My Blog List

SITE DISCLAIMER This page and all others linked to it — All copyrighted sources are quoted and used for comment and education in accord with the nonprofit provisions of: Title 17 U.S.C., Section 107. These sites are in accordance with Title 17 U.S.C., Section 107 and are protected under: The First Amendment Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, ….

Thursday, January 10, 2013

Evolution - Conservapedia | Part two

Evolution - Conservapedia

Unqualified to be a scientific theory


Karl Popper
Karl Popper, a leading philosopher of science and originator of the falsifiability as a criterion of demarcation of science from nonscience,[131] stated that Darwinism is "not a testable scientific theory, but a metaphysicalresearch programme."[132] Leading Darwinist and philosopher of science, Michael Ruse declared the concerning Popper's statement and the actions he took after making that statement: "Since making this claim, Popper himself has modified his position somewhat; but, disclaimers aside, I suspect that even now he does not really believe that Darwinism in its modern form is genuinely falsifiable."[133]
The issue of the falsifiability of the evolutionary position is very important issue and although offering a poor cure to the problem that Karl Popper described, committed evolutionists Louis Charles Birch & Paul R. Ehrlich stated in the journal Nature:
“Our theory of evolution has become, as Popper described, one which cannot be refuted by any possible observations. Every conceivable observation can be fitted into it. It is thus outside of empirical science but not necessarily false. No one can think of ways in which to test it. Ideas, either without basis or based on a few laboratory experiments carried out in extremely simplified systems, have become part of an evolutionary dogma accepted by most of us as part of our training. The cure seems to us not to be a discarding of the modern synthesis of evolutionary theory, but more skepticism about many of its tenets.[134]”
The Swedish cytogeneticist, Antonio Lima-De-Faria, who has been knighted by the king of Sweden for his scientific achievements, noted that "there has never been a theory of evolution".[135][136]

Atheism and the evolutionary paradigm are religious in nature and legal implications

Many of the leaders of the atheist movement, such as the evolutionist and atheist Richard Dawkins, argue for atheism and evolution with a religious fervor.
Daniel Smartt has identified seven dimensions which make up religion: narrative, experiential, social, ethical, doctrinal, ritual and material. It is not necessary in Smartt's model for every one of these to be present in order for something to be a religion.[137]. However, it can be argued that all seven are present in the case of atheism.[138][139] Please see: Atheism: A religionand Atheism and Atheism is a religion.

Atheism is a religion and its legal implications as far as the teaching of evolution

Atheism is a religion and naturalistic notions concerning origins are religious in nature and both have legal implications as far as evolution being taught in public schools.[140][141][142]
John Calvert, a lawyer and intelligent design proponent wrote:
“The Seventh Judicial Circuit of the Court of Appeals of the United States held that atheism is a religion. Therefore, it cannot be promoted by a public school. Currently, public schools are often unwittingly promoting atheism through a dogmatic and uncritical teaching of materialistic theories of origins.[143]”
See also:

Implausible Explanations and the Evolutionary Position


Harvard biologist Ernst Mayr wrote: "It must be admitted, however, that it is a considerable strain on one’s credulity to assume that finely balanced systems such as certain sense organs (the eye of vertebrates, or the bird’s feather) could be improved by random mutations."[144]
Individuals who are against the evolutionary position assert that evolutionary scientists employ extremely implausible "just so stories" to support their position and have done this since at least the time of Charles Darwin.[145] [146]
A well known example of a "just so story" is when Darwin, in his Origin of the Species, wrote a chapter entitled "Difficulties on Theory" in which he stated:
“"In North America the black bear was seen by Hearne swimming for hours with widely open mouth, thus catching, like a whale, insects in the water. Even in so extreme a case as this, if the supply of insects were constant, and if better adapted competitors did not already exist in the country, I can see no difficulty in a race of bears being rendered, by natural selection, more and more aquatic in their structure and habits, with larger and larger mouths, till a creature was produced as monstrous as a whale."[147]”
Even the prominent evolutionist and geneticist Professor Richard Lewontin admitted the following:
“"We take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs, in spite of its failure to fulfill many of its extravagant promises of health and life, in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated just-so stories, because we have a prior commitment, a commitment to materialism. It is not that the methods and institutions of science somehow compel us to accept a material explanation of the phenomenal world, but, on the contrary, that we are forced by our a priori adherence to material causes to create an apparatus of investigation and a set of concepts that produce material explanations, no matter how counter-intuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is an absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door." - Richard Lewontin, ‘Billions and billions of demons’, The New York Review, January 9, 1997, p. 31[148]”
Dr. Sarfati wrote regarding the theory of evolution the following:
“The same logic applies to the dinosaur-bird debate. It is perfectly in order for creationists to cite Feduccia’s devastating criticism against the idea that birds evolved ‘ground up’ from running dinosaurs (the cursorial theory). But the dino-to-bird advocates counter with equally powerful arguments against Feduccia’s ‘trees-down’ (arboreal) theory. The evidence indicates that the critics are both right — birds did not evolve either from running dinos or from tree-living mini-crocodiles. In fact, birds did not evolve from non-birds at all![149]”

Bacterial Flagellum with rotary motor, courtesy of Access Research Network (Art Battson)
Opponents to the theory of evolution commonly point to the following in nature as being implausibly created through evolutionary processes:
Lastly, biochemist Michael Behe wrote the following:
“"Molecular evolution is not based on scientific authority. There is no publication in the scientific literature—in prestigious journals, specialty journals, or book—that describes how molecular evolution of any real, complex, biochemical system either did occur or even might have occurred. There are assertions that such evolution occurred, but absolutely none are supported by pertinent experiments or calculations. Since no one knows molecular evolution by direct experience, and since there is no authority on which to base claims of knowledge, it can truly be said that—like the contention that the Eagles will win the Super Bowl this year—the assertion of Darwinian molecular evolution is merely bluster." - Michael J. Behe, Darwin’s Black Box (New York: The Free Press, 1996), p. 186[165]”

Statements of Design

See main article: Intelligent design
Phillip E. Johnson cites Francis Crick in order to illustrate the fact that the biological world has the strong appearance of being designed:
“"One of the world's most famous scientists, probably the most famous living biologist, is Sir Francis Crick, the British co-discoverer of the structure of DNA, a Nobel Prize winner... Crick is also a fervent atheistic materialist, who propounds the particle story. In his autobiography, Crick says very candidly biologists must remind themselves daily that what they study was not created, it evolved; it was not designed, it evolved. Why do they have to remind themselves of that? Because otherwise, the facts which are staring them in the face and trying to get their attention might break through. What we discovered when I developed a working group of scientists, philosophers, et al., in the United States was that living organisms look as if they were designed and they look that way because that is exactly what they are." - Evolution And Christian Faith by Phillip E. Johnson[166]”
Stephen C. Meyer offers the following statement regarding the design of the biological world:
“"During the last forty years, molecular biology has revealed a complexity and intricacy of design that exceeds anything that was imaginable during the late-nineteenth century. We now know that organisms display any number of distinctive features of intelligently engineered high-tech systems: information storage and transfer capability; functioning codes; sorting and delivery systems; regulatory and feed-back loops; signal transduction circuitry; and everywhere, complex, mutually-interdependent networks of parts. Indeed, the complexity of the biomacromolecules discussed in this essay does not begin to exhaust the full complexity of living systems. As even the staunch materialist Richard Dawkins has allowed, "Biology is the study of complicated things that give the appearance of having been designed for a purpose." Yet the materialistic science we have inherited from the late-nineteenth century, with its exclusive conceptual reliance on matter and energy, could neither envision nor can it now account for the biology of the information age." - The Origin of Life and the Death of Materialism by Stephen C. Meyer, Ph.D.[167]”

Caricature of Charles Darwin
The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy states the following regarding a candid admission of Charles Darwin:
“In 1885, the Duke of Argyll recounted a conversation he had had with Charles Darwin the year before Darwin's death:
In the course of that conversation I said to Mr. Darwin, with reference to some of his own remarkable works on the Fertilisation of Orchids, and upon The Earthworms, and various other observations he made of the wonderful contrivances for certain purposes in nature—I said it was impossible to look at these without seeing that they were the effect and the expression of Mind. I shall never forget Mr. Darwin's answer. He looked at me very hard and said, “Well, that often comes over me with overwhelming force; but at other times,” and he shook his head vaguely, adding, “it seems to go away.”(Argyll 1885, 244][168]
”

Theory of Evolution and the Scientific Journals

Advocates of the theory of evolution have often claimed that those who oppose the theory of evolution don't publish their opposition to the theory of evolution in the appropriate scientific literature (creationist scientists have peer reviewed journals which favor the creationist position).[169][170][171]Recently, there has been articles which were favorable to the intelligent design position in scientific journals which traditionally have favored the theory of evolution.[172]

Effect on Scientific Endeavors Outside the Specific Field of Biology


Trofim Denisovich Lysenko
Stephen Wolfram in his book A New Kind of Science has stated that the Darwinian theory of evolution has, in recent years, "increasingly been applied outside of biology."[173]

Lysenkoism

Evolutionary theory played a prominent role in regards to atheistic communism.[174] Communists, in particularStalinism, favored a version of Lamarckism called Lysenkoism developed by the atheist Trofim Denisovich Lysenko.[175] Lsyenko was made member of the Supreme Soviet and head of the Institute of Genetics of the Soviet Academy of Sciences.[176] Later Lysenko became President of the All-Union Academy of Agricultural Sciences.[177] Many geneticists were imprisoned and executed for their bourgeois science, and agricultural policies based on Lysenkoism that were adopted under the Communist leaders Joseph Stalin and Mao Zedongcaused famines and the death of millions.[178]

Medical Science

The theory of evolution has had a negative effect on the field of medical science. According to Dr. Jerry Bergman the list of vestigial organs in humans has gone from 180 in 1890 to 0 in 1999.[179] Furthermore, Dr. Bergman states the following:
“Few examples of vestigial organs in humans are now offered, and the ones that are have been shown by more recent research to be completely functional (and in many cases critically so, see Bergman and Howe)...
One popular book on the human body which discussed vestigial organs stated that next to circumcision
‘… tonsillectomy is the most frequently performed piece of surgery. Doctors once thought tonsils were simply useless evolutionary leftovers and took them out thinking that it could do no harm. Today there is considerable evidence that there are more troubles in the upper respiratory tract after tonsil removal than before, and doctors generally agree that simple enlargement of tonsils is hardly an indication for surgery...’[180]
”

Astronomy

Young earth creation scientist Dr. Jonathan Sarfati states that evolutionary thought has been applied to the field of astronomy.[181] Sarfati's claim is supported by the fact that astronomers do refer to the "evolution of the universe".[182] Sarfati asserts the evolutionary view has had a negative effect on astronomy and that arguments to support the proposed evolutionary time scales of billions of years via the field of astronomy are invalid.[183] Creationists can cite examples of scientists stating that evolutionary ideas in astronomy have failed to have any explanatory power:
“““...most every prediction by theorists about planetary formation has been wrong.” Scott Tremaine, as quoted by Richard A. Kerr, “Jupiters Like Our Own Await Planet Hunters,” Science, Vol. 295, 25 January 2002, p. 605.[184]”
“"Attempts to find a plausible naturalistic explanation of the origin of the Solar System began about 350 years ago but have not yet been quantitatively successful, making this one of the oldest unsolved problems in modern science.” - Stephen G. Brush, A History of Modern Planetary Physics, Vol. 3 (Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, 1996), p. 91.[184]”
““We don’t understand how a single star forms, yet we want to understand how 10 billion stars form.” Carlos Frenk, as quoted by Robert Irion, “Surveys Scour the Cosmic Deep,” Science, Vol. 303, 19 March 2004, p. 1750.[185]”

““We cannot even show convincingly how galaxies, stars, planets, and life arose in the present universe.” Michael Rowan-Robinson, “Review of the Accidental Universe,” New Scientist, Vol. 97, 20 January 1983, p. 186.[186]”
In 2001, Cristina Chiappini wrote concering the Milky Way galaxy:
". . . it is an elegant structure that shows both order and complexity. . . . The end product is especially remarkable in the light of what is believed to be the starting point: nebulous blobs of gas. How the universe made the Milky Way from such simple beginnings is not altogether clear. - Cristina Chiappini, "The Formation and Evolution of the Milky Way," American Scientist (vol. 89, Nov./Dec. 2001), p. 506.[187]
Dr. Walt Brown provides numerous citations to the secular science literature that cite the failings of current old universe paradigm explanations in regards to the planets, stars, and galaxies.[184][185][186]

Origin of Life

Evolutionary thought has had an influence on origin of life research as well. For example, a 2004 article in the International Journal of Astrobiologyis titled On the applicability of Darwinian principles to chemical evolution that led to life.[188] It is also clear that early origin of life researcher Aleksandr Oparin who proposed materialist ideas regarding the origin of life was influenced by evolutionary thought.[189] However, the currentnaturalistic explanations for the origin of life are inadequate.

Richard Dawkins and evolutionary quackery


A Creation Ministries International video features Richard Dawkins being stumped by the question of a creationist.[190]
For more information please see: Richard Dawkins and evolutionary quackery and Atheism and deception
Within the evolutionary science community and the creation science community, evolutionist andatheist Richard Dawkins has faced charges of engaging in pseudoscience and also has faced charges of committing elementary errors.[191][192]
The website True Free Thinker notes:
“Moreover, note that with regards to “assertions without adequate evidence” evolutionary biologist and geneticist, Prof. Richard Lewontin, referenced Carl Sagan’s list of the “best contemporary science-popularizers” which includes Richard Dawkins. These authors have, as Lewontin puts it, “put unsubstantiated assertions or counterfactual claims at the very center of the stories they have retailed in the market.” Lewontin specifically mentions “Dawkins’s vulgarizations of Darwinism” (find details here and here).
Even renowned evolutionary biologists H. Allen Orr, David Sloan Wilson, and Massimo Pigliucci have called into question the power that Dawkins once had as an intellectual, since he has made elementary errors in The God Delusion.[193]
”
In 2010, a new discovery regarding the eye further discredited the evolutionary quackery of Richard Dawkins.[194]

Age of the Earth and the Theory of Evolution

See main articles: Young Earth Creationism, Geologic system
As far as the evolutionary timeline posited by the evolutionary community, the various theories of evolution claim that the earth and universe are billions of years old and that macroevolutionary processes occurred over this time period.[195][196] William R. Corliss was a respected cataloger of scientific anomalies and the science magazine New Scientist had an article which focused on Mr. Corliss's career as a cataloger of scientific anomalies.[197] Mr. Corliss cataloged scores of anomalies which challenge the old earth geology paradigm.[198][199] Young earth creationist hold the earth and universe is approximately 6,000 years old.[195] Young earth creationist scientists state the following is true: there are multiple lines of evidence pointing to a young earth and universe; the old earth and universe paradigm has numerous anomalies and uses invalid dating methods, and there are multiple citations in the secular science literature that corroborate the implausibility of the old earth and universe paradigm (for details see: Young Earth Creationism).

Scientific Community Consensus and the Macroevolution Position


Until the 1970s the scientific consensus was wrong on how lions killed their prey.[200] The Bible was correct regarding how lions killed their prey.[201]
A 1997 Gallup poll indicated that 55% of United States scientists believed that humans developed over a period of millions of years from less developed forms of life and that God had no part in the process, 40% believed in theistic evolution, and 5% of scientists believed that God created man fairly much in his current form at one time within the last 10,000 years.[202] As noted earlier, in 2007, "Discovery Institute's Center for Science and Culture...announced that over 700 scientists from around the world have now signed a statement expressing their skepticism about the contemporary theory of Darwinian evolution."[203]
Poll results regarding the amount of scientists who are skeptical or opposed to the evolutionary view could be underreporting the actual amount of scientists who are skeptical of the evolutionary view or hold the creation science view. Poll results may not be as precise as they could be as creation science organizations report widespread discrimination against scientists who hold the creation science view.[204]On April 18, 2008 a film documentary by Ben Stein entitled Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed! was released to the public which documents the suppression of scientific freedom of scientists who are critical of the evolutionary position.[205][206] Such suppression is not surprising given that a poll among United States scientists showed that approximately 45% of scientists believed there was no God.[207] In addition, a survey found that 93% of the scientists who were members of theUnited States National Academy of Sciences do not believe there is a God.[208] Given this state of affairs, a future paradigm shift from the theory of evolution to a creation science position could be slow given the worldviews of many scientists.

19th century European naturalists were wrong about ant behavior. TheBible was correct about ant behavior.[209]
Also, the current scientific community consensus is no guarantee of truth. The history of science shows many examples where the scientific community consensus was in error, was scientifically unsound, or had little or no empirical basis. For example, bloodletting was practiced from antiquity and still had many practitioners up until the late 1800s.[210] In his essay, A Paradigm Shift: Are We Ready? , Niranjan Kissoon, M.D. wrote the following: "...history is rife with examples in which our best medical judgment was flawed. The prestigious British Medical Journal begun in 1828 chose the name Lancet to signal its scholarly intent and cutting edge therapy."[211] Also, in regards to modern medical science, in a 1991BMJ (formerly called the British Medical Journal) article, Richard Smith (editor of BMJ at the time) wrote the following: "There are 30,000 biomedical journals in the world...Yet only about 15% of medical interventions are supported by solid scientific evidence, David Eddy professor of health policy and management at Duke University, told a conference in Manchester last week. This is partly because only 1% of the articles in medical journals are scientifically sound and partly because many treatments have never been assessed at all."[212] Next, alchemy was at one time considered to be a legitimate scientific pursuit and was studied by such notable individuals as Isaac Newton, Robert Boyle, Roger Bacon, and Gottfried Leibniz.[213][214] Given the aforementioned weaknesses in the evolutionary position and given that the history of science shows there have been some notable paradigm shifts,[215][216][217] the scientific consensus argument for the macroevolutionary theory certainly cannot be called an invincible argument.
In addition, biblical creationists can point out examples where the scientific community was in error and the Bible was clearly correct. For example, until the 1970s the scientific consensus on how lions killed their prey was in error and the Bible turned out to be right in this matter.[218]Also, for centuries the scientific community believed that snakes could not hear and the 1988 edition of The New Encyclopedia Britannica stated the snakes could not hear but that was mistaken and the Bible was correct in this matter.[219][220] In addition, 19th century European naturalists were wrong concerning a matter regarding ant behavior and the Bible was correct.[221] Many creationists such as the creationists at Creation Ministries International assert that the Bible contains knowledge that shows an understanding of scientific knowledge Bible scientific foreknowledge beyond that believed to exist at the time the Bible was composed.[222][223] In addition, Christianity had a profound influence in regards to the development of modern science.

Social Effects of the Theory of Evolution


Adolf Hitler
‎There have been significant and negative social ramifications of the adoption of the theory of evolution. The theory has been foundational to Social Darwinism, Nazism andCommunism and has also been a source of racism.[224]
The staunch evolutionist Stephen Gould admitted the following:
“Haeckel was the chief apostle of evolution in Germany.... His evolutionary racism; his call to the German people for racial purity and unflinching devotion to a "just" state; his belief that harsh, inexorable laws of evolution ruled human civilization and nature alike, conferring upon favored races the right to dominate others; the irrational mysticism that had always stood in strange communion with his brave words about objective science - all contributed to the rise of Nazism. - Stephen J. Gould, "Ontogeny and Phylogeny," Belknap Press: Cambridge MA, 1977, pp.77-78).[225]”
Adolf Hitler wrote the following evolutionary racist material in his work Mein Kampf:
“If nature does not wish that weaker individuals should mate with the stronger, she wishes even less that a superior race should intermingle with an inferior one; because in such cases all her efforts, throughout hundreds of thousands of years, to establish an evolutionary higher stage of being, may thus be rendered futile.[226]”
Hitler also wrote in Mein Kampf:
“The stronger must dominate and not blend with the weaker, thus sacrificing his own greatness. Only the born weakling can view this as cruel, but he, after all, is only a weak and limited man; for if this law did not prevail, any conceivable higher development (Hoherentwicklung) of organic living beings would be unthinkable.[227]”
Robert E.D. Clark in his work Darwin: Before and After wrote regarding Hitler's evolutionary racism:
“The Germans were the higher race, destined for a glorious evolutionary future. For this reason it was essential that the Jews should be segregated, otherwise mixed marriages would take place. Were this to happen, all nature’s efforts 'to establish an evolutionary higher stage of being may thus be rendered futile' (Mein Kampf). [228]”
Dr. Robert E.D. Clark also wrote:
““Adolf Hitler’s mind was captivated by evolutionary teaching — probably since the time he was a boy. Evolutionary ideas — quite undisguised — lie at the basis of all that is worst in Mein Kampf — and in his public speeches.”[229]”
Richard Hickman, in his work Biocreation, concurs and wrote the following:
“It is perhaps no coincidence that Adolf Hitler was a firm believer in and preacher of evolutionism. Whatever the deeper, profound, complexities of his psychosis, it is certain that [the concept of struggle was important for]. . . his book, Mein Kampf clearly set forth a number of evolutionary ideas, particularly those emphasizing struggle, survival of the fittest and extermination of the weak to produce a better society.[230]”
Noted evolutionary anthropologists Sir Arthur Keith conceded the following in regards to Hitler and the theory of evolution: “The German Fuhrer, as I have consistently maintained, is an evolutionist; he has consciously sought to make the practices of Germany conform to the theory of evolution”.[231]
Dr. Josef Mengele's evolutionary thinking was in accordance with social Darwinist theories that Adolph Hitler and a number of German academics found appealing.[232] Dr. Joseph Mengele studied under the leading proponents the "unworthy life" branch of evolutionary thought.[233] Dr. Mengele was one of the most notorious individuals associated with Nazi death camps and the Holocaust.[234] Mengele obtained a infamous reputation due to his experiments on twins while at Auschwitz-Birkenau.[235]
Prominent evolutionist and atheist Richard Dawkins stated the following regarding Adolf Hitler in an interview: “What’s to prevent us from saying Hitler wasn’t right? I mean, that is a genuinely difficult question."[236] The interviewer of Richard Dawkins wrote the following regarding the Richard Dawkins comment about Hitler: "I was stupefied. He had readily conceded that his own philosophical position did not offer a rational basis for moral judgments. His intellectual honesty was refreshing, if somewhat disturbing on this point."[237]
B. Wilder-Smith wrote the following regarding Nazism and the theory of evolution:
“One of the central planks in Nazi theory and doctrine was …evolutionary theory [and] … that all biology had evolved … upward, and that … less evolved types … should be actively eradicated [and] … that natural selection could and should be actively aided, and therefore [the Nazis] instituted political measures to eradicate … Jews, and … blacks, whom they considered as “underdeveloped”.’[238]”
Pulitzer Prize winning author Marilynne Robinson wrote the following regarding Hitler's racism in the November 2006 issue of Harper’s Magazine:
“While it is true that persecution of the Jews has a very long history in Europe, it is also true that science in the twentieth century revived and absolutized persecution by giving it a fresh rationale — Jewishness was not religious or cultural, but genetic. Therefore no appeal could be made against the brute fact of a Jewish grandparent...
There is indeed historical precedent in the Spanish Inquisition for the notion of hereditary Judaism. But the fact that the worst religious thought of the sixteenth century can be likened to the worst scientific thought of the twentieth century hardly redounds to the credit of science."[239]
”

The brutal atheist Joseph Stalin was greatly influenced by the work ofCharles Darwin.[240]
As noted earlier, evolutionary ideas significantly influenced the thinking of the nineteenth and twentieth-century Communists.[241][242] Karl Marx wrote in a letter the following, ""Darwin's book is very important and serves me as a basis in natural science for the class struggle in history." Darwin's ideas also influenced the thinking of Engels, Vladimir Lenin, and Joseph Stalin.[243]
Governments under the banner of atheistic communism have caused the death of somewhere between 40 million to 260 million human lives.[244] Dr. R. J. Rummel, professor emeritus of political science at the University of Hawaii, is the scholar who first coined the term democide (death by government). Dr. R. J. Rummel's mid estimate regarding the loss of life due to communism is that communism caused the death of approximately 110,286,000 people between 1917 and 1987.[245]
Previously it was mentioned that evolutionary ideas contributed to the scourge of racism. [246][247] Charles Darwin and Thomas Huxley contributed greatly to the theory of evolution broadly being accepted in the 1900s. [248] Darwin, Huxley, and the 19th century evolutionists were racist in sentiment and believed the white race was superior. [249] For example, Charles Darwin wrote in his work The Descent of Man and Selection in Relation to Sex the following:
“At some future period not very distant as measured by centuries, the civilised races of man will almost certainly exterminate and replace the savage races throughout the world. At the same time the anthropomorphous apes...will no doubt be exterminated. The break between man and his nearest Allies will then be wider, for it will intervene between man in a more civilised state, as we may hope, even than the Caucasian, and some ape as low as the baboon, instead of as now between the Negro or Australian and the gorilla.[250]”
John C. Burnham wrote, in the journal Science, the following in regards to the theory of evolution and racism:
“After 1859, the evolutionary schema raised additional questions, particularly whether or not Afro-Americans could survive competition with their white near-relations. The momentous answer was a resounding no.... The African was inferior — he represented the missing link between ape and Teuton."[251]”
Harvard University's Stephen Jay Gould stated, "Biological arguments for racism may have been common before 1859, but they increased by orders of magnitude following the acceptance of evolutionary theory."[252] Recent racism directed at Michelle Obama was the result of evolutionary racism.[253]
Also, according to atheist philosopher David Stove the theory of evolution was influential in regards to the sexual revolution.[254]

Bestiality: Comments by the Scientific American and evolutionary belief and bestiality


The atheist philosopher Peter Singer defends the practice of bestiality (as well as abortion, infanticide and euthanasia). Despite holding these immoral views the liberal and pro-evolutionacademic establishment rewarded his views with a bioethics chair at Princeton University.[255] See:Evolutionary belief and bestiality and Atheism and bestiality
Bestiality is the act of engaging in sexual relations with an animal. The pro-evolution magazine theScientific American speciously made this unwarranted speculation via their blog on the aberrant practice of bestiality:
“After all, we are animals....
In any event, philosophical questions aside, I simply find it astounding — and incredibly fascinating from an evolutionary perspective — that so many people (as much as a full percent of the general population) are certifiable zoophiles. And scientific researchers appear to be slowly conceding that zoophilia may be a genuine human sexual orientation.[256]
”
Liberals are more likely to believe in evolutionary pseudoscience. Concerning the aberrant practice of homosexuality, the licentious liberal community has more favorable views on homosexualitythan conservatives plus has a history of inflating the number of people who are homosexuals.[257]As far as the causes of homosexuality, the liberal community commonly ignores the existence ofex-homosexuals and errantly asserts that homosexuality is an immutable sexual orientation despite the fact that researchers have found cultures where homosexuality does not exist.[258]Thus, it is not surprising the Scientific American engaged in the above cited speculation concerning bestiality.
Other information on bestiality, evolutionary belief and atheism

Evolutionary psychologist Satoshi Kanazawa's comments about black women and African history

Dr. Satoshi Kanazawa is an evolutionary psychologist at the London School of Economics. Dr. Kanazawa publishes a blog on the Psychology Today website called The Scientific Fundamentalist.
In 2011, Dr. Kanazawa published the following inappropriate comment which was later pulled by the Psychology Today website:
“It is very interesting to note that, even though black women are objectively less physically attractive than other women, black women (and men) subjectively consider themselves to be far more physically attractive than others.[259]”
Kanazawa has a "Savanna principle" hypothesis which speculates that societal problems are due to the human brain supposedly evolving in Africa hundreds of thousands of years ago in a very different environment from modern society.[260]

Genetics, Homosexuality, Evolutionary Paradigm, and Creation Science

In 1993, Professor Miron Baron, M.D., the renowned medical researcher and Professor at Columbia University, wrote in BMJ (British Medical Journal) that there is a conflict relative to the theory of evolution and the notion of genetic determinism concerning homosexuality. Dr. Baron wrote "...from an evolutionary perspective, genetically determined homosexuality would have become extinct long ago because of reduced reproduction."[261] In the United States, liberals are more likely to believe in the theory of evolution.[262] Also, in the United States, twice as many liberals as conservatives (46% versus 22%) believe people are born homosexual and liberals generally have more favorable opinions about homosexuality.[263] Given Dr. Miron Baron's commentary about homosexuality, many American liberals are inconsistent on the issues of evolution and homosexuality.
An individual's beliefs regarding creation science/creationism and the theory of evolution appear to influence their views on homosexuality. Creationist scientists and creationist assert that the theory of evolution cannot account for the origin of gender and sexual reproduction.[264][265]Creation Ministries International states: "Homosexual acts go against God’s original design of a man and a woman becoming one flesh — seeGenesis 1 and 2, endorsed by Jesus Himself in Matthew 19:3–6."[266] In addition, the vast majority of creation scientists reject the notion ofgenetic determinism concerning the origin of homosexuality.[267]

Common behavior of online evolutionists

In February of 2010, the news organization The Telegraph reported that atheist and evolutionist Richard Dawkins was "embroiled in a bitter online battle over plans to rid his popular internet forum for atheists of foul language, insults and 'frivolous gossip'."[268] Given that Wired Magazine andVox Day declared for various reasons that atheists tend to be quarrelsome, socially challenged men, it is not surprising the online dispute was bitter. In addition, Richard Dawkins has a reputation for being abrasive.
In 2010, the Christian apologetics website True Free Thinker wrote:
“Scienceblogger Chad Orzel described the commentators on PZ Myers ' Scienceblogs.com site Pharyngula, and other Scienceblogs.com commentators, as "screechy monkeys."[269]”
In addition, there is a widespread problem with atheist cyberbullying on YouTube toward Christian and creationist YouTube channels. CreationWikihas developed a web page entitled Creationist YouTube video designed to show creationists how to thwart atheist/evolutionist cyberbullies.

Creation Scientists Tend to Win the Creation-Evolution Debates


Dr. Duane Gish
For additional information please see the article: Atheism and Debate and Atheism and deception and Creation scientists tend to win the creation vs. evolution debates and Atheism and cowardice
Creation scientists tend to win the Creation-Evolution debates and many have been held since the 1970's particularly in the United States. Robert Sloan, Director of Paleontology at the University of Minnesota, reluctantly admitted to a Wall Street Journal reporter that the "creationists tend to win" the public debates which focused on the creation vs. evolution controversy.[270][271] In August of 1979, Dr. Henry Morris reported in an Institute for Creation Research letter the following: “By now, practically every leading evolutionary scientist in this country has declined one or more invitations to a scientific debate on creation/evolution.” Morris also said regarding the creation scientist Duane Gish (who had over 300 formal debates): “At least in our judgment and that of most in the audiences, he always wins.”[272][273] Generally speaking, leading evolutionists no longer debate creation scientistsbecause creation scientists tend to win the creation vs. evolution debates.[274] Also, the atheist and evolutionistRichard Dawkins has shown inconsistent and deceptive behavior concerning his refusal creation scientists. Evolutionists and atheists inconsistency concerning debating creationists was commented on by the Christian apologetic website True Free Thinker which declared: "Interestingly enough, having noted that since some atheists refuse to debate “creationists” but then go on to debate some of those people but not others, it is clear that they are, in reality, being selective and making excuses for absconding from difficulties..."[275] In an article entitled Are Kansas Evolutionists Afraid of a Fair Debate? the Discovery Institute states the following:
“Defenders of Darwin's theory of evolution typically proclaim that evidence for their theory is simply overwhelming. If they really believe that, you would think they would jump at a chance to publicly explain some of that overwhelming evidence to the public. Apparently not.[276]”
In 1994, the arch-evolutionist Dr. Eugenie Scott made this confession concerning creation vs. evolution debates:
“During the last six or eight months, I have received more calls about debates between creationists and evolutionists than I have encountered for a couple of years, it seems. I do not know what has inspired this latest outbreak, but I am not sure it is doing much to improve science education.
Why do I say this? Sure, there are examples of "good" debates where a well-prepared evolution supporter got the best of a creationist, but I can tell you after many years in this business that they are few and far between. Most of the time a well-meaning evolutionist accepts a debate challenge (usually "to defend good science" or for some other worthy goal), reads a bunch of creationist literature, makes up a lecture explaining Darwinian gradualism, and can't figure out why at the end of the debate so many individuals are clustered around his opponent, congratulating him on having done such a good job of routing evolution -- and why his friends are too busy to go out for a beer after the debate.[277]
”
In 2010, the worldwide atheist community was challenged to a debate by Creation Ministries International as prominent atheists were speaking at a 2010 global atheist convention in Australia.[278] Richard Dawkins, PZ Myers and other prominent atheists refused to debate Creation Ministries International.[279]

Theory of Evolution, Liberalism, Atheism, and Irrationality


The Wall Street Journalreported: "A comprehensive new study released by Baylor University yesterday, shows thattraditional Christian religion greatly decreases belief in everything from the efficacy of palm readers to the usefulness of astrology. It also shows that the irreligious and the members of more liberal Protestant denominations, far from being resistant to superstition, tend to be much more likely to believe in the paranormal and inpseudoscience than evangelical Christians."[280]
See also: Evolution, Liberalism, Atheism, and Irrationality and
As alluded to earlier, in the United States, CBS News reported in October of 2005 that the Americans most likely to believe only in the theory of evolution are liberals.[281]
“The CBS News reported the following:
Americans most likely to believe in only evolution are liberals (36 percent), those who rarely or never attend religious services (25 percent), and those with a college degree or higher (24 percent).
White evangelicals (77 percent), weekly churchgoers (74 percent) and conservatives (64 percent), are mostly likely to say God created humans in their present form.[282]
”
Given that liberalism is so prevalent in academia, it is not entirely surprising that college graduates are indoctrinated into the evolutionary paradigm via evolutionary propaganda.
Despite the aforementioned lack of evidence for the evolutionary position and the aforementioned counter evidential nature of the evolutionary paradigm, atheists and liberals persist in advocating the evolutionary paradigm. The continued support of the atheist and liberal community for the evolutionary paradigm is not surprising given the that the Wall Street Journal reported:
“...a comprehensive new study released by Baylor University yesterday, shows that traditional Christian religion greatly decreases belief in everything from the efficacy of palm readers to the usefulness of astrology. It also shows that the irreligious and the members of more liberal Protestant denominations, far from being resistant to superstition, tend to be much more likely to believe in the paranormal and in pseudoscience than evangelical Christians....
This is not a new finding. In his 1983 book "The Whys of a Philosophical Scrivener," skeptic and science writer Martin Gardner cited the decline of traditional religious belief among the better educated as one of the causes for an increase in pseudoscience, cults and superstition. He referenced a 1980 study published in the magazine Skeptical Inquirer that showed irreligious college students to be by far the most likely to embrace paranormal beliefs, while born-again Christian college students were the least likely.[283]
”

Evolutionary belief, irreligion, extraterrestial life, UFOlogy and other pseudoscience

The notions of extraterrestrial life and UFOlogy are fast growing pseudoscientific religions which are perpetuated and/or aided by the ideologies of evolutionists, atheists, liberals and other promoters of quackery.[284][285] However, the ideologies of extraterrestrial life, UFOlogy, exobiology, evolution and abiogenesis are anti-biblical ideas which are not supported by sound science.[286][287]
The liberal and agnostic Carl Sagan, an avid smoker of marijuana who claimed that marijuana gave him scientific insights, was a prominent peddler of extraterrestial life, evolution and other pseudoscientific nonsense. Sagan's agnosticism and avid marijuana smoking no doubt helped inspire Sagan's pseudoscientific fantasy that evolution was a "fact".[288]

Irreligious/atheistic France and the Soviet Union and UFOlogy

On January 4, 2003, it was reported in the newspaper the Toledo Blade concerning the irreligious countries of the Soviet Union and France that "in countries with a high degree of occult activity such as Russia during the Soviet era, France, and certain parts of Brazil also had high percentages of UFO encounters. During Russia's Soviet period when every expression of religion except occult activity had been outlawed, he said, “Russians were seeing UFOs at five to eight times the rate Americans were."[289]

Christian and Library of Congress researcher's comments on extraterrestial life and UFOlogy

Christian apologists who reject naturalistic explanations of life such as the theory of evolution argue that difficult to explain UFOs are spiritual in nature and not amenable to naturalistic explanation.[290] Gary Bates of Creation Ministries International wrote a book entitled Alien Intrusion which gives a biblical Christian perspective on the unscientific notions of extraterrestial life and UFUlogy.[291]
Lynn Cato, senior bibliographer for the library of Congress, created a 1600 entry on UFO bibliography for the United States Air Force Office of Scientific Research. After a two year investigation, in which she reviewed thousands of documents, Catoe stated:
“A large part of the available UFO literature...deals with subjects like mental telepathy, automatic writing and invisible entities...poltergeist manifestations and 'possession'....Many of the UFO reports now being published in the popular press recount alleged incidents that are strikingly similar to demonic possession and psychic phenomenon which have long been known to theologians and parapsychologists.[292][293]”

Liberalism, Charles Darwin, and Denial of Creation


The evolutionist and immunologist Dr. Scott Todd, an immunologist at Kansas State University, perfectly epitomized the irrational evolutionary denial of the evidence for creation in his correspondence to the science journalNature. Dr. Scott wrote: "Even if all the data point to an intelligent designer, such an hypothesis is excluded from science because it is not naturalistic".[294]
‎Many liberals when faced with the compelling data for creation science and against the evolutionary paradigm irrationally attempt to suppress the evidence and engage in denial like the atheist Charles Darwin (see: religious views of Charles Darwin ) who late in life is reported to often have overwhelming thoughts that the world was designed.[295][296] Creation Ministries International describes such irrational thinking in the following manner:
“Underpinning this abandonment of faith in God is the widespread acceptance of evolutionary thinking — that everything made itself by natural processes; that God is not necessary. There is ‘design’, such people will admit, but no Designer is necessary. The designed thing designed itself! This thinking, where the plain-as-day evidence for God’s existence (Rom. 1:19–20) is explained away, leads naturally to atheism (belief in no God) and secular humanism (man can chart his own course without God). Such thinkingabounds in universities and governments today).[297]”
The evolutionist and immunologist Dr. Scott Todd, an immunologist at Kansas State University, perfectly epitomized the irrational evolutionary denial of the evidence for creation in his correspondence to the science journal Nature. Dr. Scott wrote: "Even if all the data point to an intelligent designer, such an hypothesis is excluded from science because it is not naturalistic".[298]

Ben Stein Interview with the Evolutionist Richard Dawkins

In the movie Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed, Ben Stein demonstrated the folly of evolutionism in his interview with the prominent evolutionist and atheist Richard Dawkins (A clip of the interview has been uploaded to YouTube ).
The Discovery Institute provides an transcript of part of the interview along with some commentary:
“BEN STEIN: "What do you think is the possibility that Intelligent Design might turn out to be the answer to some issues in genetics or in evolution?"
DAWKINS: "Well, it could come about in the following way. It could be that at some earlier time, somewhere in the universe, a civilization evolved, probably by some kind of Darwinian means, probably to a very high level of technology, and designed a form of life that they seeded onto perhaps this planet. Now, um, now that is a possibility, and an intriguing possibility. And I suppose it's possible that you might find evidence for that if you look at the details of biochemistry, molecular biology, you might find a signature of some sort of designer."

Ho,ho! That is precisely what the Raelians say:
Years ago, everybody knew that the earth was flat. Everybody knew that the sun revolved around the earth. Today, everybody knows that life on earth is either the result of random evolution or the work of a supernatural God. Or is it? In "Message from the Designers", Rael presents us with a third option: that all life on earth was created by advanced scientists from another world.
Richard Dawkins and Rael; "clear thinking" kindred spirits! [299]
”
In the Ben Stein/Richard Dawkins interview, Richard Dawkins was also asked what the probability is of God's existence is and a rationale for that estimation. Dawkins gave a very inept reply to Ben Stein concerning this issue.[300]

Creationist Video Interview of Richard Dawkins Being Stumped by a Creationist

A video clip featuring Richard Dawkins became widely available to the public,[301] showing Dawkins being stumped by a question from the creationist interviewer. A shortened version has been translated into 10 languages. The clip was part of an interview included in the video and DVD From a Frog to Prince, produced by Creation Ministries International about the genetic information required by evolution, and the interviewer is asking Dawkins for an example of genetic information arising from a mutation.
In later interviews, Dawkins claims that he was not stumped, but instead shocked when he realized that the interviewer was a creationist, and the video was edited in a way to make him look like he was unable to answer the question.[302] However, the question came after he had that realization, and after the creationists negotiated with Dawkins and he agreed to continue.[303] Richard Dawkins still hasn't provide any examples of genetic information being created by evolution.

Methodological Naturalism Ideology In Evolutionary Thought

As mentioned earlier, evolutionary thought (which employs methodological naturalism) has had an influence on origin of life research as well (for example, a 2004 article in the International Journal of Astrobiology is titled On the applicability of Darwinian principles to chemical evolution that led to life).[304] The Nobel Prize winning biologist Francis Crick described himself as an agnostic with "a strong inclination towards atheism."[305]In 1992, the science magazine Scientific American published an interview which explored Sir Francis Crick's belief in the hypothesis Directed Panspermia as a proposed hypthesis for the origin of life on earth.[306] Directed panspermia posits concerning the question of origin of life on earththat "organisms were deliberately transmitted to the earth by intelligent beings on another planet."[307] Michael Behe wrote regarding the Scientific American interview the following:
“The primary reason Crick subscribes to this unorthodox view is that he judges the undirected origin of life to be a virtually insurmountable obstacle, but he wants a naturalistic explanation. [308]”
When commenting on the hypothesis of Directed Panspermia Creation Ministries International wrote that Francis "Crick’s atheistic faith leads to absurd pseudoscience".[309]

Supppession of scientific inquiry concerning alternative theories of origins

There exists widespread suppression of creation science and intelligent design, ideas which offer alternative explanations of origins than do the various theories of evolution (for more information please see: Suppression of alternatives to evolution).

Inflated claims of evolutionists growing in frequency and intensity

Causes of evolutionary belief

A number of articles have been written concerning the reasons why evolutionists commonly hold their evolutionary views:
See also:

Creation vs. Evolution Videos

Creation vs. evolution news

Poor health practices of some notable evolutionists

Further Reading (including free on-line versions)

Other biblical creation related publications

Some prominent biblical creation publications are given below:

See also

External Links and other links

Other resources:



Go to: God and His Messiah Jesus Christ our Lord - our right and duty to witness to Him: Evolution - Conservapedia | Part three



Posted by at
Labels:

No comments:

Post a Comment

Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)

Search This Blog

Popular Posts

Other Blogs of Special Interest

Multi Blog Label Aggregator

Labels

The Antichrist

St. John

The Catholic Creed

Justice of God

          Traditional Catholic Prayers

              Look up, your redemption is at hand

              Palestine Cry

                    Palestine Cry

                      Communist World Government

                          God and His Messiah Jesus Christ our Lord - our right and duty to witness to Him

                          Miko's Blog

                          Iraq Cry

                            Tech_Journal

                                Communist Internationale Sixth

                                The Mark, the Name, the Number of the Beast and the Tower of Babel = EcumenismThe Truth

                                  Apostasy

                                  Good versus evil

                                  Pashtun Resist

                                    Jews called in Christ

                                    Culture

                                    God and His Messiah Jesus Christ our Lord - our right and duty to witness to Him - labels