Townhall.com, Where Your Opinion Counts
Talk Radio:   Bill Bennett   Mike Gallagher   Dennis Prager   Michael Medved   Hugh Hewitt   
BREAKING NEWS  LeftArrow - Townhall.com : Conservative, Political, Republican   RightArrow - Townhall.com : Conservative, Political, Republican  
Columns, funnies & more in your inbox!
  • Check the boxes and send us your email address to receveive your free newsletter
  • Your daily must-read of conservative columns, cartoons and news. Coulter, Sowell, Krauthammer and more.
  • Townhall.com’s weekly inside scoop on what’s happening behind the scenes in the world of politics. When news breaks, we report.
  • Signup to receive the latest daily Townhall cartoons
Monday, August 20, 2007
Paul Greenberg :: Townhall.com Columnist
A Canticle for Darwin
by Paul Greenberg
Vote on It:
Average Vote:
[+] Text [-]
 
Poll
Will the Dems' health care Christmas Present to America be an improvement or detriment to our health care system?


In memory of Walter M. Miller Jr., author of the science-fiction classic, "A Canticle for Leibowitz."

Brother Erasmus might never have found the Lost Gospel had it not been for the pilgrim with girded loins who'd approached him in the wilderness. The monk was well into his fast in honor of the blessed St. Lysenko when his peace was disturbed.

Never before had Brother Erasmus actually seen a pilgrim with girded loins, but this one had to be the bona fide article. You could see him, and soon enough smell him, hobbling across the still slightly radioactive wasteland. And what an unsettling apparition he was: a spindly old fellow with a staff, basket hat, brushy beard, and a waterskin slung over one shoulder.

The old boy wasn't armed, so he couldn't be one of the highwaymen who covered the countryside. And he had only one head, which ruled out his being one of the mutants that roamed at night. He must be one of the few if any religious left.

Imagine that. Erasmus had assumed that all the Old Believers had been hunted down by the survivors of the Last World War. The massacres had begun during the Great Secularization, when people had realized how the old, divisive ideas had caused the final cataclysm. Most of the religious had been burned at the stake, along with the books that had spread their dangerous ideas. That should have been the end of their baneful influence. But here was one more false prophet.

The Darwinian order to which Brother Erasmus belonged taught only pure science at abbeys like his own, and no one was allowed to question it, lest the Dark Ages return. Those certified to teach the young were not allowed to question Darwin's revelation, and certainly not present alternate theories. That way lay division and dissent and, inevitably, fiery chaos.

People had forgotten the old superstitions, yet here came this remaining fanatic out of a distant past. Now he was shouting something in a long forgotten tongue: Ego te absolvo! The phrase had something to do with forgiveness, as best Erasmus could remember from Archaic Studies 101.

Forgive this, Erasmus thought as he reached for his trusty bow. The old man was not more than 20 yards away when the arrow hit him squarely between the eyes. Call it natural selection.

The pilgrim was breathing his last by the time Erasmus reached him and began to go through his belongings. There was nothing much there. Then he noticed the little book he would eventually come to think of as the Lost Gospel. It was entitled "Recapitulation and Conclusion," and it was the strangest thing he'd ever read, at least in Old English. It was written as if it were the last chapter of "The Origin of Species" itself, mocking the style of Darwin Our Deliverer, blessed be his name.

Brother Erasmus knew he should have burned the forgery then and there, but even the best of us are sore beset by temptation. He began to read: "I see no good reason why the views given in this volume should shock the religious feelings of any one."

Well, Brother Erasmus was shocked. No one had ever showed him such a passage before in holy writ. He could not resist reading the whole thing - to the very last sentence:

"There is grandeur in this view of life, with its several powers, having been originally breathed by the Creator into a few forms or into one; and that, whilst this planet has gone cycling on according to the fixed law of gravity, from so simple a beginning endless forms most beautiful and most wonderful have been, and are being, evolved."

Amen, Erasmus heard himself murmur before thinking. That was when he realized how subversive was the document he held in his hands. Not knowing how to do penance, he did nothing. Finishing up his sojourn in the wilderness, he kept reading and re-reading the little book, struggling to hold on to his pure materialist faith till he could get back to the monastery and confess to the abbot.

But he never did. He knew the tattered old book was a fake, but he couldn't stop thinking about that last passage. He told himself that, if sainted Darwin had actually written it, then even Our Teacher could err, and it was only fitting that the Holy Infallible College of Scientists had suppressed it.

Nevertheless, one small detail kept nagging at him, petty and irrational as it was. Maybe it was only a typographical error, reverently repeated in each faithful reprinting of the Origin. It was that single capital C with which our Darwin had spelled Creator - as if it were a proper noun, as if there were a Person involved, and if there was a Person, all this had to be personal, and then.

He dared not go further. Instead he concentrated on his calligraphy, telling himself that his dangerous, primitive thoughts would evolve away. But he could not exorcise the heretical words. They seemed to be leading him somewhere.

Erasmus had silenced the old man to preserve the peace that surpasseth all faith. But ever since, he'd had the strangest mix of sensations. Not just guilt but something bright and hopeful beyond it, something like forgiveness, acceptance, love.

One night Erasmus could no longer keep his heretical thoughts at bay. He wrapped up the Lost Gospel to take with him, where he knew not, took some bread and wine from the common table, girded up his loins, and set out on his wanderings.

Share:
Vote on It:
Average Vote:
 
About The Author

 
TOWNHALL DAILY: Sign up today and receive Townhall.com daily lineup delivered each morning to your inbox.
At the root of Western science...
...lies the foundational assumption that "since the universe was created by a rational and law-giving God, the universe itself will be rational and obey laws."

One does not have to divine obscure presuppositions to know that this underlies Western science. One need only read the opinions of the men who founded it.

One would think that, having presupposed this about our universe, the simple fact that this presupposition has proved TRUE in all instances would stand as nearly irrefutable proof of the system which produced that presupposition -- especially given the fact that no previous religious system had produced a similar position, nor a similarly systematic approach to understanding our physical universe.

But no, we're told, science actually proves that there IS no god, because the universe obeys rational laws. Hmmm... isn't that the same presupposition Christianity supplied the founders of Western science? Yes, but you really have to understand that the fact that it's true proves there IS no god. Because... you know... it just does. Just shut you, you anti-scientific religious fanatic...

I do love how scientific atheists are...

It never ceases to amaze me...
...that those who are so quick to attack science are so obviously unfamiliar with the science they attack.

"At the root of Western science...
...lies the foundational assumption that 'since the universe was created by a rational and law-giving God, the universe itself will be rational and obey laws.' "

Undoubtedly, many scientists in centuries past believed this. I think it would fair to say that there are still some scientists who believe this. To say that it is actually true misunderstands current scientific thought.

"But no, we're told, science actually proves that there IS no god, because the universe obeys rational laws."

Actually, science does no such thing. I know of no scientists who make this claim. I have only heard it from the religious trying to discredit science. Science seeks to explain the universe as we observe it. It is concerned with natural phenomenon. It makes no comment on the supernatural or on the value of faith and religion.

Why is it those of religious faith are unable state their beliefs without lying about what science claims and does not claim?

knighto_f_baawa
I love quantum mechanics and theory but it still is theory. Gravity is NOT a theory because it can be measured and observed directly. Gravity, or what has been traditionally called gravity, can be calculated and those calcualtions can be proved via measurement.

Theories of "why gravity is" and "quantum gravity", at the present level of science can NOT be proved. That is why they are theories.

To think that all this sub-atomic stuff all came from ion tracks in cloud chambers with a lot of speculation is amazing. We have passed all that long ago. Now we have particles poping in and out of our universe based on quantum uncertanties.

Evolution Is A Religion, Not Science
Radioisotope dating is a scam. Helium found in zircon crystals clearly shows we have a very young earth.

In fact 9 of 10 dating evidences show a young earth. Why haven't you heard of most of these? Because hysterical pagan evolutionists are desperately clinging to their blind faith. The only way they can do this is to censor the science that says evolution is impossible.

This is why the smart/honest evolutionists (very hard to find) are starting to go with this "spacemen populated the earth" nonsense. They know that science says evolution is impossible on earth, so they move it to a ficticious, unknown planet where their postulates can't be challenged by the science we know.

PS Have you heard about the dark matter/ dark energy scam trying to hold the big bust together? LOL

Lying about science
I had to laugh. Religious non-theists' first reaction to ANY comment about science that disputes their anti-theism is to sneeringly assert that the person speaking knows nothing about science. They're not always wrong -- sometimes the person truly knows nothing about science -- but they're frequently wrong, as is inevitably the case when your reaction is the result of a knee-jerk instead of a conscious, well-intentioned thought process. They're completely wrong in this instance.

JJBiener wrote: "Undoubtedly, many scientists in centuries past believed this...To say that it is actually true misunderstands current scientific thought."

To say that the statement is about anything OTHER THAN historical scientists is to indicate you either did not read, or did not understand, the original claim. What does Biener think "AT THE ROOT" means, especially given the further qualification that one should read the opinions of "the men who founded [Western science]?"

I wrote: "But no, we're told, science actually proves that there IS no god, because the universe obeys rational laws."

And Biener replied: "Actually, science does no such thing."

Science does not, you're correct. But lots of people who claim to be representing science do. You should view the world from my seat, sir: do you have even the slightest clue how many times I've been told this? and by people whom I could spot 30 IQ points and STILL kick their butts bloody on any reasonable test of intelligence?

Biener finally launches the inevitable ad hom: "Why is it those of religious faith are unable state their beliefs without lying about what science claims and does not claim?"

Because we're reporting our actual experiences instead of your prejudices, perhaps?

Darwin's Own Words, Should Anyone Care
"I am a strong advocate for free thought on all subjects, yet it appears to me (whether rightly or wrongly) that direct arguments against Christianity and theism produce hardly any effect on the public; and freedom of thought is best promoted by the gradual illumination of men's minds, which follows from the advance of science."

--Charles Darwin

knighto_f_baawa
You are straining at knats here. Gravity on a planatary scale is fact; gravitational force on a sub-atomic scale is theory. They are two SEPARATE things. Facts are something that may at one time have been theory, but are no longer theory because they have been proved using scientific method.

The "Claims" of Science
Whew! I'm sure glad that science doesn't try to disprove the existence of God.

Here's a sampling of science that points in the opposite direction:

1) Complex information inside every living cell. Did you know that just a teaspoon of DNA would fill a trillion CDs with complex, meaningful information? The only known source in the entire universe for such information is intelligence. What scientific conclusion seems proper in this case? The one against all of human experience or the one that might, oh no, point to God?

2) Cutting-edge astrobiological evidence shows that our planet is not a "pale blue dot" floating in a meaningless universe, as the late great Carl Sagan claimed. Rather scientific data gathered in just the last 10-15 years points to our planet's privileged position in the universe. What's more, the "privileged planet" hypothesis put forth by Dr. Guillermo Gonzales at Iowa State University, asserts that the best place for carbon-based life also happens to be the best place in our galaxy for making scientific observations.

And these evidences are just the tip of the iceberg!

Apparently "science" not only doesn't try to disprove God; science is pointing to Him like never before. What a relief!

And here I thought that I'd have to join Kepler, Newton, Galileo, Copernicus, Lamarck, Pasteur in the idiot club.

FYI, check out a 17-minute interview with Gonzales at http://thesciphishow.com/darwinordesign/?page_id=11.

A Canticle for Liebowitz
Vic, the novel Greenberg is referring to begins with the aftermath of a worldwide nuclear conflagration, during which time the surviving citizens rebelled against science and burned books, hoping to prevent any further destruction. The Blessed Saint Liebowitz began booklegging books, hiding them in monasteries, and memorizing them to prevent their loss to society. It's a great book, if a little dated, and worth reading.

I think in this article he's just using it as a launching point for the charge that the defenders of Darwinian evolution want to banish religion to the outer darkness. It's a bit convoluted; I don't think it works all that well.

What questions?
Whatever questions the author has for Darwin or his theory, I do not see them here. I never see them when someone writes about how incomplete evolution is.

The principles of evolution are by no means closed to questioning provided that we understand that a scientific answer may or may not come in our lifetime. To our centuries-old chagrin, the rules of the universe do not owe us a timely response.

However it appears Erasmus is impatient and cannot handle his uncertainties going unanswered any longer. It's a shame he's isolated his reading to a book that will never be revised as the world around him becomes wiser.

Walter Miller Jr. fan here
_A Canticle for Leibowitz_ is one of the best novels I've ever read. Really funny, but with a serious message, intelligently written, and very prophetic. (Chapter 28's account of Abbot Zerchi encountering a euthanasia camp, for example--published in 1959 no less--is **exactly** like an encounter outside an abortion clinic would be today. Down to the young woman in pain, in crisis and considering killing her child out of "compassion.")

So delighted to see this great book get some attention these days. Bravo, Mr. Greenberg!
*claps*

Some laughers from Knight_bawaa
Laugher 1: "Ok--what's the point of this article?
If it's to say evolution is a religion, then gravity is a religion, too."

Laugher 2:"... evolution is as much a fact as gravity is..."

I heard Stephen J. Gould say something similar once. I knew Gould was biased, but I was severely disappointed that he was so biased as to say something so clearly ridiculous.

Evolution is considered a religion because (for example) despite the fact that there exists not even the slightest hint of a model that can predict the evolution of species, and the most widely-defended mechanism in the field (mutation + natural selection) runs exactly contrary to observed behavior in nature (e.g. is contradicted by the fossil record), belief in that particular mechanism not been modified in more than 100 years of research, and its adherents stomp out any hint of dispute like angry Inquisitors stomping out heresy.

By contrast, the theory of gravity describes phenomena that are observed all the time, can be described accurately by mathematics, and can accurately predict the behavior of bodies in conjunction with each other to the nearest nanometer.

So, no, calling evolution religion doesn't justify calling gravity religion, and gravity is MUCH better established than evolution.

Guess again.

Questions regarding evolution
Molecule, at 6:50 PM, wrote: "Whatever questions the author has for Darwin or his theory, I do not see them here. I never see them when someone writes about how incomplete evolution is."

That's because you haven't looked.

Why not begin HERE:

http://www.iconsofevolution.com/tools/questions.php3

Then read the National Center for Science Education's rebuttal HERE:

http://www.ncseweb.org/resources/articles/7719_responses_to_jonathan_wells3_11_28_2001.asp.

And then read Dr. Well's response HERE:

http://www.iconsofevolution.com/embedJonsArticles.php3?id=1106

That's a good start. Then, if you want further discussion of the sort you claim doesn't exist, you might point your browser at

http://www.discovery.org/csc/

and read the wealth of information there.

Oh, by the way -- let me know if you find anything religious at any of those sites.

I won't hold my breath.

Wonderful!
Read the book then read this again. It's straight out of Chapter 1.

wrong message illustrated?
The point of the article does seem to be an attempt to refute some kind of notion that evolution acts like religion, and so people who accept evolution should care that Darwin was a theist (are claimed to be).

Was Darwin a theist? The scientist natural answer to this is who cares? Maybe it is interesting as an historical matter, but it is certainly irrelevant to people working in biology. The parts of evolution that survive from Darwin are the parts that have held up as the theory has evolved in the face of evidence. If Darwin said something wrong or stupid, the believer in evolution has no reason to care.

By contrast if the bible says something barbaric like advocating genocide in the rules for war, or giving rules for putting ones daughter in slavery, or claiming that homosexuality is reprehensible, then believers are stuck with these things in some way or need to come up with some artificial way to tell them aparat.

Intentionally or not Greenberg here actually illustrates the way that science and religion are different, and why evolution is a science while creationism is not.

Is a fact really a fact?
Is evolution as much a fact as gravity because you cannot disprove it? Carl Sagan said so. Proving it is as fact is improbable since there is not direct evidence of inter-species links. Remember O Darwinists that you equate evolution to species changes (the elephant has a mouse cousin). Quantum theories to support evolution? It does not support one species becoming another. The religion of evolution that sir knighto_f_baawa worships is a god of no substance.

You make no sense at all
With this kfb
------------


knighto_f_baawa writes:


LuckyRock
1. DNA is not information in anything more than a metaphorical sense.

--------------------
Information in DNA is metaphorical?
Makes not one whit of sense

met·a·phor (met'?-fôr', -f?r)
n.
A figure of speech in which a word or phrase that ordinarily designates one thing is used to designate another, thus making an implicit comparison

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

kfb writes:
And if something intelligent created it, then necessarily something intelligent HAD to create that which created it, lest you be a hypocrite.
-----------------



Ps 90:2 -
Before the mountains were brought forth, or ever thou hadst formed the earth and the world, even from everlasting to everlasting, thou art God.

Nothing hypocritical here, and nothing hypocritical to accept God as He defines Himself.

As created beings it past our knowledge to be able to define God or just the Universe.

Ro 11:33 -
O the depth of the riches both of the wisdom and knowledge of God! how unsearchable are his judgments, and his ways past finding out!


At some point you will need to understand some things are over your head to figure it all out.

That is if you want to learn to expand your mind beyond an anti-God bias.
Up to you to decide though, for now.

------------
kfb writes:
3. "Science" doesn't point to non-rational, emotive ejaculations.
---------

But we see exactly that from evolutionists when their dogma is placed in the light of knowledge and facts.

Bawaa flubbing the fossil record
I wrote: "...the most widely-defended mechanism in the field (mutation plus natural selection) runs exactly contrary to observed behavior in nature (e.g. is contradicted by the fossil record)...."

Bawaa wrote: "Actually, it runs exactly WITH observed behavior in nature (especially the fossil record). That ink is so stupid as to not know this is laughable."

Don't argue this with me, KoB. Have it out with Stephen J. Gould, arguably one of the greatest proponents of evolutionary theory in the 20th century.

Gould wrote:

"The history of most fossil species includes two features inconsistent with gradualism:

1. Statis. Most species exhibit no directional change during their tenure on earth. They appear in the fossil record looking much the same as when they disappear.

2. Sudden Appearance. In any local area, a species does not arise gradually by the steady transformation of its ancestors; it appears all at once and fully formed. The evolutionary trees that adorn our textbooks have data only at the tips and nodes of their branches; the rest is inference, however reasonable, not the evidence of fossils."

He thus observes:

"...the extreme rarity of transitional forms in the fossil record persists as the trade secret of paleontology..."

Gould, "Evolution's Erratic Pace," Natural History, Vol. 5, 1977.

Yes, this is a bit old. However, it's more than 100 years after Darwin, it's no different from what Darwin observed in the fossil record, and it hasn't substantially changed in the last 30 years. There are more than 40 million fossils in the Smithsonian Institution alone; if mutation plus natural selection were the mechanism by which evolution occurred, we would expect to see literally millions of transitional forms. Instead, we see perhaps THREE, and those are highly debatable.



we're hung up on the peppered moths?
inkling_revival: Thanks for the links to your fav ID boosters. I guess that taught me to throw out Darwin's endeavor as a whole since some questions get a little complicated, especially when trying to convey the complexity of evolutionary thought in school textbooks. If we can't come up with decent photo illustrations in textbooks let's just agree that God done it already!




erratic pace
1. Mutations may be only recognizable in the DNA code, and wouldn't necessarily cause any difference in the fossil forms you see at the Smithsonian.
2. There very well should have been millions of transitional forms...they probably didn't survive past early stages of conception.
3. Sudden appearance is certainly perplexing but I don't believe it is unsolvable. There are many historical factors about our Earth that we can only guess what affect they had on species migration, mutation, or otherwise. Gould is baffled for sure, but not daunted.

About predictive models
I wrote: "...there exists not even the slightest hint of a model that can predict the evolution of species..."

Knight_of_bawaa sneered, as this is his only mode of communication: "ink doesn't understand that the predictions of evolution are used to find what was, not what will be."

"Ink" understands perfectly well what models of processes are for. Of course, there isn't a model that predicts what was, either, except in the broadest of terms. "The very first amphibians seem to have developed legs and feet to scud around on the bottom in the water..." is about as precise as it gets (quotation from
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-transitional/part1a.html#bony)

Compare this to the precise calculations of the effect of the moon's gravity on an orbiting capsule, for example, or the effect of the earth's gravity on missile trajectories. See any difference? If so, how the HELL can any intelligent person claim that the former is as well-established as the latter?

And by the way, gravitation calculations can, and frequently are, used to predict the future positions of orbiting bodies, with immense accuracy.

There's no particular, scientific reason why evolutionary trajectories could not be calculated and expressed as, say, altered DNA sequences -- IF we understood the processes as well as we understand gravity. We don't. Of course, one could point out that the computing power needed to calculate changes in DNA sequences for very long is beyond our available technology, but that just proves my point; and of course, even if we had, the models for predicting those trajectories don't even exist in theory.

Sorry, bawaa, but as usual, you have no idea what you're talking about.


Inkling_Revival
You are clearly an intelligent and thoughtful person, but your statements about science betray a deep misunderstanding of its limited aims.

All science can do is test predictions made by some theory or other. No number of positive outcomes is sufficient to prove a given theory, and no number of negative ones is sufficient to disprove it.

A large number of confirmed predictions tells us that the theory is likely to bear some sort of useful functional similarity to the underlying facts, and should be tentatively accepted until a more accurate or illuminating theory comes along.

To my knowledge, no responsible mainstream scientist has ever claimed that he could disprove the existence of god. Dawkins and others have argued (when provoked) that theism is simply bad as a scientific theory -- either meaningless or else massively unnecessary. I find these arguments entirely convincing. But no one regards them as proof of anything.

bawaa, sorry, but you're wrong
I can't help it that Gould said something that opponents of neo-Darwinism find useful, and use often. The fact that we do does not constitute even the appearance of a rebuttal.

Bawaa knows as well as I do that Gould, because he DID believe EXACTLY what I quoted, posited theories of punctuated equilibrium to explain evolutionary change that conforms to the fossil record, step-wise rather than gradual. Anybody who doubts this can google "punctuated equilibrium" as easily as I might... and I invite you to do so. Add Gould's name to the search -- then you'll see that it is I who represent him accurately, and knight_of_bawaa who is lying (in a truly offensive tone, I might add.)

Of course, there isn't even the beginning of a scientific explanation how something of this sort might happen, so the theory is in disrepute; but no, bawaa, I'm not misrepresenting Gould even a little.

As is always the case when neo-Darwinists haul out the ad hominems, they apply most readily to those who are hurling them.

Inkling
In fairness, probably you were engaging in some sort of creative hyperbole when you framed the issue as one of proof.

Still, you're quite wrong.

Your comparison of evolution by natural selection with Newtonian mechanics is precisely backward. It is Newtonian mechanics for which there is not a shred of evidence -- at least not if taken literally. This is what the Special Theory of Relativity showed, to say nothing of quantum mechanics. Newtonian mechanics is regarded today as a useful approximation of mechanics on a human-friendly scale.

By contrast, the theory of natural selection has successfully explained, in minute detail, a stunningly diverse array of phenomena from the microscopic world of cell maintenance to the many otherwise inexplicable morphological homologies with which the animal kingdom is shot through.

Moreover, your standard of comparison for scientific theories -- amenability to precise calculation -- is jerry-rigged to lead to your desired conclusion, but is otherwise ridiculous. The life sciences involve phenomena many orders of magnitude more complex than the physical and chemical sciences. In biology, apart from very crude dynamical models of population growth and the like, it would be naive to expect our feeble quantitative abilities to illuminate matters especially. That said, in certain branches of evolutionary theory -- specifically in genetics and molecular biology -- computations are made routinely which are as precise as any to be found in chemistry.

Yet it is you here
Flaming people and using emotive language with babbling, to proudly pat your own back as if you hold all knowledge.
And are witless for how to convince anyone you can talk about this subject without using what you accuse.

Hypocrite
--------

knighto_f_baawa writes: Monday, August, 20, 2007 7:38 PM
Look: bible babble from talent
Yes, the "information" in DNA is metaphorical. DNA isn't information at all. Of course, someone with no knowledge of biology would conclude that it is information.

Further, bible babble only proves that you can quote from the bible. And we see emotive ejaculations from christians every time they are challenged to show that their god exists.

DNA
Is hardly a metaphor, dipwad.

Superior knowledge
1 Children resemble their parents.
2 Genes come in pairs.
3 Genes don't blend.
4 Some genes are dominant.
5 Genetic inheritance follows rules.
6 Genes are real things.
7 All cells arise from pre-existing cells.
8 Sex cells have one set of chromosomes; body cells have two.
9 Specialized chromosomes determine gender.
10 Chromosomes carry genes.
11 Genes get shuffled when chromosomes exchange pieces.
12 Evolution begins with the inheritance of gene variations.
13 Mendelian laws apply to human beings.
14 Mendelian genetics cannot fully explain human health and behavior.

15 DNA and proteins are key molecules of the cell nucleus.
16 One gene makes one protein.
17 A gene is made of DNA.
18 Bacteria and viruses have DNA too.
more......
Just the first site off google
http://www.dnaftb.org/dnaftb/29/concept/

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

If DNA is a metaphor, dipwad, what is it a metaphor of?

Joementum, personal note
Joementum wrote: "To my knowledge, no responsible mainstream scientist has ever claimed that he could disprove the existence of god."

I reply: Please go back and reread my post from 6:13 PM, when I addressed a similar comment from JBiener. I agree, no RESPONSIBLE scientist has made that claim. But I hear it all the bloody time. Lots and lots of idiots who THINK they represent science claim it. What's worse, high school and college textbooks sometimes make that claim, and even when they don't, high school and college instructors frequently make it. It's usually couched in historical terms: "Man used to believe X, but now science has shown that Y." The intent is to push religion into the category "things ignorant people believed before science explained our universe."

Joementum also wrote: "No number of positive outcomes is sufficient to prove a given theory, and no number of negative ones is sufficient to disprove it."

I reply: You're describing what happened to Newtonian physics, which stood uncontested for about 300 years, and were accurate enough to get us to the moon and back, but were superseded by Einstein and quantum mechanics. I understand your point.

However, you can't claim that a theory's ability to describe observed reality is inconsequential, just because one can never conclude finally that a theory is correct on the basis of observations. The success with which a theory describes observation is usually the sole means of supporting that theory. That's the definition of hypothesis testing, right? You propose what you expect to observe given the theory, you test, you observe, you evaluate your hypothesis in the light of the observation.

I think on the whole that you're wrong: the ability of a theory to describe what's observed in nature remains the primary test of a model's usefulness, and of the likelihood that a theory is true.

bawaa lands where he always does
Bawaa always ends up accusing me of lying. I never lie. Bawaa did not produce a single instance of a lie I told. He cannot, because there are none, and certainly none here.

I'm done talking to that fool. I invite anybody who likes, to read our exchange and decide for themselves which of us is reasonable, and which, a vicious idiot.

Yes you do
knighto_f_baawa writes: Monday, August, 20, 2007 8:39 PM
I didn't do what you said I did, talent
I agree that you are witless and a hypocrite, though.
----------------

I am witless for talking to you on this subject, I confess.

Everytime you come on this subject you arrogantly mock and slander people of faith and use insulting language on purpose.

You are a pissant of worth to this subjet anyway and a waste of time.

I love the bible and you are going to be judged by its words, like or not, its out of your feeble power to prevent.

And there it is...
...right there in bawaa's quote from Gould, is PRECISELY what I quoted him as saying.

Here:

"I count myself among the evolutionists who argue for a jerky, or episodic, rather than a smoothly gradual, pace of change. In 1972 my colleague Niles Eldredge and I developed the theory of punctuated equilibrium. We argued that two outstanding facts of the fossil record -- geologically "sudden" origin of new species and failure to change thereafter (stasis) -- reflect the predictions of evolutionary theory, not the imperfections of the fossil record. "

I said absolutely nothing other than what Gould said here.

Bawaa seems to be cutting and pasting bits from the argument between Creationists and neo-Darwinists over whether transitional forms exist. I'm not a Creationist, and I wasn't arguing that no transitional forms exist; I simply observed that the model of mutation plus natural selection predicts a gradual change that doesn't fit the observed fossil record.

Bawaa, perhaps you should spend a little more time attempting to understand your opponents' arguments; then you wouldn't go around falsely accusing people of lies that they haven't told.

Grow up, and maybe we'll speak again.

Bawaa, the spoiled infant
God, that idiot infuriates me!

You couldn't spank a flea with sledgehammer, you little pissant, and you haven't come within 5 light years of spanking me, either tonight, or ever.

If you ever learn enough humility to actually get yourself an education, little boy, you'll have a chance of achieving my erudition in about 2 decades.

Bye.

Here's the key:
Here's the key to the debate, again from bawaa's own quote from Gould:

"The geological record is extremely imperfect and this fact will to a large extent explain why we do not find interminable varieties, connecting together all the extinct and existing forms of life by the finest graduated steps."

In other words, the fossil record doesn't show gradual changes from one species to another (as several other quotations from Gould have agreed), so Gould and others have attempted to devise explanations for why the geological record doesn't fit the theory.

One needs to read carefully, because invariably, neo-Darwinists will leave off attempting to prove that their theory fits the observed facts, and get to explaining why they shouldn't be expected to.

Of course, in this context they'll never mention that we've collected literally tens of millions of fossils, and STILL don't see the gradualism we'd expect from mutation plus natural selection.

And my point, which has been obscured by knight-of-wawaa's spluttering rage and nonstop ad hominems, remains unrebutted: scientists who are NOT motivated by philosophical or quasi-religious devotion to a particular point of view, don't usually stick with a theory for 150 years that doesn't fit the observed facts; they usually attempt to find a better theory. They haven't done so in this case. We should be asking why not.

Pot and Kettle
knighto_f_baawa writes: Monday, August, 20, 2007 7:20 PM ...After all: how can ink explain the fact that we have a pretty good line from mesonychid mammals to whales via the fossil record?

One should really be up to date before calling another stupid. Mesonychids have been removed as whale ancestors and replaced by artiodactyls.

Yes one should
The mesonychids are a sister group to the artiodactyls. After the whales are removed, the mesonychids are a dead end with no known modern descendents. There is some speculation that early whales (because of their teeth) are evidence that the ancestors of mesonychids and artiodactyls were carnivorous with the herbivory coming later. This contrasts with the orthodox view that the mesonychids (and whales) are secondarily carnivorous.

But the real point is that after calling someone stupid for not knowing that that mesonychids evolved into whales; you could not admit that you were wrong on that very point.

No one should respond to knight,
I tried it a few weeks ago and he does not engage your argument. He just says no, and finds a way to call you a liar. He says that creationists quote-mine. Sometimes they do, and they should stop it, but does he also think that creationists or IDer's should reproduce an entire book of some evolution apologetics when a few coherent sentences are enough to show a complete thought? Why skewer Joe Biden for calling Obama "clean" (one word) and we can't take Gould at his word with several sentences?

knight doesn't care
about evolution or darwinism. He only cares about "there is no god." If there were some other theory that explained life in a naturalistic/materialistic way he would abandon evolution. That is why Greenberg calls darwinism a religion because many athiests are religiously invested in it to butress their belief that there is no god.

Listen, there are many valid objections to the current neo-darwinian synthesis. They are logical, they have not been adequately adressed. Look them up. You could start with the book Genetic Entropy. Or The Edge of Evolution. Genetic Entropy is creationist, but it makes lots of good points. Edge of Evolution is written by Biologist Michael Behe and is an intelligent design book.

quote from Bornagain77
on the uncommon descent website. its long but good.

Naturalists always try to establish scientific validity for evolution by pointing to suggestive similarities while ignoring the foundational principle of science (genetic entropy) that contradicts their preconceived philosophical bias. For example, naturalists say that evolution is proven true when we look at the 98.8% similarity between certain segments of the DNA in a Chimpanzee and compare them with the same segments of DNA of a Human. Yet that similarity is not nearly good enough to be considered “conclusive” scientific proof. For starters, preliminary comparisons of the complete genome of chimps and the complete genome of man yield a similarity of only 96%.

cont
Dr. Hugh Ross states the similarity may actually be closer to 85% to 90%. Secondarily, at the protein level only 29% of genes code for the exact same amino acid sequences in chimps and humans (Nature, 2005). As well, our DNA is 92% similar to mice as well as 92% similar to zebrafish (Simmons PhD., Billions of Missing Links). So are we 92% mouse or are we 92% zebrafish? Our DNA is 70% similar to a fruit fly; So are we therefore 70% fruit fly? Our DNA is 75% similar to a worm; So are we 75% worm? No, of course not!! This type of reasoning is simple minded in its approach and clearly flawed in establishing a solid scientific foundation on which to draw valid inferences from!

cont
Clearly, we must find if the DNA is flexible enough to accommodate any type of mutations happening to it in the first place. This one point of evidence, (The actual flexibility of DNA to any random mutations), must be firmly established, first and foremost, before we can draw any meaningful inferences from the genetic data we gather from organisms!! Fortunately we, through the miracle of science, can now establish this crucial point of DNA flexibility. The primary thing that is crushing to the evolutionary theory is this fact. Of the random mutations that do occur, and have manifested traits in organisms that can be measured, at least 999,999 out of 1,000,000 (99.9999%) of these mutations to the DNA have been found to produce traits in organisms that are harmful and/or fatal to the life-form having the mutation (Gerrish and Lenski, 1998)!

cont
Professional evolutionary biologists are hard-pressed to cite even one clear-cut example of evolution through a beneficial mutation to DNA that would violate the principle of genetic entropy. Although evolutionists try to claim the lactase persistence mutation as a lonely example of a beneficial mutation in humans, lactase persistence is actually a loss of a instruction in the genome to turn the lactase enzyme off, so the mutation clearly does not violate genetic entropy. Yet at the same time, the evidence for the detrimental nature of mutations in humans is clearly overwhelming, for doctors have already cited over 3500 mutational disorders (Dr. Gary Parker).

cont
“It is entirely in line with the accidental nature of naturally occurring mutations that extensive tests have agreed in showing the vast majority of them to be detrimental to the organisms in its job of surviving and reproducing, just as changes accidentally introduced into any artificial mechanism are predominantly harmful to its useful operation” H.J. Muller (Received a Nobel Prize for his work on mutations to DNA)
“But there is no evidence that DNA mutations can provide the sorts of variation needed for evolution… There is no evidence for beneficial mutations at the level of macroevolution, but there is also no evidence at the level of what is commonly regarded as microevolution.” Jonathan Wells (PhD. Molecular Biology)


cont
Man has over 3 billion base pairs of DNA code. Even if there were just a 1% difference of DNA between monkeys and humans, that would still be 30 million base pairs of DNA difference. It is easily shown, mathematically, for it to be fantastically impossible for evolution to ever occur between monkeys and man, or monkeys and anything else for that matter. Since, it is an established fact that at least 999,999 in 1,000,000 of any mutations to DNA will be harmful and/or fatal, then it is also an established fact that there is at least a 999,999^30,000,000 to one chance that the monkey will fail to reach man by evolutionary processes. The monkey will hit a dead end of harmful/fatal mutations that will kill him or severely mutilate him before killing him. The poor monkey barely even gets out of the evolutionary starting gate before he is crushed by blind chance. This would still be true even if the entire universe were populated with nothing but monkeys to begin with! This number (999,999^30,000,000), is fantastically impossible for any hypothetical beneficial mutation to ever overcome!

No
Read the paper:
http://www.seaturtle.org/PDF/Geisler_2003_JVertPaleo.pdf

Pertinent sentence:
We concur with recent
authors (Gingerich et al., 2001; Thewissen et al., 2001b) that a
suite of characters in the ankles of early whales supports a clade
comprised of Cetacea and Artiodactyla but not mesonychids.

But back on point, when you stated, 'That ink is so stupid as to not know this is laughable. After all: how can ink explain the fact that we have a pretty good line from mesonychid mammals to whales via the fossil record?' you were either remembering or researching old material and now you are trying to preserve some perceived dignity instead of just saying 'I did not have the most up to date information and I was wrong.' Get used to being wrong, it's going to happen many, many times in your life. And also be careful about the name calling; one of those you offend may one day be writing your paychecks.

cont
Worse yet for the naturalists, mathematician William Dembski PhD. has worked out the foundational math that shows the mutation/natural selection scenario to be impossible EVEN IF the harmful/fatal rate for mutation to the DNA were only 50%. The naturalist stamps his feet again and says that symbiotic gene transfer, cross-breeding (yes they, desperately, suggested cross-breeding as a solution), gene duplication and multiplication of chromosomes, alternative splicing etc .. etc .. are the reasons for the changes in DNA between humans and apes. They say these things with utmost confidence without even batting an eye. Incredibly, this is done in spite of solid evidences testifying to the contrary. Indeed, even if a hypothetical beneficial mutation to the DNA ever did occur, it would be of absolutely no use for it would be swallowed in a vast ocean of slightly detrimental mutations that would be below the culling power of natural selection!

cont
“The theory of gene duplication in its present form is unable to account for the origin of new genetic information” Ray Bohlin, (PhD. in molecular and cell biology)

“Evolution through random duplications”… While it sounds quite sophisticated and respectable, it does not withstand honest and critical assessment” John C. Sanford (PhD Genetics; inventor of the biolistic “gene gun” process! Holds over 25 patents!)

The human genome, according to Bill Gates the founder of Microsoft, far, far surpasses in complexity any computer program ever written by man. The data compression (multiple meanings) of some stretches of human DNA is estimated to be up to 12 codes thick (Trifonov, 1989)! No line of computer code ever written by man approaches that level of data compression (poly-functional complexity). Further evidence for the inherent complexity of the DNA is found in a another study. In June 2007, a international team of scientists, named ENCODE, published a study that indicates the genome contains very little unused sequences and, in fact, is a complex, interwoven network. This “complex interwoven network” throughout the entire DNA code makes the human genome severely poly-constrained to random mutations (Sanford; Genetic Entropy, 2005). This means the DNA code is now much more severely limited in its chance of ever having a hypothetical beneficial mutation since almost the entire DNA code is now proven to be intimately connected to many other parts of the DNA code. Thus even though a random mutation to DNA may be able to change one part of an organism for the better, it is now proven much more likely to harm many other parts of the organism that depend on that one particular part being as it originally was. This “interwoven network” finding is extremely bad news for naturalists!

You're still wrong
Your 'article' is 2 years older than the paper I provided. The paper was published in the Society of Vertebrate Paleontology Journal. I believe that a peer-reviewed paper in a scholarly journal trumps an internet article.

I've been wrong many times in my life and I am mature enough to admit my mistakes. Are you?

Joemomentum
"All science can do is test predictions made by some theory or other. No number of positive outcomes is sufficient to prove a given theory, and no number of negative ones is sufficient to disprove it.”

---------

I'm afraid you are seriously mistaken here. One of the *essential* criteria for something to be able to wear the mantle of "scientific theory" is that it must be falsifiable.

Indeed, this is precisely the argument used by evolutionists to deny creationists from ever allowing their posture to be treated as a scientific theory. They argue that because the existence of a deity cannot be falsified, any theory that claims God as an agent is de facto non-scientific. I will not use this space to address that argument. Suffice to say that evolutionists don't play by their own rules.

In “Origin of Species” Darwin laid out his own criteria for falsification:

"If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down."

Yet no matter how many times it is shown that it is mathematically and chemically impossible for “numerous, successive, slight modifications” to have led to structures such as the human eye or bacterial flagella or the blood clotting mechanism or a host of other examples, the underlying evolutionary premise is never abandoned.

Instead, we have people such as Stephen Jay Gould promoting ideas such as “punctuated equilibrium” in which things appear suddenly, remain the same for the entirety of the fossil record, and then disappear. Thus, in practice, Darwin has been continually massaged such that, for all practical purposes, his evolutionary model becomes non-falsifiable.

After years of insisting that gradualism explains everything, the evolutionists finally admit what we creationists have been saying all along: it explains virtually nothing.

KOB
Can you name a single time when you have stood corrected or admitted to a mistake in this forum?

Think about it.

Your presence on TH is a continual litany of in-your-face I'm-never-wrong assertions on everything from economics to sexuality to microbiology to geologic dating to biblical authenticity to abiogenesis to christian theology.

And is it any wonder that a man who can never demonstrate a shred of humility or concede a point when he has clearly been intellectually bested by people such as Inkling is universally dismissed by the rest of us?

Think about it. When you can never admit to even the smallest mistake or suggest that you can learn something from others, it completely undermines your credibility. Like the guy who prefaces his remarks with "I'm perfect," the wise listener will tune out everything else. After all, if they guy is wrong about so simple a matter as his own fallibility, why should we pay the slightest attention to anything else he has to say?

It's just so much verbal flatulence.

You might also be wise to realize that responding to this post with your usual strident protests and denials merely underscores my point.

Who cares?
I'd be willing to bet not one person on this board holds a PhD in any of the various relevant fields, yet everyone 'knows' the truth about the science.
Not even the scientists know the final truth about the science of evolution: it's constantly, well, evolving.

I figure that if God is the omnipotent and omniscient being I believe him to be, he could create all this any way he pleased; and the finite minds and methods of scientists will take centuries just to figure out how he did it.

So others may have their arguments, invest their faith in whichever ephemeral scientific position or objection they want, or believe that somehow the theory of evolution states *anything* about the existence or Lordship of God.
I've got praising and learning and sowing and ministering to do, and I've learned that those are the things God really wants from me.


What's your next brilliant response
knighto_f_baawa writes: Tuesday, August, 21, 2007 1:03 AM
I'm not wrong
Why won't you admit to being wrong, rm?

I provided a paper to back my position. Now you back up your position with a more recent paper that argues for your position or admit that your 'opinion' is not based on the most current evidence.

knighto_f_baawa writes: Tuesday, August, 21, 2007 1:13 AM
Here's something to help rm
Make sure, rm, that you're not confusing what you think I wrote with what I actually wrote. That tends to happen A LOT on the internet: people read what they want to read, rather than what's written.

Then please explain. Your exact statement,'Actually, it runs exactly WITH observed behavior in nature (especially the fossil record). That ink is so stupid as to not know this is laughable. After all: how can ink explain the fact that we have a pretty good line from mesonychid mammals to whales via the fossil record?' Am I mistaken when I read that you are calling someone 'so stupid as to be laughable' and then using the 'fact' of mesonychid to whale progression to prove it? And am I mistaken in believing that I have shown that your information is outdated? If I am mistaken in these things, then enlighten me. In your own words if you please, not a link to some ancient website.

If you are not still a teenager physically, then you definately are still one emotionally. America's magnificient teenagers who KNOW everything, though they have experienced nothing.

You're going to have an awfully tough time holding anything but a government job when you grow up.


in response to rm0918
KOB never admits to being wrong. You are, in fact, debating him under wrong assumptions.

You see, KOB doesn't really seem intent on actually convincing or being convinced. My take is that he's in it for the sport: debate is something he finds entertaining.

Onnline debate is unique: more than any other sort, it is a gamer where the other side only *really* scores if you admit they made a goal, and KOB is not such a fool as to admit that anyone has scored on him.

The only extent to which I debate KOB is to post data or reasoning that disproves his contentions *to rational onlookers*; it is a waste of time trying to pester him into admitting *himself* disproved.

KOB is alright; he's pretty much harmless; debating with him can be fun if you don't take it too seriously, and it can be good practice.

To KOB: I met someone with a similar user name on a Yahoo Group recently (I think it was Bawaa_Knight), but he denied being you. Do you have evil clones in circulation?

Tallil2long
Baawa stands for "bad-a** atheist with an attitude." Apparently, lots of smug punks use variations on that acronym for screen names.

Paul Greenberg
"The Darwinian order to which Brother Erasmus belonged taught only pure science at abbeys like his own, and no one was allowed to question it, lest the Dark Ages return."

You describe an authoritative, designed world.

"Forgive this, Erasmus thought as he reached for his trusty bow. The old man was not more than 20 yards away when the arrow hit him squarely between the eyes. Call it natural selection."

This is social Darwinism, survival of the fittest, something invented not by Darwin but by Herbert Spencer, with the view of designing the world and re-engineering society.

"That was when he realized how subversive was the document he held in his hands."

Subversive, indeed, to a world view that authoritatively insists it was designed.

Darwin began with Creator, agreeing with Paley's teleological views, before he set out on his wanderings and wonderings.

NevadaDad
I was delighted to see someone here who actually understands modern day science: "One of the *essential* criteria for something to be able to wear the mantle of 'scientific theory' is that it must be falsifiable." That, as I'm sure you know, comes mainly from Popper.

I was disappointed in your redefinition of punctuated equilibrium as "things appear suddenly, remain the same for the entirety of the fossil record, and then disappear." That does falsify evolutionary theory and lends support to creation science.

However, Gold's punctuated equilibrium doesn't say that, it says, in brief, that evolutionary change, specifically speciation, slows down and speeds up in cycles in response to changes in environment. Gold in 1977, "Evolution's erratic pace." Natural History 86 (May): 12-16, says Thus, the fossil record is a faithful rendering of what evolutionary theory predicts, not a pitiful vestige of a once bountiful tale."

Punctuated equilibrium refines evolutionary theory, it does not support the catastrophism of creation science.

Question, how would you falsify creationism?

Tallil2long
You say "Not even the scientists know the final truth about the science of evolution: it's constantly, well, evolving.

"I figure that if God is the omnipotent and omniscient being I believe him to be, he could create all this any way he pleased; and the finite minds and methods of scientists will take centuries just to figure out how he did it."

Interesting skeptical view you have about how both scientific and religious understanding are evolving and will never be complete. I agree. Those with a scientific view of things will readily agree, not sure how many of those with a religious view will.

knighto_f_baawa
So the answer appears. It’s hate with logic as its driving force.

So full of pride in your opinions, you just know that you’re right, don't you.

What was it you said once about attacking the messenger instead of the message?

You seem to think that spouting off a few references excuses the tone in your comments.

I would consider engaging in conversation with you on issues except for the attitude problem that you have.

In every period of history, logic has had a place, but logic has not always proven to be right.

Origin of life has not been proven by atheist’s, yet you ridicule Christians for there view.

It's alright to have a difference of opinion, but you accuse Christians of something that you are just as guilty of under the guize of rebuttle arguments.

Hate is hate no matter how you try to dress it up.







knighto_f_baawa
You could stand a few lessons on posting from lonestarblues.

He presents an intelligent debate without becoming abussive.

I don't mind being challenged in my beliefs, but I do exspect mutual respect.

KOB
For a couple of weeks I have read and attempted to engage KOB, whereby he did, (as many other posters have stated) call me a liar also. This in response to my implications that he was a liberal vs. an anarchocapitalist. I suggested he wanted a Utopian world and he called me stupid, uneducated and a liar. Other posters have also used the word utopian to describe what this person claims NOT to want. He is so connvinced that he is superior to the rest of the posters here at TH, that it is pointless to even try to debate with him. He even demanded my credentials as an educator as if God(oops, did I say that out loud?)himself appointed him judge. "Somebody" flagged one of my posts yesterday in regard to the little Shittt. My point is, he is a punk who cares little about talk, and would rather sling insults to us 'lowly and inferior thinkers'. Just ignore the monkey. He swings and screeches all day long.

knighty-night
is gone again. Within five posts on every thread, he will be found resorting to name-calling, especially "liar", his favorite epithet. He frequently gets flagged and his posts get taken down, as they are now. Then he comes back on the same thread or a new one with another permutation of "knight of baawa" salted with underscores. If he is allowed to come back here, he will repost his dumped missives along with 10 new rebuttals, all within a few minutes. Think of it a punctuated (dis)equilibrium.

BTW, he is the poster child of narcissism. No other explanation fits him better. Read this and note point number four:

http://www.halcyon.com/jmashmun/npd/dsm-iv.html

He also echoes every criticism back using your own words, frequently responds with one-word answers (why say more? - a word from him is sufficient to prove the case), and insists that his interpretations of Scripture (where he ignores context) are more accurate than long-settled tradition.

If you've experienced him enough, you will hear him say how he is smarter than everybody else, and how you, dear fool, are envious of his brilliance (point number eight).

Also, he illustrates point number nine to a "T".

He apparently has never forgiven me for exposing the origins of his self-assumed title (why wasn't he proud of it?) and mocking his D&D group of fanatical soi-disant "knights" with my parodies (Sir Limplance) and poem. Being ignored or not taken seriously is the worst fate of a narcissist.

My best guess is that he is chronologically in his 40s or 50s, having invented newsgroups (as he obliquely claims) before algore invented the ethernet, and sees his anarcho-capitalist dreams slipping away into that great night.

The sad part is that he'll never convince anyone of the benefits of a more limited government because of his arrogance and all-or-nothing attitude, so he harms more than helps those of us with that political goal.

s.d.g.

knight__o_f_baawa
Peace. I'll be praying for you.

Wow
KOB, that's quite a case of logorrhea you have there! I am reminded of the maxim "think much, talk little" but not in a good way.
The Darwinian theory of evolution is dead. Most scientists do not subscribe to strict Darwinism and have not for about 40 years, when paleantology revealed that organisms do not evolve in a slow, measured march as Darwin described but rather in fits and starts. The criticisms of Neo-Darwinism revolve around the questions that it does not resolve, such as (speaking anthropomorphically) "if the goal of genes is to reproduce themselves in the most efficient and widespread manner, then why did life evolve beyond single celled organisms, which are the most successful means for doing this?" Or "How did virus first form?" The fossil record is very clear that there has been biologic change over time. But current theories are lacking in power to explain important points in these record of change.

Well!
It happened already, as our posts crossed. You needn't marvel - it was an easy prediction!

Watch me be called "Sir Limplance", the parody title I gave him months ago when I stated after he posted an especially ineffective argument that his lance must be bent because he couldn't hit a windmill blade on a calm day.

The gulf
That exists between evolution and the bible is words only.

Nature is what it is as it is seen with the eyeball.

Everything in nature works exactly as its recorded in Genesis.
One must ignore the Mountain of reality Nature provides to find a grain of sand to worship.

Everything an evolutionist believes in (by faith) is based in millions and millions of words.

Nature goes on as it has since it was Created anyway.

There is not one single example found in nature as it is that conflicts with the unchanging words of the bible.

The words and beliefs of the evolutionists change by the minute, as they adapt their arguments, and is the only thing that evolves here in the real world.

Yes words of evolutionists do evolve as they change from one set of beliefs to another.
Meanwhile the unchanging Word of God creates life by true faith in truth and verity.
In the beginning God Created.

knight__o_f_baawa
How sad for you! However, it changes nothing. I will still pray for you.

It Goes Way Back
The underlying intellectual dispute here goes way back beyond Darwin. The real dispute is between rational and mystical thought. In this context, mystical thought involves beginning with a belief in a God, and then intepreting the world in ways which support that. Rationalism, in this context, involves beginning with a description, collecting evidence, and then developing a framwork to understand that evidence. Roughly parallel to the scientific method.

The evolution disupute is just the modern version of the dispute which raged in medieval universities. Since then,the rational world view has brought us virtually every single scientific, technological, and medical breakthrough we enjoy today. Mystics are still sort of closing their eyes and chanting in dimly lit churches.

The current wackiness is kind of new, in that mystics are now trying to claim a rational basis for their thinking and accusing rationalists of being irrational at heart. But why wouldn't they? Their world is informed by belief and irrationality: such a tactic doesn't seem out of place to them at all.