The Real Warfare Thesis
This statement is diametrically opposed to empirical science, for it is a universal truth claim that is impossible in science. To better understand that you can first restate the motto to its logical positive equivalent: “Everything in biology only makes sense in light of evolution.” A scientist would never, and indeed could never, claim that evidence X can only be explained by theory Y. That’s because a scientist cannot know of all possible theories and explanations. Such knowledge simply is not available within science.
Aside from the minor problem that most of biology does not make sense in light of evolution (and that problem really is the minor one in this case), there is no scientific experiment or rationale that can inform us of all possible explanations for the origin of the world, let alone how well they explain the evidence.
But evolution never was about science in the first place. In evolutionary theory, the science is like window dressing. It comes after the fact that evolution is true. If you don’t believe me just read the literature. Dobzhansky’s non scientific statement is like a chant for evolutionists. It is the continual drumbeat in the background of evolutionary thought. It appears everywhere from the popular literature to peer-reviewed research papers to classroom material such as in Pedersen’s course.
Evolutionists could not be more clear about their beliefs and their non scientific claims. This is not a minor or tangential aspect of evolutionary thought. For evolutionists this is their core position. They are at war with empirical science. A theory that continually contradicts the evidence is declared to be a fact because, well, it must be.
Religion drives science, and it matters.
Life, Purpose, Mind: Where the Machine Metaphor Fails - Ann Gauger - June 2011
ReplyDeleteExcerpt: I'm a working biologist, on bacterial regulation (transcription and translation and protein stability) through signalling molecules, ,,, I can confirm the following points as realities: we lack adequate conceptual categories for what we are seeing in the biological world; with many additional genomes sequenced annually, we have much more data than we know what to do with (and making sense of it has become the current challenge); cells are staggeringly chock full of sophisticated technologies, which are exquisitely integrated; life is not dominated by a single technology, but rather a composite of many; and yet life is more than the sum of its parts; in our work, we biologists use words that imply intentionality, functionality, strategy, and design in biology--we simply cannot avoid them.
Furthermore, I suggest that to maintain that all of biology is solely a product of selection and genetic decay and time requires a metaphysical conviction that isn't troubled by the evidence. Alternatively, it could be the view of someone who is unfamiliar with the evidence, for one reason or another. But for those who will consider the evidence that is so obvious throughout biology, I suggest it's high time we moved on. - Matthew
http://www.evolutionnews.org/2011/06/life_purpose_mind_where_the_ma046991.html#comment-8858161
“All I’ve studied and researched over the past 30 years has only strengthened my belief that nothing makes sense in biology apart from belief in an intelligent being who has created us. Those who do not believe in an intelligent being must go to great extents to rationalize that what they see as design is not the product of intelligence.
Dr. Donald L. Ewert, Microbiologist, researcher at the Wistar Institute for almost 20 years.”
Dr. Hunter you may appreciate this article.
DeleteDarwin’s Frog Defies Evolution - July 5, 2013
Excerpt: Lynn Margulis in an interview with Mazur pronounced,
"neo-Darwinists are a… religious sect within the sprawling religious persuasion of Anglo-Saxon Biology."
http://www.darwinthenandnow.com/2013/07/darwins-frog-defies-evolution/
BA, you might find this interesting,it is the plot from the movie " Conagher" shot in 1990 for TBS.
Delete" The film opens with the Teale family moving west on a wagon into Indian Territory. They reach their home, and plan to go on the cattle business. The father, Jacob, rides out to get the cattle, promising to return in a month. However, he is killed along the way when his horse falls over on him, and he bleeds to death internally.
Meanwhile, a Stagecoach passes by the Teale farm; Evie Teale agrees to work for the Stagecoach by feeding customers who come by. One of the men on the Stagecoach warns Evie of a man named Conn Conagher, who he says is a fierce gunfighter. One day, Conagher does stop by for food, along with his partner Mahler. The Teale farm later comes under attack by Indians. The Stagecoach arrives by again in the middle of the gunfight, and the drivers and the passengers defend the farm. The Indians retreat in the morning.
Conagher, meanwhile, drifts out in the wilderness. He and Mahler meet an old rancher, Seaborn Tay, who hires both of them for work. Conagher proves to be a hardworking cowhand, but the ranch comes under threat by the Ladder Five gang, led by Smoke Parnell, who swear to kill Conagher. Mahler deserts the ranch after an argument with Conagher and joins the Ladder Five. Conagher saves the ranch and Tay's cattle twice from the Ladder Five, both in a series of quick gun battles. He also visits the Teale farm regularly, and he and Evie grow fond of each other and he becomes a father figure to her children.
One day, when Conagher is out herding Tay's cattle, he is ambushed and shot by the Ladder Five gang. The wounded Conagher hides out during the day, and but at night returns and holds the Ladder Five, including Parnell, at gunpoint. Weak from his wound, Conagher eventually collapses and passes out, but not before he demands the Ladder Five to clear off of the land. Parnell knows now that he can finish Conagher, as his gang has sworn to do, but instead orders his men to heal Conagher back to health. The next day, the Ladder Five gang clears off the land.
"Evolutionists could not be more clear about their beliefs and their non scientific claims."
ReplyDeleteSuch that natural selection is the sole mechanism of change.
"This is not a minor or tangential aspect of evolutionary thought. For evolutionists this is their core position."
The mechanisms of phyogenetic change are indeed a core aspect of evolutionary theory. It's just that the core explanatory processes are highly subjective, and have failed empirical verification.
"They are at war with empirical science. A theory that continually contradicts the evidence is declared to be a fact because, well, it must be."
Maybe it's due to being wedded to a reductionist and materialistic belief structure.
Also, I feel that that is one of the key problems regarding predictions and even retrodictions, that once made and committed to regarding one’s research goals, one’s objectivity is often compromised. Peer review is often biased in the same regard.
DeleteIn short, if alternate hypotheses are rejected summarily, one may be impeded from performing objective and unbiased science.
In short, if alternate hypotheses are rejected summarily, one may be impeded from performing objective and unbiased science.
DeleteWhich specific scientific hypotheses have been summarily rejected? Perhaps they are rejected for cause.
“Nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of evolution.”
ReplyDeleteI have always been confused by this statement.
Does anyone know what inspired the statement? On face it seems just ridiculous.
Did he really mean to say that “Nothing in EVOLUTIONARY biology makes sense except in the light of evolution.”? (Which is a ridiculous statement)
I think the NDE enterprise would do itself a favor by getting rid of that statement in the literature.
As CH might allude to, even without all of the scientific problems with NDE, this kind of a statement just seems to underscore the level of brazen conjecture employed by evolutionary "scientists".
Luckily, SCIENTISTS decide what constitutes science - And over 99% of them accept the VERY scientific theory of evolution. Evidence against evolution is NOT evidence for creationism. You should know that. Why don't you come up with your OWN evidence for your beliefs?
ReplyDeleteOWN evidence
DeleteRookie mistake
velikovskys, what do you mean?
DeleteEd Zachary, what do you mean, Velik?
DeleteTwt
DeleteAsking IDists for their own evidence, not likely
Eugen,
Ed Zachary?
velikovskys
DeleteEugen,
Ed Zachary?
A Creationist went to see his Chinese doctor.
The doctor told him he had Zachary disease.
"Zachary disease, what's that?" asked the confused Fundy.
"Means your face look zachary like your butt"
:D :D :D
Good thing it wasn't Ima Butt
DeleteOr Mike Hunt
ReplyDelete:)
Yup, the old Ed Zachary disease
:)
Evolution does fail the evidence test.
ReplyDeleteHowever it fails worse the methodology test.
Its biological scientific evidence is not just wrong evidence its not from biological investigation.
Therefore evolution is not even a wrong biological theory. its not a theory.
Just a poorly supported hypothesis from non biological evidence.
robert byers, how can you possibly be so dumb to say this:
Delete"..its not from biological investigation."?
The scientific methodology to study evolution involves biological, geological, paleontological, meteorological, anthropological, astronomical, etc., etc., etc., investigation.
You haven't got a clue.
Hey robert, tell me about the scientific "methodology" of 'god-did-it-in-six-days-six-thousand-years-ago-and-I-believe-it-because-the-bible-says-so'.
I stand by what i said.
DeleteWhere is the scientific biological evidence fior evolution??
For the great claim of evolution?
If one observes largely they say fossils, DNA, morphology, biogeography , or speciation.
They mostly use lines of reasoning and secondary subjects.
Yet not biological investigation.
Name your top three?
Eveolution fails every test, especially the IQ test. LOL.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDelete'That might seem strange since evolutionary theory’s fundamental predictions have turned out to be false and the species do not fit into an evolutionary tree.'
DeleteThat's right.... pick, pick, pick. Nit-picking again, Cornelius. You know full well evolutionary theory possesses an arbitrary, self-justifying existence, requiring no basis in empirical evidence.
Post above deleted, as I thought I'd change the word 'on' in the last line, to, 'no', as posted immediately above.
I'm Broadway Danny Rose. May I interject?
ReplyDeleteTo begin with your username is grossly misleading; indeed, a misnomer. Please change it without delay.
Secondly, the meaning of 'science' is simply knowledge. However, the simplest truths have the most vast implications. And I'm afraid 'empirical science', to which you are referring, is among the basest forms of knowledge of all. Unless you are a real, meat-head materialist, when meat and dirt reign above all.