This is why Evolutionists find it hard to talk to people who won’t study it. Your statement is like saying that nobody believes natural philosophy anymore because we call it science now.

We call it neo-Darwinism because we’ve learned quite a bit during the last 150 years. Genetics for instance. Mendel lived after Darwin. So, we have all sorts of insight that Darwin didn’t have access to. We didn’t even have a clear definition of species until recently. Gene flow, genetic drift, even blood types and the rhesus factor are all idea not included in Darwinian Evolution. None of it refutes it. Darwin discovered one of the important factors in evolution, and we now know more.

Theistic Evolution doesn’t change Evolutionary theory, it just adds the idea “god did it”. By the way, it’s not science either. It falls into theology. Doesn’t make it untrue, but it isn’t science. It can’t conflict with Darwinism, because it does nothing but add a theological component. They’ve taken Evolutionary Theory and added, “And God saw that it was good.”

Darwin did not even know what DNA was.

Yes, just as Galileo didn’t know that the speed of light wasn’t constant, doesn’t make cosmology wrong.

He claimed everything evolved by natural causes without knowing how the biochemistry worked.

Actually, people knew that life had Evolved before Darwin. He just explained how. And he was right, as far as he went. Pretty incredible feet.

His theory is absurd and laughable – since it was based on visual inspection of animals and bizarre conjectures on how one creature supposedly evolved from another.

Just because you don’t want to believe doesn’t make it true. Now, if you have any evidence that the finches weren’t related, great, we can talk.

Even the National Academies book admits that “experiments” have not been successful.

I haven’t read the book yet, but nothing you’ve said so far has been true, so I can’t take your word for it. I’ll comment after I’ve read it.

I can see with my own two eyes that it is untrustworthy. I can see the people defending it here – their tactics are transparent. There cannot be any substance to the theory or we would have heard it by now.

I can see with my own eyes that Jesus wasn’t God. That Catholicism is untrustworthy. Look, many of the people on this board are downright crazy. Oh, wait. That doesn’t prove anything does it?

Here again, you site “peer reviewed papers”. These same “peers” refute what they claimed as “fact” just 10 years ago. Every year we hear new “re-thinking of evolution”.

Yes, if you didn’t read them, it would appear that way.

There are so many holes in Darwinist theory that it does take religious belief to accept it.

Yes, if you didn’t study it.

Meanwhile, I look first at the evidence – of God’s existence. The evidence is abundant…

These things are supported with more evidence than evolution can muster.

I’m pretty sure I’ve narrowed it down to you lying to yourself.

 

[Sideline]

Why no one tries to avoid the evidence for gravity by denouncing Newton’s lack of faith, while they seek to avoid the evidence for evolution by citing Darwin’s doubts about God late in life, is not clear.

YES!!!

What Darwin believe about anything doesn’t matter at all. What matters is the evidence.

Great post.

 

[SpiritMeadow]

Hi Tim,

Evolution makes very little sense to me. The more I read here, the less sensible it appears. And I’m not just mentioning this to bother you (and I honestly don’t want to bother you) but to let everyone know. The idea that radiation, mutation, environmental pressures and genetic drift causing modern life, is a bit out of the realm of possibility. Have scientists gained a greater understanding of disease, of course. But evolution - most people forget about it after high school. Most will not need to use it at work or home.
Ed

Wow Ed what changed your mind once again. 18 times you’ve agreed that a God directed evolution of some kind is indeed the teaching of the Church, at least according to Benedict and JPII. Are we starting all over again? I’m learning Ed…I now just cut and paste some of this into WP so I don’t have to type everything again and again. So now, evolution is out of Ed’s realm of possibility…Glad its just you…

 

[Sideline]

What do you think this paper will do to the ID issue? Will those who stand against evolution for theologic reasons come to better understandings?
Science, Evolution, and Creationism

From what I’ve observed so far it won’t make the slightest difference.

 

[SpiritMeadow]

Bias? Why come here and post when the facts are the facts and are undisputed? As far as ID goes, if most are convinced that it’s not science then why mention it? Evolution fact, ID not science. All done.

But no - the rhetoric continues.

Ideology is always the issue
Ed

One can always hope that clouded minds may finally see. What are you gonna do Ed? The church will no doubt formally adopt some form of evolutionary statement. Then you will be caught won’t you? No denying the Church’s teachings you know, if you really are the faithful Catholic you so accuse us of not being.

 

[SpiritMeadow]

Surgei,

You’re misrepresenting Darwin as a man of faith:

The Reluctant Mr. Darwin, David Quammen (2006)

By the writing of his autobiography in 1876 the effects of that “bold theory,” as Quammen tells it, had him also declaring Christianity “a damnable doctrine.” Thus Darwin becomes for Quammen the reluctant scientist and the reluctant agnostic. In fact, these two themes are symbiotic and serve to facilitate the view of a wholly objective scientific theory divorced from any taint of theistic intention. In the end – science vindicated, theology dethroned! – that is Quamman’s leitmotif.

As for Darwin’s loss of faith, all the biographers just mentioned adopt the gradualist theme. Desmond and Moore sum it up most succinctly by saying, “Even if, in his clear-headed confusion, he was agnostic about his agnosticism on occasions, in ten years it had become the respectable thing.”

Pain real or feigned, Darwin eventually stated that he simply couldn’t see the evidence for Christianity, and he always claimed that the “disbelief crept over me at a very slow rate, but was at last complete . . . [and] never since doubted even for a single second that my conclusion was correct.” Darwin had no need for any kind of Creator.

Darwin eschewed religious faith for a different kind of faith, a faith in cold, hard “facts” or so he claimed.

Darwin’s version of man as an animal left little room for a divine spark and it bespoke his agnostic convictions. But Darwin was also always emphatic that this came to him comparatively late in life. Playing host to the visiting Ludwig Büchner, famed German atheist, eight months before Darwin’s death in April of 1882, the Down House patriarch insisted that he hadn’t given up on Christianity until forty years of age.[16] Quammen underscores the point by writing, “years of studying the fixed laws of nature had eroded his credence in miracles, and he ‘gradually came to disbelieve in Christianity as divine revelation.’ There was no smugness and no hastiness to his loss of faith; it happened almost against his will.”

uncommondescent.com/darwinism/the-reluctant-mr-darwin/#more-2939

Does anything whatsoever about the religiosity of Darwin change the facts as alleged? How does this make evolution any the less true? Are there other scientific endeavors you find bogus as well? Or is it just evolution? How has the massive 150 year long conspiracy been run? You must be aware of some information about how millions of scientists have agreed to go along with this perverse lie just to destroy the weak faith of a small minority of fundies and an even tinier number of Catholics.?

 

[SpiritMeadow]

How many people argue emotionally, to the point of using sarcasm, ridicule and insults, about linguistics, forensics, particle physics, astronomy, geology, cartography, seismology, neurology, osteology, organic chemistry, fluid dynamics, or quantum mechanics?

You must know that that is not an answer. Do you have one? And I would suggest that the only people who deny the obvious truth of evolution are those who faith is so weak already they are simply terrified to have to rethink things. It generally relates to a psychological need for certainty in life. Such is not the state of our existence no matter how dearly we may wish it or try to cling to doctrines that promise it. Faith is by its nature not about certainty, its about believing in the face uncertainty.