In
The Big Chill Jeff Goldblum plays a writer for
People Magazine who, not altogether seriously, laments his less than intellectual writing assignments. But when someone quizzically asks where, in fact, they come up with all those stories, Goldblum’s deadpan and incredulous rebuke is that “It’s the stuff of good solid investigative journalism.” I’m reminded of this every time an evolutionist explains, as did Jonathan Dudley this week in his
Huffington Post blog, that evolution is the stuff of good solid scientific research. In fact evolution is mandated and justified by religious claims that go back centuries. Dudley demonstrates yet again this hilarious hypocrisy in evolutionary thought when he informs his readers that Christians must accept evolution because it is the result of careful scientific investigation. Don’t we understand that to reject evolution is to reject science? He then demonstrates what evolution is all about with an extended rant against creationism. If I only had a nickel for every time …
His point was not so much that Christians must accept evolution because it is the result of careful scientific investigation but:
ReplyDeletecreationism has failed to provide an alternative explanation for the vast majority of evidence explained by evolution.
Which is a sin of omission that you should be all too familiar with.
Cornelius Hunter said...
ReplyDeleteDon’t we understand that to reject evolution is to reject science? He then demonstrates what evolution is all about with an extended rant against creationism.
I notice you can't produce a single scientific counter-argument or alternate explanation for the examples cited. Funny that...
If I only had a nickel …
If you had a nickel for every time you honestly represented science you still couldn't afford a piece of penny candy.
ReplyDeletecreationism has failed to provide an alternative explanation for the vast majority of evidence explained by evolution.
Vast majority of evidence? Where????? Keep in mind, you're not supposed to start with the assumption darwin's myth is true.
As Wolfgang Smith stated:
"We are told dogmatically that Evolution is an established fact; but we are never told who has established it, and by what means. We are told, often enough, that the doctrine is founded upon evidence, and that indeed this evidence 'is henceforward above all verification, as well as being immune from any subsequent contradiction by experience;' but we are left entirely in the dark on the crucial question wherein, precisely, this evidence consists."
Smith, Wolfgang (1988)
Teilhardism and the New Religion: A Thorough Analysis of The Teachings of Pierre Teilhard de Chardin
Rockford, Illinois: Tan Books & Publishers Inc., p.2
National Velour said...
ReplyDelete"creationism has failed to provide an alternative explanation for the vast majority of evidence explained by evolution."
Vast majority of evidence? Where?????
Here is a brief overview of the several dozen lines of positive evidence:
The Scientific Case for Common Descent
Notice that each section has further references to dozens more detailed scientific studies with even more positive evidence. Let us know when you've read them, then feel free to come back and ask questions.
Keep in mind, you're not supposed to start with the assumption darwin's myth is true.
Science doesn't. It looks for an explanation of the empirically observed data that is the most consilient, self-corroborating, logically consistent, and makes predictions of future discoveries. The best explanation we have by far that meets all those criteria is called the theory of evolution.
"Don’t we understand that to reject evolution is to reject science?"
ReplyDeleteYou, Cornelius, are a good demonstration that this is, in fact, the case. You repeatedly insist assuming naturalism is a metaphysical assumption when in fact it is absolutely necessary to perform science. EVERY theory in science assumes naturalism. You can call this a 'religious' assumption if you choose (and you evidently do), but what you have never demonstrated is how ToE behaves differently from EVERY OTHER THEORY IN SCIENCE.
Your arguments apply to the whole of science even if you only choose to fire them at ToE. Your arguments are, in short, anti-science.
Hardly a surprise, Ritchie. Hunter inveighs against astrophysics on occasion.
ReplyDeleteNorm, evolutionists are typically insincere about being open to alternative explanations. To them it is settled long ago. Their mind is shut. They're like the guy with an abusive personality asking you to be open with them about their problem and then yelling at you when you do.
ReplyDeleteNeal -
ReplyDeleteIf you can produce a testable, falsifiable theory which explains all the evidence ToE explains and more, then please please please do so.
If you have such a theory, you should be glad to see it put to the test. Then all the sceptics would put it through its paces and see for themselves the proof of your theory.
PS, just a hint: ID absolutely fails. It is unfalsifiable. And it makes no predictions. It accounts for absolutely any data we could possibly find. If it explains ANYTHING, it explains nothing.
Ritchie, like your post illustrates perfectly, evolutionists are insincere when they ask alternative explanations. Why not admit the obvious since you are not open to an honest and open minded investigation of alternatives? Why pretend that you are open when you aren't?
ReplyDeleteEvolutionists are like alcoholics in denial. "I can stop anytime I want too"... "I'm open to a testable, falsifiable theory..." LOL
Neal - Why do you think I am being insincere? Why do you pretend my invitiation to investigate alternatives is dishonest?
ReplyDeleteTrue, when you provide an alternative, then the first thing I will try to do is pull it apart. But that is standard scientific practice. Want to know if a theory is correct? Try really, really hard to prove it is wrong. If you fail, then you can safely assume it is true. And if your alternative IS true, then you should have nothing to fear from honest and rigorous scrutiny.
We really are open to testable, falsifiable alternative theories. Please, let us hear them, so we can scrutinize them and test them.
Your problem is that you want people to just BELIEVE what you tell them unquestioningly. You want people to hear your alternatives and just nod studiously and say 'How clever. Is that so? I never knew. I'll totally take your word for that.' Which is absolutely NOT a scientific way to proceed.
Tedford the idiot said...
ReplyDeleteRitchie, like your post illustrates perfectly, evolutionists are insincere when they ask alternative explanations. Why not admit the obvious since you are not open to an honest and open minded investigation of alternatives? Why pretend that you are open when you aren't?
Why don't you present your alternate explanations here Tedford? Do it for the lurkers, and put all us evilutionists in our place.
Sure seems you're just making empty fat-headed blusters and can't back up a single one of your claims.
Neal Tedford: "Ritchie, like your post illustrates perfectly, evolutionists are insincere when they ask alternative explanations."
ReplyDeleteI call you on that one Neal. I'd like to hear alternate explanations, and I'm as sincere as can be. Heck, forget the fossil record, homology, genetic similarities, biogeography and all that, I'd like sincerely like to hear an alternate explanation for ring species.
By the way, did you ever find the names of those two theologians who had an old-earth interpretation of Genesis prior to 1659? That's been a long time coming. Or would you like to retract that particular claim?
Cornelius Hunter:
ReplyDelete"Don’t we understand that to reject evolution is to reject science?"
===
I had never seen the late May thru entire June months of articles, but this hypocritically and cowardly strategy used by evolutions of labling all those opposed to their religious Dogma as being anti-science has been picked up by other areas of controversial science. Case in point is the latest cowardly defense of their cowardly conduct is the monstrosity of a company called Monsanto. Anyone who opposes they, their research and their Franken-organism technologies are now labled as Anti-Science. Here's a clip from the Monsanto UK website where no doubt, one of Monsanto's campaign contribution targets for a policitican who'd see things their way, Tony Blair, supports the flawed lying view that anyone against Monsanto is anti-science.
Blair Warns Against Anti-science Attitude
Here are some clips from the above site which actually published on another link the entire Tony Blair speech.
"The distinction I believe is this: our conviction about what is natural or right should not inhibit the role of science in discovering the truth; rather it should inform our judgement about the implications and consequences of the truth science uncovers."
That cuts both ways.
"My reason for addressing you today is to place firmly on record my support for science and my determination not to let us slip into any form of anti-science."
Funny, the people against Monsanto are not anti-science. They are however against the misuses and abuses of it motivated by greed and selfishness. But the politicians of the UK are not the only ones on Monsanto's under the table tactics.
Monsanto's influence continued into the Clinton administration. Dan Glickman, then Secretary of Agriculture, says, "there was a general feeling in agro-business and inside our government in the US that if you weren't marching lock-step forward in favor of rapid approvals of biotech products, rapid approvals of GMO crops, then somehow, you were anti-science and anti-progress." Glickman summarized the mindset in the government as follows:
"What I saw generically on the pro-biotech side was the attitude that the technology was good, and that it was almost immoral to say that it wasn't good, because it was going to solve the problems of the human race and feed the hungry and clothe the naked. . . . And there was a lot of money that had been invested in this, and if you're against it, you're Luddites, you're stupid. That, frankly, was the side our government was on. Without thinking, we had basically taken this issue as a trade issue and they, whoever 'they' were, wanted to keep our product out of their market. And they were foolish, or stupid, and didn't have an effective regulatory system. There was rhetoric like that even here in this department. You felt like you were almost an alien, disloyal, by trying to present an open-minded view on some of the issues being raised. So I pretty much spouted the rhetoric that everybody else around here spouted; it was written into my speeches."
He admits, "when I opened my mouth in the Clinton Administration [about the lax regulations on GMOs], I got slapped around a little bit."
(Bill Lambrecht, Dinner at the New Gene Café, St. Martin's Press, September 2001, pg 139)