From a post at Uncommon Dissent:
"Darwin was wrong, and his modern-day adherents perpetuate his mistakes."
That sounds like the opening salvo of an advocate for Intelligent Design or some other religiously driven critique of the theory of evolution. But it actually summarizes the ideas of Jeffrey Schwartz, a noted anthropologist at the University of Pittsburgh and one of a growing group of critics of standard Darwinian theory.
Schwartz takes issue with gradualism (the fossils don’t support it, and he sees evidence for large, quick shifts, not gradual change), and adaptation/natural selection:
Dr. Schwartz contends that new organisms are probably generated by random changes in developmental genes, and that any new features they have will remain in existence as long as they don’t hurt the creatures’ chances of survival.
“Basically,” he said, “if a feature doesn’t kill you, you’ll continue to have it.”
Well, that seals it up. God created us all 6000 years ago.
But seriously Seeker, this proves the point that we've been making, not the point that you've been making. We've been the ones arguing that science is willing to consider viewpoints differing Darwin's version of evolution. Since this article doesn't suggest that this guy's view of science stopped adapting in 1550, I'm going to think that this proves that we're, once again, right. You think that anybody who takes issue with Darwinism is crushed under heel, but the issue is that "scientists" who claim to be able to prove this 6000 years nonsense are just liars and hucksters of the common Christian variety.
Seeker, what is this article supposed to prove, besides that Sam is correct, and that Scientists are willing to consider many different theories?
Whether he's right or wrong about this particular hypothesis, Schwartz is believes in evolution. Any way you look at it, then, you believe that Schwartz is fundamentally mistaken, and he believes the same about you. Did you miss that part of the article, or do have I essentially misunderstood the point of you citing someone who would critically dissect your own beliefs about creation?
The article proves that evolution takes place but it's the mechanism that Dr. Schwartz is exploring. That's good science! With this post, Seeker is demonstrating that Darwin is not set in stone and that he can be questioned. And he is right. Another challenge to Darwin comes from Paul Turner.
Charles Darwin never thought he could witness evolutionary change. He relied instead on indirect clues. He looked at its effects after millions of years — in the fossil record and in the similarities and differences among living species. He got clues to the workings of evolution from the work of pigeon breeders, who consciously chose which birds could reproduce and thus created birds with extravagant plumage. But that was artificial selection — not natural selection that had been operating long before humans came on the scene. Darwin was pretty sure that natural selection worked too slowly for him or anyone else to witness.
Darwin got a great many things right, but on this score, he was most definitely wrong. Just ask Paul Turner. In his lab at the department of ecology and evolutionary biology, Turner and his colleagues watch evolution play out in a matter of days. They observe organisms acquire new traits, adapt to new habitats, and become new species in the making.
Evolution in a Petri Dish
Though none of this challenges the evolution of species it does contradict Darwin's words. I think this was Seeker's point. If Seeker was able to show some solid scientific evidence for creationism, scientists would be forced to consider it. That's what makes science great.
My point is that evolution is not a FACT, it is a theory in serious flux, not just in some minor tweaking mode among scientists. This guy is essentially saying that the fossil record does not support Darwinian gradualism, i.e. there are few, or certainly not enough transitional fossils to support it.
That's what creationists keep saying, but you and other evolutionists balk at that, parroting some party line about plenty of evidence.
So what will you do when some evolution-loving palaentologist says that the fossil record is not that convincing – will you then back off your rediculous conviction that the human fossil record is overwhelming too? Or will you double back and excuse your previous hubris by saying "see, scientists are open minded and are reconsidering the data."
The fact is, you won't seriously reconsider the data unless someone who still keeps the evolutionary faith does it for you. But never, never doubt the "fact" of evolution.
That's the point.
That is absolutely NOT what Creationists are saying. Creationists are saying that a Christian God created the Earth in seven days some 6000 years ago. That is very different from any sort of substantive critique of evolution. Creationists only criticise evolution because it disputes their outlandish view of our Earth's creation.
And again, which of us has said that evolution is undisputed fact? We've argued that it is the dominant theory with the most evidence to support it. If there was any evidence that creationism took place – other than a stupid book written by stupid people (particularly by today's standards) – then we'd consider creationism.
To be clear, creationists have been saying, among other things, that the fossil record does not support gradualism, and that transitional fossils are rare to non-existent. But evolutionists who are not as bright and honest as the one mentioned here have resisted that idea because it conflicts with their faith.
(Evolutionists) have resisted that idea because it conflicts with their faith.
How many times have I told you science is not faith? Here is something that show you what you sound like to others.
Seeker and Hobbes
The alleged "substance" of Creationist complaints boils down to, "Your science conflicts with my religious belief, and since it is impossible that I am wrong, you must be."
That doesn't strike me as a great argument. Any subtlety that is, from time to time, added to the debate is added not to improve the debate on evolution, but rather to discredit. In other words, by discrediting the one, these people (you?) believe that you're crediting the other. Which you're not. It doesn't work that way. And you know it.
The alleged "substance" of Creationist complaints boils down to, "Your science conflicts with my religious belief, and since it is impossible that I am wrong, you must be."
The alleged "substance" of evolutionist complaints boils down to, "Your science doensn't matter because you are religious in your motivation, and your science conflicts with my world view, and since it is impossible that I am wrong, you must be."
"Your science doensn't matter because you are religious in your motivation, and your science conflicts with my world view, and since it is impossible that I am wrong, you must be."
There is no science involved in creationism. The statement above is a falsehood because it presupposes this.
Seeker, answer this question: How does this article serve to do anything for you? It is a pro-evolution argument, which you therefore you must believe to be false. Sam's point, then, seems entirely valid. This post was not meant to bolster your own position (since it actually refutes creationism), but to discredit traditional evolutionary beliefs.
And we're all fine with that last part, by the way. No serious scientist would just dismiss this guy as a quack, because he's willing to back up his own controversial hypothesis with theories and evidence. Creationists, on the other hand, back up their theories by saying "God did it", which is exactly what we expect from a group that has no evidence to back their beliefs up. And all the evidence that you claim to have comes back to "God did it." The circular, unevidenced nature of creationism is what makes it so unappetizing, not its controversy or lack of alliance with Darwin.
There is no science involved in creationism.
Incorrect. There is interpretation of palaentology, geology research, astronomy research, and the like.
But you confuse foundational assumptions with doing real science based on those assumptions. But this is the ongoing problem with trying to communicate with evolutionists – they refuse to separate their primary assumptions from their actual science.
The results are, they (1) consider their own assumptions as fact, and (2) consider the science of those who have creationist assumptions as non-science.
From now on I will ignore statements that state "creationism is not science" – I may post on this subject, but I can no longer dignify this simplistic, anti-intellectual, conversation stopping, incorrect statement.
How does this article serve to do anything for you? It is a pro-evolution argument, which you therefore you must believe to be false. Sam's point, then, seems entirely valid. This post was not meant to bolster your own position (since it actually refutes creationism), but to discredit traditional evolutionary beliefs
Just because the author maintains an evolutionist faith while critiqueing gradualism doesn't make it anti-creationism – that's a leap of logic that you make. He is merely anti-gradualist.
His attack on the lack of fossil evidence for gradualism is one that is also made by creationists – same lack of data, it's just that this guy draws different conclusions because he interprets the data differently because he his conclusion is also based on his interpretation of other data.
The reason this supports my position is precisely because this guy is not an anti-evolutoinist, yet he clearly admits that the fossil evidence for Darwinian graudalism, that is, the presence of intermediate forms, is LACKING.
This isn't some creationist making this statement, but an evolutionist admitting what most evolutionists deny to the hilt. Is that clear?
The next time some evolutionist parrot says "there are plenty of transitional forms" I can point to this guy, who is not one of those "suspicious creationists" and say "well, one of your own disagrees, what do you make of that?"
It isn't anti-intellectual to point out that something else is anti-intellectual. Seeker, I don't have a problem with this, but it isn't like there's any real thought put into Creationism. It's just, "Well, the Bible said it happened, so it did." That's the entirety of the thought that goes into that particular belief. And that's anti-intellectual, because it deprives everyone of the chance to think. Either agree with the Bible, or don't. But don't actually think about it.
That's Seeker's answer to continual, logical arguments against his position: First he makes a weak counter-argument. Then, when that doesn't work, he starts citing himself, arrogantly refering to his original, unconvincing arguments. And finally, he feigns exasperation, claiming that we're simply not understanding his truth, or that we're being anti-intellectual.
So, to summarize this circus of retarded philosophy: Seeker is upset at us because, as atheists and agnostics, we have too much faith to accept his reasonable, scientific claims that the Earth was created in six days by an invisible man in the sky who loves us all so much that he gave us the world's most confusing book, and then threatened us with an eternity of fire if we didn't find his fairy-tales compelling enough.
Does that about cover it?
Seeker, your theology is a joke; it only works when you're allowed to redefine words like 'love', 'hate', and 'science' to mean almost their polar opposites. And you justify it by employing your own special reading of a book that practically the whole world disagrees with you about. The only thing sadder than your vaccuous arguments is the fact that a genuinely decent person like Aaron is willing to align himself with a religious bully like yourself.
Thankfully, your only regular readership seem to be people who think that you're full of crap. That position had some novelty for awhile, but you're not really interested in conversations that challenge your egoist view of the universe, are you? You're not worth arguing with anymore.
From now on I will ignore statements that state "creationism is not science" -Seeker
The ignorance of this statement should be clear to all readers. It boils down to this…
It is certainly unscientific for creationists to simply posit supernatural action as an explanation for a phenomenon without even hinting at what mechanism might make such agency possible. -Mark I. Vuletic
Seeker and Creationism have no valid response to this question. Essentially, Seeker is ignoring that the square peg does not fit into the round hole. He practices blind faith. The difference between Seeker's blind faith and reality is exemplified by this quote…
I define my faith as confidence in the scientific method, not blind faith, which is belief with no evidence or belief in spite of the evidence. This faith issue is really quite simple: institutions and ideologies only ask participants to have faith because they don't have any facts. If they actually had facts, they would appeal to those and not to faith. -Steven Schafersman
but it isn't like there's any real thought put into Creationism. It's just, "Well, the Bible said it happened, so it did."
Have you spent ANY time at a site like answersingenesis? That's hardly the limit of the approach.
How many times have I told you science is not faith?
I'm not saying science is faith. I am saying that evolution answers ultimate questions of faith, and is more than a proposed scientific theory – it's a world view that people ascribe to for the same reason people aascribe to religion – because it answers questions of faith for them.
But evolutionists don't grasp this facet of evolution – they fool themselves into thinking that their convictions are all based in science, and don't involve faith, as well as selective acceptance of data, not based on science, but based on their evolutionary presuppositions, i.e. they look for info to support their faith.
From now on I will ignore statements that state "creationism is not science" -Seeker
Creationism is not a science …nor is its misbegotten offpring "intelligent design" ,a science . Neither have anything to do with the open ended exploration of reality . Science is just that . It is the ultimate expression of honesty and curiousity about our place in the Universe. There is no evidence , in any sphere of the sciences that points toward the "Creator hypothesis". This is also known as "the unneccessary hypothesis" for explaining phenomema. A blind alley .. and a dead end,which is anti-human nature. All learning ends here.
To understand the full picture ,I truly believe one must examine the nature of mythology as well as philosophy, history,archaelogy,astronomy,biology,genetics,anthropology,psychology and memetics, as well as physics. They are all independent spheres of study, yet the is a concillience of evidence that points to a metaphysical naturalism.
Go bug Richard Dawkins ,if you don`t know what science is! http://www.simonyi.ox.ac.uk/dawkins/WorldOfDawkin…
More evidence for evolution. Isolate life in a closed environment and it evolves.
New Species