Customer Discussions > Science forum

Why are Darwinists here so scientifically illiterate?


Sort: Oldest first | Newest first
Showing 1-25 of 1000 posts in this discussion
Initial post: Mar 13, 2011 6:08:11 AM PDT
Last edited by the author on Dec 22, 2011 3:09:30 PM PST
Rick Smalley hated bad science. He said if he conducted his research the way that they (evolutionary biologists aka Darwinists) did he would never be respected in the scientific community. Richard Smalley received his Ph.D. from Princeton University in 1973. He was a professor of Chemistry, Physics and Astronomy at Rice University in Texas. Smalley PhD was a pioneer in the development of supersonic beam laser spectroscopy but his major accomplishment came when he received international recognition and was awarded the Nobel Prize in Chemistry for the discovery of a new form of carbon, buckminsterfullerene. His awards also include eight honorary doctor of science degrees.

Dr. Smalley was a Darwinist most of his life. He then began to study intelligent design in the early 2000's and became an outspoken anti-Darwinist. I remember reading about him in Scientific American back in the mid 90s. (FYI: note to Darwinists like Hurd, Thrower, dvimus, Croft... etc, I have worked in the field of science and technology for over 30 years of my career. I work with scientists and engineers on a regular basis, I am one. I work in a laboratory everyday performing experiments and testing with radiation science. I've also attended five colleges and Universities in pursuit of my studies in science.)

This is interesting to me because I had no idea of Dr. Smalley's conversion to Christianity until I read an article about him tonight in a science publication (issn 0819-1530, Vol. 33 No. 2, 2011). Like Dr. Smalley I was a Darwinist:I believed in Darwinian evolution and that we evolved from an apelike creature. I became a theistic evolutionist in the late 90's and then around 2004 I started studying intelligent design. Like Dr. Smalley I began to get angry about the lies I was fed through indoctrination with bad science to get me to believe in evolution.

All of the stories (lies) about the Neanderthal man, Piltdown man, Peking Man Cro-Magnon man etc... are put out there to be factual, and when they are exposed as fraud no one barely mentions it, it is just quietly swept under the rug after the damage is done. The fraudulent "Piltdown Man." was exposed in 1953 as a forgery, consisting of the lower jawbone of an orangutan combined with the skull of a fully developed, modern man. In 1923, Franz Weidenreich examined the remains and correctly reported that they consisted of a modern human cranium and an orangutan jaw with filed-down teeth. Weidenreich, being an anatomist, had easily exposed the hoax for what it was. However, it took thirty years for the scientific community to concede that Weidenreich was correct. When the scientific establishment wants to believe something, it is very difficult to change their collective minds. Haeckel's forged drawings remained in text books as some of the best evidence for evolution for 100 years.

Lucy: Nearly all experts agree that Lucy was a 3 foot tall chimpanzee.
Heidelberg Man: Built from a jawbone that was conceded by many to be quite human.
Nebraska Man: Scientifically built up from one tooth, later found to be the tooth of an extinct pig.
Piltdown Man: The jawbone turned out to belong to a modern ape.

Peking Man: Supposedly 500,000 years old, but all evidence has disappeared.
Neanderthal Man: The first Neanderthal remains were found in France in 1908. Considered to be ignorant, ape-like, stooped and knuckle-dragging, much of the evidence now suggests that Neanderthal was just as human as us, and his stooped appearance was because of arthritis and rickets.
New Guinea Man: Dates back to 1970. This Species has been found in the region just north of Australia.
Cro-Magnon Man: One of the earliest and best established fossils is at least equal in physique and brain capacity to modern man. Cro-Magnon man is indistinguishable from modern humans ... so what's the difference?
Modern Man: This genius thinks he evolved from a monkey.

The press reports that life was created in a laboratory. Craig Venter, PhD, is most famous for his role in being one of the first to sequence the human genome and for his role in creating the first cell with a synthetic genome in 2010. This is heralded as a breakthrough in evolutionary biology, it is Darwinist spin that is never un-spun by the liberal press. Venter's research was pure intelligent design, life was not created in his laboratory. Venter took existing DNA and designed a novel sequence by following the protocol of the DNA code. That is pretty high powered science from Venter's laboratory, but it is not proving evolution by any stretch.

That's how Darwinism works. Disinformation and misinterpretation of the "science" is the main thing that keeps Darwinism alive as a paradigm. In addition they use censorship with abundant fallacies like straw man arguments, but what they do best is... Darwinist blowhards like to throw around ad-hom attacks because they have nothing else to offer other than a bunch of hot air and sketchy "science." It's annoying, but the truth is coming out, it is going to get much darker for Darwinists in the future as the truth unfolds. HELLO NCSE (self proclaimed) your days are numbered.

Posted on Mar 13, 2011 6:35:37 AM PDT
krad1964 says:
BAM: "That is pretty high powered science from Venter's laboratory, but it is not proving evolution by any stretch."

Do you have some references for qualified people claiming that his experiments prove evolution?

A quick Google of "venter evolution life" results in mostly evolution denier sites. And these articles are simply arguing with headlines about "creating life".

In reply to an earlier post on Mar 13, 2011 7:37:12 AM PDT
Last edited by the author on Dec 16, 2012 7:09:35 PM PST
krad's post: Do you have some references for qualified people claiming that his experiments prove evolution?

"DNA is the software of life, there is no question about it, that is key to evolution of life on this planet, and now the key to the future of life on this planet is understanding how to write that software." ~Craig Venter

Now I expect a response from a Darwinist who will deny that DNA is a code (Elliott Bignell.) This is why they appear to be scientifically illiterate. It literally leaves them incapable of answering this simple question:

Which have we ever observed:
Evolution model: matter + energy + time = codes
ID model: matter + energy + time + intelligence = code (DNA software)

DNA either evolved or it was designed. There is no other option. If NOT A THEN B.

A. DNA evolved
B. DNA was designed

We can detect evidence of design. In fact, based on all of our observations, everything that we know about codes tells us that all codes have a coder, a mind behind the code. DNA is a storage system for the code of life. DNA/RNA is the most sophisticated coding system in the known universe, complete with its own transcription, self repair and self replication mechanisms. It even makes the machines (ATP synthase) that makes the fuel that DNA needs to power it's operation: (www.youtube.com/watch?v=W3KxU63gcF4)

A child, however, who had no important job and could only see things as his eyes showed them to him, went up to the carriage.
"The Emperor is naked," he said.
"Fool!" his father reprimanded, running after him. "Don't talk nonsense!" He grabbed his child and took him away. But the boy's remark, which had been heard by the bystanders, was repeated over and over again until everyone cried:
"The boy is right! The Emperor is naked! It's true!"
The Emperor realized that the people were right but could not admit to that. He thought it better to continue the procession under the illusion that anyone who couldn't see his clothes was either stupid or incompetent. And he stood stiffly on his carriage, while behind him a page held his imaginary mantle.

Posted on Mar 13, 2011 12:58:29 PM PDT
[Customers don't think this post adds to the discussion. Show post anyway. Show all unhelpful posts.]

Posted on Mar 13, 2011 1:21:05 PM PDT
[Deleted by Amazon on Sep 7, 2011 11:28:33 AM PDT]

In reply to an earlier post on Mar 13, 2011 2:19:47 PM PDT
Last edited by the author on Mar 13, 2011 2:23:46 PM PDT
A. Caplan says:
BAM: All of the stories (lies) about the Neanderthal man, Piltdown man, Peking Man Cro-Magnon man etc... are put out there to be factual, and when they are exposed as fraud no one barely mentions it, it is just quietly swept under the rug after the damage is done.
>Except for Piltdown man you are incorrect. By the way, Piltdown man was shown to be a fraud by scientists, not by IDers or creationists.

BAM: Venter's research was pure intelligent design.
>And yet he still does not believe in it.

BAM: This is interesting to me because I had no idea of Dr. Smalley's conversion to Christianity
>It just shows how filtering science through a religious belief results in bad science. And Dr. Smalley never presented a single scientific paper to support intelligent design. In fact, no one has ever presented a scientific paper that shows how intelligent design was arrived at as a theory from empirical observation and deductive reasoning, followed by hypothesis/null-hypothesis testing designed to disprove it.

BAM: That's how Darwinism works. Misinformation and misinterpretation of the "science" is the main thing that keeps Darwinism alive as a paradigm. In addition they use censorship with abundant fallacies like straw man arguments, but what they do best is... Darwinist blowhards like to throw around ad-hom attacks because they have nothing else to offer other than a bunch of hot air and sketchy "science.
>Two things: 1. What the heck is Darwinism? 2. Please cite a scientific paper that uses ad-hominen attack.

You really should learn what science is.

In reply to an earlier post on Mar 13, 2011 3:39:00 PM PDT
krad1964 says:
BAM: ""DNA is the software of life, there is no question about it, that is key to evolution of life on this planet, and now the key to the future of life on this planet is understanding how to write that software." ~Craig Venter"

OK. DNA is a key to the evolution of life on this planet. Do you disagree with that?

Now, do you have any references where qualified people claim Venter's experiments proved evolution? It really seems you are arguing against headlines also.

In reply to an earlier post on Mar 13, 2011 3:52:23 PM PDT
Dr. Smalley became a "christian" after he learned he had terminal cancer. In desperation, many people become somewhat irrational. It's forgivable. It's the ones who willfully choose irrationality out of fear of what rationality brings that we need to beware of.

Also, the fabulous BAM claimed ignorantly in the OP that Smalley "was a professor of Chemistry, Physics and Astrology at Rice University." ASTROLOGY!!! One wonders if BAM knows the difference between astrology and astronomy.

In reply to an earlier post on Mar 13, 2011 4:05:15 PM PDT
Brent says

<< Methodological naturalism is a cause of scientific illiteracy >>

which is equivalent to saying

> The scientific method is a cause of scientific illiteracy.

That's a tricky argument. I can't say as I follow it.

Posted on Mar 13, 2011 4:44:05 PM PDT
polygon says:
Physics and biology are very different kinds of science. Physics is precisely quantitative and biology is largely qualitative and approximate - so, yes, it is true that if a physicist did science like a biologist, he would be a bad scientist. That doesn't mean biologists are bad scientists. The methods they use are appropriate for their field of study. (Note: if you think Prof Smalley got a science PhD in "astrology" as you said above, you know a lot less about science than you claim.)

All genuine scientists want explanatory theories that are comprehensive and consistent with observed data. When new evidence arises inconsistent with the theory, then the theory is modified or replaced.

This is why creationists are not scientists - there is nothing that would change their mind. No matter what evidence arises in the future, it will not convince them that creationism is false, because their belief is not based on evidence.

It's true that there will be a built-in bias against any pro-creationism or anti-evolution article submitted to a mainstream scientific journal. That's because such journals have evidentiary standards, and such articles never meet those standards. By its very nature, creationism does not admit of any objective evidence.

Posted on Mar 13, 2011 5:15:11 PM PDT
polygon says:
Brent, you must distinguish journalism from science. Journalists pick up crumbs of biology, and write stories that are designed to maximize journalistic success. When scientists submit their work for evaluation, they don't submit it to TV, newspapers, or popular magazines. They submit it to other scientists, and they write in a way that will be understood by follow scientists, with little regard for whether it can be understood by the general public. You can't justify your beliefs about science by referring to what you find in the general press.

The evolutionary hypothesis of the descent of all present species from ancient microbial sources is a massive claim about earth's history. Correspondingly, we have a massive amount of observed data about that history. So far, all that observed data fits the evolutionary hypothesis, nothing is incompatible with it. Certainly, evolutionary biology is largely an archeological enterprise. As such, it will never be complete (the carcasses of most dead animals vanish without a trace). But its incompleteness is not an argument against it, and certainly not a disproof of it, as creationists maintain. What's relevant is that every new piece of evidence that comes along fits right in to the total evolutionary story.

Consider an anology. A marble can be pushed with a toothpick across a room. A scientist would conclude it could be pushed from San Diego to Boston. A creationist, using creationist logic, would say no, there's no justification for that conclusion. The evolutionary hypothesis is no different. Once evolutionary change on a small scale in a short time is confirmed, any scientist would conclude that it can happen on any arbitrarily large scale, given a large time scale. The burden of proof (or disproof) rests with the deniers, not with the affirmers.

In reply to an earlier post on Mar 13, 2011 5:33:10 PM PDT
[Customers don't think this post adds to the discussion. Show post anyway. Show all unhelpful posts.]

In reply to an earlier post on Mar 13, 2011 6:13:26 PM PDT
A. Caplan says:
BAM,
I Still want to know what a Darwinism is.

In reply to an earlier post on Mar 13, 2011 6:24:22 PM PDT
Last edited by the author on Mar 14, 2011 3:34:03 AM PDT
[Customers don't think this post adds to the discussion. Show post anyway. Show all unhelpful posts.]

In reply to an earlier post on Mar 13, 2011 10:08:39 PM PDT
SinSeeker says:
Brent A. Mortimer,

Omigosh, you're right. The scales have fallen from my eyes. Darwinism is a giant conspiracy by biologists worldwide. I want to do something about it by undertaking research in intelligent design creationism.

However, I'll need your help. I've been through some of the intelligent design creationism literature and all I've been able to find are some badly thought out criticisms of evolutionary theory.

Can you help me out by suggesting some underlying principles, mechanisms, hypotheses, and experiments I can use to start my new career in intelligent design creationism research?

Thanks!

In reply to an earlier post on Mar 14, 2011 7:16:12 AM PDT
[Customers don't think this post adds to the discussion. Show post anyway. Show all unhelpful posts.]

Posted on Mar 14, 2011 7:29:48 AM PDT
polygon says:
Brent A. Mortimer wrote:
polygon's post: "So far, all that observed data fits the evolutionary hypothesis, nothing is incompatible with it."
hogwash. The Cambrian explosion.
-------
The Cambrian Explosion is remarkable, but in no way incompatible with evolution. There was a mass extinction at the beginning of the Cambrian, opening up a lot of ecological niches into which a new species could insert itself. The Cambrian was 50-70 million years, plenty of time for a lot of evolution to occur. Evolutionary change is gradual, but not at a constant rate - it does not occur to any significant degree unless there are environmental pressures that demand adaptation. The Cambrian clearly demanded a lot of adaptation, and a large number of species were unable to survive the pressures.

In reply to an earlier post on Mar 14, 2011 7:35:55 AM PDT
BAM:<<The Cambrian explosion. Nearly all of the phyla suddenly appeared...>>

This simply isn't true. A number of the Cambrian lines have clear antecedents in the sparse Pre-Cambrian fossil lineage. Back on 1/28/11 I posted the following in the "Serious question about Evolution" thread:
-------

Isaiah:<<No fossils in the very farthest geological layer.....and then, Boom ! all kinds of fossils.>>

This is factually incorrect. There are single celled creature fossils going back 3.5 billion years. Recently fossils of multicellular creatures going back over 2 billion years. There are fossils of creatures that resemble simple forms of the Cambrian explosion creatures dating back tens of millions of years before the Cambrian, some of which show clear evolutionary progression. Read this post I wrote to J Black a few pages ago on this thread:

Joshua G. Feldman says:
J. Black: <<How would you define a transitional fossil that we would be likely to find from so long ago? How many lines of descent can be currently pieced together from the Cambrian?>>

This is an excellent question. I intend to look at this area more carefully in the future and I welcome posts from people more familiar with this field. I did a quick look and came up with the following:

Precambrian ancestors of arthropods (or at least trilobites): Spriggina, Parvancorina minchami, Primicaris, Naraoia, then Kuamaia, Redlichia and Archaeaspinus fedonkini. These species form a pretty clear evolutionary progression from an unsegmented simple legged creature to the full blown trilobite morphology.

Here is a blog discussion of the evidence for the origins of arthropods that combines a number of lines of evidence, including fossilized tracks indicating leg walking and various morphological fossils and plenty of scientific citations. The progression mentioned above is clearly depicted in both line drawings and photographs of fossils:
http://www.trilobites.info/origins.htm

Here's another good, pretty academic, web site discussing a wider array of fossil evidence from the Ediacaran (precambrian) period:
http://www.peripatus.gen.nz/paleontology/ediacara.html

Here's an academic paper on the topic of Parvancorina minchami that gives a good analysis:

MARTIN F. GLAESSNER
Parvancorina - an arthropod from the Late Precambrian
(Ediacarian) of South Australia
Ann. Naturhist. Mus. Wien 83 83-90 Wien, Dezember 1980
http://www.landesmuseum.at/pdf_frei_remote/ANNA_83_0083-0090.pdf

and a more recent survey that includes this critter:

A.Y. Ivantsov
Small Vendian transversely Articulated fossils
Paleontological Journal
Volume 41, Number 2, 113-122, DOI: 10.1134/S0031030107020013

"Three new genera of transversely articulated Metazoa are described from the Upper Vendian of the Arkhangelsk Region (Russia). Tamga gen. nov. and Lossinia gen. nov. are recognized to be closely related to the extinct Precambrian phylum Proarticulata; Ivovicia gen. nov. is considered as a true member of Proarticulata; all of the new genera are monotypic. Onega stepanovi Fedonkin is also reinterpreted as Proarticulata. The replacement generic name Archaeaspinus is introduced for the preoccupied Archaeaspis Ivantsov. Vendomia menneri Keller is assigned to Dickinsonia Sprigg."

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

Bottom line, the argument that "sudden appearance" of creatures in the so-called "Cambrian Explosion" is evidence of special creation, or evidence against evolution is an argument from ignorance pure and simple. Earlier creatures were primarily soft bodied so fossils are rare and difficult to interpret. Nonetheless, a body of evidence exists that does show evolutionary progression. There is no reason to expect that additional finds will not fill in this story even better as research continues.

Basic info:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ediacara_biota
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Ediacaran_genera

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spriggina

In reply to an earlier post on Mar 14, 2011 8:01:33 AM PDT
<< Well before you proceed with this lets first make sure [....] >>

SinSeeker's post was obviously intended to get past this stuff for sake of discussion. Your reticence to answer his actual question is quite transparent, Brent.

Posted on Mar 14, 2011 8:27:03 AM PDT
David Watson says:
Has any of you come across the excellent book: "Explore Evolution: The Arguments For and Against Neo-Darwinism" by Meyer, Nelson, et.al I have the UK edition. See http://www.exploreevolution.co.uk/ . There is a USA edition too.

It's a book written by intellectual Christians who don't expect anybody to "just believe" anything. Not a Bible verse in sight. No reference to religion or spirit. Pure science. References to hundreds of papers for follow-up if you want. Easy to read for anyone of a reasonable intellectual level - even if you have not "majored" in Biology.

It firstly defines terms (since "evolution" means different things to different people) and then gives the scientific arguments, for and against Universal Common Descent; and for and against The Creative Power of Natural Selection.

In 160 large, colourful pages it covers the sub-arguments of Fossil Succession, Anatomical Homology, Molecular Homology, Embryology, Biogeography, Natural Selection and Mutation. The book does not force a decision on you. It leaves you to make up your own mind - and gives you lots of information, understanding and reasoned arguments (from both sides) to help you do that honestly.

People who like reason and scientific rationality will LOVE this book - except those whose minds have an a priori fixation on the idea of naturalism and who also do not accept the challenge to re-examine their stance.

I thought it unfair for people to reject 3 of the posts of Brent Mortimer on the supposed basis that they did not add to the discussion. They most certainly did.

Posted on Mar 14, 2011 8:42:14 AM PDT
I am devoutly Nichiren Buddhist, and I also believe in proven scientific fact. While my religion rather famously does not conflict with science (not that it couldn't if we tried a little), I am well versed in Christianity and don't understand the conflict with science.

Jews/Christians/Muslims (all the same book of Genesis) believe in a god--fine, that's a matter of belief--and they believe that this god created and ordered the universe, and that he created all living things. OK, we're fine so far. But then the Christians (or at least United States Christians) believe--literally--that their god started out with man in his current form. That's not only absurd scientifically, but religiously as well.

What makes them think that if an omnipotent being or will created the universe and everything in it that it did it in such a simple and easy to comprehend manner. If I believed in a god which is omnipotent, I would believe that it was capable of creating a singularity containing everything necessary for at least one universe, and that it knew exactly what the results of this creation would be--including stars, galaxies, solar systems, planets, life, evolution, and human beings. I could not believe in a god which was incapable of that, and likewise I couldn't possibly have faith in a religion which says that's impossible particular when it is a matter of proven scientific fact.

In reply to an earlier post on Mar 14, 2011 9:37:57 AM PDT
<< Has any of you come across the excellent book: "Explore Evolution: The Arguments For and Against Neo-Darwinism" by Meyer, Nelson, et.al I have the UK edition. See http://www.exploreevolution.co.uk/ . There is a USA edition too. >>

I haven't read the book, but I followed the link and looked around the website. I read some sample passages of the book and was, honestly, not impressed. From what I could read, I do feel I should withhold judgment about the intent of the authors -- whether they are really trying to inform people -- but I can comment that the explanations offered were not very good.

For example, the authors discuss the Cambrian Explosion without mentioning the simple fact that the "explosion" took place over ~80 million years, which is a good 20% more time than has passed from the extinction of the dinosaurs to the present. Readers might be interested to know simple facts like this in a discussion about how "sudden" the appearance of phyla was.

The authors go on to mention punctuated equilibrium, bizarrely linking it with the concept of species selection. It is true that Gould endorsed species selection, but he was also clear and ardent in arguing that punctuated equilibrium itself was based on the neo-darwinian mechanism, variation and selection of individuals within population. In other words, the authors miss the point of punctuated equilibrium entirely: directional selection is not always the norm, even if selection (viz. stabilizing selection) is. The odd thing is that in another sample passage from the book, the authors use as example a hypothetical scenario, a sudden sea-level rise, that would illustrate punctuated equilibrium nicely: the selective conditions in this example are discontinuous through time, and so we would expect the products of selection (i.e. organismal forms) to be distributed discontinuously through time.

So again, although I couldn't read enough to judge the book overall, I was unimpressed by what I saw. I couldn't shake the feeling that the book's purpose was to make people feel more justified in rejecting evolution by giving them a false sense of scientific understanding with which to rationalize their "skepticism". (Or scepticism.)

In reply to an earlier post on Mar 14, 2011 9:40:25 AM PDT
...To follow up, I just noticed that at least one of the authors is major advocate of Intelligent Design. Bit of a red flag, that.

In reply to an earlier post on Mar 14, 2011 9:46:07 AM PDT
Also, it seems the British Centre for Science Education and the US National Center for Science Education have both argued that this book is creationist propaganda.

http://bcseweb.blogspot.com/p/evolution-exposed.html

In reply to an earlier post on Mar 14, 2011 10:48:55 AM PDT
SinSeeker says:
But you haven't answered my question!

What are some of the underlying principles, mechanisms, hypotheses, and experiments I can use to start my new career in intelligent design creationism research?
‹ Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 ... 375 Next ›
[Add comment]
Add your own message to the discussion
To insert a product link use the format: [[ASIN:ASIN product-title]] (What's this?)
Prompts for sign-in
 


 

This discussion

Discussion in:  Science forum
Participants:  299
Total posts:  9355
Initial post:  Mar 13, 2011
Latest post:  6 hours ago

New! Receive e-mail when new posts are made.
Tracked by 9 customers

Search Customer Discussions