Atheism vs. Christian

[PaulA135711]

Noted evolutionist and Stephen Gould, who held a agnostic worldview[63] and promoted the notion of non-overlapping magesteria, wrote the following regarding Ernst Haeckel's work in a March 2000 issue of Natural History:
“ "Haeckel’s forceful, eminently comprehensible, if not always accurate, books appeared in all major languages and surely exerted more influence than the works of any other scientist, including Darwin…in convincing people throughout the world about the validity of evolution... Haeckel had exaggerated the similarities [between embryos of different species] by idealizations and omissions. He also, in some cases — in a procedure that can only be called fraudulent — simply copied the same figure over and over again.…Haeckel’s drawings never fooled expert embryologists, who recognized his fudgings right from the start. Haeckel’s drawings, despite their noted inaccuracies, entered into the most impenetrable and permanent of all quasi-scientific literatures: standard student textbooks of biology... Once ensconced in textbooks, misinformation becomes cocooned and effectively permanent, because…textbooks copy from previous texts.... [W]e do, I think, have the right to be both astonished and ashamed by the century of mindless recycling that has led to the persistence of these drawings in a large number, if not a majority, of modern textbooks!"[64] ”

An irony of history is that the March 9, 1907 edition of the NY Times refers to Ernst Haeckel as the "celebrated Darwinian and founder of the Association for the Propagation of Ethical Atheism."[65]

Stephen Gould continues by quoting Michael Richardson of the St. George’s Hospital Medical School in London, who stated: "I know of at least fifty recent biology texts which use the drawings uncritically".[64]

 

[PaulA135711]

David Raup, who was the curator of geology at the museum holding the world's largest fossil collection, the Field Museum of Natural History in Chicago, observed:
“ "[Darwin] was embarrassed by the fossil record because it didn't look the way he predicted it would .... Well, we are now about 120 years after Darwin, and knowledge of the fossil record has been greatly expanded. We now have a quarter of a million fossil species but the situation hasn't changed much. ... [W]e have even fewer examples of evolutionary transition than we had in Darwin's time." - David M. Raup, "Conflicts Between Darwin and Paleontology," Field Museum of Natural History Bulletin 50 (January 1979): 22-23, 24-25.

 

[PaulA135711]

Dr. David Pilbeam is a paleoanthropologist who received his Ph.D. at Yale University and Dr. Pilbeam is presently Professor of Social Sciences at Harvard University and Curator of Paleontology at the Peabody Museum of Archaeology and Ethnology. In addition, Dr. Pilbeam served as an advisor for the Kenya government regarding the creation of an international institute for the study of human origins.[83]

Dr. Pilbeam wrote a review of Richard Leakey's book Origins in the journal American Scientist:
“ ...perhaps generations of students of human evolution, including myself, have been flailing about in the dark; that our data base is too sparse, too slippery, for it to be able to mold our theories. Rather the theories are more statements about us and ideology than about the past. Paleoanthropology reveals more about how humans view themselves than it does about how humans came about. But that is heresy.[84] ”

Dr. Pilbeam wrote the following regarding the theory of evolution and paleoanthropology:
“ I am also aware of the fact that, at least in my own subject of paleoanthropology, "theory" - heavily influenced by implicit ideas almost always dominates "data". ....Ideas that are totally unrelated to actual fossils have dominated theory building, which in turn strongly influence the way fossils are interpreted.[84] ”

Evolutionist and Harvard professor Richard Lewontin wrote in 1995 that "Despite the excited and optimistic claims that have been made by some paleontologists, no fossil hominid species can be established as our direct ancestor...."[85] In the September 2005 issue of National Geographic, Joel Achenbach asserted that human evolution is a "fact" but he also candidly admitted that the field of paleoanthropology "has again become a rather glorious mess."[86][87] In the same National Geographic article Harvard paleoanthropologist Dan Lieberman states, "We're not doing a very good job of being honest about what we don't know...".[87]

Concerning pictures of the supposed ancestors of man featured in science journals and the news media Boyce Rensberger wrote in the journal Science the following regarding their highly speculative nature:
“ Unfortunately, the vast majority of artist's conceptions are based more on imagination than on evidence. But a handful of expert natural-history artists begin with the fossil bones of a hominid and work from there…. Much of the reconstruction, however, is guesswork. Bones say nothing about the fleshy parts of the nose, lips, or ears. Artists must create something between an ape and a human being; the older the specimen is said to be, the more apelike they make it.... Hairiness is a matter of pure conjecture"

 

[durangodawood]

Dr. David Pilbeam is a paleoanthropologist who received his Ph.D. at Yale University and Dr. Pilbeam is presently Professor of Social Sciences at Harvard University and Curator of Paleontology at the Peabody Museum of Archaeology and Ethnology. In addition, Dr. Pilbeam served as an advisor for the Kenya government regarding the creation of an international institute for the study of human origins.[83]

Dr. Pilbeam wrote a review of Richard Leakey's book Origins in the journal American Scientist:
“ ...perhaps generations of students of human evolution, including myself, have been flailing about in the dark; that our data base is too sparse, too slippery, for it to be able to mold our theories. Rather the theories are more statements about us and ideology than about the past. Paleoanthropology reveals more about how humans view themselves than it does about how humans came about. But that is heresy.[84] ”

Dr. Pilbeam wrote the following regarding the theory of evolution and paleoanthropology:
“ I am also aware of the fact that, at least in my own subject of paleoanthropology, "theory" - heavily influenced by implicit ideas almost always dominates "data". ....Ideas that are totally unrelated to actual fossils have dominated theory building, which in turn strongly influence the way fossils are interpreted.[84] ”

Evolutionist and Harvard professor Richard Lewontin wrote in 1995 that "Despite the excited and optimistic claims that have been made by some paleontologists, no fossil hominid species can be established as our direct ancestor...."[85] In the September 2005 issue of National Geographic, Joel Achenbach asserted that human evolution is a "fact" but he also candidly admitted that the field of paleoanthropology "has again become a rather glorious mess."[86][87] In the same National Geographic article Harvard paleoanthropologist Dan Lieberman states, "We're not doing a very good job of being honest about what we don't know...".[87]

Concerning pictures of the supposed ancestors of man featured in science journals and the news media Boyce Rensberger wrote in the journal Science the following regarding their highly speculative nature:
“ Unfortunately, the vast majority of artist's conceptions are based more on imagination than on evidence. But a handful of expert natural-history artists begin with the fossil bones of a hominid and work from there…. Much of the reconstruction, however, is guesswork. Bones say nothing about the fleshy parts of the nose, lips, or ears. Artists must create something between an ape and a human being; the older the specimen is said to be, the more apelike they make it.... Hairiness is a matter of pure conjecture"

Do you suspect that Dr. Pilbeam doubts for one second the idea that humans evolved from ancient hominids???

 

[PaulA135711]

Do you suspect that Dr. Pilbeam doubts for one second the idea that humans evolved from ancient hominids???

I think he may have doubts which last for FAR MORE than one second.

4 points:

1. Many prominent creationists used to be evolutionists.

2. One of the world's leading atheist Anthony Flew converted to theism and the origin of life issue played a paramount role.

3. The fossil record shows more of a creationist bent now then at the time of Darwin. It becomes more and more embarrassing for evolutionists when more and more fossils are found and the fossil record still shows creationism.

"Fossil evidence of human evolutionary history is fragmentary and open to various interpretations. Fossil evidence of chimpanzee evolution is absent altogether". Henry Gee, “Return to the Planet of the Apes,” Nature, Vol. 412, 12 July 2001, p. 131

Evolutionist and Harvard professor Richard Lewontin wrote in 1995 that "Despite the excited and optimistic claims that have been made by some paleontologists, no fossil hominid species can be established as our direct ancestor....

In 1981, there were at least a hundred million fossils that were catalogued and identified in the world's museums.[18] Despite the large number of fossils available to scientists in 1981, evolutionist Mark Ridley, who currently serves as a professor of zoology at Oxford University, was forced to confess: "In any case, no real evolutionist, whether gradualist or punctuationist, uses the fossil record as evidence in favour of the theory of evolution as opposed to special creation."

"We then move right off the register of objective truth into those fields of presumed biological science, like extrasensory perception or the interpretation of man's fossil history, where to the faithful anything is possible - and where the ardent believer is sometimes able to believe several contradictory things at the same time." - Lord Solly Zuckerman (professor of anatomy at Birmingham University in England and chief scientific adviser to the British government from the time period of 1964 to 1971), Beyond The Ivory Tower, Toplinger Publications, New York, 1970, p. 19

"...I still think that to the unprejudiced, the fossil record of plants is in favour of special creation. - E.J.H. Corner (Professor of Botany, Cambridge University, England), “Evolution” in Anna M. MacLeod and L. S. Cobley (eds.), Contemporary Botanical Thought (Chicago: Quadrangle Books, 1961), p. 97

4. Charles Darwin often had overwhelming doubts about whether evolution happened even in his old age.

In 1885, the Duke of Argyll recounted a conversation he had had with Charles Darwin the year before Darwin's death:

In the course of that conversation I said to Mr. Darwin, with reference to some of his own remarkable works on the Fertilisation of Orchids, and upon The Earthworms, and various other observations he made of the wonderful contrivances for certain purposes in nature—I said it was impossible to look at these without seeing that they were the effect and the expression of Mind. I shall never forget Mr. Darwin's answer. He looked at me very hard and said, “Well, that often comes over me with overwhelming force; but at other times,” and he shook his head vaguely, adding, “it seems to go away.”(Argyll 1885, 244] [21]

 

[KCfromNC]

I think has he doubts which last for FAR MORE than one second.

Gold star for you. Any reason the rest of us should think your thoughts represent reality?

1. Many prominent creationists used to be evolutionists.

How many? Can you copy from a creationist web site, uh, I mean name, say, 50 of them? And can you give a list of some of their peer-reviewed publications describing the scientific research they're doing in creationist fields?

2. One of the world's leading atheist Anthony Flew converted to theism and the origin of life issue played a paramount role.

Are you promoting the beliefs he converted to, or are you going to remain Christian?

3. The fossil record shows more of a creationist bent now then at the time of Darwin. It becomes more and more embarrassing for evolutionists when more and more fossils are found and the fossil record still shows creationism.

Funny how this is a mix of quotes saying nothing about creationism and a few quotes from the 1960s. You'd think if this was a mainstream view there'd be no problem finding quotes less than 2 generations old.

4. Charles Darwin often had overwhelming doubts about whether evolution happened even in his old age.

Oh well, no one's perfect.

 

[PaulA135711]

Fossil evidence of chimpanzee evolution is absent altogether". Henry Gee, “Return to the Planet of the Apes,” Nature, Vol. 412, 12 July 2001, p. 131

in 1981, evolutionist Mark Ridley, who currently serves as a professor of zoology at Oxford University, was forced to confess: "In any case, no real evolutionist, whether gradualist or punctuationist, uses the fossil record as evidence in favour of the theory of evolution as opposed to special creation." - Mark Ridley, 'Who doubts evolution?', New Scientist, vol. 90, 25 June 1981, p. 831

 

[durangodawood]

I think he may have doubts which last for FAR MORE than one second.....

You are speculating about him, based on doubts about specific issues within the framework of hominid evolution.

Meanwhile, here's what he writes:

After a century and a half of controversy, the evolutionary relationships of the few surviving hominoid species are well established through abundant genetic analyses of these living species. Humans are closest relatives of the two chimpanzee species, while the African gorillas (which resemble chimps closely and look in many ways like enlarged versions of their smaller African cousins) are more distantly related. The large Asian orangutan is still further removed, while the small and acrobatic Asian gibbons are the most distantly related of all the hominoids. It is now believed that these living hominoids share a common ancestor that lived over 20 million years ago. Although these relationships are now very widely (though not quite universally) accepted, almost every possible combination of relationships among the species had been proposed over the past century.
http://www.uprightape.net/PilbeamForeword.html

Clearly this man is totally convinced by the evidence for hominid evolution generally.

I'll bet most of your quote mining will meet the same fate if similarly exposed.
Once is enough for me to see what you are up too here.
Falseness through and through.

 

[bhsmte]

Hilarious stuff!

 

[twob4me]

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~MOD HAT ON!!~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

The following is listed in the Philosophy Statement of Purpose (SoP)

General Apologetics is not permitted anywhere on CF.

Because of the above SoP rule this thread is being closed permanently.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~MOD HAT OFF!!~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~