Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Re: Fw: An exchange regarding "recapitulation"!

Expand Messages
  • Robert Baty
    ... From: w_w_c_l To: coCBanned@yahoogroups.com Date: Friday, April 3, 2009 12:30 PM Subject: Re: Is Evolution a Religious Belief #2 ... There is no
    Message 1 of 2 , Apr 3, 2009
    • 0 Attachment
      --------------Forwarded Message-----------

      From: w_w_c_l
      To: coCBanned@yahoogroups.com
      Date: Friday, April 3, 2009 12:30 PM

      Subject: Re: Is Evolution a Religious Belief #2

      --- In coCBanned@yahoogroups.com, "Terry W. Benton" <terrywbenton@...> wrote:
      >
      > q.. Ashley Montagu, "The theory of
      > recapitulation was destroyed in 1921
      > by Professor Walter Garstang in a
      > famous paper. Since then no
      > respectable biologist has ever used
      > the theory of recapitulation, because
      > it was utterly unsound, created by a
      > Nazi-like preacher named Haeckel."

      > Montague-Gish Prinston Debate,
      > 4/12/80

      There is no "Montague-Gish Prinston Debate".

      There was, however, a debate between Ashley Montagu and Duane Gish
      at Princeton University.

      Cretinists are offal spelers.

      But speaking of quote-mining, here's one for you:

      | Regarding the recent action brought by the creationists in
      | California and the judge's order that the state distribute
      | more copies of a statement of long-standing policy that
      | evolution should not be taught as dogmatic, irrefutable fact
      | but rather as a scientific theory, the truth is that evolution
      | is an unrefuted fact. There are theories concerning the exact
      | mechanisms of evolution, but concerning evolution there no
      | longer can be any doubt as to its reality.
      |
      | The method of science is falsification, the attempts to
      | disprove by every possible means the theory which appears to
      | explain the fact. If the attempt fails, the scientist knows
      | that he has something and proceeds to set up experiments to
      | further test the theory. When the results support the theory,
      | they are published so that other scientists can check them.
      | When the findings are verified, we have "irrefutable" proof
      | of the accuracy of the theory. In that sense, truth for a
      | scientist means the highest degree of probability attached to
      | a particular judgment.
      |
      | In that same sense, because we have innumerable evidences of
      | the reality of evolution, both of a premeditated and
      | unpremeditated (natural) experimental kind, evolution is no
      | longer a theory but one of the best authenticated facts within
      | the whole realm of science. The fact of evolution is beyond
      | dispute.
      |
      | Theories as to the exact mechanisms of evolution are (happily)
      | alive and being debated -- such debate constitutes the lifeblood
      | of science, not evidence of disagreement as to the fact of
      | evolution. The scientist believes in proof without certainty;
      | some other people believe in certainty without proof.
      |
      | Not all things can be proven; evolution can. Creation myths
      | are just that: myths. As such, they are the legitimate study
      | of anthropologists and folklorists. If some people choose to
      | believe them to be truths, they are free to do so.

      Dr. Ashley Montagu, 1981
      http://ncseweb.org/cej/2/4/misquoted-scientists-respond

      ----------------------------------------
      ----------------------------------------




      [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
    Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.