Thursday, May 3, 2012

You Won’t Believe What Evolutionists Believe

Evolutionists argue about many things but one thing they agree on is that their idea is a scientific fact. It is the one, definite, consensus position within evolutionary thought. Evolutionists say their idea is as much a fact as is gravity, the roundness of the Earth and heliocentricity. These claims began shortly after Charles Darwin’s book on evolution was published, and they have only grown stronger since. These claims are like a flashing red light indicating a problem. For, of course, evolution is not a scientific fact. Indeed there are tremendous scientific problems with the notion that something comes from nothing, or in the case of biological evolution, that nature’s millions and millions of species, with their profound designs, arose spontaneously strictly according to natural law. Evolution, in one form or another, may somehow be true. It is a difficult question, for who really knows how the world and all of biology actually arose? What isn’t a difficult question, however, is whether the idea is a scientific fact. For the claim that evolution is a fact is not a claim about the distant past, it is a claim about our knowledge of the distant past. We may not know with certainty what happened in the distant past, but we do know for certain what we know about it. And we do not know evolution to be a fact. Not even close. If anything, we know that the idea is greatly challenged by science. It certainly is not a scientific fact. And so the evolutionist’s certainty that evolution is a fact is a sign of the underlying metaphysics. When people believe in things that they don’t understand and, furthermore, insist they are right and everyone else is wrong, and anyone who dares to question must be blackballed, then there is a problem. Unfortunately, that precisely describes evolution. Here then is a small sampling of the evolutionist’s “fact” claims which you won’t believe.

About 30 years after Darwin’s book was published evolution professor Joseph Le Conte wrote this:

Evolution is certainly a legitimate induction from the facts of biology. But we are prepared to go much further. We are confident that evolution is absolutely certain. Not, indeed, evolution as a special theory—Larmarckian, Darwinian, Spencerian—for these are all more or less successful modes of explaining evolution … but evolution as a law of derivation of forms from previous forms; evolution as a law of continuity, as a universal law of becoming. In this sense it is not only certain, it is axiomatic. …

So also, the origins of new organic forms may be obscure or even inexplicable, but we ought not on that account to doubt that they had a natural cause, and came by a natural process; for so to doubt is also to doubt the validity of reason, and the rational constitution of organic Nature. The law of evolution is naught else than the scientific or, indeed, the rational mode of thinking about the origin of things in every department of Nature. … the law of evolution is as certain as the law of gravitation. Nay, it is far more certain …

More recently, evolutionist R. C. Lewontin wrote this in a scientific journal:

It is a fact that all living forms come from previous living forms. Therefore, all present forms of life arose from ancestral forms that were different. Birds arose from nonbirds and humans from nonhumans. No person who pretends to any understanding of the natural world can deny these facts any more than she or he can deny that the earth is round, rotates on its axis, and revolves around the sun.

Evolutionist Neil Campbell wrote this in his biology textbook:

The term theory is no longer appropriate except when referring to the various models that attempt to explain how life evolves … it is important to understand that the current questions about how life evolves in no way implies any disagreement over the fact of evolution.

Here’s another example textbook example from Douglas Futuyma:

A few words need to be said about the "theory of evolution," which most people take to mean the proposition that organisms have evolved from common ancestors. In everyday speech, "theory" often means a hypothesis or even a mere speculation. But in science, "theory" means "a statement of what are held to be the general laws, principles, or causes of something known or observed." as the Oxford English Dictionary defines it. The theory of evolution is a body of interconnected statements about natural selection and the other processes that are thought to cause evolution, just as the atomic theory of chemistry and the Newtonian theory of mechanics are bodies of statements that describe causes of chemical and physical phenomena. In contrast, the statement that organisms have descended with modifications from common ancestors--the historical reality of evolution--is not a theory. It is a fact, as fully as the fact of the earth's revolution about the sun. Like the heliocentric solar system, evolution began as a hypothesis, and achieved "facthood" as the evidence in its favor became so strong that no knowledgeable and unbiased person could deny its reality. No biologist today would think of submitting a paper entitled "New evidence for evolution;" it simply has not been an issue for a century.

Even the National Academy of Sciences states that evolution is a fact. They explain that in science the word “fact” can be used “to mean something that has been tested or observed so many times that there is no longer a compelling reason to keep testing or looking for examples. The occurrence of evolution in this sense is a fact. Scientists no longer question whether descent with modification occurred because the evidence supporting the idea is so strong.”

In his book What Evolution Is evolutionist Ernst Mayr wrote:

However, throughout the nineteenth century whenever people talked about evolution, they referred to it as a theory. To be sure, at first, the thought that life on Earth could have evolved was merely a speculation. Yet, beginning with Darwin in 1859, more and more facts were discovered that were compatible only with the concept of evolution. Eventually it was widely appreciated that the occurrence of evolution was supported by such an overwhelming amount of evidence that it could no longer be called a theory. Indeed, since it was as well supported by facts as was heliocentricity, evolution also had to be considered a fact, like heliocentricity. …

Evolution is a historical process that cannot be proven by the same arguments and methods by which purely physical or functional phenomena can be documented. Evolution as a whole, and the explanation of particularly evolutionary events, must be inferred from observations. Such inferences subsequently must be tested again and again against new observations, and the original inference is either falsified or considered strengthened when confirmed by all of those tests. However, most inferences made by evolutionists have by now been tested successfully so often that they are accepted as certainties.

Mayr also concludes:

It is very questionable whether the term “evolutionary theory” should be used any longer. That evolution has occurred and takes place all the time is a fact so overwhelmingly established that is has become irrational to call it a theory. …

Evolution is not merely an idea, a theory, or a concept, but is the name of a process in nature, the occurrence of which can be documented by mountains of evidence that nobody has been able to refute. Some of this evidence was summarized in Chapters 1-3. It is now actually misleading to refer to evolution as a theory, considering the massive evidence that has been discovered over the last 140 years documenting its existence. Evolution is no longer a theory, it is simply a fact.

And in his book Why Evolution is True, evolutionist Jerry Coyne writes:

Now, when we say that “evolution is true,” what we mean is that the major tenets of Darwinism have been verified. Organisms evolved, they did so gradually, lineages split into different species from common ancestors, and natural selection is the major engine of adaptation. No serious biologist doubts these propositions.

These are representative quotes of the evolutionist’s consensus position. It would be difficult to find more obvious examples of misrepresentations of science.

22 comments:

  1. A fact of science with no substantiating evidence???:

    Where's the substantiating evidence for neo-Darwinism?
    https://docs.google.com/document/d/1q-PBeQELzT4pkgxB2ZOxGxwv6ynOixfzqzsFlCJ9jrw/edit

    ReplyDelete
  2. There is only one way to silence evolutionists and that is to falsify common descent. IDers must show conclusive evidence that organisms in distant branches of the tree of life share identical genes (or huge sections thereof) that could not have been inherited via common descent. The discovery of horizontal genes (or sections thereof) would obliterate Darwinian evolution once and for all and revolutionize biology.

    As a Christian, I am 100% certain that it can be done. And it can only be done via computational biology. That's your area of expertise, isn't it, Cornelius?

    ReplyDelete
  3. Don't hold your breath, Louis. When creationists start publishing their own "research," hilarity ensues. Hunter is too well aware of that, so he will continue to poo-poo evolution, thank you very much.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Cornelius Hunter and the folks at the Discovery Institute are not the only Christians or creationists in the world. I, too, am a Christian and I am not exactly sitting on my butt. And there are many others like me. Contrary to what you've been led to believe, atheists and evolutionists do not have a monopoly on science. Christians, too, are experts in scientific fields like biology and computer science.

      Besides, in the not too distant future, due to the advent of powerful cloud servers and parallel computers, computer gene analysis will become very cheap and very fast. So, don't be too cocky. It will happen, whether you like it or not. I can already hear the weeping and gnashing of teeth. :-D

      Delete
    2. And physics won't be far behind biology when the ax falls,be afraid,be very afraid ,Oleg.Your days are numbered. I,for one,welcome our new creationist overlords. Wielders of powerful cloud servers and masters of the parallel computers.

      No offense,Louis,but I couldn't resist. Faulty design,no doubt.

      Delete
    3. IDers must show conclusive evidence that organisms in distant branches of the tree of life share identical genes (or huge sections thereof) that could not have been inherited via common descent.

      More evidence of convergent evolution, did you forget?

      That's the only conclusion allowed by the rules of the game. But good luck anyway...

      The discovery of horizontal genes (or sections thereof) would obliterate Darwinian evolution...

      Not necessarily... after all, when Darwinian memes emerged from the babble of the occult they didn't need evidence in the first place. Generally all those involved in secret societies needed was the work of a cabal to establish a sort of cartel of knowledge to control the rules of the game. Their "by the numbers" game is rigged.

      It's true though, as new technology comes about which decentralizes information the old ways don't work.

      But for now it seems that we must hear the plaintive cries of "How could there ever be a conspiracy?" among those who work with the "out of chaos, order" creation myths given to them by the illuminated.

      Delete
    4. And physics won't be far behind biology when the ax falls,be afraid,be very afraid ,Oleg.Your days are numbered.

      Funny. You are much more prescient than you think. But it could be the other way around. The revolution may start in physics before jumping to biology. Or it could be concurrent. One never knows. :-D

      Delete
    5. mynym:

      More evidence of convergent evolution, did you forget?

      That's the only conclusion allowed by the rules of the game. But good luck anyway...


      Sure, evidence for the choir, i.e., the usual bozos. But not everybody sings in the choir.

      Not necessarily... after all, when Darwinian memes emerged from the babble of the occult they didn't need evidence in the first place.

      'Occult' simply means hidden from view or hidden from public scrutiny or understanding. Even the Bible deals with the occult. The entire book of Revelation and various books of the old testament are occult books. If someone tells you they understand the meaning of the book of Revelation, you can be sure, he/she is lying. Revelation is a book of powerful hidden scientific knowledge. Whoever decodes it will be in a position to yield awesome power.

      Delete
    6. Louis, I think you're right, but a major problem for evolutionists is that they have no objective measurement of when to call it quits for calling far fetched similarities "convergence". We could find miniture microscopic elephants in a pond with the same set of genes as the large land elephants and at best it would present a "challenge" to the theory of evolution... not the fact. Who knows, maybe a new generation will take pride in exposing the greatest scientific fraud of all time. Most evolutionists educated in the 20th century won't let go of arguments that are past their expiration date, but who knows.

      The folks at biologic institute are doing some very good research...
      http://www.biologicinstitute.org/

      Delete
    7. Yep.evolutionists never try to consider or embrace new theories which hold merit.evolution is absolutely inadequate in some areas and yet they still bang the ancient Darwinian drum.theistic evolutionists confuse the issues and the true message of the Bible.

      Delete
  4. Again, you seem to be suggesting that science is somehow held hostage by any and all rival interpretations, including those that are religious in nature.

    However, never speak of the existence of dinosaurs, millions of years ago, as an interoperation of our best theories of fossils. Rather, we say that dinosaurs are the explanation for fossils. Nor is the theory primarily about fossils, but about dinosaurs, in that they are assumed to actually exist as part of the explanation.

    And we do so despite the fact that there are an infinite number of rival interpretations of the same data that make all the same predictions, yet say the dinosaurs were not there, millions of years ago, in reality.

    For example, there is the rival interpretation that fossils only come into existence when they are consciously observed. Therefore, fossils are no older than human beings. As such, they are not evidence of dinosaurs, but evidence of acts of those particular observations.

    Another interpretation would be that dinosaurs are such weird animals that conventional logic simply doesn't apply to them.

    One could suggests It's meaningless to ask if dinosaurs were real or just a useful fiction to explain fossils. (Which is an example of instrumentalism as found in the Copenhagen interpretation of Quantum Mechanics.)

    None of these other interpretations are empirically distinguishable from the rational theory of dinosaurs, in that their existence explains fossils. But we discard them because they all represent a general purpose means to deny absolutely anything.

    You, and others here, selectively appeal to these same sort of generalizations on a regular basis.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Since you often close your posts with the phrase "religion drives science, and it matters." is it safe to assume you are claming this is a fact?

    If so, what about the infinite number of rival interpretations that accept the same evidence, but imply that religion has nothing to do with evolutionary theory, let alone science as a whole?

    For example, there is the rival interpretation of quantum mechanics that indicates material things such as books, papers and documentation regarding scientific theories only come into existence when they are consciously observed. Therefore the contents of books, papers and documentation regarding scientific theories are no older than the human beings that first observed them. As such, they are not evidence that anyone actually developed these theories based on some sort of prior influence, but are merely evidence the acts of those particular observations.

    There is the rival interpretation that human consciousness is so unique that conventional logic simply doesn't apply to it. As such, the logic that a majority of human scientists could be falsely influenced by the religious ideas of others simply does not apply. Note: This is the same sort of rival interpretation that claims human will is so unique that it's immune to determinism.

    And there's the interpretation that suggests It's meaningless to ask if Darwin, or anyone that supposedly influenced him with "evolutionary thought", was real or just a useful fiction to explain the acceptance of evolutionary theory in science. This is similar to the Copenhagen interpretation of quantum mechanics, in that the wave theory is not thought to actually represent reality, sometimes known as : "Shut up an calculate."

    And let's not forget the rival interpretation that some designer created the world we observe 30 days ago. As such, all of the scientific discoveries before then, including those attributed to Darwin, weren't authored by human beings, but authored by this designer when he created the world we observe 30 days ago.

    In other words, given the existence of an infinite number of rival interpretations that accept the same evidence, yet suggest something completely different happened in reality, one could deny just about anything, including your own claims about evolutionary theory.

    ReplyDelete
  6. Scott: And we do so despite the fact that there are an infinite number of rival interpretations of the same data that make all the same predictions, yet say the dinosaurs were not there, millions of years ago, in reality.

    Almost forgot: there is the interpretation that some abstract designer with no defined limitations chose to create the world we observe 30 days ago. As such, dinosaurs coudlnt be the explanation for fossils because they never existed millions of years ago. Rather the explanation for fossils would be the designer that created the world we observe 30 minutes ago.

    In other words, a claim that dinosaurs are *the* explanation for fossils must exclude a designer that chooses to create the world we observe 30 minutes ago.

    What about this rival interpretation?

    ReplyDelete
  7. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  8. Excekllent thread here.
    If evolution was a fact and a fact thats surely a fact then why do evolutionists not prove evolution and confound the great opposition by presenting the facts and not just thats it a fact.
    its as if they really are uncomfortable with making a case.
    So they assure you they are convinced and so should you be.

    What other subjects in human knowledge (called science) need to invoke to audiences that their conclusions are settled truth??
    Whats the problem with origin subjects?
    Why is not obvious to the public or with YEC/ID thinkers that evolution etc etc is well established by the evidence?

    This is because the evidence, upon relection, is not very good relative to the enormity of the claims.

    They havn't proven anything after all.

    If evolution is wrong then it couldn't possibly have worthy evidence behind it.!!!
    Therefore creationists don't need to prove evolution wrong but first prove it has no scientific evidence behind it.
    Its conclusions are not from good scientific investigation but from something else that mimics it.

    Scio-mimicry

    ReplyDelete
  9. Now in Portuguese, in a blog that has almost 500.000 visitors worldwide:

    http://pos-darwinista.blogspot.com.br/2012/05/voce-nem-vai-acreditar-no-que-acreditam.html

    ReplyDelete
  10. Since Ritchie gave YOU post of the week award on another thread, I need to crank it up.

    ReplyDelete
  11. It has been my experience that any proposition that has it's origins in England should be discarded out of hand. Darwin thought himself a fraud throughout his life.

    ReplyDelete
  12. "Evolutionists believe their idea is fact..."
    Yeah yeah yeah blah blah blah get to the point.
    "Something came from nothing"
    *facepalm*
    You idiot! You're getting TWO unrelated fields of Science completely wrong! That's almost impressively stupid. That's not just asking "where is the any key" stupid, that's looking at the back of the computer for the "any " key stupid.

    "Arose spontaneously"
    That's not only not evolution, that's the exact opposite of the word "Evolution" in the general sense that people say cars evolved and stuff. Even the dumbest creationist in the world knows evolution is about things slowly improving over time. Well, except you. You don't seem to know that.

    "Blackballed"
    You know, the only group of people I have less respect for than creationists is conspiracy theorists.

    ReplyDelete