Matthews to Tancredo: Do you or don’t you believe in evolution?

posted at 7:35 pm on May 6, 2009 by Allahpundit

A reprise of last night’s ballyhooed fiasco with Mike Pence. Sir Tancelot does better — he’s not evasive, at least — but to borrow a line from “The Princess Bride,” I’m not sure “intelligent design” means what he thinks it means. Near as I can tell, he’s attempting to square the circle by imagining an essentially deist god (or intelligence) that created all species in some primitive form and then let evolution go to work in turning them into the creatures we know today. I thought most ID-ers believe that life today is, more or less, how the designer originally designed it. If not, if it’s simply about proving that there’s a designer somewhere in a process that might have taken billions of years, then it’s really just Darwinism + a remote God at the very beginning, no?

I’m not sure what he means about there being no trans-species transitional fossils, either. What about Archaeopteryx?

Visit msnbc.com for Breaking News, World News, and News about the Economy

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Comment pages: 1 3 4 5

That is testable & it does happen.

Explain to me how we have acquired data on genetic frequency on millions of different species over the course of 4 billion years.

You can only obtain data on species that have collectible genetic data. We have only been able to acquire and process genetic data for a few decades. To take a few decades of genetic research and extrapolate it into a several billion year process is the height of foolishness.

challenge global warming… proven science? not so much.

That you can accept evolution as scientific fact and debunk global warming is baffling to me. Both ideas draw on the same leap of faith and the reliance on a small sliver of data.

TheMightyMonarch on May 7, 2009 at 12:47 PM

But admittedly I have not read his book. I am really only a geologist, not a geneticist or paleontologist etc.
Evolution is the change in the genetic pool.
I am no creationist-but I understand the role of God in creation.
There are transitional fossils, but not so far very many.
But they do exist.
And we see the change in a species over time right before our very eyes.
Why it is so hard for people to believe in the possibility that God created the laws of nature(in general) & used them to create everything we have now is beyond me.

Badger40 on May 7, 2009 at 12:17 PM

yeah I know, basically Gould, who was an atheist, said to explain his theory is it evolution happens explosively..in a short amount of time..too short for fossils…yeah ok..whatever…he was defending his faith…and trying to be honest in his field…and reconcile the two.

here’s another quote from him

Doug: What got you started thinking about punctuated equilibrium?

Stephen Jay Gould: It wasn’t broad philosophical or political issues as I think many people assume. It really comes right out of an operational dilemma in paleontology.

I had been trained, as Niles Eldredge had, in statistical methods for the study of subtle changes in evolution. Evolution at that time was defined as gradualism. The two were virtually equated; to see evolution meant finding gradualistic sequences, but every paleontologist knew that they had effectively never been found, and that was a frustration.

link

you might find the latest theory interesting…a biological big bang…

Major transitions in biological evolution show the same pattern of sudden emergence of diverse forms at a new level of complexity. The relationships between major groups within an emergent new class of biological entities are hard to decipher and do not seem to fit the tree pattern that, following Darwin’s original proposal, remains the dominant description of biological evolution. The cases in point include the origin of complex RNA molecules and protein folds; major groups of viruses; archaea and bacteria, and the principal lineages within each of these prokaryotic domains; eukaryotic supergroups; and animal phyla. In each of these pivotal nexuses in life’s history, the principal “types” seem to appear rapidly and fully equipped with the signature features of the respective new level of biological organization. No intermediate “grades” or intermediate forms between different types are detectable. Usually, this pattern is attributed to cladogenesis compressed in time, combined with the inevitable erosion of the phylogenetic signal.

link

and of course the tree of life has just been discarded, along with adaptive radiation…

right4life on May 7, 2009 at 12:52 PM

getting back to my original point. so much is convoluted. i am a conservative because i believe in what our fore-fathers did here. and they allowed for freedoms that opened up possibilities for scientific research and innovation. they also allowed for freedom of speech and each individuals right to prosper without having to live in tyranny. (in short)

these are things that all people can believe in and get behind.

thedude on May 7, 2009 at 12:38 PM

You’d think. Obviously not, though.

TheUnrepentantGeek on May 7, 2009 at 1:00 PM

I wish he’d ask me that question. My response would be along the lines of “Who the phuck cares, Chris? What difference does it make? We’re here… let’s get to work, period.”

What a waste of time.

D2Boston on May 7, 2009 at 12:44 PM

+1

This is the logical consequence of refusing to obsess over someone’s stance on an issue – to use that stance as a litmus test for their rationality on every issue.

TheUnrepentantGeek on May 7, 2009 at 1:02 PM

Evolution is THEORY, not scientific fact. Plain and simpe.
The theory of evolution has been the basis of so much evil in its short history: i.e., racism, the belief that one race is somehow inferior to another, because they are different…. not fully evolved!

ToddonCapeCod on May 7, 2009 at 1:11 PM

There are transitional fossils, but not so far very many.
But they do exist.
And we see the change in a species over time right before our very eyes.
Why it is so hard for people to believe in the possibility that God created the laws of nature(in general) & used them to create everything we have now is beyond me.

Badger40 on May 7, 2009 at 12:17 PM

most of these ‘transitional’ fossils are later disproven. I think its a case of seeing what you want to see.

none of these ‘change in species’ that we see create a new type of animal…its easy to prove evolution…evolve a bacteria into a multi-cellular animal. but its easier said than done..

because the laws of nature work against evolution….I know evolutionists say the sun supersedes the 2nd law…but common sense tells us that everything is decaying and dying…and to think that somehow in this decaying world, the phsyical forces (strong weak electromagnetic) can produce the biological complexity we see now is hard to swallow.

if these physical physical forces could somehow work on inanimate objects, and cause them to self-replicate, then become alive, then why couldn’t they work on inanimate objects and evolve them into a higher level of complexity? like evolving silicon into a computer chip?

right4life on May 7, 2009 at 1:13 PM

That you can accept evolution as scientific fact and debunk global warming is baffling to me. Both ideas draw on the same leap of faith and the reliance on a small sliver of data.

TheMightyMonarch on May 7, 2009 at 12:47 PM

dude, there are reams and reams of scientific proof behind evolution and plate tectonics, etc… the fact that you deny is exactly the point of my post…

just because something occurs over vast geologic time (that is difficult to imagine because mankind’s history is only thousands of years old) does not mean it doesn’t exist. and there is no “SLIVER” of data to which you refer to. evolution is proven and there is only more evidence that shows up for it all the time.

in contrast, al gore’s theory of global warming only popped up a few years ago and replaces the notion that we were headed into an ice age just a decade before. all of the scientific findings they are looking at is based on research that goes back as far as the 1950′s. it does NOT take into account the ever-changing climate dynamics going back 100s of thousands, if not millions of years ago.

global warming is a mass-hysteria project playing on people’s fears. they actually say, “it’s going to destroy the earth”… no it won’t, if it existed, the earth will be just fine and it has recovered from far worse than a slight increase in carbon emissions.

that you can’t see (or refuse to see) the difference between good science and bad is very disappointing to me, and exactly the purpose of my post. the truth and fact can’t be disputed. don’t pigeon-hole yourself into defending something indefensible.

it may shake your belief system, but i haven’t stopped believing in God.

thedude on May 7, 2009 at 1:18 PM

right4life on May 7, 2009 at 12:52 PM

Thanks for the link. I have been watching this type of research lately & it will be interesting to see what years of it will produce.
I have never been convinced by the ‘family trees’ of organisms that have existed.
I would like to state simply, however, that there is room in all of this to consider both gradualism & sudden events in the scope of the evolutionary history of living organisms, as well as the abiotic world.
The tree of life was worthless in my opinion, but has not been totally ‘discarded.
I have no opinion on adaptive radiation.
My opinion rests solely within the concept of evolution being a change in gene frequencies.
Until we are privy to the genetic material of fossilized remains, there is no way we can genetically analyze extinct creatures.
The only way to group them at this point is through fossil evidence & recent genetic evidence comparing currently living creatures.
If DNA is the building block of all ‘life’, then by that definition, are we ALL genetically related at some point?
It is my opinion that stating things so absolutely as you do can lead to the forcing of a scientific ‘consensus’.
To have a valid theory, we do not need ‘consensus’ in the sci community.
We just need to either prove or disprove this stuff we’re talking about.
To say we evolved from apes is a possibility, but it’s not the only idea out there.
To say that the human race was once black? That upsets a lot of people, & yet that genetic research shows a strong possibility of it being true.
So the only position I feel knowledgeable enough to take is that:
He Earth is at least 4+ BY old
Humanity at one time looked different from the humanity we have here now
Events in nature can happen both catastrophically (i.e. Scablands in WA) & gradually (Grand Canyon)
DNA is probably the building block of life & therefore we may all be related by that notion
As far as ape to human: I have no opinion other than I am keeping my mind open to the possibility & no more.

Badger40 on May 7, 2009 at 1:20 PM

Evolution is THEORY, not scientific fact. Plain and simpe.
The theory of evolution has been the basis of so much evil in its short history: i.e., racism, the belief that one race is somehow inferior to another, because they are different…. not fully evolved!

ToddonCapeCod on May 7, 2009 at 1:11 PM

sorry, but you’re wrong. i’m actually growing more dissapointed the more i see how many will not accept science the way it is intended.

some will refuse what is proven… while others will try to push theories as fact.

maybe i shouldn’t be surprised when people can’t tell the difference….

do you accept that stars are millions, even billions of light years away?

did you know einstein’s theories were only that – theory… until they could be proven by gravitational lensing? many, many years later? heck, he still has other theories that were proven wrong. that’s science’s job.

is a light-year made up? is gravitational lensing made up?

once and for all. science does not try to understand the mysteries of the bible. science looks for evidence and fact based on research that can be backed up. it’s not a feeling or a persuasion.

thedude on May 7, 2009 at 1:28 PM

The next time Matthews asks that question the response should be “I believe that God created all life” and that’s it. No need to say anymore. The majority of the people in this country believe that.

Rose on May 7, 2009 at 1:30 PM

This is exactly what the left wants: us spinning our wheels arguing amongst ourselves over things that have jack to do with politics.

This is not constructive. Do not make this a litmus test for 2012. I do not believe that you have to understand science to get out of its way and let it proceed. Neither do you have to subscribe to a religion to allow it to flourish.

blish on May 7, 2009 at 1:32 PM

thedude on May 7, 2009 at 1:28 PM

Well said.
Einstein basically said it only took one person to prove him wrong.
E=mc2 was proven true by detonation of the atom bomb.
I think the main problem with everyone in society is that no one really understands the scientific method, what makes a fact a fact, and what the difference between laws & theories are.
Some people construe gossip as a fact.
Some do not.
These 2 groups of people are where scientists basically come from.
The former makes for a scary, ignorant & biased scientist.
The former also makes for a scary, uniformed public.
I never try to form an opinion based on something I know nothing about.
So when I hear gossip, I ignore it.
If it later proves true, then so be it. But I try & work with measurable facts.
If I can’t observe/measure with any accuracy, then I can’t really test anything.

Badger40 on May 7, 2009 at 1:34 PM

This is exactly what the left wants: us spinning our wheels arguing amongst ourselves over things that have jack to do with politics.

This is not constructive. Do not make this a litmus test for 2012. I do not believe that you have to understand science to get out of its way and let it proceed. Neither do you have to subscribe to a religion to allow it to flourish.

blish on May 7, 2009 at 1:32 PM

BRAVO!

Badger40 on May 7, 2009 at 1:38 PM

Chris Matthews: Do you or don’t you believe that you drink the actual blood and eat the actual flesh of Jesus Christ at every Sunday communion? Do you believe in transubstantiation

Is that science? Why don’t you believe in the scientific method?

fred5678 on May 7, 2009 at 1:34 PM

fred5678 on May 7, 2009 at 1:41 PM

Badger40 on May 7, 2009 at 1:34 PM

true, and your example of the A-bomb is better than mine. should have used it. einstein’s theory that space-time can be warped was later proven as true when scientists found proof of gravitational lensing. another einstein theory proven correct.

thedude on May 7, 2009 at 1:45 PM

According to Duane Gish, Ph.D.: What is the true status of Archaeopteryx? Was it a transitional form between reptiles and birds? First, the general nature of the evidence: The sudden appearance, fully formed, of all the complex invertebrates (snails, clams, jellyfish, sponges, worms, sea urchins, brachiopods, trilobites, etc.) without a trace of ancestors, and the sudden appearance, fully formed, of every major kind of fish (supposedly the first vertebrates) without a trace of ancestors, proves beyond reasonable doubt that evolution has not occurred. Quarrels about disputable cases such as Archaeopteryx are really pointless. Furthermore, there are three other basically different types of flying creatures—flying insects, flying reptiles (now extinct), and flying mammals (bats). It would be strange, indeed, even incomprehensible, that millions of years of evolution of these three basically different types of flying creatures, each involving the remarkable transition of a land animal into a flying animal, would have failed to produce large numbers of transitional forms. If all of that evolution has occurred, our museums should contain scores, if not hundreds or thousands, of fossils of intermediate forms in each case. However, not a trace of an ancestor or transitional form has ever been found for any of these creatures!

scottjenn on May 7, 2009 at 1:47 PM

Evolution. Revolution. Now.

RandyChandler on May 7, 2009 at 1:48 PM

I think some elected Repubs, who are not scientists are afraid of the specifics of the Creation-Science debate, not whether or not God created everything. It’s not what they’ve studied. Try reading some of Henry Morris’ and Duane Gish’s books.

scottjenn on May 7, 2009 at 1:50 PM

Badger 40 is right. It must be “measurable” and, if I recall, observable facts.

scottjenn on May 7, 2009 at 1:51 PM

Evolution takes more ‘faith’ to believe than does Creation-Science.

scottjenn on May 7, 2009 at 1:52 PM

Near as I can tell, he’s attempting to square the circle by imagining an essentially deist god (or intelligence) that created all species in some primitive form and then let evolution go to work in turning them into the creatures we know today. I thought most ID-ers believe that life today is, more or less, how the designer originally designed it. If not, if it’s simply about proving that there’s a designer somewhere in a process that might have taken billions of years, then it’s really just Darwinism + a remote God at the very beginning, no?

Yes, you are right, Allah. As a Christian theologian myself, I can tell you, unequivocally, that macro evolution has no place in the Genesis account of creation. Good insight on your part.

But, what does Tancrede and Matthews have to do with the theory of evolution? One’s a politician, and the other is a democratic hack.

I don’t see the connection.

Joe Pyne on May 7, 2009 at 1:58 PM

All that said, I don’t think that I’ll vote for someone based on their belief in Creation-Science or the theory of evolution. But it would sure be nice to have someone lead us toward the 4 pillars of Freedom, outlined by Reagan.

scottjenn on May 7, 2009 at 2:02 PM

Evolution takes more ‘faith’ to believe than does Creation-Science.

scottjenn on May 7, 2009 at 1:52 PM

really? enlighten me. tell me how scientific research on evolution is, somehow, faith-driven. faith in what? the search for evidence and proof?

thedude on May 7, 2009 at 2:03 PM

The whole Creation vs. Evolution argument bores the crap out of me. I am a Christian Conservative, and yes, I believe in evolution. I think there’s a lot about evolutionary theory that we can’t and won’t ever understand, but I think there is valid and compelling evidence that creatures evolve as the Earth changes over time. I don’t think this conflicts with my Biblical understanding at all: in fact, I find that scientific knowledge usually strengthens my faith, since it provides endless evidence of God’s wisdom.

But here’s the real kicker: I do NOT think that those Christians who choose a more literal interpretation of Scripture, which is less compatible with the theory of evolution, are stupid or uneducated. On the contrary, I applaud their search for a pure faith, even though I disagree with their conclusions.

WHAT? Respect the intelligence of those with whom one disagrees, thus enabling a more fruitful debate? Imagine that, Chris Matthews….

Animator Girl on May 7, 2009 at 2:05 PM

scottjenn on May 7, 2009 at 1:47 PM

Gish has a clear bias in his research.
He is determined to proved a young earth view. That is not to say everything he may have to offer is worthless.
But his clear bias makes any work he does suspect, as well does ANY scientist out to ‘prove’ a bias.

Understanding geologic process is required knowledge in paleontology.
Paleo guys have to have at least an undergrad major in geology, as far as I understand.
Geo folks may only take one paleontology course in college.
The 2 sciences have everything to do with each other, but often do not share.
Same with biology & chemistry, physics, etc.
There are some transitional forms out there-but we have only ‘found’ a very small % of life forms that were out there to begin with.
What of all the specimens that were too soft bodied or those who never got the chance to be preserved well enough for our study?
Also please realize the world’s continents have not really been fully explored for fossilized remains very well.
Look how closed China is. Look at the Middle East lately.
Finding the majority of fossils in economic/politically stable areas does not help make the case for evolution.
The absence of transitional fossils does not make the case for sudden appearances of species. Neither do the few transitional fossils available make the case for gradual genetic changes from simple to complex a reality.
One thing we can be sure of in regards to evolution:
genetic changes DO happen as a result of environmental conditions.
This has been measured.
Indeed, we can look at our own manipulation of the canine race to conclude that species can evolve through genetic manipulation-whether man, God, nature, happenstance, etc was doing the manipulation.

Badger40 on May 7, 2009 at 2:09 PM

Evolution is THEORY, not scientific fact.

If you’re talking about macroevolution, it is not a theory. It is a hypothesis. It is still in the stage of, “I can imagine that, given enough time, microevolution would lead to macroevolution.” Or, “If gene X looks this way in a chimp, and gene X looks similar in humans, then I can imagine that they could have a common ancestor.”

The key words, “I can imagine,” tell you it’s still a hypothesis.

The next step is testing. Take a bacteria and subject it to hypothesized environmental conditions for billions of years and produce beetles and beavers from it. Then you’ve tested the hypothesis and it has graduated to a theory.

Daggett on May 7, 2009 at 2:22 PM

To say we evolved from apes is a possibility, but it’s not the only idea out there.
To say that the human race was once black? That upsets a lot of people, & yet that genetic research shows a strong possibility of it being true.
So the only position I feel knowledgeable enough to take is that:
He Earth is at least 4+ BY old
Humanity at one time looked different from the humanity we have here now
Events in nature can happen both catastrophically (i.e. Scablands in WA) & gradually (Grand Canyon)
DNA is probably the building block of life & therefore we may all be related by that notion
As far as ape to human: I have no opinion other than I am keeping my mind open to the possibility & no more.

Badger40 on May 7, 2009 at 1:20 PM

The sort of arguements you make are very reasoned even though I do not beleive in macro-evoultion/one species can transmutate into another.
I am also keeping an open mind but I get so sick of evo’s saying not believing in transmutation is anti-science.
If it is proven then I will beleive it.
The problem is that people are using evoultion as rationale to drive an athiest agenda. Christopher Hitchens and Richard dawkins for instance. And yes the opposite might be true as well.
I did find it funny when Richard dawkins said that the orgins of life may have been planted by other life forms from other planets. He could entertain that idea that higher life forms may live somewhere in the universe but he can not accept GOD in any form.

kangjie on May 7, 2009 at 2:28 PM

Until we are privy to the genetic material of fossilized remains, there is no way we can genetically analyze extinct creatures.

did you hear that they have found hemoglobin in an 80 MILLION year old dinosaur??

First dino ‘blood’ extracted from ancient bone
19:00 30 April 2009 by Jeff Hecht

A dinosaur bone buried for 80 million years has yielded a mix of proteins and microstructures resembling cells. The finding is important because it should resolve doubts about a previous report that also claimed to have extracted dino tissue from fossils.

link

which makes me really wonder about the whole dating of fossils…

If DNA is the building block of all ‘life’, then by that definition, are we ALL genetically related at some point?

I would agree, but is that because of common ancestry or we were designed that way?

It is my opinion that stating things so absolutely as you do can lead to the forcing of a scientific ‘consensus’.
To have a valid theory, we do not need ‘consensus’ in the sci community.
We just need to either prove or disprove this stuff we’re talking about.
To say we evolved from apes is a possibility, but it’s not the only idea out there.

to me the ‘consensus’ on evolution has reached cult status in the scientific community, kind of like I hear surrounds string theory…

right4life on May 7, 2009 at 2:30 PM

So, what are saying, thedude (re post on May 7, 2009 at 1:28 PM)? That science involves theory and, therefore, we should accept evolution as science? The point that people are making here and elsewhere is that Darwinian macro-evolution does not do an adequate job of explaining the observable data. And why should that surprise anyone? Darwin put forth his theory in the 19th century without the benefit of the electron microscope and other scientific equipment of the 21st century. Darwin assumed that the organisms of life were simple. Well, that was very, very wrong. We ahev learned that life’s organisms are complex to a mind boggling degree, which has led intelligent design advocates to talk about irreducible complexity precluding Darwinian evolution. Science requires squaring theory with the observable data. The zeal with which Darwinian macro-evolution advocates attack non-believers in their theory is a matter more akin to an intolerant religious belief than science.

Phil Byler on May 7, 2009 at 2:31 PM

Matthews has a political purpose to his evolution question: it is to paint non-believers in wehat he means by “evolution” as rubes and hicks who reject science. The answer to Matthews is that he is the rube who does not understand the scientific problems with Darwinian macro-evolution.

Phil Byler on May 7, 2009 at 2:35 PM

produce beetles and beavers from it

Isn’t this how Harry Reid was produced?

I would agree, but is that because of common ancestry or we were designed that way?
right4life on May 7, 2009 at 2:30 PM

Who knows & there is no way to prove/disprove that-so we are philosophizing here.
One could also make the same philosophical argument about atoms-everything is made of atoms, so everything is physically related.
None of this actually proves we are descended from something.
Macro vs micro:
IMHO pattern observed in the macro is also seen in the micro environment.
Is every pattern always observed in this way?
Impossible to know.
When someone says there is a consensus in the scientific community about something, watch out.
Sometimes the consensus mirrors reality-other times, not so much.
Take for instance the research encompassing obesity & diet.
Drs & nutritionists are actually basing everything they do on unproven research.
http://beefmagazine.com/beef-quality/0501-human-nutrition-book/
I found this article very interest & am thinking on buying the book.
I bring this all up bcs the general community is guilty, along with scientists themselves, of a lack of critical thinking skills.
I think the internet has made this worse in some ways.
People need to consider where the info is coming from & what methods were used in obtaining the info.
People don’t do this like they should anymore.

Badger40 on May 7, 2009 at 3:04 PM

http://news.mongabay.com/2008/0807-hance_antarctica.html
This is also very interesting in regards to fossil finds.

Badger40 on May 7, 2009 at 3:11 PM

But his clear bias makes any work he does suspect, as well does ANY scientist out to ‘prove’ a bias.

Badger40 on May 7, 2009 at 2:09 PM

What I know of human nature suggests that this bias is utterly commonplace.

One reason scientists often trend left is this sort of idealism; the belief that because humans can figure some things out, we can eventually get better. That’s the promise of shows like Star Trek – that we can become better. We can’t, because no known mechanism exists to create that action.

If God doesn’t destroy us in some sort of Revelations style scenario, we’ll destroy ourselves. Turns out sentience may not be a terribly adaptive trait in the long run.

TheUnrepentantGeek on May 7, 2009 at 3:11 PM

and of course the tree of life has just been discarded, along with adaptive radiation…

right4life on May 7, 2009 at 12:52 PM

And speaking of taxonomy, we all owe a debt of gratitude to Mr. Winecoff for his assistance in helping us here with our own classification issues (h/t Glenn Reynolds):

In 1983, best-selling shrink M. Scott Peck published his second book, People of The Lie. In it, he tells the stories of several patients whom he came to believe could be clinically diagnosed as “evil” – a character disorder he describes as “militant ignorance.” According to Peck, an evil person prefers to psychologically destroy others rather than face his (or her) own faults, exhibits zero empathy towards his targeted scapegoat, and enjoys falsely labeling other people as evil.

VekTor on May 7, 2009 at 3:20 PM

The zeal with which Darwinian macro-evolution advocates attack non-believers in their theory is a matter more akin to an intolerant religious belief than science.

Phil Byler on May 7, 2009 at 2:31 PM

Except there are many experiments that could disprove evolution and anyone is free to conduct them. Assertions based on supernatural beliefs can’t be proven or disproven by experiment.

dedalus on May 7, 2009 at 3:20 PM

TheUnrepentantGeek:
I agree with you-scientists are often leftists bcs they tend to think secularly.
It’s dangerous to become so arrogant that you think you can do something, like, change a planet’s climate so easily.
We are arrogant enough to clone life & ‘create’ it.
So why not be arrogant in every scientific venue?

Turns out sentience may not be a terribly adaptive trait in the long run.

TheUnrepentantGeek on May 7, 2009 at 3:11 PM

You may well be right!

Badger40 on May 7, 2009 at 3:21 PM

Phil Byler on May 7, 2009 at 2:31 PM

ssssooooooooo… what you’re saying is that anything complex is not really possible unless it has God’s hand in the making? you’re not quite able to explain all of this so you say it must be God at work? even if processes began as a chaotic mix of soupy molecules and had billions and billions of years to develop? there’s no chance for complexity there?

the bible says Adam and Eve were shaped out of the earth and then Adam’s rib was used to create Eve which accounts for the “extra” rib that women have…. oops, but women don’t have an extra rib…. and quite frankly, this just makes God look like Merlin the magician to me. i think, and it is just my opinion, God is more than that. possibly much more than we can imagine or research scientifically.

Darwin, per your example, did one very important thing. he DID observe. he observed first in one part of the world and then another. he wasn’t right about a lot of the conclusions he made, but he was the first to observe that species made changes to accommodate their environment when isolated from the larger groups prevalent on the main continent.

everyone keeps talking about what is observable…. of course the findings of evolution are observable… go to a museum, if you dare. read some books about the early earth and the earliest, most simple life-forms.

by the way, i’m not attacking anyone’s faith. i honor those who have faith and i respect anyone for any opinion they have even if i disagree.

my point, if you read back far enough, is that the conservative message is lost in a desperate attempt to hold on to “Creationism”, “Intelligent Design” or whatever new “Brand” the anti-evolutionists will come up with.

i’m attempting, albeit futilely, to separate conservative politics from this.

you simply cannot deny that there are small oceans of oil trapped under layers of sediment compressed into rock that we suck out of the ground and use to fuel our cars. those are ancient swamps and lakes that teamed with life that was different, but not alien from life that lives in swamps and lakes today.

why is it so difficult to believe that life can adapt?

lastly, what i was saying about theory is this… let me be clear so that it is not misconstrued. SCIENTISTS make observations of the surrounding world. they are curious and ask questions just like many of us do. NO ONE, not a single individual had any idea about a thing called gravity until a little-known scientist postulated (theorized) the existence of it… he then went about proving it… and he did.

he did as all scientists do, he guessed, postulated, theorized and then found proof and explained its existence. so, you see, first comes the theory, then you have to go and prove it… SCIENCE 101… a theory by itself does not mean scientific proof… which is why global warming is a THEORY, not fact and al gore should rescind any statement that the debate is over…

that’s just NOT science. period.

often in science, the theory comes first. what most people don’t seem to realize that just because it is a theory, doesn’t mean it is automatically scientific fact. the ratio of theories that have been developed, then later disproved, is far greater than the number of theories that have been proved… which is why it is so important not to ignore overwhelming evidence.

basically, many more theories are disproved than proved. evolution, much to the shagrin of many, is one that has been proven, and the evidence, as i said before, continues to mount.

thedude on May 7, 2009 at 3:32 PM

This is the logical consequence of refusing to obsess over someone’s stance on an issue – to use that stance as a litmus test for their rationality on every issue.

TheUnrepentantGeek on May 7, 2009 at 1:02 PM

This relates to what we’re talking about on the other thread. Maybe evolution isn’t a good litmus test for rationality on every issue, but it’s an outstanding litmus test for rationality on science and technology. Are those important issues? Is it important for conservatism as a political movement to influence those issues?

RightOFLeft on May 7, 2009 at 3:46 PM

but it’s an outstanding litmus test for rationality on science and technology.

RightOFLeft on May 7, 2009 at 3:46 PM

I disagree. You can be a perfectly competent programmer, network administrator, statistician, research scientist, or other vocation without subscribing to evolutionary theory as taught. All you have to do is refrain from thinking about it very much and operate on known good information.

How many chemists or biologists or psychologists actually reference the details of evolutionary theory as they go about their daily business? Naturally some do, but many people aren’t in fields that touch the totality of evolutionary theory and require acceptance of it to proceed. People are quite good at separating things in their minds – it doesn’t all blend together all the time.

How near to working memory is evolution on average, for say, a mechanical engineer? Does he really care about speciation when he’s designing a new component for an engine? Is his belief in YEC going to cause him to suddenly go batty and start wearing his socks on his head?

Furthermore, how likely is lacking information on evolution or disputing its veracity likely to lead to bad outcomes for all fields of science and technology? Certainly it would be a problem in some fields, but for most I think you’d barely notice.

What we should really do is get folks to stop waging war over the topic (unless it’s directly relevant to your field of study and the discussion at hand) and chill the hell out.

It’s utterly foolish of Charles and his ilk to ban, deride, or throw commenters under the bridge for a faulty belief and then claim to be utterly rational. It’s bad politics, and it’s bad logic. It’s just dumb and irrational all around.

TheUnrepentantGeek on May 7, 2009 at 4:05 PM

basically, many more theories are disproved than proved. evolution, much to the shagrin of many, is one that has been proven, and the evidence, as i said before, continues to mount.

thedude on May 7, 2009 at 3:32 PM

I think just the opposite is true. all of the building blocks of evolution are being falsified, like the tree of life

right4life on May 7, 2009 at 4:20 PM

Matthews has a political purpose to his evolution question: it is to paint non-believers in wehat he means by “evolution” as rubes and hicks who reject science. The answer to Matthews is that he is the rube who does not understand the scientific problems with Darwinian macro-evolution.

Phil Byler on May 7, 2009 at 2:35 PM

Totally agree with you, Phil, but why do these politicians go on these shows, and why do they allow themselves to be manipulated like this?

Getting publicity is one thing, but being pelted in the public arena by the court jester of the democratic party is another. How on earth is that good publicity?

Seriously, I don’t get it with these guys. Maybe someone here who has had experience in the political arena can help me.

Joe Pyne on May 7, 2009 at 4:31 PM

All you have to do is refrain from thinking about it very much

Shorter Unrepentant Geek:

Dis-belief in Evolution will not harm you as long as you work in a non-related field.

>it’s an outstanding litmus test for rationality on science and technology

Ding! Ding! Ding! A huge problem with the GOP right now is the rejection of information known to be factual.

maleman on May 7, 2009 at 4:54 PM

I think just the opposite is true. all of the building blocks of evolution are being falsified, like the tree of life

right4life on May 7, 2009 at 4:20 PM

it’s ok if you disagree.

that’s the thing about faith. it is, after all, faith. which is not science.

i would be really interested to know how, in what way, evolution is being disproved. i mean, i am an open-minded person and enjoy new ideas so i’m game. fill me in.

i don’t know where you’re coming from, so it’s very hard for me to answer…

a question to anyone here in the comments.

why is evolution controversial? why is this scientific research, based on factual evidence, so hard to accept?

i believe it was the one of the earliest scientists who claimed, like copernicus, that earth was a planet and that all planets orbited around the sun and that the sun was not at the center of the universe, who was arrested and burned at the stake for saying so. they gave him the chance to repent for years and he wouldn’t.

and how many other scientists were held in prison, even for years, for theories, discoveries and proven science that we still observe today?

seriously, conservatives… well, forget it… you are all entitled to your own opinion. i, for one, am conservative and proud of it. even if i can’t get on board with every conservative view.

diversity! rock on.

thedude on May 7, 2009 at 4:54 PM

if it’s simply about proving that there’s a designer somewhere in a process that might have taken billions of years, then it’s really just Darwinism + a remote God at the very beginning, no?

AP – My understanding is that is EXACTLY what the mainstream ID argument is.

All the gnashing of teeth is kind of ridiculous, IMO. Their argument is not so different from the old “watchmaker” parable/analogy.

connertown on May 7, 2009 at 4:58 PM

What is the asshat’s design in making this his hobbyhorse? He is such a tool.

thegreatbeast on May 7, 2009 at 4:58 PM

When someone says there is a consensus in the scientific community about something, watch out.

This idea of scientific consensus scares me almost as much as a politician saying “the debate is over”. No, jackass…the debate is never over. Maybe there are some true scientific consensi out there (like water is wet or something), but everyone would do well to keep a healthy amount of skepticism in reserve, especially with scientific ideas that have been politicized.

just because something occurs over vast geologic time (that is difficult to imagine because mankind’s history is only thousands of years old) does not mean it doesn’t exist. and there is no “SLIVER” of data to which you refer to. evolution is proven and there is only more evidence that shows up for it all the time.

Yes, there is only a sliver of data, when compared on the scale of the age of the earth. We have understood the concept of DNA for less than a century. We have been able to analyze genetic data for an even shorter period of time. My point is this…to take genetic data from, at best, several decades from a planet that has arguably sustained life for billions of years, and then form an entire basis of how that life arose during that period from that miniscule amount of data…well, it’s like trying to analyze the entire course of the stock market by looking at the DJIA for two seconds.

Sorry, but no…until we can send scientists back in time and monitor millions of species changing over billions of years…evolution remains an unprovable idea.

Similarly with global warming, scientists are taking climate data on the scale of decades and attempting to predict climate patterns best measured on the scale of eons. It’s just bad science.

Hell, we’re even calling into questions things we thought we knew about the cosmos. The speed of light is fixed? Hmm….maybe not. Space is warped and might be giving us wrong ideas about distances between stars and galaxies? Guess things are a little more chaotic and messy than we thought.

Both ideas (I refuse to call them theories) have also been tainted by politics. Grants are awarded so that scientific claims can be made to fit a political agenda, on either side of the argument. Scientists, especially those reliant on grant funds to make a living, are well aware of how to play the game.

Am I a creationist? Absolutely..I look at the world and I see beauty and patterns which to me denote intelligence. But that takes faith. Do I know how life arose? I wasn’t there, and neither was anyone else. In order to accept evolution you must faithfully accept that something happened which you did not witness, based on a comparatively minute amount of evidence. That’s called faith. I just wish the people who believe in evolution would admit this.

TheMightyMonarch on May 7, 2009 at 5:05 PM

I also notice that Matthews is one of those who is engaged in trying to move the goalposts on the ecology front. The big issue for the environmental crowd was/is GLOBAL WARMING, NOT CLIMATE CHANGE (which means practically nothing [the climate changing all the time]). We mustn’t let the asshats get away with it. The data is working against adherents to the Church of Ecological Hysteria so they are trying to change the subject.

thegreatbeast on May 7, 2009 at 5:10 PM

why is evolution controversial? why is this scientific research, based on factual evidence, so hard to accept?

At one point it was seen as a direct contradiction of the Bible’s account of creation. Some used evolution to try and disprove God (as if such a thing was possible).

My skepticism comes from several fronts. First, man is imperfect. Sometimes we are so clouded on what we think is true that we will skew the evidence to fit our point of view. Sometimes people will even go to the lengths of falsifying the evidence because they either let their belief cloud their reason or they are under pressure from others to produce a desired result.

And yes, I believe this happens on both sides of any argument.

Secondly, science has always been at risk of being politicized. Once it has that taint on it I stop trusting the science and start looking to see who benefits or profits most from the results.

Thirdly, I don’t see evolution as a theory to be tested. There is no rational way to prove as much beyond some instances of natural selection, changes in microbial organisms (they’re one of the few forms of life where several generations can be observed over a relatively short period of time), and carbon dating (which has its own limitations).

TheMightyMonarch on May 7, 2009 at 5:17 PM

TheMightyMonarch on May 7, 2009 at 5:05 PM

I am assuming I am not the “jackass” you are referring to.

Hell, we’re even calling into questions things we thought we knew about the cosmos. The speed of light is fixed? Hmm….maybe not. Space is warped and might be giving us wrong ideas about distances between stars and galaxies? Guess things are a little more chaotic and messy than we thought.

Maybe so-but maybe not. There is probably order within the chaos, we just haven’t recognized it yet.

Sorry, but no…until we can send scientists back in time and monitor millions of species changing over billions of years…evolution remains an unprovable idea.

That is not always necessary to prove/disprove something.
I don’t have to listen to you heart rate for a whole day to measure it.
I don’t have to watch a river deposit sediment for a whole year every day to calculate its rate of annual deposition.

Similarly with global warming, scientists are taking climate data on the scale of decades and attempting to predict climate patterns best measured on the scale of eons. It’s just bad science.

I’m not a AGW supporter, but taking this route does not always produce the ‘bad science’ you are alluding to.
Just bcs scientists can’t always produce inarguable results does not mean they are doing ‘bad science’.
Scientific knowledge is a growing body of work. The hypotheses & theories are ever changing & even our understanding of a scientific law can change due to more & more accurate knowledge &/or advance technology.

Badger40 on May 7, 2009 at 5:22 PM

Thirdly, I don’t see evolution as a theory to be tested. There is no rational way to prove as much beyond some instances of natural selection, changes in microbial organisms (they’re one of the few forms of life where several generations can be observed over a relatively short period of time), and carbon dating (which has its own limitations).

TheMightyMonarch on May 7, 2009 at 5:17 PM

These are things you ‘believe’.
These are opinions. But that doesn’t always make your assertions true.
Mine, either.
Carbon dating has limitations-age limitations.
You don’t use a ruler to take your temperature.
Carbon dating is usable for certain purposes & not others.

Badger40 on May 7, 2009 at 5:25 PM

TheMightyMonarch on May 7, 2009 at 5:05 PM

duuude… seriously? i really shouldn’t laugh, you are entitled to your point of view. let it be known, for the record, that i don’t hate you and i don’t think you’re not very intelligent or that there should be some whacky attacks against you. that’s a lefty thing and i’m not into it.

i have already commented on the difference between evolution and global warming. one of the biggest problems about global warming, as a scientific theory, is that it is advanced by a beleaguered leftist politician. most science really isn’t championed by such an obvious political agenda, but yes, i suppose it would be possible that there could be some influence in other areas of science if there’s such a great influence in global warming.

and yes, skepticism is good. OH LORD, thank God for skepticism. i’m all for it and pride myself as one, in fact… i will not, however, be skeptical of science because i already have a pre-conceived notion. I AM OPEN to any possibility, but i will be skeptical of it until is see proof. i will NOT fight away real science because i cling to a belief.

further, i have never seen, and never felt that evolution was pushed on me in any way shape or form… global warming, different matter. that’s being pushed on everyone.

as far as evolution… you have to ignore fossil data. you have to ignore geologic data. you have to ignore cro-magnon and homo erectus. you have to ignore how there were simple species of animals early on, then more complex, and further still, until now. there’s just so much proven science that you literally have to ignore it all to remain a pure creationist. and for that, i just cannot go there with you.

by the way, scientists are, and have been combing over millions upon billions of years of evidence gleaned from the fossil record over vast periods of geologic time. so yes, they are making observations, combing over millions of years… respectively, they are observing what the fossil record is showing them and checking and re-checking the evidence. not believing it first, then looking for evidence. (which is what many do with global warming as well)

merely by being a creationist, you have accepted that your belief will not be based on any evidence you find, but on your own personal beliefs.

and you, sir, are entitled to that.

this is so funny to me. i am such an active conservative. i try to talk about what conservatism means to people whenever i can, put down false beliefs and assumptions. talk about about freedoms and liberty and the right to be successful in life… i never thought i’d be arguing this point with other conservatives.

how about being a skeptic of creationism?
peace.

thedude on May 7, 2009 at 5:35 PM

>it’s an outstanding litmus test for rationality on science and technology

Ding! Ding! Ding! A huge problem with the GOP right now is the rejection of information known to be factual.

maleman on May 7, 2009 at 4:54 PM

You didn’t really read what I wrote did you? Or do you honestly think the average chemist is reciting the Origin of Species to himself as he works?

Whatever man. By all means continue the convenient delusion of complete and utter rationality. I’m sure it’s terribly comforting. Not terribly logically consistent for a self proclaimed barely evolved primate, but a nice way to set oneself up as superior to a sizable portion of the planet.

TheUnrepentantGeek on May 7, 2009 at 5:35 PM

You didn’t really read what I wrote did you? Or do you honestly think the average chemist is reciting the Origin of Species to himself as he works?

Whatever man. By all means continue the convenient delusion of complete and utter rationality. I’m sure it’s terribly comforting. Not terribly logically consistent for a self proclaimed barely evolved primate, but a nice way to set oneself up as superior to a sizable portion of the planet.

TheUnrepentantGeek on May 7, 2009 at 5:35 PM

Actually, don’t listen to me. I denounce myself.

TheUnrepentantGeek on May 7, 2009 at 5:37 PM

TheMightyMonarch on May 7, 2009 at 5:17 PM

dude, again, please wow… scientists don’t trust science… they check it. that’s what they have to do to be sure of their findings.

just go check creation theory for facts or flaws and don’t accept it as real until you actually prove you have evidence. i mean, how you can totally be on board with a lofty claim such as creationism and yet deny what science has revealed about evolution is truly amazing.

you’re not being skeptical really, just seeing it your way.

cool, it’s all good.

thedude on May 7, 2009 at 5:40 PM

Who knows & there is no way to prove/disprove that-so we are philosophizing here.
Badger40 on May 7, 2009 at 3:04 PM

True. So why does one side of the argument forbid the other side from even having a fair hearing? I don’t hear ID people saying that evolution should not be taught in public schools. Rather it’s the evolutionists who don’t even want books to say it’s just a theory! What happened to exchange of ideas? What happened to science considering all theories that fit the data? Why is it that even the best evolutionists can’t supply proofs, but yet want to insist that no other theory has validity? You people who decry the Fairness Doctrine or the Global Warming hoax have can’t see it’s the same thing going on?
The left needs Christianity out of the way because it hinders their progress to pervert the minds of the people and take control. But conservatives? Are we afraid of the free exchange of ideas?

Christian Conservative on May 7, 2009 at 6:19 PM

as far as evolution… you have to ignore fossil data. you have to ignore geologic data. you have to ignore cro-magnon and homo erectus.

I don’t ignore any of this, I just doubt the conclusions drawn from them. I doubt the motivations that sometimes draw people to conclusions based on their pre-conceived notions. Just as I doubt global warming scientists who take several decades of temperature data and attempt to explain climate patterns over the course of hundreds of thousands of years.

further, i have never seen, and never felt that evolution was pushed on me in any way shape or form… global warming, different matter. that’s being pushed on everyone.

My guess is you weren’t around when it was being pushed more fervently. I majored in molecular biology in the mid 90s, and I can tell you from my experience that evolution was pushed as a foregone conclusion. A scientific consensus. No debate. It was a jarring experience to see scientists, who are supposed to be the biggest of skeptics, to accept a premise with so much conviction in the face of massive holes in evidence.

just go check creation theory for facts or flaws and don’t accept it as real until you actually prove you have evidence.

So you’re asking me to prove God exists. You’re going to be waiting for quite a while. I have no evidence. I merely have my faith. By the way, you incorrectly define creationism as a “theory”.

i mean, how you can totally be on board with a lofty claim such as creationism and yet deny what science has revealed about evolution is truly amazing.

Your choice of words is interesting here. “Deny what science has revealed about evolution”. That suggests to me that you’re starting with a concept (evolution) then trying to apply your evidence (science) to fit into a preconceived notion of what that concept is.

“Deny what science has revealed about evolution”. Substitute “faith” for science and “God” for evolution and they sound eerily similar, don’t they?

you’re not being skeptical really, just seeing it your way.

Actually, I am being skeptical. Evolution requires that we accept incomplete evidence to explain a process that we were not around for the majority of time it would take to observe. Fossil records may be incomplete or misleading. Carbon dating is limited in scope. We have only had access to genetic data for a very short amount of time when compared with the supposed age of the planet.

I’m not saying evolution isn’t what actually happened, I’m just saying that it is impossible to know. I’m saying that those who tout evolution as science tend to assume a lot of things on faith and a substantial lack of evidence.

I am assuming I am not the “jackass” you are referring to.

Hehe, no. My mind immediately went to Al Gore several years ago on some unhinged rant/speech about how the debate over global warming is over. =)

TheMightyMonarch on May 7, 2009 at 6:57 PM

IF YOU WANT TO BELIEVE YOU CAME FROM A MONKEY KNOCK YOUR SELF OUT ,AS FOR ME I AM SO STUPID I BELIEVE EVERY SINGLE WORD OF THE BIBLE.IF THE BIBLE SAYS IT I BELIEVE IT.SO IF THAT MAKES ME STUPID OR A FOOL PLEASE FEEL FREE TO LAUGH,BUT ONE DAY WHEN YOUR HEART TELLS YOU IT’S TIME TO DIE YOU WILL CALL OUT ON THE VERY GOD YOU HATE TRUST ME ON THIS.

wade underhile on May 7, 2009 at 7:14 PM

A huge problem with the GOP right now is the rejection of information known to be factual.

Oh, both sides are guilty of that. It’s just that the Dems tend to reject evidence that have a much bigger impact on people. Like how increased taxes inhibit and delay economic growth. Or how taxes affect everyone regardless of who pays them directly. Or how government, as an entity with little to no oversight, is much more likely to misallocate capital than the free market, which has scads of oversight.

TheMightyMonarch on May 7, 2009 at 7:16 PM

it’s ok if you disagree.

that’s the thing about faith. it is, after all, faith. which is not science.

I consider evolution a faith and not science. you have to believe in what you cannot see, or feel, or duplicate. The fossil record does not support evolution, and you cannot take a bacteria and evolve it into a multi-cellular animal. The sequences of mutations for things like an eye are not known. Evolution is a totally materialistic theory…so somehow a molecule had to become self-replicating, and then somehow become alive and able to reproduce. and please don’t tell me OOl is not part of evolution.

Evolution is also a worldview, a religion, that purports to explain all of human behavior….its implications are clear, and Provine acknowledged:

Naturalistic evolution has clear consequences that Charles Darwin understood perfectly. 1) No gods worth having exist; 2) no life after death exists; 3) no ultimate foundation for ethics exists; 4) no ultimate meaning in life exists; and 5) human free will is nonexistent.”

Provine, William B. [Professor of Biological Sciences, Cornell University], “, “Evolution: Free will and punishment and meaning in life”, Abstract of Will Provine’s 1998 Darwin Day Keynote Address.

i would be really interested to know how, in what way, evolution is being disproved. i mean, i am an open-minded person and enjoy new ideas so i’m game. fill me in.

as I said before a lack of evidence in the fossil record, and in the lab…

adaptive radiation lacks empirical evidence..

link

the tree of life is wrong…

link

conserved and ultra-conserved areas of the genome…why would any area be conserved? and how would evolution know to conserve an area??

the inability of people like miller to answer the irreducable complexity argument…and telling a story doesn’t count.

Haldane’s dilemma

Mutational meltdown…which is illustrated nicely in this article…

link

the biological big bang…

link

the sexes…isn’t it convenient that they somehow managed to both evolve at the same time? Dawkins called it an ‘abominable mystery’

right4life on May 7, 2009 at 7:37 PM

I thought this crew read Ann Coulter books, yes? She does an excellent de-bunking of the evolution theory far better than could I in a posting. Her book “Godless” is a must read for our impassioned posters. I agree with her. It’s the stupidest religion every invented by man. I would answer Mr. Matthew with a “no I don’t believe in evolution.” He could then get back to licking Obama’s boots.

Mojave Mark on May 7, 2009 at 7:37 PM

it’s ok if you disagree.

that’s the thing about faith. it is, after all, faith. which is not science.

I consider evolution a faith and not science. you have to believe in what you cannot see, or feel, or duplicate. The fossil record does not support evolution, and you cannot take a bacteria and evolve it into a multi-cellular animal. The sequences of mutations for things like an eye are not known. Evolution is a totally materialistic theory…so somehow a molecule had to become self-replicating, and then somehow become alive and able to reproduce. and please don’t tell me OOl is not part of evolution.

Evolution is also a worldview, a religion, that purports to explain all of human behavior….its implications are clear, and Provine acknowledged:

Naturalistic evolution has clear consequences that Charles Darwin understood perfectly. 1) No gods worth having exist; 2) no life after death exists; 3) no ultimate foundation for ethics exists; 4) no ultimate meaning in life exists; and 5) human free will is nonexistent.”

Provine, William B. [Professor of Biological Sciences, Cornell University], “, “Evolution: Free will and punishment and meaning in life”, Abstract of Will Provine’s 1998 Darwin Day Keynote Address.

i would be really interested to know how, in what way, evolution is being disproved. i mean, i am an open-minded person and enjoy new ideas so i’m game. fill me in.

as I said before a lack of evidence in the fossil record, and in the lab…

adaptive radiation lacks empirical evidence..

link

the tree of life is wrong…

link

conserved and ultra-conserved areas of the genome…why would any area be conserved? and how would evolution know to conserve an area??

the inability of people like miller to answer the irreducable complexity argument…and telling a story doesn’t count.

Haldane’s dilemma

right4life on May 7, 2009 at 7:38 PM

continued because it only lets me post so many links…

Mutational meltdown…which is illustrated nicely in this article…

link

the biological big bang…

link

the sexes…isn’t it convenient that they somehow managed to both evolve at the same time? Dawkins called it an ‘abominable mystery’

animals like the tuatara which has the fastest rate of ‘micro’ DNA evolution and is yet a living dinosaur.

why some animals evolve…like humans…and some do not like the tuatara, the coelecanth…evolution ‘knows’ things….and saying its perfectly adapted is a tautology because the only way you know its adapted is it survives..

and how many other scientists were held in prison, even for years, for theories, discoveries and proven science that we still observe today?

thedude on May 7, 2009 at 4:54 PM

interesting that you would say that…when now its the darwinists who are the ones who sue, silence, and harass all who dare disagree…..see sternberg, gonzales, crocker…

right4life on May 7, 2009 at 7:41 PM

Shorter Unrepentant Geek:

Dis-belief in Evolution will not harm you as long as you work in a non-related field.

maleman on May 7, 2009 at 4:54 PM

really? would you like to tell that to all the millions of victims of the eugenics movement? Eugenics are nothing more than applied evolution..and its racist as hell…

“Biological arguments for racism may have been common before 1859, but they increased by orders of magnitude following the acceptance of evolutionary theory.” Stephen Jay Gould,
‘Ontogeny and Phylogeny’, Belknap-Harvard Press, pp. 27-128

and this strain of racism persists to this day…see Watson…and this from Darwin himself..

“With savages, the weak in body or mind are soon eliminated; and those that survive commonly exhibit a vigorous state of health. We civilised men, on the other hand, do our utmost to check the process of elimination; we build asylums for the imbecile, the maimed, and the sick; we institute poor-laws; and our medical men exert their utmost skill to save the life of every one to the last moment. There is reason to believe that vaccination has preserved thousands, who from a weak constitution would formerly have succumbed to small-pox. Thus the weak members of civilised societies propagate their kind. No one who has attended to the breeding of domestic animals will doubt that this must be highly injurious to the race of man. It is surprising how soon a want of care, or care wrongly directed, leads to the degeneration of a domestic race; but excepting in the case of man himself, hardly any one is so ignorant as to allow his worst animals to breed.” (Darwin, Charles R. [English naturalist and founder of the modern theory of evolution], “The Descent of Man and Selection in Relation to Sex,” [1871], John Murray: London, Second Edition, 1922, reprint, pp.205-206)

Darwin’s cousin Galton founded the eugenics movement, even coined the term….and his sons were active in it…as was margaret sanger…and of course the eugenics policies of Hitler and the ‘master race’ were the ultimate expression of this idea…

right4life on May 7, 2009 at 7:51 PM

Unfortunately, the Communists have long used evolutionary theory as a weapon against Christianity and religion in general. Marx praised Darwin because Marx was describing social/economic evolutionary theory at the same time (curious then that Trofim Lysenko-under Stalin-embraced Lamarck’s evolutionary theories?).

May have missed his name posted here, but Alfred Wallace discovered natural selection independently of Darwin. Also, consider that Darwin’s position 150 years ago was weaker because Mendel was still trying to figure out basic genetics, no one knew what DNA did, most of the fossil artifacts had yet to be discovered, embryology was in its infancy, no one yet knew the relationship between proteins, DNA and heredity, radioisotope dating had yet to be invented, chromosomes were not understood, even exactly what cells were was unclear in those days, mutations were unknown and on and on.

The main flaw in Darwin’s theories was his (and everyone else’s) lack of understanding of exactly what and how traits were passed on from one generation to another.

Dr. ZhivBlago on May 7, 2009 at 8:03 PM

Badger40 on May 7, 2009 at 1:34 PM
true, and your example of the A-bomb is better than mine.

Not exactly.

E=MC2 was not proven till Nov. 21, 2008

Einstein’s E=MC2 Proven Thanks to Quarks
AFP

http://dsc.discovery.com/news/2008/11/21/einstein-formula.html

And the first man made nuclear reaction was the Chicago Pile-1 (CP-1)

CP-1 GOES CRITICAL
Met Lab (December 2, 1942)
Events: The Plutonium Path to the Bomb, 1942-1944
While arrangements were proceeding for the construction of full-size plutonium production reactors, critical questions remained about their basic design.

DSchoen on May 7, 2009 at 8:06 PM

Be careful what you wish for. Once you get to have your religion in the science class, the others have just as much right also.
firepilot

ohhhhh
so close!

If you believe that only “science” should be taught in “science class” then why would you want Evolution taught in science class?

Evolution is only an un-provable theory.
As is ID or the Hindus version, or any version.

If you allow one ya have to allow them all, otherwise your not being intellectually honest.

If you favor one over the other then your nothing more than an unedumikated bigot like
Chris Matthews.

DSchoen on May 7, 2009 at 8:29 PM

Eugenics are nothing more than applied evolution..and its racist as hell…

If you can’t understand the difference between Natural Selection and Eugenics, you are lost.

Analogy: Assisted Suicide is not applied physiology.

Darwin’s cousin Galton founded the eugenics movement, even coined the term….and his sons were active in it…as was margaret sanger…and of course the eugenics policies of Hitler and the ‘master race’ were the ultimate expression of this idea…

Of course, not one bit of this has any bearing on the validity or morality of the Theory of Evolution. Someone can take their knowledge of physics and create an atomic bomb to use for evil purposes. By your logic, that means physics is bad and e=mc^2 is false.

maleman on May 7, 2009 at 8:51 PM

What I am saying to you, thedude re your 3:32 PM post, is that the complexity that we now know exists at the biomolecular level is an intractible problem for Darwinian macro-evolution, and it is a problem that Darwin himself acknowledged. You have thus not responded to my 2:31 PM post by going off essentially making fun of intelligent design. The issue is scientific proof of Darwinian evolution.

As to that issue, you are also patently incorrect in asserting that Darwinian evolution has been proven. What you can cite in terms of proof of “evolution” are cases of intra-species modifications. They do not prove what is more accurately referred to as Darwinian macro-evolution. Efforts to prove Darwinian macro-evolution basically come down to strained efforts to say “it’s possible.” What proponents of intelligent design, such as Michael Behe, are saying is that intelligent design explains the data far, far better than Darwinian macro-evolution.

Phil Byler on May 7, 2009 at 10:27 PM

If you can’t understand the difference between Natural Selection and Eugenics, you are lost.

did you read darwin’s own words? do you agree with them or not? survival of the fittest, getting rid of the ‘useless eaters’ right?

this has been known and commented on for a long time…by istorians and biologists…

The Darwin-Hitler connection is no recent discovery. In her classic 1951 work The Origins of Totalitarianism, Hannah Arendt wrote: “Underlying the Nazis’ belief in race laws as the expression of the law of nature in man, is Darwin’s idea of man as the product of a natural development which does not necessarily stop with the present species of human being.”

The standard biographies of Hitler almost all point to the influence of Darwinism on their subject. In Hitler: A Study in Tyranny, Alan Bullock writes: “The basis of Hitler’s political beliefs was a crude Darwinism.” What Hitler found objectionable about Christianity was its rejection of Darwin’s theory: “Its teaching, he declared, was a rebellion against the natural law of selection by struggle and the survival of the fittest.”

John Toland’s Adolf Hitler: The Definitive Biography says this of Hitler’s Second Book published in 1928: “An essential of Hitler’s conclusions in this book was the conviction drawn from Darwin that might makes right.”

In his biography, Hitler: 1889-1936: Hubris, Ian Kershaw explains that “crude social-Darwinism” gave Hitler “his entire political ‘world-view.’ ” Hitler, like lots of other Europeans and Americans of his day, saw Darwinism as offering a total picture of social reality. This view called “social Darwinism” is a logical extension of Darwinian evolutionary theory and was articulated by Darwin himself.

link

ideas have consequences, and as provine admits, evolution is far more than just a science theory, its a worldview…a religion.

“‘Social Darwinism’ is often taken to be something extraneous, an ugly concretion added to the pure Darwinian corpus after the event, tarnishing Darwin’s image. But his notebooks make plain that competition, free trade, imperialism, racial extermination, and sexual inequality were written into the equation from the start- ‘Darwinism’ was always intended to explain human society.” (Desmond, Adrian [Science historian, University College, London] & Moore, James [Science historian, The Open University, UK], “Darwin,” [1991], Penguin: London, 1992, reprint, pp.xix).

“The more civilized so-called Caucasian races have beaten the Turkish hollow in the struggle for existence. Looking to the world at no very distant date, what an endless number of the lower races will have been eliminated by the higher civilised races throughout the world.” (Darwin, Charles R. [English naturalist and founder of the modern theory of evolution], “The Life of Charles Darwin”, [1902], Senate: London, 1995, reprint, p.64).

A direct line runs from Darwin, through the founder of the eugenics movement-Darwin’s cousin, Francis Galton-to the extermination camps of Nazi Europe.” (Brookes, Martin.,”Ripe old age,” Review of “Of Flies, Mice and Men,” by Francois Jacob, Harvard University Press, 1999. New Scientist, Vol. 161, No. 2171, 30 January 1999, p.41).

right4life on May 8, 2009 at 8:55 AM

Of course, not one bit of this has any bearing on the validity or morality of the Theory of Evolution. Someone can take their knowledge of physics and create an atomic bomb to use for evil purposes. By your logic, that means physics is bad and e=mc^2 is false.

maleman on May 7, 2009 at 8:51 PM

obviously it has a great bearing on the ‘morality’ of evolution…racism and eugenics is IMPLICIT in the theory..and since you think evolution is so valid, why didn’t you deal with my earlier objections to it?

right4life on May 8, 2009 at 8:57 AM

If I was Tancredo, I would have said,

“I absolutely believe in evolution. If anything at all, I’ve found the missing links in you[Matthews], Olberman, and Shuster”.

bombos on May 8, 2009 at 11:07 AM

Comment pages: 1 3 4 5