Ben Steins Movie - EXPELLED

[SLAG]

Looks interesting I thought

[Samson]

Closeminded?
Here are a few quotes from “pure” evolutionists – some from Mr. Darwin himself. I included general quotes about the “holes” in evolution from evolutionists, and a few regarding transitional fossils, since many of my comments were discounted. I have taken the liberty to bold certain parts. Enjoy…

"A general theory of biological evolution should include within its domain a number of problems that have hitherto resisted solution within the broad confines of the Darwinian, or indeed any other, research tradition. These problems include how life evolved from nonlife; how developmental programs evolve; what impact, if any, developmental dynamics have on the evolution of species; the relation between ecological dynamics and species diversification; and what is the best way of conceiving the mix between pattern and contingency in phylogeny. ... Our list of questions is not entirely haphazard. The origins of life, development, ecology, phylogenesis-these are the big questions that people think of when they hear the word *evolution*. It is answers to these questions that people want from evolutionists. That is why they so often feel put off when Darwinians confine themselves to talking about changing gene frequencies in populations and to throwing cold water on ideas about evolutionary direction, meaning, and progress." (Depew, David J. [Professor, Department of Communication Studies, University of Iowa] & Weber, Bruce H. [Professor of Biochemistry, California State University, Fullarton], "Darwinism Evolving: Systems Dynamics and the Genealogy of Natural Selection," [1995], MIT Press: Cambridge MA, 1997, Second printing, p.393. Emphasis in original).

"Personally, I consider fundamentalist creationism to be a far sillier idea than the craziest of all the crazy notions which scientists have ever proposed; but as scientists gloat over the deficiencies of non-scientific accounts of our origin and evolution, they should not ignore the considerable deficiencies in their own account. At the moment scientists certainly do not know how, of even if, life originated on earth from lifeless atoms. They do have a few plausible ideas on the subject, but many more rather implausible ones. (Scott, Andrew [biochemist and science writer], "The Creation of Life: Past, Future, Alien," Basil Blackwell: Oxford UK, 1986, p.112).

"But what if the vast majority of scientists all have faith in the one unverified idea? The modern 'standard' scientific version of the origin of life on earth is one such idea, and we would be wise to check its real merit with great care. Has the cold blade of reason been applied with sufficient vigour in this case? Most scientists want to believe that life could have emerged spontaneously from the primeval waters, because it would confirm their belief in the explicability of Nature - the belief that all could be explained in terms of particles and energy and forces if only we had the time and the necessary intellect. They also want to believe because their arch opponents - religious fundamentalists such as creationists - do not believe in life's spontaneous origin. It is this combative atmosphere which sometimes encourages scientists writing and speaking about the origin of life to become as dogmatic and bigoted as the creationist opponents they so despise." (Scott, Andrew [biochemist and science writer], "The Creation of Life: Past, Future, Alien," Basil Blackwell: Oxford UK, 1986, pp.111-112. Emphasis in original).

"The gaps in the record are real, however. The absence of a record of any important branching is quite phenomenal. Species are usually static, or nearly so, for long periods, species seldom and genera never show evolution into new species or genera but replacement of one by another, and change is more or less abrupt (John and Miklos 1988, 307)." (Wesson, Robert G. [political scientist and philosopher], "Beyond Natural Selection," [1991], MIT Press: Cambridge MA, 1994, reprint, p45).

"Darwin predicted that the fossil record should show a reasonably smooth continuum of ancestor-descendant pairs with a satisfactory number of intermediates between major groups Darwin even went so far as to say that if this were not found in the fossil record, his general theory of evolution would be in serious jeopardy. Such smooth transitions were not found in Darwin's time, and he explained this in part on the basis of an incomplete geologic record and in part on the lack of study of that record. We are now more than a hundred years after Darwin and the situation is little changed. Since Darwin a tremendous expansion of paleontological knowledge has taken place, and we know much more about the fossil record than was known in his time, but the basic situation is not much different. We actually may have fewer examples of smooth transition than we had in Darwin's time because some of the old examples have turned out to be invalid when studied in more detail. To be sure, some new intermediate or transitional forms have been found, particularly among land vertebrates. But if Darwin were writing today, he would probably still have to cite a disturbing lack of missing links or transitional forms between the major groups of organisms." (Raup, David M. [Professor of Geology, University of Chicago], "Geological and Paleontological Arguments," in Godfrey L.R., ed., "Scientists Confront Creationism," W.W. Norton: New York NY, 1983, p.156).

"Evolution at the level of populations and species might, in some cases, appear as nearly continuous change accompanied by divergence to occupy much of the available morphospace. However, this is certainly not true for long-term, large-scale evolution, such as that of the metazoan phyla, which include most of the taxa that formed the basis for the evolutionary synthesis. The most striking features of large-scale evolution are the extremely rapid divergence of lineages near the time of their origin, followed by long periods in which basic body plans and ways of life are retained. What is missing are the many intermediate forms hypothesized by Darwin, and the continual divergence of major lineages into the morphospace between distinct adaptive types." (Carroll, Robert L. [Curator of Vertebrate Paleontology, Redpath Museum, McGill University, Canada ], "Towards a new evolutionary synthesis," Trends in Ecology & Evolution, 2000, Vol. 15, pp.27-32, p.27).

"But I do not pretend that I should ever have suspected how poor was the record in the best preserved geological sections, had not the absence of innumerable transitional links between the species which lived at the commencement and close of each formation, pressed so hardly on my theory." (Darwin, Charles R. [English naturalist and founder of the modern theory of evolution], "The Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection," [1872], Everyman's Library, J.M. Dent & Sons: London, 6th Edition, 1928, reprint, p.311).

"He who rejects this view of the imperfection of the geological record, will rightly reject the whole theory. For he may ask in vain where are the numberless transitional links which must formerly have connected the closely allied or representative species found in the successive stages of the same great formation?" (Darwin, Charles R. [English naturalist and founder of the modern theory of evolution], "The Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection," [1872], Everyman's Library, J.M. Dent & Sons: London, 6th Edition, 1928, reprint, p.343).

"But just in proportion as this process of extermination has acted on an enormous scale, so must the number of intermediate varieties, which have formerly existed, be truly enormous. Why then is not every geological formation and every stratum full of such intermediate links? Geology assuredly does not reveal any such finely graduated organic chain; and this, perhaps, is the most obvious and serious objection which can be urged against the theory. The explanation lies, as I believe, in the extreme imperfection of the geological record." (Darwin, Charles R. [English naturalist and joint founder of the modern theory of evolution], "The Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection," [1872], Everyman's Library, J.M. Dent & Sons: London, 6th Edition, 1928, reprint, pp.292-293).

"Yet Gould and the American Museum people are hard to contradict when they say there are no transitional fossils." (Patterson, Colin [late Senior Palaeontologist, British Museum of Natural History, London], letter 10 April 1979, in Sunderland L.D., "Darwin's Enigma: Fossils and Other Problems," [1984], Master Book Publishers: El Cajon CA, Fourth Edition, 1988, p.89).

".. I fully agree with your comments on the lack of direct illustration of evolutionary transitions in my book. If I knew of any, fossil or living, I would certainly have included them. You suggest that an artist should be used to visualise such transformations, but where would he get the information from? I could not, honestly, provide it, and if I were to leave it to artistic licence, would that not mislead the reader?' (Patterson, Colin [late Senior Palaeontologist, British Museum of Natural History, London], letter 10 April 1979, in Sunderland L.D., "Darwin's Enigma: Fossils and Other Problems," [1984], Master Book Publishers: El Cajon CA, Fourth Edition, 1988, p.89).

"The absence of fossil evidence for intermediary stages between major transitions in organic design, indeed our inability, even in our imagination, to construct functional intermediates in many cases, has been a persistent and nagging problem for gradualistic accounts of evolution. (Gould, Stephen Jay [Professor of Zoology and Geology, Harvard University, USA], "Is a new and general theory of evolution emerging?," Paleobiology, Vol. 6, No. 1, January 1980, p.127).

[Ultra Peanut]

Originally Posted by Samson

Here are a few quotes from “pure” evolutionists – some from Mr. Darwin himself.

Oh Jesus.

[bowener]

Wow, okay? So you take quotes from a pro ID page? Have you bothered to read anything about modern evolution? It is a science, with differring fields. They state above that is has been around about 100 years, that is very true. And in 100 years we have come farther than we probably should have. Besides physics, this is the largest task you could possibly undertake. They are trying to find a comprehensive theory that holds are life, EVER, in it. That is life that existed 3 billion years ago in environments much different than today, so then you have to start including other fields of study in with biology. Darwin didnt create the idea of evolution, there were other scientists around, and today, scientists do not have to follow the word of Darwin like some have to follow the word of God. Some may choose to, like I mentioned before, those trying to start life from previously nonliving pieces may, or they just may be interested in how it all came about. You seem to be stuck on Darwin, much like th ID people. He is dead, he died. His ideas were not all correct, afterall you do understand when he was alive there was no DNA, nobody had found it yet, right? They did not have machines for xrays or MRI machines to see inside of fossils. The missing links you cling to to show that evolution is so faulty and shaky are being found each day. You do not seem to understand how many living things there are on the Earth now, not to mention 65 million years ago or farther back. 98% of all life was wiped out 65 million years ago. That is a whole lot of dead ends that scientists have to sort through when compiling records. Fossils arent exactly as easy to find as an acorn under an acorn tree. I am baffled by how you seem to think that the theory of evolution should be so simple. Read the post I posted before about transition fossils, it is pretty simple. I had read everything I can that is pro-ID, I study it almost everyday at school. We have pro-ID teachers come in and teach us; if you were going to shoot something across about how I am taught biasedly. Even when I went to MoWest we had a man from the discovery institute come in and try to debate with biologists and other scientists. I do not understand why you dont just try and learn both sides, it will better you as a person.

[bowener]

Also, do you not realize that the majority of your quotes are taking from over 20 years ago? Again, Darwin was Darwin. A man who pushed a theory that at the time had very little to no scientific equipment to aid him in his task. You also realize that most evolutionary scientists had no equipment until about 50 years ago or so, and only those at the best schools could afford them. You also understand that the extensive digging for specific fossils did not always take place, and really didnt until 50 or so years ago as well too? You do realize too that this is all the point of science; to disprove incorrect theories and replace them with ones that make sense and fit? Even if somebody like Darwin, who IDer's seem to diefy more than anyone else, is wrong? The Pope may be infoulible, scientists are not, they are just more highly evolved apes after all.

So Darwin can be wrong, that doesnt matter one bit. He is wrong, on lots of things, but then again, most people who proposed scientific theories 130 or so years ago were wrong.

I am still confused though as to why we are not lambasting Einstein? He never proved gravity fully... when do we get to argue that?

BEST ARTICLE EVER! ****ING READ IT.

[Samson]

"It is this combative atmosphere which sometimes encourages scientists writing and speaking about the origin of life to become as dogmatic and bigoted as the creationist opponents they so despise."

[bowener]

Originally Posted by Samson

"It is this combative atmosphere which sometimes encourages scientists writing and speaking about the origin of life to become as dogmatic and bigoted as the creationist opponents they so despise."

Wow, okay again?

You do realize that no matter what you do, you dogmatize what you do? The best example of this is the ancient sceptics (yes it is spelled with a c and not a k). Pyrrhonism to be exact, states that you can never know anything for certain because it is all relative to the perceiver (viewer), and since we derive what we know from the world through our sense we cannot trust our reasoning as well (descartes would have wept had he bothered to read this). They believed in the systematic break down of beliefs (ie, antidogmatism) but to do so, you had to become dogmatic in your approach. They realized that no matter what you did, you would dogmatize your beliefs or your structures. So, that is it. If you wondered though dogmatized, they werent, and they accepted that, 'the only thing we can know for certatin is that we know nothing for certain.' Thankfully much has changed since then....


edit: I should say something personal about myself. I do become angry at times in these debates because, generally speaking, those in ID that we are forced to argue against, do not bother to study and understand the positions they are arguing against (ignorance is only blissful to those who are ignorant, it is hell to those who have to deal with the ignorant). Then, rather than admitting that, they just say they have no need to because it is all a lie that satan made... thus negating any and all arguments based soley on a belief in a fictional character (to me, this is my thoughts). I want to apologize to them for seeing the world in such a drab and boring way, because to me it is much more beautiful to know that had something in the past gone 1 of a billion different ways I would have been something entirely different if anything at all. I like being this ape that I am and I like being able to discern bullshit and myths from what appears to be common everyday occurances. I want to apologize for what seems to be the death of God, not from science, but from religious atrophy and apathetic laziness. Yes science has harmed the religious, and they seem to have taken it personally, but that is a mistake, science is not personal, sadly, for if it was we would have a lot more 'devout believers' in science than in things such as transubstantiation and dietic rape. The death of God is not a literal term to me, but more of the nietzschean version. The idea of the God of the past.


please note that these are my opinions, not yours. I am sorry if you take offense to them, but I am not sorry for who I am.

[irishjayhawk]

Originally Posted by Samson

Closeminded?
Here are a few quotes from “pure” evolutionists – some from Mr. Darwin himself. I included general quotes about the “holes” in evolution from evolutionists, and a few regarding transitional fossils, since many of my comments were discounted. I have taken the liberty to bold certain parts. Enjoy…

There are some problems here. You are going under the assumption that if there are "holes" that it is an inherently BAD thing. This is a false assumption to make. Such an overarching Theory is bound to have holes. I need to quote - ironically it was said today:

Nobody (well, other than creationists, that is) argues against theories because they're incomplete; every theory is incomplete. I don't even know what a complete theory would look like.

I cannot stress this enough. There isn't a theory that doesn't have holes in it. So I don't really understand your point.

"A general theory of biological evolution should include within its domain a number of problems that have hitherto resisted solution within the broad confines of the Darwinian, or indeed any other, research tradition. These problems include how life evolved from nonlife;

There is a word for what you are doing. It's called quote-mining. Moreover, this paper is wrong, although free to assert that evolution SHOULD address it, that evolution must answer how life evolved from nonlife. The theory doesn't even attempt to answer that. Period. That's the Big Bang or like theories.

how developmental programs evolve; what impact, if any, developmental dynamics have on the evolution of species; the relation between ecological dynamics and species diversification; and what is the best way of conceiving the mix between pattern and contingency in phylogeny. ... Our list of questions is not entirely haphazard. The origins of life, development, ecology, phylogenesis-these are the big questions that people think of when they hear the word *evolution*. It is answers to these questions that people want from evolutionists. That is why they so often feel put off when Darwinians confine themselves to talking about changing gene frequencies in populations and to throwing cold water on ideas about evolutionary direction, meaning, and progress." (Depew, David J. [Professor, Department of Communication Studies, University of Iowa] & Weber, Bruce H. [Professor of Biochemistry, California State University, Fullarton], "Darwinism Evolving: Systems Dynamics and the Genealogy of Natural Selection," [1995], MIT Press: Cambridge MA, 1997, Second printing, p.393. Emphasis in original).

Thank you for highlighting my point above. They are suggesting evolution address those issues because people have confused other things (creation of life) with evolution, when, in fact, evolution is BASED on the assumption that life exists. Moreover, science never attempts to assign any (greater) meaning to why things happen. They can explain the meanings of the implications but not meanings like "why are we here".

"Personally, I consider fundamentalist creationism to be a far sillier idea than the craziest of all the crazy notions which scientists have ever proposed; but as scientists gloat over the deficiencies of non-scientific accounts of our origin and evolution, they should not ignore the considerable deficiencies in their own account. At the moment scientists certainly do not know how, of even if, life originated on earth from lifeless atoms. They do have a few plausible ideas on the subject, but many more rather implausible ones. (Scott, Andrew [biochemist and science writer], "The Creation of Life: Past, Future, Alien," Basil Blackwell: Oxford UK, 1986, p.112).

Once again, you are still confusing creation with evolution. They are NOT the same. Apparently, this writer doesn't understand that either. Your bolding just illustrates your naivety. For example, you bold "many more rather implausible ones." Yet, neither you or the author (perhaps because you ended the quote) state which are implausible ones. Moreover, you fail to realize the admission directly in front of the bold which says they have plausible ones. And not just one but a few.

"But what if the vast majority of scientists all have faith in the one unverified idea? The modern 'standard' scientific version of the origin of life on earth is one such idea, and we would be wise to check its real merit with great care. Has the cold blade of reason been applied with sufficient vigour in this case? Most scientists want to believe that life could have emerged spontaneously from the primeval waters, because it would confirm their belief in the explicability of Nature - the belief that all could be explained in terms of particles and energy and forces if only we had the time and the necessary intellect. They also want to believe because their arch opponents - religious fundamentalists such as creationists - do not believe in life's spontaneous origin. It is this combative atmosphere which sometimes encourages scientists writing and speaking about the origin of life to become as dogmatic and bigoted as the creationist opponents they so despise." (Scott, Andrew [biochemist and science writer], "The Creation of Life: Past, Future, Alien," Basil Blackwell: Oxford UK, 1986, pp.111-112. Emphasis in original).

Here your, or rather, the author's intentions are well meant. He is merely saying that sometimes scientists can be close-minded. I pointed this out earlier. The problem once again is that most of this is 100% pure conjecture. How does Scott Andrews know why most scientists believe this way? How does he know they just want to oppose religious fundamentalists? Does he realize that religious fundamentalists have been infiltrating and using science - wrongly - to support a preconceived notion? Just see the entire background on Expelled and it's makers for an example there.

"The gaps in the record are real, however. The absence of a record of any important branching is quite phenomenal. Species are usually static, or nearly so, for long periods, species seldom and genera never show evolution into new species or genera but replacement of one by another, and change is more or less abrupt (John and Miklos 1988, 307)." (Wesson, Robert G. [political scientist and philosopher], "Beyond Natural Selection," [1991], MIT Press: Cambridge MA, 1994, reprint, p45).

Really? The gaps are real? OMGLOLHELICOPTERZ!!!! Seriously, this a) out dated and b) horribly inaccurate. Is it hard to believe that one of the main reasons there are apparent gaps is because the fossil record is not perfect - as in some are broken, not preserved, etc? This one is clearly the weakest thus far.

"Darwin predicted that the fossil record should show a reasonably smooth continuum of ancestor-descendant pairs with a satisfactory number of intermediates between major groups Darwin even went so far as to say that if this were not found in the fossil record, his general theory of evolution would be in serious jeopardy. Such smooth transitions were not found in Darwin's time, and he explained this in part on the basis of an incomplete geologic record and in part on the lack of study of that record. We are now more than a hundred years after Darwin and the situation is little changed. Since Darwin a tremendous expansion of paleontological knowledge has taken place, and we know much more about the fossil record than was known in his time, but the basic situation is not much different. We actually may have fewer examples of smooth transition than we had in Darwin's time because some of the old examples have turned out to be invalid when studied in more detail. To be sure, some new intermediate or transitional forms have been found, particularly among land vertebrates. But if Darwin were writing today, he would probably still have to cite a disturbing lack of missing links or transitional forms between the major groups of organisms." (Raup, David M. [Professor of Geology, University of Chicago], "Geological and Paleontological Arguments," in Godfrey L.R., ed., "Scientists Confront Creationism," W.W. Norton: New York NY, 1983, p.156).

Unfortunately, Darwin also thought his theory wouldn't catch on. And, unfortunately, we are not in jeopardy. (and the source is also outdated)

According to Wikipedia:

In 1859, when Charles Darwin's On the Origin of Species was first published, the fossil record was poorly known, and Darwin described the lack of transitional fossils as "the most obvious and gravest objection which can be urged against my theory", but explained it by the extreme imperfection of the geological record.^[1]

This illustrates what Darwin said, exactly. Also, it highlights an extremely plausible reason for why the fossils appear to have gaps: the geological record is imperfect.

You also might want to click on the link from "Wikipedia" to take you to the Transitional Fossil place. There you will see a section entitled Misconceptions and many citations contained to back this up. Or you can venture over here to see the claim you are making throughly debunked by a whopping 25 sources.

"Evolution at the level of populations and species might, in some cases, appear as nearly continuous change accompanied by divergence to occupy much of the available morphospace. However, this is certainly not true for long-term, large-scale evolution, such as that of the metazoan phyla, which include most of the taxa that formed the basis for the evolutionary synthesis. The most striking features of large-scale evolution are the extremely rapid divergence of lineages near the time of their origin, followed by long periods in which basic body plans and ways of life are retained. What is missing are the many intermediate forms hypothesized by Darwin, and the continual divergence of major lineages into the morphospace between distinct adaptive types." (Carroll, Robert L. [Curator of Vertebrate Paleontology, Redpath Museum, McGill University, Canada ], "Towards a new evolutionary synthesis," Trends in Ecology & Evolution, 2000, Vol. 15, pp.27-32, p.27).

Again, you keep repeating the same thing over and over yet you haven't bothered to look at any of the links UP, bowener or I have kindly provided. And I must, once again, highlight that your continual quotation of this is an example of why the scientific community appears to be "close minded": people don't listen to them and come up with other theories that have no merit.

"But I do not pretend that I should ever have suspected how poor was the record in the best preserved geological sections, had not the absence of innumerable transitional links between the species which lived at the commencement and close of each formation, pressed so hardly on my theory." (Darwin, Charles R. [English naturalist and founder of the modern theory of evolution], "The Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection," [1872], Everyman's Library, J.M. Dent & Sons: London, 6th Edition, 1928, reprint, p.311).

Don't really see how this helps your case. He didn't have a good fossil record then. Now, we have a much more expanded record. Thus, I cannot see why you included this other than a "the author doubted his own claim and therefore it must not be true" line of thinking.

"He who rejects this view of the imperfection of the geological record, will rightly reject the whole theory. For he may ask in vain where are the numberless transitional links which must formerly have connected the closely allied or representative species found in the successive stages of the same great formation?" (Darwin, Charles R. [English naturalist and founder of the modern theory of evolution], "The Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection," [1872], Everyman's Library, J.M. Dent & Sons: London, 6th Edition, 1928, reprint, p.343).

Notice what you highlight and what it actually says. It says that for what you bolded, you must first reject the entire notion that the geological record is imperfect.

In other words, you are saying that you believe the fossil record is 100% accurate and recoverable.

"But just in proportion as this process of extermination has acted on an enormous scale, so must the number of intermediate varieties, which have formerly existed, be truly enormous. Why then is not every geological formation and every stratum full of such intermediate links? Geology assuredly does not reveal any such finely graduated organic chain; and this, perhaps, is the most obvious and serious objection which can be urged against the theory. The explanation lies, as I believe, in the extreme imperfection of the geological record." (Darwin, Charles R. [English naturalist and joint founder of the modern theory of evolution], "The Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection," [1872], Everyman's Library, J.M. Dent & Sons: London, 6th Edition, 1928, reprint, pp.292-293).

When in doubt, quote things over and over even though there are plenty of sources that have since come to back up Darwin's claim AND debunk your quote-mining and bolding.

"Yet Gould and the American Museum people are hard to contradict when they say there are no transitional fossils." (Patterson, Colin [late Senior Palaeontologist, British Museum of Natural History, London], letter 10 April 1979, in Sunderland L.D., "Darwin's Enigma: Fossils and Other Problems," [1984], Master Book Publishers: El Cajon CA, Fourth Edition, 1988, p.89).

See above. Oh, and you seem to be laboring under the impression people are infallible and that once you say something you can never, ever, be proven wrong (or right, in the case of Darwin).

".. I fully agree with your comments on the lack of direct illustration of evolutionary transitions in my book. If I knew of any, fossil or living, I would certainly have included them. You suggest that an artist should be used to visualise such transformations, but where would he get the information from? I could not, honestly, provide it, and if I were to leave it to artistic licence, would that not mislead the reader?' (Patterson, Colin [late Senior Palaeontologist, British Museum of Natural History, London], letter 10 April 1979, in Sunderland L.D., "Darwin's Enigma: Fossils and Other Problems," [1984], Master Book Publishers: El Cajon CA, Fourth Edition, 1988, p.89).

Again, this is a good 20 years out dated. Moreover, there are plenty of transitional fossils. How many times must this be repeated?

"The absence of fossil evidence for intermediary stages between major transitions in organic design, indeed our inability, even in our imagination, to construct functional intermediates in many cases, has been a persistent and nagging problem for gradualistic accounts of evolution. (Gould, Stephen Jay [Professor of Zoology and Geology, Harvard University, USA], "Is a new and general theory of evolution emerging?," Paleobiology, Vol. 6, No. 1, January 1980, p.127).

Again, out dated. Perhaps this:

Lets let Dr. Gould speak for what his views are. In his “Evolution as Fact and Theory” published in the May 1981 issue of Discover reprinted in his Hen’s Teeth and Horse’s Toes he wrote:

We [Gould and Niles Eldredge] proposed the theory of punctuated equilibrium largely to provide a different explanation for pervasive trends in the fossil record. Trends, we argued, cannot be attributed to gradual transformation within lineages, but must arise from the differential success of certain kind of species. A trend, we argued, is more like climbing a flight of stairs (punctuations and stasis) than rolling up an inclined plane.
Since we proposed punctuated equilibria to explain trends, it is infuriating to be quoted again and again by creationists—whether though design or stupidity, I do not know—as admitting that the fossil record includes no transitional forms. Transitional forms are generally lacking at the species level, but they are abundant between larger groups. Yet a pamphlet entitled “Harvard Scientists Agree Evolution is a Hoax” states: “The facts of punctuated equilibrium which Gould and Eldredge…are forcing Darwinists to swallow fit the picture that Bryan insisted on, and which God revealed to us in the Bible.”
Continuing the distortion, several creationists have equated the theory of punctuated equilibrium with a caricature of the beliefs of Richard Goldschmidt, a great early geneticist. Goldschmidt argued, in a famous book published in 1949, that new groups can arise all at once through major mutations. He referred to these suddenly transformed creatures as “hopeful monsters.” (I am attracted to some aspects of the non-caricatured version, but Goldschmidt’s theory still has nothing to do with punctuated equilibrium…) Creationist Luther Sunderland talks of the “punctuated equilibrium hopeful monster theory” and tells his hopeful readers that “it amounts to tacit admission that anti-evolutionists are correct in asserting there is no fossil evidence supporting the theory that all life is connected to a common ancestor.” Duane Gish writes, “According to Goldschmidt, and now apparently according to Gould, a reptile laid an egg from which the first bird, feathers and all, was produced.” Any evolutionist who believed such nonsense would rightly be laughed off the intellectual stage; yet the only theory that could ever envision such a scenario for the origin of birds is creationism—with God acting in the egg. [My emphasis.]

Or there's this. Or this. Or this.

Or there's this video:


Or this video:

[PHILLYSCREEN]

looks interesting

[Samson]

doesn't it?

[bowener]

I know I shouldnt but, at the end of video 1!

[bowener]

Originally Posted by PHILLYSCREEN

looks interesting

You should know better. All of this is made up by evil evil men who want you to question God. Shame on you for finding this interesting.

Sorry, I got bored with all of this and want to joke around now.

[bowener]

WAIT!? irishjawhawk, you mean to tell me that there are strict rules and standards of calssifying fossils? You actually expect me to believe that we have these guidelines all set out so that we can accurately place fossils and species in correct placement? We dont just find them and pile them up and point at them and say, 'there they are?' This is so mind blowing, and absolutely impossible.

[Samson]

I do respect the time it took for both of you write what you did. I'll go back to one of my original comments on the documentary...

I think a lot of folks (including scientists, teachers, students, laypeople, etc.) are just tired that their belief in a Creator...an Intelligent Designer...is always quick to be jumped-on by evolutionary purists.

Evolution does not answer everything, but I don't think it should or ever will. Mysteries of orgins will always exist. I think the frustration is that when a layperson questions the evolutionary dogma, they are quickly perceived as uneducated (been called that today in this thread), or a religous fanatic (haven't been called that in this thread, but if you guys were honest, you would admit that you thought it)...or both.

Just to clear up the debate, my faith is very important to me. I am educated as I received my Master's Degress from KU, and I taught high school biology for over 10 years. I know religion and intelligent design have no place in a science classrooom, but I also know the evolutionary dogma stronghold is so great, it minimized productive class disscussion (see my comments about the organic soup theory in textbooks above).

I'm not posting to try to change your thoughts, but I would ask that you respect my views as well. Look how quick both of you were to jump on my comments and quotes from this "rookie" poster...LONG posts at that. Says a lot about the feelings those that do choose to believe in an Intelligent Designer have...you fit the bill.

I am an evolutionist in many ways. There are countless examples of it, both observable and non. However, I personally have questions with some parts that are generally accepted by the scientific community. And as I've stated before, I feel some of these areas require the same faith and/or belief that the IDs have. And if you choose to discuss those issues, always be prepared for a fight.

I'll leave it at that and thank you for responding.

[a1na2]

Originally Posted by Ultra Peanut

You are dumb.

I consider the source, you calling someone dumb is an oxymoron.

[irishjayhawk]

Originally Posted by Samson

I do respect the time it took for both of you write what you did. I'll go back to one of my original comments on the documentary...

Thank you, but I think I speak for both of us that it's all futile if no one comes out of it with no new information.

I think a lot of folks (including scientists, teachers, students, laypeople, etc.) are just tired that their belief in a Creator...an Intelligent Designer...is always quick to be jumped-on by evolutionary purists.

Is it shot down without good reason? Perhaps because it's not science?

Evolution does not answer everything, but I don't think it should or ever will.

It doesn't attempt to.

Mysteries of orgins will always exist.

A reasonable conjecture to make, though I disagree.

I think the frustration is that when a layperson questions the evolutionary dogma, they are quickly perceived as uneducated (been called that today in this thread), or a religous fanatic (haven't been called that in this thread, but if you guys were honest, you would admit that you thought it)...or both.

Have you anything to the contrary (uneducated)? When does perception translate into truth? That is, when does the label of someone start to actually represent the truth: they are uneducated?

Just to clear up the debate, my faith is very important to me. I am educated as I received my Master's Degress from KU, and I taught high school biology for over 10 years. I know religion and intelligent design have no place in a science classrooom, but I also know the evolutionary dogma stronghold is so great, it minimized productive class disscussion (see my comments about the organic soup theory in textbooks above).

At least you can acknowledge that ID doesn't belong in the science classroom. Yet, at the same time, you are advocating it being scientific by saying scientists immediately dismiss it. So you're somewhat hypocritical.

Now, a master's degree and the fact that you taught high school biology for 10 years doesn't necessarily mean you are educated in certain fronts. For example, transitional fossils. Likewise, I am not educated on some of the theories you have called into question. The difference is I will admit to an area I know nothing about. I have not seen you admit, upon investigating our links and videos, that transitional fossils might actually exist.

I'm not posting to try to change your thoughts, but I would ask that you respect my views as well. Look how quick both of you were to jump on my comments and quotes from this "rookie" poster...LONG posts at that. Says a lot about the feelings those that do choose to believe in an Intelligent Designer have...you fit the bill.

You are assuming I looked at your post count and deduced certain things. I jumped on your comments because they are factually wrong. Are they not?

Again, you are confusing the line on a) when assumptions are made b) what assumptions are made c) when assumptions become truth and d) are assuming that some views be respected no matter what they are.

Should the view that 2+2=5 be respected? Should the view that the sky is purple be respected? What about Scientology, should it be respected?

Point is: there are some views that should not be respected. Am I saying your's is one of them? Maybe.

I am an evolutionist in many ways. There are countless examples of it, both observable and non. However, I personally have questions with some parts that are generally accepted by the scientific community. And as I've stated before, I feel some of these areas require the same faith and/or belief that the IDs have. And if you choose to discuss those issues, always be prepared for a fight.

I'll leave it at that and thank you for responding.

I'm interested in what you find the scientific community is accepting on faith. I'm also curious as to the examples of your evolutionist tendencies. And I'm also curious as to your evidence for any of your views. You've quote-mined, but aside from that have offered very little and ignored a vast amount.

However, I do thank you for not being offended. Sometimes when people are explaining things it can come off as condescending. And some of it may have been, I fear. But it is through this discourse that we can move forward. I would hope you continue the discussion by addressing some of the points made.