Where is the damn solid evidence for Darwinian macroevolution? All I have ever heard and read is marginal evidence and lots of supposition along with a non or atheistic worldview that specifically rules out the possibility of considering the existence of God. Science cannot imply God? Complexity cannot imply God? To you people, it cannot because evolution is true. Since evolution is true, complexity is due to evolution a priori. Tautological, completely.
Whenever a theory such as irreducible complexity is brought forth that might lend credence to the argument that you all so despise–the very NOTION of the existence of God–then research is done with the goal in mind (implicit or explicit) of finding an explanation that fits within evolutionary theory. Peer review rules out the possibility of even considering any outside-the-box thinking. Toe the pseudoscientific philosophical line or be ridiculed and marginalized.
I look at you blind believers in “science” as members of a political party. If I were to go into the Democratic National Convention and tell them that Republican ideas are correct, even if my ideas hold value they will be shunned. You Darwinists are essentially sore afraid that one day someone might posit something scientific that is unexplainable by any scientific means. And you might have to entertain the notion of God! *gasp* “But that isn’t science…we can’t consider it! God doesn’t exist, only infinitely finely-tuned physical laws that don’t vary and an essentially infinitely complex universe!” Chaotic haphazard happenstance. Yep, you guys have it all figured out.
Certainly you FSMers are among the most cynical and, yes, terrified of the notion that someday you might have to draw a conclusion that will force you to consider something that is not purely scientific (i.e. to you, that means something supporting Darwinian macroevolution) in your eyes.
I know, since I don’t agree with you guys’ philosophy I have a “poor understanding” of all things science, I’m ignorant of the plethora of evidence, blah blah blah. I’ve heard it. Save the glib condescension for the next generation of potential converts to either of your–dare I say–pathetic religions.
Nothing personal to any of you guys. I suppose you all have good intentions. I do wish you well and sincerely hope you find Truth.
-A Darwinian macroevolution-denying Physician
[this message was left as a comment on another thread]
Again, it is not whether believes in God or religion, it is the fact that these are BELIEFS and FAITH, which do not have a place in the SCIENCE classroom. Speaking for myself, I generally don’t have a problem with what others believe in, even if I do find some of those beliefs to be, at best, a bit silly. To each their own. But, when you have people who are trying to masquerade their beliefs as science, I have a problem with that. If, on the off chance, that one day, there will be something that is unexplainable by science, then you can come back and say “I told you so.” I very much doubt that will happen in the first place, and have further doubts any of us here will care all that much. But still, you can always dream. I will say this: your spelling and grammar are excellent, and you end your missive on a polite note. For that, I thank you.
May as well post this here too. With some corrections (I’ll have to stop coming on here trashed!).
“Where is the damn solid evidence for Darwinian macroevolution?”
“Macroevolution” (a term created by proponents of the ID movement) involves lots of “microevolution” (another term created by proponents of the ID movement, when they decided they couldn’t deny evolutionary changes within species). Lots of small changes make one big change. Just like the guy who threw all his nickels in a trailer for years & ended up taking them to the bank & found he had over $10,000 worth (or thereabouts).
.
I’ll give you a REALLY LAYMAN’S example:
Imagine your coffee cup. If I take your coffee cup & make a tiny chip in it. One that you don’t even notice. You still look at it & think “coffee cup.” Then I take your coffee cup & make another chip in it. Yeah it still looks like a coffee cup. But during the course of a few thousand chips it gradually stops looking like a coffee cup and looks more like potential landfill. Do you understand yet?
.
“All I have ever heard and read is marginal evidence and lots of supposition along with a non or atheistic worldview that specifically rules out the possibility of considering the existence of God.”
.
For starters: Darwinian theory does not rule out “the possibility of considering the existence of God.” It merely rules out the presupposition that man came from some dirt that God decided to make an image of Himself out of, and woman came from the rib from the aforesaid dirt-man.
.
As for “marginal evidence and lots of supposition”–compare the amount of geological research, exploration, experiments, and tested and proven hypotheses that scientists have done to show that evolution doesn’t even come close to supposition, with a simple “a big invisible monster that nobody’s ever seen or heard did it”, which comes way closer to supposition than anything else I can think of.
.
“Science cannot imply God? Complexity cannot imply God? To you people, it cannot because evolution is true.”
.
Science cannot imply anything without testing it first or having other scientific evidence to back up a hypothesis. If God suddenly appeared, along with talking snakes & flying horses, then they may well do a study & “imply God.”
.
“Since evolution is true, complexity is due to evolution a priori. Tautological, completely.”
.
Science doesn’t regard anything as completely true, since the discovery of new information changes scientific theory regularly, which doesn’t make it as tautological as relying on one book to explain everything.
.
“Whenever a theory such as irreducible complexity is brought forth that might lend credence to the argument that you all so despise–the very NOTION of the existence of God–then research is done with the goal in mind (implicit or explicit) of finding an explanation that fits within evolutionary theory.”
.
See above. The majority of scientists don’t despise “the very NOTION of the existence of God”. You sound like a conspiracy theory freak when you come out with stuff like that. When IDers bring up stuff like “irreducible complexity” in their argument that “God did it”, then yes, scientists will show you the already discovered evidence against irreducible complexity. If you can find something in favour of ID that nobody has discovered evidence to the contrary of, then please, tell the world, and you will have won the argument.
.
“Peer review rules out the possibility of even considering any outside-the-box thinking. Toe the pseudoscientific philosophical line or be ridiculed and marginalized.”
.
What? You mean they actually use people from the same field to review their papers??? How Ridiculous!! They should instead use academics who specialise in Psychology to review Biology! And Literature academics should review Engineering papers! And…
.
“I look at you blind believers in “science” as members of a political party. If I were to go into the Democratic National Convention and tell them that Republican ideas are correct, even if my ideas hold value they will be shunned.”
.
We rely on “science” because we look at stuff and find that it works. Unlike you allegedly “not-blind” believers who rely on one book to explain everything and if it doesn’t work then you add the “It’s God’s will” clause to it. You look at us as members of a political party? Ummm… We didn’t start this argument. We didn’t insist that science exams should have a choice of either a detailed explanation in the answers, or a simple “God did it.” (I woulda done so much better in science at school if I’d had that option). And if you go to a Democratic National Convention and list all the Republican ideas to them, then you’ll probably get a yes to some of them. Political parties don’t disagree on everything, believe it or not. If you went to a Republic National Convention & listed all the Republican ideas to them you’d probably also get a few people who disagreed with some. Not every proposal gets a unanimous vote.
.
“You Darwinists are essentially sore afraid that one day someone might posit something scientific that is unexplainable by any scientific means. And you might have to entertain the notion of God! *gasp* “But that isn’t science…we can’t consider it! God doesn’t exist, only infinitely finely-tuned physical laws that don’t vary and an essentially infinitely complex universe!” Chaotic haphazard happenstance. Yep, you guys have it all figured out.”
.
The first sentence has me bewildered. Something scientific–unexplainable by scientific means. How does that make it scientific? And if someone merely posits it, then how does that make it scientific (look up the meaning of the word ‘posit’ if you can’t understand me)? Like I said, SCIENCE DOES NOT STATE THAT GOD DOES NOT EXIST. Science will include God as soon as evidence (as opposed to hearsay) of aforementioned God emerges. As for “infinitely finely-tuned laws that don’t vary”, the laws of science vary more than you think, and MUCH more than the “infinitely finely-tuned laws that don’t vary” in your single Book.
.
“Certainly you FSMers are among the most cynical and, yes, terrified of the notion that someday you might have to draw a conclusion that will force you to consider something that is not purely scientific (i.e. to you, that means something supporting Darwinian macroevolution) in your eyes.”
.
Regarding macroevolution, see the first part of this response. Regarding our cynicism, we don’t have any fear of new ideas, as opposed to you, who have a serious problem with hanging onto old ideals.
.
“I know, since I don’t agree with you guys’ philosophy I have a “poor understanding” of all things science, I’m ignorant of the plethora of evidence, blah blah blah. I’ve heard it. Save the glib condescension for the next generation of potential converts to either of your–dare I say–pathetic religions.”
.
Just read some stuff. Not just “scientific” stuff, but anything that sets your mind free. I don’t have a science major, and, as I hinted above, I didn’t do that great in the subject at school. But just because you don’t excel in the subject doesn’t mean you should deny its plausibility altogether. Take your own advice and try some “outside-the-box thinking.”
.
“Nothing personal to any of you guys. I suppose you all have good intentions. I do wish you well and sincerely hope you find Truth.”
.
Read what you just wrote and then determine whether or not you see it as “nothing personal”. Yes we do have good intentions, and we (well most of us) don’t deny the existence of a creator, but to deny science means you have to deny everything that science has brought us. Stop driving your car or catching the bus/train; stop using anything electrical; stop using tap water; and stop using your computer to argue against science, because all these things came from science.
.
I do wish you well and sincerely hope you find reason.
.
St John the Blasphemist
Saint of Recycled Plausible Denials
I do believe we are receiving a few “Expelled” visitors. (:p)) Hellooooo!
You call us condescending when you come to our website and tell us all that we’re wrong and call us pathetic, blind believers in what you consider a political party? I’m not going to argue with you, I just wanted to point out how hypocritical that is. If you don’t like how condescending we can be, you’d do well not to emulate it.
What you must really believe is that only someone who knows the truth should be condescending. And in that sense we’re not so different, really.
“Where is the damn solid evidence for Darwinian macroevolution?”
Try Google. Even better yet..
.
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/section1.html
.
Try actually reading the articles. I’m sure you’ll have no problem comprehending the big words and numbers, you being a physician and all. (note the small p)
“Whenever a theory such as irreducible complexity is brought forth that might lend credence to the argument”
.
First ID is not a scientific theory as it presents no scientific hypotheses. Second every example of so called irreducible complexity present by the cdesign proponentsists has proved reducible. In other words an example of irreducible complexity of a biological system has yet to be presented!
.
“You Darwinists are essentially sore afraid that one day someone might posit something scientific that is unexplainable by any scientific means.”
.
I am a theistic evolutionist! I believe the FSM created our origins and then evolution took over! Way to be ignorant and arrogant in presuming you know what others believe. The rest of your post is just more crap assumptions. Yawn
.
By the way do you honestly believe that referring to yourself as a physician lends any credibility to your post?
.
Nothing personal to you. I suppose you have good intentions. I do wish you well and sincerely hope you find Truth of the FSM.
RAmen
Since creationists are big on transitional fossils, though most evidence for macroevolution comes from other areas now (it’s 2007 you know), you might like to start here first:
.
Prediction 1.4: Intermediate and transitional forms: the possible morphologies of predicted common ancestors
.
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/section1.html#morphological_intermediates
.
Come back when your finished won’t you. I’m sure your professional critique and refutations will be most interesting.
You state that evolution has no basis, no grounding in true science. Based on your being a physician, I would beg to differ. I don’t believe you have a “poor understanding” or that your use of big words such as “Tautological” to prove your point is at issue.
What scares me is a physician who claims that evolution, the concept of any host or celluar structure being created, is non-scientific. If what you say is true, then what is “healing” someone of an injury other than allowing change within and to a carbon based life form? If, as you seem to claim, that change is not needed, that there is a master plan, then why would you attempt to fight the natural progression of injury, disease or other ailments as they must obviously be pre-designed by your designer come from your beliefs. Is not cancer, at it’s most basic level, a gradient change in a cellular stucture “evolving” into something that is considered within the medical community as “unnatural”?
Are you so willing to fight to make sure that the teachings of your preference are equally taught along side alternate view points such as Buddhism, Hinduism, Atheism, and FSMism? Or, should we, based on all academic studies done to this time that do not require some form of faith, continue to teach that change can happen in the world?
Our search for Truth starts not with good intentions, but with being fair minded to all, not just one group.
Physician you should go revise the Intelligent Design propaganda that you are meant to be spouting. Dr. Michael Behe one of your Discovery Institute masters and an author of ID admits to believing a 4 billion yo earth and that humans and apes have a common biological ancestor. Here is some more interesting information on ID provided by a professional Christian theologian.
.
http://www.theistic-evolution.com/design.html
.
You creationists really should at least try and get your all your propaganda stories straight with each other before trying them out in public.