| Topic: |
Religions > Atheism |
| User: |
"The Church of The Painful Truth" |
| Date: |
19 Feb 2004 09:05:57 PM |
| Object: |
What Do Scientists Think about Evolution? |
What do scientists think?
Outside the occasional book or research paper, most scientists just go about
their work quietly. Unless something catches the attention of mainstream
media, most people never hear what they have to say. Let's take a look at
what scientists have to say:
Recent Quotations:
"I think, however, that we must go further than this and admit that the only
acceptable explanation is creation. I know that this is anathema to
physicists, as indeed it is to me, but we must not reject a theory that we
do not like if the experimental evidence supports it."-*H. Lipson, "A
Physicist Looks at Evolution," Physics Bulletin, 31 (1980), p. 138.
"The hold of the evolutionary paradigm [theoretical system] is so powerful
that an idea which is more like a principle of medieval astrology than a
serious twentieth century scientific theory has become a reality for
evolutionary biologists."-*Michael Denton, Evolution: A Theory in Crisis
(1985), p. 306 [Australian molecular biologist].
"It was because Darwinian theory broke man's link with God and set him
adrift in a cosmos without purpose or end that its impact was so
fundamental. No other intellectual revolution in modern times . . so
profoundly affected the way men viewed themselves and their place in the
universe."-*Michael Denton, Evolution: A Theory in Crisis (1985), p. 67
[Australian molecular biologist].
"Scientists have no proof that life was not the result of an act of
creation."-*Robert Jastrow, The Enchanted Loom: Mind in the Universe (1981),
p. 19.
"In fact, evolution became in a sense a scientific religion; almost all
scientists have accepted it and many are prepared to `bend' their
observations to fit in with it."-*H. Lipson, "A Physicist Looks at
Evolution," Physics Bulletin, 31 (1980), p. 138.
"When Darwin presented a paper [with Alfred Wallace] to the Linnean Society
in 1858, a Professor Haugton of Dublin remarked, `All that was new was
false, and what was true was old.' This, we think, will be the final verdict
on the matter, the epitaph on Darwinism."-*Fred Hoyle and N. Chandra
Wickramasinghe, Evolution from Space (1981), p. 159.
"Creation and evolution, between them, exhaust the possible explanations for
the origin of living things. Organisms either appeared on the earth fully
developed or they did not. If they did not, they must have developed from
pre-existing species by some process of modification. If they did appear in
a fully developed state, they must have been created by some omnipotent
intelligence."-*D.J. Futuyma, Science on Trial (1983), p. 197.
"The over-riding supremacy of the myth has created a widespread illusion
that the theory of evolution was all but proved one hundred years ago and
that all subsequent biological research-paleontological, zoological, and in
the newer branches of genetics and molecular biology-has provided
ever-increasing evidence for Darwinian ideas."-*Michael Denton, Evolution: A
Theory in Crisis (1985), p. 327.
"Today our duty is to destroy the myth of evolution, considered as a simple,
understood and explained phenomenon which keeps rapidly unfolding before us.
Biologists must be encouraged to think about the weaknesses and
extrapolations that the theoreticians put forward or lay down as established
truths. The deceit is sometimes unconscious, but not always, since some
people, owing to their sectarianism, purposely overlook reality and refuse
to acknowledge the inadequacies and falsity of their beliefs."-*Pierre-Paul
de Grasse, Evolution of Living Organisms (1977), p. 8.
"I feel that the effect of hypotheses of common ancestry in systematics has
not been merely boring, not just a lack of knowledge; I think it has been
positively anti-knowledge . . Well, what about evolution? It certainly has
the function of knowledge, but does it convey any? Well, we are back to the
question I have been putting to people, `Is there one thing you can tell me
about?' The absence of answers seems to suggest that it is true, evolution
does not convey any knowledge."-*Colin Patterson, Director AMNH, Address at
the American Museum of Natural History (November 5, 1981).
"Throughout the past century there has always existed a significant minority
of first-rate biologists who have never been able to bring themselves to
accept the validity of Darwinian claims. In fact, the number of biologists
who have expressed some degree of disillusionment is practically
endless."-*Michael Denton, Evolution: A Theory in Crisis (1986), p. 327.
"I personally hold the evolutionary position, but yet lament the fact that
the majority of our Ph.D. graduates are frightfully ignorant of many of the
serious problems of the evolution theory. These problems will not be solved
unless we bring them to the attention of students. Most students assume
evolution is proved, the missing link is found, and all we have left is a
few rough edges to smooth out. Actually, quite the contrary is true; and
many recent discoveries . . have forced us to re-evaluate our basic
assumptions."-*Director of a large graduate program in biology, quoted in
Creation: The Cutting Edge (1982), p. 26.
"It is therefore of immediate concern to both biologists and layman that
Darwinism is under attack. The theory of life that undermined
nineteenth-century religion has virtually become a religion itself and, in
its turn, is being threatened by fresh ideas. The attacks are certainly not
limited to those of the creationists and religious fundamentalists who deny
Darwinism for political and moral reason. The main thrust of the criticism
comes from within science itself. The doubts about Darwinism represent a
political revolt from within rather than a siege from without."-*B. Leith,
The Descent of Darwin: A Handbook of Doubts about Darwinism (1982), p. 11.
"From the almost total absence of fossil evidence relative to the origin of
the phyla, it follows that any explanation of the mechanism in the creative
evolution of the fundamental structural plans is heavily burdened with
hypothesis. This should appear as an epigraph to every book on evolution.
The lack of direct evidence leads to the formulation of pure conjecture as
to the genesis of the phyla; we do not even have a basis to determine the
extent to which these opinions are correct."-*Pierre-Paul de Grasse,
Evolution of Living Organisms (1977), p. 31.
"It is not the duty of science to defend the theory of evolution, and stick
by it to the bitter end-no matter which illogical and unsupported
conclusions it offers. On the contrary, it is expected that scientists
recognize the patently obvious impossibility of Darwin's pronouncements and
predictions . . Let's cut the umbilical cord that tied us down to Darwin for
such a long time. It is choking us and holding us back."-I.L. Cohen, Darwin
Was Wrong: A Study in Probabilities (1985).
"Paleontologists [fossil experts] have paid an exorbitant price for Darwin's
argument. We fancy ourselves as the only true students of life's history,
yet to preserve our favored account of evolution by natural selection we
view our data as so bad that we almost never see the very process we profess
to study."-*Steven Jay Gould, The Panda's Thumb (1982), pp. 181-182 [Harvard
professor and the leading evolutionary spokesman of the latter half of the
twentieth century].
"Darwinism is a creed not only with scientists committed to document the
all-purpose role of natural selection. It is a creed with masses of people
who have at best a vague notion of the mechanism of evolution as proposed by
Darwin, let alone as further complicated by his successors. Clearly, the
appeal cannot be that of a scientific truth but of a philosophical belief
which is not difficult to identify. Darwinism is a belief in the
meaninglessness of existence."-*R. Kirk, "The Rediscovery of Creation," in
National Review, (May 27, 1983), p. 641.
"I have always been slightly suspicious of the theory of evolution because
of its ability to account for any property of living beings (the long neck
of the giraffe, for example). I have therefore tried to see whether
biological discoveries over the last thirty years or so fit in with Darwin's
theory. I do not think that they do. To my mind, the theory does not stand
up at all."-*H. Lipson, "A Physicist Looks at Evolution," Physic Bulletin,
31 (1980), p. 138.
"Ultimately the Darwinian theory of evolution is no more nor less than the
great cosmogenic myth of the twentieth century . . the origin of life and of
new beings on earth is still largely as enigmatic as when Darwin set sail on
the [ship] Beagle."-*Michael Denton, Evolution: A Theory in Crisis (1986),
p. 358.
"The fact is that the evidence was so patchy one hundred years ago that even
Darwin himself had increasing doubts as to the validity of his views, and
the only aspect of his theory which has received any support over the past
century is where it applies to microevolutionary phenomena. His general
theory, that all life on earth had originated and evolved by a gradual
successive accumulation of fortuitous mutations, is still, as it was in
Darwin's time, a highly speculative hypothesis entirely without direct
factual support and very far from that self-evident axiom some of its more
aggressive advocates would have us believe."-*Michael Denton, Evolution: A
Theory in Crisis (1986), p. 77.
"George Bernard Shaw wisecracked once that Darwin had the luck to please
everybody who had an axe to grind. Well, I also have an axe to grind, but I
am not pleased. We have suffered through two world wars and are threatened
by an Armageddon. We have had enough of the Darwinian fallacy."-*Kenneth
Hsu, "Reply," Geology, 15 (1987), p. 177.
"Therefore, a grotesque account of a period some thousands of years ago is
taken seriously though it be built by piling special assumptions on special
assumptions, ad hoc hypothesis [invented for a purpose] on ad hoc
hypothesis, and tearing apart the fabric of science whenever it appears
convenient. The result is a fantasia which is neither history nor
science."-*James Conant [chemist and former president, Harvard University],
quoted in Origins Research, Vol. 5, No. 2, 1982, p. 2.
"We are certainly not arguing here that differential survival of whole
organisms does not occur. This must inevitably happen [i.e. some species
become extinct]. The question that we must ask is, does this represent the
controlling dynamic of organic evolution? Cannot a similar argument be
equally well-constructed to `explain' any frequency distribution? For
example, consider rocks which vary in hardness and also persist through
time. Clearly the harder rocks are better `adapted' to survive harsh
climatic conditions. As Lewontin points out, a similar story can be told
about political parties, rumors, jokes, stars, and discarded soft drink
containers."-*A.J. Hughes and *D. Lambert, "Functionalism, Structuralism,
`Ways of Seeing,' " Journal of Theoretical Biology, 787 (1984), pp. 796-797.
"Darwinism is a creed not only with scientists committed to document the
all-purpose role of natural selection. It is a creed with masses of people
who have, at best, a vague notion of the mechanism of evolution as proposed
by Darwin, let alone as further complicated by his successors."-*S. Jaki,
Cosmos and Creator (1982).
"I can envision observations and experiments that would disprove any
evolutionary theory I know."-*Stephen Jay Gould, "Evolution as Fact and
Theory," Discover 2(5):34-37 (1981).
Perhaps scientists used to be kinder to evolution in the past:
Older Quotations:
"The Darwinian theory of descent has not a single fact to confirm it in the
realm of nature. It is not the result of scientific research, but purely the
product of imagination."-*Dr. Fleischman [Erlangen zoologist].
"It is almost invariably assumed that animals with bodies composed of a
single cell represent the primitive animals from which all others derived.
They are commonly supposed to have preceded all other animal types in their
appearance. There is not the slightest basis for this assumption."-*Austin
Clark, The New Evolution (1930), pp. 235-236.
"The hypothesis that life has developed from inorganic matter is, at
present, still an article of faith."-*J.W.N. Sullivan, The Limitations of
Science (1933), p. 95.
"Where are we when presented with the mystery of life? We find ourselves
facing a granite wall which we have not even chipped . . We know virtually
nothing of growth, nothing of life."-*W. Kaempffert, "The Greatest Mystery
of All: The Secret of Life," New York Times.
" `The theory of evolution is totally inadequate to explain the origin and
manifestation of the inorganic world.' "-Sir John Ambrose Fleming, F.R.S.,
quoted in H. Enoch, Evolution or Creation (1966), p. 91 [discoverer of the
thermionic valve].
"I am not satisfied that Darwin proved his point or that his influence in
scientific and public thinking has been beneficial . . the success of
Darwinism was accomplished by a decline in scientific integrity."-*W.R.
Thompson, Introduction to *Charles Darwin's, Origin of the Species [Canadian
scientist].
"One of the determining forces of scientism was a fantastic accidental
imagination which could explain every irregularity in the solar system
without explanation, leap the gaps in the atomic series without evidence [a
gap required by the Big Bang theory], postulate the discovery of fossils
which have never been discovered, and prophesy the success of breeding
experiments which have never succeeded. Of this kind of science it might
truly be said that it was `knowledge falsely so called.' "-*David C.C.
Watson, The Great Brain Robbery (1976).
"The particular truth is simply that we have no reliable evidence as to the
evolutionary sequence . . One can find qualified professional arguments for
any group being the descendant of almost any other."-J. Bonner, "Book
Review," American Scientist, 49:1961, p. 240.
"I had motives for not wanting the world to have meaning, consequently
assumed it had none, and was able without any difficulty to find satisfying
reasons for this assumption . . The philosopher who finds no meaning in the
world is not concerned exclusively with a problem in pure metaphysics; he is
also concerned to prove there is no valid reason why he personally should
not do as he wants to do . . For myself, as no doubt for most of my
contemporaries, the philosophy of meaninglessness was essentially an
instrument of liberation. The liberation we desired was simultaneously
liberation from a certain political and economic system and liberation from
a certain system of morality. We objected to the morality because it
interfered with our sexual freedom."-*Aldous Huxley, "Confessions of a
Professed Atheist," Report: Perspective on the News, Vol. 3, June 1966, p.
19 [grandson of evolutionist Thomas Huxley, Darwin's closest friend and
promoter, and brother of evolutionist Julian Huxley. Aldous Huxley was one
of the most influential liberal writers of the 20th century].
"Evolutionism is a fairy tale for grown-ups. This theory has helped nothing
in the progress of science. It is useless."-*Bounoure, Le Monde Et La Vie
(October 1963) [Director of Research at the National center of Scientific
Research in France].
"The problem of the origin of species has not advanced in the last 150
years. One hundred and fifty years have already passed during which it has
been said that the evolution of the species is a fact but, without giving
real proofs of it and without even a principle of explaining it. During the
last one hundred and fifty years of research that has been carried out along
this line [in order to prove the theory], there has been no discovery of
anything. It is simply a repetition in different ways of what Darwin said in
1859. This lack of results is unforgivable in a day when molecular biology
has really opened the veil covering the mystery of reproduction and heredity
.. .
"Finally, there is only one attitude which is possible as I have just shown:
It consists in affirming that intelligence comes before life. Many people
will say this is not science, it is philosophy. The only thing I am
interested in is fact, and this conclusion comes out of an analysis and
observation of the facts."-*G. Salet, Hasard et Certitude: Le Transformisme
devant la Biologie Actuelle (1973), p. 331.
"As by this theory, innumerable transitional forms must have existed. Why do
we not find them embedded in the crust of the earth? Why is not all nature
in confusion [of halfway species] instead of being, as we see them,
well-defined species?"-*Charles Darwin, quoted in H. Enoch, Evolution or
Creation (1966), p. 139.
" `Creation,' in the ordinary sense of the word, is perfectly conceivable. I
find no difficulty in conceiving that, at some former period, this universe
was not in existence; and that it made its appearance in six days . . in
consequence of the volition of some pre-existing Being."-*Thomas Huxley,
quoted in *Leonard Huxley, Life and Letters of Thomas Henry Huxley, Vol. II
(1903), p. 429.
"The theory of evolution suffers from grave defects, which are more and more
apparent as time advances. It can no longer square with practical scientific
knowledge."-*Albert Fleishmann, Zoologist.
"I argue that the `theory of evolution' does not take predictions, so far as
ecology is concerned, but is instead a logical formula which can be used
only to classify empiricisms [theories] and to show the relationships which
such a classification implies . . these theories are actually tautologies
and, as such, cannot make empirically testable predictions. They are not
scientific theories at all."-*R.H. Peters, "Tautology in Evolution and
Ecology," American Naturalist (1976), Vol. 110, No. 1, p. 1 [emphasis his].
"With the failure of these many efforts, science was left in the somewhat
embarrassing position of having to postulate theories of living origins
which it could not demonstrate. After having chided the theologian for his
reliance on myth and miracle, science found itself in the unenviable
position of having to create a mythology of its own: namely, the assumption
that what, after long effort, could not be proved to take place today had,
in truth, taken place in the primeval past."-*Loren Eisley, The Immense
Journey, (1957), p. 199.
"The irony is devastating. The main purpose of Darwinism was to drive every
last trace of an incredible God from biology. But the theory replaces God
with an even more incredible deity-omnipotent chance."-*T. Rosazak,
Unfinished Animal (1975), pp. 101-102.
"The evolution theory can by no means be regarded as an innocuous natural
philosophy, but that it is a serious obstruction to biological research. It
obstructs-as has been repeatedly shown-the attainment of consistent results,
even from uniform experimental material. For everything must ultimately be
forced to fit this theory. An exact biology cannot, therefore, be built
up."-*H. Neilsson, Synthetische Artbuilding, 1954, p. 11.
"My attempts to demonstrate evolution by an experiment carried on for more
than 40 years have completely failed. At least I should hardly be accused of
having started from any preconceived anti-evolutionary standpoint."-*H.
Nilsson, Synthetic Speciation (1953), p. 31.
"Just as pre-Darwinian biology was carried out by people whose faith was in
the Creator and His plan, post-Darwinian biology is being carried out by
people whose faith is in, almost, the deity of Darwin. They've seen their
task as to elaborate his theory and to fill the gaps in it, to fill the
trunk and twigs of the tree. But it seems to me that the theoretical
framework has very little impact on the actual progress of the work in
biological research. In a way some aspects of Darwinism and of neo-Darwinism
seem to me to have held back the progress of science."-Colin Patterson, The
Listener [senior paleontologist at the British Museum of Natural History,
London].
"The creation account in Genesis and the theory of evolution could not be
reconciled. One must be right and the other wrong. The story of the fossils
agreed with the account of Genesis. In the oldest rocks we did not find a
series of fossils covering the gradual changes from the most primitive
creatures to developed forms, but rather in the oldest rocks developed
species suddenly appeared. Between every species there was a complete
absence of intermediate fossils."-*D.B. Gower, "Scientist Rejects
Evolution," Kentish Times, England, December 11, 1975, p. 4 [biochemist].
"We still do not know the mechanics of evolution in spite of the
over-confident claims in some quarters, nor are we likely to make further
progress in this by the classical methods of paleontology or biology; and we
shall certainly not advance matters by jumping up and down shrilling,
`Darwin is god and I, So-and-so, am his prophet.' "-*Errol White,
Proceedings of the Linnean Society, London, 177:8 (1966).
"What is it [evolution] based upon? Upon nothing whatever but faith, upon
belief in the reality of the unseen-belief in the fossils that cannot be
produced, belief in the embryological experiments that refuse to come off.
It is faith unjustified by works."-*Arthur N. Field.
"The theories of evolution, with which our studious youth have been
deceived, constitute actually a dogma that all the world continues to teach;
but each, in his specialty, the zoologist or the botanist, ascertains that
none of the explanations furnished is adequate . . It results from this
summary, that the theory of evolution is impossible."-*P. Lemoine,
"Introduction: De L' Evolution?" Encyclopedie Francaise, Vol. 5 (1937), p.
6.
"Evolution is baseless and quite incredible."-*John Ambrose Fleming,
President, British Association for Advancement of Science, in The Unleashing
of Evolutionary Thought.
"Unfortunately, in the field of evolution most explanations are not good. As
a matter of fact, they hardly qualify as explanations at all; they are
suggestions, hunches, pipe dreams, hardly worthy of being called
hypotheses."-*Norman Macbeth, Darwin Retried (1971), p. 147.
"This general tendency to eliminate, by means of unverifiable speculations,
the limits of the categories Nature presents to us, is the inheritance of
biology from The Origin of Species. To establish the continuity required by
theory, historical arguments are invoked, even though historical evidence is
lacking. Thus are engendered those fragile towers of hypothesis based on
hypothesis, where fact and fiction intermingle in an inextricable
confusion."-*W.R. Thompson, "Introduction," to Everyman's Library issue of
*Charles Darwin's, Origin of Species (1956 edition).
" `Scientists who go about teaching that evolution is a fact of life are
great con men, and the story they are telling may be the greatest hoax ever.
In explaining evolution we do not have one iota of fact.' A tangled mishmash
of guessing games and figure juggling [Tahmisian called it]."-*The Fresno
Bee, August 20, 1959, p. 1-B [quoting T.N. Tahmisian, physiologist for the
Atomic Energy Commission].
" `The theory [of evolution] is a scientific mistake.' "-*Louis Agassiz,
quoted in H. Enoch, Evolution or Creation, (1966), p. 139. [Agassiz was a
Harvard University professor and the pioneer in glaciation.]
"[In Darwin's writings] possibilities were assumed to add up to probability,
and probabilities then were promoted to certitudes."-*Agassiz, op. cit., p.
335.
"The origin of all diversity among living beings remains a mystery as
totally unexplained as if the book of Mr. Darwin had never been written, for
no theory unsupported by fact, however plausible it may appear, can be
admitted in science."-L. Agassiz on the Origin of Species, American Journal
of Science, 30 (1860), p. 154. [Darwin's book was published in 1859.]
"[Darwin could] summon up enough general, vague and conjectural reasons to
account for this fact, and if these were not taken seriously, he could come
up with a different, but equally general, vague and conjectural set of
reasons."-*Gertrude Himmelfarb, Darwin and Darwinian Revolution (1968), p.
319.
"It has been estimated that no fewer than 800 phrases in the subjunctive
mood (such as `Let us assume,' or `We may well suppose,' etc.) are to be
found between the covers of Darwin's Origin of Species alone."-L. Merson
Davies [British scientist], Modern Science (1953), p. 7.
"Unfortunately for Darwin's future reputation, his life was spent on the
problem of evolution which is deductive by nature . . It is absurd to expect
that many facts will not always be irreconcilable with any theory of
evolution and, today, every one of his theories is contradicted by
facts."-*P.T. Mora, The Dogma of Evolution, p. 194.
"In essence, we contend that neo-Darwinism is a theory of differential
survival and not one of origin . .
"It is inherent in any definition of science that statements that cannot be
checked by observation are not really saying anything-or at least they are
not science."-*George G. Simpson, "The Nonprevalence of Humanoids," in
Science, 143 (1964) p. 770.
"In accepting evolution as fact, how many biologists pause to reflect that
science is built upon theories that have been proved by experiment to be
correct or remember that the theory of animal evolution has never been thus
approved."-*L.H. Matthews, "Introduction," Origin of Species, Charles Darwin
(1971 edition).
"Present-day ultra-Darwinism, which is so sure of itself, impresses
incompletely informed biologists, misleads them, and inspires fallacious
interpretations . .
"Through use and abuse of hidden postulates, of bold, often ill-founded
extrapolations, a pseudoscience has been created. It is taking root in the
very heart of biology and is leading astray many biochemists and biologists,
who sincerely believe that the accuracy of fundamental concepts has been
demonstrated, which is not the case."-*Pierre P. de Grasse, The Evolution of
Living Organisms (1977), p. 202.
"The over-riding supremacy of the myth [of evolution] has created a
widespread illusion that the theory of evolution was all but proved one
hundred years ago and that all subsequent biological
research-paleontological, zoological and in the newer branches of genetics
and molecular biology-has provided ever-increasing evidence for Darwinian
ideas. Nothing could be further from the truth.
[In a letter to Asa Gray, a Harvard professor of biology, Darwin wrote:] "I
am quite conscious that my speculations run quite beyond the bounds of true
science."-*Charles Darwin, quoted in *N.C. Gillespie, Charles Darwin and the
Problem of Creation (1979), p. 2 [University of Chicago book].
"In general, we find no evidence in the sedimentary distribution of carbon,
sulfur, uranium, or iron, that an oxygen-free atmosphere has existed at any
time during the span of geological history recorded in well preserved
sedimentary rocks." Erich Dimroth and Michael M. Kimberley, "Precambrian
Atmospheric Oxygen: Evidence in the Sedimentary Distributions of Carbon,
Sulfur, Uranium, and Iron," Canadian Journal of Earth Sciences, Vol. 13, No.
9, September 1976 p. 1161
"What is the evidence for a primitive methane-ammonia atmosphere on earth?
The answer is that there is no evidence for it, but much against it." Philip
H. Abelson, "Chemical Events on the Primitive Earth," Proceedings of the
National Academy of Sciences, Vol. 55 June 1966, p. 1365
End Quotations.
There are scientists all over the world who know that evolutionary theory is
bankrupt. Such men as *Charles Darwin, *Thomas and *Julian Huxley, and
*Steven Jay Gould have admitted it. But you will not find these statements
in the popular press. Such admissions are only made to fellow professionals.
Most scientists are working in very narrow fields; they do not see the
overall picture, and assume, even though their field does not prove
evolution, that perhaps other areas of science probably vindicate it. They
are well-meaning men. The biologists and geneticists know their facts, and
research does not prove evolution, but assume that geology does. The
geologists know their field does not prove evolution, but hope that the
biologists and geneticists have proven it. Those who do know the facts, fear
to disclose them to the general public, lest they be fired. But they do
write articles in their own professional journals and books, condemning
evolutionary theory.
.
|
|
| User: "Sverker Johansson" |
|
| Title: Re: What Do Scientists Think about Evolution? |
20 Feb 2004 10:11:24 AM |
|
|
"The Church of The Painful Truth" <Nospam@Nomarketing.com> wrote in message news:<qQeZb.422$i8.88892@news.uswest.net>...
What do scientists think?
Outside the occasional book or research paper, most scientists just go about
their work quietly. Unless something catches the attention of mainstream
media, most people never hear what they have to say. Let's take a look at
what scientists have to say:
Quoting scientists out of context is a favourite hobby of
creationists, but has no validity as an argument
against evolution. See the faqs at:
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/quotes/mine/project.html
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/quotes/
Recent Quotations:
"I think, however, that we must go further than this and admit that the only
acceptable explanation is creation. I know that this is anathema to
physicists, as indeed it is to me, but we must not reject a theory that we
do not like if the experimental evidence supports it."-*H. Lipson, "A
Physicist Looks at Evolution," Physics Bulletin, 31 (1980), p. 138.
"The hold of the evolutionary paradigm [theoretical system] is so powerful
that an idea which is more like a principle of medieval astrology than a
serious twentieth century scientific theory has become a reality for
evolutionary biologists."-*Michael Denton, Evolution: A Theory in Crisis
(1985), p. 306 [Australian molecular biologist].
Denton was a creationist when he wrote that book.
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/denton.html
In his more recent book, he by-and-large accepts evolution.
[snip a ton of dubious quotes from the usual suspects]
Best regards, HLK, Physics
Sverker Johansson U of Jonkoping
----------------------------------------------
WAR IS PEACE
FREEDOM IS SLAVERY
ATHEISM IS RELIGION
IGNORANCE IS STRENGTH - adapted from
CREATIONISM IS SCIENCE George Orwell
.
|
|
|
| User: "\USENET Central Administration" |
|
| Title: Re: What Do Scientists Think about Evolution? |
20 Feb 2004 01:01:38 PM |
|
|
Twisting the words of creationists out of context is a favorite past time of
the evolutionary idiot.
Your response is typical of a purposely deceitful answer.
I challenge you to prove that these quotations were taken out of context.
If you cannot then I suggest you remove your foot from your mouth.
"Sverker Johansson" <lsj@hlk.hj.se> wrote in message
news:4c9281ba.0402200811.5772a01b@posting.google.com...
"The Church of The Painful Truth" <Nospam@Nomarketing.com> wrote in
message news:<qQeZb.422$i8.88892@news.uswest.net>...
What do scientists think?
Outside the occasional book or research paper, most scientists just go
about
their work quietly. Unless something catches the attention of mainstream
media, most people never hear what they have to say. Let's take a look
at
what scientists have to say:
Quoting scientists out of context is a favourite hobby of
creationists, but has no validity as an argument
against evolution. See the faqs at:
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/quotes/mine/project.html
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/quotes/
Recent Quotations:
"I think, however, that we must go further than this and admit that the
only
acceptable explanation is creation. I know that this is anathema to
physicists, as indeed it is to me, but we must not reject a theory that
we
do not like if the experimental evidence supports it."-*H. Lipson, "A
Physicist Looks at Evolution," Physics Bulletin, 31 (1980), p. 138.
"The hold of the evolutionary paradigm [theoretical system] is so
powerful
that an idea which is more like a principle of medieval astrology than a
serious twentieth century scientific theory has become a reality for
evolutionary biologists."-*Michael Denton, Evolution: A Theory in Crisis
(1985), p. 306 [Australian molecular biologist].
Denton was a creationist when he wrote that book.
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/denton.html
In his more recent book, he by-and-large accepts evolution.
[snip a ton of dubious quotes from the usual suspects]
Best regards, HLK, Physics
Sverker Johansson U of Jonkoping
----------------------------------------------
WAR IS PEACE
FREEDOM IS SLAVERY
ATHEISM IS RELIGION
IGNORANCE IS STRENGTH - adapted from
CREATIONISM IS SCIENCE George Orwell
.
|
|
|
| User: "Ian Braidwood" |
|
| Title: Re: What Do Scientists Think about Evolution? |
23 Feb 2004 03:01:37 AM |
|
|
"\"USENET Central Administration\"" <USENETAdmin@GlobalServices.com> wrote in message news:<mQsZb.112$uJ.29816@news.uswest.net>...
Twisting the words of creationists out of context is a favorite past time of
the evolutionary idiot.
Are you really unaware of how pathetic you look? Is that all that you
can do, be offensive?
Sverker Johansson _did_ provide evidence and also provided a link to a
critique of the book your quotes came from. Here it is again:
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/denton.html
Read it and stop being a fool.
Your response is typical of a purposely deceitful answer.
Your response was nothing short of childish. Do you really think
anyone is impressed by your petulant behaviour? People who come to
alt.atheism have no choice but to think Christians are a ghastly
people, for the simple reason that that is how they behave. You may
think you're bashing the nasty atheists, but actually you're only
damaging yourself.
I challenge you to prove that these quotations were taken out of context.
If you cannot then I suggest you remove your foot from your mouth.
I challenge you to start acting like an adult human being and to start
living up to the standards you profess to believe in. I was bought up
a Christian, but I have _never_ stooped like you.
Just because you can get away with being an offensive fool on Usenet,
doesn't mean that it is wise for you to do so.
(-: Ian :-)
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Sverker Johansson" |
|
| Title: Re: What Do Scientists Think about Evolution? |
23 Feb 2004 12:50:43 AM |
|
|
"\"USENET Central Administration\"" <USENETAdmin@GlobalServices.com> wrote in message news:<mQsZb.112$uJ.29816@news.uswest.net>...
Twisting the words of creationists out of context is a favorite past time of
the evolutionary idiot.
Your response is typical of a purposely deceitful answer.
Do not judge others by yourself.
I challenge you to prove that these quotations were taken out of context.
If you cannot then I suggest you remove your foot from your mouth.
You didn't bother looking at the links I provided, did you?
After removing Denton, the bulk of your quotes are from the
usual people that creationists routinely misquote, as discussed
in the faqs. Gould, Patterson, De Grasse, Hoyle, ...
Best regards, HLK, Physics
Sverker Johansson U of Jonkoping
----------------------------------------------
WAR IS PEACE
FREEDOM IS SLAVERY
ATHEISM IS RELIGION
IGNORANCE IS STRENGTH - adapted from
CREATIONISM IS SCIENCE George Orwell
"Sverker Johansson" <lsj@hlk.hj.se> wrote in message
news:4c9281ba.0402200811.5772a01b@posting.google.com...
"The Church of The Painful Truth" <Nospam@Nomarketing.com> wrote in
message news:<qQeZb.422$i8.88892@news.uswest.net>...
What do scientists think?
Outside the occasional book or research paper, most scientists just go
about
their work quietly. Unless something catches the attention of mainstream
media, most people never hear what they have to say. Let's take a look
at
what scientists have to say:
Quoting scientists out of context is a favourite hobby of
creationists, but has no validity as an argument
against evolution. See the faqs at:
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/quotes/mine/project.html
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/quotes/
Recent Quotations:
"I think, however, that we must go further than this and admit that the
only
acceptable explanation is creation. I know that this is anathema to
physicists, as indeed it is to me, but we must not reject a theory that
we
do not like if the experimental evidence supports it."-*H. Lipson, "A
Physicist Looks at Evolution," Physics Bulletin, 31 (1980), p. 138.
"The hold of the evolutionary paradigm [theoretical system] is so
powerful
that an idea which is more like a principle of medieval astrology than a
serious twentieth century scientific theory has become a reality for
evolutionary biologists."-*Michael Denton, Evolution: A Theory in Crisis
(1985), p. 306 [Australian molecular biologist].
Denton was a creationist when he wrote that book.
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/denton.html
In his more recent book, he by-and-large accepts evolution.
[snip a ton of dubious quotes from the usual suspects]
Best regards, HLK, Physics
Sverker Johansson U of Jonkoping
----------------------------------------------
WAR IS PEACE
FREEDOM IS SLAVERY
ATHEISM IS RELIGION
IGNORANCE IS STRENGTH - adapted from
CREATIONISM IS SCIENCE George Orwell
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "John W" |
|
| Title: Re: What Do Scientists Think about Evolution? |
20 Feb 2004 03:15:40 PM |
|
|
x-no-archive:yes
On 20 Feb 2004 08:11:24 -0800, (Sverker Johansson)
wrote:
"The Church of The Painful Truth" <Nospam@Nomarketing.com> wrote in message news:<qQeZb.422$i8.88892@news.uswest.net>...
What do scientists think?
Outside the occasional book or research paper, most scientists just go about
their work quietly. Unless something catches the attention of mainstream
media, most people never hear what they have to say. Let's take a look at
what scientists have to say:
Quoting scientists out of context is a favourite hobby of
creationists, but has no validity as an argument
against evolution. See the faqs at:
That would NOT explain why so many scientists are Christians and
Creationists.
John W
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/quotes/mine/project.html
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/quotes/
Recent Quotations:
"I think, however, that we must go further than this and admit that the only
acceptable explanation is creation. I know that this is anathema to
physicists, as indeed it is to me, but we must not reject a theory that we
do not like if the experimental evidence supports it."-*H. Lipson, "A
Physicist Looks at Evolution," Physics Bulletin, 31 (1980), p. 138.
"The hold of the evolutionary paradigm [theoretical system] is so powerful
that an idea which is more like a principle of medieval astrology than a
serious twentieth century scientific theory has become a reality for
evolutionary biologists."-*Michael Denton, Evolution: A Theory in Crisis
(1985), p. 306 [Australian molecular biologist].
Denton was a creationist when he wrote that book.
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/denton.html
In his more recent book, he by-and-large accepts evolution.
[snip a ton of dubious quotes from the usual suspects]
Best regards, HLK, Physics
Sverker Johansson U of Jonkoping
----------------------------------------------
WAR IS PEACE
FREEDOM IS SLAVERY
ATHEISM IS RELIGION
IGNORANCE IS STRENGTH - adapted from
CREATIONISM IS SCIENCE George Orwell
_______________________________________________________________________________
Posted Via Uncensored-News.Com - Accounts Starting At $6.95 - http://www.uncensored-news.com
<><><><><><><> The Worlds Uncensored News Source <><><><><><><><>
.
|
|
|
| User: "Marc Satterwhite" |
|
| Title: Re: What Do Scientists Think about Evolution? |
21 Feb 2004 12:01:24 PM |
|
|
"John W
x-no-archive:yes
On 20 Feb 2004 08:11:24 -0800, (Sverker Johansson)
wrote:
"The Church of The Painful Truth" <Nospam@Nomarketing.com> wrote in message news:<qQeZb.422$i8.88892@news.uswest.net>...
What do scientists think?
Outside the occasional book or research paper, most scientists just go about
their work quietly. Unless something catches the attention of mainstream
media, most people never hear what they have to say. Let's take a look at
what scientists have to say:
Quoting scientists out of context is a favourite hobby of
creationists, but has no validity as an argument
against evolution. See the faqs at:
That would NOT explain why so many scientists are Christians and
Creationists.
John
I guess that depends on what you mean by "so many."
In fact, almost no scientists in the relevant disciplines are Creationists in the
usual sense of the word. You will look (almost) in vain for any type
of biologist at all, any geologist, any astophysicist
who accepts creationism, especially the young earth variety.
A look at the credentials of "scientists" who are creationists
will show virtually no one in those disciplines, but a fair
number of engineers (who do not NECESSARILY practice
science per se) and physicians (ditto). And the handful
that do have degrees in the relevant fields are usually not
doing any actual research (e.g. Duane Gish, who has a
a legit Ph.D in biochem from Berkeley--no small
achievement, I'll grant you--but doesn't engage in anything
resembling genuine research).
Not to mention a whole host of "scientists" with bogus
or non-existent credentials, such as Carl Baugh or
Kent Hovind, whose "work" is so laughable that even
Answers in Genesis warns their readers about it.
A very, very small handful of exceptions does not alter
the fact that the scientific concensus among practicing scientists
in the fields that matter, is overwhelmingly in favor
of evolutionary theory. The basic mechanisms are
all but universally accepted, although there is much
controversy about specifics, and a whole lot left to learn.
Of course, it's possible for an overwhelmingly accepted
scientific theory to be wrong. It's happened before and
will probably happen again. In this case, though, I wouldn't
bet the mortgage on it. Heck, I wouldn't bet the cost of the
lunch special at the campus dining room.
And while some scientists are indeed Christians, it
is notable that with increased education in the sciences
comes a corresponding lack of belief in traditional
religions, and the more distinguished the scientist,
the more likely he/she is to be a non-believer.
Best, Marc
.
|
|
|
| User: "John W" |
|
| Title: Re: What Do Scientists Think about Evolution? |
22 Feb 2004 02:09:11 AM |
|
|
x-no-archive:yes
On Sat, 21 Feb 2004 13:01:24 -0500, Marc Satterwhite
<mtsatt01@athena.louisville.edu> wrote:
"John W
x-no-archive:yes
On 20 Feb 2004 08:11:24 -0800, (Sverker Johansson)
wrote:
"The Church of The Painful Truth" <Nospam@Nomarketing.com> wrote in message news:<qQeZb.422$i8.88892@news.uswest.net>...
What do scientists think?
Outside the occasional book or research paper, most scientists just go about
their work quietly. Unless something catches the attention of mainstream
media, most people never hear what they have to say. Let's take a look at
what scientists have to say:
Quoting scientists out of context is a favourite hobby of
creationists, but has no validity as an argument
against evolution. See the faqs at:
That would NOT explain why so many scientists are Christians and
Creationists.
John
I guess that depends on what you mean by "so many."
In fact, almost no scientists in the relevant disciplines are Creationists in the
usual sense of the word.
That is such an arrogant comment; you suggest that you personally
know ALL scientists who would be "qualified" to make such judgements.
You do not.
And ONE of my sources--just the one I will mention-- was a nuclear
physicist who worked on the Manhattan Project.
Is THAT qualified enough for you?
John W
You will look (almost) in vain for any type
of biologist at all, any geologist, any astophysicist
who accepts creationism, especially the young earth variety.
A look at the credentials of "scientists" who are creationists
will show virtually no one in those disciplines, but a fair
number of engineers (who do not NECESSARILY practice
science per se) and physicians (ditto). And the handful
that do have degrees in the relevant fields are usually not
doing any actual research (e.g. Duane Gish, who has a
a legit Ph.D in biochem from Berkeley--no small
achievement, I'll grant you--but doesn't engage in anything
resembling genuine research).
Not to mention a whole host of "scientists" with bogus
or non-existent credentials, such as Carl Baugh or
Kent Hovind, whose "work" is so laughable that even
Answers in Genesis warns their readers about it.
A very, very small handful of exceptions does not alter
the fact that the scientific concensus among practicing scientists
in the fields that matter, is overwhelmingly in favor
of evolutionary theory. The basic mechanisms are
all but universally accepted, although there is much
controversy about specifics, and a whole lot left to learn.
Of course, it's possible for an overwhelmingly accepted
scientific theory to be wrong. It's happened before and
will probably happen again. In this case, though, I wouldn't
bet the mortgage on it. Heck, I wouldn't bet the cost of the
lunch special at the campus dining room.
And while some scientists are indeed Christians, it
is notable that with increased education in the sciences
comes a corresponding lack of belief in traditional
religions, and the more distinguished the scientist,
the more likely he/she is to be a non-believer.
Best, Marc
_______________________________________________________________________________
Posted Via Uncensored-News.Com - Accounts Starting At $6.95 - http://www.uncensored-news.com
<><><><><><><> The Worlds Uncensored News Source <><><><><><><><>
.
|
|
|
| User: "Marc Satterwhite" |
|
| Title: Re: What Do Scientists Think about Evolution? |
22 Feb 2004 07:54:10 PM |
|
|
"John W
x-no-archive:yes
On Sat, 21 Feb 2004 13:01:24 -0500, Marc Satterwhite
<mtsatt01@athena.louisville.edu> wrote:
"John W
x-no-archive:yes
On 20 Feb 2004 08:11:24 -0800, (Sverker Johansson)
wrote:
"The Church of The Painful Truth" <Nospam@Nomarketing.com> wrote in message news:<qQeZb.422$i8.88892@news.uswest.net>...
What do scientists think?
Outside the occasional book or research paper, most scientists just go about
their work quietly. Unless something catches the attention of mainstream
media, most people never hear what they have to say. Let's take a look at
what scientists have to say:
Quoting scientists out of context is a favourite hobby of
creationists, but has no validity as an argument
against evolution. See the faqs at:
That would NOT explain why so many scientists are Christians and
Creationists.
John
I guess that depends on what you mean by "so many."
In fact, almost no scientists in the relevant disciplines are Creationists in the
usual sense of the word.
That is such an arrogant comment; you suggest that you personally
know ALL scientists who would be "qualified" to make such judgements.
You do not.
I do not need to ALL scientists to know what scientific concensus is on an
extremely well-known and important issue like evolution.
And ONE of my sources--just the one I will mention-- was a nuclear
physicist who worked on the Manhattan Project.
The discipline is not necessarily relevant, and if it were, it would be fairly
tangential. At best.
And I never said you couldn't find ANY people in the relevant disciplines
who don't believe in evolution, just that the number would be vanishingly
small, and that is the case.
Is THAT qualified enough for you?
Again, nuclear phyics is not necessarily relevant to the discussion.
Doesn't mean he can't have an opinion, but in general I'll take
the opinion of thousands of working biologists over that
of one physicist, however good he might at at physics.
While it's possible that he's right and they're all wrong,
the odds are not in his favor.
Best, Marc
[snip rest]
.
|
|
|
| User: "jw" |
|
| Title: Re: What Do Scientists Think about Evolution? |
24 Feb 2004 03:51:24 AM |
|
|
x-no-archive:yes
On Sun, 22 Feb 2004 20:54:10 -0500, Marc Satterwhite
<mtsatt01@athena.louisville.edu> wrote:
"John W
x-no-archive:yes
On Sat, 21 Feb 2004 13:01:24 -0500, Marc Satterwhite
<mtsatt01@athena.louisville.edu> wrote:
"John W
x-no-archive:yes
On 20 Feb 2004 08:11:24 -0800, (Sverker Johansson)
wrote:
"The Church of The Painful Truth" <Nospam@Nomarketing.com> wrote in message news:<qQeZb.422$i8.88892@news.uswest.net>...
What do scientists think?
Outside the occasional book or research paper, most scientists just go about
their work quietly. Unless something catches the attention of mainstream
media, most people never hear what they have to say. Let's take a look at
what scientists have to say:
Quoting scientists out of context is a favourite hobby of
creationists, but has no validity as an argument
against evolution. See the faqs at:
That would NOT explain why so many scientists are Christians and
Creationists.
John
I guess that depends on what you mean by "so many."
In fact, almost no scientists in the relevant disciplines are Creationists in the
usual sense of the word.
That is such an arrogant comment; you suggest that you personally
know ALL scientists who would be "qualified" to make such judgements.
You do not.
I do not need to ALL scientists to know what scientific concensus is on an
extremely well-known and important issue like evolution.
All you are saying is that the science "establishment" has forced the
creationists underground if they wish to keep their jobs, which IS
happening.
Creationists aren't employed if they reveal that; creationists don't
get their papers published, because they go against the flow. That
isn't freedom of thought, and it's not science.
John W
And ONE of my sources--just the one I will mention-- was a nuclear
physicist who worked on the Manhattan Project.
The discipline is not necessarily relevant, and if it were, it would be fairly
tangential. At best.
And I never said you couldn't find ANY people in the relevant disciplines
who don't believe in evolution, just that the number would be vanishingly
small, and that is the case.
Is THAT qualified enough for you?
Again, nuclear phyics is not necessarily relevant to the discussion.
Doesn't mean he can't have an opinion, but in general I'll take
the opinion of thousands of working biologists over that
of one physicist, however good he might at at physics.
While it's possible that he's right and they're all wrong,
the odds are not in his favor.
Best, Marc
[snip rest]
_______________________________________________________________________________
Posted Via Uncensored-News.Com - Accounts Starting At $6.95 - http://www.uncensored-news.com
<><><><><><><> The Worlds Uncensored News Source <><><><><><><><>
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "ZenIsWhen" |
|
| Title: Re: What Do Scientists Think about Evolution? |
22 Feb 2004 04:12:37 AM |
|
|
"John W @yahoo.com>" <john_weatherly47<no> wrote in message
news:6tog30du8av9jj6catovoj2bfuojojpjb5@4ax.com...
x-no-archive:yes
On Sat, 21 Feb 2004 13:01:24 -0500, Marc Satterwhite
<mtsatt01@athena.louisville.edu> wrote:
"John W
x-no-archive:yes
On 20 Feb 2004 08:11:24 -0800, (Sverker Johansson)
wrote:
"The Church of The Painful Truth" <Nospam@Nomarketing.com> wrote in
message news:<qQeZb.422$i8.88892@news.uswest.net>...
What do scientists think?
Outside the occasional book or research paper, most scientists just
go about
their work quietly. Unless something catches the attention of
mainstream
media, most people never hear what they have to say. Let's take a
look at
what scientists have to say:
Quoting scientists out of context is a favourite hobby of
creationists, but has no validity as an argument
against evolution. See the faqs at:
That would NOT explain why so many scientists are Christians and
Creationists.
John
I guess that depends on what you mean by "so many."
In fact, almost no scientists in the relevant disciplines are
Creationists in the
usual sense of the word.
That is such an arrogant comment; you suggest that you personally
know ALL scientists who would be "qualified" to make such judgements.
You do not.
It is not necessary to "know all scientists", moron!
It is only necessary to know the meaning of the term science, and the
credentials taht it takes ot be a scientist.
Also, it helps to know that creationist idiots are, in the largest part, not
scientists - and in ALL parts write NOTHING that compares to science!
And ONE of my sources--just the one I will mention-- was a nuclear
physicist who worked on the Manhattan Project.
Oh.........gee ................ I would be taken aback if you DARED provide
anything other than a bellowed, mindless, claim!
Is THAT qualified enough for you?
No.
Claims mean nothing - particularly when they come from creationist idiots!
.
|
|
|
| User: "jw" |
|
| Title: Re: What Do Scientists Think about Evolution? |
24 Feb 2004 03:48:28 AM |
|
|
x-no-archive:yes
On Sun, 22 Feb 2004 05:12:37 -0500, "ZenIsWhen"
<ZenIsWhen@anywhere.com> wrote:
"John W @yahoo.com>" <john_weatherly47<no> wrote in message
news:6tog30du8av9jj6catovoj2bfuojojpjb5@4ax.com...
x-no-archive:yes
On Sat, 21 Feb 2004 13:01:24 -0500, Marc Satterwhite
<mtsatt01@athena.louisville.edu> wrote:
"John W
x-no-archive:yes
On 20 Feb 2004 08:11:24 -0800, (Sverker Johansson)
wrote:
"The Church of The Painful Truth" <Nospam@Nomarketing.com> wrote in
message news:<qQeZb.422$i8.88892@news.uswest.net>...
What do scientists think?
Outside the occasional book or research paper, most scientists just
go about
their work quietly. Unless something catches the attention of
mainstream
media, most people never hear what they have to say. Let's take a
look at
what scientists have to say:
Quoting scientists out of context is a favourite hobby of
creationists, but has no validity as an argument
against evolution. See the faqs at:
That would NOT explain why so many scientists are Christians and
Creationists.
John
I guess that depends on what you mean by "so many."
In fact, almost no scientists in the relevant disciplines are
Creationists in the
usual sense of the word.
That is such an arrogant comment; you suggest that you personally
know ALL scientists who would be "qualified" to make such judgements.
You do not.
It is not necessary to "know all scientists", moron!
As I have said, I don't respond well to those who begin a post to me
with an insult. If you wish to dialog, learn to separate heated,
vehement remarks from insults. If I'm indeed moronic, I wouldn't get
a word you say, nor would I be capable of using a computer, or
responding. Come back with some respect, and perhaps we'll continue.
John W
It is only necessary to know the meaning of the term science, and the
credentials taht it takes ot be a scientist.
Also, it helps to know that creationist idiots are, in the largest part, not
scientists - and in ALL parts write NOTHING that compares to science!
And ONE of my sources--just the one I will mention-- was a nuclear
physicist who worked on the Manhattan Project.
Oh.........gee ................ I would be taken aback if you DARED provide
anything other than a bellowed, mindless, claim!
Is THAT qualified enough for you?
No.
Claims mean nothing - particularly when they come from creationist idiots!
_______________________________________________________________________________
Posted Via Uncensored-News.Com - Accounts Starting At $6.95 - http://www.uncensored-news.com
<><><><><><><> The Worlds Uncensored News Source <><><><><><><><>
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Matt Silberstein matts2nopam@ix netcom.nospamcom" |
|
| Title: Re: What Do Scientists Think about Evolution? |
20 Feb 2004 03:24:55 PM |
|
|
In alt.religion.christian I read this message from John W
<john_weatherly47<no>@yahoo.com>:
x-no-archive:yes
On 20 Feb 2004 08:11:24 -0800, (Sverker Johansson)
wrote:
"The Church of The Painful Truth" <Nospam@Nomarketing.com> wrote in message news:<qQeZb.422$i8.88892@news.uswest.net>...
What do scientists think?
Outside the occasional book or research paper, most scientists just go about
their work quietly. Unless something catches the attention of mainstream
media, most people never hear what they have to say. Let's take a look at
what scientists have to say:
Quoting scientists out of context is a favourite hobby of
creationists, but has no validity as an argument
against evolution. See the faqs at:
That would NOT explain why so many scientists are Christians and
Creationists.
Does it explain why so many are Christians and accept evolution?
[snip]
--
Matt Silberstein
Donate to the C.A.N.D.L.E.S. Museum, burnt down by arson who wrote
"Remember Timothy McVeigh" on the wall.
C.A.N.D.L.E.S. stands for Children of Auschwitz Nazi Deadly Lab Experiments
Survivors.
www.candles-museum.com
.
|
|
|
| User: "John W" |
|
| Title: Re: What Do Scientists Think about Evolution? |
22 Feb 2004 02:05:25 AM |
|
|
x-no-archive:yes
On Fri, 20 Feb 2004 21:24:55 GMT, Matt Silberstein <matts2nopam@ix
netcom.nospamcom> wrote:
In alt.religion.christian I read this message from John W
<john_weatherly47<no>@yahoo.com>:
x-no-archive:yes
On 20 Feb 2004 08:11:24 -0800, (Sverker Johansson)
wrote:
"The Church of The Painful Truth" <Nospam@Nomarketing.com> wrote in message news:<qQeZb.422$i8.88892@news.uswest.net>...
What do scientists think?
Outside the occasional book or research paper, most scientists just go about
their work quietly. Unless something catches the attention of mainstream
media, most people never hear what they have to say. Let's take a look at
what scientists have to say:
Quoting scientists out of context is a favourite hobby of
creationists, but has no validity as an argument
against evolution. See the faqs at:
That would NOT explain why so many scientists are Christians and
Creationists.
Does it explain why so many are Christians and accept evolution?
Good question! The answer is, the many "Christians" I have talked
with who believe in evolution turned out to not be Christians in the
1st C AD New Testament sense.
AGAIN, if we believe in a God who is CAPABLE of creating the universe
in 6 literal 24-hour days, why not believe He did so?
Plus any Christian who knows his Bible knows that Jesus referred to
Adam and Eve as real people in a real Garden of Eden. When the
"Christian" denies Adam and Eve, he calls Jesus Christ a liar.
I will not go there!
John W
[snip]
_______________________________________________________________________________
Posted Via Uncensored-News.Com - Accounts Starting At $6.95 - http://www.uncensored-news.com
<><><><><><><> The Worlds Uncensored News Source <><><><><><><><>
.
|
|
|
| User: "ZenIsWhen" |
|
| Title: Re: What Do Scientists Think about Evolution? |
22 Feb 2004 04:14:48 AM |
|
|
"John W @yahoo.com>" <john_weatherly47<no> wrote in message
news:tkog30tebac99j1g5da5d3h9k0q337u3fa@4ax.com...
x-no-archive:yes
On Fri, 20 Feb 2004 21:24:55 GMT, Matt Silberstein <matts2nopam@ix
netcom.nospamcom> wrote:
In alt.religion.christian I read this message from John W
<john_weatherly47<no>@yahoo.com>:
x-no-archive:yes
On 20 Feb 2004 08:11:24 -0800, (Sverker Johansson)
wrote:
"The Church of The Painful Truth" <Nospam@Nomarketing.com> wrote in
message news:<qQeZb.422$i8.88892@news.uswest.net>...
What do scientists think?
Outside the occasional book or research paper, most scientists just
go about
their work quietly. Unless something catches the attention of
mainstream
media, most people never hear what they have to say. Let's take a
look at
what scientists have to say:
Quoting scientists out of context is a favourite hobby of
creationists, but has no validity as an argument
against evolution. See the faqs at:
That would NOT explain why so many scientists are Christians and
Creationists.
Does it explain why so many are Christians and accept evolution?
Good question! The answer is, the many "Christians" I have talked
with who believe in evolution turned out to not be Christians in the
1st C AD New Testament sense.
AGAIN, if we believe in a God who is CAPABLE of creating the universe
in 6 literal 24-hour days, why not believe He did so?
Plus any Christian who knows his Bible knows that Jesus referred to
Adam and Eve as real people in a real Garden of Eden. When the
"Christian" denies Adam and Eve, he calls Jesus Christ a liar.
Any intelligent christiqan knows that the vast majority of statements in the
bible are metaphorical!
I will not go there!
You apparently won't go anywhere that includes facts, evidence and reality.
.
|
|
|
| User: "jw" |
|
| Title: Re: What Do Scientists Think about Evolution? |
24 Feb 2004 03:44:01 AM |
|
|
x-no-archive:yes
On Sun, 22 Feb 2004 05:14:48 -0500, "ZenIsWhen"
<ZenIsWhen@anywhere.com> wrote:
"John W @yahoo.com>" <john_weatherly47<no> wrote in message
news:tkog30tebac99j1g5da5d3h9k0q337u3fa@4ax.com...
x-no-archive:yes
On Fri, 20 Feb 2004 21:24:55 GMT, Matt Silberstein <matts2nopam@ix
netcom.nospamcom> wrote:
In alt.religion.christian I read this message from John W
<john_weatherly47<no>@yahoo.com>:
x-no-archive:yes
On 20 Feb 2004 08:11:24 -0800, (Sverker Johansson)
wrote:
"The Church of The Painful Truth" <Nospam@Nomarketing.com> wrote in
message news:<qQeZb.422$i8.88892@news.uswest.net>...
What do scientists think?
Outside the occasional book or research paper, most scientists just
go about
their work quietly. Unless something catches the attention of
mainstream
media, most people never hear what they have to say. Let's take a
look at
what scientists have to say:
Quoting scientists out of context is a favourite hobby of
creationists, but has no validity as an argument
against evolution. See the faqs at:
That would NOT explain why so many scientists are Christians and
Creationists.
Does it explain why so many are Christians and accept evolution?
Good question! The answer is, the many "Christians" I have talked
with who believe in evolution turned out to not be Christians in the
1st C AD New Testament sense.
AGAIN, if we believe in a God who is CAPABLE of creating the universe
in 6 literal 24-hour days, why not believe He did so?
Plus any Christian who knows his Bible knows that Jesus referred to
Adam and Eve as real people in a real Garden of Eden. When the
"Christian" denies Adam and Eve, he calls Jesus Christ a liar.
Any intelligent christiqan knows that the vast majority of statements in the
bible are metaphorical!
I am VERY intelligent. Prove your ridiculous, bigoted, narrow minded,
demon-inspired comment.
(I'll match my IQ to yours ANY day)
Most of the Bible is, in fact, history. The history of the Jews, and
the history of Christianity's origins.
I will not go there!
You apparently won't go anywhere that includes facts, evidence and reality.
bigoted,ignorant nonsense. something a demon would say! Only an
ignoramus would spout his personal, VERY biased opinion as rock solid
fact. An INTELLIGENT person knows the difference.
John W
_______________________________________________________________________________
Posted Via Uncensored-News.Com - Accounts Starting At $6.95 - http://www.uncensored-news.com
<><><><><><><> The Worlds Uncensored News Source <><><><><><><><>
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Matt Silberstein matts2nopam@ix netcom.nospamcom" |
|
| Title: Re: What Do Scientists Think about Evolution? |
22 Feb 2004 07:59:35 AM |
|
|
In alt.religion.christian I read this message from John W
<john_weatherly47<no>@yahoo.com>:
x-no-archive:yes
On Fri, 20 Feb 2004 21:24:55 GMT, Matt Silberstein <matts2nopam@ix
netcom.nospamcom> wrote:
In alt.religion.christian I read this message from John W
<john_weatherly47<no>@yahoo.com>:
x-no-archive:yes
On 20 Feb 2004 08:11:24 -0800, (Sverker Johansson)
wrote:
"The Church of The Painful Truth" <Nospam@Nomarketing.com> wrote in message news:<qQeZb.422$i8.88892@news.uswest.net>...
What do scientists think?
Outside the occasional book or research paper, most scientists just go about
their work quietly. Unless something catches the attention of mainstream
media, most people never hear what they have to say. Let's take a look at
what scientists have to say:
Quoting scientists out of context is a favourite hobby of
creationists, but has no validity as an argument
against evolution. See the faqs at:
That would NOT explain why so many scientists are Christians and
Creationists.
Does it explain why so many are Christians and accept evolution?
Good question! The answer is, the many "Christians" I have talked
with who believe in evolution turned out to not be Christians in the
1st C AD New Testament sense.
And what is such a person and who are you to make that
determination? Do you mean a "Christian" pre-Paul, pre Nice Synod
or something else?
AGAIN, if we believe in a God who is CAPABLE of creating the universe
in 6 literal 24-hour days, why not believe He did so?
Nothing in the sciences of biology or geology or astronomy or
cosmology denies that God is "CAPABLE" of doing that. (You do
realize that the objection comes from more than just evolutionary
biology, don't you?) These sciences say that the evidence says
that it did not happen in 6 days, it did not happen 6,000 years
ago.
Plus any Christian who knows his Bible knows that Jesus referred to
Adam and Eve as real people in a real Garden of Eden. When the
"Christian" denies Adam and Eve, he calls Jesus Christ a liar.
So you are not denying that these people are real Christians
(which is the purpose of the scare quotes), judging whether or
not they are saved (something I would have thought beyond your
ability), and making accusations against them.
Be careful here since you may yourself be bearing false witness.
It seems that your standard for "liar" says that false
statements, even if you think they are right and proper, are
still lies. Do you really use that standard?
I will not go there!
A little late.
--
Matt Silberstein
Donate to the C.A.N.D.L.E.S. Museum, burnt down by arson who wrote
"Remember Timothy McVeigh" on the wall.
C.A.N.D.L.E.S. stands for Children of Auschwitz Nazi Deadly Lab Experiments
Survivors.
www.candles-museum.com
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Mark Nutter" |
|
| Title: Re: What Do Scientists Think about Evolution? |
22 Feb 2004 12:38:57 PM |
|
|
"The Church of The Painful Truth" <Nospam@Nomarketing.com> wrote in message news:<qQeZb.422$i8.88892@news.uswest.net>...
What do scientists think?
Outside the occasional book or research paper, most scientists just go about
their work quietly. Unless something catches the attention of mainstream
media, most people never hear what they have to say. Let's take a look at
what scientists have to say:
Recent Quotations:
[Snip]
There are scientists all over the world who know that evolutionary theory is
bankrupt... But you will not find these statements
in the popular press. Such admissions are only made to fellow professionals.
Most scientists are working in very narrow fields; they do not see the
overall picture, and assume, even though their field does not prove
evolution, that perhaps other areas of science probably vindicate it. They
are well-meaning men. The biologists and geneticists know their facts, and
research does not prove evolution, but assume that geology does. The
geologists know their field does not prove evolution, but hope that the
biologists and geneticists have proven it. Those who do know the facts, fear
to disclose them to the general public, lest they be fired. But they do
write articles in their own professional journals and books, condemning
evolutionary theory.
When I was a devout, evangelical, Bible-believing Christian, I was
also a creationist. I was very impressed by the creationists'
collection of quotes from scientific sources, and wanted to see if I
could find some quotes of my own to add to the collection. That was
when I made the mistake of checking the original sources quoted by the
creationists, and discovered the painful truth: the creationists were
distorting the material, quoting out of context, misrepresenting the
facts, and in general being dishonest.
At the time, I was too ardent a believer to make the mistake of
blaming God for the weaknesses of men. The dishonesty of creationists
did not lead me to believe that God himself was a lie. But it
bothered me, because these were good, sincere Christian men with what
I considered to be a good enough scientific background to be able to
deal fairly with the material. If there really was a God who really
did create the entire universe, then there ought to have been better
arguments for them to use, and they ought to have been in a position
to use those arguments. They shouldn't have *needed* to resort to
trickery and deception to defend their case, and as faithful men of
God, they certainly should not have wanted to.
Like I say, I did not, at the time, lose faith in God because of
creationist dishonesty. But it did bother me, because it showed the
absence of the better evidence that *should* have been available if
Genesis were as true as I thought it was. Creationism opened my eyes
just a little bit to the difference between God saying something, and
men saying things on God's behalf. That insight, too, was a painful
truth, but I'm thankful today that I came through the pain and
realized that I was mistaken to put my faith in the things men have
said and written (e.g. in the Bible) about the God they claim. I hope
that in time you too will come to realize that you are putting your
faith, not in God, but in the things men say about God, and that these
men are not as trustworthy as you have been led to believe.
m
.
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
