Religion 'Intelligent design' teaching ban in the US

[PRIZMATIC]

:blush: " A pity to of Darwin " - his "ancestors" were "monkeys"...
" A pity to of Believers " - " whose ( ) the God having created the Earth for some days and has not found time for thousand years to make the person similar to "...
Probably has come true told with Jesus Christ that with death of last Apostle in the world will come "Darkness"...
But what for to the modern person " real knowledge ", in fact its level of dialogue with the Universe at " a level of the Microscope "... And in what a difference of both directions of teaching?...
There is a practical party - it generates "science"...
There is a spiritual party - it generates "belief"...
Also there is " freedom of a choice " the person...
Any school (neither that nor this) cannot give " real knowledge "... The Modern school only can give the information on presence of that or other knowledge... But who can assert, what this knowledge - the necessary knowledge, and those are not present?... But as far as that or other knowledge are necessary for this or that person?...
"School" - only a place of " loading of the information ", with mechanisms " stimulations and pressure " for mastering this or that information...
But hardly people can create something other...:note:

 

[No-name]

Pachipro- I know your theory doesn't hold water. I have never worn sunscreen in my life. In California, who needs shelter? I usually don't wear clothes either. I am perfectly adapted to this planet- with the exception that I am way too nearsighted.

The truth is Pachipro was sent back in time by the robots of the future to kill Sarah Conner... and he won't stop...he won't rest...he won't give up...ever.

 

[Tsuyoiko]

Apologies if I reiterate any previous responses in the attempt to be thorough.

Wrong on both counts. Humans could not have possibly evolved on this planet. If that were the case we would not need sunscreen to shield our skin from the sun or sunglasses to protect our eyes. We would not need clothing and shelter nor warm ourselves from the cold winter or seek cool shade from mild summer heat. The fact is we are NOT native to this planet and never were. Unlike many of the mammels on this planet we are not adapted to this planet or it's climate and never were.

We aren't the only species that is not perfectly adapted to its environment - don't leopards climb trees for shade? We have evolved an intellect that allows us to seek or build shelters from the cold, whereas a polar bear has thick fur. Both these cases are caused by the same thing - natural selection. We survived to reproduce because we sought shelter in caves, the polar bear survived because of his thick fur.

But there are and scientists are still at a loss to provide the "missing link."

It's actually surprising that we have fossils for as many species as we do, given how complicated it is for fossils to form - see here. So it's to be expected that there will be gaps in the fossil record. Think of evolution as the journey of a getaway car travelling on a straight road from A to H. It is reported at points A, B, D, G, and H. Although no-one saw it at C, E, and F, it's a fair bet that it passed through those points.

Does anyone see evolution occuring on this planet?

Here is an example of an evolution that we have observed: the Peppered Moth

And why should they be accepted by the scientific community when most of what "they" are teaching us is false anyway? Unless it falls into "their" curriculum, "they" will not look at any other research no matter how factual it may be.

I don't believe that. I agree that some more conservative scientists are reluctant to accept new ideas, but if a hypothesis truly has merit it will be accepted within a couple of generations.

"They" do not want to upset their applecart of teaching us false history and keeping the truth from us about our actual origins.

If we don't originate on this planet, how do you explain the fact that we share so many of our genes with other species? We share 98-99% of a chimpanzee's genes and even 50% of a banana's. That similarity is strong evidence for evolution, IMO.

Those with an open, inquisitive, searching for the truth mind, will devour his website from top to bottom looking for flaws.

Likewise Pachipro, I think if you read more about evolution, genetics and palaeontology you will see the facts. Try Stephen Jay Gould, Steve Jones and Richard Dawkins.

 

[Kinsao]

We share 98-99% of a chimpanzee's genes and even 50% of a banana's.

Only 50%? :souka:
:92:
Incredible.
I never knew that.

 

[kumo]

Only 50%? :souka:
:92:
Incredible.
I never knew that.

For some people it's more like 80%.

 

[Pachipro]

Likewise Pachipro, I think if you read more about evolution, genetics and palaeontology you will see the facts. Try Stephen Jay Gould, Steve Jones and Richard Dawkins.

I have read books from both sides of the argument and the accepted version still does not hold water when placed up against the "facts" that we are led to believe are myths or gaps in science.

Well it seems no one bothered to click on the link I provided and read the essay concerning "Darwinism Vs. Creationism, A Checkered History, A Doubtful Future" or you guys would be quoting what he said instead of quoting me. I am just presenting a well-researched alternative view. These are not my theories, but I have come to believe in them more and more when they are backed up by facts which present-day science refuses to explain or acknowledge.

I was hoping to spark some intelligent debate concerning both sides, but I guess that is not to be the case for as with the abortion debate, and debates about religion, people take sides and refuse to acknowledge the other side unless it is written in stone or said on the news or by some named professor of a named university. There is an as of yet unexplainable reason why ID is suddenly being so hotly debated these days.

Let's quote a little from Lloyd Pye's essay to answer some of the points some have raised:

Starting with the Sumerians, the first great culture 6,000 years ago, through the Egyptians, Greeks, and Romans, everyone accepted that some form of heavenly beings hadcreated all of life and, as a crowning achievement, topped it off with humans. Now, consider that for a moment. Today the CEO of a medium-sized corporation can verbally issue an instruction to be carried out company-wide and have no hope it will reach the lower echelons intact. So the fact that most historical cultures, from first to most recent (our own), believed essentially the same creation story is astonishing in its consistency.

...Without saying it outright, Darwin?fs bottom line was that life?fs myriad forms managed their own existence from start to finish without divine help. This did not take God entirely out of the equation, but it did remove His influence on a day-to-day basis. The irony is that Charles Darwin did his work reluctantly, being a devout man who had trained to become a minister. Nonetheless, the schism he created between evolution (a term he never used; his choice was natural selection) and God was the battering ram that breached the forbidding wall of dogmatic ignorance that had stood for thousands of years.

...Though breached, that wall did not come down entirely. Instead, an ideological war erupted on both sides of what remained of it, pitting Darwinists against Creationists in intellectual bloodletting that eventually forced some of the wounded to seek relief in compromise. Both sides might be content, they suggested, if God could be acknowledged as the initiator of all life, followed by a ?ghands-off?h policy thereafter to let nature take its evolutionary course. All well and good. But instead, both sides adopted a winner-take-all strategy, unwilling to make even marginal concessions to the other side?fs point of view.

Unexplainable Gaps in Darwins Theory:

In 1873, only fourteen years after The Origin Of Species, geologist J.W. Dawson, chancellor of McGill University in Montreal, published The Story Of The Earth And Man, which was every bit as well written and as carefully argued as Darwin?fs masterpiece. In it Dawson pointed out that Darwin and his followers were promoting a theory based on three fallacious ?ggaps?h in reasoning that could not be reconciled with the knowledge of their era. What is so telling about Dawson?fs three fallacies is that they remain unchanged to this day.

The first fallacy is that life can spontaneously animate from organic material. In 1873 Dawson complained that ?gthe men who evolve all things from physical forces do not yet know how these forces can produce the phenomenon of life even in its humblest forms.?h He added that ?gin every case heretofore, the effort (to create animate life) has proved vain.?h After 127 years of heavily subsidized effort by scientists all over the world to create even the most basic rudiments of life, they are still batting an embarrassing zero. In any other scientific endeavor, reason would dictate it is time to call in the dogs and water down the fire. But when it comes to Darwinian logic, as Dawson noted in 1873, ?ghere also we are required to admit as a general principle what is contrary to experience.?h

Dawson?fs second fallacy was the gap that separates vegetable and animal life. ?gThese are necessarily the converse of each other, the one deoxidizes and accumulates, the other oxidizes and expends. Only in reproduction or decay does the plant simulate the action of the animal, and the animal never in its simplest forms assumes the functions of the plant. This gap can, I believe, be filled up only by an appeal to our ignorance.?h And thus it remains today. If life did evolve as Darwinists claim, it would have had to bridge the gap between plant and animal life at least once, and more likely innumerable times. Lacking one undeniable example of this bridging, science is again batting zero.

The third gap in the knowledge of 1873 was ?gthat between any species of animal or plant and any other species. It is this gap, and this only, which Darwin undertook to fill up by his great work on the origin of species; but, notwithstanding the immense amount of material thus expended, it yawns as wide as ever, since it must be admitted that no case has been ascertained in which individuals of one species have transgressed the limits between it and other species.?h Here, too, despite a ceaseless din of scientific protests to the contrary, there remains not a single unquestioned example of one species evolving entirely—not just partially—into another distinct and separate species.

 

[Pachipro]

Natural Selection Myth, Fraud, and Intelligent Design

To be fair, some of today?fs best-known geneticists and naturalists have broken ranks and acknowledged that what Dawson complained about in 1873 remains true today. Thomas H. Morgan, who won a Nobel Prize for work on heredity, wrote that ?gWithin the period of human history, we do not know of a single instance of the transformation of one species into another if we apply the most rigid and extreme tests used to distinguish wild species.?h Colin Patterson, director of the British Museum of Natural History, has stated that ?gNo one has ever produced a species by mechanisms of natural selection. No one has gotten near it.?h And these are by no means extraordinary disclosures. Every scientist in related fields is well aware of it, but shamefully few have the nerve to address it openly.

This is what they are teachings us and it is "conveniently overlooked or rarely mentioned:

By the time Darwin died, in 1882, one of his most zealous supporters, German zoologist Ernst Haeckel, had produced a series of drawings that showed the developing embryos of various mammals (rabbit, pig, chimp, man) were virtually identical until well into their gestation. This had been a great comfort to Darwin in his old age, but by 1915 it was clear that Haeckel had forged the drawings. Nonetheless, they served Darwinists so well that Haeckel?fs forgery conviction at the University of Jena, where he taught, was conveniently overlooked, and his drawings can still be found in modern texts supporting evolution. In fact, any reader of this article who was taught evolution in school will very likely have seen Haeckel?fs drawings in textbooks and been assured they were legitimate.

A more widely known fraudulent attempt to support Darwin?fs flagging theory was England?fs famous Piltdown Man hoax of 1912, which was an ancient human skull found in conjunction with a modern orangutan?fs lower jaw that had been doctored (its teeth filed down to look more human) and aged to match the look of the skull. This was much more important than Haeckel?fs fraud because it provided the desperately sought ?gmissing link?h between humans and their proposed ape-like ancestors.

Nearly all of England?fs evolutionary top guns swung in behind the fraud, and their colleagues worldwide joined them with such zeal that it took 40 years to expose it for what it was. However, the damage it caused to the search for truth had already been done. The world became so convinced that Darwinian evolution was true and correct, it was just a matter of time before Creationists would draw a line in the dirt and call for a last great battle to decide the issue once and for all.

And this led to the famous "Monkey Trial" in Tennessee in 1925 between Creationists and Darwinists and the Creationists won by a technicality, but at a great cost as Darwinism cast great doubt on them and knocked them off the pedastal.

Though clearly knocked down by the Darrow/Scopes haymaker, the Creationists were far from out. They lowered their profile and became relatively inactive through the Depression and the years of World War II, waiting until society stabilized in the 1950?fs. Then they rallied their troops and resumed attacking educational systems, where young minds were being indoctrinated with Darwinist dogma. And this time they did it right. Instead of wasting effort and money lobbying state legislatures, they moved out into the heartland and focused on local school boards, insisting belief in evolution was costing America its faith in God and religion, and destroying morality and traditional family life.

When the social eruptions of the 1960?fs appeared, Creationists were quick to say ?gWe told you so!?h They blamed the teaching of ?gGodless evolution?h as a primary cause, demanding that religion be put back in schools as a quick way to return to ?gthe good old days.?h At the same time, they hit upon their most brilliant tactic yet: formally changing their basic tenet from ?gBiblical Creationism?h to ?gCreation Science.?h Then, in an equally brilliant stroke, they shifted from lobbying school boards to getting themselves elected to them. Predictably, they enjoyed great success in the Bible Belt girdling the Deep South.

In the late 60's religion was forbidden to be taught in public schools. Today, the debate has been rekindled and it is being called Intelligent Design. But why and to what purpose?

 

[Pachipro]

Kansas Board of Ed Vote

Apart from making most real scientists gag every time they hear it, ?gCreation Science?h provided Creationists with the cachet of authority they had been seeking—and needing—since Darwin so thoroughly sandbagged them. And, it has been remarkably effective in shifting public opinion away from the scientific position. Gallup Polls taken in 1982, 1993, 1997, and 1999 show the percentage of Americans who believed ?gGod created human beings in their present form at one time within the past 10,000 years?h was 44%, 47%, 44%, and 47% respectively. In a recent Fox News/Opinion Dynamics poll asking people what they thought about human origins, 15% said they accepted Darwinian evolution, 50% believed the Biblical account, and 26% felt there was truth on both sides. The most perceptive group might well have been the 9% who said they were not sure.

One could argue that those numbers are more of a comment on America?fs failing educational system than on the effectiveness of Creationist strategies. But in any case, the Creationist cacophony reached a fever pitch in August of last year, when the Kansas State Board of Education voted by a 6 to 4 margin to eliminate from the state?fs high school curricula the teaching of not only biological evolution, which received virtually all media focus, but also of geology?fs ?gOld Earth?h theories, and of cosmology?fs ?gBig Bang?h of universal creation. The Kansas School Board went after science across the board.

That vote has been by far the high point of the modern Creationist offensive, but courts are still loath to accept any comparison between so-called ?gCreation?h science and what is considered ?greal?h science. In 1981 Arkansas and Louisiana passed laws requiring that Creationism be taught in public schools. In 1982 a U.S. District Court declared the Arkansas law unconstitutional. In 1987 the Louisiana case made its way to the Supreme Court, which ruled Creationism was essentially a religious explanation of life?fs origins and therefore favored one religion (Christianity) over others (Islam, Hindu, etc.).

The Achilles Heel of Darwinism:

As usual, after the 1987 defeat the Creationists went back to the drawing board and devised yet another shrewd strategy, which has carried them through the 1990?fs and into this new millennium. They have transformed ?gCreation Science?h into theories they call ?gSudden Appearance?h outside the Bible Belt, or ?gIntelligent Design?h within it. Both versions carefully avoid referring to God by name or to specific aspects of religion, but they strongly focus on the Achilles heel of Darwinism, which is that all species thus far discovered in the fossil record appear suddenly, whole and complete, males and females, leaving no plausible way they could have evolved by Darwinian gradualism.

Fortunately for Darwinists, the legal protection provided by the Supreme Court currently trumps the Achilles heel their rivals keep pointing out. But that tide is running and running strong. Eventually it will turn on them the way the tide of ignorance turned on Creationists when Darwin appeared, and then again at the Monkey Trial. But as long as its legal protection remains intact, Darwinist dogma is in no imminent danger of being confronted with Creationist dogma in the nation?fs classrooms. In fact, all this could soon be moot because many school districts have responded to the pressures being applied to them by refusing to teach either viewpoint, which will leave a large and serious hole in the educational background of our next generation of students.

Despite the extreme volatility of these issues, and the immediate rancor received after aligning with the ?gwrong?h side in someone else?fs view, any objective analysis will conclude that both Darwinists and Creationists are wrong to a significant degree. Indeed, how could it be otherwise when each can shoot such gaping holes in the other? If either side was as correct as, say, Einstein?fs general theory of relativity, which — apart from occasional dissonance with quantum mechanics — has faced no serious challenge since Einstein revealed it to an awestruck world in 1915, there would be no issues to debate: one side would be declared right, the other would be wrong, and that would be that.

We all know ?gright?h when we see it, just as we all should know ?gwrong.?h Anyone without a vested interest should be willing to accept that the earth is vastly older than 6,000 years. Likewise, despite widespread proof of the noticeable changes in body parts called for by microevolution, there is no clearly definitive evidence for the innumerable species-into-higher-species transformations required by macroevolution. If Charles Darwin were alive today and could be presented with the facts that have accumulated since his death, even he would have to admit his theory has turned out wrong.

To be continued tomorrow or you can read the rest on his website lloydpye.com under "Essays". Whatever you feel, he does present some compelling arguments with the best yet to come.

 

[No-name]

Wow- Pachipro- all those words and still the best and brightest minds ignore you. I seriously thought you were joking at first- but you illustrate exactly why ID and other "pet theories" need to be shelved in our public schools so that teachers will teach exactly what they know best and what will serve students best in the future. There is definitely a place for God and aliens- just not in 10th grade biology.

 

[Pachipro]

...you illustrate exactly why ID and other "pet theories" need to be shelved in our public schools so that teachers will teach exactly what they know best and what will serve students best in the future.

Based on the largely ignored "evidence" by the scientific community, I have come to believe that they are not "pet theories". There are too many unanswered questions that people are ridiculed for bringing up. The teachers know best only what they have been taught and MADE to believe if they want that position, tenure, that degree, or continue working. Go against the grain, bring up some of the evidence or anomolies that are out there, questiion orthodox "belief", and you will NOT receive that degree or tenure and will be soon looking for new employment or a new major.

You illustrate exactly the point I, among others who look "outside the box of conventional wisdom and belief", are trying to point out (with gradual success I may add) and that is, and please do not take this personally, "Please do not disturb me in my comfort zone. Do not present me with the facts or evidence as I don't want to hear it or read it or see it. Let me live in my little cocoon believing what I have been taught to believe my entire life as "they" know the truth and "they" are teaching it to me and my offspring and "they" said it was so, so it must be so." To paraphrase the three famous Japanese monkeys: Hear no evidence, speak of no evidence, see no evidence. This is the position of modern day universities, "scholors", and professors. They toed the line, did not question authority even when they fully didn't believe what they were being told, and were good little pupils who are now soldiers on the front lines of education passing down the falsehoods of our own origins as well as that of anthopology, religion, and the sciences.

There is definitely a place for God and aliens- just not in 10th grade biology.

But that's exactly where it shoud be taught, maybe even earlier than that. All theories, anamolies, facts, etc should be presented as soon as a child is old enouigh to think for himself and let them decide. Or like Revenant and myself, it may take us years to discover the falshoods "they" have been teaching us about our true origins, our religion, and some of the sciences.

Do you think it was easy for me to completely abandon my Catholic upbringing after years of catholic school, corporal punishment by sadist priests, brothers, and nuns, church, reading the bible and believing, without question, every word that was taught to me? I still have unfounded fears that were drilled into me from the time I was able to walk and, in the back of my mind, I still have an ingrained fear that I may end up in hell for sneaking that piece of ham on a Friday back in 1963 when it was FORBIDDEN to eat meat on a Friday!

Today, I fully believe it to be a lie. However, it was so drilled into me that it is STILL there and I may never be able to get rid of it. Thus the power of religion and education. And you can also add the media into that! People will believe without question what they are TOLD to believe if it comes from, what we are taught, is a "credible" source.

 

[No-name]

Don't misunderstand- I would like my students thinking critically and analyzing every bit of information. High School science is about learning the methods and tools of science- the basics in both the life and physical sciences -- and that would include evolution. You can no more skip evolution in biology than the laws of thermodynamics in physical sciences. Whether or not they wish to indulge in speculative "pet theories" is significantly beyon the scope of the standards we have adopted.

 

[Tsuyoiko]

Well it seems no one bothered to click on the link I provided and read the essay concerning "Darwinism Vs. Creationism, A Checkered History, A Doubtful Future" or you guys would be quoting what he said instead of quoting me.

Sorry I didn't address your source Pachipro. I did click the link, but I don't have the time today to sift through so much material, so I had to go with what I already know for now. I will check out that essay when I have more time. I already have some thoughts on my first quick glance, but I'll come back to it when I can be more thorough. :sorry:

 

[Tsuyoiko]

I thought it was funny that she is against Intelligent Design being taught...but while they interviewed her she was baking Christmas cookies!

I'm not sure what you mean CC1 :?

 

[bossel]

Let's quote a little from Lloyd Pye's essay to answer some of the points some have raised:

It would be easier to work with these quotes if you used "" instead of tags.

Maybe the guy should read Darwin's The Origin of Species by means of Natural Selection, 6th edition. He would be surprised (or maybe not, I noticed that some people, esp. creationists, have the tendency not to see their "mistakes").

Unexplainable Gaps in Darwins Theory:

Unexplainable?

So the fact that most historical cultures, from first to most recent (our own), believed essentially the same creation story

Creation stories vary widely, actually. That there are usually some supernatural beings involved doesn't mean that they really exist. Existing "similarities" can be due to the fact that the basics of superstition were already in place when our ancestors left Africa.

it would have had to bridge the gap between plant and animal life at least once, and more likely innumerable times.

Can't see the logic in this argument.
BTW, there is not only animal & plant life on Earth. There are at least 3 major branches of life: Bacteria, Archaea & Eukarya (which includes both plants & animals).

there remains not a single unquestioned example of one species evolving entirely?\not just partially?\into another distinct and separate species.

Which only shows that this guy has only partially -but not entirely- understood evolution.

Within the period of human history, we do not know of a single instance of the transformation of one species into another

Er..., human history ranges maybe 5000 years & most of the time people were not very keen observers of natural processes (other than those which directly influenced their lives).

?gNo one has ever produced a species by mechanisms of natural selection. No one has gotten near it.?h

What a crappy statement. How can something be natural selection if you produce it?

who was taught evolution in school will very likely have seen Haeckel?fs drawings in textbooks and been assured they were legitimate.

Very likely not. What you probably learn is that Haeckel forged his drawings to support his view of a "natural law" in that regard. But despite there being no "natural law", it is still evident that embryonic development in parts mirrors evolutionary development.

Nearly all of England?fs evolutionary top guns swung in behind the fraud, and their colleagues worldwide joined them with such zeal that it took 40 years to expose it

Nope there wasn't that much zeal over it. By the late 30's virtually nobody put much importance anymore in PM, for there were other fossils & they didn't really fit in with what PM stood for. It took till 53 to reveal the fraud, but probably only because most people ignored PM anyway.

We all know ?gright?h when we see it, just as we all should know ?gwrong.?h

Doesn't know much about human beings, as it seems.

species-into-higher-species transformations required by macroevolution

Being better adapted to a certain environment does not mean being higher on some scale (which scale, anyway?).

 

[No-name]

What a crappy statement. How can something be natural selection if you produce it?

:bravo: That made me laugh.

I would like to backtrack a bit and say that I'm not arguing what mythology you believe or if your particular mythos is valid. What we are discussing is what should be taught in a science class. I happen to believe in a living active creative being that it omnicient, omnipotent and omnipresent. As far as I know, he created me ten minutes ago and programmed all these memories into my head. But if you taught in biology that to either of my sons I would have a problem with that.

Pachipro believes our origins have some kind of celestial alien connection- and that is as valid an origin mythos as evolution. So is intelligent design. So is the Navajo creation myth or the Babylonian or the Aztec mythos. But absolutely none of these has anything to do with science and none should be taught in a high school biology class.

None have scientific validity, predictive value or are used as organizing principles for entire scientific branches. It is perfectly okay to believe as you like- but if you don't learn the basics of evolution you will be missing a huge chunk of our cultural literacy and you will be entirely lost if you continue your education. (Not to mention you risk ridicule from snobby academics and assistant principals.)

Pachipro- gomen nasai- I should not have ridiculed your perspective. I did not realize until you posted longer sections and then replied to my post that this was something that you have spent some serious time with.

 

[Tsuyoiko]

Hi Pachipro :wave: I still don't have much time, but for starters:

Without saying it outright, Darwin?fs bottom line was that life?fs myriad forms managed their own existence from start to finish without divine help.

You shouldn't try to read more into what a scientist says than is really there. Science is explicit. Also, Darwin never claimed that life forms 'managed' anything. That implies some intention, which isn't the case. A giraffe doesn't grow a long neck so that it can reach the tallest trees. Rather, the giraffes with the longest necks survive because they have the advantage over that particular source of food. (Stephen Jay Gould's example)

The irony is that Charles Darwin did his work reluctantly, being a devout man who had trained to become a minister.

That's just not true! Although he was nominally a Christian to start with, Darwin was about as scientific as you can get - he simply observed, then tried to explain those observations in the best possible way. That process led him to question his beliefs, and he died an agnostic - see here.

Nonetheless, the schism he created between evolution (a term he never used; his choice was natural selection)

From the wiki link above:
"The title was agreed as On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, ... At the time "Evolutionism" implied creation without divine intervention, and Darwin avoided using the words "evolution" or "evolve", though the book ends by stating that "endless forms most beautiful and most wonderful have been, and are being, evolved""

In 1873, only fourteen years after The Origin Of Species, geologist J.W. Dawson, chancellor of McGill University in Montreal, published The Story Of The Earth And Man

One of Dawson 'proofs' against evolution was the Eozoon canadense, which was contested even at the time, and has since been discredited

The first fallacy is that life can spontaneously animate from organic material.

Where did Darwin claim that? As far as I know, Darwin only claimed to understand how one species can evolve into another, not how life originated.

He added that ?gin every case heretofore, the effort (to create animate life) has proved vain.?h After 127 years of heavily subsidized effort by scientists all over the world to create even the most basic rudiments of life, they are still batting an embarrassing zero.

It took about 500,000,000 for life to appear on Earth, so it's hardly surprising that scientists have been unable to create it in a little over a century - which is a mere nanosecond of geological time

?ghere also we are required to admit as a general principle what is contrary to experience.?h

Evolution is only contrary to experience because it happens too slowly for us to observe it! But the indirect evidence of the fossil record is largely explained by natural selection.

Dawson?fs second fallacy was the gap that separates vegetable and animal life.

Plants and animals aren't that dissimilar. As Bossel says, the old divisions of plant and animal kingdoms have now been replaced by the threefold division of Bacteria, Archaea & Eukarya. You can find two species of bacteria that are more dissimilar than plants are from animals - I learnt about this from Wonderful Life by Stephen Jay Gould.

The third gap in the knowledge of 1873 was ?gthat between any species of animal or plant and any other species.

As I said above (with link), it's surprising we have any fossils at all.

there remains not a single unquestioned example of one species evolving entirely—not just partially—into another distinct and separate species.

That's because species don't evolve 'entirely'! You don't have a rhino today and a horse tomorrow. The changes are incremental, so any evidence is by definition partial - but Colin Patterson (who Lloyd Pye quotes as 'breaking ranks'!) points out that:
"In several animal and plant groups, enough fossils are known to bridge the wide gaps between existing types. In mammals, for example, the gap between horses, asses and zebras (genus Equus) and their closest living relatives, the rhinoceroses and tapirs, is filled by an extensive series of fossils extending back sixty-million years to a small animal, Hyracotherium, which can only be distinguished from the rhinoceros-tapir group by one or two horse-like details of the skull. There are many other examples of fossil 'missing links', such as Archaeopteryx, the Jurassic bird which links birds with dinosaurs (Fig. 45), and Ichthyostega, the late Devonian amphibian which links land vertebrates and the extinct choanate (having internal nostrils) fishes. . ."

To be fair, some of today?fs best-known geneticists and naturalists have broken ranks and acknowledged that what Dawson complained about in 1873 remains true today. Thomas H. Morgan, who won a Nobel Prize for work on heredity, wrote that ?gWithin the period of human history, we do not know of a single instance of the transformation of one species into another if we apply the most rigid and extreme tests used to distinguish wild species.?h

Morgan can't really be quoted as one of 'today's best-known geneticists' - he died in 1945!

Colin Patterson

Patterson's quote above shows that he supposts natural selection.

And this led to the famous "Monkey Trial" in Tennessee in 1925 between Creationists and Darwinists and the Creationists won by a technicality, but at a great cost as Darwinism cast great doubt on them and knocked them off the pedastal.

Not such a great cost - as the original point of this thread demonstrates.

In a recent Fox News/Opinion Dynamics poll asking people what they thought about human origins, 15% said they accepted Darwinian evolution, 50% believed the Biblical account, and 26% felt there was truth on both sides. The most perceptive group might well have been the 9% who said they were not sure.

Ask the same group if they can actually summarise Darwin's theory correctly. I'll bet out of those who can, almost all accept it. This article might go some way to explaining those statistics.

 

[Pachipro]

Thanks to all for the myraid of responses so far as this is just the type of intelligent debate I wanted. I am looking for honest answers in a confused world especially with what is going on in the world today with the major religions headed for a showdown and the renewed war in the US with creationists again batteling ID.

For the record I have turned 180 degrees from being a devout Roman Catholic and I am leaning more and more towards the "Outside Intervention" theory because some of the points (ie "evidence") brought up, not only by Pye and Stichin, but by other researchers in this field such as Michael Cremo, author of Forbidden Archeology, are largly ignored by the scientific community and the scientific community does not even want to debate the issue. But those are for another debate.

For example, why doesn't the scientific community want to address the fact that ancient Jewish artifacts, with Hebrew writing on them, were uncovered in the southwestern United States that date back to the the time of the bible when science states that it is impossible and refuses to acknowledge it? I believe that before Columbus, a few other cultures have visited, and maybe even resided in, the US like the Chinese and Vikings. But modern historians refuse to acknowledge this other than saying, "maybe, but no." Or that bones dating back tens of thousands of years were uncovered in a cave near the Grand Canyon in Arizona in the late 1800's/early 1900's that show that these partucular humans were over 10 ft tall? An anomoly they say. They were confiscated and put in the basement of the national archives never to be seen again. These are not the only ones of so-called giants either. To me this is not the way towards true education. Something is being hidden from us in both religion and science and I would like to know what it is. If the alternative research is wrong than prove it without saying that that's the way it is. Have open, honest debates with these alternative science people.

@bossel: Thanks for your input as usual. I figured it would be only a matter of time before you joined in this.

@sabro: I respect your views and your beliefs and thank you for accepting mine as, until someone proves otherwise, we are both right. I will continue below with Pye's essay about evolution. His slide shows are worth looking at also.

@Tsuyoiko: Thanks for your fine input as usual and your links. I have read them and am digesting them. There are valid points I must say.

 

[Pachipro]

Creationism vs. Darwinism-continued

In response to bossel's request I will not us tags. Quoting Lloyd Pye:

"Let us make the assertion, then, that both Darwinists and Creationists are wrong to such a degree that their respective theories are ripe for overthrow. It is simply a matter of time and circumstance before one or another piece of evidence appears that is so clear in its particulars and so overwhelming in its validity, both sides will have no choice but to lay down their bullhorns and laptops and slink off into history?fs dustbin, where so many other similarly bankrupt theories have gone before them. But until that happens, what about those who would choose to explore more objective and possibly more accurate scenarios for the creation of life itself and human life in particular?

"Because of their all-out, do-or-die strategies, Darwinists and Creationists stand at opposite ends of a very wide intellectual spectrum, which leaves a huge swath of middle ground available to anyone with the courage to explore it. Moreover, the signposts along that middle ground are numerous and surprisingly easy to negotiate. All that?fs required is a willingness to see with open eyes and to perceive with an open mind.

"The basic Darwinist position regarding how life began is called ?gspontaneous animation,?h which J.W. Dawson complained about back in 1873. It is the idea that life somehow springs into existence suddenly, all by itself, when proper mixtures of organic and inorganic compounds are placed into proximity and allowed to percolate their way across the immensely deep chasm between non-life and life. Based on everything known about the technical aspects of that process—from 1873 until now—it is quite safe to say spontaneous animation doesn?ft have the proverbial snowball?fs chance of enduring.

"Ignore the howls of protest echoing from far off to our right. Here on the middle ground reality rules, and reality says there is simply no way even the simplest life form—say, a sub-virus-sized microbe utilizing only a handful of RNA/DNA components—could have pulled itself together from any conceivable brew of chemical compounds and started functioning as a living entity. To cite just one reason, no laboratory has ever found a way to coax lipids into forming themselves into a functional cell membrane, which is essential for encasing any living microbe. Then there is permeability, which would also have to be a part of the mix so nutrients could be taken into the cell and wastes could be expelled.

"Fred Hoyle, a brilliant English astronomer and mathematician, once offered what has become the most cogent analogy for this process. He said it would be comparable to ?ga tornado striking a junkyard and assembling a jetliner from the materials therein.?h This is because the complexity evident at even the tiniest level of life is mind boggling beyond belief. In short, it could not and did not happen, and anyone insisting otherwise is simply wrong, misguided, or terrified of dealing with what its loss means to their world view.

"So, if spontaneous animation is simply not possible, how does life come into existence? How can it be? Here we must call on an old friend, Sherlock Holmes, who was fond of saying that in any quest for truth one should first eliminate whatever is flatly impossible. Whatever remains, however unlikely, will be the truth. With spontaneous animation eliminated, that leaves only one other viable alternative: intervention at some level by some entity or entities. (Ignore the rousing cheers erupting far to our left.)

"Before anyone in our group of middle-ground explorers goes jogging off toward those would-be winners, understand that ?gentity or entities?h does not mean ?gGod?h in the anthropomorphic sense espoused by Creationists. It means some aspect or aspects of our present reality that we do not officially acknowledge—yet—but which nonetheless exist and act on us, and interact with us, in ways we are only just beginning to understand. "

What about his views concerning "Spontaneous Animation"?

In the next, and hopefully final part, he presents his views on why we could not have possibly evolved from primates and why God didn't create us, but "gods" did.

 

[bossel]

For example, why doesn't the scientific community want to address the fact that ancient Jewish artifacts, with Hebrew writing on them, were uncovered in the southwestern United States that date back to the the time of the bible when science states that it is impossible and refuses to acknowledge it?

Where does science state that it is impossible? Sorry, but you're wrong. Maybe some scientists don't like the idea of early contacts, but that's hardly all of science. Actually, there is always research going on in that regard. Problem is that these finds have to be verified & often some idiot simply takes away artefacts, doesn't document the place or situation when they were found a.s.o.
You cannot expect archaeologists to accept every freak's claim to have found this or that "proof."

I believe that before Columbus, a few other cultures have visited, and maybe even resided in, the US like the Chinese and Vikings. But modern historians refuse to acknowledge this other than saying, "maybe, but no."

Maybe is not "no." Maybe just means there is no convincing evidence yet. Modern archaeology actually accepts the notion that there probably were sporadic contacts before the Vikings (before Columbus is not in question anyway, Vikings settling in Vinland is long accepted).

one should first eliminate whatever is flatly impossible. Whatever remains, however unlikely, will be the truth. With spontaneous animation eliminated, that leaves only one other viable alternative: intervention at some level by some entity or entities.

This is a crappy idea in & of itself. It largely ignores the fact that even if spontaneous animation was impossible this ominous entity would have had to come into existence somehow. & this entity most probably was a bit more complicated in its structure than some early RNA.
Call that spontaneous combustion of a pseudo-logical idea.

 

[No-name]

Pachipro- you have to admit that these "theories" are not highly accepted by scientists in any quarter. Although your Catholic education was stern and unpleasant it still equipped you for the critical thinking required to assemble the information in these extensive posts. I would still argue that there simply isn't enough time in the school day to fit untested, unchecked, and widely dismissed ideas (what I would term "pet theories") in any comprehensive ways. Do you know any High School science teachers who even believe the ideas you are proposing? How many would do even a hint of a good job presenting them to a room of disinterested 14 year olds? Let them stick with science- the accepted, mainstream stuff that they are expected to know to graduate, and that will help them in college. Leave God and the Aliens to evenings and weekends.