Creation & EvolutionForum for the discussion of this important topic. This forum is open to non-believers. There is a Christians-only forum in the Christians-only section too.
You might want to peruse the following article by Glenn Morton that shows that this wishful thinking is over a century old. Here are a few samples of predictions of the demise of evolution:
"Today, at the dawn of the new century, nothing is more certain than that Darwinism has lost its prestige among men of science. It has seen its day and will soon be reckoned a thing of the past. A few decades hence when people will look back upon the history of the doctrine of Descent, they will confess that the years between 1860 and 1880 were in many respects a time of carnival; and the enthusiasm which at that time took possession of the devotees of natural science will appear to them as the excitement attending some mad revel." Eberhard Dennert, At the Deathbed of Darwinism, 1904, cited by Ronald L. Numbers, Creationism In Twentieth-Century America: A Ten-Volume Anthology of Documents, 1903-1961 (New York & London, Garland Publishing, 1995).
"The science of twenty or thirty years ago was in high glee at the thought of having almost proved the theory of biological evolution. Today, for every careful, candid inquirer, these hopes are crushed; and with weary, reluctant sadness does modern biology now confess that the Church has probably been right all the time" - George McCready Price, quoted in J. E. Conant’s The Church The Schools And Evolution (1922), p.18
The world has had enough of evolution … In the future, evolution will be remembered only as the crowning deception which the arch-enemy of human souls foisted upon the race in his attempt to lead man away from the Savior. The Science of the future will be creationism. As the ages roll by, the mysteries of creation week will be cleared up, and as we have learned to read the secrets of creative power in the lives of animals and plants about us, we shall understand much that our dim senses cannot now fathom. If we hope to continue scientific study in the laboratories and fields of the earth restored, we must begin to get the lessons of truth now. The time is ripe for a rebellion against the dominion of evolution, and for a return to the fundamentals of true science," Back To Creationism. - Harold W. Clark (1929) Back To Creationism,p. 139
__________________ Creationism has not made a single contribution to agriculture, medicine, conservation, forestry, pathology, or any other applied area of biology. Creationism has yielded no classifications, no biogeographies, no underlying mechanisms, no unifying concepts with which to study organisms or life. - Botanical Society of America's Statement on Evolution
Last edited by Pete Harcoff; 28th November 2003 at 01:35 AM.
And while falsifying the Theory of Evolution doesn't make creation by the God of the Bible the only possibility, it does make a literal Genesis more likely.
Not really. Genesis as literal history was falsified by geology before evolution was on anyone's radar screen.
The only way a literal Genesis could possibly be true is if God went way out of His way to make it look like He didn't create via a literal Genesis. But that's theological/philosophical problem, not a scientific one.
__________________ Creationism has not made a single contribution to agriculture, medicine, conservation, forestry, pathology, or any other applied area of biology. Creationism has yielded no classifications, no biogeographies, no underlying mechanisms, no unifying concepts with which to study organisms or life. - Botanical Society of America's Statement on Evolution
Anyway, I'm off to bed now. I'm sure someone else will pick apart the rest of that post.
__________________ Creationism has not made a single contribution to agriculture, medicine, conservation, forestry, pathology, or any other applied area of biology. Creationism has yielded no classifications, no biogeographies, no underlying mechanisms, no unifying concepts with which to study organisms or life. - Botanical Society of America's Statement on Evolution
Last edited by Pete Harcoff; 28th November 2003 at 01:57 AM.
"Many leading scientists have abandoned evolution because it just doesn't work. There is absolutely no evidence of "adding information" in genetics."
Maybe you can give us their names.
Then I have two questions about them,
1) How many are biologists, the field which evolution is in?
2) How many abandoned evolution based on evidence alone?
Pete addresed the other claim.
"All scientists can rely on is "entropy," i.e., degeneration. As a result numerous leading scientists and biologists are embracing a new movement in science called Intelligent Design. As a result these scientists have performed numerous experiments falsifying evolution."
I hope this isn't "entropy" as in the missrepresented and misunderstood version that creationists pretend stops evolution.
The irony here is that YEC often hate IDists more than they hate Evolutionists. Most IDist misunderstand evolution like you have, so they have only succefully burned strawmen, leaving the real theory untouched.
"And Mendelian genetics reveals barriers to upward change that Darwin was unaware of. "
maybe you can post some papers about this, as I have yet to hear of a truthful mechanism that prevents evolution.
* 4.5 billion years is not long enough to make the evolution of even the simplest one-celled organism likely, even under unrealistically favorable conditions.
Last time I checked, a mutation in a gene can happen within 1 generation. Now in 4.5 BILLION YEARS I'm sure quite a few organisms and generations of organisms have come and gone and passed on mutated genes, which will continue to happen.
Originally Posted by Calvin
* The virtual absence in the fossil record of the countless close intermediate varieties that must have existed if the Theory of Evolution is true.
Someone hasnt been watching enough Discovery Channel. Shame on you.
Last edited by Charles Darwin; 28th November 2003 at 02:31 AM.
That is not true. Many leading scientists have abandoned evolution because it just doesn't work
And they are not the scientists you quote there. Doesn't that set alarm bells ringing? "Many leading scientists" makes it sound like a mass exodus, and is dishonest. FACT - less than half of a percent of scientists in the USA accept creationism, and you know it. Wishful thinking in creationists has predicted the demise of evolution at regular intervals throughout the 20th century and they have all been wrong. It's stronger than ever.
There is absolutely no evidence of "adding information" in genetics.
Utter ****. You've had links to evidence posted to you since you posted this, so I expect you will retract this utterly false information, and start asking yourself why you listen to the liars who told you this.
All scientists can rely on is "entropy," i.e., degeneration.
Bovine egesta. Scientists can rely on many physical phenomena.
As a result numerous leading scientists and biologists are embracing a new movement in science called Intelligent Design.
I tiny, tiny, religiously motivated movement with virtually no adherents outside of the USA. Name these "leading scientists". Why are Behe and Dembski "leading scientists"?
As a result these scientists have performed numerous experiments falsifying evolution.
Then they should publish in Nature. Heck, I'd settle for you explaining )with references) one of these experiments and how it falsifies evolution here.
And while falsifying the Theory of Evolution doesn't make creation by the God of the Bible the only possibility, it does make a literal Genesis more likely.
And anyway, the God of the Bible did create the universe. Evolution sits perfectly happily with that idea. I think you're wasting your time.
Darwin based his theory on assumptions about where variation comes from and how it is inherited that were prevalent during his lifetime, assumptions that have long since been discredited. And Mendelian genetics reveals barriers to upward change that Darwin was unaware of.
No it doesn't. Your assertion doesn't make it so. Can you explain clearly why you think it does - it's clearly something 99.5% of working geneticists have completely missed.
Intelligent Design scientists have concluded that Intelligent Design is the best explanation for the presence of life on this planet for the following reasons:
* There is tendency to degenerate in higher plants and animals, with enough genes and a high enough mutation rate.
That's where NS is involved.
* Even for bacteria with few genes and no degeneration, natural selection can't favor the harmful or nonfunctional steps between two unrelated proteins needed to bridge the gap.
Ah. Irreducible complexity. There are no non-functional steps. NB - intermediate function does not have to be the same as final function. Our ear bones are derived from jawbones in reptiles, for example. If you're thinking of Behe's blood clotting cascade, then Ken Miller (one of those evil atheists - oops, wrong, he's a Roman Catholic) explains exactly how Doolittle's work on the evolution of the cascade shows Behe to be wrong in his book Finding Darwin's God, which I cannot recommend too highly.
* 4.5 billion years is not long enough to make the evolution of even the simplest one-celled organism likely, even under unrealistically favorable conditions.
Ah. This sounds like a mathematical calculation. Please provide the maths.
* The lack of examples of evolution during recorded history that require new genes for unrelated proteins to explain them.
Sorry - don't get this one at all. Can you elaborate?
* The virtual absence in the fossil record of the countless close intermediate varieties that must have existed if the Theory of Evolution is true.
Your problem is that it's only virtual. If evolution is false there should be no intermediates. If God made reptiles and mammals, why create a therapsid series to make it look like one evolved from the other?
* Examples of complexity that can't be explained by natural selection acting on a series of point mutations etc.
Example required.
This is a very important scientific movement today. By eliminating bias and hatred out of the lab and embracing all idea's and presuppositions, scientists can now work freely to let the facts speak for themselves instead of constantly trying to prove a theory that has proven to be completely unreliable.
No it is not a 'very important scientific movement'. It's a tiny band of religiously motivated individuals of little or no relevance to the scientific community at large which outnumbers it hundreds fold. And half its members are theistic evolutionists anyway - Behe is.
__________________ I take a stand on justice, I take a stand on race Gonna take me a TV evangelist and punch him in the face I sing about the hope that’s in me and ask why the poor aren’t fed But if I don’t tow the party line, it’s be better if I were dead
I’m a liberal backslider I’ve been sliding ‘bout ten years
People ask me how I’m doin’ and I confirm all their fears I’m swearing like a trooper, and I’m drinking like a bum
I'm a liberal backslider, and it sure is a lot of fun
Calvin, would you like to edit your post to reflect the actual source of that material, or shall I report your plagiarism to the moderators?
It seems to me that plagiarism can never be accidental, and as such, there's no point in not reporting it. Just remember to include the correct source with the report so the mods can verify it.
__________________ Save me / And when you see me strut / Remind me of what left this outlaw torn I follow Christ; therefore I am To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts. . I affirm the Nicene Creed.
For I am persuaded, that neither death, nor life, nor angels, nor principalities, nor powers, nor things present, nor things to come, Nor height, nor depth, nor any other creature, shall be able to separate us from the love of God, which is in Christ Jesus our Lord. -- Romans 8:38-39
I can only post so much in one post! Geeesh...relax a little bit!
Boy, why all the strong words and attacks on me? Listen, we have all
been caught believing in fairy tales and I don't blame you for getting
mad. But don't get mad at me...get mad at all those professors and
educators who "hoodwinked" you all these years. They truly deserve your
wrath!
The following is a list of leading scientists featured in the recent
book: "In Six Days Why Fifty Scientists Choose to Believe in Creation:"
Agricultural Science
Don Batten, PhD
Architectural Engineering
Stanley A Mumma, PhD
Biology
Jerry R Bergman, PhD
Wayne Friar, PhD
Arthur Jones, PhD
Ariel A Roth, PhD
Timothy G Standish, PhD
Henry Zuill, PhD
Botany
George F Howe, PhD
Nancy M Darrall, PhD
Chemistry
J H John Peet, PhD
Biochemistry
D B Gower, DSc
Bob Hosken, PhD
George Javor, PhD
John K G Kramer, PhD
John P Marcus, PhD
Inorganic Chemistry
Stephen Grocott, PhD
Organic Chemistry
Dwain L Ford, PhD
Physical Chemistry
Sid Cole, PhD
Jonathan D Sarfati, PhD
A J Monty White, PhD
Theoretical Chemistry
Edward A Boudreaux, PhD
Electrical Engineering
Stephen Taylor, PhD
Forestry Research
Geoff Downes, PhD
Genetics
James S Allan, PhD
Geography
Colin W Mitchell, PhD
Geological Engineering
John Morris, PhD
Geology
Elaine Kennedy, PhD
Andrew Snelling, PhD
Kurt P Wise, PhD
Geophysics
John R Baumgardner, PhD
Ker C Thomson, DSc
Horticultural Science
Angela Meyer, PhD
Hydrometallurgy
Evan Jamieson, PhD
Information Science
Werner Gitt, PhD
Mathematical Physics
John R Rankin, PhD
Mathematics
Andrew McIntosh, DSc
Mechanical Engineering
John M Cimbala, PhD
Jeremy L Walter, PhD
Medical Physics
E Theo Agard, PhD
Medical Research
Robert H Eckel, MD
Paul Giem, MD
Meteorology
George S Hawke, PhD
Edmond W Holroyd, PhD
Larry Vardiman, PhD
Orthodontics
Jack Cuozzo, MS
Physics
Don B DeYoung, PhD
Keith H Wanser, PhD
Nuclear Physics
Ben Clausen, PhD
Zoology
Walter J Veith, PhD
The following is a review of this book I picked-up from the Barnes and
Noble website for your review.
A reviewer, a Molecular Biology Professor, March 12, 2001, FIVE STARS
Must Reading for all persons interested in evolution
In six days includes a collection of articles by 50 Ph.D. level
scientists on why they have rejected evolution and accepted the
creationism world view. According to various polls including Gallop,
over 100,000 scientists are creationists, and many live in the US and
Europe. How the 50 were selected is not known, but many are active in
the Creation movement. One of the most important parts of the book is
the telling by many of the scientists of their journey from evolutionism
to creationism and/or why they rejected evolutionism and accepted
creationism. For example, Dr. Standish, now a University level biology
professor, when he was working on his Ph.D. in biology at George Mason
University, was required to read Dawkin's book, The Blind Watchmaker, as
part of his graduate level evolution class. He then discusses his
research on Dawkins ideas and why he found them untenable. This picked
my interest because Dawkins book seems to have converted many
evolutionists to creationists, including one of the most visible
creationists today, Professor Phillip Johnson of University of
California, Berkeley. Many of the authors spent years examining the
issue, and only after much study did they reject evolutionism. Of course
many scientists reject evolutionism, but not all of these become
creationists. The problem is most of the material presented in college
classes today is proevolutionism, and one must dig on one's own to learn
about the other side. Educated creationists know the evolutionism side
very well, but few evolutionists know much about the creationism side.
This book will help to remedy this situation.
Linear Mode
