Is Evolutionary Biological History Relevant For Science?

There is much controversy over whether or not the Darwinian paradigm of ancient history will affect students ability to learn and grasp a variety of modern experimental activities which is expected of them. Often times, militant defenders of evolution regard it as a religious doctrine if ancient biological history is not included or scaling  down science.

Nobel Laureate Ernst Chain made a pretty enormous discovery which was penicillin. He stated in 1942, the theory of evolution had no impact whatsoever on his discovery. Can you imagine someone saying this today, and the scorn that would follow? But Nobel Laureate Ernst Chain had a point,  you can say this about more recent discoveries as well. Like how to map genomes for example or the discovery of reverse transcription of RNA, or discovering the structure of the double helix, or adult stem cell research, medications, new operating procedures, or new manufacturing methods and machinery, even food production.

Contrary to some, ancient biological history of evolution has no impact or relevance on synthesizing a new antibiotic, or how medicine can disable a current disease-producing organism.

Tony Reiman a well known expert on body language, and had often times appeared on the O’Reily Factor wrote a book and her book called; “The Power of Body Language” she tries to explain the relevance historical evolution has on her expertise.

“Given that humans of some kind have walked the earth for about to million years, that’s a long time to depend on gestures and grunts to get your point across. But it clearly worked!” -The Power of Body Language (2007).

Speculation on what happened in the unobservable distant past is not going help understand what’s going on with body language in the present. Tonya obviously uses the stories of evolution a lot in her book, but it’s not really helpful understanding current body language at all.

One must be asking, well what does have an impact? The answer is;  it’s experimental biology! Experimental science has dramatically increased our understanding of the massive complexity we find in the intricate workings of  living organisms that account for their survival.

Science represents a structured discipline of systematic examination for the purpose of obtaining knowledge.

There are no scientific breakthroughs by using the fossil record. While it’s true, the fossil record reveals some interesting observations which I believe confirms God’s Word, and is certainly worth studying no question about it but what I’m saying is, the fossil record doesn’t contain any information in which we can invent something new like in modern medicine. Instead of working with fossilized animals, scientists work with living animals in their studies for new cures and medicine and so on, not historical evolution.

Ancient history of  biological evolution with all it’s unobservable and non-testable speculations, and story telling really relevant for today’s science? Would a student’s understanding of new discoveries be affected if he or she didn’t know what happened supposedly millions of years ago? The answer is clearly no!

Historical evolution has no relevance when it comes to experimental science nor does it prepare or help students with future discoveries. Experimental science is the best method for  confirming God’s Word, it also gives students a better understanding of science and other things as well like the advancement of mankind.

Advertisements

40 thoughts on “Is Evolutionary Biological History Relevant For Science?

  1. I have no idea what you are trying to say here ….

    why should the theory of biological evolution be the basis of all scientific theories ?? And why do you use the word ‘ancient’ ? Sounds like you are mocking biologists …

    At the end you are saying:
    “Historical evolution has no relevance when it comes to experimental science nor does it prepare or help students with future discoveries. Experimental science is the best method for confirming God’s Word, it also gives students a better understanding of science and other things as well like the advancement of mankind.”

    You really have no idea about how science works if you say something like this. What do you mean by ‘experiment’ here ? Is that something you have to do yourself, or does this include what is called ‘natural experiments’ ? And how do you want to set up experiments to confirm the ‘words’ of your particular god ?

  2. I hear all the time that Evolution is essential for Biology, but I never hear what the basis for that claim is. Do you?

    I’m just wondering.

  3. @krissmith777:

    What about reading a book about evolution, which will show you all that ? There is an aweful lot of stuff about why evolution is an essential part of biology: you only need to read it, if you are willing to invest a little time.

  4. Eelco says,

    “What about reading a book about evolution, which will show you all that ?”

    I have. I still have not been able to find the basis of the claim.

    I’ve read books on it, and I’ve even googled it. I still cannot find what the basis of the claim is.

  5. There are too many things to list in a blog, so do read books like Sean B. Carroll’s “The making of the fittest” (a summary of all the DNA evidence) and Prothero’s “Evolution” (a summary of all the evidence from the fossil record). But obviously there is a lot more, including actual evolution happening in virusses in the lab, for example.

    Which books have you read ? There are so many that any should be good enough, really.

  6. “Which books have you read ? There are so many that any should be good enough, really.”

    The main one, that was pro-evolutionist was a textbook entitled “Physical Anthropology,” — the ninth edition. (The cover has a picture of two chimps, and it was written by Philip L. Stein and Bruce M. Rowe ). This book, in the first chapter, made the claim that Evolution was essential for biology but without giving the basis of the claim.

    Also, a film entitled “Evidence of Evolution,” and also a separate NOVA series hosted by Don Johanson about human evolution.

    I could be wrong, but I am personally beginning to suspect that the real basis of the claim that evolution is essential for biology is basically this: “Evolution explains biological differences and similarities, so therefore evolution is the backbone of biology.” — If that is so, then that is a basis that only presupposes evolution is true.

    But again, I could be wrong about my suspicion.

  7. @krissmith777:
    So apparantly you do not understand chapter 1 of the book you mentioned, which might be because they do a lousy job explaining it (I do not know this book, personally). So what about trying another book, one about evolution in general ?

    I don’t think anyone ‘presupposes’ anything about evolution: it simply is the theory that best fits the biological data. That’s all there is too it. If a better theory comes along, fine, but evolution seems to work very well at the moment. But one should never be dogmatic about this. If you find new evidence which contradicts evolution convincingly, I for one am happy to ditch the current theory. But it has to be at least as convincing as all the evidence for evolution, which is an aweful lot …

  8. @krissmith777:
    These are both creationist websites, which are not scientific at all. Most of these claims have been refuted long ago (see the talk origins database, http://www.talkorigins.org, for example), and you should rather read the scientific literature.
    The recent book by Donald R. Prothero shows all the fossil evidence currently existing, which is an aweful lot. There is *no* current fossl evidence to refute the theory of evolution.
    Glossy websites with flashy movies do not convince me at all. I want the dry facts. These websites show no references to the dry facts …

  9. So you are saying that because they are Creationist, they are therefore not trustworthy? — The sword cuts both ways. I can easily say Talk.Origins Archive is not trustworthy because it it pro-evolutionist.

    Even though there are fossils that are “candidates” as intermeidat links, there is not one indisputable transition. That’s a fact.

    The fossil record shows that species appeared all of a sudded and fully formed. Evolutionary paleontologist Stephen Gould realized that, and in an attept to salvage the theory he proposed the “Punctuated Equilibrium.”

  10. @krissmith:
    There are lots of transitional fossils, *that* is a fact. Just read the book by Prothero, which is full of them. Too many to put in a blog here ….

    Creationism is not science, that is what I was saying. It is religion. If you find religion trustworthy, then that is your choice (not mine).

    Your statement about Gould, who was very often quote-mined bu creationists, clearly comes from creationist websites. There is no need to ‘salvage’ the theory, and punctuated equilibrium is not generally accepted. Read the science books !

  11. “There are lots of transitional fossils, *that* is a fact. Just read the book by Prothero, which is full of them. Too many to put in a blog here ….”

    Name two.

    “Creationism is not science, that is what I was saying. It is religion.”

    The same is true about evolution.

    “Your statement about Gould, who was very often quote-mined bu creationists, clearly comes from creationist websites.”

    SAying it was “quote-mined” gives the impression it is not a true statement. It is 100% factual.

    “There is no need to ’salvage’ the theory, and punctuated equilibrium is not generally accepted.”

    Yes, I know.

  12. “Name two”

    Is that an order ? Are you too lazy to read the books ?
    The best-known ones you probably know yourself, so here are two lesser-known ones: Obruchevichthys and Limnoscelis.

    But here is a nice list, for lazy people:
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_transitional_fossils

    As for evolution: evolution is *not* a religion.
    I’ll be lazy as well and point to the usual (and clear) rebuttal to this rather odd idea:
    http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CA/CA610.html
    Science is anything but religion, and so is evolutionary biology.

    “The fossil record shows that species appeared all of a sudded and fully formed.”
    No. I’ll be lazy again:
    http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CC/CC201.html

    Oh, I feel really laze today (it is Friday evening, after all, and I just did a hard week of scientific research). For punctuated equilibrium, see: http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/punc-eq.html

    Nice, isn’t it ? All in one place … very handy. But NOT the ultimate source, for that you do need to look up the references given. http://www.talkorigins.org is only a database, not a scientific paper in itself !

  13. Eelco,

    You say, “Glossy websites with flashy movies do not convince me at all. I want the dry facts. These websites show no references to the dry facts …”

    We want the dry facts too, so what scientific evidence is there to justify the interpretation of “similarities” as the basis for evolution and not for creationism or intelligent design? 50 percent of our DNA is similar to that of a banana but certainly we are very much different than a banana.

    Also, we see variants of a popular product called; ipods. Each variant is recognizable to the point where you know it’s made by the same company. However, we also know ipods in each of it’s forms with similarities within it’s variants are intelligently designed.

  14. Michael, if you *really* want the dry facts, read the literature. There is so much out there that you simply seem to ignore: at least try and read the reviews and the books (which contain hundreds of references each), if you cannot be bothered to read the scientific journals (which is hard work … certainly).

    I have no idea what you want to say with bananas … they are living things, obviously, just like us, and grow in some way. And we eat them (well, I don’t , because they upset my stomach somehow, some funny acid in bananas which I’m allergic to, apparantly).

  15. Hey, Michael.

    If there something wrong with your comments? Because I have been trying to post a response to Eelco’s outdated wikipedia link, but couldn’t.

  16. Eelco,

    Your wikipedia link needs some serious revision, and here’s why:

    It still claims the Tiktaalic is a transitional fossil. But the truth is that even evolutionists now say it’s quality is poor:

    “Previous data from another ancient fish called Tiktaalik showed distal radials as well — although the quality of that specimen was poor. And the orientation of the radials did not seem to match the way modern fingers and toes radiate from a joint, parallel to each other.” (See: http://www.the-scientist.com/blog/display/55022/) blockquote>

    It still cites the horse sequence? — No informed evolutionist does that.

    And it lists Homo Habilis as a human ancesor? — That is way too funny. Paleontologists now say that it isn’t:

    See: http://www.cosmosmagazine.com/node/1527

    Also, Astralopithecus (which it also lists) is meeting the same fate as Homo Habilis.

    See: http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1176152801536&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull

    There. I have refuted a lot of your transitional fossils. And the fact that wikipedia has not updated its info and clings to the outdated claims shows how ntrustworthy it is, even by evolutionist standards.

    AS for your fist TalkOrigins link, here’s a good response:

    http://creationwiki.org/CC201

    For the record, I never said that science was religion. I said evolution was was a religion. Evolution is not science because there is no scientific evidence to support it.

  17. Michael,

    In your quote of Eelco, he says that the links I posted “These websites show no references to the dry facts.”

    His statement shows he hasn’t gone deep into the sites because “Dry facts” are exactly what they give. The fist one of a 30 minute documentary on living fossils and how they disprove evolution.

    As for the second one, it contains thousands of picture of fossils and their comparison to their modern desendents showing that evolution didn’t happen.

    I know what the contents of the sites are, so I know that if he claims that they do not give “dry facts,” that he obviously has not examined them.

  18. krissmith777,

    So you are aware, the blog will flag down for approval, any response with more than four links (which is up from two), otherwise since I approved your response before and others, it should go through automatically in the future without prior approval.

  19. @krissmith777:
    Well, in general any wikipedia page gets updated once in a while, but you were asking for transitional fossils. I give you loads, and you start to complain, in this case about a few specific ones. The point I was trying to make is that there are *loads* of transitional fossils. If a few are still under discussion (they are, but you cannot claim that because people discuss them they are ‘therefore’ not transitional fossils !! Most people still ).

    More importantly, the wikipedia specifically states, right at the top: “This is an incomplete list, which may never be able to satisfy certain standards for completeness. You can help by expanding it with sourced additions.”

    AND

    “This is a very tentative list of transitional fossils (fossil remains of a creature that exhibits primitive traits in comparison with more derived life-forms to which it is related). An ideal list would only recursively include ‘true’ transitionals, i.e. those forms morphologically similar to the ancestors of the monophyletic group containing the derived relative, and not intermediate forms. See the article on transitional fossils for an explanation of the difference with intermediate forms. Since all species are in transition due to natural selection, the very term “transitional fossil” is essentially a misconception. But the fossils listed represent significant steps in the evolution of major features in various vertebrate lines, and therefore fit the common usage of the phrase.”

    This HAS to be born in mind !
    Everything is ‘in transition’, including ourselves.

    Anyway, the best review to date is still Donald R. Prothero’s book, which is not expensive (~$25). If you want to close your eyes for all this evidence (not even considering the DNA evidence), then there is little to discuss, obviously.

    Your statement “Evolution is not science because there is no scientific evidence to support it.” is complete rubbish. I cannot say this any more politely. You close your eyes to the evidence, which is your choice. You refuse to read the literature. But evolution is most definitely science, and therefore not religion.

  20. @krissmith777:

    And by the way, you have not rebutted anything. You only say to *you* have rebutted all this evidence, and that *therefore* the wikipedia page is out of date. This is a little arrogant.

    However, the fast majority of scientists do not accept what you are saying, which is then reflected in the wikipedia page (which *by definition* is never complete nor completely correct, as new fossils keep on being found, like Ida recently), as this gives the current state of thinking. Which I have thought about a lot, read the books (at least 10 of them, including creationist ones), and drawn my conclusions. To me evolution is a fact of life, and the theory of evolution a very good (but not perfect) description of these facts.

  21. Eelco,

    “Well, in general any wikipedia page gets updated once in a while, but you were asking for transitional fossils. I give you loads, and you start to complain, in this case about a few specific ones. The point I was trying to make is that there are *loads* of transitional fossils. If a few are still under discussion (they are, but you cannot claim that because people discuss them they are ‘therefore’ not transitional fossils !! Most people still ).”

    And the point I sm trying tomake is that several on the list are refuted by evolutionists themselves. The only thing I’m “complaining” about is the quality of Wikipiedia. There is a reason why academics don’t like it.

    “Your statement “Evolution is not science because there is no scientific evidence to support it.” is complete rubbish. I cannot say this any more politely. You close your eyes to the evidence, which is your choice. You refuse to read the literature. But evolution is most definitely science, and therefore not religion.”

    To be science, it has to be observes and tested. Evolution cannot be observed or testes, so therefore it is not science. It does not even use the scientific method.

    “And by the way, you have not rebutted anything. You only say to *you* have rebutted all this evidence, and that *therefore* the wikipedia page is out of date. This is a little arrogant.”

    That’s not arrogant. That’s the truth. I linked to more recent research done by evolutionists themselves which shows that at least a good number of “Transitional fossils” on the page have turned out to be misinterpretations.

    And the fact that Wikipedia includes “IDA” as a transitional fossil despite the controversy about whether she is an intermediate fossil or not shows that it is very subjective. — It is far from agreed that Ida is a transition, so they shoulf not be making the claim. But I guess the claim itself is enough for wikipedia, despite the facts.

    I dare say that it shows dishonesty.

    “However, the fast majority of scientists do not accept what you are saying, which is then reflected in the wikipedia page (which *by definition* is never complete nor completely correct, as new fossils keep on being found, like Ida recently), as this gives the current state of thinking. “

    Apparently so, but still the research I linked to is quite new, so I gaurantee that will change.

  22. Besides, Eelco

    They are not “discussing” the fossils. They are outwight refuting them.

    Had you checked thec links I posted from Cosmose Magazine and the JPost, you would know that. But I guess you didn’t bother.

    The reason why Homo Habilis is now o longer believed to be an ancestor of modern humans is because it was discovered that a homo erectus fossil showed that the two co-existed.

    The COSMOSE aticle says:

    “The discovery of two fossils has challenged the belief that our early human ancestor Homo erectus evolved from Homo habilis and suggests they co-existed.”

    And it quotes their discoverer saying:

    Their co-existence makes it unlikely that Homo erectus evolved from Homo habilis,” said Meave Leakey of the Koobi Fora Research Project at the National museums of Kenya in Nairobi. “The fact that they stayed separate as individual species for a long time suggests that they had their own ecological niche, thus avoiding direct competition.”

    You call this a simple “discussion”? — This is what I call an outright refutation!

    As for Astralopithecus,anthrolplogists have examined its jawbone and found that it is not an ancestor of modern humans.

    The J POST article says:

    Tel Aviv University anthropologists say they have disproven the theory that “Lucy” – the world-famous 3.2-million-year-old Australopithecus afarensis skeleton found in Ethiopia 33 years ago – is the last ancestor common to humans and another branch of the great apes family known as the “Robust hominids.”

    You call this discussion? Again, this is all out refutation. You tell me I closed my eyes. Well, maybe it’s time you open yours.

  23. @krissmith:
    “There is a reason why academics don’t like it.”
    Not true. Me and most of my colleagues I know do like it.

    “Evolution cannot be observed or testes, so therefore it is not science. It does not even use the scientific method.”
    Nonsense. Evolution has been observed (the facts of evolution), and the theory of evolution has been tested. It is very much science, and *does* use the scientific method. Creationism does not use the scientific method, and is therefore not science.

    “That’s not arrogant. That’s the truth.”
    Well, QED, I’d say. To just say “That’s the truth” again is arrogant, especially if you have nothing to back it up.
    And you have not read the first lines of the wikipedia page, have you ? The whole notion of “transitional fossils” is explained there in great detail. You just ignore that.

    “so I gaurantee that will change.”
    Well, I’d say it won’t, but we’ll see, of course. Your “guarantee” again smacks of arrogance.

  24. @krissmith:
    *SOME* scientist have the opinion that they have refuted something, just like yourself. That does not mean that because one groups says this, it is the truth. Therefore, as long as there is no consensus *yet* these issues are still under discussion. That is what I said. This is not a closed topic. It might be in the future, but not yet.

    And even if two transitional fossils might be lost, there are still an aweful lot left!

    And all the DNA evidence, of course.

    Whatever happens with Homo Habilis, it will not effect the theory of evolution. Are you surprised that *some* of the details are changing over time ? I’m not.

  25. @krissmith:
    To cut the crap: WHY do you expect a scientific theory to be 100% complete and correct ? WHY should all the details be in place, such a short time after the theory was proposed ?

    And what is your alternative then ?

  26. “Not true. Me and most of my colleagues I know do like it.”

    Then they need to stop. Even Wikipedia’s founder says that Academics should not use it:

    Source: http://chronicle.com/wiredcampus/article/1328/wikipedia-founder-discourages-academic-use-of-his-creation

    “Nonsense. Evolution has been observed (the facts of evolution), and the theory of evolution has been tested. It is very much science, and *does* use the scientific method. Creationism does not use the scientific method, and is therefore not science.”

    Wrong! It has never been observed as it happens, therefore evolution cannot be said to be science.. But in order to salvage the theory, Richard Dawkins appeals to “circumstantial evidence.” — The problem with that is “circunstantial evidence” is subject to interpretation, and interpretation is subject to change.

    Oh, I know: “It takes millions of years.” — Translation: We cannot observe it. So my argument still stands.

    “Well, QED, I’d say. To just say “That’s the truth” again is arrogant, especially if you have nothing to back it up.”

    If telling the truth makes me arrogant, then I guess I’m arrogant.

    “Well, I’d say it won’t, but we’ll see, of course. Your “guarantee” again smacks of arrogance.”

    Thank you! I gladly accept the arrogant title, but only because your definition of arrogance means that I have told the truth, and nothing but the truth.

    The only reason most sources still recognize the fossils as transitions is because the discoveries I mentioned are relatively new, from 2006 and 2007. — So, I stick by my prediction for when newer editions of science text books get published.

    “SOME* scientist have the opinion that they have refuted something, just like yourself. That does not mean that because one groups says this, it is the truth. Therefore, as long as there is no consensus *yet* these issues are still under discussion. That is what I said. This is not a closed topic. It might be in the future, but not yet.”

    Actually, as far as homo habilis is concerned, it is
    becomming the concensus that it is not a link to homo sapiens.

    Quote:

    “Homo habilis was originally thought to be the ancestor to all later Homo. In a neat, linear progression, later species emerged resulting in what we call modern humans. This is now known not to be the case.”

    Link: http://anthropology.si.edu/humanorigins/ha/hab.html

    “This is now known not to be the case” is a pretty stong stamenet made by academic evolutionists. — Are you still certain the concensus still reflects the opposite?

    “And even if two transitional fossils might be lost, there are still an aweful lot left!”

    Actually, it isn’t just two that have been lost. There are many. For example there was Acheopteryx, the cealocanth, and homo erectus (which is arguable fully human).

    Besides, whether “fossils” make up an evolutionary link is based on the interpretation (which is always subject to change) of the fossil themselves, not on what is know to have happened.

    “And even if two transitional fossils might be lost, there are still an aweful lot left!

    And all the DNA evidence, of course.”

    Granted the DNA can be interprated that way, but it is not proof.

    The only thing similarities in DNA proves is that we are all orginisms that have certain genetic needs.

    A major cause for the similarity is the code: ATCG. — These are all building blocks that are necessary to live, so it is not at all surprising, even from a Creationist perspective, that there is a lot of similarity.

    Even to have food, there are common genetic needs that every species needs, so all it proves is that we are living organism, not necessarily that we all came from a single living cell.

    So, even though similarity can be interpreted as evidence for evolution, it is also consistent with a common designer using the same necessary building blocks, kind of like a mechanic designing different cars.

    Look here for a better discussion: http://creation.com/human/chimp-dna-similarity

    “To cut the crap: WHY do you expect a scientific theory to be 100% complete and correct ? WHY should all the details be in place, such a short time after the theory was proposed ?”

    I never said it had to be 100% complete to be correct. Don’t put words in my mouth.

  27. @krissmith777:
    “Then they need to stop.”
    Are you trying to censor people ? As I said in another post, wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not source material. You use it to find the sources, not as a source itself. That’s why a lot of people, including academics, do like it, as we like any kind of overview or review to get started. But the final word is with the scientific papers, obviously, which *do* get referenced on wikipedia.

    “It has never been observed as it happens”
    Yes, in the case of virusses. But in any case, is that needed ? Then I, as an astronomer, can quit my job straight away, as I have never seen galaxies forming (except in my computer). In the case of biology there is a *lot* one can read off from fossils and DNA, which is where you see how evolution has happened.
    Why do you insist on seeing this happening under your nose ? This would kill off most of science, and is a very limited view on how one can learn things.

    BTW: have you seen a creator yourself ? Have you seen the creation happening ? I guess not, so your whole creationist idea would have to be rejected by your own reasoning!

    “If telling the truth makes me arrogant, then I guess I’m arrogant.”
    I have nothing to add to that. I hope you are happy with your personal truth.

    “I never said it had to be 100% complete to be correct. Don’t put words in my mouth.”
    OK, so why are you homing in on the few things that are not well-established in the theory of evolution ? You simply ignore the majority of evidence for evolution, only mentioning some of the weaker bits (I’d say between 1 and 10 percent of the theory). That’s what prompted my question: you seem to want a 100% theory, not a 90% one. And that is something science usually cannot offer, even though one tries to get as close to the 100% as possible.

    As for the fossils, I would just had to repeat myself, so I will not do that here. You keep ignoring the large numbers of transitional fossils (which term in itself is not a very good one, as the wikipedia page explains, or Prothero’s book of course), whether you can or cannot remove 10 or so from the list.

    As for the DNA, read Sean B. Carroll’s book.
    You say: “The only thing similarities in DNA proves is that we are all orginisms that have certain genetic needs.”
    That is really closing your eyes. DNA evidence tells you so much more.
    Funny that you point to the creation.com website, which I’ve read quite a bit before. That really is a pure (and nasty) creationist site, with the infamous ‘statement of faith’. You cannot publish anything there that is in contradiction with scripture (i.e. some version of the bible). Now that is science ! Not.

  28. “Are you trying to censor people ?”

    Okay, now uyou’re playing around with my words. I’m a Libertarian, and therefore I’m against censurship. I was saying that even Wikipedia’s founder is does not recommnend it’s use, so it is better to just not use it.

    — Jeez, and evolutionists accuse creationists of “quote-miing.”

    “Yes, in the case of virusses. But in any case, is that needed ?”

    Okay, jow we’re getting somewhere. — That is a genetic loss, nd therefore it is not evidence of evolution because evolution requires “new information,” not less.

    Using this argument is like saying the Spaniards were more evolved than the Aztecs because the Aztecs didn’t have an immunity to Small-pox. It’s nonsense.

    “BTW: have you seen a creator yourself ? Have you seen the creation happening ? I guess not, so your whole creationist idea would have to be rejected by your own reasoning!”

    Your statement assumes I think Creationism is science. I never made that claim, nor do I think it is. So your argument is a moot strawman.

    “OK, so why are you homing in on the few things that are not well-established in the theory of evolution ?”

    Actually, what I am homming in on was supposedly “well-established.” — Until recently, it was well established that Lucy was our ancestor. Well, not anymore.

    “That is really closing your eyes. DNA evidence tells you so much more.
    Funny that you point to the creation.com website, which I’ve read quite a bit before. That really is a pure (and nasty) creationist site, with the infamous ’statement of faith’. “

    Interesting to note that you are not refuting what the link says. You are just resorting to an ad hominem attack by calling it “nasty.” — That shows that you either cannot refute it, or that you haven’t read it.

    So, you have no place to criticize me for closing my eyes because yours are closed.

  29. Oh no, my eyes are not closed at all. I have read their ‘statement of faith’.

    “so it is better to just not use it.” is not the same as “need to stop”, which is what you said before. But glad to hear you are against censorship. Shame you do not mind the ‘statement of faith’ on creation.com.

    “That is a genetic loss, and therefore it is not evidence of evolution because evolution requires “new information,” not less.”
    You have been reading creation.com, indeed, where they like this information stuff. Of course mutations can add information: see
    http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB102.html
    (I’m being lazy again, as this is an old argument from creationists).
    I do not get you Spaniards versus Aztecs argument.

    “Your statement assumes I think Creationism is science. I never made that claim, nor do I think it is. So your argument is a moot strawman.”
    Well, good to hear you at least accept that Creationism is not science. Michael thinks it is. Lots of people at http://www.creation.com claim it is. So my excuses for assuming you were thinking along the same lines, as you support both Michael and http://www.creation.com (CMI).
    But my argument was *not* a strawman. It was based on a false extrapolation, as explained.

    So Lucy might not be an ancestor anymore. It is still an hominin, but on a different place in the ‘ancestral tree’. That does not stop the theory of evolution from being well-established! That would only be true if the whole theory of evolution depended on ‘Lucy’, which of course it does not.

  30. Statements of faith do not have any weight in determining if an orgnization is trustworthy or not. This is irrelevant.

    “You have been reading creation.com, indeed, where they like this information stuff. Of course mutations can add information: see
    http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB102.html

    And here’s an answer to Talk.Origins’ “rebuttal”:

    http://creationwiki.org/CB102

    “Well, good to hear you at least accept that Creationism is not science. Michael thinks it is. Lots of people at http://www.creation.com claim it is. So my excuses for assuming you were thinking along the same lines, as you support both Michael and http://www.creation.com (CMI).”

    I cite the organization only because it’s usefull. I don’t have to agree with tevery “personal opinion” that every member has.

    As far as saying “God did it,” that is not scientific. But that doesn’t mean that other sorts of objections to evolution tht they raise aren’t potentially scientific either.

    “So Lucy might not be an ancestor anymore. It is still an hominin, but on a different place in the ‘ancestral tree’. That does not stop the theory of evolution from being well-established! That would only be true if the whole theory of evolution depended on ‘Lucy’, which of course it does not.”

    In and of itself, no it doesn’t disprove evolution. But it does show that claims that certain fossils are evolutionary links are based on interpretations.

  31. “Statements of faith do not have any weight in determining if an orgnization is trustworthy or not. This is irrelevant.”

    It is very relevant for a scientist. As that statement renders the whole organization unscientific (they are religious, clearly), as they do not follow the scientific method.

    ‘Trustworthyness’ is another issue, I did not raise that.

  32. Trustworthyness is important. I’ll give you that one.

    But you miss that we Christians have every motivation to be trust worthy, even Creationists that oppose evolution because lying hurts our relationship with God. Therefore “faith in God is a motivation to be honest, not dishonest.”

    “There are six things the LORD hates – no, seven things He detests: haughty eyes, a lying tongue, hands that kill the innocent, a heart that plots evil, feet that race to do wrong, a false witness who pours out lies, a person who sows discord among brothers.” (Proverbs 6:16-19)

    It’s one of Creation.com’s goals. Just because an organization is creationist, that doesn’t mean they deliberately distort the evidence.

    Granted there are irresponsible creationists, but in their page called “Arguments Creationists should not use” they list a lot of invalid claims that are freuently made that they say Creationists should not make anymore.

    The page is here: http://creation.com/arguments-we-think-creationists-should-not-use

    I’d say that stripping Creationists of past arguments that turned out to be false is a good sign of integrity.

  33. But the people at CMI (www.creation.com) are not as nice as you make them out to be. Have a look at:
    http://creation.com/darwinism-and-the-nazi-race-holocaust
    This really is a disgusting piece of argumentation, and very dishonest.

    I lost two family members myself to the nazis, and do not appreciate this linking of a scientific theory with nazism at all.
    “Social Darwinism” has NOTHING to do with Darwinism. This reasoning has been refuted many times over. See the usual sources (eg. http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CA/CA002_1.html and http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CA/CA006_1.html)

    There definitely is a very nasty side to this CMI organization, in my opinion.

  34. But the people at CMI (www.creation.com) are not as nice as you make them out to be. Have a look at:
    http://creation.com/darwinism-and-the-nazi-race-holocaust
    This really is a disgusting piece of argumentation, and very dishonest.

    I never said they were nice, I said they were honest.

    But the piece that ties Darwinism to Nazism it true, though politically incorrect. — But it is also true that Darwinisn need not have happened.

    Have you read Darwin’s second book “The Descent of Man”? — Logically, what Hitler did was perfecly Darwinian, though Darwin himself probably would not have condoned it.

    In the book, Darwin said:

    At some future period, not very distant as measured by centuries, the civilized races of man will almost certainly exterminate and replace the savage races throughout the world. At the same time the anthropomorphous apes… will no doubt be exterminated. The break between man and his nearest allies will then be wider, for it will intervene in a more civilised state, as we may hope, even than the Caucasian, and some ape as low as baboon, instead of as now between the negro or Australian and the gorilla.

    (This quote is taken from page 136. — The book can be read online here: http://books.google.com/books?id=iArG1dDytFAC&printsec=frontcover&dq=descent+of+man#)

    Darwin believed that the extermination of the “savage races” would be a step in the direction of evolution. — Natural Selection, survival of the fittest. — He applies that to human beings to.

    This was Hitler’s justification for killing blacks, Jews and the genetically sick because he saw them as slowing down of evolution.

    In answer to the first Talk.Origins link, all I can say is that it’s wording on the “Creqationist Claim” is inaccurate. “Actually the correct wording of this claim is that social Darwinism, the policy that the weak should be allowed to fail and die, comes logically out of Darwinism.” (http://creationwiki.org/CA002.1)

    It comes LOGICALLY from Darwin. It ISN’T that it had to come from Darwin.

    I cannot cut and paste the response to the second rebuttal to Talk.Origins because it is long, but here is the link:

    http://creationwiki.org/CA006.1

  35. “But the piece that ties Darwinism to Nazism it true, though politically incorrect. — But it is also true that Darwinisn need not have happened.”

    No, it is not true. It is wrong, and disgusting. I’m not repeating the rebuttal here. And I do not care about political correctness, I care about correctness.

    How can you say “Darwinism need not have happened” ?
    Gravity need not have happened ? Electromagnetism need not have happened ? How can you say that a scientific theory “need not have happened” ? I cannot follow your logic or reasoning.

    “It comes LOGICALLY from Darwin. It ISN’T that it had to come from Darwin.”

    No it does not. No moral system can be derived from any scientific theory, including evolution. The notion alone is ludicrous. Even *if* Hitler would have *said* that he based his genocide on the theory of evolution (which he did not ! The nazis rejected Darwinism, and actually banned books on Darwinism: see http://pandasthumb.org/archives/2006/10/from-darwin-to-2.html), this would not mean one actually does follows from the other. Was Hitler a brilliant thinker, a scientist ? I’d say not.

    If you are saying that if biologists find that evolution happened this means one can therefore start killing and raping, I have to give up on you altogether. Again, this idea is completely ludicrous.

    Try the same argument with nuclear physics and nuclear weapons. The fact that because physicists have figured out that a lot of energy can be released in a very short time from uranium does not mean one can therefore happily start nuking people !
    A moral comes from human beings, not scientific theories. The latter describe nature, without any moral implications. I does not state that any species is ‘better’ than any other species, for example. It also does not state that one should start killing lots of people.

  36. How can you say “Darwinism need not have happened” ?
    Gravity need not have happened ? Electromagnetism need not have happened ? How can you say that a scientific theory “need not have happened” ? I cannot follow your logic or reasoning.

    I misspoke. I meant that the attrocitied done in Darwin’s name didn’t have to happen.

    But comparing Darwinism to gravity and electromagnitism is a slippery slope.

    Gravity is observable. and so is electromagnetism. — And both are easily testable. Evolution is not.

    But even my mistatement is true. It is a fact that Evolution never happened.

    “No it does not. No moral system can be derived from any scientific theory, including evolution. The notion alone is ludicrous.”

    Ah, yes, it does. Again, nobody is saying that Darwinism actually promotes Social-Darwinism, racism or eugenics.
    That is a strawman. All I (and the CMI page) say is that it offers a logical justification. — I even quoted Darwin himself to prove my point.

    I’ll repete the quote just so you can get that fact ingrained:

    “At some future period, not very distant as measured by centuries, the civilized races of man will almost certainly exterminate and replace the savage races throughout the world. At the same time the anthropomorphous apes… will no doubt be exterminated. The break between man and his nearest allies will then be wider, for it will intervene in a more civilised state, as we may hope, even than the Caucasian, and some ape as low as baboon, instead of as now between the negro or Australian and the gorilla.”

    He predicts the eradication of “savege races” which should drive evolution. — If that doesn’t offer an implied justification, I don’t know what does.

    Nobody is saying that it necessarily leads to social Darwinism because it doesn’t, but it leaves an implied justification for it. — That is an indesputable fact.

    “The nazis rejected Darwinism, and actually banned books on Darwinism:”

    I just got the Panda’s Thumb’s source re-translated. It says:

    Writings of ideological and lebenskundlichen of character whose contents the incorrect scientific clarification of a primitive Darwinismus and Monismus is (Häckel).

    It says they banned the incorrect, primitive works of Hackel which were already ourdated by 1935 standards, not all pro-Darwinian books. There is a difference.

    The Panda’s Thumb also claims that the Nazi’s banned writtings that “belittle or besmirch the Christian religion.” — Whether this is true or not, I cannot say. But even if it is, newly discovered documents show that Hitler had every intention of destroying Christianity:

    Link: http://www.papillonsartpalace.com/endC.htm

    Considering the fact that Hitler planned the destruction of Christianity, and also assuming that he banned anti-Christian writtings which is contradictory, — I wouldn’t put it passed him to believe in evolution and yet ban some of the most promitive Darwinian writtings.
    — It would just show that the guy was irrational and self-contradicting.

    As a matter of fact, the British evolutionist Sir Arthur Keith in his 1947 book confirms that Hitler WAS an evolutionist

    The leader of Germany is an evolutionist not only in theory, but, as millions know to their cost, in the rigor of its practice. (Evolution and Ethics p.10)

    And only 4 pages later (on page 14) he says:

    “The German Führer is an evolutionist; he has consciously sought to make the practice of Germany conform to the theory of evolution”

    “A moral comes from human beings, not scientific theories.”

    If evolution is true, then who can say that Hitler was wrong or immoral (even if Hitler wasn’t an evolutionist). All he would have been doing would have contributed to “Natural Selection.” Don’t tell me you forgot what natural selection includes. — Even if Hitler wasn’t an evolutionist, he was still trying to erradicate the races which Darwin happened to believe were “lesser.” IF Evolution is true, then driving it would be a good thing to just let it take its course.

    “It also does not state that one should start killing lots of people.”

    It doesn’t say it outright, but go back to what Darwin said. He predicts that certain races will be eradicated to drive evolution.

  37. @krissmith777:
    There were no atrocities done “in Darwin’s name”. That is complete nonsense.

    I’m giving up on you now. Natural selection is just that, natural selection. Do you think mass killings are natural ? That has nothing to do with biological evolution, but are purposeful (which evolution is NOT) and unnatural (which evolution is NOT).

    AGAIN: No moral system can be derived from any scientific theory, including evolution.

    Comparing evolution to gravity is NOT a slippery slope. Both are perfectly fine examples of scientific theories that work fairly well.

    “Gravity is observable. and so is electromagnetism. — And both are easily testable. Evolution is not.”
    Wrong. Evolution is testable, and observed. And gravity is not that easily testable, not Einstein’s theory of gravity. Gravitational waves are still not detected !!

  38. “Comparing evolution to gravity is NOT a slippery slope. Both are perfectly fine examples of scientific theories that work fairly well.”

    Yes, it is, and even Sr. Issac Newton would agree. There is not one example of an an observation of one kind of animal being transformed into another. — IF thehyr are still the same kind when all is said and done, then true evolution has never been observed.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s