🚀 go-pugleaf

Ron McDermott wrote:

> On Fri, 19 May 2000 21:03:02, Bob <rdwillia@flashcom.net> wrote:
>
> > That is the way it is supposed to be. The illustrations show that such is not by any means the case. Read almost any
> > biology textbook; it is filled with conjecture such as listed in the post. Evolution is not a "fact". It should not be
> > taught as such.
>
> What, exactly, do you mean when you say "evolution"?  The process of
> evolution IS fact; it is readily observable and quantifiable.  One
> cannot argue THAT, but I'm quite sure that isn't what you mean when
> YOU say "evolution".

In the original post, evolution was defined on the referenced page, a restricted definition used for the purposes of
argument of the Theses on that page. But in general sense, evolution is the belief that all living organisms have developed
from progenitors, in a random manner.
While this may be a possibility, it is not a "fact". The only "fact" about living and extinct organisms, is that they
existed. Evolutionists believe, for some good reasons, that they evolved. But there are other possibilities, also with good
reason, that disprove this. Yet, this is rarely taught.

> > So to state that there are errors in evolutionary theory such as the "tautology", "fossil gaps", "irreducible
> > complexity", "inverse logic" etc., is therefore to teach Creationism. To quote Darwin's final conclusion:
>
> You are not arguing against the process of evolution; you are arguing
> against descent of current organisms from those of the past, and
> ultimately, descent of current-day organisms from single-celled
> precursors.

Again, this is not an argument against evolution, but also not against "common descent". It is an argument that science has
neither proven nor advanced a plausible theory, or a correct mechanism, that explains evolution as is claimed. Many facts
which refute current beliefs in biology are ignored such that the theory is plausible. Basically, teachers are not allowed
to teach contrary concepts, even though scientific, because it is "creationist".

> The process of evolution is fact.  Descent of current
> organisms from past is likely but not proven.  Descent from
> single-celled organisms is probably unproveable.

As above, if say, Creation occurred, or, Amphibians were seeded from planet "A", Reptiles from Planet "B' etc., then
evolution DID NOT occur. Thus it is NOT a fact, except in the parsed sense. There is no proof that this did not happen, and
it is a distinct possibility, given our factual knowledge of past events. "Panspermiists" believe this; there are some
interesting arguments, and some evidence. If they are right, (Darwinian) evolutionists are wrong.
If on the other hand, what appears to be evolution was planned in the formulation of the elements of the Periodic Table,
(e.g., theistic evolution), (Darwinian) evolutionists are again wrong.
The "16 Theses" which were referenced in the original Post leading off this thread, are 16 reasons which tend to prove
Darwinian evolution is wrong. Why haven't they been refuted in the replies? Why aren't they taught in evolution courses?
Worst of all, why have so many responders considered them "Creationist"?

> > > "Evangelizing" is a term applicable to much religious indoctrination.  It has
> > > no place in the science classroom.
> >
> > Anything can be evangelized; it is not only religion. Astrology e.g., is evangelized.
>
> You're wrong; the word is inherently religious in nature.  That it has
> been extended to include ANY pursuit to which one adheres "religiously" is immaterial.

Perhaps you would accept the word "proselytize" instead. The word was used because of the fervor with which evolutionists
present their case; Dawkins, Dennett, Gould, are perfect examples of such and I see little difference between their tactics
and those of any religious evangelist.

This is where the "teaching evolution" comes in. It should not be "evangelized", "proselytized", or otherwise presented such
that it is a truth, when in fact it is only a theory and IMO, as well as many others, a failed one at that.

> > > >On another front, The magnificent Stephen Hawking book "A brief History of Time", not
> > > >atheistic at all, mentions "God" at least a dozen times; look for "God" in the index. It
> > > >is not there.
> > >
> > > Maybe he didn't consider it important to index his mentions of God.  And what
> > > has this to do with evolution inthe classroom?
> >
> > Well, it is a subject like all the others in the index.
>
> There are undoubtably any number of subjects in the book which aren't
> indexed.

Far more obscure subjects are indexed; further this is not an isolated case. The textbook, "Biology", Audesirk & Audesirk,
1999, cut the words "by the Creator" from the last line in Darwin's "Origins". So the "greatest" scientist of all time (not
my belief) is censored.
Don't you see a pattern here? What do you suppose parents are concerned about such that education officials must pass
regulations stating that "evolution is not a "fact"? I fully agree that it is ridiculous, but it is more ridiculous to teach
outright error.

> > > >Witness the spectacular "National Geographic" shows and you will see
> > > >every possible inclusion of the idea of evolution such that it is a "fact".
> > >
> > > Because it is.
> >
> > Read Talk.Origins. As pro evolution as they are, even they reject this idea.
>
> Bob doesn't equate "origin of man" with "evolution".  He considers
> them as different topics.  The distinction is illusory in practice, as
> common usage of the term includes the origin of life and descent of
> organisms.

It's unclear where you are coming from here. If someone were to teach that man has evolved in the same manner as everything
else, this would be as erroneous as teaching that evolution, or Darwin's theory, is fact. For example, Alfred Wallace, the
first to publish "Darwin's" theory, believed, and has argued persuasively, that "natural selection" can neither develop, nor
act on, a human. Evolutionists generally don't believe this, but rather than ever being able to refute this argument, they
have simply ignored Wallace.

However, this answer as well as your statement which produced it, seem a little off-topic.

But as long as the subject has come up, it ought to be noted that the failure to present any of Wallace's ideas when
teaching evolution, is merely more proof of bias. (He was every bit as good as, perhaps a better, scientist than Darwin).
Why is he ignored? Most likely it is because he was really more like a Creationist, whose ideas, scientific as they are, are
not acceptable to evolutionists.

If you would like a view of Wallace's ideas on evolution, see:
"http://www.flash.net/~rdwillia/Evlutn1.htm", the most popular page on my site. Perhaps this will clarify the views
expressed in your last paragraph.

Bob



--
To reply by email: remove the "com" from "flashcom.net"
This is to prevent Spam.