255 Replies to ““Mr. Minister, Mr. Minister, Do You Believe In Evolution?””

  1. “Biologists and chemists would disagree with you… unless of course biology and chemistry aren’t hard science for you.”
    Chemistry? Really? I explicitly called it a hard science. How exactly does Chemistry rely on macro-evolution? Do chemical compounds evolve? Do atomic structures evolve? You’re probably thinking bio-chem, specifically abiogenesis (which is not evolution, it’s something else entirely).
    Elements of biology are hard science, observable, testable, you can run experiments on it, you can apply it. Paleo-biology however again is historical. Evolutionary biology? Still waiting to hear about the latest lab-observed speciation. Or how about solidifying the definition of what speciation is. Or a calculation on rate of evolution for anything. Or how about a prediction on a newly emerged life form. I dunno, if it was a science, I would hope you could DO something with it.
    Also from your post:
    “Evolution isn’t an absolute, but the best description of what we think has happened based on our (all peer reviewed scientists around the world) observations. Questioning evolution is like questioning gravity.”
    To paraphrase, “It’s not absolute, we keep working on it, we think it’s the best idea thus far, but we’re free to change it at any time. We can’t test it though. BUT DON’T DARE QUESTION IT.”
    But don’t scientists question it all the time, otherwise it wouldn’t keep changing. If it’s not absolute and you can’t question it, it becomes dogma.
    People keep incorrectly using the big *E* evolution, it’s too large a catch-all, plus we’re not disagreeing on the entirety of all evolutionary thought. People keep shifting definitions and moving the goalposts around when talking about Evolution.
    Micro-evolution, no problem, no one disagrees with it or denys it. Natural Selection, again no problem, it’s observable. Abiogenesis, it’s not evolution. Big bang theory, is not evolution. Age of the earth, is not evolution. They’re different questions, but often get bundled under the title “Evolution”. The only aspect that is under disagreement with the theory of evolution is the concept of macro-evolution.
    Personally I have a hard time with ANY of the sciences that do not utilize the scientific method. And so should you.

  2. bar_jebus:
    Should you read my comments more carefully. I said nothing of the kind. I was agreeing with Jim.

  3. Frenchie,
    Read what I’ve written, not what you wish I had written. Find quotes of what I’ve said that show I’m anti christian and not anti ineptitude. Just because that politician is on your team does not mean he is above criticism.
    What made me decide he was incompatible with science was his inability to answer a question dealing with evolution with anything but “I’m a Christian”. That’s incompetence.

  4. Not all atheists are haters, myself, ET, and Idd for example.
    Jon usually we agree, but today you are pompous.
    MHB I do agree with you and the liberal atheists desire not to be judged. This is evident in the anger displayed by atheists that get upset when someone has the nerve to say “god bless you” to them. I can only conclude that the anger comes from the atheists desire to not draw gods attention to themselves, I believe they are “closet Christians”. I don’t believe in god, so bless away, why would I care?
    Actually I do care, I consider it a very kind gesture; and, if I’m wrong about god, perhaps a few blessings in the bank isn’t a bad thing.

  5. Chris S,
    I didn’t include any of those elements in Evolution. I don’t know why you’re making that strawman.
    I just seriously question the ability of a science minister who would say “I’m a christian” to answer any direct question about science. He was not asked what faith he was. He should have answered “My beliefs are not on trial” but he showed a lack of political acumen. In essence he dodged a bullet by jumping into dynamite. That is total incompetence.
    http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn14094-bacteria-make-major-evolutionary-shift-in-the-lab.html
    This is how evolution is tested in a lab. I suggest making google your friend. Now is your chance to refute evidence presented in front of your eyes. Otherwise consider this the truth (as far as we know it).

  6. Jon – “….was his inability to answer a question dealing with evolution with anything but “I’m a Christian”. That’s incompetence.”
    Well, good for you, we’ve got this all sorted out.
    It is nice to know that you don’t find his faith incompatible with his position. That you think he can be science minister even if he has a different view on a theory from you.
    It was simply his poorly worded response to a question that was the trigger for you.

  7. Jon, you frigging dope, scientific “theory” is a “best guess”. Nothing more, nothing less. It’s a prediction of an outcome as yet unproved under controlled conditions. Scientific “law” exists where an outcome has been proven under controlled conditions.
    Evolution is a “theory”. Creation is a “theory”. The fact that you aren’t honest about the debate and the terminology involved makes you an a$$.

  8. Richard,
    Thanks for the Adhominmem.
    As for the substance of what you say:
    1. The word theory, in the context of science, does not imply uncertainty. It means “a coherent group of general propositions used as principles of explanation for a class of phenomena” (Barnhart 1948). In the case of the theory of evolution, the following are some of the phenomena involved. All are facts:
    * Life appeared on earth more than two billion years ago;
    * Life forms have changed and diversified over life’s history;
    * Species are related via common descent from one or a few common ancestors;
    * Natural selection is a significant factor affecting how species change.
    Many other facts are explained by the theory of evolution as well.
    2. The theory of evolution has proved itself in practice. It has useful applications in epidemiology, pest control, drug discovery, and other areas (Bull and Wichman 2001; Eisen and Wu 2002; Searls 2003).
    3. Besides the theory, there is the fact of evolution, the observation that life has changed greatly over time. The fact of evolution was recognized even before Darwin’s theory. The theory of evolution explains the fact.
    4. If “only a theory” were a real objection, creationists would also be issuing disclaimers complaining about the theory of gravity, atomic theory, the germ theory of disease, and the theory of limits (on which calculus is based). The theory of evolution is no less valid than any of these. Even the theory of gravity still receives serious challenges (Milgrom 2002). Yet the phenomenon of gravity, like evolution, is still a fact.
    5. Creationism is neither theory nor fact; it is, at best, only an opinion. Since it explains nothing, it is scientifically useless.
    Please provide citation for your claims.

  9. Frenchie,
    I think we should all agree that incompetence (for example Richard Evans) is unacceptable for any political position, even if that incompetent is on “our” team. We need the best guys on the ice or we’ll get beaten by a weaker team.

  10. If you need to believe that there’s a higher power, good for you, but it should not affect your ability to be MINISTER OF SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY!!!!! This. is. why. we. think. gary. goodyear. is. unfit.
    Posted by: Jon at March 19, 2009 10:41 AM
    Ahh, of course. No matter there is no evidence that the man’s religious views are “affecting” his ability to do the job, it’d be best to preemptively disqualify him solely on that basis, just to be sure. How tolerant of you, jon. And – to my point above – liberal. Can you explain why you are threatened by his Christianity in this regard? What about Stephen Harper: he, too, is a Christian. Are threatened by that, as well?
    I’m sorry to have tweaked a nerve in you, jon; however, rest assured that there is no threat or conspiracy hiding in the possibility of Christians occupying high governmental positions. Doubtless it’d be easier if everyone was an atheist; perhaps in the future we should demand that of our elected officials, and then you’d feel more secure.
    mhb

  11. “Why was the question even asked if it wasn’t a set up???”
    Obviously it was a set up. Nobody is denying that. I even commented about that previously.
    What you quoted isn’t what I said either. It was what someone else said. But the point was valid.
    It was a juvenile question that got a juvenile response. That was blown out of proportion. But the response does bring up valid concerns.

  12. mhb,
    Once again. I don’t care if he’s christian. He was unable to answer a simple question about science. His answer was “I’m a christian”. That’s incompetence not bigotry.
    Please remove your head from your holy.

  13. The problem with leftards is that they don’t realize there are two separate groups who accept evolution.
    One group is made up of those who seem to “believe” that evolution is a complete belief system not in question and who defend it with all of the fury and hate of a Spanish Conquistador.
    The second group is made up of people who are not defensive against religion (cause they don’t care,) realize that evolution is an explanation which attempts to explain the mechanisms of how life has progressed from point A to point B using the best guestimates based on the best understanding of science given what we know today. They realize that the theory is incomplete, has holes both in logic and understanding and who hope that the rest will someday be discovered but don’t claim it already has. They further know that if we are to “complete” our understanding, the scientific method is the way it will be done. These people are not threatened by other people’s beliefs because science doesn’t rely on belief. It relies on the scientific method.
    To sum, the first group are idiot leftards who know nothing and have replaced religion with their own secular dogma and the second group are people who respect science as a means of seeking truth through understanding of observable fact.
    Asking someone if they “believe” in either evolution or religion is not any different than asking if you believe in either evolution OR Shakespeare. The two aren’t related, aren’t dependant and thus are not binary. They have nothing whatsoever to do with one another. You can “believe” in neither or both simultaneously.

  14. Evolution is a “theory”. Creation is a “theory”.
    Incorrect, evolution is a theory based upon facts, testing, observation, and logic.
    Creation is a story, that is not falsifiable. Therefore it is not a theory, or scientific.

  15. “Asking someone if they “believe” in either evolution or religion is not any different than asking if you believe in either evolution OR Shakespeare. The two aren’t related, aren’t dependant and thus are not binary. They have nothing whatsoever to do with one another. You can “believe” in neither or both simultaneously.”
    Best comment so far.
    Applying this, the question that the mop and pail reporter asked had nothing to do with faith or Goodyear’s christian belief.

  16. Jon,
    Since you’re a retard, I’ll explain why he didn’t answer the question:
    He knew there were bigots like you who are not smart enough to know that what you are doing is wrong.
    He knew that the question was not relevant and attempted to stay out of a line of inquiry which was designed specifically as the latest media McCarthy moment. This “reporter” was attempting to continue what Kinsella did to Stockwell Day. Day wasn’t astute enough to see what was coming and so was candid in explaining that he was a Christian and was progressively backed into a corner through this inquisition to the point where he felt he had to go all the way to defend his beliefs. The bigot media full of scumbag leftards such as yourself “crucified” him for his belief. Goodyear was attempting to avoid the same treatment. I guess when it comes to a$$holes like you, it really doesn’t matter if you keep your religion to yourself or not. You will be persecuted for the “sin” of being conservative who believes in some Christian doctrine or other. Your actual policy or actions are not relevant. The leftard’s hypocritical bigotry is the only think that matters in their sick, twisted little minds.
    That you don’t already know this makes you the dim leftard that you are. That you don’t even see the problem is why you will never learn.
    I am an atheist and I’d have refused the question as well but I would not have been as kind in the rebuttal.

  17. Warwick, why wouldn’t he just say he believes in evolution? He didn’t have to talk about his faith at all.

  18. No Allen,
    “Applying this, the question that the mop and pail reporter asked had nothing to do with faith or Goodyear’s christian belief.”
    You know damn well the intent of where this “journalist” was going and why. It wasn’t about evolution at all. It was about the minister’s religious belief. Clearly, the minister knew this and was attempting to dodge the issue.
    What he should have said is simply that evolution doesn’t depend or require one to believe.
    He should have said scummy “gotcha” journalism was unbecoming and that the “journalist’s” employer should send a more ethical person to represent them in the future.

  19. “Warwick, why wouldn’t he just say he believes in evolution? He didn’t have to talk about his faith at all.”
    to which i reply:
    “why didn’t they just answer that they’re not a communist?”
    McCarthyism is wrong cause they asked the question at all.

  20. To so many of the preceding contributers:
    “It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it.”
    -Aristotle
    Many, if not most, of you do not seem to be able to entertain a thought contrary to your own belief system.
    As for the topic at hand, would Einstein be a poor Minister of Science?
    “Science without religion is lame. Religion without science is blind.”
    “I want to know God’s thoughts; the rest are details.”
    “My religion consists of a humble admiration of the illimitable superior spirit who reveals himself in the slight details we are able to perceive with our frail and feeble mind.”
    Apparently, Einstein was not violently opposed to religion…therefore, some of you would seem to claim he wouldn’t be qualified to be Minister of Science.
    I think another quote of his applies here:
    “Great spirits have often encountered violent opposition from weak minds.”

  21. Jon, you’re either mental or a liar. The word “theory”, as applied to science, does, in fact, imply uncertainty. Where scientists want to express certainty, they use the word “law”. I’m citing the American Heritage Dictionary, Websters, the Oxford “Concise Dictionary of Physics” and my son’s 6th grade science text.
    If you expect to be taken seriously by us “middle of the road” folks, you need to be honest. Trying to change the meaning of words so that it fits your own narrative does you a disservice…

  22. What’s so wrong about asking a science minister whether he thinks the theory of evolution is correct or not?
    It was a bit dirty, but I would agree with you if the question was different:
    “Do you believe in evolution or creationism?”
    “Do you believe in the supernatural?”
    “Do you believe that god created all?”
    Would be disgusting and unnecessary. But that wasn’t the question.
    Having someone that doesn’t believe in evolution in the position of science minister, is like having Jack Layton as Finance Minister.
    It has *NOTHING* to do with his faith or beliefs. Why did Goodyear bring it up? Maybe it was out of context I agree, it would be nice to have a complete transcript.

  23. allan
    If the reporter asked if there was any changes being made in policy or funding to science and if so what are they and on what basis, that would be a legitimate question.
    Asking about a minister (or anyone else’s) private beliefs is bigotry.
    It really doesn’t matter if the minister beleives that JC himself talks to him every night out of a donkey arse so long as it doesn’t drive government policy.
    You know as well as I do exactly why the question was asked and it had nothing to do with the minister’s public role or government policy. It was a witch hunt plain and simple and was ethically wrong for that reason.
    What makes me angry is that so few people on the left seem to see it. They’d be the first to screetch about intolerance if it was a muslim being asked the question by a journalist from fox news.

  24. “Apparently, Einstein was not violently opposed to religion…therefore, some of you would seem to claim he wouldn’t be qualified to be Minister of Science.”
    Quite the opposite. I know every few evolution believers that are “violently opposed” to religion. They recognized that faith and science are different parts of our human nature. It tends to be the “hard right” or “hard left” people that confuse this. They tend to think science and religion are mutually exclusive. They are not. One applies to natural law, the other applies to faith and the supernatural.
    Only idiots see the issue as black and white. It is not a case of “one or the other” and one should not make a religious argument to a scientific question.

  25. Let’s assume there is a God who created a data bank of knowledge before he created the universe. Let’s assume he’s smarter than we are. Let’s assume we are all mental midgets by comparison, myself included, of course.
    If he shows himself to us, it negates our need for faith. Think about that statement. But since he is far more intelligent than the most brilliant theorist of either persuasion posting here, I think I’ll stand with the creationists. It’s much easier to believe.
    It takes a lot more faith to believe the now politically approved evolutionist theory than to simply accept that all things were created by God.
    My background was in chemistry, and many of the scientists who look closer at matter become convinced that only intelligent design could explain our world with its laws of matter and energy. It’s all far too complicated to have come about by itself, and anyone honest enough can see that.

  26. Warwick, you are correct the reporter was “fishing” and possibly shouldn’t have asked the question. Nobody is arguing that. Does he have a right to? Well he’s a reporter. Maybe it wasn’t a legit question but that doesn’t matter.
    What matters is now legitimate questions are being raised. Again it has nothing to do with his faith, as many christians believe in evolution. It has everything to do with Goodyear believing in scientific process.
    Again, should we put in Jack Layton as Finance Minister? A minister that doesn’t believe in scientific process as science minister, and a minister that doesn’t believe in capitalism as finance minister.
    The analogy is valid. Does the science minister believe in scientific process or not?
    That *IS* now a valid question.

  27. “All are facts:
    * Life appeared on earth more than two billion years ago;
    * Life forms have changed and diversified over life’s history;
    * Species are related via common descent from one or a few common ancestors;
    * Natural selection is a significant factor affecting how species change.
    Many other facts are explained by the theory of evolution as well.”
    And have any of these facts been observed?
    I understand that it’s the underlaying theory and that people like to use it to explain things. I’m just saying that as a theory we are ALLOWED to question it and our objections cannot be simply dismissed.
    Gravity exists we know that, we can test and observe that. Something like macro-evolution though, we can’t see or observer or test, so I’m going to continue to question it. So stop equating the two theories. As well, people get fussy about evolutionary theory as opposed to other scientific theories probably because it’s more rabid proponents keep trying to push it as proof there is no god.
    Also in regards to the observed evolution you linked to, you’ll need to note that new scientist article was a bit inaccurate in it’s description of E.coli as not being capable of citrate absorbtion. So I looked into the original article by Lenski. “A more likely possibility, in our view, is that an existing transporter has been coopted for citrate transport under oxic conditions. This transporter may previously have transported citrate under anoxic conditions (43) or, alternatively, it may have transported another substrate in the presence of oxygen.”
    Ie, his lab e coli managed to do what existing e coli can do in slightly different conditions. An adaptation – micro-evolution. My mind has not been blown. Sorry.

  28. Evolution as she is writ by Creation and Chuck. Who can dispute the evidence?
    As Shelley said, “Look on my works, ye mighty, and despair!'”
    …-
    “Undersea Volcanic Eruption In Tonga”
    ” Smokey (08:05:59) :
    Charles Darwin proposed that coral atolls [e.g., Tonga] were formed by extinct undersea volcanoes. As the extinct volcanic cone gradually subsided, coral built on it and formed the atoll: click [scroll to the last paragraph, p. 232.]
    There was much dispute among scientists about Darwin’s hypothesis, but eventually Darwin was proved right. So the current volcanic activity may eventually bring about a new coral atoll.
    The sea level isn’t currently rising, and when it did rise in the recent past, the increase was simply part of a natural ebb and flow. As can be seen in this picture*, the sea level has not changed much from the mid-1800’s. So the argument that AGW is causing the sea level to rise is falsified.”
    urlm.in/bxxj
    *http://www.john-daly.com/index.htm

  30. Allen,
    “That *IS* now a valid question.”
    The original story (the day before the one which was linked to here) clearly illustrated that not only does the minister advocate the scientific method, he is very enthusiastic about it.
    Of course, those facts haven’t been seen since and were buried at the very bottom of first story…

  31. I know Warwick, I’m very happy that it didn’t degenerate to that on this site. I think almost everyone here recognizes that personal faith has nothing to do with scientific belief.
    The comments at the mop and pail are disgusting.

  32. “A minister that doesn’t believe in scientific process as science minister.”
    Except that evolution isn’t really “the scientific process”. It’s a common framework, used by a narrow field and not the only one. And within it there is much dialog.
    A person can teach it, expound on it, add to it, peer reviews others work on it, effectively fund it, ect. ALL without beliving in it.
    The best answer would have been for him to simply say. “My job doesn’t require belief.”
    People keep saying that politicians should keep their belief to themselves. But it’s tricky when people keep asking them what they belive.

  33. “A person can teach it, expound on it, add to it, peer reviews others work on it, effectively fund it, ect. ALL without beliving in it.”
    What about someone in charge of funding? This isn’t just a scientist at a university, this is the science minister.
    Again, would anyone want Jack Layton as finance minister?

  34. Some points:
    -Why are people couching an argument regard evolution in terms of left or right? Do you honestly believe this debate is divided along ideological lines??? I’m a righty, detest AGW, etc. but am staunchly pro-evolution. The only thing I can surmise from those statements regarding political allegiance is that you’re stating that a right leaning political ideology is synonymous with Christianity, which makes me feel very sorry for the Conservative party. I would say that that is largely what holds the Cons back these days is their nutty fundy’s, though they’ve rooted most of those out now.
    -Nobody is saying that science and religion are incompatible. What we’re saying is that creationism and evolution are not comparable because one relies on empirical science and the other is faith based.
    -Can someone try to explain what “macro-evolution” is other than some term coined to make speciation distinct? Micro-evolution are simply gene mutations…macro-evolution is a large number of gene mutations. If you observe the small mutations, how can speciation be called impossible/un-observable? An example would be a computer program. A computer can only add numbers or bit shift if you really want to dumb it down. From that we’ve built wonderfully complex programs. If we all agree that small changes to the underlying code can make a program behave differently, why must we make that process distinct from when a totally new program is formed? Basically I want someone to try to explain how macro-evolution requires more than what occurs during micro-evolution.

  35. Many scientists are religious. How they square scientific theory with their religious beliefs is their own damned business.
    Seems to me that Mr. Goodyear has a strong basis to be making a Canadian Human Rights Commission (as much as I hate them) complaint based upon his religion.

  36. Bar
    To extend your computer analogy for micro vs macro evolution.
    micro is bit shifting. Your 8 bit number is still 8 bits no matter how much you shift it.
    macro is the difference between an 8 bit int and a 16 bit int.
    Evolution theory tells us that if you do enough bit shifting your 8 bit int can become a 16 bit int (if you give it enough time).

  37. Eeyore,
    Selectively quoting Einstein to support his belief in religion is a bad idea.
    “It was, of course, a lie what you read about my religious convictions, a lie which is being systematically repeated. I do not believe in a personal God and I have never denied this but have expressed it clearly. If something is in me which can be called religious then it is the unbounded admiration for the structure of the world so far as our science can reveal it.”
    “The word God is for me nothing more than the expression and product of human weaknesses, the Bible a collection of honorable, but still primitive legends which are nevertheless pretty childish. No interpretation no matter how subtle can (for me) change this. These subtilized interpretations are highly manifold according to their nature and have almost nothing to do with the original text. For me the Jewish religion like all other religions is an incarnation of the most childish superstitions.”
    “I have never talked to a Jesuit priest in my life and I am astonished by the audacity to tell such lies about me. From the viewpoint of a Jesuit priest I am, of course, and have always been an atheist.”
    “I cannot imagine a God who rewards and punishes the objects of his creation, whose purposes are modeled after our own — a God, in short, who is but a reflection of human frailty. Neither can I believe that the individual survives the death of his body, although feeble souls harbor such thoughts through fear or ridiculous egotisms.”
    “It seems to me that the idea of a personal God is an anthropological concept which I cannot take seriously. I also cannot imagine some will or goal outside the human sphere…. Science has been charged with undermining morality, but the charge is unjust. A man’s ethical behavior should be based effectually on sympathy, education, and social ties and needs; no religious basis is necessary. Man would indeed be in a poor way if he had to be restrained by fear of punishment and hope of reward after death.”
    “Scientific research is based on the idea that everything that takes place is determined by laws of nature, and therefore this holds for the action of people. For this reason, a research scientist will hardly be inclined to believe that events could be influenced by a prayer, i.e. by a wish addressed to a Supernatural Being.”
    “Great spirits have always encountered violent opposition from mediocre minds. The latter cannot understand it when a man does not thoughtlessly submit to hereditary prejudices but honestly and courageously uses his intelligence.”
    Yeah, I’d be OK with Einstein as science minister.

  39. I like your analogy Chris 😀 However, I believe the Hox gene takes care of those irregularities, allowing for very significant changes to a genome.

  40. Okay, time for some understanding from the Christians. If you can accept that some people do not believe in god, then you can forgive us if we think your belief system is loonie. Were the shoe on the other foot(AGW) you’d think the same.
    That being said, I choose to grant you some lee-way, but I expect the same in return. That is respect, and respect is all too often missing in any discussion about religion and politics.
    You think we’re nuts, we think you’re nuts so there. People have the right to decide what issues they feel are important, and if some people feel that a Christian shouldn’t be a Science minister then so be it. I could easily make the argument that a man who doesn’t believe in god shouldn’t be able to be POTUS or PM. Why not? You’re going to hell and that makes you a bad person, and we don’t need bad people in important positions.
    I will stand by Christians, and vote with the ones that share politics and ideals that I think are important; or, find me a Scientologist that can fix the “financial crisis” using conservative ideals and I’ll vote for him.
    The question “Why are we here?” is irrelevant. The only pertinent question IMO is: We’re here, what do we do now?
    BTW, I don’t think Jon is a leftard, but I did change my screen name last year so as not to get blasted daily for his words. I say enough stupid stuff myself, I couldn’t handle both burdens.

  41. bar_jebus
    Neither science nor religion are partisan issues.
    Where partisanship comes to play is in the treatment of one party vs all others.
    No Liberal, Bloc-head or dipper would ever have been subjected to the kind of inquisitional McCarthyism that Goodyear was. THAT is the issue.

  42. Of course,by extension,anyone who believes in the writings of the prophet mohammed should not be allowed near children.

  43. Here’s the deal, with all the gyrations the media spins and the contortions politicians assume in order to avoid any semblance of bias against islam, a Christian religous should say whatever the hell he wants because these discussions are always a set up. On the other hand, for a time during TJ’s campaign, when Dhimmi’s appeared on FoxNews, they’d outshout the Fox commentators. This is what Christian religious and conservatives should begin doing on any network other than Fox. Just start shouting accusations and don’t stop until they cut away. The BIG difference will be that most of what we hear from conservatives will be the truth as opposed to the outright lies from the libs. As for rebuttals from Christians, it’s a matter of faith which I don’t judge. It has served Western culture well with only some minor hiccups along the way. Can’t say the same for islam and I won’t pretend.

  44. Allen: “I like the picture of the whale with undeveloped hind legs, satisfy you?”
    The finding of “one” deformed animal is not proof of evolution or progressive genetic mutation. What about all the humans born with deformities such as no legs, arms, very large heads, bone curvatures, flippers or web feet and hands? Many animals are born with deformities, children of persons with deformities generally do not have deformed children. Small people, formerly called midgets, can be a hereditary condition, but can not be called a mutation and certainly not evolution.
    Revnant Dream is correct.
    Evolution is losing ground, there are simply too many holes in this theory to hold up to unbiased scrutiny any longer due to the new information coming out of the human genome project and genetic research.
    I think in fifty years, the scientific world will be marveling that they actually believed such archaic ideas and a new “theory” will emerge. There are a great many scientists that do not believe evolution is a plausable explanation for the immense diversity of life on our planet. However, to receive funding, evolution must be weaved in to any research. Finally, scientists are beginning to speak out about the lack of scientific objectivity that there could possibly be another explantion for the diversity of species.
    How many on this board have actually objectively looked at both theories? Only one explantaion has ever been offered to you, perhaps that is why you hold strongly to these ideas. I challenge you to look at both theories and others that have been brought forward. Evolution will one day be looked at in the same way chemo for cancer will – archaic.

  45. Tail Bone information for you who asked:
    My appendix was supposedly a left over organ from evolution, so it was removed despite it being OK-misdiagnosis of appendicitis. I was told by my Dr. a few months ago that since I do not have my appendix any longer, I have a 50% greater chance of developing colon cancer because my bile filter – the appendix is no longer there to remove toxins so I will need to keep a close eye on my bowel movements.
    “The concept of vestigial organs even resulted in cases of “evolutionary medical malpractice.” Young children once had their healthy (and helpful, disease-fighting) tonsils removed because of the widespread belief that they were only useless vestiges. That idea actually slowed down scientific research for many years. If you believe something is a useless, non-functional leftover of evolution, then you don’t bother to find out what it does. Fortunately, other scientists didn’t take that view. Sure enough, studies have shown that essentially all 180 organs once listed as evolutionary vestiges have significant functions in human beings”
    What about the “tail”? Some of you have heard that man has a “tail bone” (also called the sacrum and coccyx), and that the only reason we have it is to remind us that our ancestors had tails. You can test this idea yourself, although I don’t recommend it. If you think the “tail bone” is useless, fall down the stairs and land on it. (Some of you may have actually done that—unintentionally, I’m sure!) What happens? You can’t stand up; you can’t sit down; you can’t lie down; you can’t roll over. You can hardly move without pain. In one sense, the sacrum and coccyx are among the most important bones in the whole body. They form an important point of muscle attachment required for our distinctive upright posture (and also for defecation, but I’ll say no more about that).
    “So again, far from being a useless evolutionary leftover, the “tail bone” is quite important in human development. True, the end of the spine sticks out noticeably in a one-month embryo, but that’s because muscles and limbs don’t develop until stimulated by the spine (Fig. 8). As the legs develop, they surround and envelop the “tail bone,” and it ends up inside the body.”
    http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/cfol/ch1-development.asp

  46. If you follow the reasoning of the Globe and it’s fellow travellers in this Pythonesque witch-hunt there can only be one solution.
    There are lines of responsibility in government just as there are in businesses and major organisations of any stripe. Responsibility starts at the top and is applicable in varying degrees right down to the lowest worker or participant. Therefore, according to many in this debate the Prime Minister cannot fulfill his duties if he is a believing christian nor can his Minister in charge of the department, nor the deputy-minister below him, nor the various and sundry departmental managers, nor the assistant managers, sub-managers, and so on down to the Assistant Second Clerk of the Office In Charge of Paper-Shuffling and Photo-Copies for Whatsitville (East-Side Division).
    As we, as a society, have surely evolved since the last Inquisition I’m sure we can devise a quick and painless method of weeding out those are unqualified to hold office.
    I would suggest we immediately provide federal funding for research into a reasonably infallible truth serum (although a lie detector would do in a pinch) after which a simple question “Are you now or have you ever been a practicing Christian” and hesto presto…problem solved.

  47. The sentiment that the earth is billions of years old is also being challenged.
    Case in point: Tsunami of December 2004 completely changed the geography of Indonesia and Sri Lanka in a matter of minutes. What about Mount St. Helen’s?
    The park I routinely go to each summer changes dramatically every year. These changes are supposed to occur over millions and billions of years. Really – you do not need to be a rocket scientist to see that evolution is a very poor theory at best.
    The consequence of evolutionist thinking are many. Survival of the fittest, abortion, euthanasia, mercy killing to name a few. Really now – how can a lower animal evolve into a higher animal – do persons with downs syndrome slowly become wiser over time – of course not.
    Also, our microcondria proves all races came from one female. Genetics is proving evolution is wrong.
    What about the frozen mammoths with vegetation in their mouths discovered by explorers which was very well documented?
    Critical thinking is essential and must be applied to evolution as well if we are ever going to find the truth.

  48. “Why is it that whenever this issue is discussed, the pro-evolutionists (not all), like Alex, Bar Jebus, John, etc., aren’t merely insulting, but outrageously so?”
    Careful now – you’re starting to sound like a Muslim.

  49. Posted by: just-an-ape at March 19, 2009 3:33 PM
    You’re quoting Answers in Genesis?
    REALLY???
    You’re kidding, right?

  50. “How many on this board have actually objectively looked at both theories? Only one explantaion has ever been offered to you, perhaps that is why you hold strongly to these ideas. I challenge you to look at both theories and others that have been brought forward. Evolution will one day be looked at in the same way chemo for cancer will – archaic.”
    What other theory is there? “Intelligent Design” is not a theory. It is an idea based upon the misunderstanding of evolution.
    Your delusions about evolution losing ground(to what exactly?) is hilarious. Even the catholic church disagrees.

Proudly powered by WordPress & Skyrocket Themes

MENU

Navigation