Shattering the Myths of Darwinism

Religions > Atheism > Shattering the Myths of Darwinism

LINK TO THIS PAGE

rating : 0 | 0

Page 1 of 6

Topic:	Religions > Atheism
User:	"words of truth"
Date:	10 Oct 2005 04:25:02 PM
Object:	Shattering the Myths of Darwinism

http://www.christiananswers.net/catalog/bk-shattering-quotes.html
Quotes
from Shattering the Myths of Darwinism
by Richard Milton
Darwin's original conception ...has received too many mortal blows
from the ugly facts of scientific enquiry to remain viable. (p. 230)
SCIENTISTS. Most scientists privately accept that there are serious
objections to Darwinism... and privately they will admit to the
objections. However, they have become reluctant to discuss them in
public (and in a public forum like the Internet they will deny them
altogether) because they fear that they will aid their critics and
unwittingly discredit their own profession. In some cases, they feel it
is better to be discreet, pretend that there is nothing wrong, or even
tell a "little white lie" in the interests of the greater good of
science. (p. 269) ...Darwinism has never had much appeal for science
outside of the English-speaking world... its ascendancy in science, in
both Britain and America, has been waning for several decades as its
grip has weakened in successive areas: geology; paleontology;
embryology; comparative anatomy. Now even geneticists are beginning to
have doubts. (p. 277)
There is a strong streak of intellectual arrogance and intellectual
authoritarianism running through the history of Darwinism... It is seen
in the outrage and indignation with which they greet any reasoned
attempt to expose the theory to debate and to the light of real
evidence. (p. 277)
SEQUENTIAL FOSSILS. The case for Darwinism would be made convincingly
if someone were to produce a sequence of fossils from a sequence of
adjacent strata (such as ammonite species or sea urchins) showing
indisputable signs of gradual progressive change on the same basic
stock, but above the species level (as opposed to subspecific
variation). Ideally this should be demonstrated in a long sequence, ten
or twenty or fifty successive fossil species, showing major generic
evolution -- but a short sequence would be enough. But this simple
relationship is not what is shown in the sequence of the rocks. Nowhere
in the world has anyone met this simple evidential criterion... even
the world's foremost paleontologists have failed to do so with the
whole Earth to choose from and the resources of the world's greatest
universities at their disposal. (p. 110)
HUMAN EVOLUTION. ...the evidence for humankind's own evolution is
actually nonexistent. (p. 195)
INTELLIGENCE. In the baffling new world of modern physics, scientists
find themselves observing and examining a cosmos that has become less
and less like a clockwork machine and more like an intelligence. ...it
would surely be absurd to bestow intelligent characteristics upon the
behavior of nuclear particles yet fail to accord such characteristics
to living structures. (p. 234)
NATURAL SELECTION. Natural selection is not a mechanism: it is a
rationalization after the fact. (p. 130)
MUTATIONS AND EVOLUTION. I believe that Darwinists should muster the
courage to come clean... reserving the term mutation for any change in
genetic coding... and use some other term -- perhaps "novation"
(novelty-producing mutation) -- to describe the kind of mutation they
say is potentially useful. ...Can we estimate the rate of "novation" as
opposed to the rate of mutation? Yes, we can. The rate of novation is a
number that is vanishingly small (if not actually zero). It is a number
so small that in order to account for synthetic evolution by random
mutation, one has to have an almost religious faith... (p. 158-159)
I am seriously concerned, on purely rational grounds, that generations
of school and university teachers have been led to accept speculation
as scientific theory and faulty data as scientific fact... (p. 4)
To most students, teachers, and even some scientists it will come as a
surprise to learn that recent research into the age of the Earth has
produced evidence that our planet could be much younger than had
previously been thought:
existing methods of geochronometry such as uranium-lead decay and
radiocarbon assay have been found to be deeply flawed and unreliable
the extent of genetic change by selection has been found experimentally
to be limited
bacteria can be induced in the laboratory to mutate in a direction that
is beneficial to them -- without generations of natural selection
only a catastrophist model of development can account for important
Earth structures and processes such as continental drift and most
fossil-bearing rock formations -- most of the Earth's surface in fact.
(p. 6)
RATE OF DEPOSITION. Curiously, too, no geologist seems to have checked
out the geological column dates with an electronic calculator on a
commonsense basis. ...For instance the Cretaceous period is said to
have lasted 65 million years and is 15,000 meters thick -- an average
annual rate of deposition of 0.2 millimeters. Now look at the Siluarian
period: this, too, yields an average rate of deposition of about 0.2
millimeters per year -- as does the Ordovician, the Devonian, the
Carboniferous and the rest. ...about the thickness of a human hair in a
year ...such a slow rate would be quite incapable of burying and
fossilizing entire forests, dinosaurs, or even a medium-sized tadpole.
(p. 23)
RADIOACTIVE DATING. ...radioactive dating techniques are far less
reliable than was previously thought; the Earth could be much younger
than has been supposed by Darwinists; and nothing like the billions of
years required by evolution theory have elapsed since the Earth's
formation. (p. 30)
GEOLOGICAL PROCESSES. Most non-geologists (and perhaps even some
geologists) will be surprised to learn that observations of modern
geological processes show, however, that nowhere today are there rocks
being formed anything like those in the geological column. (p. 72)
SEDIMENTARY ROCK LAYERS. According to Berthault, "These experiments
contradict the idea of the slow build up of one layer followed by
another. The time scale is reduced from hundreds of millions of years
to one or more cataclysms producing almost instantaneous laminae."
These innocent-sounding words are the death knell of the idea that the
existence of meters of sediments is by itself evidence for a great age
for the Earth. (p. 78)
NO FOSSILS. There is one final observation that can be made about all
the sediments of the geological column in relation to present-day
processes, and it is the greatest anomaly of all. Today there are no
known fossiliferous rocks forming anywhere in the world. (p. 78)
EVAPORITES. ...perhaps the most striking example of present processes
failing to explain the past, the case of so-called "evaporites."
Extensive beds of common salt, gypsum, and anhydrite occur on most
continents... no modern sea or lake is presently forming evaporite beds
in any way comparable to these geological deposits, which are of
immense thickness and great chemical purity. ...contain no organic
remains -- no fossils... The purity of these deposits and the absence
of material derived from surrounding land point to them having come
about not through evaporation... but through precipitation from
chemically saturated waters... again it implies a catastrophic origin
and singular or rare events. ...Perhaps instead of "evaporites" we
should ...adopt the name "catastrophites"! (p. 75-76
EVIDENCE FOR EVOLUTION. The problems that have bedeviled horse
paleontology also beset every other branch of the science. Indeed, the
gaps in the fossil record are reflected in the living world where many
major animal and plant groups are high and dry with no discernible
predecessors. The development of the entire order of mammals is missing
from the fossil record, from its supposed shrewlike ancestor of the
late Cretaceous until modern times. ...In fact, more than 100 years of
further intense collecting by well-funded professional expeditions has
not yet yielded any of the remains that Darwin envisaged... (p. 104,
109)
NATURAL VARIATION. The natural limit on the amount of variation that
can be induced in a species is merely the expression of the fact that
nowhere in the animal or plant kingdom is there a species that is
capable of the infinite biological plasticity demanded by evolution
theory, capable of unlimited adaptation to different environments and
different modes of life. Living organisms are systems with limited
potential for change in which variation of one characteristic reacts on
other characters, usually with unfavorable results. This finding is of
central importance because it is one that Darwinists will usually
accept, having considered the evidence, but will later on simply forget
all about when they are speaking of the Darwinian concept of variation
and natural selection. It seems to bring out the Jekyll and Hyde in
evolutionists from Darwin down to the present. (p. 137-138)
All of the above quotes are from Richard Milton's Shattering the Myths
of Darwinism (Rochester, Vermont: Park Street Press, 1997), pp. 308.
.

User: "Llanzlan Klazmon"
Title: Re: Shattering the Myths of Darwinism	10 Oct 2005 05:53:30 PM

"words of truth" <wordsoftruth21@lycos.com> wrote in
news:1128979502.405769.292450@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com:

http://www.christiananswers.net/catalog/bk-shattering-quotes.html

Quotes

from Shattering the Myths of Darwinism
by Richard Milton

Your article is nonsense. For the correct story read here:
http://www.talkorigins.org/origins/faqs-qa.html
Klazmon.
<SNIP>
.

User: "Tim K."
Title: Re: Shattering the Myths of Darwinism	10 Oct 2005 04:44:33 PM

"words of truth" <wordsoftruth21@lycos.com> wrote in message
news:1128979502.405769.292450@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...

http://www.christiananswers.net/catalog/bk-shattering-quotes.html

Quotes

Shattering the Myths of Darwinism

Or, maybe not.
.

User: "Soul food"
Title: Re: Shattering the Myths of Darwinism	11 Oct 2005 02:56:34 AM

Into alt.atheism shot "words of truth" <wordsoftruth21@lycos.com> and
breathlessly exclaimed:

...it
would surely be absurd to bestow intelligent characteristics upon the
behavior of nuclear particles

He got that bit right.
------------------------------------------------
"If iron chariots make people immune to God (Judges 1:19), why do Christians drive cars?"
D Silverman FLAHN, SMLAHN
AA #2208
.

User: "Paul Hovnanian P.E."
Title: Re: Shattering the Myths of Darwinism	10 Oct 2005 06:18:10 PM

words of truth wrote:

Name some of them.

and privately they will admit to the
objections. However, they have become reluctant to discuss them in
public (and in a public forum like the Internet they will deny them
altogether) because they fear that they will aid their critics and
unwittingly discredit their own profession.

And black helicopters only come out at night.
--
Paul Hovnanian mailto:Paul@Hovnanian.com
------------------------------------------------------------------
When cryptography is outlawed, bayl bhgynjf jvyy unir cevinpl.
-- Etaoin Shrdlu
.

User: "Martin McPhillips"
Title: Re: Shattering the Myths of Darwinism	10 Oct 2005 06:50:02 PM

"Paul Hovnanian P.E." <Paul@Hovnanian.com> wrote in message
news:434AF6B2.841514B3@Hovnanian.com...

words of truth wrote:

Name some of them.

http://www.discovery.org/scripts/viewDB/filesDB-download.php?command=download&id=443
.

User: "Joshua Calvert"
Title: Re: Shattering the Myths of Darwinism	10 Oct 2005 10:58:17 PM

"Martin McPhillips" <nospam@nospam.com> wrote in
news:K6D2f.13418$Fc4.748@twister.nyc.rr.com:

"Paul Hovnanian P.E." <Paul@Hovnanian.com> wrote in message
news:434AF6B2.841514B3@Hovnanian.com...

words of truth wrote:

Name some of them.

http://www.discovery.org/scripts/viewDB/filesDB-download.php?

command=do

wnload&id=443

I'd prefer to see what their specific reason were. My guess is that the
claim is over-blown.
--
----
Paraphrasing Bill Maher, Bush has lost, under his five year watch, two
skyscrapers,part of the Pentagon, four airliners, thousands of American
lives, a huge economic surplus, the trust of the American people, a
Space Shuttle, and now an ENTIRE MAJOR CITY.
But Republicans say, "Bush can not be blamed" or "It's Clinton's
fault."

What will be the next disaster for which Bush can't be blamed?
.

User: "Tim K."
Title: Re: Shattering the Myths of Darwinism	11 Oct 2005 03:55:05 PM

"Joshua Calvert" <joshua_l_calvert@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:Xns96EBD556CEC17joshualcalverthotmai@68.6.19.6...

Paraphrasing Bill Maher, Bush has lost, under his five year watch, two
skyscrapers,part of the Pentagon, four airliners, thousands of American
lives, a huge economic surplus, the trust of the American people, a
Space Shuttle, and now an ENTIRE MAJOR CITY.

I like Bill Maher and I think Bush is as big a moron as everyone else, but
pinning the Columbia accident on him is ludicrous.
.

User: "Matt Silberstein"
Title: Re: Shattering the Myths of Darwinism	11 Oct 2005 05:43:05 PM

On Tue, 11 Oct 2005 20:55:05 GMT, in alt.atheism , "Tim K."
<timkozz@cfl.rr.com> in <JEV2f.7457$ae.5316@tornado.tampabay.rr.com>
wrote:

"Joshua Calvert" <joshua_l_calvert@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:Xns96EBD556CEC17joshualcalverthotmai@68.6.19.6...

I like Bill Maher and I think Bush is as big a moron as everyone else, but
pinning the Columbia accident on him is ludicrous.

True, though I can pin the Challenger explosion on Orrin Hatch. Here
is the "story behind the story" as they say. Probably all of us know
about the O-ring and Feynman's famous smashing of the ring on camera.
The failure of the ring to handle cold temperatures is the proximate
cause of the failure, but it does not deal with the important
question: why did the booster have an O-ring? The simple answer is
that the booster was in two pieces and so it needed a gasket to get a
tight seal. Again, this does not answer the important question: why
was it in two pieces. The answer to that is because the pieces had to
be small enough to fit on a train car as it was shipped from Utah. You
see, Morton Thiokol is in Utah. Another company had bid on the
contract and was going to build the booster plant right next to the
launch site. Then it could be in one piece, no O-ring, no risk to the
structural safety. But Orrin Hatch was the senator from Utah and he
told NASA that he would not vote for the project if someone other than
Thiokol got the contract. So the booster is built in two pieces in
Utah, shipped to Florida, and the Challenger blew up.
--
Matt Silberstein
Do something today about the Darfur Genocide
Genocide is news | Be A Witness
http://www.beawitness.org
"Darfur: A Genocide We can Stop"
www.darfurgenocide.org
Save Darfur.org :: Violence and Suffering in Sudan's Darfur Region
http://www.savedarfur.org/
.

User: "Tim K."
Title: Re: Shattering the Myths of Darwinism	11 Oct 2005 05:50:43 PM

"Matt Silberstein" <RemoveThisPrefixmatts2nospam@ix.netcom.com> wrote in
message news:tkfok1tsgsi056to55hhg15d3l8j7nlg89@4ax.com...

On Tue, 11 Oct 2005 20:55:05 GMT, in alt.atheism , "Tim K."
<timkozz@cfl.rr.com> in <JEV2f.7457$ae.5316@tornado.tampabay.rr.com>
wrote:

"Joshua Calvert" <joshua_l_calvert@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:Xns96EBD556CEC17joshualcalverthotmai@68.6.19.6...

I like Bill Maher and I think Bush is as big a moron as everyone else, but
pinning the Columbia accident on him is ludicrous.

I used to think it was stupid to build the boosters in Utah, the ET in La,
have Mission Control in Houston, etc. but having the space program spread
out like that keeps a lot of extra support for it.
But in the final analysis, the blame for 51L and 107 lies at the feet of a
management style, euphemistically referred to as "culture".
.

User: "Colin Day"
Title: Re: Shattering the Myths of Darwinism	11 Oct 2005 10:16:11 PM

Tim K. wrote:

"Joshua Calvert" <joshua_l_calvert@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:Xns96EBD556CEC17joshualcalverthotmai@68.6.19.6...

I like Bill Maher and I think Bush is as big a moron as everyone else, but
pinning the Columbia accident on him is ludicrous.

Maybe not Bush, but NASA could have attempted a rescue mission and patch
the wounded shuttle.
Colin Day aa #1500
.

User: "Tim K."
Title: Re: Shattering the Myths of Darwinism	12 Oct 2005 04:36:42 PM

"Colin Day" <cday3@sc.rr.com> wrote in message
news:%d%2f.2196$OM.123203@twister.southeast.rr.com...

Tim K. wrote:

"Joshua Calvert" <joshua_l_calvert@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:Xns96EBD556CEC17joshualcalverthotmai@68.6.19.6...

I like Bill Maher and I think Bush is as big a moron as everyone else,
but pinning the Columbia accident on him is ludicrous.

Maybe not Bush, but NASA could have attempted a rescue mission and patch
the wounded shuttle.

Nope. Turnaround on Atlantis was too long and a trip to the space station
was impossible.
.

User: "Colin Day"
Title: Re: Shattering the Myths of Darwinism	12 Oct 2005 10:07:33 PM

Tim K. wrote:

"Colin Day" <cday3@sc.rr.com> wrote in message
news:%d%2f.2196$OM.123203@twister.southeast.rr.com...

Tim K. wrote:

"Joshua Calvert" <joshua_l_calvert@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:Xns96EBD556CEC17joshualcalverthotmai@68.6.19.6...

I like Bill Maher and I think Bush is as big a moron as everyone else,
but pinning the Columbia accident on him is ludicrous.

Maybe not Bush, but NASA could have attempted a rescue mission and patch
the wounded shuttle.

Nope. Turnaround on Atlantis was too long and a trip to the space station
was impossible.

From the Atlantic Monthly, Nov. 2003, pages 85-86:
Linda Ham was wrong. Had the hole in the leading in the leading edge
been seen,, actions could have been taken to try to save the astronauts'
lives. The first would have been simply to buy some time. Assuming a
starting point on the fifth day of the flight, NASA engineers
subsequently calculated that by requiring the crew to rest and sleep,
the mission could have extended to a full month, to February 15. During
that time the Atlantis, which was already being prepared for a scheduled
March 1 launch, could have processed by ground crews working around
the clock, and made ready to go by February 10. If all had proceeded
perfectly, there would have been a five-day window in which to blast
off, join up with the Columbia, and transfer the stranded astronauts one
by one to safety by means of tethered spacewalks. Such a rescue would
not have been easy, and it would have involved the possibility of
another fatal foam strike and the loss of two shuttles instead of one;
but in the risk-versus-risk world of space flight, veterans like Mike
Bloomfield would immediately have volunteered, and NASA would have bet
the farm.
The fallback would been a desperate measure--a jury-rigged repair
performed by the Columbia astronauts themselves. It would have required
two spacewalkers to fill the hole with a combination of heavy tools and
metal scraps scavenged from the crew compartment, and to supplement the
mass with an ice bag shaped to the wing's leading edge. In theory, if
much of the payload had been jettisoned, and luck was with the crew,
such a repair might have endured a modified re-entry, and allowed the
astronauts to bail out at a standard 30,000 feet. The engineers who came
up with the plan realized that in reality it would have been extremely
dangerous, and might have led to a high-speed burn-through and the loss
of the crew. But anything would have been better than attempting a
normal re-entry as it was actually flown.
Colin Day aa #1500
.

User: "Tim K."
Title: Re: Shattering the Myths of Darwinism	13 Oct 2005 06:05:05 PM

"Colin Day" <cday3@sc.rr.com> wrote in message
news:Vbk3f.2123$pP1.184415@twister.southeast.rr.com...

Tim K. wrote:

"Colin Day" <cday3@sc.rr.com> wrote in message
news:%d%2f.2196$OM.123203@twister.southeast.rr.com...

Tim K. wrote:

"Joshua Calvert" <joshua_l_calvert@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:Xns96EBD556CEC17joshualcalverthotmai@68.6.19.6...

I like Bill Maher and I think Bush is as big a moron as everyone else,
but pinning the Columbia accident on him is ludicrous.

Maybe not Bush, but NASA could have attempted a rescue mission and patch
the wounded shuttle.

Nope. Turnaround on Atlantis was too long and a trip to the space
station was impossible.

If all had proceeded perfectly.
I can't say a whole lot, but trust me, a rescue mission wouldn't have been
likely.
But you are right - had they known, they could've tried many things that
they couldn't because they didn't know.
.

User: "Colin Day"
Title: Re: Shattering the Myths of Darwinism	14 Oct 2005 12:09:52 AM

Tim K. wrote:

"Colin Day" <cday3@sc.rr.com> wrote in message
news:Vbk3f.2123$pP1.184415@twister.southeast.rr.com...

Tim K. wrote:

"Colin Day" <cday3@sc.rr.com> wrote in message
news:%d%2f.2196$OM.123203@twister.southeast.rr.com...

Tim K. wrote:

"Joshua Calvert" <joshua_l_calvert@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:Xns96EBD556CEC17joshualcalverthotmai@68.6.19.6...

I like Bill Maher and I think Bush is as big a moron as everyone else,
but pinning the Columbia accident on him is ludicrous.

Maybe not Bush, but NASA could have attempted a rescue mission and patch
the wounded shuttle.

Nope. Turnaround on Atlantis was too long and a trip to the space
station was impossible.

The article mentions that they could have known about the damage if NASA
had requested the Air Force to take pictures. But such requests were
lost in NASA's bureaucracy.
.

User: "Tim K."
Title: Re: Shattering the Myths of Darwinism	14 Oct 2005 08:05:01 PM

"Colin Day" <cday3@sc.rr.com> wrote in message
news:A4H3f.5178$Sg2.344252@twister.southeast.rr.com...

The article mentions that they could have known about the damage if NASA
had requested the Air Force to take pictures. But such requests were lost
in NASA's bureaucracy.

Very true, that. Now, I'm not going to bite the hand that feeds me.., too
much, but NASA has a way of losing meaning in translation from engineers
through mid-level to top management. This is nothing new, the CAIB hammered
them for it.
They tend to use weird euphemisms - a classic is referring to engineering
problems as "out of family". I tend to believe that if you refer to an
engineering problem metaphorically, you'll get a discussion that isn't quite
real.
Having said all that, I do love the space program. But then, I am biased.
.

User: "Llanzlan Klazmon"
Title: Re: Shattering the Myths of Darwinism	10 Oct 2005 08:18:29 PM

"Martin McPhillips" <nospam@nospam.com> wrote in
news:K6D2f.13418$Fc4.748@twister.nyc.rr.com:

"Paul Hovnanian P.E." <Paul@Hovnanian.com> wrote in message
news:434AF6B2.841514B3@Hovnanian.com...

words of truth wrote:

Name some of them.

http://www.discovery.org/scripts/viewDB/filesDB-download.php?command=down
load&id=443

Bwahahaha.
Project Steve:
http://www.ncseweb.org/resources/articles/3541_project_steve_2_16_2003.asp
Clergy in support of Science:
http://www.uwosh.edu/colleges/cols/religion_science_collaboration.htm
Klazmon.

User: "Paul Hovnanian P.E."
Title: Re: Shattering the Myths of Darwinism	10 Oct 2005 07:22:34 PM

Martin McPhillips wrote:

"Paul Hovnanian P.E." <Paul@Hovnanian.com> wrote in message
news:434AF6B2.841514B3@Hovnanian.com...

words of truth wrote:

Name some of them.

http://www.discovery.org/scripts/viewDB/filesDB-download.php?command=download&id=443

That's not very many. The statement was "most".
--
Paul Hovnanian mailto:Paul@Hovnanian.com
------------------------------------------------------------------
Hanlon's Razor:
Never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by
stupidity.
.

User: "Martin McPhillips"
Title: Re: Shattering the Myths of Darwinism	11 Oct 2005 07:27:13 AM

"Paul Hovnanian P.E." <Paul@Hovnanian.com> wrote in message
news:434B05CA.BF38AAD6@Hovnanian.com...

Martin McPhillips wrote:

"Paul Hovnanian P.E." <Paul@Hovnanian.com> wrote in
message
news:434AF6B2.841514B3@Hovnanian.com...

words of truth wrote:

Name some of them.

http://www.discovery.org/scripts/viewDB/filesDB-download.php?command=download&id=443

That's not very many. The statement was "most".

What did you ask for? "Name some of them."
That's about 400 scientists.
As to "most," I don't know. I don't think that
"most" scientists have ever bothered to think
seriously about evolutionary theory. I do think
that a great many of those who do, especially
those who are not heavily invested in Neo-Darwinism
for reasons other than science, are increasingly
skeptical of its larger claims.
.

User: "Matt Silberstein"
Title: Re: Shattering the Myths of Darwinism	11 Oct 2005 12:16:55 PM

On Tue, 11 Oct 2005 12:27:13 GMT, in alt.atheism , "Martin McPhillips"
<nospam@nospam.com> in <BcO2f.13741$Fc4.8417@twister.nyc.rr.com>
wrote:

"Paul Hovnanian P.E." <Paul@Hovnanian.com> wrote in message
news:434B05CA.BF38AAD6@Hovnanian.com...

Martin McPhillips wrote:

"Paul Hovnanian P.E." <Paul@Hovnanian.com> wrote in
message
news:434AF6B2.841514B3@Hovnanian.com...

words of truth wrote:

Name some of them.

http://www.discovery.org/scripts/viewDB/filesDB-download.php?command=download&id=443

That's not very many. The statement was "most".

What did you ask for? "Name some of them."

That's about 400 scientists.

Agreeing to a statement that makes no mention of any serious objection
to Darwinism.

As to "most," I don't know. I don't think that
"most" scientists have ever bothered to think
seriously about evolutionary theory. I do think
that a great many of those who do, especially
those who are not heavily invested in Neo-Darwinism
for reasons other than science, are increasingly
skeptical of its larger claims.

There was nothing in that link about increasing skepticism at all.
--
Matt Silberstein
Do something today about the Darfur Genocide
Genocide is news | Be A Witness
http://www.beawitness.org
"Darfur: A Genocide We can Stop"
www.darfurgenocide.org
Save Darfur.org :: Violence and Suffering in Sudan's Darfur Region
http://www.savedarfur.org/
.

User: "Martin McPhillips"
Title: Re: Shattering the Myths of Darwinism	11 Oct 2005 12:32:33 PM

"Matt Silberstein"
<RemoveThisPrefixmatts2nospam@ix.netcom.com> wrote in
message news:kqsnk1tqfpko8uj96ksa704hmg853vac42@4ax.com...

On Tue, 11 Oct 2005 12:27:13 GMT, in alt.atheism , "Martin
McPhillips"
<nospam@nospam.com> in
<BcO2f.13741$Fc4.8417@twister.nyc.rr.com>
wrote:

"Paul Hovnanian P.E." <Paul@Hovnanian.com> wrote in
message
news:434B05CA.BF38AAD6@Hovnanian.com...

Martin McPhillips wrote:

"Paul Hovnanian P.E." <Paul@Hovnanian.com> wrote in
message
news:434AF6B2.841514B3@Hovnanian.com...

words of truth wrote:

Name some of them.

http://www.discovery.org/scripts/viewDB/filesDB-download.php?command=download&id=443

That's not very many. The statement was "most".

What did you ask for? "Name some of them."

That's about 400 scientists.

Agreeing to a statement that makes no mention of any
serious objection
to Darwinism.

Being skeptical about the core concept of Darwinism
is easily a serious objection to Darwinism.
.

User: "Don Kresch"
Title: Re: Shattering the Myths of Darwinism	11 Oct 2005 07:32:37 PM

In alt.atheism On Tue, 11 Oct 2005 17:32:33 GMT, "Martin McPhillips"
<nospam@nospam.com> let us all know that:

Being skeptical about the core concept of Darwinism
is easily a serious objection to Darwinism.

Then it is a very serious objection to a spheroid earth that
there are Flat Earthers.
Of course, in neither case do the "serious objections" have
any merit whatsofuckingever.
Don
.

User: "Martin McPhillips"
Title: Re: Shattering the Myths of Darwinism	11 Oct 2005 07:56:49 PM

"Don Kresch" <ROT13.qxerfpu@jv.ee.pbz.com> wrote in message
news:2bmok1985k5m0bi13pg92u3cmed835ee5r@4ax.com...

In alt.atheism On Tue, 11 Oct 2005 17:32:33 GMT, "Martin
McPhillips"
<nospam@nospam.com> let us all know that:

Being skeptical about the core concept of Darwinism
is easily a serious objection to Darwinism.

Then it is a very serious objection to a spheroid earth
that
there are Flat Earthers.

Of course, in neither case do the "serious objections"
have
any merit whatsofuckingever.

You've got a context problem, Don:
http://www.discovery.org/scripts/viewDB/filesDB-download.php?command=download&id=443
.

User: "Don Kresch"
Title: Re: Shattering the Myths of Darwinism	12 Oct 2005 08:44:35 AM

In alt.atheism On Wed, 12 Oct 2005 00:56:49 GMT, "Martin McPhillips"
<nospam@nospam.com> let us all know that:

"Don Kresch" <ROT13.qxerfpu@jv.ee.pbz.com> wrote in message
news:2bmok1985k5m0bi13pg92u3cmed835ee5r@4ax.com...

In alt.atheism On Tue, 11 Oct 2005 17:32:33 GMT, "Martin
McPhillips"
<nospam@nospam.com> let us all know that:

Being skeptical about the core concept of Darwinism
is easily a serious objection to Darwinism.

Then it is a very serious objection to a spheroid earth
that
there are Flat Earthers.

Of course, in neither case do the "serious objections"
have
any merit whatsofuckingever.

You've got a context problem, Don:

http://www.discovery.org/

The Discovery Institute is not a scientific organization. Their
objections have no merit; their purpose is to have literal biblical
creation taught in schools.
Don
.

User: "Martin McPhillips"
Title: Re: Shattering the Myths of Darwinism	12 Oct 2005 08:45:33 AM

"Don Kresch" <ROT13.qxerfpu@jv.ee.pbz.com> wrote in message
news:vn4qk19iqn31ii3uvvv0kbtlit60v09lm6@4ax.com...

In alt.atheism On Wed, 12 Oct 2005 00:56:49 GMT, "Martin
McPhillips"
<nospam@nospam.com> let us all know that:

"Don Kresch" <ROT13.qxerfpu@jv.ee.pbz.com> wrote in
message
news:2bmok1985k5m0bi13pg92u3cmed835ee5r@4ax.com...

In alt.atheism On Tue, 11 Oct 2005 17:32:33 GMT, "Martin
McPhillips"
<nospam@nospam.com> let us all know that:

Being skeptical about the core concept of Darwinism
is easily a serious objection to Darwinism.

Then it is a very serious objection to a spheroid earth
that
there are Flat Earthers.

Of course, in neither case do the "serious objections"
have
any merit whatsofuckingever.

You've got a context problem, Don:

http://www.discovery.org/

The Discovery Institute is not a scientific organization.
Their
objections have no merit; their purpose is to have literal
biblical
creation taught in schools.

Ah, Don, are you afraid to look at this...
http://www.discovery.org/scripts/viewDB/filesDB-download.php?command=download&id=443
....is that why you cut down the link and
spewed your nonsense? For instance, the
Discovery Institute is opposed to requiring
that ID be taught in schools, and the Discovery
Institute has absolutely nothing to do with
Bibilical literalism. And that link is to
"A scientific dissent from Darwinism" signed
by app. 400 *scientists.*
.

User: "Don Kresch"
Title: Re: Shattering the Myths of Darwinism	12 Oct 2005 08:49:51 PM

In alt.atheism On Wed, 12 Oct 2005 13:45:33 GMT, "Martin McPhillips"
<nospam@nospam.com> let us all know that: