• Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.

Evolution As Science? Really...?

Edmond

Well-Known Member
May 13, 2005
1,787
29
USA
✟2,109.00
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Single
- Francis Crick, Nobel Prize recipient for discovery of DNA structure: "Every time I write a paper on the origin of life, I determine I will never write another one, because there is too much speculation running after too few facts." (_Life Itself_, p.153)

- G.A. Kerkut, biochemistry professor at the University of Southampton: "The philosophy of evolution is based upon assumptions that cannot be scientifically verified... Whatever evidence can be assembled for evolution is both limited and circumstantial in nature." (cited in _Biology_, Keith Graham et al, p.363)

- Louis Agassiz, Harvard professor, pioneer in glaciation: "The theory of evolution is a scientific mistake." (cited in H. Enoch, _Evolution or Creation_, p.139)

- H. Lipson, physicist: "In fact, evolution became in a sense a scientific religion; almost all scientists have accepted it and many are prepared to 'bend' their observations to fit in with it.... To my mind, the theory does not stand up at all... I know that [considering creation theory] is anathema to physicists, as indeed it is to me, but we must not reject a theory that we do not like if the experimental evidence supports it." ("A Physicist Looks at Evolution", _Physics Bulletin_, 1980, p.138)

- Pierre-Paul Grasse, past President of the French Academie des Sciences, Editor of the 35-volume _Traite de Zoologie_:"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 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."

- Steven Jay Gould, paleontologist: "I regard the failure to find a clear 'vector of progress' in life's history as the most puzzling fact of the fossil record... We have sought to impose a pattern that we hoped to find on a world that does not really display it." ("The Ediacaran Experiment", _Natural History_, Feb 1984)

- Art Battson, professor, University of CA - Berkley: "We must bear in mind that just because neo-Darwinian evolution is the most plausible naturalistic explanation of origins, we should not assume that it is necessarily true.... In retrospect, it seems as though Darwinists have been less concerned with the scientific question of accurately explaining the empirical data of natural history, and more concerned with the religious or philosophical question of explaining the design found in nature without a designer. Darwin's general theory of evolution may, in the final analysis, be little more than an unwarranted extrapolation from microevolution based more upon philosophy than fact. The problem is that Darwinism continues to distort natural science." ("Facts, Fossils, and Philosophy", 17 May 1997)


- Dr. Colin Patterson, paleontologist at the British Museum of Natural History: "The explanatory value of the hypothesis of common ancestry is nil... I feel that the effects of the hypotheses of common ancestry in systematics has not been merely boring, not just a lack of knowledge, I think it has been positively anti-knowledge... Well, we're back to the question I've been putting to people: 'Is there one thing you can tell me about evolution?' The absence of answers seems to suggest that it is true: evolution does not convey any knowledge, or if so, I haven't yet heard it." (from speech at the American Museum of Natural History, NYC, Nov 5, 1981)

- John Ambrose Fleming, President British Assoc. for Advancement of Science: "Evolution is baseless and quite incredible." (_The Unleashing of Evolutionary Thought_)

- Steven Jay Gould, paleontologist: "The extreme rarity of transitional forms in the fossil record persists is the trade secret of paleontology... In any local area, a species does not arise gradually by the steady transformation of its ansectors; it appears all at once and fully formed." ("Evolution's Erratic Pace", _Natural History_, May 1977)



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

EvoDan

Senior Member
Sep 22, 2005
756
55
Auburn, California
✟23,693.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Democrat

I'll just cherry-pick the first one...

The Theory of Evolution has nothing to do with the origin of life.

Sp-gh-tti bless.
 
Upvote 0

notto

Legend
May 31, 2002
11,130
664
55
Visit site
✟29,869.00
Faith
United Ch. of Christ
I love quote mines. William Dembski, the poster boy for ID, thinks YEC is unconvincing. How could such a brilliant design theorist get such a thing like that wrong?

I find the arguments of geologists persuasive when they argue for an earth that is 4.5 billion years old. What's more, I find the arguments of astrophysicists persuasive when they argue for a universe that is approximately 14 billion years old. I believe they got it right. . . I've found none of the arguments for a young earth or a young universe convincing. Nature, as far as I'm concerned, has an integrity that enables it to be understood without recourse to revelatory texts.

-
William Dembski, Design theorist.
 
Upvote 0

Edmond

Well-Known Member
May 13, 2005
1,787
29
USA
✟2,109.00
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Single
EvoDan said:
I'll just cherry-pick the first one...

The Theory of Evolution has nothing to do with the origin of life.

Sp-gh-tti bless.

There seems to be a small problem. Cherry picker's oneline refutations don't qualify as Nobel Prizer winners. I suggest you contact Francis Crick and let him know that he really doesn't know what he's talking about...

-------------------------------
 
Upvote 0

Caphi

Well-Known Member
Jul 23, 2005
959
29
36
✟23,789.00
Faith
Hindu
Edmond said:
There seems to be a small problem. Cherry picker's oneline refutations don't qualify as Nobel Prizer winners. I suggest you contact Francis Crick and let him know that he really doesn't know what he's talking about...

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

Oh, so we're arguing that the quotes are infallible because of the accolades bestowed on the quotesmiths? Yeah... about that.

http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/appeal-to-authority.html

  1. The person has sufficient expertise in the subject matter in question.



    Claims made by a person who lacks the needed degree of expertise to make a reliable claim will, obviously, not be well supported. In contrast, claims made by a person with the needed degree of expertise will be supported by the person's reliability in the area.

    Determining whether or not a person has the needed degree of expertise can often be very difficult. In academic fields (such as philosophy, engineering, history, etc.), the person's formal education, academic performance, publications, membership in professional societies, papers presented, awards won and so forth can all be reliable indicators of expertise. Outside of academic fields, other standards will apply. For example, having sufficient expertise to make a reliable claim about how to tie a shoe lace only requires the ability to tie the shoe lace and impart that information to others. It should be noted that being an expert does not always require having a university degree. Many people have high degrees of expertise in sophisticated subjects without having ever attended a university. Further, it should not be simply assumed that a person with a degree is an expert.

    Of course, what is required to be an expert is often a matter of great debate. For example, some people have (and do) claim expertise in certain (even all) areas because of a divine inspiration or a special gift. The followers of such people accept such credentials as establishing the person's expertise while others often see these self-proclaimed experts as deluded or even as charlatans. In other situations, people debate over what sort of education and experience is needed to be an expert. Thus, what one person may take to be a fallacious appeal another person might take to be a well supported line of reasoning. Fortunately, many cases do not involve such debate.
  2. The claim being made by the person is within her area(s) of expertise.

    If a person makes a claim about some subject outside of his area(s) of expertise, then the person is not an expert in that context. Hence, the claim in question is not backed by the required degree of expertise and is not reliable.

    It is very important to remember that because of the vast scope of human knowledge and skill it is simply not possible for one person to be an expert on everything. Hence, experts will only be true experts in respect to certain subject areas. In most other areas they will have little or no expertise. Thus, it is important to determine what subject area a claim falls under.

    It is also very important to note that expertise in one area does not automatically confer expertise in another. For example, being an expert physicist does not automatically make a person an expert on morality or politics. Unfortunately, this is often overlooked or intentionally ignored. In fact, a great deal of advertising rests on a violation of this condition. As anyone who watches television knows, it is extremely common to get famous actors and sports heroes to endorse products that they are not qualified to assess. For example, a person may be a great actor, but that does not automatically make him an expert on cars or shaving or underwear or diets or politics.
<LI>
  1. There is an adequate degree of agreement among the other experts in the subject in question.
  2. If there is a significant amount of legitimate dispute among the experts within a subject, then it will fallacious to make an Appeal to Authority using the disputing experts. This is because for almost any claim being made and "supported" by one expert there will be a counterclaim that is made and "supported" by another expert. In such cases an Appeal to Authority would tend to be futile. In such cases, the dispute has to be settled by consideration of the actual issues under dispute. Since either side in such a dispute can invoke experts, the dispute cannot be rationally settled by Appeals to Authority.
  3. There are many fields in which there is a significant amount of legitimate dispute. Economics is a good example of such a disputed field. Anyone who is familiar with economics knows that there are many plausible theories that are incompatible with one another. Because of this, one expert economist could sincerely claim that the deficit is the key factor while another equally qualified individual could assert the exact opposite. Another area where dispute is very common (and well known) is in the area of psychology and psychiatry. As has been demonstrated in various trials, it is possible to find one expert that will assert that an individual is insane and not competent to stand trial and to find another equally qualified expert who will testify, under oath, that the same individual is both sane and competent to stand trial. Obviously, one cannot rely on an Appeal to Authority in such a situation without making a fallacious argument. Such an argument would be fallacious since the evidence would not warrant accepting the conclusion.
  4. It is important to keep in mind that no field has complete agreement, so some degree of dispute is acceptable. How much is acceptable is, of course, a matter of serious debate. It is also important to keep in mind that even a field with a great deal of internal dispute might contain areas of significant agreement. In such cases, an Appeal to Authority could be legitimate.
First. Three. Points.


Tell me, does it hurt to carry around such massive ignorance?
 
Upvote 0

Edmond

Well-Known Member
May 13, 2005
1,787
29
USA
✟2,109.00
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Single
random_guy said:
If cutting and pasting quotes is the best Creationists can do, I can understand why no one takes them seriously.

http://searchlight.iwarp.com/articles/evolution.html

A predictably expected evolutionist response when there is no way to deal with the presenting subject ... resort to the ad hominem diversion.

------------------------------------------------------------
 
Upvote 0

nvxplorer

Senior Contributor
Jun 17, 2005
10,569
451
✟28,175.00
Faith
Atheist
Politics
US-Others
Edmond said:
There seems to be a small problem. Cherry picker's oneline refutations don't qualify as Nobel Prizer winners. I suggest you contact Francis Crick and let him know that he really doesn't know what he's talking about...

-------------------------------
Bah! Crick doesn’t even deserve his Nobel. He stole Rosalind Franklin’s research.
 
Upvote 0

nvxplorer

Senior Contributor
Jun 17, 2005
10,569
451
✟28,175.00
Faith
Atheist
Politics
US-Others
Edmond said:
A predictably expected evolutionist response when there is no way to deal with the presenting subject ... resort to the ad hominem diversion.

------------------------------------------------------------
I take this post seriously. I mean, who knows more about diversion?
 
Upvote 0

Caphi

Well-Known Member
Jul 23, 2005
959
29
36
✟23,789.00
Faith
Hindu
Edmond said:
A predictably expected evolutionist response when there is no way to deal with the presenting subject ... resort to the ad hominem diversion.

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

Oh yes. Diversions. By the way, Edmond, I made a topic just for you. Doesn't the guest of honor want to show up to his own party?
 
Upvote 0

Electric Sceptic

Well-Known Member
Dec 4, 2004
3,063
80
63
✟3,622.00
Faith
Atheist
Still pushing the same lie, Edmond? The origin of life has nothing to do with evolution. This has been demonstrated to you in another thread...as expected, you avoided and evaded there and refused to retract your error. Now, here you are, propogating it again. The first time you did it...well, I can call that a mistake. But for you to now do it again, after you avoided your way through a thread that spent most of its time pointing out to you that the origin of life is not part of evolution...well, it's a pretty easy conclusion to come to

Edmond, you're a liar.
 
Upvote 0

Janus

I smolder with generic rage
Dec 11, 2003
523
79
43
Montreal, Canada
✟23,681.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Single
I'll take care of a few of them...


As has been said, Crick is talking about the theory of abiogenesis (which attempts to explain the ORIGIN of life from simple molecules), and not about the theory of evolution (which explains the DIVERSITY of life, from the first fully functional cell). Also, this isn't really relevant, but it should be noted that Crick said this in 1981, and, while still not very well supported, the theory (more like theories) of abiogenesis is much more solid now, in 2005.



The philosophy of evolution? What's this guy talking about? Social darwinism? *shrug*

- Louis Agassiz, Harvard professor, pioneer in glaciation: "The theory of evolution is a scientific mistake." (cited in H. Enoch, _Evolution or Creation_, p.139)

Hah! That quote's from 1886! Yes, EIGHTEEN eighty six! I know honesty's not your strong point, but try being a bit more... subtle, next time.


This one's a real quote, as far as I can tell, but if evolution was a religion, don't you find it strange that it's accepted not only by atheists and agnostics, but also by Jews, Muslims, Christians, Wiccans, Buddhists, Hindus, Shintoists, and people of every major religion on Earth?
Besides, any scientist who even considers a supernatural "theory" like creationism isn't really a scientist. You don't have to be a philosophical naturalist to be a scientist, but you have to assume only natural explanations are valid when you're doing science. That's called methodological naturalism, and it's as essential to the scientific method as skepticism.



LOL! You're actually quoting GOULD?! Next you'll be quoting Dawkins.
In any event, what are you trying to demonstrate here? That Gould was puzzled by some of the evidence? That he was experiencing doubt? Of course he was, that's what science is about! It's how we make progress.
However, he wasn't expressing doubt about evolution, he was expressing doubt about gradualism. And it turns out he was right to do so, because punctuated equilibrium is now widely accepted by the scientific community.
Also, I notice you "forgot" to include the sentence that comes directly after the second quote: "But I also believe that we are now on the verge of a solution, thanks to a better understanding of evolution in both normal and catastrophic times."
Well, don't worry about it, we're used to creationist "mistakes" here.



Well, no need to refute this quote, the guy does it himself!


- John Ambrose Fleming, President British Assoc. for Advancement of Science: "Evolution is baseless and quite incredible." (_The Unleashing of Evolutionary Thought_)

Ahh, another innocent "mistake", I'm sure. Fleming was born in 1849.
You see, science isn't like theology. In science, the older an opinion is, the most likely it is to be wrong.

There are two quotes left, if anyone wants to tackle them. I think I remember reading an article about Patterson being misquoted and misunderstood by creationists some time ago...
 
Upvote 0

random_guy

Senior Veteran
Jan 30, 2005
2,528
148
✟3,457.00
Faith
Christian
Edmond said:
A predictably expected evolutionist response when there is no way to deal with the presenting subject ... resort to the ad hominem diversion.

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

What subject? All you did was cut and paste a bunch of quotes, some of which don't apply to evolution, some of which is taken out of context.
 
Upvote 0

notto

Legend
May 31, 2002
11,130
664
55
Visit site
✟29,869.00
Faith
United Ch. of Christ
Morallyangelic said:
If you know something then TEACH me

Quote mining is not a valid debate tactic and will get you ridiculed and laughed at.

It is also a form of false witness because many of the quotes are taken out of context and used to make it sound like the person being quoted is saying something that they are not.
 
Upvote 0

Forever42

Regular Member
Dec 9, 2004
170
16
43
Altamonte Springs, FL
✟15,389.00
Faith
Unitarian
Marital Status
Married
Upvote 0