Are Scientists Abandoning Evolution?

But, this is impossible. Unless the YEC community will become open to evidences and scientific papers, no ground may be made on this debate.Even thought there are many facts and observations to conclude that evolution is indeed legitiment, and that the Earth is over 6000 years old, it does not put a dent in the YEC community's beliefs. No matter what is said to them, under what they see as their infalliable Bible, they will not believe a single thing we say. I suppose the only thing to do is prove the Bible as an unlegitiment source, but as I have seen in many debates here, this is impossible.About teaching Christian Creationism in schools. Evolution is a scientific theory. It was formed using the scientific method, and it has changed throughout the years to fix any holes. From this, today we have an observable formation of the theory of evolution. Evolution has evidence going for it.Creation is basically the opposite. Creation is a myth found in a thousand year old book, written by people with an extremely dim perspective of the Earth and natural events. To fix any holes in it, YEC's just attack evolution to no avail, or, up until about two-hundred years ago, they just killed people who found holes in their "infalliable" Bible. Creation is not a testable theory, nor is it backed up by anything.It makes no sense to educate about it in school.

Creationists are flocking to Darwinism, according to top scientific journal, Nature.According to an ancient report published in the journal back in 1998, url: Top Cash Earning Games in India 2022 | Best Online Games to earn real moneyA copy of Nature from 1998 was unearthed in a dilapidated university library by a young theological researcher who prefers to be known only as "Mick". The ancient artifact, whose existence predates the origin of online submission, will revolutionise our view of creationism and evolution. The newly unearthed archaeological treasure casts serious doubt upon the dominant archaeological hypothesis that scientists abandoned Darwinism some time in in the early 1990s.This message has been edited by mick, 05-14-2005 10:29 PMThis message has been edited by mick, 05-14-2005 10:43 PM

There will be some defection from the elite ranks still as more people understand that Gingerich's criticism applies to Wallace's discussion. Owen didnt know the error of Cornell ways goes this far. It does. I guess that YEC studies on original genetic information will fill this error if academia refuses to adjust. It only needs to stress more physical reduction in biology. This wont happen unless the MCZetc is reorganized. Certainly preventing me from having dinner with a prominent Berkely biologist (because I might have controlled the discussion that other grad sudents wanted to participate in) is not the way to adjust the relation of undergrads and OVERgrads.


Teaching the "transference" of RNA life to DNA life is total psychology and not enough natural history.This message has been edited by Brad McFall, 05-14-2005 11:07 PM

Creationists make this claim once every decade or so. They tried it back in the 50s, then the 60s, and numerous times after.

Well, Terry Gross on NPR's "fresh air" just has had D James Kennedy on and she tried to paint DJ into this corner that evolutionists must by logic of Kennedy's leave. She correctly asked him about abortion and how Kennedy thought of the relation of civil service but then asked if that would mean that he would think that judges can change LAWS based against evolution. But this does not follow an yet if the talk and politcs forces this without addressing why evolutionists as individuals might jump first then there will be conflict. We have not been able to solve this here on evc so i would say it is new.And after I wrote this, Gross had Clarkson exactly on, on creationsm and the word I used before it was said on air, "conflict",-was- the same used. So either we are all seeing the same colors in Bonum bonus or else (I dont believe in conspiricy theories or that NPR is in real time using this web site programmatically) this really is NEW; (meaning) exactly:: what is happening in any given present moment. Good luck if you are stuck interpolating between these two below edit times.This message has been edited by Brad McFall, 05-18-2005 12:52 PMThis message has been edited by Brad McFall, 05-18-2005 12:58 PM

english?

Which paragraph""?If both, please say something about the thread (you dont have any other posts here do you?) as the poster I resonded to recently posted in a short span of times in a handful of threads and in this one responded generally.The actual and the possible contain what I would write next.As far as I synthesized the Gross interview she had had three talking points in my analysis (the Kinsey Report, abortion, and creationism) the rest was politics as usually was. If you have any familiarity with DJK you will know that he talks back to a Huxley quote on sexual (sinful) prefrences of Hux as a pure opinion so I dont know if this was only a hook by Gross or susbtantive opening.This message has been edited by Brad McFall, 05-18-2005 02:17 PM

both please.

I would have to go into the top right PART of this graph but you might not. Please give me some thread context as you were not around EVC when REI was posting. I think I can show the connections all the way back to the begining of the thread but I dont know what you are thinking about.Are you questioning/interested in what I said about NPR, the poster I responded to in series, or something else??
thumbnail from Population Biology and Evolution edited by RCLewontin.This message has been edited by Brad McFall, 05-18-2005 04:47 PM

the post i replied to was about the npr interview.

I am trying very hard on EVC to show that there are probably laws in nature that science does not recognize. It is by a failure to teach students or accept their learning on this topic of non-deterministic but lawful biology that evolutionists who already know this might depart from current evolution teaching. Influence by creationism is one way that a person might find and devolve the necessary criticism to make that step. The poster was saying that there there is nothing new in creationism today but lamented that the creationists didnt listen to said poster or what he/she was saying.I have tried to say what WOULD make them listen.I have some of the auido on the NPR broadcast. I might try to reactivate my audio blog account if that is really of interest.TGross wanted to ask a very important question (will judges be changing the "law" based on non naturalistic tendencies) but she put the evolution I was refering to into this tension(cleared by use of word "conflict" by guest not JDK) by the way she structured her questions and programmed the next guest. There is a confusion about justice and law with the relation between Judism and Christianity that would not be scientifically what it IS IN LAW today(the new ones Terry's line of questioning was getting at) if the laws of stations on earth I try to think about were more than only in my mind and were true. Instead we find that political discussions are pushing ahead of the science and because of confusions philosophically about the connotation of law in particular we can not get out of the c/e circuit.I wish some of my suggestions were SHOWN to be more than my own brainstorm. I am concerned however that few here seem to see the importance of trying to pick up on some of my leads.I tried to show the poster that the issue IS new and precisely for the concerns showed by NPR today. IT CAN NOT BE CHALKED DOWN to the same old same EVC.

i think you are saying that much of this debate is a political issue. if that is the case, i agree with you. yes there is much in science that is not solved by the current theories. science is a process and we are not finished yet. the point of science is to continuously seek to better explain that which we see and experience. no one has suggested that evolution as it stands is a completed theory which wholly explains everything ever. that would be like saying that relativity is the final solution and explanation of the universe. no. there are many things relativity doesn't work for, namely tiny tiny tiny things. physicists have not yet found the unifying theory and neither have biologists. but throwing out all the research that has been done simply because it hasn't yet solved the problem is foolish.the biggest problem is that many creationists get very very offended when you even suggest anything resembling evolution and assume that you are suggesting that 1. their god cannot exist (which has NOTHING to do with it) and 2. that they are stupid and 3. that they are a product of what they view as inferior things. what people don't realize is that in spite of our higher brain function, we are merely living things. we are no more alive than other living things, including plants and bacteria. life is life. what has our higher brain function done for us but get us into more fights with our fellows anyways?

Yes that's the biggest problem. I held out hope that GW in campaign speeches where he addressed creation/evolution things would change but I dont know who politically forced up legislatively stem cells which seems to have diverted the pres' interest.It is not the politcs that would cause the evolutionist to shift ranks but the continued media full court press that is MORE overbearing. I know this because my dad's job was to "fool" the press and I saw his lies he put out and how easily the press was fooled. The press is now subtly "fooling" students. It has become a viscous cycle now that "laws" of soceity rather than only laws of nature are involved.Creationists ARE offended because they KNOW that their criticism has not been answered. The solution is to answer their call. Then religion can be seperated behind the wall. But as I recall it was told to me that I could pray if I wanted. Then it became evolution teaching and now it is medical research dollars. The social conflict "evolved" without any better understanding of evolution occurring on the whole. This is not a creationist fault but an evolutionists one.We can talk about "products" in another thread. As for war,well, that is why Gross's putting of the abortion issue was MORE appropo. I want to stay on thread point however.Yes evolution is not completed but not letting me complete a degree IN THE SUBJECT has nothing to do with the subject of medicine treatment directly (unless by pedagogic law one was forced drugs or such teaching) yet that is how it did go.If you want to broaden this communication beyond why scientists might abandon the evolution in the popular sense we will alwayss have (and accerbated by gross distortions on either side)and the technical sense of its real elite current existence ,lets do it elsewhere, can we?

ok i had you right up until the last bit.

Haven't read the whole thread, but do find the following oft-expressed statement to be disingenious overall."Well, as we all know, evolution is not connected to abiogenesis."1. Evolution is "connected to" abiogenesis since the first life form is the starting point.2. Most evolutionists hold to abiogenesis, but simply draw a line between that, and evolution, and then say, well, it's not the same issue, but really it is. Why because it's part of the evolutionist "creation-story" if you will, believed and put forward by evolutionists. It is a package deal in large part despite the arbitrary line drawn in the sand. The claim rings hollow because it seems to be an attempt to obscure the fact that evolutionists by and large include abiogenesis in their idea of how life got started and evolved.3. Is abiogenesis even valid science? This is something which is disturbing to me concerning how this whole debate is framed. Without the first life form, common descent could not occur, and the first life form had to form in some fashion. Basically, abiogenesis is a form of spontaneous generation. What bothers me is the rules of evidence, so to speak, for accepting and giving credence to abiogenesis ought to be the same for evolution, and yet evolutionists believe in abiogenesis without very much real evidence for it, and a lot of evidence against it in the sense that the very concept of sponteneous generation ought to be viewed with suspicion, and not particularly reflective of what we know about life. Life stemming from inanimate life, all on it's own, is really not logical.