Atheism

[jayfox]

This is not intended to be a provocative post, but I was just wondering what the evolutionists thought of the following quotes that I found on a site recently? Granted some of them are from a few years ago but has evolutionary evidence increased that dramatically in the past 20-odd years? Interested in your feedback, to see whether there is any validity in any of them or whether you simply discount them all.


* “Paleontologists have discovered a new skeleton in the closet of human ancestry that is likely to force science to revise, if not scrap, current theories of human origins. Reuters reported that the discovery left scientists of human evolution . . . confused, saying, 'Lucy may not even be a direct human ancestor after all.” USA Today, March 21, 2001.

* “Evolution is a fairy tale for grown-ups. This theory has helped nothing in the progress of science. It is useless.” Professor Louis Bounoure, Director of Research, National Center of Scientific Research, The Advocate, 8 March 1984.

* “I myself am convinced that the theory of evolution, especially the extent to which it has been applied, will be one of the great jokes in the history books of the future.” Malcolm Muggeridge (British philosopher), The Advocate, March 8 1984.

* “Evolution is unproved and unprovable. We believe it because the only alternative is special creation, and that is unthinkable” Sir Arthur Keith. Criswell, W.A. (1972), Did Man Just Happen? p. 73, Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan).

* “Scientists who go about teaching that evolution is a fact of life are great con-men, and the story they are telling may be the greatest hoax ever. In explaining evolution, we do not have one iota of fact.” Dr. T. N. Tahmisian (Atomic Energy Commission), The Fresno Bee, August 20, 1959.

* “Scientists concede that their most cherished theories are based on embarrassingly few fossil fragments and that huge gaps exist in the fossil record.” Time magazine, Nov. 7, 1977.

* “As by this theory, innumerable transitional forms must have existed. Why do we not find them embedded in the crust of the earth?” Charles Darwin, Evolution or Creation, p.139.

* “If pressed about man's ancestry, I would have to unequivocally say that all we have is a huge question mark.” Richard Leakey, paleo-anthropologist.

* "The more scientists have searched for the transitional forms that lie between species, the more they have been frustrated." Newsweek, November 3, 1980.

* “Often a cold shudder has run through me, and I have asked myself whether I may have not devoted myself to a fantasy.” Charles Darwin, Life and Letters, 1887, Vol. 2, p. 229.

* “I would rather believe in fairy tales than in such wild speculation.” Sir Ernest Chain, co-holder of 1945 Nobel Prize for developing penicillin (The Life of Ernest Chain, Ronald W. Clark, pp. 147-148).

* “The main problem in reconstructing the origins of man is lack of fossil evidence: all there is could be displayed on a dinner table.” New Scientist, 20 May, 1982.

* A Chinese farmer glued together the head and body of a primitive bird and the tail and hind limbs of a dromaeosaur dinosaur, and in 1999 completely fooled the world-wide scientific community into thinking that they had found the “missing link” between carnivorous dinosaurs and modern birds. [National Geographic Magazine, Vol. 196, No. 5, November, 1999]. Named Archaeoraptor, “this fossil find constitutes the most recent evolution fraud... that we know of. Storrs L. Olson of the Smithsonian Institution said, “National Geographic has reached an all-time low for engaging in sensationalistic, unsubstantiated, tabloid journalism.”

 

[Disco08]

There's not enough server space for a similar post filled with quotes and facts supporting evolution Jay.

The most recent quote on your list is 2001. Did you do any follow up research on any of these points to see how they were concluded?

 

[Six Pack]

the whole evolution/creationism argument is irrelevant to me. I don't believe in gods, that's all.

 

[jayfox]

There's not enough server space for a similar post filled with quotes and facts supporting evolution Jay.

That may be true but there are still many, many unanswered questions in relation to evolution which, I believe, make it impossible to make an undoubted decision on it's validity. After all it is the 'theory' of evolution.

The most recent quote on your list is 2001. Did you do any follow up research on any of these points to see how they were concluded?

That is because the site I visited only had those quotes listed. Perhaps it was a site that hasn't been updated since 2001? I don't know, but what I do know is that it is obviously not just Christians who question the evolutionary model that is popular today, some scientists obviously question it too.
I didn't follow up any of the points as I knew that some evolutionist would be able to give me a firm rebuttal if there was follow up on these points that showed that the authors ended up with their doubts allayed and had a firm belief that the evolutionary theory was without doubt. Besides for some of them these quotes may have been their conclusion and, as I said at the top of the post, I only just found them on a website and they interested me so I thought I would ask your opinion.

 

[Disco08]

My opinion, in a nutshell, is that someone has tried very poorly to discredit evolution by piecing together whatever scraps they could find that they thought proved something without including relevant information as to the validity of some of these (in some cases vary dated) quotes. This is very disingenuous on the author's behalf. Whether this intellectual dishonesty in deliberate or not I don't know because it depends entirely on the author's intelligence.

 

[Panthera tigris FC]

It is classic quote-mining that many creationist do to try to support their position.

Many of those quotes are taken out of context, are from individuals who have no expertise in the area or are terribly out of date.

Just to clarify this point...there is no argument amongst biologists regarding the validity of evolution by common descent. There is debate about the processes that drive evolution, but none over the fact that it has occurred.

Anyone who spends a short period of timing looking at the evidence can only be convinced of the truth of the matter. To believe otherwise only because it contradicts beliefs that have no basis outside of the believer can only be described as denial of obvious truths.

After all it is the 'theory' of evolution.

If I didn't know you better Jay I would have thought you were taking the *smile*.

The word 'theory' means something very specific in science. Why don't you have doubts about atomic theory?

 

[evo]

* “I myself am convinced that the theory of evolution, especially the extent to which it has been applied, will be one of the great jokes in the history books of the future.” Malcolm Muggeridge (British philosopher), The Advocate, March 8 1984.

LOL.To call this bloke a philosopher is an insult to philosophy.He's a born again christian fruitloop.

He's the dude who complained for years about Monty Pythons Life of Brian. ;D

 

[Djevv]

Anyone who spends a short period of timing looking at the evidence can only be convinced of the truth of the matter. To believe otherwise only because it contradicts beliefs that have no basis outside of the believer can only be described as denial of obvious truths.

Here is a list of well qualified people who are evo-skeptics, as I am - at least where macro-evolution is concerned.

 

[Disco08]

All 24 of them. How many similarly qualified people do you reckon are Evo-supporters? 10000 times that number? 100000? More?

 

[Djevv]

All 24 of them. How many similarly qualified people do you reckon are Evo-supporters? 10000 times that number? 100000? More?

Cheap shot Disco! There are actually 17 pages.

Actually, given there is no other competing materialist theory for the origin of life, and many scientists are philosophically opposed to explaining things any other way, you would expect that most are supporters.

Don't forget, the numbers don't make one group correct and the other incorrect.

 

[Disco08]

Oh *smile* sorry my bad Djevv.

 

[Disco08]

Actually, given there is no other competing materialist theory for the origin of life, and many scientists are philosophically opposed to explaining things any other way, you would expect that most are supporters.

Disagree. I think most scientists with educations specifically relevant to evolution would be the first to raise the alarm if, as their knowledge increased, parts of the theory began not to seem right. As we know though, this group of people is overwhelmingly in support of evolution. What other scientists (such as those with PhD's in say mathematics or engineering) think is really not relevant at all. Why such scientists are listed was puzzling until I saw the origin of the document.

Don't forget, the numbers don't make one group correct and the other incorrect.

Agreed, it's the evidence which should be used to make this assessment. The number of people well educated in these areas that think the evidence is conclusively supportive of evolution is a good indication of which way the evidence points, wouldn't you say?

 

[Djevv]

Disagree. I think most scientists with educations specifically relevant to evolution would be the first to raise the alarm if, as their knowledge increased, parts of the theory began not to seem right. As we know though, this group of people is overwhelmingly in support of evolution. What other scientists (such as those with PhD's in say mathematics or engineering) think is really not relevant at all. Why such scientists are listed was puzzling until I saw the origin of the document.

I'm infavor of some parts of the theory. Most of it is uncontroversial. Macro-evolution and Abiogenisis is controversial and the subject of most of Jay's quotes. It's still controversial an will remain so untill it has been observed or extra-terrestrial life has been discovered.

I find it amusing that any organisation which does not support evolution is automatically suss and never to be trusted. Presumably the scientists involved placed their name on that list of their own free will. Do you think they had their arm twisted?

As for people 'outside their field', true, but many parts of the field have aspects which are mathematical or statistical in nature, and are better understood by people qualified in this are. Furthermore, evolution is cross disciplinary, so people from acroos the science spectrum are involved. It is also true that often people who are looking at an issue from 'up close', can lack the perspective of an outsider.

Agreed, it's the evidence which should be used to make this assessment. The number of people well educated in these areas that think the evidence is conclusively supportive of evolution is a good indication of which way the evidence points, wouldn't you say?

If this is correct then probably you should give up on Athiesm as most people, many of them highly qualified, are religious.

To me, in the field of paleontology, the evidence is very interpretive. Lets take some modern animals and put them into an evolutionary sequence:
Barramundi --> Coelecanth-> Frog -> salamander -> lizard. Hey, presto you have an evolutionary sequence of the emergence of Tetrapods! Or we can go the other way, Dog ->otter-> seal -> whale. Hey Presto, I've solved the mystery of how Cetaceans evolved! This is not too far away from how we are sold Macro-evolution by Paleontologists.

 

[Disco08]

Doesn't the fact that DNA evidence supports these assertions make them somewhat more than what you've just made out?

If this is correct then probably you should give up on Athiesm as most people, many of them highly qualified, are religious.

Is that right? Did you remember Project Steve I brought up earlier?

 

[Six Pack]

I am sure there were atheists before science came up with evolution, and certainly before various relgions, cults and sects came up with the idea of gods.

Just because you don't believe in gods doesnt mean you necessarily embrace, understand or wave the flag for other beliefs.

 

[Djevv]

Doesn't the fact that DNA evidence supports these assertions make them somewhat more than what you've just made out?

All DNA evidence says that animals which are physiologically similar have more DNA in common and visa-versa. Is this supposed to be overwhelming evidence? Is quite clear from our classification system that different animals have all sorts of structures (and presumably DNA) in common. You can explain this easily from a creationist POV.

Is that right? Did you remember Project Steve I brought up earlier?

Just kidding around there D . Was project Steve anything to do with Norwiegan Organic Athiests(lentil eaters I presume)? I recall that discussion.

 

[Disco08]

Haha, nah Project Steve was the one where only scientists that worked in fields relevant to evolution and who owned dogs that had bitten a mailman named Steve were allowed to reply to a questionnaire on their beliefs and still there was more of them (hundreds more) that supported evolution than there was on any of the lists (containing any type of scientist) manufactured by the likes of The Creation Center or AIG.

All DNA evidence says that animals which are physiologically similar have more DNA in common and visa-versa. Is this supposed to be overwhelming evidence? Is quite clear from our classification system that different animals have all sorts of structures (and presumably DNA) in common. You can explain this easily from a creationist POV.

I don't see how. Why would a creator use some mechanisms in multiple species when they are either superfluous or inefficient in many of the species they are found in?

 

[Panthera tigris FC]

I'm infavor of some parts of the theory. Most of it is uncontroversial. Macro-evolution and Abiogenisis is controversial and the subject of most of Jay's quotes. It's still controversial an will remain so untill it has been observed or extra-terrestrial life has been discovered.

Again, macro-evolution is not controversial in the field...evolution from common descent is universally accepted in the biological sciences. There are competing theories and hypotheses that explain the driving forces of evolution and the relative importance in the process, but the process itself is unequivocally fact. As for abiogenesis, this is not directly related to evolution in that the mechanisms leading to abiogenesis are not related to those driving evolution.

I find it amusing that any organisation which does not support evolution is automatically suss and never to be trusted. Presumably the scientists involved placed their name on that list of their own free will. Do you think they had their arm twisted?

I don't find that organisation suss because of their lack of support for evolution but because of their anti-science methods and their self admitted aims outlined in the infamous 'wedge document'.

As for people 'outside their field', true, but many parts of the field have aspects which are mathematical or statistical in nature, and are better understood by people qualified in this are. Furthermore, evolution is cross disciplinary, so people from acroos the science spectrum are involved. It is also true that often people who are looking at an issue from 'up close', can lack the perspective of an outsider.

What a load of tripe. The mathematicians that propose hypotheses in evolutionary biology, not surprisingly, tend to be abreast of current biological theories and do play important extremely important roles in providing the mathematical underpinning supporting evolutionary theories and population genetics. Biological evolution is cross-disciplinary, well yes, in the arena of BIOLOGY. Does that mean that an engineer or mathemetician, whose area of expertise is not in the biological sciences is qualified to comment on the validity of biological theories? No. It would be as meaningful as any layperson who does not have expertise in the field. Do I seriously question the conclusions of physicists or astronomers? No, personally I would consider that extremely arrogant on my part and I am pretty sure that someone who has dedicated their life to the pursuit of knowledge in a specialised field may know a little bit more about that area then myself as a layperson.

Having said that, I am open to the criticisms of anyone...however they have to point out the flaws in the theory, not just a 'god of the gaps' argument.

If this is correct then probably you should give up on Athiesm as most people, many of them highly qualified, are religious.

Disbelief in a personal god is significantly higher amongst highly qualified scientists than the general public.

To me, in the field of paleontology, the evidence is very interpretive.

So you are making an argument from incredulity. Fortunately paleontologists follow the scientific method which means that if their conclusions are too over-reaching or too-interpretive they wouldn't survive the peer-review process.

Lets take some modern animals and put them into an evolutionary sequence:
Barramundi --> Coelecanth-> Frog -> salamander -> lizard. Hey, presto you have an evolutionary sequence of the emergence of Tetrapods! Or we can go the other way, Dog ->otter-> seal -> whale. Hey Presto, I've solved the mystery of how Cetaceans evolved! This is not too far away from how we are sold Macro-evolution by Paleontologists.

This last statement, more than any other that you have made, reveals the level of ignorance you have for the evolutionary process. What do you mean by "evolutionary sequence"? Do you think we evolved from chimpanzees too?

Your argument is based on your own ignorance and belittles the amazing work done by paleontologists in the field. They conduct painstakingly difficult analyses and their conclusions are subject to criticism, like all branches of science.

 

[Panthera tigris FC]

Here is a list of well qualified people who are evo-skeptics, as I am - at least where macro-evolution is concerned.

I strongly recommend that you watch this clip. It is only 10 minutes long and discusses your so-called list of experts.

 

[Disco08]

Why is it that these organisations seem to need to employ such underhanded tactics do you think Jay/Djevv?