Just one thought popped up in all the discussion about creationism being taught in public schools next to the evolution theory.

In at least ths US where everything must be equal, wouldn't allowing one religion's idea of the beginning of the universe in, open the door to any religion expecting their religion's creation idea to be taught in public school science classes?

Now I personally think it is silly for people to say we have to keep religion out of schools totally. I think it is a shame if children aren't allowed to express their beliefs or learn about different religions through a class on religions at high school age. I mean they teach them how to put on condoms for Pete's sake, why can't they take a class on the world's religions? I took a religion's class in college and loved it.


Stepping to the back of the room now and hoping to learn. Very interesting conversation, and rivals some of the best debates I have witnessed in college classes.


Tig

FH - interesting stuff. I do not recognize most of the names, but that's not remarkable in that I wouldn't necessarily recognize them since I don't normally dabble in this.

I noted an overall prevalent use of the word "proof" or "prove." This seems to be a common position of creationists, that evolution has not been proven. I tend to agree. It's a work in progress. Hardly a week goes by without an announcement of a previously unrecognized dinosaur species. Something's been happening for billions of years and Darwin first proposed his natural selection hypothesis only a little over a hundred years ago. More time is certainly needed. There are gaps to fill. Sound science is a slow process.

Another prevalent word was "evidence", as in none. This really perplexes me. What of the fossil record? What of all we've learned about DNA in the last few decades - BTW, most of the DNA strand is useless junk. Very little of it decides what the next offspring will be. Seems a designer would have been more efficient.

I also noted the dates on all the quotes. Some must have been from the time of the Scopes trial.

A few quotes caught my attention:

"The Darwinian theory of descent has not a single fact to confirm it in the realm of nature. It is not the result of scientific research, but purely the product of imagination."—*Dr. Fleischman [Erlangen zoologist].

This is a representative sample of my "evidence" comment. Not a single fact? How 'bout the long line of hominids coming out of digs in Africa? Of course, more gaps to fill. But "not a single fact"? Seems there are plenty to me.

"The hypothesis that life has developed from inorganic matter is, at present, still an article of faith."—*J.W.N. Sullivan, The Limitations of Science (1933), p. 95.

Couldn't agree more. I don't know of anybody who has such a hypothesis. Evolution presumes that organic matter was the source. Remember our discussion of amino acids? No evolutionist believes life came from rocks. That's the realm of creationists. <img src="/ubbt/images/graemlins/grin.gif" alt="" />

"'The theory of evolution is totally inadequate to explain the origin and manifestation of the inorganic world.' "—Sir John Ambrose Fleming, F.R.S., quoted in H. Enoch, Evolution or Creation (1966), p. 91 [discoverer of the thermionic valve].

Similarly, I couldn't agree more. Evolution has nothing to do with non-living, inorganic things. Rocks don't begat rocks.

"It was because Darwinian theory broke man's link with God and set him adrift in a cosmos without purpose or end that its impact was so fundamental. No other intellectual revolution in modern times . . so profoundly affected the way men viewed themselves and their place in the universe."—*Michael Denton, Evolution: A Theory in Crisis (1985), p. 67 [Australian molecular biologist].

I kinda like this one. I might qualify it a bit by saying, "...broke man's link with a literal God...." or with a literal interpretation of the Bible. Yep, sure did!

"Evolutionism is a fairy tale for grown-ups. This theory has helped nothing in the progress of science. It is useless."—*Bounoure, Le Monde Et La Vie (October 1963) [Director of Research at the National center of Scientific Research in France].

Useless? Sure has been a jobs program for creationists. If it's so useless, why do creationists spend so much time trying to refute it?

"As by this theory, innumerable transitional forms must have existed. Why do we not find them embedded in the crust of the earth? Why is not all nature in confusion [of halfway species] instead of being, as we see them, well-defined species?"—*Charles Darwin, quoted in H. Enoch, Evolution or Creation (1966), p. 139.

Well, this is a quote by Darwin - in his time. Why hadn't he found the transitional forms yet? My guess is he and others hadn't been looking since previously they were still assuming the creation story. Seems that the first dinosaur bones were not identified as such until around the same time.

"`Creation,' in the ordinary sense of the word, is perfectly conceivable. I find no difficulty in conceiving that, at some former period, this universe was not in existence; and that it made its appearance in six days . . in consequence of the volition of some pre-existing Being."—*Thomas Huxley, quoted in *Leonard Huxley, Life and Letters of Thomas Henry Huxley, Vol. II (1903), p. 429.

Being a part time deist, I can agree with this on some days. I'd go one better - the universe was created or came into existance in miniscule fractions of a second. Don't need no friggin' six days. This quote, of course, has little to do with evolution on earth.

"Scientists have no proof that life was not the result of an act of creation."—*Robert Jastrow, The Enchanted Loom: Mind in the Universe (1981), p. 19.

YEA! The "proof" declaration!! Sells well in church pews. And no one on this forum can prove I didn't go to Mars last night.

"When Darwin presented a paper [with Alfred Wallace] to the Linnean Society in 1858, a Professor Haugton of Dublin remarked, `All that was new was false, and what was true was old.' This, we think, will be the final verdict on the matter, the epitaph on Darwinism."—*Fred Hoyle and N. Chandra Wickramasinghe, Evolution from Space (1981), p. 159.

No doubt, Darwin had his skeptics - right off the bat - including his wife. I bet Professor Haugton of Dublin would have also stated in 1858 that man would never walk on the moon - or perhaps it was made of swiss cheese.

"Creation and evolution, between them, exhaust the possible explanations for the origin of living things. Organisms either appeared on the earth fully developed or they did not. If they did not, they must have developed from pre-existing species by some process of modification. If they did appear in a fully developed state, they must have been created by some omnipotent intelligence."—*D.J. Futuyma, Science on Trial (1983), p. 197.

Agree!! Just about covers the waterfront (I might change one word). Don't see any controversy anybody could have with this. But I'd add that earth seeding by an extraterrestial life form could also be an answer. "Could."

"Today our duty is to destroy the myth of evolution, considered as a simple, understood and explained phenomenon which keeps rapidly unfolding before us. Biologists must be encouraged to think about the weaknesses and extrapolations that the theoreticians put forward or lay down as established truths. The deceit is sometimes unconscious, but not always, since some people, owing to their sectarianism, purposely overlook reality and refuse to acknowledge the inadequacies and falsity of their beliefs."—*Pierre-Paul de Grasse, Evolution of Living Organisms (1977), p. 8.

Pretty clear evidence that creationists are not interested in the furtherance of science, but rather the destruction of evolution. Very clear. So much for objective science.

"My attempts to demonstrate evolution by an experiment carried on for more than 40 years have completely failed. At least I should hardly be accused of having started from any preconceived anti-evolutionary standpoint."—*H. Nilsson, Synthetic Speciation (1953), p. 31.

(Note the date) 40 years, huh? Is this the guy who put the watch pieces in a box and was astonished they didn't assemble themselves? That sells well in church pews also.

I didn't finish. Have other things to do. It would be interesting to see some of these quotes in the full context.

WAT

This might help:
The Quote Mine Project: Examining the "Evolution Quotes" of Creationists

duplicate post erased.

Very good of you to finally show your true colors and true feelings of "open mindedness." You "prove" the point of so many of those quotations (predominantly from other Evolutionists) that most evolutionists are CLOSED minded and will not even consider that Creation is as valid a "theory" about origins as evolution.

Hence your "broken record" of appealing to "peer reviewed" publications. How about listing them and listing the "camp" that the the editors are in (e.g. evolution or creation)? What you want is a "litmus test" of evolution or the article doesn't get published. Very nice. Stack the deck with "what you are" as means to NOT get something published, if for no other reason than the author might "fear" the impact on his career if he were to "dare" to take an opposing position.

All one has to do is to read your diatribe and outright distain for ANYTHING that might support Creation and/or might detract from your "holy grail" of Evolution to see that those fears are grounded in fact. After all, only the "best ones" are in postions of authority and only the "best ones" have a right to be heard and only the "best ones" know that ONLY evolution makes any sense to such great and omniscient minds.

Evolutionists have "taken over" the most of the key positions of power and decision making much the same as "liberals" have taken over much of academia. Just as "conservatives" are lambasted as being "extremists," etc., creationsists are lambasted as being "nutballs" or "junk science" or any other term that can be dreamed up to be derogatory and demeaning in an effort to get people to dismiss the "opposing viewpoint" out of hand.

2Long, your mind is made up and for you evolution is a FACT, despite the myriad of problems that exist. For you, creation CANNOT be a "viable theory" because it would require an intelligent, purposeful, "Supreme Being" acting with power, might, and purpose to establish things the way HE wanted them to be. If you want to be a "true scientist," what are you so afraid of? Jesus Christ? The God of the Scripture? That someone other than "Father Time and Random Chance" might actually be REAL?

Despite the many protestations to the contrary, 2Long, Evolution remains a theory with many many serious unanswered problems. The "theory" (creation or evolution) SHOULD be a "predictor" of what we actually see in the physical world. The data(like the dinosaurs that you seem to think are evolution's 'trump card') are compared to those predictions to see how "easily" or "better" they fit one model versus the other. Ever hear of "Occams Razor?" I'm sure you have, yet Evolutionists routinely place every "discovery" or "interpretation" in the "evolution camp" and will not even look to see how well it might also fit the evolution model. Why? Because in their minds, "all scientists (at least all of the "credible ones" and all of the "best minds" believe in evolution, therefore it MUST be right, evidence or no evidence." If that is NOT "blind faith" and extreme bias I'd like to know what other term you might prefer to make it seem more "justifiable."

Your statement of this position is quite clear in the following declarative question/statement that you made:

I don't know if I can get you 2 agree that Tricerotops was a dinosaur, but maybe. That's a fact, though. [Of course Tricerotops, along with Brontosaurous, T-Rex, and the whole crew from "dinosaur island" were dinosaurs. How nice of you to attempt to demean and denegrate my position by implying that I'm a "nutball," as you classify Creationists, who won't even acknowledge that God created dinosaurs along with all other "kinds" of creatures.] More, I don't have much "faith" that I can get you 2 agree that Triceratops, Monoclonius, Styracosaurs, Pachyrhinosaurus, and Torosaurus were all Ceratopsian dinosaurs that lived during the Cretaceous, [Very subtle and nice attempt, 2Long. YES, I agree that they were all dinosaurs in the family of Ceratops, NO, I don't "automatically and blindly" assign them to the EVOLUTIONARY (and unproven) strata that evolutionists call the Cretaceous period. That term comes from the "Geologic Column" theory that Geologists propose "proves" evolution. It does nothing of the sort, and you know it. That strata exist is a fact. HOW those strata were laid down is not. Using that "Evolutionary based Column" to "prove" Evolution is nothing more than Circular Reasoning and you know that too, or at least as "one of the best" you should know that.] and that they are all descended from Psittacosaurus, but that's also a fact (and an example of the evolution of a particular group of dinosaurs). But that's true 2. [No, 2Long. Your "interpretation" of the data "proves" nothing, and certainly does NOT establish "truth." They are NOT all descended (as in "evolved from") from Psittacosaurus. That is NOT "true." At best that is an "evolutionist" opinion and guess, with no real evidence to sustain it. Can it be a "working theory?" Sure. But the theory also demands that definitive proof for "evolutionary" changes in "Kinds" of organisms can be shown, and duplicated. Barring that "proof," the physical evidence should be compared to BOTH models of origins to see how consistent it is with what we would "expect" to see if either "model" were correct.

Boy, I sure do feel miniscule. It's sobering to know that I don't have one of the "best minds." Evolution can be so demeaning. But, hey! We are all just one big happy family with no future beyond the grave. So it all really doesn't mean much once the "existence" of God is removed and that the "Sovereignty of God" is just a myth and a fairytale for the "lesser minds." "In the beginning.....we were created in no one's image and have no purpose other than to "glorify" ourselves." TRUTH? It's what we make of it and only if it allows us to do what we want to do. No one outside of our own self has the "right" or the "authority" to tell me, the sovereign individual, what to do or not to do. "I do as I please. I think and act as I feel is good for me, therefore I am and the opposing opinions of others do not matter and are irrelevant."

"Women really need to understand this. They have no intrinsic worth. They are there to procreate only, and to have the occasional fun with. Beyond that, they are weaker than man and would die out on the evolutionary tree of life, and will just as soon as we can accomplish "creating" by intelligent design an artifical womb." "hmmmmm...I wonder what will happen to men if the women get the bright idea that men are no longer needed to procreate? Survival of the fittest?"

Where is the "appeal?"

To society's "moral code?"

To the "ever changing moral code of society?"

"If it feels good, do it?"

As I said a long time ago, 2Long, THE issue is NOT evolution or creation as the "correct model of origins." THE issue is, and always has been, Jesus Christ. "I am the way and the truth and the life...." Either He IS or He ISN'T. Which is it?

WAT, the "point" of the quotations, from my perspective, is really rather simple.

Regardless of "WHEN", ..."from when Darwin first proposed "natural selection and evolution," to the Scopes trial, to the rise of secular humanism and human supremacy, to the present day.....there ARE a lot of folks of (to use 2Long's apparent classification system) "small minds, lesser minds, average minds, good minds, better minds, ... but not "best minds"... who believe "GOD created" is real and that the "Creation Model" better fits the observable evidence in the physical world than does the "Evolution Model."

The argument is basically the same as it has been "since the "Fall of Man." "God didn't really MEAN what He said...."

Am I surprised? Not in the least. "As it was in the days of Noah....." The ENTIRE world "scoffed at and mocked" this man building a boat in the middle of "nowhere."

"All things continue as they have 'always been'" is the continuing mantra of unbelievers or those unwilling to submit their lives to Christ.

Just as ONE family was saved from the water, just as ONE family was saved from Sodom, so shall we who have "not learned from our mistakes be doomed to repeat those same mistakes." We ARE human, complete with a "sin nature." Everything that is not based in a belief in God and what He did for us is an exercise in elevating mankind to the "top job," much as Lucifer himself wanted. The "things of God" are seen as "foolishness" to unbelievers. God commanded humans to "subdue" the earth, not to "create it" in their own image.

But understand that apart from the "Law of God," the concept of "sin" is a moving target. It depends NOT on absolutes, it depends solely upon interpretation and the ever changing mores of societies.

It is interesting to see how anyone who thinks Creation is a "better" model of Origins is labeled as "foolish," "deluded," "simple-minded," etc. The sheer arrogance of the human mind is what really shouldn't surprise anyone....just ask anyone justifying what they are doing. A "justification" and "rationalization" for individual behavior is WHAT we are very good at doing, regardless of whether or not that behavior is "good" or "bad" by someone else's "standard."

Today, Dimpsasawa and 2Long seem to have "elevated" the "peer reviewed" publications to the level of "Scripture," or the "Koran," or the "Torah," etc. Those publications have become "holy writ." NO ONE can write anything outside of them without being labeled a "heretic."

If ONLY articles that were published in "peer reviewed" publications (run by....let's say....fundamental believers of the 'best minds') who will use the 'litmus test' of adherence to strict literal interpretation of the Bible as the criteria by which to decide if a paper get published or not were to considered to have ANY merit, THEN we could easily "brush off" and "ignore" anthing that might be published or said anywhere else.

I'll try to set aside some time to get into more "fundamental" things about evolution, the geologic column, etc. if, for no other reason, than to let others who might be reading all of this know that the issue is NOT "settled" and there ARE opposing "theories" as to how all things "got here."

Now that I think about it, I have seen this quote, or something very close, in its full context:

In "The Origin of Species", Darwin raised questions that he thought would occur to his critics and then answered them. IIRC, he began his chapter on transitional species by asking this question, and then went on to answer it at length.

Suppose MM and FH decided to write a book on Christian ethics as they pertain to marriage. One can imagine them beginning a chapter on adultery by asking the question, "Why doesn't G-d allow adultery? Humans obviously have the capacity to fall in love more than once in a lifetime. In fact, biologists are now discovering the chemical bases of love and attraction." However, the ensuing message would not be, "So party on, dude." Raising critical questions and then answering them is a rhetorical device frequently used in persuasive speech, and one that makes a rich lode for quote mining on the part of opponents.

Not much time right now, as I am finishing the wife's role in marriage...

But, it seems to me biologists are also finding chemical bases for other things like murder, anger, etc. So, with that, is it "immoral" to kill someone? I mean, they were chemically predisposed to do so, right? Just liek we are chemically predisposed to love, or have physical attraction. So the rapist, who's physical attraction leads him to rape. So what? According to this, he was just acting upon his natural chemical make-up. And we have no right to tell him he is wrong...we have no right to jail him. He had no choice, right?

ORRRrrrrrr.............

There is a chemical predisposition built by God in all of us for all of these things...love, anger, lust, etc. But, we are not "intelligent animals," as many want us to make manking out to be. That there is something else involved here that animals and plants and any other living being doesnt have...and that is a soul. And that soul can understand that even though those lustful cravings come, that it is wrong. It is at this point that the soul then has a decision to make. Act upon the body's natural inclinations, or overcome those somehow and do what is right.

If we are just body and intellect, then there is no such thing as morality...such a loose basis of rules agreed upon by the majority. Which can be changed. Which also means that the whole system of government set-up here in the U.S. falls flat on its face...because the bedrock of this nation is the Declaration of Independence. And the defining statement of the Declaration is that all men are enowed by their Creator with certain, unalienable rights... If we are just body and intellect, then all of that is moot. It is just something a bunch of guys said over 200 years ago. And we can change this at will.

This is the heart, I think, of what FH has been saying. That to just look at the body and intellect of a human being is to miss out on the third dynamic...the very real dynamic...which is the soul.

So, we are just intelligent monkeys...chemically predisposed to act a certain way. Sorry, I dont buy it. You said something about "partying." Well, yes...it would be a party if we truly believed this. Always take a position to its logical conclusion. If we were a product of evolution, if love, lust, anger, etc. are just built in...then no position is morally superior to the next. Everything is viable. And you have no right to tell me that what I might be doing is wrong. And I have no right to feel that what I might be doing is better than what you are doing.

Without that third component...which can be measured...then FH is right. As I paraphrase him...we are just a bunch of monkeys, making rules and morality up as we go along...waiting for the grave.

In His arms.

I propose you not take your time to do that.

It's obvious that there are opposing ideas else we wouldn't be having this discussion. There is no need to offer up any further information to show that.

As for me, this discussion has been very revealing. I have learned a lot. Some of it good and some very disappointing. I was naive, as I often tend to be.

I personally am not interested in any further debate of the merits of creation vs evolution and if my memory serves me I wasn't really interested in that to begin with - although it certainly has strayed to that with my willing participation. I keep trying to get my mind reoriented to what I believe is a more fruitful debate - whether any stand alone competing hypothesis to natural selection/survival of the fittest as an explanation for life on earth and our observations of it past and present should be taught as science to our children. To me the answer is simple - let any science step to the plate. Period. There is no separate creation science and evolution science. Just science. The down side to creationists is that this does not include using a book as scientific evidence - no matter what that book represents. Ideas on paper are not evidence. Quotes of ideas on paper are not evidence. Opinions about quotes of ideas on paper are not evidence. Ideas on paper may suggest evidence is out there to go find or confirm or refute, but in and of themselves are not living creatures or rocks or bones or fossils or observable phenomena. Ideas solely on paper are fair game to discussions of faith and while I may have lots of questions as to why some of these ideas get accepted, I really don't care what others believe in the faith realm. Just don't try to convert me and don't pass it off as science if there is no scientific process involved. That would not be science. I am aware of these faith things out there and if I want to know more, I'll ask somebody who may have some good answers. I would certainly ask MM and FH about Christianity.

So, if somebody wants to discuss this narrower issue, I may continue in this vein. I may not.

Good day.

WAT

WAT:

""As by this theory, innumerable transitional forms must have existed. Why do we not find them embedded in the crust of the earth? Why is not all nature in confusion [of halfway species] instead of being, as we see them, well-defined species?"—*Charles Darwin, quoted in H. Enoch, Evolution or Creation (1966), p. 139.

Well, this is a quote by Darwin - in his time. Why hadn't he found the transitional forms yet? My guess is he and others hadn't been looking since previously they were still assuming the creation story. Seems that the first dinosaur bones were not identified as such until around the same time."

And here's a quote by Stephen J Gould about the problem of "no" transitional forms:

“The modern theory of evolution does not require gradual change. In fact, the operation of Darwinian processes should yield exactly what we see in the fossil record. It is gradualism that we must reject, not Darwinism. […] Eldredge and I believe that speciation is responsible for almost all evolutionary change. Moreover, the way in which it occurs virtually guarantees that sudden appearance and stasis shall dominate the fossil record. All major theories of speciation maintain that splitting takes place rapidly in very small populations. The theory of geographic, or allopatric, speciation is preferred by most evolutionists for most situations (allopatric means ‘in another place’). A new species can arise when a small segment of the ancestral population is isolated at the periphery of the ancestral range. Large, stable central populations exert a strong homogenizing influence. New and favorable mutations are diluted by the sheer bulk of the population through which they must spread. They may build slowly in frequency, but changing environments usually cancel their selective value long before they reach fixation. Thus, phyletic transformation in large populations should be very rare—as the fossil record proclaims. But small, peripherally isolated groups are cut off from their parental stock. They live as tiny populations in geographic corners of the ancestral range. Selective pressures are usually intense because peripheries mark the edge of ecological tolerance for ancestral forms. Favorable variations spread quickly. Small peripheral isolates are a laboratory of evolutionary change.

“What should the fossil record include if most evolution occurs by speciation in peripheral isolates? Species should be static through their range because our fossils are the remains of large central populations. In any local area inhabited by ancestors, a descendant species should appear suddenly by migration from the peripheral region in which it evolved. In the peripheral region itself, we might find direct evidence of speciation, but such good fortune would be rare indeed because the event occurs so rapidly in such a small population. Thus, the fossil record is a faithful rendering of what evolutionary theory predicts, not a pitiful vestige of a once bountiful tale.”

— "The Episodic Nature of Evolutionary Change," The Panda's Thumb, New York: W. W. Norton, 1980, pp. 182-184.

-ol' 2long

NC--As I know it, explicit proof makes theory law.

Not sure what you mean be explicit--as in a closed-form expression or a general mathematical model that was empirically verified? Many of us who conduct research dislike using the word ‘proof’ in a scientific context (unless it is in terms of ‘disproof’), as you never know when something new will come along and disprove your ‘proof.’ The highest term of verification (at least in the physical sciences; I think the social sciences are a bit more loose with these terms) that can be applied to a finding in science is “theory” or “law” or “fact”: although they all mean different things, the terms themselves are equivalent in terms of their degree of certainty. If this is what you meant, then I misunderstood your meaning and I apologize.

NC--Theory of relativity should now be LAW of relativity as it has been explicityly proven.

Not my area, but I believe it is not called a law primarily because the mathematics of general relativity are much too complex to be stated as a simple expression.

NC--Femat's last theorm has been explicitly proven, no?

But this is a completely different topic; mathematical ‘proof‘, which is logical/rational, has nothing to do with scientific verification, which is empirical by nature.

NC--I am a proponent of creation being taught in science. There are holes in both theories. The examination of these holes also highlights the strengths in counterparts…. If nothing else, it is perhaps an almost universal example by which the scientific method can be demonstrated.

The problem is, as I have been arguing on this thread, that creation is simply not science. As yet, there exists no scientific hypothesis of creation, nor does any creation research meet the minimum requirements of repeatability and peer-review in the scientific community. It is thus impossible to demonstrate anything regarding science (other than what it is not) using creation as an example. And this is not my opinion; there are clear, objective criteria that creation simply does not meet. And your own words illustrate this precisely when you state:

NC--And here is the rub - you will NEVER pare down the Creation theory and disprove it. Why? It's foundation is an omnipotent being. The argument is absolutely pointless.

Nothing is admissible in science that is not explicitly disprovable. Absolutely nothing. “Ability to empirically disprove” is the first fundamental criteria of any scientific hypothesis, and the first criteria needed for the scientific method to be brought to bear on a claim.

-----------------

FH--he has a vary narrow criteria about what he'll read and consider "valid."

In a scientific sense, without question. Though realize, there are not my personal criteria but those of the scientific method.

As far as the quotes that you've listed, I won’t spend time specifically refuting non-scientific sources. However, I will point a few general things:

1. Many of the sources are rather dated and have little to do with modern science. Moreover, creationist websites are often know to ‘quote-mine’; deliberately taking a quote out of context to change its meaning.

2. Observe some of the sources: book reviewers, novel authors, and others with unidentified affiliations and credentials. I don’t see single published academic in the field of biology on the list.

3. The attempt to indicate that some sources are not creationists (by leaving out the (*)) is disingenuous--for example, M. Denton, who is quoted more than once on the list, is a known proponent of ID (creationism). I would bet that most of the others on the list without an asterisk could be identified as creationists as well.

4. Not sure why personal opinions would have any relevance in a scientific discussion…

After reading such information, one would think that the scientific community is filled with absolute idiots, as after 150 year of study and experimentation, the scientific community is essentially unanimous in its verification of it, but according to the creationists, evolution so clearly violates most existing scientific laws, has no support outside of the field of biology, is mathematically, genetically, and physically impossible, as yet out of tens of thousands of peer-reviewed research papers, there is not yet a single one that presents scientific evidence refuting it….

I like a good debate, but this is becoming a waste of time. More of the same type of non-scientific and thus scientifically irrelevant information is being presented, and this is moving us further away from a scientific discussion, not closer to one. I suppose this makes sense from the creationist point of view, as it appears this is the only angle that the creationist argument can be moved to. Still haven’t seen a scientific hypothesis of creation. Or is this possibility now abandoned?

Interesting that from the creationist perspective, science seems to work so well for all other areas of study, but just so happens to be completely wrong for the few particular areas that contradict their interpretation of the Bible. Peculiar. Or I guess just serendipitous from the creationist point of view.

I usually enjoy this stuff but I think that’s enough for me.

Kind regards and respect to everyone,

D.

What Darwin mostly argued against was the thesis that evolutionary novelties could originate through taxic saltation, that is, through the production of a single individual representing a new type, a new taxon. Instead, he proposed that all evolutionary innovation is effected through the gradual transformation of populations.

This distinction became important after Goldschmidt revived the essentialistic idea that a new higher taxon could be established as the product of a single systemic mutation. Even though the success of such a taxic saltation is too improbable to be endorsed by a contemporary evolutionist, it still leaves the possibility of the occurrence of phenotypic saltations. If a mutation with a drastic phenotypic change could be incorporated in a population and become part of a viable phenotypic polymorphism, it could lead to a seemingly saltational evolutionary change. Gould (1980:127) indeed envisages a "potential saltational origin for the essential features of key adaptations. Why may we not imagine that gill arch bones of an ancestral agnathan moved forward in one step to surround the mouth and form proto-jaws?" Maynard Smith (1983:276) points out that the occurrence of "genetic mutations of large phenotypic effect is not incompatible with Darwinism." Steven M. Stanley (1982) has argued quite persuasively that gastropod torsion might have originated through a single mutation. It would have had to pass through a stage of polymorphism until the new gene had reached fixation. Evidently such a process is feasible, but its importance in evolution is contradicted by the fact that, among the millions of existing populations and species, mutations with large phenotypic effects would have to be exceedingly frequent to permit the survival of the occasional hopeful monster among the thousands of hopeless ones. But this is not found. Furthermore, enough mechanisms for the gradual acquisition of evolutionary novelties are known (Mayr, 1960) to make the occurrence of drastic mutations dispensable, at least as a normal evolutionary process.

The argument, thus, is not whether phenotypic saltations are possible, but rather whether evolution advances through the production of individuals representing new types or through the rapid transformation of populations. No matter how rapid, such a populational "saltation" is nevertheless Darwinian gradualism.

Stasis

Of all the claims made in the punctuationist theory of Eldredge and Gould, the one that encountered the greatest opposition was that of "pronounced stasis as the usual fate of most species," after having completed the phase of origination (Gould, 1982a:86). Yet it was this very claim which the authors designated as their most important contribution.

The extraordinary longevity of the so-called living fossils had, of course, been known since the early days of paleontology (Eldredge and Stanley, 1984; de Ricqles, 1983). But is such stasis the usual fate of most species? Evidence supporting this claim can be found in Stanley's book (1979), some review papers (e.g., Levinton, 1983; Gould, 1982b), and recent volumes of Paleobiology, Systematic Zoology, and other journals. Yet the literature also reports numerous cases of seeming speciation by phyletic gradualism (e.g., Van Valen, 1982:99-112). Perhaps most convincing are the cases of significant evolutionary transformation in continuous phyletic lineages reported by K. D. Rose and T. M. Brown (1984) for Eocene primates and by J. Chaline and B. Laurin (1986) for Pliocene rodents. Such phyletic speciation seems to be more frequent in terrestrial than in marine organisms.

Two objections have been raised against the seeming cases of phyletic speciation. First, hiatuses and depositional breaks seem to occur even in the most complete sequences; second, the so-called species of these sequences may not be valid species because they usually differ only in minor characters of size and proportions. Be that as it may, Gould has recently seemed to concede that speciation by phyletic gradualism does occur.

I agree with Gould that the frequency of stasis in fossil species revealed by the recent analysis was unexpected by most evolutionary biologists. Admittedly, stasis is measured in terms of morphological difference, and the possibility cannot be excluded that biological sibling species evolved without this being reflected in the morphotype. Let us tentatively assume that some species enter complete stasis while others evolve by phyletic gradualism.

The question of what percentage of new species adopts one or the other of these two options cannot be resolved either by genetic theory or through the study of living species. It can be decided only though an analysis of the paleontological evidence, and this poses great methodological difficulties (Levinton and Simon, 1980; Schopf, 1982). For instance, in the analysis of the benthic foraminifers, the calculated average age of 20 million years was based on only 15 percent of the recent species. For all the others the fossil record was too spotty to permit any determinations. In other words, the proof of stasis was based on a highly biased sample, consisting of common widespread species, which one could expect to have longevity and which comprised a small minority of the entire fauna. It is conceivable that a considerable fraction of the remaining 85 percent underwent rapid phyletic speciation and thus became unavailable for analysis. The indications are that the vast majority of the so-called rare species are short-lived, probably not for reasons of rapid phyletic change but rather owing to extinction. The best one can do under the circumstances is to adopt an intermediate position by admitting the occurrence of some gradual phyletic speciation but pointing also to the unexpectedly large number of cases in which fossil species showed no morphological change over many millions of years.

Recent discoveries in molecular biology have raised questions about the meaning of stasis. The stasis found in morphological characters in such old genera as Rana, Bufo, Plethodon, or even Drosophila is not at all owing to the retention of an entirely unchanged genotype. Through the electrophoresis method, countless changes in quasi-neutral enzyme genes have been discovered, but numerous other nonmorphological changes have also taken place in these genera, such as the acquisition of new isolating mechanisms, as well as of numerous adaptations to changing environments. What has remained stable, however, is the morphotype, the basic Bauplan. The species in some lineages that can be inferred to have separated 30 to 60 million years ago are morphologically still almost indistinguishable except in size, coloration, and minor differences in skeletal dimensions. […]

The Contributions of Punctuationism to Evolutionary Theory

Even some of its opponents admit that punctuationism has had an enormously stimulating effect on evolutionary biology (Rhodes, 1984; Maynard Smith, 1984b; Gould, 1985). The controversy has brought to light numerous equivocations and has helped to clarify distinctions between alternatives, such as between phyletic and allopatric speciation, between phenotypic and taxic saltations, between various types of group selection, between the evolutionary potential of small and large populations, between an uncompromisingly reductionist and a more holistic concept of the genotype, between various concepts of species selection, and still others. To eliminate these equivocations it was not only necessary to clarify concepts but also to show that we needed a broader factual foundation. As Gould has correctly emphasized, one of the most important contributions of punctuationism has been its stimulation of fruitful empirical research, much of it still ongoing.

To be sure, the claims of some punctuationists, such as the prevalence of total stasis and the impossibility of evolutionary change without speciation, are clearly invalid. Furthermore, it has been shown that "speciational evolution" (perhaps a better term than "punctuationism") is fully consistent with Darwinism; and finally, that seeming evolutionary saltations, as indicated by the fossil record, can be explained without invoking systemic mutations or other mechanisms in conflict with molecular genetics. It is irrelevant for the theory of speciational evolution how relatively frequent evolutionary stasis is or how frequent the occasional occurrence of drastic reorganization during peripatric speciation.

Most of all, punctuationism has shown how one-sided has been the myopic focusing of paleontologists and population geneticists on the one-dimensional, transformational, upward movement of evolution. It finally brought general recognition to the insight of those who had come from taxonomy (E. Poulton, Rensch, Mayr) and had consistently stressed that the lavish production of diversity is the most important component of evolution.

What had not been realized before is how truly Darwinian speciational evolution is. It was generally recognized that regular variational evolution in the Darwinian sense takes place at the level of the individual and population, but that a similar variational evolution occurs at the level of species was generally ignored. Transformational evolution of species (phyletic gradualism) is not nearly as important in evolution as the production of a rich diversity of species and the establishment of evolutionary advance by selection among these species. In other words, speciational evolution is Darwinian evolution at a higher hierarchical level. The importance of this insight can hardly be exaggerated.

[ Ernst Mayr, "Speciational Evolution or Punctuated Equilibria," from Albert Somit and Steven Peterson's The Dynamics of Evolution, New York: Cornell University Press, 1992, pp. 21-48. ] (emphasis added)

It IS amazing the lengths to which evolutionists will go, all “a twitter” with conclusions such as ” The importance of this insight can hardly be exaggerated,” AFTER beginning the whole dissertation with a gigantic assumption that the condition described as a wishful"IF" is now “true” and a valid assumption.

And they say that Creationists are delving into the realms of the "unprovable." Stephen Jay Gould, et. al. are "fishing" for the Loch Ness Monster in the the Dead Sea, while smoking some mind altering substance. Or so it seems to one who is not "one of the best scientific minds." <img src="/ubbt/images/graemlins/eek.gif" alt="" /> <img src="/ubbt/images/graemlins/crazy.gif" alt="" /> <img src="/ubbt/images/graemlins/wink.gif" alt="" />

It was very revealing to me to explore the link earlier provided by elspeth.
The Quote Mine Project: Examining the "Evolution Quotes" of Creationists

Very revealing indeed.

Suffice to say that so-called “quotes” from published works, similar to and including the ones posted on this thread by foreverhers, have been grossly and deceptively misrepresented. And that’s an understatement. These quotes have been taken WAY out of context and in most cases have been artfully “re-contexted” to portray an opposite view point in an attempt to disprove or cast doubt on issues involving evolution. That’s why many of them are surprising and provocative on their face, considering who is being quoted. But they’re portrayed as truths, being attributed to known authors and scientists complete with citations. At least the citations provide a way to see what was really said. But unless you go look what was really said in its full context, one is left with a totally different impression if one is predisposed to trust the source.

Very sad indeed what some people will do to defend their turf. And these are Christians? They are causing a grave disservice to honorable Christians and when they go unchallenged, they have the ability to deceive our school boards and our children - all in the name of “truth.”

Disgusting.

I do not believe foreverhers knowingly participated in spreading falsehoods. I really don’t. He likely had no idea that what he was providing was what it really is. And he’s probably typical of others who trust this information to argue their position - believing he’s providing honest debate. If I were him I’d be mad as hell to be so duped by fellow believers.

Just to show how easily this is done and how twisted the results can be, I’ve “mined” some of foreverhers' “quotes” available just from this thread. I didn’t even get all the candidates. He could likely do similar from my words.

"Christianity, God, and Jesus Christ" are "nice ideas" but they have no real impact on the "real world." foreverhers, General Questions II Marriage Builders Forum, 05/10/05 09:58

"....humanistic philosophy reigns supreme....if anyone "DARES" to suggest, let alone state, that secular humanism and/or atheism is wrong, get the 'big guns' out because we can't allow that to happen!!!!....you Christians can feel that way because it's good to feel any way you want, but it's still not TRUTH and the atheistic and humanistic philosophies and opinions ARE the 'real' truth." foreverhers, General Questions II, Marriage Builders Forum, 05/11/05 07:51

"....I could easily show you that NO text that speaks of historical things is accurate or should be embraced as a "true account." But I don't think you really want to delve into the facts when opinion will suffice. foreverhers, General Questions II, Marriage Builders Forum,05/11/05 08:29

"There has been, to date, not ONE single example of a new species being created...But the capacity for variation....comes from two primary sources...already present in the genetic code (such things as dominant and recessive genes) and mutations of the genetic code....which has resulted in....new and completely different species....The "Scientific Method" should be applied to answering the question....Believe it or not, there ARE still "flat earthers" around today." foreverhers, General Questions II, Marriage Builders Forum,05/12/05

See what I mean?

Be careful of what you re-quote because you may be an unwitting instrument of deception.

WAT

I found that site while I was searching for information on Sir Frederick Hoyle, the astronomer who is the originator and chief proponent of the "steady state" theory of the Universe. He seems like an odd person for creationists and ID'ers to keep citing, since an unchanging universe with no beginning does not at all fit into the idea of G-d or an Intelligent Designer creating the universe. The "big bang" theory (Sir Frederick coined the term in a derogatory way, but none of its proponents mind its use so far as I know) seems to me to be a better fit with the idea of a created universe. Sir Frederick also has some other interesting ideas that creationists don't seem to have incorporated as their own (wisely so, IMO). I'll have to look up the link later for you.

Hey! Foreverhers!

Welcome 2 "our side"! <img src="/ubbt/images/graemlins/grin.gif" alt="" />

-ol' 2long

Okay, I found the link I was thinking of:
http://home.att.net/~troybritain/articles/fringe_quote.htm




The site also contains a link (http://home.att.net/~troybritain/articles/hoyle_insects.htm) to a site quoting Hoyle on the possibility that insects are more intelligient than us but are hiding the fact. Well, hmm, maybe he has a point.

In fairness, just to show that the hard core creationists don't have the corner on the market for spreading falsehoods via surgically altered quotes, take a gander at this op-ed column in today's (5/21/05) Washington Post:

The Religious Left's Lies by James Watt.

(BTW, I'm NO James Watt fan.)

WAT

Depressing.

Okay, so that proves religious people on whatever end of the spectrum can lie, but to be pertinent to the Evolution/Creation debate, what you would need is a list of creationists quotes that scientists took out of context in order to support evolution. Maybe there is a list of one of those around, I dunno.

2Long - Nothing quite like posting a long, inclusive, reference to avoid WAT's consternation about quoting out of context.

Seriously, quoting out of context is a serious problem for everyone. So is fabricating a hypothesis to attempt to "explain" what has been observed and then attempting to "pass off" that hypothesis as established fact even though there is NO evidence to support the claim.

What Gould and friend are doing in the "punctuated equilibrium" theory is to try to account for the FACT that there really are NO "transitional fossils" to support the theory of evolution.

To claim that "punctuated equilibrium" is consistent with Darwinian evolution proves nothing beyond perhaps another false trail of a false premise. To claim that a "new species" popped into existence, jumping over needed and vital "intermediary steps" is ludicrous to anyone other than someone determined to make "evolution work" despite the absence of real confirmatory data.

Could such an event happen? Yes, in my opinion it did happen. But NOT as Gould and Eldridge hypothesize. It happened when God CREATED all of the different "kinds."

Devoid of faith in a Creator and assigning belief in God and Jesus Christ to the realm of "junk science," there is a "necessity" to attempt to explain things in naturalistic "evolutionary" terms simply because the "scientist" making the assertion has NO OTHER ALTERNATIVE.

This is why I have said from the start that the issue is not really whether evolution or creation is the "real answer" to how we got here. The real issue is "who is Jesus Christ?" Once again, IF Christ is who He said He was, then you can TRUST and BELIEVE what He has said is TRUTH. If He is not, then it's irrelevant what He said.

It is "Funny" to see the lengths to which evolutionary "scientists" will go to deny God and to put their "faith" in natural processes as the "explanation" for everything. They often "rankle" at the suggestion that their positions in favor of evolution are based in just as strong a "faith" as is the faith of Christian who believes in Creation.

The statements "in context" or "out of context" should be examined if one is inclined to ferret out the truth. But to say, for example, that in another part of an article the evolutionist being quoted stated his "support" and "opinion" that evolution is true, and that, therefore, it makes it "invalid" to quote the part where the same author also stated, in effect, "oh, by the way, evolution is NOT proven and has some serious unanswered questions and lack of data" somehow "proves" that Creationism is wrong and that supporters of Creationism are just "desperate" is a completely illogical, biased, self-serving slat to prop up evolution despite real problems.

Understand that I AGREE one should be careful to consider the whole context. In quoting the part where an evolutionist may be saying something that is "negative" to the theory of evolution DOES NOT mean that the author of the comment is "against evolution." On the contrary, many such scientists make such statements because they ARE trying to be "fair" and admit that the "theory" is unproven and has serious defects in supportive data.

Regardless, those statements DO show that, unlike the way that Evolution is presented in Schools and in the public, evolution is NOT proven. It is, at best, a theory under modification as the expected "proofs" are either not forthcoming or actually disprove a "working hypothesis," thereby necessitating the reformulation of yet another hypothesis.

So what does that leave us with in the current 'deification' of Stephen Jay Gould and the hypothesis of "punctuated equilibrium?"

From the website linked to bashing the quotations that Creationists use was the following that is pertinent to the “punctuated equilibrium” hypothesis:


“The second issue is whether or not they are correct in their statements. Most of them are comments made about the will show these sorts of patterns, both for the reasons Gould and Eldredge supposed (allopatric speciation) and for other reasons (npunctuated equilibrium theory/model/pattern that was, at the time of most of these publications, a hot issue in evolutionary biology. There was considerable debate on the matter. The consensus that resulted, and which is in place today, is that evolution onlinear dynamics in populations). Hence, it is dishonest to imply, the way the quote miner does, that this is an unresolved issue in modern evolutionary biology. “

In the post I made previously, quoting in context, the entire relevant section, is where this sort of thing can clearly be seen by anyone (my opinion) open to the possibility that Creation MIGHT actually be another possible explanation of what is seen in the paleontogical record. Unfortunately, the “Evolutionist” WILL NOT (not cannot) consider the “creative action of a Supreme God” and must then “invent” or “resurrect” hypothesis to “keep the theory of evolution alive.” It’s understandable because there ARE only the two possibilities of evolution OR the direct creative will of God



Here the author (Mayr, a committed evolutionist) states categorically that punctuated equilibrium as a theory and as an “answer” is so “Highly Improbable” that it is unlikely to be “embraced, supported by, or endorsed” by “Contemporary Evolutionists.” Why? Because it too preposterous on face of it. So what is the BEST that Mayr and most evolutionists MIGHT be able to do with this “out there” hypotheis?

Here comes the “RATIONALIZATION” formulated so as to present the hypothesis as worthy of real consideration, or at least “palatable” to those opposed to Creation as a better model for what the evidence actually shows:






[/color]So, using WAT’s idea of quoting “out of context” as invalidating anything or proving that Creationists “evilily distorting” the “truth,” let’s quote the above offering by Mayr:


"Why may we not imagine[/color] that gill arch bones of an ancestral agnathan moved forward in one step to surround the mouth and form proto-jaws?"

(An evolutionist can IMAGINE anything they want. Just don’t try to convince us that their fantasy imaginings are TRUTH)


“[color:"red"]If [/color] a mutation with a drastic phenotypic change [color:"red"]could[/color] be incorporated in a population [color:"red"]and become part of a viable[/color] phenotypic polymorphism, [color:"red"]it could[/color] lead to a seemingly saltational evolutionary change.”

(Yep, IF pigs could only fly…..)

“[color:"red"]Even though the success of such a taxic saltation is too improbable to be endorsed by a contemporary evolutionist[/color]”

(Man, oh man…and I thought it was CREATIONISM that was “too improbable to be endorsed by a contemporary evolutionist.)

“mutations with large phenotypic effects WOULD HAVE TO BE EXCEEDINGLY FREQUENT to permit the survival of the occasional hopeful monster among the thousands of hopeless ones. [color:"red"]But this is not found.[/color]”

(Oh NO!!! There’s that pesky thing of what is actually found again! The DATA does NOT support the hypothesis, but we’ll cling to it anyway rather than think that the REASON for the differences in the “Kinds” was the creative act of God.)


Now, I pulled those quotations “out of the context of the entire article, and inserted my own skeptical comments and logical reasoning. But shoot! I’m doing it here and NOT in a “peer reviewed” publication, so it can’t be valid. Does “punctuated equilibrium” stand proven? About as likely as the “Flying Pig” branch of evolution.

I would suggest that if someone really wants to “prove” one model versus the other, one must begin by examining Jesus Christ and determining for themselves if Jesus Christ really was the Son of God as He claimed. He CAN be “examined” and a “verdict” reached. Whether on not one chooses to surrender to Him is the remaining issue. Even Lucifer KNOWS the truth, but chooses to NOT surrender. An evolutionist must likewise DECIDE to accept or reject the King and that He created all that is. He can then look at the data to see how well it actually fits with the Creation model and the Evolution model. But “wishful thinking” should be left to the storytellers who don’t have to deal in facts and can take, if you’ll pardon the pun, “creative license” with the facts. <img src="/ubbt/images/graemlins/shocked.gif" alt="" />