Saturday, April 03, 2004

Science vs. Evolution

Who will win?

  • Biology's Black Boxes: Darwin Debunked
  • Molecular Machines (from ARN)
  • Non-theists Attack Evolution
  • Evolutionists Doubt Evolution
  • The Mechanisms of Evolution: Intimidation and Censorship
  • The Mechanisms of Evolution: Blissful Ignorance
  • Anomalies Unexplained by Evolutionism
  • Evolutionists Panic
  • Other Problems
  • Darwinism in Action
  • "A pseudoscience is something that pretends to be a science but does not obey the rules of good conduct common to all sciences. Thus such subjects are false sciences.

    True science is a method of studying nature. It is a set of rules that prevents scientists from lying to each other or to themselves. Hypotheses must be open to testing and must be revised in the face of contradictory evidence. All evidence must be considered and all alternative hypotheses must be explored. The rules of good science are nothing more than the rules of good thinking, that is, the rules of intellectual honesty."

    - M.A.Seeds, HORIZONS Exploring the Universe,Wadsworth
    Publishing Company, Belmont, CA (1989).

    After quoting the above, Bryan G. Wallace (The Farce of Physics, 1993) goes on to say:

    This brings up an interesting question; Do scientists actually practice what they preach? The evidence clearly shows that the average scientist tends not to use the rules of good science. In fact, it appears that Protestant ministers are inclined to have more intellectual honesty than Ph.D. scientists. To document this fact, I will quote from an article titled "Researchers Found Reluctant to Test Theories" by Dr. David Dickson ..."

    No field of science is therefore immune to sloppiness. However, when evolutionism is at stake, the "rules of intellectual honesty" evaporate into bluster. The reason for this is clear: evolutionism is "the only game in town" if you have a deep faith in pure naturalism.

    As our knowledge progresses, however, the cracks in scientism widen even further. Molecular biology, for example, has revealed the baffling complexity of life and its constituents, once again raising the specter of intelligent design:

  • Biology's Black Boxes
  • Talking with an otherwise "tolerant" radio talk show host recently, it became clear to me that many have what seems to be a comic-book cartoon stereotype of anyone who dares question evolution: a "creationist" who (gasp!) believes the world is 6,000 years old and rejects all the laws of physics and chemistry. (Ironically, this kind of suspension of the known laws of science is acceptable if done to defend evolutionism.)

    It would surprise that "open-minded" host, who was soon practically frothing at the mouth (he described creationists as a group of people who "meet in some dark basement somewhere") to know that evolution is under attack by nontheists, and even evolutionists themselves.

  • Nontheists Doubt Evolution
  • Evolutionists Doubt Evolution
  • “I have often thought how little I should like to have to prove organic evolution in a court of law.”

    — Errol White, Proceedings of the Linnean Society, London (1966) [an ichthyologist (expert on fish) in a 1988 address before a meeting of the Linnean Society in London].

    Why did the president of the prestigious Linnean Society make such a remark? Because, presumably, in such a proceeding, evidence would be required and evaluated, and the theory would have to stand on scientific observation, rather than sheer volume of books published that proclaim it as fact.

    Phillip E. Johnson, the Jefferson E. Peyser Professor of Law at the University of California, Berkeley, a former believer in evolution, examines Darwinism from a lawyer's standpoint in his book "Darwin on Trial," and concludes that as far as the quality and quantity of evidence is concerned, it hasn't got a legal leg to stand on. Other lawyers and evolutionists have remarked similarly that the evidence for evolution would not stand up in a court of law.

    But should we be surprised? Evolution is a scofflaw when it comes to the basic laws of thermodynamics, genetics, molecular biology, chemistry, and information theory, but to name a few. So loyal are its defenders that today, in the face of the baffling complexity found in nature, are faithfully clinging to the hope of some mysterious, still undiscovered quirks of mathematics to explain its alleged abilities to flout physical law.

  • A Lawyer Dismantles Evolutionism (at ARN)
  • Evolutionism does not explain many anomalous findings, such as those documented by Cremo: findings of tools, writing, human fossils, and other traces of the hand of man, in strata or locations dated long before man is supposed to have existed.

  • Anomalies Unexplained by Evolutionism

  • This page is powered by Blogger. Isn't yours?