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

Is Evolution Weak Science, Good Science, Or Great Science?

Expand Messages
  • David
    http://www.indiana.edu/~ensiweb/is.ev.wk.pdf From above: Is Evolution Weak Science, Good Science, Or Great Science? How Does Evolution Compare With Other Major
    Message 1 of 7 , Apr 11, 2013
    • 0 Attachment
      http://www.indiana.edu/~ensiweb/is.ev.wk.pdf

      From above:


      Is Evolution Weak Science, Good Science, Or Great Science?
      How Does Evolution Compare With Other Major Scientific Theories?
      ©
      2000 Craig E. Nelson, Indiana University, Bloomington, IN
      1. How Many Independent Lines Of Evidence Support The Theory?
      •
      Relativity, for example, is supported by only a few lines.
      •
      Multiple lines support both evolution and plate tectonics, so they are stronger.
      •
      The evidence showing that Evolution has occurred is stronger than that which shows that the planets orbit the
      sun.
      If it is a fact that the planets go around the sun, then it is a fact that we evolved from ancestors much
      simpler than fishes, indeed a stronger fact. If evolution is a theory, then the planets orbiting the sun is a
      weaker theory. Best put:
      Both are very strongly inferred facts.
      2. How Many Previously Unconnected Areas of Knowledge Did (Does) A Theory Unite?
      •
      Bronowski: Newton's greatness lay in connecting two kinds of motion that everyone knew to be independent,
      that of celestial bodies and that of terrestrial objects.
      •
      Darwin connected evolutionary history with the Linnaean hierarchy, with patterns of distribution,
      with the patterns of compromises in adaptation, and more.
      •
      In connecting several fundamentally different natural phenomena, Einstein was the Darwin of physics.
      3. Does The Theory Make Important Predictions?
      •
      All of these theories make precise quantitative predictions for simple systems.
      •
      For complex systems, the most powerful predictions are of non-existence:
      •
      As mammals and birds originated from disparate taxa of reptiles, we can predict that no
      fossil intermediates between bats (or other mammals) and birds will ever be found.
      4. How Clear Are The Causal Mechanisms?
      •
      Physicists: Newton renamed falling tendency and pretended to have explained it. Gravitation is still
      unexplained (as is wave-particle duality in quantum mechanics)
      •
      Darwin's forces were natural selection and a tendency of organisms to resemble their parents and
      more remote ancestors for similarly unknown reasons.
      •
      Now, heredity (DNA) makes deep resemblance to ancestors physically inevitable.
      And: the impossibility of perfect consistency in replication makes evolution inevitable.
      5. Does The Theory Adequately Explain Ultimate Origin Of The Systems It Describes?
      •
      Neither relativity nor quantum mechanics adequately explains the ultimate origin of the physical universe. Plate
      tectonics does not explain the origin of the earth.
      •
      Thus, the fact that evolution does not adequately explain the origin of life does not make it weaker
      than other major scientific theories.
      6. Is The Theory Scientifically Controversial
      Or Only Publicly Or Politically Controversial?
      •
      Each of these theories has essentially universal scientific acceptance (except where scientists are
      motivated by non-scientific considerations).
      7. Is The Theory Fundamental To Many Practical Benefits Embraced By Our System?
      •
      Each of these theories has important economic benefits. Evolution is of continuing importance in
      agriculture and of growing importance in medicine and industry.
      •
      Jim Bull: As the 20th century was dominated by applied physics and chemistry,
      the 21st Century
      will be dominated by applied evolution.
      8. Is The Theory Widely Understood And Accepted By The General Public?
      •
      Plate tectonics and evolution require acceptance of an old earth. (Rejected by a plurality.)
      Quantum mechanics and relativity are inaccessible and very counter-intuitive.
      •
      NO major scientific theory is widely understood and accepted by the general public.
      Summary: How DOES Evolution Compare With Other Major Scientific Theories?
      •
      On each of these eight criteria, evolution is as good or better than the other theories.
      •
      EVOLUTION IS AS GOOD AS GREAT SCIENCE GETS!
    • Laurie Appleton
      ... From: David To: OriginsTalk@yahoogroups.com Sent: Friday, April 12, 2013 6:26 AM Subject: [OriginsTalk] Is Evolution Weak Science, Good Science, Or Great
      Message 2 of 7 , Apr 11, 2013
      • 0 Attachment
        ----- Original Message -----
        From: David
        To: OriginsTalk@yahoogroups.com
        Sent: Friday, April 12, 2013 6:26 AM
        Subject: [OriginsTalk] Is Evolution Weak Science, Good Science, Or Great Science?




        EVOLUTION IS AS GOOD AS GREAT SCIENCE GETS!


        LA> Surely you are joking since noted evolutionists have written things like the following;

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

        "Creationists travel all over the United States,
        visiting college campuses (*) and staging "debates" with
        biologists, geologists, and anthropologists. The
        creationists nearly always win."

        "The audience is frequently loaded with the already
        converted and the faithful. And scientists, until recently
        have been showing up at the debates ill-prepared for what
        awaits them. Thinking the creationists are uneducated,
        Bible-thumping clods, they are soon routed by a steady
        onslaught of direct attacks on a wide variety of scientific
        topics."

        "No scientist has an expert's grasp of all the
        relevant points of astronomy, physics, chemistry, biology,
        geology, and anthropology. Creationists today - at least
        the majority of their spokesmen - are highly educated,
        intelligent people. Skilled debaters, they have always done
        their homework. And they nearly always seem better informed
        than their opponents, who are reduced too often to a
        bewildered state of incoherence."

        (The Monkey Business, Niles Eldredge, 1982, p. 17)
        (*) elsewhere some evolutionists try to pretend that the
        debates are mostly NOT on College campuses!)
        ===========================

        Laurie.

        "From my earliest training as a scientist, I was very strongly brainwashed
        to believe that science cannot be consistent with any kind of deliberate
        creation. That notion has had to be painfully shed.
        (Chandra Wickramasinghe, noted astronomer and ex-atheist Buddhist, 1981)
        ..

        [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
      • Joe Martin
        From: OriginsTalk@yahoogroups.com [mailto:OriginsTalk@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Laurie Appleton Sent: April-11-13 10:12 PM To: OriginsTalk@yahoogroups.com
        Message 3 of 7 , Apr 18, 2013
        • 0 Attachment
          From: OriginsTalk@yahoogroups.com [mailto:OriginsTalk@yahoogroups.com] On
          Behalf Of Laurie Appleton
          Sent: April-11-13 10:12 PM
          To: OriginsTalk@yahoogroups.com
          Subject: Re: [OriginsTalk] Is Evolution Weak Science, Good Science, Or Great
          Science?






          ----- Original Message -----
          From: David
          To: OriginsTalk@yahoogroups.com <mailto:OriginsTalk%40yahoogroups.com>
          Sent: Friday, April 12, 2013 6:26 AM
          Subject: [OriginsTalk] Is Evolution Weak Science, Good Science, Or Great
          Science?

          EVOLUTION IS AS GOOD AS GREAT SCIENCE GETS!

          LA> Surely you are joking since noted evolutionists have written things like
          the following;

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

          "Creationists travel all over the United States,
          visiting college campuses (*) and staging "debates" with
          biologists, geologists, and anthropologists. The
          creationists nearly always win."

          "The audience is frequently loaded with the already
          converted and the faithful. And scientists, until recently
          have been showing up at the debates ill-prepared for what
          awaits them. Thinking the creationists are uneducated,
          Bible-thumping clods, they are soon routed by a steady
          onslaught of direct attacks on a wide variety of scientific
          topics."

          "No scientist has an expert's grasp of all the
          relevant points of astronomy, physics, chemistry, biology,
          geology, and anthropology. Creationists today - at least
          the majority of their spokesmen - are highly educated,
          intelligent people. Skilled debaters, they have always done
          their homework. And they nearly always seem better informed
          than their opponents, who are reduced too often to a
          bewildered state of incoherence."

          (The Monkey Business, Niles Eldredge, 1982, p. 17)
          (*) elsewhere some evolutionists try to pretend that the
          debates are mostly NOT on College campuses!)
          ===========================




          [JM>] Laurie's little snippet IN CONTEXT:


          "Creationism-the belief that the cosmos, the earth, and all of life are the
          separate acts of a supernatural Creator-is most closely associated in the
          United States with various sects of fundamentalist Christianity. Other
          religions (for instance, some Orthodox Jewish sects) also reject the
          scientific
          notion of evolution in favor of a literal biblical rendition of the origins
          of
          the earth and living things. Indeed, the religions of nearly all known
          societies
          have creation myths that explain the origin of the world, who people are,
          how they came to be, and why.

          But creationism is far more than a religious belief. As fascinating as the
          comparative study of creation stories may be, it is the political nature of
          creationism in the United States that gave the topic its importance in 1925,
          as it has once again today. William Jennings Bryan, the sterling symbol of
          grass-roots populism who ran for the presidency three times and once served
          as
          Secretary of State, was the spokesman for fundamentalist beliefs against the
          supposedly godless forces of evolution in the Scopes trial. Long past his
          prime as all orator (he died only three days after the trial
          ended), Bryan nonetheless stirred the hearts of creationists during the
          trial, with his masterful blend of religion and politics. No one (except
          journalist H.
          L. Mencken) objected to the right of a student to believe whatever he or she
          wanted. But the activist side of creationism, which attempts to see
          religious-inspired belief taught in schools (or evolution expunged from the
          curriculum), leaves the arena of religion and enters the world of politics.

          The current rise of creationism can only be understood as a part of the
          general upsurge of "neopopulism." The new conservatism sweeping America-a
          conservatism as much anti-General Motors as it is anti-United Auto
          Workers-opposes big companies, big unions, and big government. It seeks more
          local control of
          tax dollars and the programs those dollars support. The tax revolt and the
          attack on a host of issues (e.g., sex education, abortion, the Equal Rights
          Amendment) are all designed to support what are perceived as traditional
          American family values. The Moral Majority, which is pro creationist and
          anti-evolutionist, is merely the latest, most visible, and most successful
          religious organization (primarily fundamentalist Protestant) to engage in
          overt political
          action. The populist form of conservative politics has always gone hand in
          hand with conservative Protestant religious belief. Small wonder creationism
          is
          once more on the political scene.

          Thus, the central importance of creationism today is its political nature.
          Creationists travel all over the United States, visiting college campuses
          and
          staging "debates" with biologists, geologists, and anthropologists. The
          creationists nearly always win. The audience is frequently loaded with the
          already converted and the faithful. And scientists, until recently, have
          been
          showing up at the debates ill-prepared for what awaits them.
          Thinking the creationists are uneducated, Bible-thumping clods, they are
          soon routed by a steady onslaught of: direct attacks on a wide variety of
          scientific topics. No scientist has an expert's grasp of all the relevant
          points of astronomy, physics, chemistry, biology, geology, and anthropology.
          Creationists today-at least the majority of their spokesmen-are highly
          educated, intelligent people. Skilled debaters, they have always done their
          homework. And they nearly always seem better informed than their opponents,
          who
          are reduced too often to a bewildered state of incoherence. As will be all
          too
          evident when we examine the creationist position in detail, their arguments
          are devoid of any real intellectual content. Creationists win debates
          because
          of their canny stage presence, and not through clarity of logic or force of
          evidence. The debates are shows rather than serious considerations of
          evolution.

          The debate tactic reveals the essence of the creationist approach: the
          collision between creation and evolution is still presented as an
          unresolved,
          intellectual problem. When Darwin published the Origin of Species in 1859,
          he
          sparked a genuine controversy. Did a naturalistic explanation of the origin
          and development of life on earth pose a serious theological challenge?
          Thomas
          Henry Huxley (Aldous' and Julian's grandfather and Darwin's main champion in
          England) debated Bishop Wilberforce soon after the Origin appeared. But such
          theological problems as evolution seemed to pose were soon resolved; most
          Christian and Jewish thinkers today see no conflict between science and
          religion.
          Science seeks to understand the universe in naturalistic terms. It depends
          upon observation, accepts nothing on faith, and acknowledges that it can
          never
          claim to know the ultimate truth. Religions, on the other hand, are
          belief systems, generally involving the supernatural. Both are
          time-honored-but
          utterly different-human activities. Most scientists and members of religious
          communities see no conflict, as the two systems are completely different,
          are
          pursued for different reasons, and serve different functions."

          (Eldredge N., "The Monkey Business: A Scientist Looks at Creationism,"
          Washington Square: New York NY, 1982, pp.16-18)



          JM> Throws an entirely different light on the subject, doesn't it?





          [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
        • Laurie Appleton
          ... From: Joe Martin To: OriginsTalk@yahoogroups.com Sent: Friday, April 19, 2013 8:38 AM Subject: RE: [OriginsTalk] Is Evolution Weak Science, Good Science,
          Message 4 of 7 , Apr 18, 2013
          • 0 Attachment
            ----- Original Message -----
            From: Joe Martin
            To: OriginsTalk@yahoogroups.com
            Sent: Friday, April 19, 2013 8:38 AM
            Subject: RE: [OriginsTalk] Is Evolution Weak Science, Good Science, Or Great Science?





            ----- Original Message -----
            From: David
            To: OriginsTalk@yahoogroups.com <mailto:OriginsTalk%40yahoogroups.com>
            Sent: Friday, April 12, 2013 6:26 AM
            Subject: [OriginsTalk] Is Evolution Weak Science, Good Science, Or Great
            Science?

            EVOLUTION IS AS GOOD AS GREAT SCIENCE GETS!

            LA> Surely you are joking since noted evolutionists have written things like
            the following;

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

            "Creationists travel all over the United States,
            visiting college campuses (*) and staging "debates" with
            biologists, geologists, and anthropologists. The
            creationists nearly always win."

            "The audience is frequently loaded with the already
            converted and the faithful. And scientists, until recently
            have been showing up at the debates ill-prepared for what
            awaits them. Thinking the creationists are uneducated,
            Bible-thumping clods, they are soon routed by a steady
            onslaught of direct attacks on a wide variety of scientific
            topics."

            "No scientist has an expert's grasp of all the
            relevant points of astronomy, physics, chemistry, biology,
            geology, and anthropology. Creationists today - at least
            the majority of their spokesmen - are highly educated,
            intelligent people. Skilled debaters, they have always done
            their homework. And they nearly always seem better informed
            than their opponents, who are reduced too often to a
            bewildered state of incoherence."

            (The Monkey Business, Niles Eldredge, 1982, p. 17)
            (*) elsewhere some evolutionists try to pretend that the
            debates are mostly NOT on College campuses!)
            ===========================

            [JM>] Laurie's little snippet IN CONTEXT:

            "Creationism-the belief that the cosmos, the earth, and all of life are the
            separate acts of a supernatural Creator-is most closely associated in the
            United States with various sects of fundamentalist Christianity. Other
            religions (for instance, some Orthodox Jewish sects) also reject the
            scientific
            notion of evolution in favor of a literal biblical rendition of the origins
            of
            the earth and living things. Indeed, the religions of nearly all known
            societies
            have creation myths that explain the origin of the world, who people are,
            how they came to be, and why.

            But creationism is far more than a religious belief. As fascinating as the
            comparative study of creation stories may be, it is the political nature of
            creationism in the United States that gave the topic its importance in 1925,
            as it has once again today. William Jennings Bryan, the sterling symbol of
            grass-roots populism who ran for the presidency three times and once served
            as
            Secretary of State, was the spokesman for fundamentalist beliefs against the
            supposedly godless forces of evolution in the Scopes trial. Long past his
            prime as all orator (he died only three days after the trial
            ended), Bryan nonetheless stirred the hearts of creationists during the
            trial, with his masterful blend of religion and politics. No one (except
            journalist H.
            L. Mencken) objected to the right of a student to believe whatever he or she
            wanted. But the activist side of creationism, which attempts to see
            religious-inspired belief taught in schools (or evolution expunged from the
            curriculum), leaves the arena of religion and enters the world of politics.

            The current rise of creationism can only be understood as a part of the
            general upsurge of "neopopulism." The new conservatism sweeping America-a
            conservatism as much anti-General Motors as it is anti-United Auto
            Workers-opposes big companies, big unions, and big government. It seeks more
            local control of
            tax dollars and the programs those dollars support. The tax revolt and the
            attack on a host of issues (e.g., sex education, abortion, the Equal Rights
            Amendment) are all designed to support what are perceived as traditional
            American family values. The Moral Majority, which is pro creationist and
            anti-evolutionist, is merely the latest, most visible, and most successful
            religious organization (primarily fundamentalist Protestant) to engage in
            overt political
            action. The populist form of conservative politics has always gone hand in
            hand with conservative Protestant religious belief. Small wonder creationism
            is
            once more on the political scene.

            Thus, the central importance of creationism today is its political nature.
            Creationists travel all over the United States, visiting college campuses
            and
            staging "debates" with biologists, geologists, and anthropologists. The
            creationists nearly always win. The audience is frequently loaded with the
            already converted and the faithful. And scientists, until recently, have
            been
            showing up at the debates ill-prepared for what awaits them.
            Thinking the creationists are uneducated, Bible-thumping clods, they are
            soon routed by a steady onslaught of: direct attacks on a wide variety of
            scientific topics. No scientist has an expert's grasp of all the relevant
            points of astronomy, physics, chemistry, biology, geology, and anthropology.
            Creationists today-at least the majority of their spokesmen-are highly
            educated, intelligent people. Skilled debaters, they have always done their
            homework. And they nearly always seem better informed than their opponents,
            who
            are reduced too often to a bewildered state of incoherence. As will be all
            too
            evident when we examine the creationist position in detail, their arguments
            are devoid of any real intellectual content. Creationists win debates
            because
            of their canny stage presence, and not through clarity of logic or force of
            evidence. The debates are shows rather than serious considerations of
            evolution.

            The debate tactic reveals the essence of the creationist approach: the
            collision between creation and evolution is still presented as an
            unresolved,
            intellectual problem. When Darwin published the Origin of Species in 1859,
            he
            sparked a genuine controversy. Did a naturalistic explanation of the origin
            and development of life on earth pose a serious theological challenge?
            Thomas
            Henry Huxley (Aldous' and Julian's grandfather and Darwin's main champion in
            England) debated Bishop Wilberforce soon after the Origin appeared. But such
            theological problems as evolution seemed to pose were soon resolved; most
            Christian and Jewish thinkers today see no conflict between science and
            religion.
            Science seeks to understand the universe in naturalistic terms. It depends
            upon observation, accepts nothing on faith, and acknowledges that it can
            never
            claim to know the ultimate truth. Religions, on the other hand, are
            belief systems, generally involving the supernatural. Both are
            time-honored-but
            utterly different-human activities. Most scientists and members of religious
            communities see no conflict, as the two systems are completely different,
            are
            pursued for different reasons, and serve different functions."

            (Eldredge N., "The Monkey Business: A Scientist Looks at Creationism,"
            Washington Square: New York NY, 1982, pp.16-18)

            JM> Throws an entirely different light on the subject, doesn't it?


            LA> Hardly, since NOTHING alters the fact that evolutionist, Niles Eldredge clearly and expressly admitted that the evolutionists' failure was in their absurd mistake in; "Thinking the creationists are uneducated, Bible-thumping clods"! Tthat is one of the reasons why the evolutionists were "regularly routed" on the scientific questions.

            LA> Thus we learn from other noted evolutionists that evolutionism is really a religion to most evolutionists! The following from a noted evolutionist is a good example of this;
            ----------------------------------

            "It is as a religion of science that Darwinism chiefly
            held, and holds men's minds. . . The modified but still
            characteristically Darwinian theory has itself become an
            orthodoxy, preached by its adherents with religious fervor,
            and doubted, they feel, only by a few muddlers imperfect in
            scientific truth."'

            (Marjorie Grene, ENCOUNTER, November 1959, p.49)
            =========================


            Laurie.

            "From my earliest training as a scientist, I was very strongly brainwashed
            to believe that science cannot be consistent with any kind of deliberate
            creation. That notion has had to be painfully shed.
            (Chandra Wickramasinghe, noted astronomer and ex-atheist Buddhist, 1981)
            ..


            [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
          • Joe Martin
            From: OriginsTalk@yahoogroups.com [mailto:OriginsTalk@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Laurie Appleton Sent: April-18-13 9:15 PM To: OriginsTalk@yahoogroups.com
            Message 5 of 7 , Apr 19, 2013
            • 0 Attachment
              From: OriginsTalk@yahoogroups.com [mailto:OriginsTalk@yahoogroups.com] On
              Behalf Of Laurie Appleton
              Sent: April-18-13 9:15 PM
              To: OriginsTalk@yahoogroups.com
              Subject: Re: [OriginsTalk] Is Evolution Weak Science, Good Science, Or Great
              Science?






              ----- Original Message -----
              From: Joe Martin
              To: OriginsTalk@yahoogroups.com <mailto:OriginsTalk%40yahoogroups.com>
              Sent: Friday, April 19, 2013 8:38 AM
              Subject: RE: [OriginsTalk] Is Evolution Weak Science, Good Science, Or Great
              Science?

              ----- Original Message -----
              From: David
              To: OriginsTalk@yahoogroups.com <mailto:OriginsTalk%40yahoogroups.com>
              <mailto:OriginsTalk%40yahoogroups.com>
              Sent: Friday, April 12, 2013 6:26 AM
              Subject: [OriginsTalk] Is Evolution Weak Science, Good Science, Or Great
              Science?

              EVOLUTION IS AS GOOD AS GREAT SCIENCE GETS!

              LA> Surely you are joking since noted evolutionists have written things like
              the following;

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

              "Creationists travel all over the United States,
              visiting college campuses (*) and staging "debates" with
              biologists, geologists, and anthropologists. The
              creationists nearly always win."

              "The audience is frequently loaded with the already
              converted and the faithful. And scientists, until recently
              have been showing up at the debates ill-prepared for what
              awaits them. Thinking the creationists are uneducated,
              Bible-thumping clods, they are soon routed by a steady
              onslaught of direct attacks on a wide variety of scientific
              topics."

              "No scientist has an expert's grasp of all the
              relevant points of astronomy, physics, chemistry, biology,
              geology, and anthropology. Creationists today - at least
              the majority of their spokesmen - are highly educated,
              intelligent people. Skilled debaters, they have always done
              their homework. And they nearly always seem better informed
              than their opponents, who are reduced too often to a
              bewildered state of incoherence."

              (The Monkey Business, Niles Eldredge, 1982, p. 17)
              (*) elsewhere some evolutionists try to pretend that the
              debates are mostly NOT on College campuses!)
              ===========================

              [JM>] Laurie's little snippet IN CONTEXT:

              "Creationism-the belief that the cosmos, the earth, and all of life are the
              separate acts of a supernatural Creator-is most closely associated in the
              United States with various sects of fundamentalist Christianity. Other
              religions (for instance, some Orthodox Jewish sects) also reject the
              scientific
              notion of evolution in favor of a literal biblical rendition of the origins
              of
              the earth and living things. Indeed, the religions of nearly all known
              societies
              have creation myths that explain the origin of the world, who people are,
              how they came to be, and why.

              But creationism is far more than a religious belief. As fascinating as the
              comparative study of creation stories may be, it is the political nature of
              creationism in the United States that gave the topic its importance in 1925,
              as it has once again today. William Jennings Bryan, the sterling symbol of
              grass-roots populism who ran for the presidency three times and once served
              as
              Secretary of State, was the spokesman for fundamentalist beliefs against the
              supposedly godless forces of evolution in the Scopes trial. Long past his
              prime as all orator (he died only three days after the trial
              ended), Bryan nonetheless stirred the hearts of creationists during the
              trial, with his masterful blend of religion and politics. No one (except
              journalist H.
              L. Mencken) objected to the right of a student to believe whatever he or she
              wanted. But the activist side of creationism, which attempts to see
              religious-inspired belief taught in schools (or evolution expunged from the
              curriculum), leaves the arena of religion and enters the world of politics.

              The current rise of creationism can only be understood as a part of the
              general upsurge of "neopopulism." The new conservatism sweeping America-a
              conservatism as much anti-General Motors as it is anti-United Auto
              Workers-opposes big companies, big unions, and big government. It seeks more
              local control of
              tax dollars and the programs those dollars support. The tax revolt and the
              attack on a host of issues (e.g., sex education, abortion, the Equal Rights
              Amendment) are all designed to support what are perceived as traditional
              American family values. The Moral Majority, which is pro creationist and
              anti-evolutionist, is merely the latest, most visible, and most successful
              religious organization (primarily fundamentalist Protestant) to engage in
              overt political
              action. The populist form of conservative politics has always gone hand in
              hand with conservative Protestant religious belief. Small wonder creationism
              is
              once more on the political scene.

              Thus, the central importance of creationism today is its political nature.
              Creationists travel all over the United States, visiting college campuses
              and
              staging "debates" with biologists, geologists, and anthropologists. The
              creationists nearly always win. The audience is frequently loaded with the
              already converted and the faithful. And scientists, until recently, have
              been
              showing up at the debates ill-prepared for what awaits them.
              Thinking the creationists are uneducated, Bible-thumping clods, they are
              soon routed by a steady onslaught of: direct attacks on a wide variety of
              scientific topics. No scientist has an expert's grasp of all the relevant
              points of astronomy, physics, chemistry, biology, geology, and anthropology.
              Creationists today-at least the majority of their spokesmen-are highly
              educated, intelligent people. Skilled debaters, they have always done their
              homework. And they nearly always seem better informed than their opponents,
              who
              are reduced too often to a bewildered state of incoherence. As will be all
              too
              evident when we examine the creationist position in detail, their arguments
              are devoid of any real intellectual content. Creationists win debates
              because
              of their canny stage presence, and not through clarity of logic or force of
              evidence. The debates are shows rather than serious considerations of
              evolution.

              The debate tactic reveals the essence of the creationist approach: the
              collision between creation and evolution is still presented as an
              unresolved,
              intellectual problem. When Darwin published the Origin of Species in 1859,
              he
              sparked a genuine controversy. Did a naturalistic explanation of the origin
              and development of life on earth pose a serious theological challenge?
              Thomas
              Henry Huxley (Aldous' and Julian's grandfather and Darwin's main champion in
              England) debated Bishop Wilberforce soon after the Origin appeared. But such
              theological problems as evolution seemed to pose were soon resolved; most
              Christian and Jewish thinkers today see no conflict between science and
              religion.
              Science seeks to understand the universe in naturalistic terms. It depends
              upon observation, accepts nothing on faith, and acknowledges that it can
              never
              claim to know the ultimate truth. Religions, on the other hand, are
              belief systems, generally involving the supernatural. Both are
              time-honored-but
              utterly different-human activities. Most scientists and members of religious
              communities see no conflict, as the two systems are completely different,
              are
              pursued for different reasons, and serve different functions."

              (Eldredge N., "The Monkey Business: A Scientist Looks at Creationism,"
              Washington Square: New York NY, 1982, pp.16-18)

              JM> Throws an entirely different light on the subject, doesn't it?

              LA> Hardly, since NOTHING alters the fact that evolutionist, Niles Eldredge
              clearly and expressly admitted that the evolutionists' failure was in their
              absurd mistake in; "Thinking the creationists are uneducated, Bible-thumping
              clods"! Tthat is one of the reasons why the evolutionists were "regularly
              routed" on the scientific questions.

              [JM>] Perhaps you should READ what E. said... it was not on scientific
              QUESTIONS but " steady onslaught of: direct attacks on a wide variety of
              scientific topics." Perhaps you would be willing to present what creation
              science hypotheses were used to overturn any conventional science theories
              in ANY of these debating games.



              LA> Thus we learn from other noted evolutionists that evolutionism is really
              a religion to most evolutionists! The following from a noted evolutionist is
              a good example of this;
              ----------------------------------

              "It is as a religion of science that Darwinism chiefly
              held, and holds men's minds. . . The modified but still
              characteristically Darwinian theory has itself become an
              orthodoxy, preached by its adherents with religious fervor,
              and doubted, they feel, only by a few muddlers imperfect in
              scientific truth."'

              (Marjorie Grene, ENCOUNTER, November 1959, p.49)
              =========================




              [JM>] This snippet has already been shown to not only be Out of Context BUT
              Misquoted as well not to mention over 50 years old. Where is the creation
              science you want taught in classrooms Laurie? Why can't you ever present
              what it is you WANT rather than what it is you DON'T want?



              [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
            • Laurie Appleton
              ... From: Joe Martin To: OriginsTalk@yahoogroups.com Sent: Saturday, April 20, 2013 3:13 AM Subject: RE: [OriginsTalk] Is Evolution Weak Science, Good Science,
              Message 6 of 7 , Apr 19, 2013
              • 0 Attachment
                ----- Original Message -----
                From: Joe Martin
                To: OriginsTalk@yahoogroups.com
                Sent: Saturday, April 20, 2013 3:13 AM
                Subject: RE: [OriginsTalk] Is Evolution Weak Science, Good Science, Or Great Science?




                [JM>] Perhaps you should READ what E. said... it was not on scientific
                QUESTIONS but " steady onslaught of: direct attacks on a wide variety of
                scientific topics." Perhaps you would be willing to present what creation
                science hypotheses were used to overturn any conventional science theories
                in ANY of these debating games.


                LA> You must have overlooked the following statement in the book of Niles Eldridge. This makes the situation abundantly clear. i.e.;

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

                "No scientist has an expert's grasp of all the
                relevant points of astronomy, physics, chemistry, biology,
                geology, and anthropology. Creationists today - at least
                the majority of their spokesmen - are highly educated,
                intelligent people. Skilled debaters, they have always done
                their homework. And they nearly always seem better informed
                than their opponents, who are reduced too often to a
                bewildered state of incoherence."

                (The Monkey Business, Niles Eldredge, 1982, p. 17)
                (*) elsewhere some evolutionists try to pretend that the
                debates are mostly NOT on College campuses!)

                =======================



                Laurie.

                "From my earliest training as a scientist, I was very strongly brainwashed
                to believe that science cannot be consistent with any kind of deliberate
                creation. That notion has had to be painfully shed.
                (Chandra Wickramasinghe, noted astronomer and ex-atheist Buddhist, 1981)

                ..


                [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
              • Joe Martin
                From: OriginsTalk@yahoogroups.com [mailto:OriginsTalk@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Laurie Appleton Sent: April-19-13 8:08 PM To: OriginsTalk@yahoogroups.com
                Message 7 of 7 , Apr 20, 2013
                • 0 Attachment
                  From: OriginsTalk@yahoogroups.com [mailto:OriginsTalk@yahoogroups.com] On
                  Behalf Of Laurie Appleton
                  Sent: April-19-13 8:08 PM
                  To: OriginsTalk@yahoogroups.com
                  Subject: Re: [OriginsTalk] Is Evolution Weak Science, Good Science, Or Great
                  Science?






                  ----- Original Message -----
                  From: Joe Martin
                  To: OriginsTalk@yahoogroups.com <mailto:OriginsTalk%40yahoogroups.com>
                  Sent: Saturday, April 20, 2013 3:13 AM
                  Subject: RE: [OriginsTalk] Is Evolution Weak Science, Good Science, Or Great
                  Science?

                  [JM>] Perhaps you should READ what E. said... it was not on scientific
                  QUESTIONS but " steady onslaught of: direct attacks on a wide variety of
                  scientific topics." Perhaps you would be willing to present what creation
                  science hypotheses were used to overturn any conventional science theories
                  in ANY of these debating games.

                  LA> You must have overlooked the following statement in the book of Niles
                  Eldridge. This makes the situation abundantly clear. i.e.;

                  JM> Not overlooked but... let us examine what he IS saying and not what you
                  WANT him to be saying...

                  "No scientist has an expert's grasp of all the
                  relevant points of astronomy, physics, chemistry, biology,
                  geology, and anthropology.

                  JM> True.. Most scientists specialise in a discipline (geology, biology,
                  astro-physics etc.) and many specialise even further within their
                  discipline. e.g. an astro-physicist devoting a career to the gravitational
                  effects of massive black holes in galactic centres. So this statement is
                  accurate in that most scientists, while having a knowledge of science
                  generally, cannot be expected to delve into the details of every facet of
                  science. It would not be hard to stump a biologist on detailed questions
                  about astro-physics, for example.

                  Creationists today - at least
                  the majority of their spokesmen - are highly educated,
                  intelligent people. Skilled debaters, they have always done
                  their homework.

                  JM> Yup... their homework for the debates is quite simple really... Debating
                  a biologist? Keep the debate fixed on ANYTHING but biology! Geology,
                  cosmology, ANYTHING but biology.

                  And they nearly always seem better informed
                  than their opponents, who are reduced too often to a
                  bewildered state of incoherence."



                  JM> KEYWORD... SEEM better informed. Not that they ARE better informed
                  but they seem better informed because they are attacking geology when facing
                  a biologist or cosmology when debating a geologist and, as I said above, it
                  would not be hard to stump a biologist on detailed questions about
                  astro-physics.

                  BUT, this entire snippet, or at least the portion used here is, does not
                  give a true picture of what Eldredge is saying. Here it is IN context in
                  its entirety AGAIN:


                  "Creationism-the belief that the cosmos, the earth, and all of life are the
                  separate acts of a supernatural Creator-is most closely associated in the
                  United States with various sects of fundamentalist Christianity. Other
                  religions (for instance, some Orthodox Jewish sects) also reject the
                  scientific
                  notion of evolution in favor of a literal biblical rendition of the origins
                  of
                  the earth and living things. Indeed, the religions of nearly all known
                  societies
                  have creation myths that explain the origin of the world, who people are,
                  how they came to be, and why.

                  But creationism is far more than a religious belief. As fascinating as the
                  comparative study of creation stories may be, it is the political nature of
                  creationism in the United States that gave the topic its importance in 1925,
                  as it has once again today. William Jennings Bryan, the sterling symbol of
                  grass-roots populism who ran for the presidency three times and once served
                  as
                  Secretary of State, was the spokesman for fundamentalist beliefs against the
                  supposedly godless forces of evolution in the Scopes trial. Long past his
                  prime as all orator (he died only three days after the trial
                  ended), Bryan nonetheless stirred the hearts of creationists during the
                  trial, with his masterful blend of religion and politics. No one (except
                  journalist H.
                  L. Mencken) objected to the right of a student to believe whatever he or she
                  wanted. But the activist side of creationism, which attempts to see
                  religious-inspired belief taught in schools (or evolution expunged from the
                  curriculum), leaves the arena of religion and enters the world of politics.

                  The current rise of creationism can only be understood as a part of the
                  general upsurge of "neopopulism." The new conservatism sweeping America-a
                  conservatism as much anti-General Motors as it is anti-United Auto
                  Workers-opposes big companies, big unions, and big government. It seeks more
                  local control of
                  tax dollars and the programs those dollars support. The tax revolt and the
                  attack on a host of issues (e.g., sex education, abortion, the Equal Rights
                  Amendment) are all designed to support what are perceived as traditional
                  American family values. The Moral Majority, which is pro creationist and
                  anti-evolutionist, is merely the latest, most visible, and most successful
                  religious organization (primarily fundamentalist Protestant) to engage in
                  overt political
                  action. The populist form of conservative politics has always gone hand in
                  hand with conservative Protestant religious belief. Small wonder creationism
                  is
                  once more on the political scene.

                  Thus, the central importance of creationism today is its political nature.
                  Creationists travel all over the United States, visiting college campuses
                  and
                  staging "debates" with biologists, geologists, and anthropologists. The
                  creationists nearly always win. The audience is frequently loaded with the
                  already converted and the faithful. And scientists, until recently, have
                  been
                  showing up at the debates ill-prepared for what awaits them.
                  Thinking the creationists are uneducated, Bible-thumping clods, they are
                  soon routed by a steady onslaught of: direct attacks on a wide variety of
                  scientific topics. No scientist has an expert's grasp of all the relevant
                  points of astronomy, physics, chemistry, biology, geology, and anthropology.
                  Creationists today-at least the majority of their spokesmen-are highly
                  educated, intelligent people. Skilled debaters, they have always done their
                  homework. And they nearly always seem better informed than their opponents,
                  who
                  are reduced too often to a bewildered state of incoherence. As will be all
                  too
                  evident when we examine the creationist position in detail, their arguments
                  are devoid of any real intellectual content. Creationists win debates
                  because
                  of their canny stage presence, and not through clarity of logic or force of
                  evidence. The debates are shows rather than serious considerations of
                  evolution.

                  The debate tactic reveals the essence of the creationist approach: the
                  collision between creation and evolution is still presented as an
                  unresolved,
                  intellectual problem. When Darwin published the Origin of Species in 1859,
                  he
                  sparked a genuine controversy. Did a naturalistic explanation of the origin
                  and development of life on earth pose a serious theological challenge?
                  Thomas
                  Henry Huxley (Aldous' and Julian's grandfather and Darwin's main champion in
                  England) debated Bishop Wilberforce soon after the Origin appeared. But such
                  theological problems as evolution seemed to pose were soon resolved; most
                  Christian and Jewish thinkers today see no conflict between science and
                  religion.
                  Science seeks to understand the universe in naturalistic terms. It depends
                  upon observation, accepts nothing on faith, and acknowledges that it can
                  never
                  claim to know the ultimate truth. Religions, on the other hand, are
                  belief systems, generally involving the supernatural. Both are
                  time-honored-but
                  utterly different-human activities. Most scientists and members of religious
                  communities see no conflict, as the two systems are completely different,
                  are
                  pursued for different reasons, and serve different functions."

                  (Eldredge N., "The Monkey Business: A Scientist Looks at Creationism,"
                  Washington Square: New York NY, 1982, pp.16-18)

                  Given the entire passage, the picture is quite different because E.
                  addresses the issues I presented from Laurie's snippet and explains that the
                  "debates" were "shows rather than serious considerations of evolution."







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