A interesting article if ya care to read it... As a scientist in academia and in industry, and having taught at the university level, I really enjoy science. In science we have something called "The Scientific Method." The Scientific Method is an approach good scientist take to make discoveries and establish theories for understanding things in our world. The classic Scientific Method is as follows: 1) You make an observation; 2) you classify facts concerning this observation; 3) you develop a hypothesis (educated guess) as to why this observation occurred; 4) you experimentally test your hypothesis in the laboratory; and 5) you develop your theory based upon the results of your lab tests. So a "theory" is a tested hypothesis based upon an observation. Now let's consider evolution. Who has ever observed it? And by evolution I mean the changing of one species into another. The answer is "no one has ever observed evolution" – because it is stated that it takes billions and billions of years for this to happen. So no one has ever actually observed evolution whereby one species changed into another. Another question that must be asked is, "Who has tested evolution in the laboratory?" The answer, again, is "no one," for the experiment would take billions and billions of years to occur – as it is a slow process. So since no one has ever actually observed evolution and no one has actually tested evolution in the laboratory, then that means that evolution – by scientific definition – cannot be a theory. According to John Suchocki, in his book "Conceptual Chemistry," published by Pearson Benjamin Cummings in 2007, page 5, a "hypothesis is a scientific hypothesis when, and only when, it can be tested." So since evolution cannot be tested, it cannot even be considered a scientific hypothesis. I am sure I have some people's blood boiling by now, but these are simply facts – by definition. So if evolution, the changing of one species into another, is not science, what is it? Sir Karl Popper, Ph.D., a leading philosopher of science of the 20th century, is quoted as saying, "Evolution is not a fact. Evolution doesn't even qualify as a theory or as a hypothesis. It is a metaphysical research program, and it is not really testable science." Dr. Michael Ruse, professor of philosophy and zoology at the University of Guelph, Canada, stated, "Evolution is promoted by its practitioners as more than mere science. Evolution is promulgated as an ideology, a secular religion – a full-fledged alternative to Christianity, with meaning and morality. I am an ardent evolutionist and an ex-Christian, but I must admit that in this one complaint – the literalists are absolutely right. Evolution is a religion. This was true of evolution in the beginning, and it is true of evolution still today." So according to these scientists, evolution is not science, but in fact evolution is an alternative religion to Christianity. Now, I understand that staunch evolutionist grab on to Charles Darwin's book "The Origin of the Species," but did you know that that is not the entire title of the book? Why do they never mention the entire title? Let's look at the title of Darwin's book and see what we can learn. Darwin's book in entitled, "On The Origin of the Species by Means of Natural Selection; or, The Preservation of Favored Races in the Struggle for Life." Oh, so the book is really about the "preservation of favored races in the struggle for life." Surely, no one would consider this book a racist book, would they? Well, Darwin did. He is quoted as saying, "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." (Charles Darwin, "The Descent of Man," chapter 3, and World Book Encyclopedia 1952, p. 336) Let me see, what else was popular in 1859 when Darwin's racist book was published? Oh yeah, now I remember. It was slavery. Darwin's book was used as a justification for slavery and has been used ever since to justify "ethnic cleansing" and Hitler's thoughts behind creating an Aryan race. Darwin is quoted as saying, "Often a cold shudder has run through me and I have asked myself whether I may have devoted myself to a fantasy." (Charles Darwin, "Life and Letters," 1887, vol. 2, p. 229) So if evolution is not science, then why is it being taught in our schools as science? When asked in a television interview why the scientific community jumped at Darwin's ideas, Sir Julian Huxley, head of UNESCO (United Nations Educational, Scientific, and Cultural Organization), one of the world's leading evolutionists said: "I suppose the reason why we lept at 'The Origin of Species' was that the idea of God interfered with our sexual morés." "Morés" is defined as "fixed morally binding customs of a people, moral attitudes." So the head of UNESCO stated that the push to teach evolution in the schools is because the idea of God interfered with sexual proclivities. I remember hearing beloved pastor Dr. D. James Kennedy talk about this. He said he knew that this was the reason secularists pushed the teaching of evolution, but when he actually saw Huxley utter that statement on television he nearly fell out of his chair, because Huxley actually had the audacity to admit it. Sir Arthur Keith, who wrote the foreword to the 100th anniversary edition of Darwin's "The Origin of Species," in 1959, stated: "Evolution is unproved and unprovable. We believe it only because the only alternative is special creation, and that is unthinkable." So if evolution is not science, why is it being taught as such? If people are taught they are simply evolved animals, why would you expect them to act different from an animal? On the other hand, if people are taught they are made in the image of God, and God has had a plan for their life since before the foundation of the world, the mindset is totally different, with much different results. Is evolution really 'science'?
You really want to open that ? Was this planet, our solar system, our universe created? Was Earth Tera seeded with life forms from other worldly origins? Is there scientific evidence to support any theories, any hypothesis, or belief of how and where we came into existence? Beliefs are accepted on faith, theories and hypotheses for the most part are nothing but scientific wild asses guesses based upon what is believed to be and faith in previous scientific observation and theory. This can run from evolution and divine intervention to ancient aliens and just dumb luck. I'm not sure human kind is ready for the truth, should it be revealed.
I think I am sticking to my relations being tiny green men coming here long ago for some R&R and getting frisky with our ladies...
Sometimes I think that the evidence is being manufactured to support the theory. proof if this is, from a bone fragment people build a skull or a whole body, no more factual than a questionable "educated" guess.
Wingnut News Daily article? Nuff said...the author would seem to have as much scientific credibility as the other 'scientific' creationists / unintelligent design nitwits at Answers in Genesis
Seems as if enough monkeys type for a long enough time you might get a play by the bard, but the process by which you see a ball and swing at it is so complex that it is hard to believe it was an accident. Just decoding the light in the eye, Transduction of Light | Biology for Majors II is so complex that it is almost beyond belief, but reflecting light to get a signal, processing the signal, the brain figuring out it is a ball, deciding if to swing, control the muscles that swing the bat, and then running to first base and deciding if you need to slide or not,after seeing if it were fair or fowl. etc, would seem to push chance to its limits. How We See Color | American Museum of Natural History I don't know how it all came about, just enjoy it and play ball.
How about a noted biologist, and naturalist? And an athiest, Lyall Watson is the author of several academic books about nature. His most known is Supernature wherein he presents several anomalies in nature that the theory of evolution cannot account for. His observations led him to subscribe to an intelligent design theory. One of the instances that I can recall was the South American Anteater. They have a dark stripe of fur that runs from thier neck and shoulders down the side of thier body tapering ever thinner all the way to the tail. It breaks up thier profile in the shadowy jungles and gives them an excellent camaflouge to hide from predators. A phenomenon only visible from a distance. The new born anteater babies are born with the same stripe. They cling to the mothers back near the tail so that thier stripe merges seamlessly with the mothers. Hiding the vulnerable newborn from predators eyes. As they grow older and gain in size they move up the mothers back so that thier stripe continues to merge with the mothers. Again, a phenomenon only visible from a distance. Another "evidence" of evolution, still found in some school science books, is the English moth. In a region of England the trees had a light bark on them. The moths were a light color that hid them very well when they rested on the trees. When the industrial revelution began the soot from the factory smokestacks began to discolor the light bark of the trees making the light colored moths easy to spot by birds. A darker moth was observed whose coloration more resembled the soot stained tree bark and made them hard for the birds to see, and devour. A case for evolution? No, it was eventually discovered that there had always been both shades of moths all along. But when the trees were lighter the dark colored ones were easier to spot and thier numbers were reduced. When the trees darkened the opposite was true and the population of the lighter ones began to decline and the darker ones increased. Two things in nature that evolution cannot account for are trees and camels knees. Trees greatest threat is from insects that feed on them. Many trees have a built in defense mechanism that prevents them from being destroyed. Most commonly a substance in the leaves that when a large amount is ingested it makes the insects sick. So they only eat a small portion before moving on. So the problem? Trees live hundreds of years wheras insects lifespans are only days in many cases. According to evolution the generations of insects should "evolve" and adapt a means to overcome the trees defenses. If the theory of evolution were true there should not be any trees left. The other major blow to evolution is camels knees. Camels are born with a thick calcium deposit on thier knees. This thick pad protects them when they lay down on the hot abrasive desert sand. The problem? Archeologists have unearthed camel fossils, thousands of years old, that have the same protective calcium pads. However at the time they were alive the region was not a desert. It was a lush Forrest and wetland. There was no use in a soft Forrest floor for these thick pads. It was not until many thousands of years later that they were perfectly adapted to the desert environment. And before chell starts googling trying to throw shade at Dr. Watson, I cite his work as just one example. There is a myriad of scientific books and papers that posit the same questions and profess an adherence to the scientifically valid counter to evolution in intelligent design. Unfortunately those many scientists who have come to accept this as a valid theory are demonized and persecuted in academia for the great sin of going against the entrenched dogma. Evolution theory has become a religion among much of academic and is zealously defended by its acolytes. The greatest persecution of "heretics" in history has not been by the church but by academia.
Evolution is correctly a theory, but is highly likely to be correct. If you feel that it is contrary to your faith or it's presence disproves faith then you missed the whole concept of "the spirit and the flesh". A Supreme Being could simply guide evolution or frankly not care what avatar developed to become the vehicle for your soul. Science and faith in and of themselves are not mutually exclusive. One explains "how" the other explains "why".
Whether Mankind exists by a divine hand or by random chance, what is to say divine intervention is not part of the evolutionary process?
Take faith and religion out of it. Many scientists who are at best agnostic, if not atheist, have subscribed to the intelligent design model. They admit evolution does not hold up and is a flawed theorem. They posit that there has to be an intelligence behind creation, a guiding force. It is the only model that follows the science, that accommodates all of the anomalies of nature. What that intelligence, that guiding force is, that is the great unknown factor. That is the only point where faith enters in.
No matter where you stand on the debate this certainly is an interesting conversation; furthermore, this is exactly how debates should be conducted. As for me... I don't buy completely into the evolution theory, certainly not for mankind; however, I admit, it does fit for some species but certainly not for all. Someday, far in the future, we'll probably find the real answer or maybe it will be revealed upon one's death. Until then...
