What do Scientists think about evolution?

Religions > Atheism > What do Scientists think about evolution?

LINK TO THIS PAGE

rating : 0 | 0

Page 5 of 11

Topic:	Religions > Atheism
User:	"Soren K."
Date:	15 Aug 2004 08:40:30 PM
Object:	What do Scientists think about evolution?

This is a multi-part message in MIME format.
------=_NextPart_000_0048_01C482F7.57461440
Content-Type: multipart/alternative;
boundary="----=_NextPart_001_0049_01C482F7.57461440"
------=_NextPart_001_0049_01C482F7.57461440
Content-Type: text/plain;
charset="Windows-1252"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
BlankWhat do Scientists think about evolution?=20
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:=20
Recent Quotations:=20
"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.=20
"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].=20
"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].=20
"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.=20
"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.=20
"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.=20
"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.=20
"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.=20
"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=20
"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).=20
"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.=20
"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.=20
"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.=20
"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.=20
"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).=20
"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].=20
"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.=20
"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.=20
"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.=20
"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.=20
"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.=20
"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.=20
"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.=20
"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).=20
"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).=20
Perhaps scientists used to be kinder to evolution in the past:
Older Quotations:=20
"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].=20
"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.=20
"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.=20
"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.=20
'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].=20
"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].=20
"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).=20
"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.=20
"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].=20
"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].=20
"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.=20
"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.=20
" '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.=20
"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.=20
"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].=20
"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.=20
"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.=20
"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.=20
"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.=20
"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].=20
"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].=20
"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).=20
"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.=20
"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.=20
--=20
Celebrating the stupidity of Atheists
www.atheistfools.com
------=_NextPart_001_0049_01C482F7.57461440
Content-Type: text/html;
charset="Windows-1252"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN">
<HTML><HEAD><TITLE id=3DridTitle>Blank</TITLE>
<META http-equiv=3DContent-Type content=3D"text/html; =
charset=3Dwindows-1252"><BASE=20
href=3D"file://C:\Program Files\Common Files\Microsoft =
Shared\Stationery\">
<STYLE>BODY {
MARGIN-TOP: 25px; FONT-SIZE: 10pt; MARGIN-LEFT: 25px; COLOR: #000000; =
FONT-FAMILY: Arial, Helvetica
}
P.msoNormal {
MARGIN-TOP: 0px; FONT-SIZE: 10pt; MARGIN-LEFT: 0px; COLOR: #ffffcc; =
FONT-FAMILY: Helvetica, "Times New Roman"
}
LI.msoNormal {
MARGIN-TOP: 0px; FONT-SIZE: 10pt; MARGIN-LEFT: 0px; COLOR: #ffffcc; =
FONT-FAMILY: Helvetica, "Times New Roman"
}
</STYLE>
<META content=3D"MSHTML 6.00.2800.1458" name=3DGENERATOR></HEAD>
<BODY id=3DridBody bgColor=3D#ffffff=20
background=3Dcid:004301c48332$03a1df00$0300a8c0@desktop>
<DIV>What do Scientists think =
about=20
evolution?=20
Outside the occasional book or research paper, most =
scientists=20
just go about their work quietly. Unless something catches the attention =
of=20
mainstream media, most people never hear what they have to say. Let's =
take a=20
look at what scientists have to say: 
Recent Quotations: 
"I think, however, that we must go further than this =
and admit=20
that the only acceptable explanation is creation. I know that this is =
anathema=20
to physicists, as indeed it is to me, but we must not reject a theory =
that we do=20
not like if the experimental evidence supports it."?*H. Lipson, "A =
Physicist=20
Looks at Evolution," Physics Bulletin, 31 (1980), p. 138. 
"The hold of the evolutionary paradigm [theoretical =
system] is=20
so powerful that an idea which is more like a principle of medieval =
astrology=20
than a serious twentieth century scientific theory has become a reality =
for=20
evolutionary biologists."?*Michael Denton, Evolution: A Theory in Crisis =
(1985),=20
p. 306 [Australian molecular biologist]. 
"It was because Darwinian theory broke man's link =
with God=20
and set him adrift in a cosmos without purpose or end that its impact =
was so=20
fundamental. No other intellectual revolution in modern times . . so =
profoundly=20
affected the way men viewed themselves and their place in the=20
universe."?*Michael Denton, Evolution: A Theory in Crisis (1985), p. 67=20
[Australian molecular biologist]. 
"Scientists have no proof that life was not the =
result of an=20
act of creation."?*Robert Jastrow, The Enchanted Loom: Mind in the =
Universe=20
(1981), p. 19. 
"In fact, evolution became in a sense a scientific =
religion;=20
almost all scientists have accepted it and many are prepared to `bend' =
their=20
observations to fit in with it."?*H. Lipson, "A Physicist Looks at =
Evolution,"=20
Physics Bulletin, 31 (1980), p. 138. 
"When Darwin presented a paper [with Alfred Wallace] =
to the=20
Linnean Society in 1858, a Professor Haugton of Dublin remarked, `All =
that was=20
new was false, and what was true was old.' This, we think, will be the =
final=20
verdict on the matter, the epitaph on Darwinism."?*Fred Hoyle and N. =
Chandra=20
Wickramasinghe, Evolution from Space (1981), p. 159. 
"Creation and evolution, between them, exhaust the =
possible=20
explanations for the origin of living things. Organisms either appeared =
on the=20
earth fully developed or they did not. If they did not, they must have =
developed=20
from pre-existing species by some process of modification. If they did =
appear in=20
a fully developed state, they must have been created by some omnipotent=20
intelligence."?*D.J. Futuyma, Science on Trial (1983), p. 197. 
"The over-riding supremacy of the myth has created a =
widespread=20
illusion that the theory of evolution was all but proved one hundred =
years ago=20
and that all subsequent biological research?paleontological, zoological, =
and in=20
the newer branches of genetics and molecular biology?has provided=20
ever-increasing evidence for Darwinian ideas."?*Michael Denton, =
Evolution: A=20
Theory in Crisis (1985), p. 327. 
"Today our duty is to destroy the myth of evolution, =
considered=20
as a simple, understood and explained phenomenon which keeps rapidly =
unfolding=20
before us. Biologists must be encouraged to think about the weaknesses =
and=20
extrapolations that the theoreticians put forward or lay down as =
established=20
truths. The deceit is sometimes unconscious, but not always, since some =
people,=20
owing to their sectarianism, purposely overlook reality and refuse to=20
acknowledge the inadequacies and falsity of their beliefs."?*Pierre-Paul =
de=20
Grasse, Evolution of Living Organisms (1977), p. 8 
"I feel that the effect of hypotheses of common =
ancestry in=20
systematics has not been merely boring, not just a lack of knowledge; I =
think it=20
has been positively anti-knowledge . . Well, what about evolution? It =
certainly=20
has the function of knowledge, but does it convey any? Well, we are back =
to the=20
question I have been putting to people, `Is there one thing you can tell =
me=20
about?' The absence of answers seems to suggest that it is true, =
evolution does=20
not convey any knowledge."?*Colin Patterson, Director AMNH, Address at =
the=20
American Museum of Natural History (November 5, 1981). 
"Throughout the past century there has always existed =
a=20
significant minority of first-rate biologists who have never been able =
to bring=20
themselves to accept the validity of Darwinian claims. In fact, the =
number of=20
biologists who have expressed some degree of disillusionment is =
practically=20
endless."?*Michael Denton, Evolution: A Theory in Crisis (1986), p. 327. =

"I personally hold the evolutionary position, but yet =
lament=20
the fact that the majority of our Ph.D. graduates are frightfully =
ignorant of=20
many of the serious problems of the evolution theory. These problems =
will not be=20
solved unless we bring them to the attention of students. Most students =
assume=20
evolution is proved, the missing link is found, and all we have left is =
a few=20
rough edges to smooth out. Actually, quite the contrary is true; and =
many recent=20
discoveries . . have forced us to re-evaluate our basic =
assumptions."?*Director=20
of a large graduate program in biology, quoted in Creation: The Cutting =
Edge=20
(1982), p. 26. 
"It is therefore of immediate concern to both =
biologists and=20
layman that Darwinism is under attack. The theory of life that =
undermined=20
nineteenth-century religion has virtually become a religion itself and, =
in its=20
turn, is being threatened by fresh ideas. The attacks are certainly not =
limited=20
to those of the creationists and religious fundamentalists who deny =
Darwinism=20
for political and moral reason. The main thrust of the criticism comes =
from=20
within science itself. The doubts about Darwinism represent a political =
revolt=20
from within rather than a siege from without."?*B. Leith, The Descent of =
Darwin:=20
A Handbook of Doubts about Darwinism (1982), p. 11. 
"From the almost total absence of fossil evidence =
relative to=20
the origin of the phyla, it follows that any explanation of the =
mechanism in the=20
creative evolution of the fundamental structural plans is heavily =
burdened with=20
hypothesis. This should appear as an epigraph to every book on =
evolution. The=20
lack of direct evidence leads to the formulation of pure conjecture as =
to the=20
genesis of the phyla; we do not even have a basis to determine the =
extent to=20
which these opinions are correct."?*Pierre-Paul de Grasse, Evolution of =
Living=20
Organisms (1977), p. 31. 
"It is not the duty of science to defend the theory =
of=20
evolution, and stick by it to the bitter end?no matter which illogical =
and=20
unsupported conclusions it offers. On the contrary, it is expected that=20
scientists recognize the patently obvious impossibility of Darwin's=20
pronouncements and predictions . . Let's cut the umbilical cord that =
tied us=20
down to Darwin for such a long time. It is choking us and holding us =
back."?I.L.=20
Cohen, Darwin Was Wrong: A Study in Probabilities (1985). 
"Paleontologists [fossil experts] have paid an =
exorbitant price=20
for Darwin's argument. We fancy ourselves as the only true students of =
life's=20
history, yet to preserve our favored account of evolution by natural =
selection=20
we view our data as so bad that we almost never see the very process we =
profess=20
to study."?*Steven Jay Gould, The Panda's Thumb (1982), pp. 181-182 =
[Harvard=20
professor and the leading evolutionary spokesman of the latter half of =
the=20
twentieth century]. 
"Darwinism is a creed not only with scientists =
committed to=20
document the all-purpose role of natural selection. It is a creed with =
masses of=20
people who have at best a vague notion of the mechanism of evolution as =
proposed=20
by Darwin, let alone as further complicated by his successors. Clearly, =
the=20
appeal cannot be that of a scientific truth but of a philosophical =
belief which=20
is not difficult to identify. Darwinism is a belief in the =
meaninglessness of=20
existence."?*R. Kirk, "The Rediscovery of Creation," in National Review, =
(May=20
27, 1983), p. 641. 
"I have always been slightly suspicious of the theory =
of=20
evolution because of its ability to account for any property of living =
beings=20
(the long neck of the giraffe, for example). I have therefore tried to =
see=20
whether biological discoveries over the last thirty years or so fit in =
with=20
Darwin's theory. I do not think that they do. To my mind, the theory =
does not=20
stand up at all."?*H. Lipson, "A Physicist Looks at Evolution," Physic =
Bulletin,=20
31 (1980), p. 138. 
"Ultimately the Darwinian theory of evolution is no =
more nor=20
less than the great cosmogenic myth of the twentieth century . . the =
origin of=20
life and of new beings on earth is still largely as enigmatic as when =
Darwin set=20
sail on the [ship] Beagle."?*Michael Denton, Evolution: A Theory in =
Crisis=20
(1986), p. 358. 
"The fact is that the evidence was so patchy one =
hundred years=20
ago that even Darwin himself had increasing doubts as to the validity of =
his=20
views, and the only aspect of his theory which has received any support =
over the=20
past century is where it applies to microevolutionary phenomena. His =
general=20
theory, that all life on earth had originated and evolved by a gradual=20
successive accumulation of fortuitous mutations, is still, as it was in =
Darwin's=20
time, a highly speculative hypothesis entirely without direct factual =
support=20
and very far from that self-evident axiom some of its more aggressive =
advocates=20
would have us believe."?*Michael Denton, Evolution: A Theory in Crisis =
(1986),=20
p. 77. 
"George Bernard Shaw wisecracked once that Darwin had =
the luck=20
to please everybody who had an axe to grind. Well, I also have an axe to =
grind,=20
but I am not pleased. We have suffered through two world wars and are =
threatened=20
by an Armageddon. We have had enough of the Darwinian fallacy."?*Kenneth =
Hsu,=20
"Reply," Geology, 15 (1987), p. 177. 
"Therefore, a grotesque account of a period some =
thousands of=20
years ago is taken seriously though it be built by piling special =
assumptions on=20
special assumptions, ad hoc hypothesis [invented for a purpose] on ad =
hoc=20
hypothesis, and tearing apart the fabric of science whenever it appears=20
convenient. The result is a fantasia which is neither history nor=20
science."?*James Conant [chemist and former president, Harvard =
University],=20
quoted in Origins Research, Vol. 5, No. 2, 1982, p. 2. 
"We are certainly not arguing here that differential =
survival=20
of whole organisms does not occur. This must inevitably happen [i.e. =
some=20
species become extinct]. The question that we must ask is, does this =
represent=20
the controlling dynamic of organic evolution? Cannot a similar argument =
be=20
equally well-constructed to `explain' any frequency distribution? For =
example,=20
consider rocks which vary in hardness and also persist through time. =
Clearly the=20
harder rocks are better `adapted' to survive harsh climatic conditions. =
As=20
Lewontin points out, a similar story can be told about political =
parties,=20
rumors, jokes, stars, and discarded soft drink containers."?*A.J. Hughes =
and *D.=20
Lambert, "Functionalism, Structuralism, `Ways of Seeing,' " Journal of=20
Theoretical Biology, 787 (1984), pp. 796-797. 
"Darwinism is a creed not only with scientists =
committed to=20
document the all-purpose role of natural selection. It is a creed with =
masses of=20
people who have, at best, a vague notion of the mechanism of evolution =
as=20
proposed by Darwin, let alone as further complicated by his =
successors."?*S.=20
Jaki, Cosmos and Creator (1982). 
"I can envision observations and experiments that =
would=20
disprove any evolutionary theory I know."?*Stephen Jay Gould, "Evolution =
as Fact=20
and Theory," Discover 2(5):34-37 (1981). 
Perhaps scientists used to be kinder to evolution in the=20
past: Older Quotations: 
"The Darwinian theory of descent has not a single =
fact to=20
confirm it in the realm of nature. It is not the result of scientific =
research,=20
but purely the product of imagination."?*Dr. Fleischman [Erlangen =
zoologist].=20

"It is almost invariably assumed that animals with =
bodies=20
composed of a single cell represent the primitive animals from which all =
others=20
derived. They are commonly supposed to have preceded all other animal =
types in=20
their appearance. There is not the slightest basis for this =
assumption."?*Austin=20
Clark, The New Evolution (1930), pp. 235-236. 
"The hypothesis that life has developed from =
inorganic matter=20
is, at present, still an article of faith."?*J.W.N. Sullivan, The =
Limitations of=20
Science (1933), p. 95. 
"Where are we when presented with the mystery of =
life? We find=20
ourselves facing a granite wall which we have not even chipped . . We =
know=20
virtually nothing of growth, nothing of life."?*W. Kaempffert, "The =
Greatest=20
Mystery of All: The Secret of Life," New York Times. 
'The theory of evolution is totally inadequate to =
explain the=20
origin and manifestation of the inorganic world.' "?Sir John Ambrose =
Fleming,=20
F.R.S., quoted in H. Enoch, Evolution or Creation (1966), p. 91 =
[discoverer of=20
the thermionic valve]. 
"I am not satisfied that Darwin proved his point or =
that his=20
influence in scientific and public thinking has been beneficial . . the =
success=20
of Darwinism was accomplished by a decline in scientific =
integrity."?*W.R.=20
Thompson, Introduction to *Charles Darwin's, Origin of the Species =
[Canadian=20
scientist]. 
"One of the determining forces of scientism was a =
fantastic=20
accidental imagination which could explain every irregularity in the =
solar=20
system without explanation, leap the gaps in the atomic series without =
evidence=20
[a gap required by the Big Bang theory], postulate the discovery of =
fossils=20
which have never been discovered, and prophesy the success of breeding=20
experiments which have never succeeded. Of this kind of science it might =
truly=20
be said that it was `knowledge falsely so called.' "?*David C.C. Watson, =
The=20
Great Brain Robbery (1976). 
"The particular truth is simply that we have no =
reliable=20
evidence as to the evolutionary sequence . . One can find qualified =
professional=20
arguments for any group being the descendant of almost any other."?J. =
Bonner,=20
"Book Review," American Scientist, 49:1961, p. 240. 
"I had motives for not wanting the world to have =
meaning,=20
consequently assumed it had none, and was able without any difficulty to =
find=20
satisfying reasons for this assumption . . The philosopher who finds no =
meaning=20
in the world is not concerned exclusively with a problem in pure =
metaphysics; he=20
is also concerned to prove there is no valid reason why he personally =
should not=20
do as he wants to do . . For myself, as no doubt for most of my =
contemporaries,=20
the philosophy of meaninglessness was essentially an instrument of =
liberation.=20
The liberation we desired was simultaneously liberation from a certain =
political=20
and economic system and liberation from a certain system of morality. We =
objected to the morality because it interfered with our sexual =
freedom."?*Aldous=20
Huxley, "Confessions of a Professed Atheist," Report: Perspective on the =
News,=20
Vol. 3, June 1966, p. 19 [grandson of evolutionist Thomas Huxley, =
Darwin's=20
closest friend and promoter, and brother of evolutionist Julian Huxley. =
Aldous=20
Huxley was one of the most influential liberal writers of the 20th =
century].=20

"Evolutionism is a fairy tale for grown-ups. This =
theory has=20
helped nothing in the progress of science. It is useless."?*Bounoure, Le =
Monde=20
Et La Vie (October 1963) [Director of Research at the National center of =
Scientific Research in France]. 
"Finally, there is only one attitude which is =
possible as I=20
have just shown: It consists in affirming that intelligence comes before =
life.=20
Many people will say this is not science, it is philosophy. The only =
thing I am=20
interested in is fact, and this conclusion comes out of an analysis and=20
observation of the facts."?*G. Salet, Hasard et Certitude: Le =
Transformisme=20
devant la Biologie Actuelle (1973), p. 331. 
"As by this theory, innumerable transitional forms =
must have=20
existed. Why do we not find them embedded in the crust of the earth? Why =
is not=20
all nature in confusion [of halfway species] instead of being, as we see =
them,=20
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=20
conceivable. I find no difficulty in conceiving that, at some former =
period,=20
this universe was not in existence; and that it made its appearance in =
six days=20
.. . in consequence of the volition of some pre-existing Being."?*Thomas =
Huxley,=20
quoted in *Leonard Huxley, Life and Letters of Thomas Henry Huxley, Vol. =
II=20
(1903), p. 429. 
"The theory of evolution suffers from grave defects, =
which are=20
more and more apparent as time advances. It can no longer square with =
practical=20
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=20
which can be used only to classify empiricisms [theories] and to show =
the=20
relationships which such a classification implies . . these theories are =
actually tautologies and, as such, cannot make empirically testable =
predictions.=20
They are not scientific theories at all."?*R.H. Peters, "Tautology in =
Evolution=20
and Ecology," American Naturalist (1976), Vol. 110, No. 1, p. 1 =
[emphasis his].=20

"With the failure of these many efforts, science was =
left in=20
the somewhat embarrassing position of having to postulate theories of =
living=20
origins which it could not demonstrate. After having chided the =
theologian for=20
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=20
what, after long effort, could not be proved to take place today had, in =
truth,=20
taken place in the primeval past."?*Loren Eisley, The Immense Journey, =
(1957),=20
p. 199. 
"The irony is devastating. The main purpose of =
Darwinism was to=20
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,=20
Unfinished Animal (1975), pp. 101-102. 
"The evolution theory can by no means be regarded as =
an=20
innocuous natural philosophy, but that it is a serious obstruction to =
biological=20
research. It obstructs?as has been repeatedly shown?the attainment of =
consistent=20
results, even from uniform experimental material. For everything must =
ultimately=20
be forced to fit this theory. An exact biology cannot, therefore, be =
built=20
up."?*H. Neilsson, Synthetische Artbuilding, 1954, p. 11. 
"My attempts to demonstrate evolution by an =
experiment carried=20
on for more than 40 years have completely failed. At least I should =
hardly be=20
accused of having started from any preconceived anti-evolutionary=20
standpoint."?*H. Nilsson, Synthetic Speciation (1953), p. 31. 
"Just as pre-Darwinian biology was carried out by =
people whose=20
faith was in the Creator and His plan, post-Darwinian biology is being =
carried=20
out by people whose faith is in, almost, the deity of Darwin. They've =
seen their=20
task as to elaborate his theory and to fill the gaps in it, to fill the =
trunk=20
and twigs of the tree. But it seems to me that the theoretical framework =
has=20
very little impact on the actual progress of the work in biological =
research. In=20
a way some aspects of Darwinism and of neo-Darwinism seem to me to have =
held=20
back the progress of science."?Colin Patterson, The Listener [senior=20
paleontologist at the British Museum of Natural History, London]. 
"The creation account in Genesis and the theory of =
evolution=20
could not be reconciled. One must be right and the other wrong. The =
story of the=20
fossils agreed with the account of Genesis. In the oldest rocks we did =
not find=20
a series of fossils covering the gradual changes from the most primitive =
creatures to developed forms, but rather in the oldest rocks developed =
species=20
suddenly appeared. Between every species there was a complete absence of =
intermediate fossils."?*D.B. Gower, "Scientist Rejects Evolution," =
Kentish=20
Times, England, December 11, 1975, p. 4 [biochemist]. 
"We still do not know the mechanics of evolution in =
spite of=20
the over-confident claims in some quarters, nor are we likely to make =
further=20
progress in this by the classical methods of paleontology or biology; =
and we=20
shall certainly not advance matters by jumping up and down shrilling, =
`Darwin is=20
god and I, So-and-so, am his prophet.' "?*Errol White, Proceedings of =
the=20
Linnean Society, London, 177:8 (1966). 
"What is it [evolution] based upon? Upon nothing =
whatever but=20
faith, upon belief in the reality of the unseen?belief in the fossils =
that=20
cannot be produced, belief in the embryological experiments that refuse =
to come=20
off. It is faith unjustified by works."?*Arthur N. Field. 
"The theories of evolution, with which our studious =
youth have=20
been deceived, constitute actually a dogma that all the world continues =
to=20
teach; but each, in his specialty, the zoologist or the botanist, =
ascertains=20
that none of the explanations furnished is adequate . . It results from =
this=20
summary, that the theory of evolution is impossible."?*P. Lemoine,=20
"Introduction: De L' Evolution?" Encyclopedie Francaise, Vol. 5 (1937), =
p. 6.=20
</DIV>
<DIV> -- Celebrating the stupidity of Atheists <A=20
href=3D"http://www.atheistfools.com">www.atheistfools.com</A></DIV>
 </BODY></HTML>
------=_NextPart_001_0049_01C482F7.57461440--
------=_NextPart_000_0048_01C482F7.57461440
Content-Type: image/gif;
name="Blank Bkgrd.gif"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64
Content-ID: <004301c48332$03a1df00$0300a8c0@desktop>
R0lGODlhLQAtAID/AP////f39ywAAAAALQAtAEACcAxup8vtvxKQsFon6d02898pGkgiYoCm6sq2
7iqWcmzOsmeXeA7uPJd5CYdD2g9oPF58ygqz+XhCG9JpJGmlYrPXGlfr/Yo/VW45e7amp2tou/lW
xo/zX513z+Vt+1n/tiX2pxP4NUhy2FM4xtjIUQAAOw==
------=_NextPart_000_0048_01C482F7.57461440--
.

User: "John Ings"
Title: Re: What do Scientists think about evolution?	23 Aug 2004 07:02:56 PM

On 23 Aug 2004 13:40:58 -0700,

(Billy Goat)
wrote:

How about wolves? They're a completely different species from
domesticated dogs, but they are canine. Do they count as dogs?

A good guide here is whether or not they are interfertile.

I've heard that dogs and wolves can interbreed. Don't know about
foxes.

Coyotes can interbreed with dogs too.

Correct. Dogs all share a common ancestor, a Dog.

Whose ancestor was a wolf.

And I gather (correct me if I'm wrong) that by rejecting

"evolution", you reject the notion that *species* can have a common
ancestor.

No, not at all. I am rejecting the idea that soemthign other than a Dog
produced a Dog.

Then wolves and coyotes, interfertile with dogs, are nonetheless a
seperate creation?

Lord of this world. Earth. Do you remember when the devil took Jesus
up to a high place and offered him all the kingdoms of the world?

From what high place, in the 1st century CE, could one see all the
kingdoms of the world?

All for the sake of obtaining knowledge, which,

according to Scripture, was the original sin?

No. Disobedience was the original sin.

The sin of seeking after knowledge.

"But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat
of it:for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die." [Gen
2:17]

Sounds to me like the eating is what carried the death penalty. God
did not say, "if you disobey me you will die."

For the crime of eating of the Tree of Knowledge of Everything, which
would make man "like us". Like the Almighty.
## This is another fine myth you've gotten me into!
.

User: "David Jensen"
Title: Re: What do Scientists think about evolution?	22 Aug 2004 09:04:49 AM

In alt.talk.creationism, "JISTASKKIN" <try_not@here.com> wrote in
<jn1Wc.45294$X12.19308@edtnps84>:

"Billy Goat" <ericvonl@my-deja.com> wrote in message
news:6bd3c70a.0408201352.55e55bcc@posting.google.com...

....

You seem very intent on restricting your brotherhood. What exactly do
you think is so horrible about living in harmony with non-Christians?

There is nothing horrible with it at all. One of my best friends is a 6'2"
250 lb beer swiggin joint tootin biker. It is a reality. But when push
comes to shove, Biblical principles and values take precedence.

When will that happen? I have never seen you demonstrate that you are
Christian on this newsgroup.

or with animals? It's as if you Christians *crave* isolation from the
rest of the universe.

Animals were created for us to have dominion over. We are not "one* with
the animals. Different animals serve different purposes. Just that simple.

Ignoring, for the moment, your lie about natural history, don't you
think this requires us to be good stewards of the earth?

What exactly do you think the philosophy of evolution is anyway, and
where did you hear of it?

Evolution asserts that life arose by purely naturalistic causes.

No, evolution is about the changes in life over time.

Evolution asserts that *species* arose by purely naturalistic causes.

Where did those come from?

As a response to your mis-statement about what evolution is.

Naturalistic causes are the only ones we can see.

I think you meant to say the results are the only thing we can see. Right?

I can't speak for him, but are you trying to do something with this?

Why make assertions

about causes nobody can see?

Well, that happens all the time. Science makes predictions on unseen
things.

I think you might be using unseen in differing contexts.

The effects of these unseen objects are studied and predictions about what
caused the effect are made.

But they are are not unknown or unknowable. Maybe a better word than
'unseen' should be used in this discussion.

People would wonder how science could get

such ideas without seeing them. And things that can be seen are a bit
more likely to be true than things that can't be seen.

Sure I would agree with that.

<snip>

Correct. Dogs all share a common ancestor, a Dog.

Wolf.

And I gather (correct me if I'm wrong) that by rejecting

"evolution", you reject the notion that *species* can have a common
ancestor.

No, not at all. I am rejecting the idea that soemthign other than a Dog
produced a Dog.

Are you redefining wolf to mean dog?

And yet you've just declared some species to *be*

variations.

You need to be careful about the classifications, most fit but there are
some that are different, so don't go trying pigeon hole me on a
classification system that does not account for biblical kinds.

You need to define what a biblical kind is.

So do these different species have common ancestors or
not? And if they do, why don't you consider that "evolution"?

Most of these discrepancies would not share a common ancestor no.

That claim is contrary to the evidence.

It's a slippery slope, innit? :)

Not really, science (genetics...etc) helps confirm where the lines are
drawn.

You are mistaken or dishonest in that claim.

<snip>

What color were Adam and Eve?

Best estimate based on scientific observation would be a light brown.

Scientific observation? Somebody observed Adam and Eve? Hmm...

No, but somebody has observed frequencies of genetic combinations WTR to
skin color.

It's a bogus claim. The variability of human beings cannot be explained
by one pair of humans within the past 10,000 years.

In my younger days as a church-going Christian, I was terrified of
doing any observations at all.

I am not sure why you would be. Did someone teach that to you? Did you
read it some where.
Where you terrified of everything before you became a Christian? I just
can't understand how you would become terrified of observing stuff after
becoming a Christian. Please explain further.

Just as you find it necessary to ignore the evidence that shows that
your interpretations of the Bible are wrong, so do many other people who
hold to a particular brand of Christianity. Almost all Christians who
claim that the Bible is literally true know that their teachings about
Genesis are objectively wrong, but they refuse to admit it -- they would
rather remain ignorant of science than admit that they could be
mistaken.

A flawed human being, using the mundane

senses to study the physical world which, according to Scripture, has
Satan as its Lord?

The question to ask yourself here is "Lord of what"? Did you go and see
what exactly what Satan is Lord of?

There is no evidence that Satan exists. There is no evidence that any
gods exist.

All for the sake of obtaining knowledge, which,

according to Scripture, was the original sin?

No. Disobedience was the original sin.

The story of the Garden of Eden puts God in a bad light.

God wants us all to be
ignorant.

No, that is not what the Bible teaches at all. And that is not what God
wants at all. He wants us to love him with all our hearts and souls and
*minds*
God encourages exploration and study.

Literalist Christians tell us not to.

Any search for truth will damn you to Hell!!!!

No, if you decide to reject his offer of forgiveness of your sin, then you
damn yourself to hell.

That has nothing to do with Genesis, though, does it.

How did you overcome this terror?

I was never actually terrified, but I suspect you could have easily
overcome your fear by reading and studying the Bible to see what it actually
said. I doubt if you could come up with even one teeny tiny verse to
actually back anything you've said about what you think scripture says.

You are afraid of the truth about science. You have to lie about it to
comfort yourself.
....
.

User: "John Ings"
Title: Re: What do Scientists think about evolution?	19 Aug 2004 04:50:17 PM

On Thu, 19 Aug 2004 20:28:26 GMT, Grendel <nope@here.net> wrote:

How about wolves? They're a completely different species from
domesticated dogs, but they are canine. Do they count as dogs?

Are dogs canine?

How

about foxes?

Are foxes canine?

Family Canidae
Genus Canis (wolves, jackals, and dogs)
Species Canis familiaris (dog)
Species Canis adustus (side-striped jackal)
Species Canis aureus (golden jackal)
Species Canis latrans (coyote)
Species Canis lupus (gray wolf)
Species Canis mesomelas (black-backed jackal)
Species Canis rufus (red wolf)
Species Canis simensis (Simian jackal)
Genus Vulpes (foxes)
Species Vulpes bengalensis (Bengal fox)
Species Vulpes cana (Blandford's fox)
Species Vulpes chama (Cape fox)
Species Vulpes corsac (Corsac fox)
Species Vulpes ferrilata (Tibetan fox)
Species Vulpes pallida (pale fox)
Species Vulpes rueppellii (R�ppel's fox)
Species Vulpes velox (swift fox)
Species Vulpes vulpes (red fox)
Species Vulpes zerda (fennec)
Mind you, that's only a partial listing. The rest is at
http://animaldiversity.ummz.umich.edu/site/accounts/classification/Canidae.html#Canidae
## In nova fert animas mutatis dicare formas corpora.
Ovid
.

User: "Lloyd Parker"
Title: Re: What do Scientists think about evolution?	17 Aug 2004 09:54:54 AM

In article <S_rUc.34737$fz2.22945@edtnps89>, Grendel <nope@here.net> wrote:

John Ings wrote:

On Tue, 17 Aug 2004 16:32:48 GMT, Grendel <nope@here.net> wrote:

Once again, THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS AN EVOLUTIONIST.

If you beleive in evolution, you are an evolutionist.
Gramatically speaking, it makes perfect sense.

Do you believe in gravity Grendel? Are you a gravitationalist?

What you are doing is trying to "piggyback" your philosophy on science.
Comparing gravity to evolution is really getting desperate, if
evolution was indeed recognized in the manner you wished, there would be
no need for you to be *sneaking* it in the back door like this.

No, it's exactly analogous.
Gravity is an observed fact, and there is a law predicting its effect and a
theory explaining it.
Evolution is an observed fact, and there are laws predicting its effects and
a theory explaining it.

For example:
Gravity can be tested and observed in all parts of the world with
various experiments that give consistent results.
Now, what experiments do you suggest can be used to show evolution is
just as real as gravity can be shown to be?

Many. Just as we know black holes exist, the Big Bang happened, and how
stars form even though we can't experiment with that in the lab.

THESE SPINOFFS WOULDN'T EVEN EXIST WITHOUT THE OBSERVED
FACTS KNOWN AS EVOLUTION.

But they are extrapolations of something called variations.

No they are observations of the nested hierarchy of extant life;

Your belief, fine.

the nested hierarchy in time of extinct life; observation of genetic
mutation; observation of change in allele frequency in populations
over time; observation of natural and artificial selection and their
effects; observation of speciation in the wild and in the lab and
observation of hybridization in the wild and in the lab.

All of which contributes to variation among species. That is all
science has ever observed and known to be true.
You however believe that those changes can somehow transform and create
totally new animal and plants. That has never been observed nor
confirmed by science.

Birds.

Plus the testimony of DNA researchers.

Who confirm that yes variation does occur.

you then *believe* evolution occurs.

We see it happening and understand why.

What you see is variation and *believe* in evolution.

Get an education, learn what evolution actually is, and what it isn't,
how science works, what it takes for scientific explanations to be
accepted and why they are accepted.

You should try using some real support for your arguments, sorry,
name-calling just don't cut it.

But you won't read it Grendel. You'll just do the ad-hominem thing
again and say it's support from atheists and therefor you won't look
at it.

I have looked at it.

It's not an -ism. Nobody "believes" it it the sense creationists
believe in creation.

That's your opinion. The simple fact is many people including those on
talk.origins use it to refer to those who believe evolution.

So do you believe in gravitationalism Grendel?

Trying to associate your belief in evolution by combining it with
gravity is actually proof you need peoples imaginations to accept your
belief, as ti does not succeed on it's own.

After all gravity is a fact of nature just like evolution.
Do you append and 'ism' to every belief in natural phenomena?
Are thermometers a tool of thermalism?
Does my belief in the Theory of Electronics make me a electronicist?
An advocate of electronicism?

What you are doing is similar to what advertisers do with beer and
sports. No matter how much beer a person drinks it will not make them
athletic.
Same with evolution, no matter how many real sciences you try and
mention along with evolution, it will not make it scientific in nature.
It is a philosophy. Just the fact you must try and convince people by
using these tactics proves it.

## Evolution is both scientific fact and scientific theory.
## Creationism is neither

User: "John Ings"
Title: Re: What do Scientists think about evolution?	17 Aug 2004 05:46:29 PM

On Tue, 17 Aug 2004 18:19:30 GMT, Grendel <nope@here.net> wrote:

Once again, THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS AN EVOLUTIONIST.

If you beleive in evolution, you are an evolutionist.
Gramatically speaking, it makes perfect sense.

Do you believe in gravity Grendel? Are you a gravitationalist?

But evolution IS so recognized by science.

See below.

All of which contributes to variation among species.

Far more than just variation.

That is all science has ever observed and known to be true.

You know this how? Because liars at Creationist websites so assured
you?

You however believe that those changes can somehow transform and create
totally new animal and plants.

And you believe that there is some magic barrier that prevents
imperfect gene replication beyond a certain degree?

That has never been observed nor confirmed by science.

According to science it has.
"The theory of evolution explains how life on earth has changed. In
scientific terms, 'theory' does not mean 'guess' or 'hunch' as it does
in everyday usage. Scientific theories are explanations of natural
phenomena built up logically from testable observations and
hypotheses. Biological evolution is the best scientific explanation we
have for the enormous range of observations about the living world.
Scientists most often use the word 'fact' to describe an observation.
But scientists can also use fact to mean something that has been
tested or observed so many times that there is no longer a compelling
reason to keep testing or looking for examples. The occurrence of
evolution in this sense is a fact. Scientists no longer question
whether descent with modification occurred because the evidence
supporting the idea is so strong."
National Academy of Sciences
http://books.nap.edu/books/0309063647/html/56.html#pagetop

Plus the testimony of DNA researchers.

Who confirm that yes variation does occur.

Who confirm that speciation has occured.

you then *believe* evolution occurs.

We see it happening and understand why.

What you see is variation and *believe* in evolution.

Helacyton is way beyond variation.

You should try using some real support for your arguments, sorry,
name-calling just don't cut it.

But you won't read it Grendel. You'll just do the ad-hominem thing
again and say it's support from atheists and therefor you won't look
at it.

I have looked at it.

You refused to look. You told me you wouldn't look.

It's not an -ism. Nobody "believes" it it the sense creationists
believe in creation.

That's your opinion. The simple fact is many people including those on
talk.origins use it to refer to those who believe evolution.

So do you believe in gravitationalism Grendel?

Trying to associate your belief in evolution by combining it with
gravity is actually proof you need peoples imaginations to accept your
belief, as ti does not succeed on it's own.

Combining? I made an analogy, and an apt one.

no matter how many real sciences you try and
mention along with evolution, it will not make it scientific in nature.

What are your qualifications to determine what's scientific and what
isn't? Who are you to tell scientists what's scientific?

It is a philosophy. Just the fact you must try and convince people by
using these tactics proves it.

You're confusing the philosophy of evolution with biological evolution
Grendel. The philosophy of evolution predates Darwin by more than half
a century. It is a child of the Enlightenment, and is the idea that
the world and its contents have developed from primitive beginning
through natural processes, which is correct, but it also expressed the
ideology of upward change and improvement in the human lot as a force
of nature. It was espoused by Jean-Baptiste de Lemarck, who had a lot
of ideas that didn't quite pan out. This philosophy of evolution is a
completely different thing from biological evolution. Indeed, when
Darwin's theories appeared, they blew Larmarckism out of the water.

## Evolution is both scientific fact and scientific theory.
## Creationism is neither

User: "Grendel"
Title: Re: What do Scientists think about evolution?	18 Aug 2004 09:56:18 AM

John Ings wrote:

On Tue, 17 Aug 2004 18:19:30 GMT, Grendel <nope@here.net> wrote:

Once again, THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS AN EVOLUTIONIST.

If you beleive in evolution, you are an evolutionist.
Gramatically speaking, it makes perfect sense.

Do you believe in gravity Grendel? Are you a gravitationalist?

But evolution IS so recognized by science.

Like warp drive. Beem us up Scotty.

See below.

See above. See that you gave nothing above. See John run. See John
has nothing real to support his assertion that evolution is like
gravity. See John evolution is nothing like gravity. See John,
comparing it to gravity to *piggyback* evolution on real science is not
possible.

All of which contributes to variation among species.

Far more than just variation.

So you *believe*

That is all science has ever observed and known to be true.

You know this how? Because liars at Creationist websites so assured
you?

No John, becasue it's not science.

You however believe that those changes can somehow transform and create
totally new animal and plants.

And you believe that there is some magic barrier that prevents
imperfect gene replication beyond a certain degree?

Yes. The barrier is all scientific research and observation and
experimentation from all of recored human history.
The fun starts when you expect us to believe that a thousand billion
galaxies popped out of your magic quantum hat. Then, miraculously, life
appeared as if by magic. And, more tricks as the little life form found
something to eat, a mate and went on to magically turn into everything
we see today.

That has never been observed nor confirmed by science.

According to science it has.

<..!Begin philosophical musing>

"The theory of evolution explains how life on earth has changed. In
scientific terms, 'theory' does not mean 'guess' or 'hunch' as it does
in everyday usage. Scientific theories are explanations of natural
phenomena built up logically from testable observations and
hypotheses. Biological evolution is the best scientific explanation we
have for the enormous range of observations about the living world.
Scientists most often use the word 'fact' to describe an observation.
But scientists can also use fact to mean something that has been
tested or observed so many times that there is no longer a compelling
reason to keep testing or looking for examples. The occurrence of
evolution in this sense is a fact. Scientists no longer question
whether descent with modification occurred because the evidence
supporting the idea is so strong."
National Academy of Sciences
http://books.nap.edu/books/0309063647/html/56.html#pagetop

<..! end philosophical statement>

Plus the testimony of DNA researchers.

Who confirm that yes variation does occur.

Who confirm that speciation has occured.

Variation of species yes.

you then *believe* evolution occurs.

We see it happening and understand why.

What you see is variation and *believe* in evolution.

Helacyton is way beyond variation.

Why do you think so?

You should try using some real support for your arguments, sorry,
name-calling just don't cut it.

But you won't read it Grendel. You'll just do the ad-hominem thing
again and say it's support from atheists and therefor you won't look
at it.

I have looked at it.

You refused to look. You told me you wouldn't look.

I thought it would make you happy.

It's not an -ism. Nobody "believes" it it the sense creationists
believe in creation.

That's your opinion. The simple fact is many people including those on
talk.origins use it to refer to those who believe evolution.

So do you believe in gravitationalism Grendel?

Trying to associate your belief in evolution by combining it with
gravity is actually proof you need peoples imaginations to accept your
belief, as ti does not succeed on it's own.

Combining? I made an analogy, and an apt one.

One you can't support. See above.

no matter how many real sciences you try and
mention along with evolution, it will not make it scientific in nature.

What are your qualifications to determine what's scientific and what
isn't? Who are you to tell scientists what's scientific?

Ahhh...the dodge, and attempt to attack the person and not the argument.
Try again.

It is a philosophy. Just the fact you must try and convince people by
using these tactics proves it.

You're confusing the philosophy of evolution with biological evolution
Grendel.

You are confusing science and evolution. Variation is science.
Evolution is a belief.
The philosophy of evolution predates Darwin by more than half

a century. It is a child of the Enlightenment, and is the idea that
the world and its contents have developed from primitive beginning
through natural processes, which is correct, but it also expressed the
ideology of upward change and improvement in the human lot as a force
of nature. It was espoused by Jean-Baptiste de Lemarck, who had a lot
of ideas that didn't quite pan out. This philosophy of evolution is a
completely different thing from biological evolution. Indeed, when
Darwin's theories appeared, they blew Larmarckism out of the water.

Fine, you have your philosophical beliefs and I have mine. Mine happen
to be more scientific.

## Evolution is both scientific fact and scientific theory.
## Creationism is neither

User: "Mad Scientist"
Title: Re: What do Scientists think about evolution?	18 Aug 2004 01:56:49 PM

Grendel wrote:

John Ings wrote:

On Tue, 17 Aug 2004 18:19:30 GMT, Grendel <nope@here.net> wrote:

Once again, THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS AN EVOLUTIONIST.

If you beleive in evolution, you are an evolutionist.
Gramatically speaking, it makes perfect sense.

Do you believe in gravity Grendel? Are you a gravitationalist?

What you are doing is trying to "piggyback" your philosophy on
science. Comparing gravity to evolution is really getting desperate,
if evolution was indeed recognized in the manner you wished, there
would be no need for you to be *sneaking* it in the back door like this.

But evolution IS so recognized by science.

Like warp drive. Beem us up Scotty.

See below.

Fact is they have nothing to support their theory of evolution, not one
iota of fact. All they have is assumptions and extrapolations. When
they are cornered they demonstrate such a dizzying illogic its quite
amusing. Now they wish to challenge definitions which are in use
worlwide. They argue that evolutionist is incorrect, but its ok to
refer to those who believe in God as creationists. Its no use talking
to John, he is such a simplistic nut, no matter how sincere he appears
to be. He can't even get definitions of thermodynamics properly stated
and prefers to drag into the mud anyone who knows evolution is nothing
but a theory.
Perhaps he should read this web site here:
http://www.trueorigin.org/steiger.asp but I doubt he will read it
without finding problems with it because he remains a puerile deceived
little lunatic.

All of which contributes to variation among species.

Far more than just variation.

So you *believe*

It was very amusing to watch the evolutionists here run off into word
games quoting dictionaries and condemning the definitions. Anyone who
argues with these little babies won't get very far, because they don't
care to show actual 'evidence' of what they claim since none exists.
Even the Big Bang theory is now on its last legs as a theory and no
serious physicist can deny that simple truth. But these sociopaths
continue to spout their nonsense and wild claims that creationists don't
understand science in much the same way Marxists used evolutionary
theory to decieve billions of people the world over into mental
servitude and slavery. The illogic they continue to demonstrate also
proves how little they understand of human nature with all their mental
word games and psychological twists and turns, makes a roller coaster
ride seem strait.

That is all science has ever observed and known to be true.

You know this how? Because liars at Creationist websites so assured
you?

No John, becasue it's not science.

Oh don't argue what is obviously a real propaganda 'science', but a
science nevertheless.

You however believe that those changes can somehow transform and
create totally new animal and plants.

And you believe that there is some magic barrier that prevents
imperfect gene replication beyond a certain degree?

Ofcourse they can't explain these things much like they have no
explanation for the millions of shapes seen in biological life either.
They like to think and believe that genetics has the answer, and are
they in for the biggest shock of their lives when the brainwashing is
finally removed undone if they are still alive at the time. If Lenin
were still alive he would be very pleased by how much the lie of
evolution has decieved the Western scientists.

That has never been observed nor confirmed by science.

According to science it has.

<..!Begin philosophical musing>

"The theory of evolution explains how life on earth has changed. In
scientific terms, 'theory' does not mean 'guess' or 'hunch' as it does
in everyday usage. Scientific theories are explanations of natural
phenomena built up logically from testable observations and
hypotheses. Biological evolution is the best scientific explanation we
have for the enormous range of observations about the living world.
Scientists most often use the word 'fact' to describe an observation.
But scientists can also use fact to mean something that has been
tested or observed so many times that there is no longer a compelling
reason to keep testing or looking for examples. The occurrence of
evolution in this sense is a fact. Scientists no longer question
whether descent with modification occurred because the evidence
supporting the idea is so strong." National Academy of Sciences
http://books.nap.edu/books/0309063647/html/56.html#pagetop

<..! end philosophical statement>

Its no use, they can't see through mental programming because they
remain entranced by it.

Plus the testimony of DNA researchers.

Who confirm that yes variation does occur.

They confuse heredity laws of genetics with the theory of evolution.
They fail to realize that the theory they hold on to with dear life was
developed by people in the 1800's when DNA and genetics did not even
exist. Now they claim DNA proves Darwin correct and fail to realize
they only prove how they are hypnotized by a mind-control fallacy of
propaganda.

Who confirm that speciation has occured.

Variation of species yes.

Isaac Newton laws of gravity are no more accurate than Darwin's Origin
of the Species. With Darwin's logic, I could easily say mankind
developed from dogs because we also have two eyes, two ears, and four
limbs just like dogs and argue the changes only represent how speciation
millions of years ago altered the course humanity took from the
evolutionary path dogs landed on. What a joke. Ofcourse don't expect
such a simple analogy to be understood by evolutionists.

you then *believe* evolution occurs.

We see it happening and understand why.

What you see is variation and *believe* in evolution.

If all we have is the fundamentalist evolutionists running scientific
bodies, no wonder there are no real breakthroughs occurring in the
treatment of diseases. They only fund projects which continue to
provide support for their outlandish theories instead of truly being
scientifically objective and looking at how genetics, chromosomes and
phylogenetics really operate. Instead they call it science when they
retrofit findings into their delusions of evolution.

Helacyton is way beyond variation.

Why do you think so?

They have no more understanding of why cells begin to die off any more
than they understand why cells got started in the first place, let alone
an understanding of what causes specific cells like cancer. Again the
research tends to be focussed on theory building rather than actual
research like in the case of the majority of astrophysical 'research'
being done these days.

You should try using some real support for your arguments, sorry,
name-calling just don't cut it.

But you won't read it Grendel. You'll just do the ad-hominem thing
again and say it's support from atheists and therefor you won't look
at it.

I have looked at it.

Why bother Grendel, don't you realize you aren't debating with the
open-minded and scientifically objective but with propagandists?

You refused to look. You told me you wouldn't look.

I thought it would make you happy.

Evolutionists have no more explanation for why the cells divide in the
first place, which all they can describe is the facts that it does
divide and mechanism which leads it to divide. The why remains beyond
their intellectual grasp because they are guilty of the exact same
fundamentalism they accuse creationists of being guilty of.

It's not an -ism. Nobody "believes" it it the sense creationists
believe in creation.

That's your opinion. The simple fact is many people including
those on talk.origins use it to refer to those who believe
evolution.

So do you believe in gravitationalism Grendel?

Trying to associate your belief in evolution by combining it with
gravity is actually proof you need peoples imaginations to accept
your belief, as ti does not succeed on it's own.

Scripture says a proverb in the mouth of fools is foolishness and they
prove that Wisdom again and again.

Combining? I made an analogy, and an apt one.

One you can't support. See above.

Their claim of wanting evidence is nothing but a propaganda ploy, and a
lie. They prove this when they state that evidence for evolution exists
but never provide it. They prove this when they claim creationism is
not science, without even looking at the facts of creationism.

After all gravity is a fact of nature just like evolution. Do you
append and 'ism' to every belief in natural phenomena?
Are thermometers a tool of thermalism? Does my belief in the Theory
of Electronics make me a electronicist?
An advocate of electronicism?

no matter how many real sciences you try and mention along with
evolution, it will not make it scientific in nature.

What are your qualifications to determine what's scientific and what
isn't? Who are you to tell scientists what's scientific?

Ahhh...the dodge, and attempt to attack the person and not the argument.
Try again.

Thats just it, evolutionists attempt to claim 'science' belongs to them
only and anyone else not supporting their theories are unscientific.
the same is done to those who say there was no Big Bang - which is set
to be discarded now that physicists have proven the Hubble evidence for
it as CMBR was in fact misunderstood. The final blow to Big Banger's
main proof of the theory. Mind you, the Big Bang never proposed even
once that the cosmological expansion could speed up since such a
speeding up defied the second law of thermodynamics known as entropy -
Big Bang supporters ignored this evidence while continuing to claim that
the Big Bang theory is scientific.

It is a philosophy. Just the fact you must try and convince people
by using these tactics proves it.

You're confusing the philosophy of evolution with biological evolution
Grendel.

You are confusing science and evolution. Variation is science.
Evolution is a belief.

Bravo! My son asked me about evolution the other day and I told him
that it was being taught as a belief in schools and the scientists have
no evidence to support that belief. He then asked me why would they be
teaching it then, and I told him it was because they simply hate God and
the notion of a Creator being responsible for Life in the cosmos. He
replied that that was really stupid of them. Even a child can see how
"stupid" they are without all the pedantic 'science' that goes with it. LOL

The philosophy of evolution predates Darwin by more than half

Fine, you have your philosophical beliefs and I have mine. Mine happen
to be more scientific.

Its no use Grendel, they have a belief which they claim as 'scientific'
and no matter how much evidence proves exactly that, they remain
incapable of seeing it.

## Evolution is both scientific fact and scientific theory. ##
Creationism is neither

Evolution is a lie called a scientific fact by those supporting it
without providing one shred of evidence other than fancy drawings of
similarities between how other species appear. With that logic I can
say hey, here is a rock that appears to have the face of a human,
therefore we must conclude that humans evolved from rocks! LOL
.

User: "Tom"
Title: Re: What do Scientists think about evolution?	18 Aug 2004 03:49:12 PM

"Mad Scientist" <alice@in.wonderland> wrote in message
news:RDNUc.1800417$Ar.451601@twister01.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com...

Grendel wrote:

John Ings wrote:

On Tue, 17 Aug 2004 18:19:30 GMT, Grendel <nope@here.net> wrote:

Once again, THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS AN EVOLUTIONIST.

If you beleive in evolution, you are an evolutionist.
Gramatically speaking, it makes perfect sense.

Do you believe in gravity Grendel? Are you a gravitationalist?

What you are doing is trying to "piggyback" your philosophy on
science. Comparing gravity to evolution is really getting desperate,
if evolution was indeed recognized in the manner you wished, there
would be no need for you to be *sneaking* it in the back door like

this.

But evolution IS so recognized by science.

Like warp drive. Beem us up Scotty.

See below.

Too bad there aren't any scientists at that web site.