Thursday, April 7, 2011

Evolutionists: The People do Not Even Believe Evolution is Real!

In their review of the new edited volume Evolution Since Darwin: The First 150 Years, evolutionists Joel Kingsolver and David Pfennig wonder why the new volume does not take up the question of why evolution remains controversial at a societal level. After all, “the majority of the public do not even believe it is real!” Evolutionists are astonished. The public does not buy their idea that the universe and everything in it—including all of biology—must have spontaneously arisen on its own. This in spite of the enormous scientific challenges to this Epicurean mythology. It is incredible that evolutionists insist that spontaneous formation is a fact, beyond all reasonable doubt. Evolutionists resist this plain description of their theory, but in doing so they are their own judge. For this is precisely what their theory claims. Swerving atoms, no matter how much they are adorned with Darwinian rhetoric, are not likely to create biosonar, consciousness and the entire cosmos. Once again, the people are ahead of the pundits.

58 comments:

  1. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Rather than look at themselves and their theory as the problem, evolutionists see the problem as being with everyone else. The only thing predictable about evolution is how evolutionists respond to stuff like this.

    Ding, the bell rings.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Cornelius:

    Evolutionists are astonished. The public does not buy their idea that the universe and everything in it—including all of biology—must have spontaneously arisen on its own.

    Jesus, what a dumb post. Why do you keep conflating evolution with "the universe must have arisen spontaneously on its own" - whatever that is supposed to mean?

    And your argumentum-ad-populum is just that - a childish fallacy.

    Back to the drawing board.

    ReplyDelete
  4. troy beat me to it by a whisker.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Here is a good article on the same subject

    Why is it so difficult to accept Darwin's theory of evolution?

    The author then goes on to give two major reasons

    1. The theory of evolution is counterintuitive
    2. The theory of evolution opposes most people's worldview

    He then offer ways to get past these mental blocks with more education, especially an earlier introduction to the basics in elementary schools.

    Of course more science education is the last thing Creationists want. *POOF* pushers like CH here know that there is a direct correlation between education level, especially science education, and a rejection of Biblical Creationism. It's in the best interests of their religious institutions to keep the sheep being, well, sheep.

    ReplyDelete
  6. "For what shall it profit a man, if he shall gain an acceptance of evolution, and lose his own soul?"

    And hence posts like this.

    ReplyDelete
  7. Swerving atoms, no matter how much they are adorned with Darwinian rhetoric, are not likely to create biosonar, consciousness and the entire cosmos.

    Argumentum ad ignorantiam

    Take that, troy!

    ReplyDelete
  8. Hey, how come there is suddenly a comment by the lying pastor before my comment?

    ReplyDelete
  9. Tedford:

    Rather than look at themselves and their theory as the problem, evolutionists see the problem as being with everyone else. The only thing predictable about evolution is how evolutionists respond to stuff like this.

    No, the only predictable response is yours. You never engage with a discussion of the results of an actual scientific paper on evolution. You just spout some generalities you've probably copied from some creationist website.

    And that's because you have no idea what you are talking about - and you don't give a damn. It still amazes me that a profoundly unlearned person such as you has the gall to challenge learned experts without a shred of humility.

    As long as you can keep your flock happy in their silly delusions they will keep coughing up your salary, right?

    ReplyDelete
  10. Darwinist materialists require spontaneous generation to be a fact because they have no other option. Get over it.

    When confronted with this problem, they respond with nonsense similar to what troy - above - spewed out, i.e. "Darwinism isn't about origin of life".

    Far worse, we have "argumentum-ad-populum is just that - a childish fallacy.".

    Utterly risible! And, how hypocritical!

    No one on earth relies more on "consensus science" (an oxymoron) than the Darwinistas!

    How many times have I been told "overwhelming consensus", "virtually ALL scientists agree", "number of peer reviewed..." etc etc. by some evolutionist seeking to justify his religious evolutionism by the number of scientists who agree!

    Well I hate to rain on your clownish parade, troy et al., but just a few centuries ago the overwhelming consensus was that the earth was flat.

    Since then the world has witnessed incredible and inane resistance within the sci community (in Darwinism it should be called the sci-fi community) against dozens upon dozens -now proven- theories.

    Do you need a list? Do you have a few Gigs available to store all the data?

    In 1795, Alexander Gordon of Aberdeen suggested that the fevers were infectious processes, and he was able to cure them. The consensus said no.

    In 1843, Oliver Wendell Holmes claimed puerperal fever was contagious, and presented compelling evidence. The consensus said no.

    In 1849, Semmelweiss demonstrated that sanitary techniques virtually eliminated puerperal fever in hospitals under his management. The consensus said he was a Jew, ignored him, and dismissed him from his post.


    If that last instance resembles "to a 't'" the current situation dissenters of the "modern synthesis" face - I give you C. Hunter for ex.- it is entirely pertinent as we see here every day!!

    There is no such thing as consensus "science". If its consensus, it isn't science and v.v.

    Whenever you hear the consensus of scientists agrees on something or other, reach for your wallet, because you’re being had.
    My goodness but that sounds uncannily familiar.

    Shame on you Darwieners!

    It's profoundly disingenuous of you to be constantly harping on consensus for your lame brained hypothesis and then go complaining whenever opponents bring up quantities of unbelievers, like CH did above.

    If the public continues to doubt Darwin, after over a century of having it rammed down their throats as a fact beyond any reasonable doubt, its because the public is smarter than the majority of educated fool scientists. You act like priests of a dogmatic catechism. You refuse to see any of the ever mounting, glaring problems involved in your religion of Darwinian fundamentalism.

    Why? Because your minds are on HOLD.

    ReplyDelete
  11. Wow Gary, you're going to need a whole case of screen cleaner after that spew!

    If only some brave Creationist could provide his disproof of evolution via statistical mechanics. But all we get around here are yapping little puppies who pee on the rug then scurry away.

    Do you know of anyone who can provide that damning evidence?

    ReplyDelete
  12. Im currently reading "The Trouble with Physics" by Lee Smolin. He writes that most of the important positions in the Physics community are occupies by partisans of String Theory. Anyon who publicly questions String Theory will find himself experiencing lots of careers reversals. Smolin also describes lots of racism, sexism, and macho posturing in Physics departments. So maybe the scientific consensus is as much due to careerism, egos, a herd mentality etc as it is to education, facts, and logic.

    ReplyDelete
  13. natschuster said...

    So maybe the scientific consensus is as much due to careerism, egos, a herd mentality etc as it is to education, facts, and logic.


    That may hold in cases where there are multiple competing hypotheses about some specific details of a phenomenon. Areas where there is no one clear consensus. It is not applicable to the main tenets of evolutionary theory that have been been demonstrated and confirmed as valid by over 150+ years of empirical results.

    Among people who study and work in the subject for a living there is no dispute over the main tenets of the theory - descent with modification over deep time, heritable traits filtered by selection, etc. NONE.

    ReplyDelete
  14. Gary has made me agree with him!

    Evolution today is as controversial among scientists as the flat earth was just a few centuries ago.

    Which is to say, not at all.

    You see Gary, the knowledge the Earth is spherical is ancient. Pythagorus and Aristotle kick things off, and by 200 BC, Eratosthenes has measured the circumference of the Earth. By 100 AD, Pliny summarizes that everyone agree the earth is spherical. This knowledge isn't lost, and a spherical Earth is found in medieval art and literature.

    Not flat-
    At 150 BC:
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Crates_Terrestrial_Sphere.png
    Nor 1550 AD:
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Sacrobosco-1550-B3r-detail01.jpg

    So, why are we to trust your opinion on evolution?

    ReplyDelete
  15. Neal: Rather than look at themselves and their theory as the problem, evolutionists see the problem as being with everyone else.

    Neal,

    Are you sure you're not referring to your reflection in the mirror?

    I'll repeat the question yet again.

    Over 98% of all species that have ever existed have gone extinct. Is the fact that human beings are part of the less than 2% of species that survived the result of natural, undirected processes or the intentional result of an intelligent designer?

    ReplyDelete
  16. CH: The People do Not Even Believe Evolution is Real!

    And The People's acceptance or rejection of scientific theories is relevant because?

    What about quantum mechanics? Should we defer to The People in this field as well? How about atomic theory or general relativity?

    Please show us your comparative analysis on these fields as well.

    Oh wait...

    I've made the assumption that you're actually interested in presenting an argument, rather than the usual hand waving we see here.

    ReplyDelete
  17. Cornelius Hunter:

    "Once again, the people are ahead of the pundits."
    ===

    Interestingly, in the completely secularist poster child of a country in which I reside, there are numerous students from the Peoples Republic of China coming over to study. The greater majority of them have never really known a world of religion, belief in a God[any god] because under their strictly secularist regime they've never been allowed to learn such things[at least in a neutral light - forget favourable light]. Yet the majority of those I've met at the universities here are full of questions about the nature of things contrary to the atheistic viewpoint which by ironfisted Law over there does not allow for other possibilities. These Chinese students are actually some of the most disciplined I've ever met and they don't even buy into the evolutionary articles of faith.

    The point being is that they come from a background of strict oppressive version of laws which ONLY allow for TOE Factoids, so it's not like they've been corrupted by the evil false religious forces existing on the outside of their Paradise from the corrupting influence of those evil western rightwing forces[which is really what all this rubbish is about anyway].

    To illustrate how controlled information is there, I was speaking to a young Chinese student about Chairman Mao's wicked Witch of the East wife and her hideous "Cultural Revolution" disaster of the 1960s where millions were murdered for not conforming to an atheistic worldview[whether true or imagined] and she said she knew nothing about it since such subjects are not allowed or even remotely mentioned in their history books. Hmmmmmmmmm!!!

    As time goes on and more understanding of the natural world and it's sophisticated complexity comes to light, more and more people will see thru the true religiosity of this dogma and those who pimp it.

    ReplyDelete
  18. Thorton said...

    then offer ways to get past these mental blocks with more education,

    ==========================
    Yeah well some may describe that has brainwashing rather than education!

    ReplyDelete
  19. The majority of the people would accept the theory of evolution if the scientists who accept it can produce some positive evidence for it.

    However there isn't any evidence that known evolutionary processes can construct useful multi-part systems.

    ReplyDelete
  20. I taught evolution to learning disabled high school students. A common response was, "This doesn't make any sense. I don't believe it." These are the same kids who thought that the movie "Mummy" was based on facts. They where a little more rceptive when wwe discussed the Theory of Relativity.

    ReplyDelete
  21. Joe G said:

    "However there isn't any evidence that known evolutionary processes can construct useful multi-part systems."

    Quite true! Just show how an ape evolves into a human in the lab and we will believe you.

    .

    ReplyDelete
  22. Peter:
    Just show how an ape evolves into a human in the lab and we will believe you.

    I would settle for the data which tells us what makes a human a human and an ape an ape.

    Once we know that we may be able to figure out the rest.

    ReplyDelete
  23. Scott:
    Over 98% of all species that have ever existed have gone extinct. Is the fact that human beings are part of the less than 2% of species that survived the result of natural, undirected processes or the intentional result of an intelligent designer?

    Intelligent Design is about the ARRIVAL of those organisms. ID does not say the designer(s) is/ are going to hang around nurturing the organisms.

    Besides it gives us something to study and contemplate, which is what we would expect in a universe designed for scientific discovery.

    ReplyDelete
  24. natschuster:
    I taught evolution to learning disabled high school students.

    Prime candidates for evotardism....

    ReplyDelete
  25. Scott said again, "Over 98% of all species that have ever existed have gone extinct. Is the fact that human beings are part of the less than 2% of species that survived the result of natural, undirected processes or the intentional result of an intelligent designer?"

    ---

    The result of an intelligent designer.

    ReplyDelete
  26. natschuster said...

    I taught evolution to learning disabled high school students. A common response was, "This doesn't make any sense. I don't believe it."


    As was already pointed out, many people who haven't studied the subject don't get it at first because it is counter-intuitive. It's just like making a high speed turn on a motorcycle - if you want to go left, you lean the bike left and turn the front wheel to the right. It's very counter-intuitive, but it works. Just like the theory of evolution.

    ReplyDelete
  27. But the theory of evolution only "works" in the imaginations of evolutionists.

    ReplyDelete
  28. JoeTard said...

    But the theory of evolution only "works" in the imaginations of evolutionists.


    Sure thing JoeTard. That's why there are thousands of colleges and universities that teach it, thousands of biotech / genetics companies that use it every day, hundreds of technical scientific journals that publish thousands of new papers every month. Because it has "no evidence" and "doesn't work."

    ReplyDelete
  29. tardtard:
    That's why there are thousands of colleges and universities that teach it, thousands of biotech / genetics companies that use it every day, hundreds of technical scientific journals that publish thousands of new papers every month.

    No one uses it- it is a fruitless heuristic.

    Not one researcher goes into the lab and sez "Seeing we are the products of blind, undirected chemical processes and share a common ancestor with the rest of the organisms, I will proceed accordingly".

    But anyway you pathological liar, present the evidence that known evolutionary processes can construct useful multi-part systems.

    Point out the evidence that demonstrates we know what makes an organism what it is.

    Or continue to spew your lies- your choice.

    ReplyDelete
  30. JoeTard said...

    T: That's why there are thousands of colleges and universities that teach it, thousands of biotech / genetics companies that use it every day, hundreds of technical scientific journals that publish thousands of new papers every month.

    No one uses it- it is a fruitless heuristic.


    LOL! Sure thing JoeTard. All those hundreds of thousands of researchers, all those billion dollar industries, they all sit around and do Sudoku puzzles all day.

    Shouldn't you be waiting in the parking lot trolling for your tonight's boyfriend?

    ReplyDelete
  31. Thorton:

    My students got the gist of Relativity Theory, even though it is counterintuitive. They might not have understood things like time dilation fully, but they didn't reject it as emphatically as they did evolution.

    ReplyDelete
  32. Scott: Over 98% of all species that have ever existed have gone extinct. Is the fact that human beings are part of the less than 2% of species that survived the result of natural, undirected processes or the intentional result of an intelligent designer?

    Joe: Intelligent Design is about the ARRIVAL of those organisms. ID does not say the designer(s) is/ are going to hang around nurturing the organisms.

    The arrival of new organisms is influenced by the absence of organisms. An organism that does not exist, cannot evolve. Nor can it compete with other species for resources, etc.

    Either the designer must compensate for evolutionary processes, or it must manipulate them. Regardless of how you answer the question, evolutionary processes explain at least part of the biological complexity we observe, at a minimum.

    Yet this seems to be a point of contention, which most everyone here seems to deny.

    ReplyDelete
  33. Neal: The result of an intelligent designer.

    Ok…

    Would you agree that, at a minimum, random mutations can represent a gradation between neutral and highly detrimental impact on a species, depending on the environment?

    ReplyDelete
  34. natschuster said...

    Thorton:

    My students got the gist of Relativity Theory, even though it is counterintuitive. They might not have understood things like time dilation fully, but they didn't reject it as emphatically as they did evolution.


    You've already demonstrated that you know virtually nothing about actual evolutionary biology. Why should students be expected to understand a subject that their teacher is so clueless on?

    Any incredulity from them says much more about your lack of ability as a biology teacher than it does about any remarkable insight they may possess.

    ReplyDelete
  35. Thorton:

    1: I taught what was presented as the curriculum by the district. I used the textbooks that the department provided. I did skip the page that had the faked embryo drawings.

    2: My students had a pass rate on the NYS RCT's that was higher than the rest of the department by one standard deviation. I even had a couple of students pass the New York State Regents despite the fact that they couldn't read the questions due to deep dyslexia. So I did something right.

    ReplyDelete
  36. Scott said, "Would you agree that, at a minimum, random mutations can represent a gradation between neutral and highly detrimental impact on a species, depending on the environment.

    --

    Highly detrimental, as in sterile or fatal? Yes.
    Neutral mutations? Yes.

    Keep in mind that I'm not arguing for fixity of species or for species creation at one time.

    ReplyDelete
  37. natschuster said...

    Thorton:

    I taught what was presented as the curriculum by the district. I used the textbooks that the department provided. I did skip the page that had the faked embryo drawings.


    Rote repetition of the printed material is not teaching. Teaching mean explaining the materials in your own words, and giving the correct answer to students' questions. You are far too incompetent in the subject to do either. And you should be fired for skipping material you personally don't like.

    You may very well be an excellent teacher in other subjects, but you suck out loud when it comes to understanding evolutionary biology. Students can tell when the instructor is full of it, and their understanding of the subject matter will reflect it. If the students end up with a skewed distorted view of the scientific reality that is your fault, not that of the materials and not theirs.

    ReplyDelete
  38. Neal: Neal: Highly detrimental, as in sterile or fatal? Yes.
    Neutral mutations? Yes.

    I'm not sure we're quite in agreement.

    Some mutations are detrimental regardless of the environment. The organism does not go to term as it is not viable.

    But there are other mutations which represent, at a minimum, a gradient from neutral to highly detrimental depending on the environment.

    For example, an mutation could disable the ability to synthesize vitamin-c. In the presence of a food supply that has an ample and acceptable supply of vitamin-c, such a mutation would be neutral. However, in the presence of a food supply that has limited or scarce supply, such a mutation could be mildly or even fattily detrimental.

    Are we both in agreement on this?

    ReplyDelete
  39. Scott, okay. Why would you ask for agreement on something that no one ever had a problem with in the first place? Functioning protein systems are usually very complex. Complex adaptations that need several new mutations, with all intermediates being non-adaptive makes for a huge probabilistic problem for evolution.

    ReplyDelete
  40. Neal: Scott, okay.

    If you agree, then it would appear that you'd also agree that, at a minimum, evolutionary processes have had a significant role in the biological complexity we observe. Even if a designer manipulated or compensated for evolutionary processes to ensure the appearance of specific desired features we observe today.

    Neal: Why would you ask for agreement on something that no one ever had a problem with in the first place?

    Because, when we attempt to take your claims seriously, in that they are true in reality and that all observations should conform to them, they do not add up. This includes the observation which you supposedly accept above.

    Neal: Functioning protein systems are usually very complex. Complex adaptations that need several new mutations, with all intermediates being non-adaptive makes for a huge probabilistic problem for evolution.

    Therefore, God did it?

    Evolutionary theory doesn't claim to know that some intelligent designer didn't flip a bit in the genome one way, rather than another, to cause some different result that what would have occurred naturally. Instead, it suggests that, given what we observe, it doesn't appear necessary. Nor has anyone provided an explanation as to why a designer would choose one specific result over another.

    Again, what we DO know is that evolutionary processes did play a role. They are part of the explanation. On the other hand, God did it, doesn't add to explanation of the biological complexity we observe.

    As such, the claim that "a designer did it" is discarded.

    ReplyDelete
  41. Neal: Complex adaptations that need several new mutations, with all intermediates being non-adaptive makes for a huge probabilistic problem for evolution.

    It's not a problem for evolution because we know it plays a role.

    Think of evolution as an equation. We know evolutionary processes play a role in determining the outcome of the equation. However, adding God to the equation is like adding a number that can represent any value. It don't change the result of the equation in any definable way.

    Therefore, when we simplify the equation, what's left is evolutionary processes.

    ReplyDelete
  42. Thorton:

    So how did a significant percentage of my students pass the standardized tests? They did contain questions about evolution.

    And I was willing to risk my job rather than continue to perpetrate a fraud on my students, so I skipped the pages with the faked drawings.

    ReplyDelete
  43. Scott said, " Instead, it suggests that, given what we observe, it doesn't appear necessary"

    ---

    The bioinformation of life makes even the most complex software program look like child's play. Evolution does not explain that origin of bioinformation any more than saying that software evolved by itself. Seriously Scott, you are ascribing to evolution powers that it is not known to possess. Saying, 'God did it' is not an argument from ignorance because the best explanation of the complex bioinformation of life is purposeful design. The onus is on the evolutionist to show how the most complex information systems in our universe came about by itself. Evolutionists have seriously failed in this attempt if you exclude all their speculation and ungrounded assumptions from the equation. The best explanations from evolutionists sound to me like something out of the Willy Wonka movies on how to make candy. They say things, and I'm thinking, 'seriously?' How about if we just have a bunch of monkey's throwing darts at random evolutionary articles in order to answer any further questions.

    ReplyDelete
  44. natschuster said...

    Thorton:

    So how did a significant percentage of my students pass the standardized tests? They did contain questions about evolution.


    They did it despite your "teaching", not because of it.

    And I was willing to risk my job rather than continue to perpetrate a fraud on my students, so I skipped the pages with the faked drawings.

    We went through this before, remember? The drawing in your textbook weren't Haeckel's. There are many good current examples of embryonic development in textbooks that only superficially resemble Haeckel's. You're way too incompetent to know the difference. You did your students a huge disservice by unilaterally cutting out valuable information based on your religiously driven ignorance. If my child were in your class I guarantee you'd be fired.

    ReplyDelete
  45. Here is a good overview of the dishonest Creationist claim that Haeckel's original drawings are still used in textbooks. It includes a recent study (2008) of the history of Haeckel's drawings, along with photos and drawings of embryonic development that are used.

    What do Haeckel's embryos signify?

    MAN do I ever hate the constant, non-stop stream of Creationist lying!

    ReplyDelete
  46. Neal,

    Before we address the remainder of your comment…

    At a minimum, evolutionary processes played a significant role in speciation.

    Agree or disagree?

    ReplyDelete
  47. Thorton:

    IF they succeeded despite my teaching, why didn't the other teachers have my success rate?


    The textbooks I was directed to use did have either Haeckel's drawings, or very close copies.
    Should I believe you, or my own eyes?

    And I if I did talk about how the embryos are similar, I would also have to talk about how different they are during the blastula stage, and during gastrulization.

    ReplyDelete
  48. Thorton:

    The drawing in the textbooks didn't look a whole lot like the photographs in the page you linked. They did look a lot like Haeckel's drawings. The primary difference was the fact that they where in color.

    ReplyDelete
  49. And wasn't Haeckel selective in the embryos he chose to illustrate? He decided not to use embryos that don't look all that much alike. That's called cherry picking. Please coorect me if I'm wrong.

    ReplyDelete
  50. natschuster said...

    And wasn't Haeckel selective in the embryos he chose to illustrate? He decided not to use embryos that don't look all that much alike. That's called cherry picking. Please coorect me if I'm wrong.


    You're wrong. And once again you were too lazy to bother reading the provided link and the follow-up resources.

    Haeckel's embryos - fraud not proven

    Why are Creationists so loathe to do the slightest bit of reading or research? Are you really that afraid of what you might find?

    ReplyDelete
  51. Thorton:

    I didn't see anything inthe article you linked about Heackel not cherry picking. Unless my reading comprehension is off, all it talked about was how Haeckel basically made honest mistakes.

    ReplyDelete
  52. natschuster said...

    Thorton:

    I didn't see anything inthe article you linked about Heackel not cherry picking. Unless my reading comprehension is off, all it talked about was how Haeckel basically made honest mistakes.


    The article didn't say anything about Haeckel not robbing banks either, so I guess he's a suspect in the great Brinks heist too.

    You're a real gem nat. A real gem.

    ReplyDelete
  53. Neal,

    Are you going to avoid the question yet again? All I'm asking you to do here is take your own claims seriously.

    At a minimum, evolutionary processes played a significant role in speciation.

    Would you agree with this statement or or disagree?

    ReplyDelete
  54. Thorton:

    Weren't you addressing the point I made about cherry picking. I was under that impression.

    Now, even if Haeckel made an honest mistake, his inaacurate draing still found their way into textbooks. That would seem to indicate that the author's don't know their subject very well. That doesn't instill a lot of faith in scientists.

    ReplyDelete
  55. natschuster: And wasn't Haeckel selective in the embryos he chose to illustrate?

    Perhaps, but in point of fact, vertebrate pharyngulas more closely resemble one another than their mature forms.

    ReplyDelete
  56. Evolutionary biology is backed by thousands of fossils, biological and physiological evidences.What do the creationists have? Bunch of old, crumbeled books?

    ReplyDelete