It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Originally posted by Lasheic
many many of the most celebrated Scientists today say "Dogmatism" is now the Science of the day and you can't get around it.
What scientists? Who? If there's so many, perhaps you wouldn't mind putting up some sourced quotes.
Prove me wrong then.
I'll tell you mine if you tell me yours.
" We are told dogmatically that Evolution is an established fact; but we are never told who has established it, and by what means. We are told, often enough, that the doctrine is founded upon evidence, and that indeed this evidence 'is henceforward above all verification, as well as being immune from any subsequent contradiction by experience;' but we are left entirely in the dark on the crucial question wherein, precisely, this evidence consists."
Smith, Wolfgang (1988) Teilhardism and the New Religion: A Thorough Analysis of The Teachings of Pierre Teilhard de Chardin, Rockford, Illinois: Tan Books & Publishers Inc., p.2
EVIDENCE A MATTER OF FAITH, A.C. SEWARD, Cambridge, PLANT LIFE THROUGH THE AGES, p.561, "The theoretically primitive type eludes our grasp; our faith postulates its existence but the type fails to materialize."
'We have no acceptable theory of evolution at the present time. There is none; and I cannot accept the theory that I teach to my students each year. Let me explain. I teach the synthetic theory known as the neo-Darwinian one, for one reason only; not because it's good, we know it is bad, but because there isn't any other. Whilst waiting to find something better you are taught something which is known to be inexact, which is a first approximation. . .'
Professor Jerome Lejeune: From a French recording of internationally recognized geneticist, Professor Jerome Lejeune, at a lecture given in Paris on March 17, 1985. Translated by Peter Wilders of Monaco.
"The fact of evolution is the backbone of biology, and biology is thus in the peculiar position of being a science founded on an unproved theory-is it then a science or a faith? Belief in the theory of evolution is thus exactly parallel to belief in special creation-both are concepts which believers know to be true but neither, up to the present, has been capable of proof"
Matthews, L. Harrison [British biologist and Fellow of the Royal Society], "Introduction", Darwin C.R., "The Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection," J. M. Dent & Sons: London, 1976, pp.x,xi, in Ankerberg J.* & Weldon J.*, "Rational Inquiry & the Force of Scientific Data: Are New Horizons Emerging?," in Moreland J.P., ed., "The Creation Hypothesis: Scientific Evidence for an Intelligent Designer," InterVarsity Press: Downers Grove IL., 1994, p.275.
I think we need to go further than this and admit that the only acceptable explanation is creation. I know this is an anathema to physicists, as indeed it is to me, but we must not reject a theory that we do not like if the experimental evidence supports it."
H. S. Lipson; Prof of Physics, University of Manchester, A paper published by The Institute of Physics, IOP Publishing Ltd., 1980
Evolutionists purport to explain where we came from and how we developed into the complex organisms that we are. Physicists, by and large, do not. So, the study of evolution trespasses on the bailiwick of religion. And it has something else in common with religion. It is almost as hard for scientists to demonstrate evolution to the lay public as it would be for churchmen to prove transubstantiation or the virginity of Mary."
Wills, Christopher [Professor of Biology, University of California, San Diego], "The Wisdom of the Genes: New Pathways in Evolution," Basic Books: New York NY, 1989, p.9.
DARWIN'S BIGGEST PROBLEM, "....innumerable transitional forms must have existed but why do we not find them embedded in countless numbers in the crust of the earth? ....why is not every geological formation and every stratum full of such intermediate links? Geology assuredly does not reveal any such finely graduated organic chain, and this perhaps is the greatest objection which can be urged against my theory". ORIGIN OF THE SPECIES.
MORE EMBARRASSING, DAVID M. RAUP, Univ. Chicago; Chicago Field Mus. of N.H., "The evidence we find in the geologic record is not nearly as compatible with Darwinian natural selection as we would like it to be. Darwin was completely aware of this. He was embarrassed by the fossil record because it didn't look the way he predicted it would.... Well, we are now about 120 years after Darwin and the knowledge of the fossil record has been greatly expanded. We now have a quarter of a million fossil species but the situation hasn't changed much. ...ironically, we have even fewer examples of evolutionary transition than we had in Darwin's time. By this I mean that some of the classic cases of Darwinian change in the fossil record, such as the evolution of the horse in North America, have had to be discarded or modified as the result of more detailed information." F.M.O.N.H.B., Vol.50, p.35
GOOD RECORD-BAD PREDICTION, NILES ELIDRIDGE, Columbia Univ., American Museum of Nat. Hist., "He (Darwin) prophesied that future generations of paleontologists would fill in these gaps by diligent search. ... One hundred and twenty years of paleontological research later, it has become abundantly clear that the fossil record will not confirm this part of Darwin's predictions. Nor is the problem a miserably poor record. The fossil record simply shows that this prediction was wrong." The Myths of Human Evolution, p.45-46
STORY TIME OVER, DEREK AGER, Univ. at Swansea, Wales, "It must be significant that nearly all the evolutionary stories I learned as a student...have now been 'debunked.' Similarly, my own experience of more than twenty years looking for evolutionary lineage's among the Mesozoic Brachiopoda has proved them equally elusive.", PROC. GEOL. ASSO., Vol.87, p.132
"FOSSIL BIRD SHAKES EVOLUTIONARY HYPOTHESIS", Nature, Vol. 322, 1986 p.677, "Fossil remains claimed to be of two crow-sized birds 75 million years older than Archaeopteryx have been found. ...a paleontologist at Texas Tech University, who found the fossils, says they have advanced avian features. ...tends to confirm what many paleontologists have long suspected, that Archaeopteryx is not on the direct line to modern birds."
REPTILE TO BIRD W.E. SWINTON, "The origin of birds is largely a matter of deduction. There is no fossil evidence of the stages through which the remarkable change from reptile to bird was achieved." BIOLOGY & COMPARATIVE PHYSIOLOGY OF BIRDS Vol. 1, p.1.
ORDERS, CLASSES, & PHYLA, GEORGE GAYLORD SIMPSON, Harvard, "Gaps among known species are sporadic and often small. Gaps among known orders, classes, and phyla are systematic and almost always large.", EVOLUTION OF LIFE, p. 149
GENUINE KNOWLEDGE, D.B. KITTS, University of Oklahoma, "Despite the bright promise that paleontology provides a means of "seeing" evolution, it has presented some nasty difficulties for evolutionists, the most notorious of which is the presence of 'gaps' in the fossil record. Evolution requires intermediate forms between species and paleontology does not provide them... The 'fact that discontinuities are almost always and systematically present at the origin of really big categories' is an item of genuinely historical knowledge.", Evolution, Vol. 28, p. 467
NOT ONE ! D.S. WOODROFF, Univ. of CA, San Diego, "But fossil species remain unchanged throughout most of their history and the record fails to contain a single example of a significant transition." Science, Vol.208, 1980, p.716
"WE KNEW BETTER", NILES ELDREDGE, Columbia Univ., American Museum Of Natural History, "And it has been the paleontologist my own breed who have been most responsible for letting ideas dominate reality: .... We paleontologist have said that the history of life supports that interpretation [gradual adaptive change], all the while knowing that it does not.", TIME FRAMES, 1986, p.144
Of course, since nature cannot tell the difference between two meaningless genetic sequences, it cannot select between them, making natural selection blind to such neutral changes. Since there are no recognizable “steppingstones” close by, all that nature has left, to find new beneficial sequences, is a blind random walk through enormous piles of junk sequences. Of course, this random, curvy walk takes a lot longer than a direct walk would take, and the time involved increases exponentially with each increase in the minimum sequence and specificity requirements for a particular function. This prediction is reflected in real life by an exponential decline in the ability of mindless evolutionary processes to evolve anything beyond the lowest levels of functional complexity.
Many simple functions, such as de novo antibiotic resistance, are easy to evolve for any bacterial colony in short order. Moving up a level of complexity, there are far fewer examples of single protein enzymes evolving where a few hundred amino acids at minimum are required to work together at the same time (and many types of bacteria cannot evolve even at this level). However, there are absolutely no examples in the scientific literature of any function requiring more than a thousand or so amino acids working at the same time (as in the simplest bacterial motility system) ever evolving — period. The beneficial “stepping-stones” are just too far apart due to all the junk that separates the few beneficial islands of function from every other island in the vast universe of junk sequences at such levels of informational complexity. The average time needed to randomly sort through enough junk sequences to find any other beneficial function at such a level of complexity quickly works its way into trillions upon trillions of years — even for an enormous population of bacteria with a high mutation rate.
At this point the mindless processes of evolution simply become untenable as any sort of viable explanation for the high levels of diverse complexity that we see within all living things. The only process left that is known to give rise to functional systems at comparable levels of complexity involves human intelligence or beyond. No lesser intelligence, and certainly no other known mindless processes, have ever come close to producing something like the informational complexity found in the simplest bacterial motility system.8
Most of them aren't snobs, but they do tend to have a short tolerance for anti-intellectualism. It doesn't matter anyhow.
I see. You want to reap the benefits of science only where it's convenient for you
but you will simply throw out decades of research and libraries worth of knowledge on the subject just because you don't like it what it has to say.
despite testable, observable, and reproducible results.
but Nuclear Physicists... you're A-OK with that, huh, probably without even looking into the matters they research either.
"Darwinian theory is the creation myth of our culture. It's the officially sponsored, government financed creation myth that the public is supposed to believe in, and that creates the evolutionary scientists as the priesthood... So we have the priesthood of naturalism, which has great cultural authority, and of course has to protect its mystery that gives it that authority---that's why they're so vicious towards critics."
Phillip Johnson, On the PBS documentary "In the Beginning: The Creationist Controversy" [May 1995]
"Evolution is the greatest engine of atheism ever invented."
Provine William B., [Professor of Biological Sciences, Cornell University], "Darwin Day" website, University of Tennessee Knoxville, 1998.
"Dr. Gray goes further. He says, `The proposition that the things and events in nature were not designed to be so, if logically carried out, is doubtless tantamount to atheism.' Again, `To us, a fortuitous Cosmos is simply inconceivable. The alternative is a designed Cosmos... If Mr. Darwin believes that the events which he supposes to have occurred and the results we behold around us were undirected and undesigned; or if the physicist believes that the natural forces to which he refers phenomena are uncaused and undirected, no argument is needed to show that such belief is atheistic.' We have thus arrived at the answer to our question, What is Darwinism? It is Atheism. This does not mean, as before said, that Mr. Darwin himself and all who adopt his views are atheists; but it means that his theory is atheistic, that the exclusion of design from nature is, as Dr. Gray says, tantamount to atheism."
Hodge, Charles [late Professor of Theology, Princeton Theological Seminary, USA], in Livingstone D.N., eds., "What Is Darwinism?", 1994, reprint, p.156
PUNCTUATED EQUILIBRIUM? COLIN PATTERSON, British Mus. of N. H., "Well, it seems to me that they have accepted that the fossil record doesn't give them the support they would value so they searched around to find another model and found one. ...When you haven't got the evidence, you make up a story that will fit the lack of evidence. ", Quoted in: DARWIN'S ENIGMA, p. 100
You claim that I make a blanket statement about dogma in science, yet you make the blanket statement that "All Evolutionists are Atheists". Hypocracy much? Further, what would it matter if some of the are Atheists or not? Are you bias against Atheists?
Um, there is no evidence to support a creator. Sorry, I thought you got the memo.
Bad science is bad science - whether it's in biology, physics, chemistry, etc. It gets weeded out. A lot. If "creationist science" hadn't been bad science to begin with, it wouldn't have been discredited.
I would cite George Bush as an example, although he has far more education than most creationists. Simple minded folk flock around simple slogans and simple answers which don't require them to think much. These same "simple" people tend to vote and raise "simple" kids. I'm sure you realize the danger of a generation of uneducated, anti-intellectual, children has for the future.
If we Christians wish to retain in Christ the very qualities on which his power and our worship are based, we have no better way - no other way, even - of doing so than fully to accept the most modern concepts of evolution. . . . Surely the solution for which modern mankind is seeking must essentially be exactly the solution which I have come upon. ~ Teilhard, Ibid pg. 127
The Creation speaketh a universal language, independently of human speech or human language, multiplied and various as they may be. It is an ever-existing original, which every man can read. It cannot be forged; it cannot be counterfeited; it cannot be lost; it cannot be altered; it cannot be suppressed. It does not depend upon the will of man whether it shall be published or not; it publishes itself from one end of the earth to the other. It preaches to all nations and to all worlds; and this word of God reveals to man all that is necessary for man to know of God.
Dogma (the plural is either dogmata or dogmas, Greek δόγμα, plural δόγματα) is the established belief or doctrine held by a religion, ideology or any kind of organization, thought to be authoritative and not to be disputed, doubted or diverged from.
Originally posted by Lasheic
Am I a scientist? No. Do I know scientists? Yes, many from various fields including Chemistry, Evolutionary Biology, and Cultural Studies, as I am still enrolled in collage at Purdue University (albeit, not for Biology related classes). They have some wonderful and open minded professors there such as Stanton Gelvin. So yes, while not a scientists myself, I do often discourse with them. One need not be Cesar to understand Cesar, as the saying goes.
Well, Science DOES has a proven track record of success.
Scientists do often change their views, even against their own bias. Albert Einsteing, one of the most well known examples, couldn't wrap his head around an expanding universe and struggled with his Theory of Relativity which stated it was expanding. When Edwin Hubble found convincing evidence for the Universes expansion - Einstein changed his mind and accepted it.
Science has known "Darwinian" Evolution to be incorrect long ago, and has since modified the theory in light of new evidence.
But of course, someone who knew so much about the subject would know that already - wouldn't they?
I'm sorry, but I do find this entertaining.
Ah yes, Redken Labratories based in Canoga Park California was it? Actually, you never really said what your job there was, whether you were a researcher or a sales representative. However, I do like your companies slogan. About chemistry being the beauty of life. It's true, and so fitting also for a company that produces haircare products. What working at a shampoo manufacturer has to do with your standing on the knowledge base of Evolutionary Biology or the scientists who work in those fields I can't really fathom at this time.
I could also say that I worked closely with the USDA in identifying food-born pathogens, and talked to many of the scientists there - as well as the biologists who worked in the plant and at the companies biotech labs creating new nutrients, steroids, antibiotics, etc, for the livestock. Which is true, but it would be more accurate to say that I pretty much just cooked the ducks and went out drinking with my friends who were in those departments. The same applies to the professors at my collage in the above example who I talk to.
But, at least, those examples actually are tied quite closely in with
Originally posted by Lasheic
Only one of those quotes refers to Evolutionary science as "Dogma" - and it wasn't from a scientist, but rather an author who was apparently providing a dissection of earlier works by Pierre Teilhard de Chardin. .
An illustration in the problem of Quote Mining.
Now, Teilhard was ostracized by both the religious and the scientific communities. The religious community, for obvious reasons. The Scientific community because he was attempting to combine metaphysical philosophy into a study of ONLY what is natural. Indeed, Science would have no problem factoring in god if he were a part of the physical universe.
As he was coming from a religious background, he was trying to integrate his religion into science, a religion that has no solid proof of being factual.
If you wish to read further on a similar , then I suggest you research Immanual Velikovsky who also tried to couple religion and science -
Going back to the quotes, in either case, I really doesn't matter because it supports my position.
Scientists DO disagree, even about Evolution. Even about whether or not it has taken place at all or if it was some other mechanism. They may be lonely voices in the wilderness, but if they happen to come up with solid proof of an alternative phenomena which better explains the diversity of life
- they will have their voice heard. They will be opposed, and at the end of the day, the side with the weight of evidence and reason will emerge victorious. These are called Paradigm shifts.
Now, as for your quotes on fossils and the fossil record, you do realize that most all of the sources you cite are known to be proponents of Evolution, and thus, are not suggesting that any of this invalidates Evolution in any way.
It may force us to rethink Evolution - but then again, I guess that wouldn't be possible in a "Dogmatic" system now would it?
If your citations were truly invalidations to Evolution, and Science (the atheist conspiracy) is so dogmatic as to not change it's views on the subject, why would proponents of Evolution publish such "damaging" articles?
Non sequitur. They're not, and you're misrepresenting.
Once again, it shows that you only accept the science and evidence you WANT to hear - and the ignore the rest. Science doesn't work that way.
Originally posted by Lasheic
Do you know how many millions of Biologists there are in the world, to say nothing of the total amount of scientists? Do you know them personally? Do you speak for them? Your argument is double-edged
Do you speak for them? Your argument is double-edged
Compared to what?
Religion, Superstition, Cultural Traditions (like alternative medicine), philosophy, etc.
I thought it was relatively evident, especially if you've perused Creationist videos from organizations like Way of the Master or Discovery Institute. The reason they do this is simple. They know Darwinian Evolution is wrong in many cases and incomplete. They also know that most laymen don't understand the difference between Darwinian Evolution and the modern theory of Evolution. So they tend to prop it up against Creationism rather than modern Evolutionary theory so that they can more easily discredit it rather than deal with the problems of reconciling their particular flavor of Creationism with modern research and knowledge.
Their videos are also filled with other such simplistic idiocy, such as the famous "Banana's Prove God" debacle.
Ah, but sweeping generalizations are a no-no, remember? All I was really pointing out is that your field of study, and the company your worked for, has nothing to do with Evolution as it pertains to Biology. So it's a fallacy to prop up your career as a form of "argument from authority" in substantiating your views on the matter. As I also cited areas in which I could have provided the same fallacy.
But regardless, we could go back and forth about which scientists we've talked with or hobnob with, but in the end, it boils down to subjective personal experience - which I'm sure you know is the least credible form of evidence in science.
Ah, but sweeping generalizations are a no-no, remember?