One has to remember that evolution is not merely "change over time." If that was the case, then it would be a shoe-in, and evolution would no longer be a theory.
You know.. "gravity" is a theory as well.
Doug thinks that a "theory" is simply a proposed explanation for a thing, rather than being testable and supported explanations for natural phenomenon.
Or as a more detailed explanation;
Theories are distinct from theorems: theorems are derived deductively from theories according to a formal system of rules, generally as a first step in testing or applying the theory in a concrete situation. Theories are abstract and conceptual, and to this end they are never considered right or wrong. Instead, they are supported or challenged by observations in the world. They are 'rigorously tentative', meaning that they are proposed as true but expected to satisfy careful examination to account for the possibility of faulty inference or incorrect observation.
There is a massive body of scientific evidence supporting Darwin's theories. Darwin was not correct about everything, but that is simply the nature of the scientific method. Science continually self-examines, and as new evidence emerges to challenge the old ideas, new theories are established to continually refine and improve the theories.
Darwinists don't like this kind of pipe wrench thrown into their anti-God agenda. They are troubled when people like me try to reveal an intersection between science and faith. They somehow believe that science and a belief in God should be at constant war with each other. Those that agree with Darwin, in fact, are at this moment developing an argument against what I have written about ant odometers because the very thought of a Creator having his hand in science drives them insane.
Actually.. real science doesn't have an anti-god agenda. Scientists simply ignore people like Doug because they offer nothing which stands up to the scientific method. They offer no evidence. All they offer is "god did it", and that can not be proven. It is not evidence of anything.
Instead, science examines the demonstrable evidence, and proposes explanations that can be tested and confirmed, or shown to have been false. Religious freaks like Doug don't appreciate those methods because simply saying "god did it" is not evidence, as that's superstition, not science.
This is the best part;
Complexity like this cannot evolve. The ant needs the ability to count steps to survive. Without the ability the species does not survive. If the species could not survive without the ability, then how could it evolve? With the time it would take for such an ability to develop, the species would be extinct before the development would have a chance to complete its journey.
And Doug demonstrates the typical creationist inability to understand what evolution truly is. It is a stunning display of ignorance that he doesn't understand selection.
It's no wonder Doug couldn't pass a university level biology exam. "God did it" is not one of the multiple choice answers.
9 comments:
That ant bit made me lol
Actually, I got an A in both of my college level Biology classes. Thanks for assuming the worst. Shows how you are so blind with rage that while you claim the Right is stereotypical, you keep coming up with stereotypes of Christians like me without even knowing the facts. Typical lying leftist fashion. Just had to visit, had some time to kill. Your site's ignorance makes me laugh. I pray for you. It's a shame you have been deceived so deeply.
Oh, forgot to tell you, read "The Case for Creator" by Lee Strobel - you'll get a kick out it. You know, all of those ignorant scientists with alphabets after their names highly respected in the scientific world explaining the scientific evidence that supports creation. You may even change your tune, but I doubt it. You are too invested in the Darwinian deception, and to narrow-minded to consider that something else might be possible. . . something, uh, Godly.
I’m going to take issue with your statement about scientists, and the people who support their work being ignorant.
I think you will find that anyone here would quite willingly dismiss evolution as a valid theory tomorrow if proven, legitimate and un-deniable evidence became available tomorrow showing us that creationism is indeed the very answer to "how it all began". After all that’s what science is all about. The problem is, it won’t... and it's phenomenally unlikely that it ever will.
Additionally this almost militant stand that you take against the reasoning of those not of [Christian] faith really does nothing to help convince us that your on the level, or that your case is sound. It simply appears that you’re trying to block out the doubt by simply yelling “Jesus did it” louder. You call us ignorant, however your method of debate seems to be nothing more than the adult equivalent of sticking your fingers in your ears and yelling “LALALALALALALA I CAN’T HEAR YOU”.
To clarify I was raised in a religious family, my parents had me attend and Anglican school for 11 years. My Uncle is a reverend and both my parents have been involved in missionary work. As a result I have what one might call a fairly good grasp of the teachings of the Christian religion, however I am not ‘one of the flock’.
Why? Because I’ve seen the nastier side of religion first hand, and the negative effect it can have on people. I’ve weighed the teachings of the church up against the evidence and theories provided by science and can see no reason why anyone with a rational mind could even consider the former to be the more solid of the 2 arguments.
Before you cast judgments on the knowledge of others perhaps you should revise and backup your own words, for example Tom’s quote from your own blog with regards to the evolution of ants. This statement doesn’t nothing more than demonstrate a lack of understanding of some of the basic principles of the theory of evolution, which simply points out your own ignorance on the topic.
Tell you what Doug.. I'll read your suggested book if you agree to read Richard Dawkins' The Greatest Show on Earth: The Evidence for Evolution. I'll even buy it and have amazon ship it out to you. Then we can debate the issue.. on your radio program if you like. That sound like a deal?
It really is strange you call me "deceived" when the vast majority of the academic profession refutes your claims. It's the strange habit you have of calling people "ignorant" when your view is the whack-a-loon fringe minority, scoffed and and ridiculed by actual academics in the field. But hey.. I know.. University is all a big liberal conspiracy.. right?
You refer to evolution as a "deception", yet it is universally accepted as theory by the entire academic and intellectual body of science. And no.. Ray Comfort does not count. He's as fringe as they get, and completely unqualified to speak in the field.
Your fringe supernatural explanations are laughed at and scoffed at by rational science and those that have dedicated their lives to it's study. Biology does NOT preclude any "God". It simply ignores it because there is zero evidence that there is any supernatural influence in the evolution of species. Your ant analogy was laughably absurd, and you have zero clue why that is. You honestly don't know why it made us giggle. That's how bad your understanding of the science behind evolution is.
So you got an A in biology.. alrighty.. Freshman biology is mostly anatomy anyway. If you had managed to not get kicked out of university, you might have learned what evolution is actually about, instead of seeing it as a threat to your religion.
And you know what? You can claim my blog is a product of "ignorance", but you never have.. not in the couple of years I've been using you as an example of what is intellectually wrong with this nation.. never.. have you demonstrated where my facts are in error, or how my analysis is faulty.
Your are the poster child for my demonstrations where supernaturaly convinced whackos have zero credibility or convincing argument for just about anything.
And I know I've said this a million times.. it's why I quote you, and link to you.. so people can see just how insane the religious loons are in this nation.
Oh.. and to Kor's point.. I don't need "un-deniable evidence" to chuck my view of the biology behind evolution. The scientific method provides the tools for criticising academic work, and merely demonstrating that something accepted as scientifically valid is false, then you chuck that bit and re-evaluate the implications.
This is what science does continually, and I find it bizare when freaks like Doug think that science has some sort of agenda. If somebody could write a paper today demonstrating the error in Einstein's theories, then those theories would be dismissed and possibly revised based on the new evidence. That's how Newton's gravity theories were revised and extended when it was demonstrated where Newtonian mechanics fails.
That's what Doug doesn't understand. He simply does not understand how true, credentialed scientists and professors do their research. He instead basis his view on what fits his need to have a God behind it all, instead of going where the evidence leads.
He truly is deeply religious to the point of denial.. and still doesn't understand that evolution doesn't have to challenge his faith.
That's how fundamentally whack-a-loon he is.
By the way.. Doug won't be back to this thread. He just likes to check his google alerts when I link to him and read what I've said about him.. then he drops his bit of crazy here, and dissapears again.
See http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/paul_doland/creator.html for details on those "scientists with alphabets after their names highly respected in the scientific world". Hint: they're not. They're mostly philosophers and theologians completely unqualified to comment on the science.
Link no worky.. it's
http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/paul_doland/creator.html
Thanks for the article though. It's typical of Doug to make a claim that is complete bullshit.
The method goes.. make a completely generic and broad assertion without providing any detail or documentation. Then when somebody actually checks and finds out it's complete bullshit, he's already moved on and ignores the actual data as some sort of liberal conspiracy.
He does it continually... so it's no suprise that the "scientists" he references are no such thing.
What a fucking liar he is.. but I'm still willing to read the Loon's book if Doug agrees to read Dawkins' and debate me on his "program".
Post a Comment