Some Evidence Against Evolution

1. To call "scientism" a "branch of science" is at best misleading. Scientism is a belief that may be held by a scientist or a non-scientist. Few folks here would defend scientism, although some might. I sure won't.2. To call neo-Darwinism "Part of scientism" is simply wrong. I know many theists who accept Neo-darwinism. Thus, neo-darwinism can not be part of atheistic scientism.You say "this is not a matter of opinion" and you are correct: it is not a matter of opinion. You are clearly, objectively wrong that neo-darwinism is part of scientism.3.

quote:

---

"neo-Darwinism exists is to claim and to replace the claims of creationism as the explanation of the origins of life.

---

In "The Origin of Species", to what does Darwin attribute the origin of life?God.Thus, you are wrong. This is not a matter of opinion.4.

quote:

---

Many posters in this room want to deny that neo-Darwinism challenges the existence of God. This is silly, of course it does this is the whole reason for the debate.

---

It is not the reason I debate. There are Chrisitan neo-Darwinists. Thus, you are wrong. This is not a matter of opinion, as you are fond of saying.5.

quote:

---

But when [Leakey] says the evidence means that God does not exist

---

Did I miss something? Where did Leakey say this?

I didn't say Leakey said it, you intentionally took me out of context.I was making a point and if you do not understand the point then this is also intentional. What we have here is the deliberate twisting of things I said.You also want to bring up theistic evolition of which I said was not the subject probably at least 10 different times.All of my commentary was directed at scientism which was correctly defined. You have "outed" yourself to be ignorant of what scientism is and the purpose of neo-Darwinism. It doesn't matter what you say or claim about scientism or neo-Darwinism. As far as your belief as to what Darwin believed about God - this confirms your massive ignorance.We have nothing to debate.

Ned : I am truly surprised with this reply.I will consider this exchange between us closed.

Crashfrog says that atheism and evolution are not synonymous.Yes they are it is not a matter of opinion. You are ignorant.

Said the pot to the kettle........
Whew!! Willowtree, that's just bizarre.

I do not have any predictions. I am offering the mystery posed by Milton.IF mutation is by chance and it is random then Milton simply points out that we have vastly similar creatures evolving on two different continents which according to Milton must border on the miraculous.I understand what Milton is saying and so does everyone else.It simply is SOME evidence against evolution, thats all.

quote:

---

Crashfrog says that atheism and evolution are not synonymous.

---

He's right. They're not. 40% of U.S. scientists believe both in evolution and God. 43% of the general public in the U.S. does (and that number is a lot higher in the rest of the developed world).------------------
"Illuminant light,
illuminate me."

I seldom get into my religious beliefs in this kind of discussion because I don't think they are relevant, but they are here.I am not an atheist. I am a supporter of evolution. I accept the facts that evolution has happened, that the theory of evolution is the best (and, as of now, the only) scientific explanation for the observed data, that the Earth is circa 4.5 billion years old, the Universe is circa 15 billion years old, that life is circa 3-3.5 billion years old, that there was no global flood within the last few tens of thousands of years.Your claim that it is not a mtater of opinion is corect ... but the fact of the matter, that is not a matter of opinion, is that evolution and atheism are not synonymous. Your lie insults tens of thousands of religious believers who do not accept your peculiar views. You are wrong and ignorant.

Actually I'm more knowledgeable than you, being both an atheist and an evolutionist (and an English major besides), I'm in a better position than you to know what those words mean.Open a biology textbook and show me where it says "there is no god." Open Gould's "Structure of Evolutionary Theory", a definitive evolutionary work, and show me where it says "evolution is predicated on there being no God" or anything similar.Show me where in the evolutionary scientific literature it says there's no god. Explain to me how evolution can be equivalent to atheism when some 20-30% of evolutionists are Christians. Explain to me how evolution must be considered opposed to religion when people of every faith hold evolution to be true.The Catholic Pope is an evolutionist, did you know? In several papal messages he's said that evolution is the only rational explanation for the development of Man's physical body, and of life on earth.Now, maybe you're not Catholic, but surely you don't think the Pope of all people is an atheist?Don't confuse your ignorance with mine. You're the one who doesn't seem to know what words mean.

This topic is comming up on 300 messages. As such, it will soon be closed (the unwritten, but commonly known "topic bulky enough" rule).

​

Concluding statements?Adminnemooseus

And which, according to those who understand genetics and evolution, is expected to happen once in a while. Especially since (as has been pointed out and you have ignored) the creatures are only vaguely similar.Your comment says more about Milton and you than it does about evolution.

emphasis added by mehttp://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/origin/chapter14.html [quote]Authors of the highest eminence seem to be fully satisfied with the view that each species has been independently created. To my mind it accords better with what we know of the laws impressed on matter by the Creator, that the production and extinction of the past and present inhabitants of the world should have been due to secondary causes, like those determining the birth and death of the individual. --Charled Darwin, Origin of Speciesscientism - The Skeptic's Dictionary - Skepdic.com

quote:

---

Scientism, in the strong sense, is the self-annihilating view that only scientific claims are meaningful, which is not a scientific claim and hence, if true, not meaningful. Thus, scientism is either false or meaningless. This view seems to have been held by Ludwig Wittgenstein in his Tractatus Logico-philosophicus (1922) when he said such things as "The totality of true propositions is the whole of natural science..." He later repudiated this view.

​

In the weak sense, scientism is the view that the methods of the natural sciences should be applied to any subject matter. This view is summed up nicely by Michael Shermer:

​

Scientism is a scientific worldview that encompasses natural explanations for all phenomena, eschews supernatural and paranormal speculations, and embraces empiricism and reason as the twin pillars of a philosophy of life appropriate for an Age of Science (Shermer 2002).

​

On the other hand, the dictionary definition of 'scientism' is the attitude and method of the typical natural scientist, whoever that might be.

---

From The Oxford Companion to Philosophy:

quote:

---

"Scientism is a term of abuse. Therefore, perhaps inevitably, there is no one simple characterization of the views of those who are thought to be identified as prone to it. In philosophy, a commitment to one or more of the following lays one open to the charge of scientism.
(a)The sciences are more important than the arts for an understanding of the world in which we live, or even, all we need to understand it.
(b)Only a scientific methodology is intellectually acceptable. Therefore, if the arts are to be a genuine part of human knowledge they must adopt it.
(c)Philosophical problems are scientific problems and should only be dealt with as such.

​

A successful accusation of scientism usually relies upon a restrictive conception of the sciences and an optimistic conception of the arts as hitherto practiced. Nobody espouses scientism; it is just detected in the writings of others."

---

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/darwinism.html

quote:

---

Opponents of the [modern evolutionary] synthesis consistently confound three schools of Darwinism:

​

neo-Darwinism, a term coined by Romanes in 1896 to designate "Darwinism without an inheritance of acquired characters";

​

early population genetics, a strongly reductionist school that defined evolution as the modification of gene frequencies by natural selection; and

​

the holistic branch of the [modern evolutionary] synthesis, which continued the traditions of Darwin and the naturalists while accepting the findings of genetics.

​

...
Darwinism is not a simple theory that is either true or false but is rather a highly complex research program that is being continuously modified and improved. This was true before the [modern evolutionary] synthesis, and it continues to be true after the synthesis. Table 2 lists many of the significant stages in the modification of Darwinism that one might recognize. Yet recognizing such seemingly discontinuous periods is in many respects an artificial enterprise. ... each of these periods was heterogeneous to some extent, owing to the diversity in the thinking of different evolutionists. Most critics who have attempted to refute the evolutionary synthesis have failed to recognize this diversity of views and thus have succeeded in refuting only the reductionist fringe of the Darwinism camp.

​

...

​

Table 2
Significant stages in the modification of Darwinism
Date Stage Modification

​

1883-1886 Weismann's neo-Darwinism End of soft inheritance; diploidy and genetic recombination recognized

​

1900 Mendelism Genetic constancy accepted and blending inheritance rejected

​

1918-1933 Fisherism Evolution considered to be a matter of gene frequencies and the force of even small selection pressures

​

1936-1947 Evolutionary synthesis Population thinking emphasized; interest in the evolution of diversity, geographic speciation, variable evolutionary rates

​

1947-1972 Post-Synthesis Individual increasingly seen as target of selection; a more holistic approach; increased recognition of chance and constraints

​

1954-1972 Punctuated equilibria Importance of speciational evolution

​

1969-1980 Rediscovery of importance of sexual selection Importance of reproductive success for selection

---

Do you think you are smarter or more honest than MIT whiz Daniel Harbour ?Harbour is an atheist, a neo-Darwinist, a card carrying member of scientism and he wrote a book about it called "An Intelligent Persons Guide to Atheism " (2001)On the other side is Berkeley Professor Huston Smith who wrote a book called "Why Religion Matters" (1999 or 2000) Smith defines scientism from a creationist viewpoint which is compatible with Harbour.These are two of my sources for the definition of scientism.Now you can go ahead and stipulate scientism to mean whatever you like and then it will mean that for your posts and arguments.For the record, you want scientism to really mean nothing. The ism denotes religion and that is the contention of we creationists. Scientism is a religion and they worship brilliant scientist and his discoveries. You can deny this but it has been objectively observed to be true. This is what it is really all about to set yourselves up as the ones who have the answers. Secretly you admire the way religionists do it and the respect their early preachers commanded. Now your intelligencia are the Bishops and Priests operating just like they did. God didn't create what is seen - Darwinian evolution did. But the nonsense offered in this room is to deny the reason for being of neo-Darwinism. Anyone who does this is a liar intentionally clowning the argument or a genuine dunce who doesn't even know the basic philosophy behind your own theory.

Huh, of all my posts??? What did I say to set you off with that one? I almost agreed with you throughout. (at least as much as it is possible )

Ah, has "virtually indentical" turned into "vastly similar" now? Since Milton said this: But when we looked at the pictures we can see that they are not identical at all. Now they are vastly similar. But similar is explained by convergent evolution as you were told.The so-called miracle would be based on the other claim implicit in Milton. That is, the genetics have to be based on identical mutations. You have been asked about that. You have yet to comment on it again. You have continued to confuse the skeletal similarity and the genetics.Could you clarify what you are trying to say? Milton suggests the unlikelyness based on duplicated mutations. But there is zero evidence for that.