The Iowa Board of Regents rejected on Thursday an appeal by a professor who said he was wrongfully denied tenure by Iowa State University because of his views supporting intelligent design.
While ISU officials have maintained that their decision last spring on Dr. Guillermo Gonzalez 's bid for tenure had nothing to do with intelligent design, e-mails exchanged by ISU faculty – who voted against his tenure and statements in Gonzalez’s tenure file – suggest otherwise.
Gonzalez, assistant professor of astronomy and physics, has written papers on intelligent design and has asserted his views in a book which was published in 2004. He is also a senior fellow at Discovery Institute, the nation's leading think tank on intelligent design.
The e-mails and documents obtained last summer by Discovery Institute through an open records request were not allowed as evidence by the Regents during their consideration of the case. The board also denied Gonzalez's request to give an oral argument at the closed session but did allow him to be present when the votes were cast. Regents rejected his appeal in a 7-1 vote.
“We are extremely disappointed that the Board of Regents refused to give Dr. Gonzalez a fair hearing in his appeal,” said Gonzalez’s attorney, Chuck Hurley. “They say in Iowa that academic freedom is supposed to be the ‘foundation of the university.’ That foundation is cracked.”
Iowa State denied Gonzalez tenure last spring, a decision upheld by university president Greg Geoffroy. Thursday's vote was the last chance for Gonzalez to appeal within the regents system.
Craig Lang was the sole regent who voted in the professor's favor.
"Dr. Gonzalez is so sure that he has done the things necessary for tenure," Lang told the Des Moines Register. "Let's just reconsider."
Gonzalez claims he met the criteria for promotion.
Casey Luskin, program officer in Public Policy and Legal Affairs at Discovery Institute, believes the outcome would have been different if e-mail records were allowed as evidence in the case or Gonzalez was given a chance to address the board.
“The Board of Regents would not allow into the record extensive e-mail documentation showing that Dr. Gonzalez was denied tenure not due to his academic record, but because he supports intelligent design," said Luskin.
"Then the Board refused to grant Dr. Gonzalez the right to be heard through oral arguments. Does it come as any surprise that now they denied his appeal?”
In 2004, Gonzalez authored the book "The Privileged Planet: How Our Place in the Cosmos Is Designed for Discovery," a pro-intelligent design book.
The following year in August, three ISU faculty members circulated a petition with a statement denouncing the use of intelligent design, which disputes parts of the theory of evolution, in the science curriculum.
"We … urge all faculty members to uphold the integrity of our university of 'science and technology,' convey to students and the general public the importance of methodological naturalism in science, and reject efforts to portray intelligent design as science," read the petition's statement, which received 120 signatures.
Gonzalez said he thought the incident contributed to his denial for tenure.
Although disappointed by board’s decision, Gonzalez said it was expected, reported The Daily Iowan.
"If academic freedom doesn't defend a professor with minority viewpoints, what good is it?" Gonzalez told reporters following the decision.
He was unsure if he would pursue legal action when he spoke with reporters Thursday but said he had already started searching for similar positions elsewhere.
"I'm going to consult with my friends and lawyers what my options are, and I'll decide with my wife what the best course of action will be," the professor told The Des Moines Register.
“The Board of Regents had an opportunity to give justice to an outstanding scientist who is a leader in his field,” added Luskin. “Instead, they caved in to political pressure and threw academic freedom to the wind.”
RSS
hawk,
No comment or plead the 5th I guess for you? And what is your take on Human Chromosome 2 fusion and at least 7 identical ERV's we and Chimps share? the DI had nothing to say about these in Dover.
There is ample data out there on these isntances, but I will post links if needed.
agentorange;
I'll leave that to the experts, given enough time, to expose many of them as hoaxes (or truth) as well.
Hawk,
fine leave Afarensis out of it, what about the other hominids we have fossils of. they are neither ape nor just like us, please explain them.
agentorange;
Sorry to disappoint you, but I cannot determine which one of the current evolutionists truth claims will turn out to be tomorrow's hoax. I'll leave that up to the experts much as they did for piltdown, nebraska, bronto, neanderthal, lucy, etc.
The tree is still hollow from its base to the nodes and I know you don't have a completed version, or even one that approaches complete.
So what was Lucy? Oxnard’s multivariate analysis showed that Lucy could not possibly be an intermediate ‘missing link’ between humans and knuckle-walking ape-like ancestors. He found that the australopithecine fossils ‘clearly differ more from both humans and African apes, than do these two living groups from each other. The australopithecines are unique.’
The latest evidence not only confirms this, but it also indicates that Lucy was a knuckle-walker, like today’s great apes.
Sadly, in this regard the public are often misled by inaccurately reconstructed statues and images of Lucy displayed at museums and in textbooks, etc., as her feet (and hands, for that matter) are often portrayed as startlingly human-like. Many evolutionists themselves concede such errors, acknowledging that australopithecine hands and feet were ‘not at all like human hands and feet; rather, they have long curved fingers and toes’—even more so than apes today that live mostly in the trees.
“The majority of paleoanthropologists believe that Australopithecus afarensis is on the main evolutionary line (or very close to it) heading toward modern”
Fine, since Afarensis doesn’t’ work for you, look at any of the hominids (Habilis, Erectus, Ergaster, rhodesiensis, Heidelbergensis Neanderthalensis, Florensis) fossils (refer to links I gave below) and tell me none of those are transitional of vouch for evolution or common ancestry.
“I was having some fun about brontosaurus. This is the hoax I was taught was fact in govt school.”
I’m surprised you take the work of such things in a govt. class as it relates to biology, quite funny.
Brontosaurus (Apatosaurus) was never indicated to be a missing link (like you said) to anything, it was only defined as a saurapod dinosaur and it’s certainly not a hoax. The reason why Marsh put the wrong head on was what matched up and no other contradictory evidence was around. Since we found more apatasaurauses we know that it was initially the wrong skull.
But since you like Jonathan Wells so much, here’s him in a vid making a wrong scientific claim.
http://youtube.com/watch?v=Sui4CadfhDM
Hawk,
If the fossil record is so bare as you claim, explain these.
Whales
www.talkorigins.org/features/whales/
www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CC/CC216_1.html
www.nsf.gov/od/lpa/news/02/pr0235.htm
www.pbs.org/wgbh/evolution/library/11/2/e_s_3.html
www.pbs.org/wgbh/evolution/
www.ucmp.berkeley.edu/mammal/cetacea/cetacean.html
www-personal.umich.edu/~gingeric/PDGwhales/Whales.htm
http://ngm.nationalgeographic.com/ngm/data/2001/11/01/html/ft_20011101.4.html
www.tolweb.org/Cetacea/15977
Hominids
www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-transitional.html
www.talkorigins.org/faqs/homs/
www.theistic-evolution.com/transitional.html
http://darwiniana.org/hominid.htm
www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/hominids.html
“Three Israeli scientists”
There is some question IF ‘lucy’ an Australopithecus Afarensis is on our direct lineage as an acenstor, and it’s not b/c only those fossils, it’s b/c we have other early australopithicenes which were also bi-pedal and had flatter faces already like we and the more recent hominids had and this is why they think these other ancestoral apes might be the direct link as opposed to Afarensis.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Australopithecus_afarensis
“Donald Johanson, the discoverer of the first Au. afarensis “Lucy,””
Had you looked into it, Afarensis is a primitive ape, so naturally many of her traits are going to be quite close to extant (living) ape relatives. Afarensis is unique b/c of how her anatomy and skeleton structure allowed for upright bipedal motion, something found exclusively only today in humans, birds and those hominid fossils I mentioned above.
agentorange:
The myth of Lucy being a transition fossil has pretty well run its course. There is much more evidence than I presented that shows Lucy is just another primate. But here is a glimpse into how this type of science and the myths begin:
However, this strawman contrast of the unbiased truth seeker that ‘knows’ the ‘true’ evolutionary story with the biased, ignorant creationist who rejects it comes unstuck when one reads the words of archaeologist Donald Johanson, the discoverer of Lucy (Australopithecus afarensis—the subject of chapter 1). Johanson is not aware of these mythical ‘unbiased truth seekers’:
‘There is no such thing as a total lack of bias. I have it; everybody has it. The fossil hunter in the field has it. … In everybody who is looking for hominids, there is a strong urge to learn more about where the human line started. If you are working back at around three million, as I was, that is very seductive, because you begin to get an idea that that is where Homo did start. You begin straining your eyes to find Homo traits in fossils of that age. … Logical, maybe, but also biased. I was trying to jam evidence of dates into a pattern that would support conclusions about fossils which, on closer inspection, the fossils themselves would not sustain [emphasis added].’2
Johanson went on to confess: ‘It is hard for me now to admit how tangled in that thicket I was. But the insidious thing about bias is that it does make one deaf to the cries of other evidence.’3
seedplanter;
you're right on. There is an excellent book out now that is peer reviewed and does just as you say:
The debate over how best to teach evolution has devolved into an either-or argument that threatens science education in our schools. Both views reflect poor science, and if either side wins, students will lose.
But there is another approach - teach the controversy. Instead of pretending there is no debate over Darwin's theory we should use it to further educate students about the scientific debate over evolutionary theory.
One book shows how that can be done. "Darwinism, Design and Public Education," the new peer-reviewed science book from Michigan State University Press, goes beyond these extremes and explores the controversy amongst scientists about the strengths and weaknesses of Darwinian evolution, and the emerging challenge from the scientific theory of intelligent design. The book presents a road map for how the debate can be used to advance science education, teach critical thinking, and help students better understand this complex issue.
Read the article that started it all: Teach the Controversy, by Stephen C. Meyer
Read the press release: New Book Examines the Scientific Evidence for Intelligent Design and Darwinism and Advocates Teaching Both to Improve Science Education
Agent, I appreciate the spirit in which you entertained my questions and your courteous response. You strike me as the kind of person that would have enjoyed spending hours in the pub with C. S. Lewis.
While you may have your own sort of systematic theory of the evolution of theism, I don’t think that it can be summed up quite as neat and tidy as you presented. Although a lot of thought obviously went into your response, there are some things that are beyond the scope of science. “The heart hath its reasons that reason knows not of” (Blaise Pascal, defender of the scientific method). Hypothetically I suppose it could be discovered that we are truly nothing more than material persons inside and out. However, I think that the mere presence of faith itself demonstrates something far beyond what genetics could ever contrive. There is something inside of humans that is quite unique. It not only informs us to believe something, anything (theism, pantheism, atheism, polytheism, deism, science, naturalism, etc.), but it is integral to life. Christian theism particularly has been shown to cultivate a positive, happy and healthy life. You can explain it away as mere human evolution and dismiss it as irrelevant or you can recognize it as reality. When I say reality, I mean to say a legitimate faith that is not mere conjecture or reaching for the unbelievable. There have always been two kinds of people, one that sees the glass as half empty and the one that sees it as half full. Why is it that we were made for faith as much as a perfect fit as Cinderella and the glass slipper? Why do atheists and agnostics have such a hard time with belief, not just for themselves but for others?
http://www.city-journal.org/html/17_4_oh_to_be.html
citsonga, I hope this further illuminates your comprehension as to what I was saying.
(I flagged myself)
Hawk, you are right in commenting on mistakes of philosophical naturalists that do not only impose their beliefs on science, but actually falsify the evidence. This really does not give credibility to the science community for skeptics. Natural evolutionists do not understand that this contributes to the free-thinkers.
The main point of contention between Neo-Darwinism and creationists (and ID proponents) is the Cambrian Explosion (sudden appearance) vs. seemingly genetic evidence for common decent. The ID school suggests that while evolution is right on the money in regard to natural selection, it does not explain how new information is acquired. I think these contentions need to be addressed, if for no other purpose to inform students of the honest gaps in Neo-Darwinism and to be able to understand the different schools of thought. Origins are a major issue in America and needs to at least be explained to further scientific progress, at least until it is locked air-tight case.
agentorange:
I was having some fun about brontosaurus. This is the hoax I was taught was fact in govt school. The Wikipedia article leaves out one very embarrassing fact. Brontosaurus was the creation of science as the wrong skull was fixed to the rest of the skeleton and voila, we have a new specie.
“Why has it taken 100 years to learn that one of the largest of all dinosaurs Apatosaurus (Brontosaurus of the school book) has been wearing the wrong head? That seems rather basic. How did this mix-up occur; and where has the old fellow’s head been all of this time? The answer to the last question is, of course, that its true head has been in the museum’s research collection for all these many years, patiently waiting for research to catch up to reality.”
– Taken from the display notebook at Dinosaur National Park Museum, Vernal, Utah.
agentorange:
The field of paleoanthropology and the evolution of man is more fraught with controversy among its proponents than probably any other field of evolutionary studies. The majority of paleoanthropologists believe that Australopithecus afarensis is on the main evolutionary line (or very close to it) heading toward modern humans.
Three Israeli scientists have reported in the most recent issue of the Proceedings of the National Academy of Science1 that Au. afarensis may not be our ancestor at all. It all hinges on the jaw of these creatures (pardon the pun). Alas, Au. afarensis has a lower jaw bone (mandible) that closely resembles that of a gorilla—not that of a human or even a chimp. The scientists conclude that this “cast[s] doubt on the role of Au. afarensis as a modern human ancestor.”
This should not come as a huge surprise, since even Donald Johanson, the discoverer of the first Au. afarensis “Lucy,” conceded that its V-shaped mandible was very ape-like, and certainly nothing like that of a human.2
The part of the mandible that sweeps up from the angle of the jaw and hinges with the skull is known as the “ramus.” In all primates, the superior end of the ramus ends in two processes: the more anterior coronoid process (which attaches to the temporalis, a chewing muscle), and the posterior condylar process (which articulates with a shallow socket in the base of the skull). The two processes are separated by an indentation of the ramus known as the “mandibular notch.”
agentorange:
Evolutionists David Raup, "the record of evolution is still surprisingly jerky and, ironically, we have even fewer examples of evolutionary transition than we had in Darwin's time." from Conflicts Between Darwin and Paleontology. Paleontologists Stephen J Gould, George Gaylord, David Raup, Walter Brown and other paleontologists agree.......the fossil record is wanting to support evolution.
The tree has nodes and nothing from the base to those nodes.......the Darwinian tree is hollow. In fact, isn't the Darwinian tree now looking more like a forest of trees with many unrelated ancestors rather than just one ancestor?
This is an argument between evolutionary biologists and paleontologists; you need to take it up with them. It's rather amusing just being a spectator with this issue. I'll believe the paleontologists regarding their own science in this case because it fits reality better.
So, if your biologist references do have a completed Darwinian tree in which they have a watertight case for the continous transitions from the base of the tree to the tips then please show me. But then, this mystical tree is just one of those Evolution Icons that is a fabrication according to Jonathan Wells.
seedplanter,
“why are we made in such a way as to worry about it in the first place?”
I can always expect deep questions from you Seedplanter, thanks. I do agree that some of us and from looking back at humanities only written history we are fascinated with explaining everything possible, even if it involves interjected god into the equation. Why does the ocean work the way it does, why do clouds work in such radical ways? Today we know why, but to early people relying on agriculture that needed answers, even a bad answer is better than no answer at all. At least with a bad answer some people will accept it and move on.
From humanities infancy we asked such questions and had no accurate answers, we had no way or proving what dictates either., and just as importantly those in tribal groups had no way of disproving such claims. In social groups and this has been verified in group studies, even a wrong answer that seemingly answers otherwise perplexing questions will be naturally sought and adopted over continually asking the same question endlessly, this is the principle reason why ‘god did it’ is used so many times over in all coulters to explain that which confounded agricultural and tribal societies.
Such confounding questions can be easily answered by interjected ‘god did it’ as in cases with using Poseidon and Thor to explain away the ocean currents and clouds. To some this bad explanation is better than none, and generally that's all they need so long as they don't have to think too critcally about something they are content with the answer they get. But are such claims grounded by evidence? No, they aren’t. It’s not a coincidence that most of the first gods were symbolic elemental gods that controlled the sun, stars, clouds, rain, and everything elemental that in times of early tribal societies were extremely important in knowing when to plant crops.
This is why such tribal socities would draw a corelation with good weather as being some sign, why when weather was less than ideal they'd resort to animal sacrifices like in the OT so as to appease the gods. In humanities infancy we manifested agents, personified by gods to explain away that which confounds us.
Christians, we must follow Jesus in this issue. Let the dead bury the dead. We cannot get bogged down in this issue. Remember the harvest is great. and the laborers are few. God will send others to contend with this battle, but if you feel the need continue to the fight. These men follow their own doctrine. A doctrine created by men and as men are flawed and known to fail so will their efforts on this matter.
slacker: "Why don't scientist try to use there great amount of knowledge to disprove the bible instead of just calling people names and forcing evolution down everyone's throat..."
for the same reason they dont spend time disproving the existence of unicorns and peter pan.........
Slacker -
Which questions do you think I didn't answer? He asked some very outdated metaphysical questions which I pointed out the problem with.
The trouble is that truthbytheword is coming to the table not knowing anything. He clearly hasn't studied even junior high-school science properly, hasn't bothered to look up information online and hasn't bothered to think through the arguments at all, let along properly. He's a bit like a three year-old who can't understand why he can't have cake for dinner. And like that three year-old he just needs to be told "because I said so" to some degree because he seems a priori incapable of understanding even the most basic arguments.
Here is an analogy: How would you like to discuss computers with someone who thinks that little elves live in the machine and do the user's bidding? There'd be nowhere to even begin. This is the situation that I'm in here with truthbytheword.
To Torus:
Absolutly amazing, you never anwsered any of the questions posed and then called Truthbytheword Uneducated, why don't you ANSWER, the questions with honesty and integrity.
I find it greatly disturbing anyone that trys to question evolution and the responses to those questions. Why don't scientist try to use there great amount of knowledge to disprove the bible instead of just calling people names and forcing evolution down everyone's throat...
seedpalnter: "Why would a person seek identity as an atheist or agnostic?"
I dont seek identity as an agnostic, its simply what I am. I have no control over that. Faith comes to some naturally, to others not at all. To me deciding to be of faith is like deciding what my IQ or sex is. Just as I have no control over my IQ or my sex- I have what I was born with, I have no control over believing in a religious faith, I guess I don't have the religiosity genes. I tried religion it, doesn't do anything for me, I have no feeling for it. Religion does not interest me, it doesn't seem real, rather its more like myth, at least to me. I am a skeptic. If there is a creator, its very hard for me to believe I will be sent to a "torture camp" for eternity because I dont "believe"- total absurdity. People of strong faith I guess just cant understand this.
seedplanter "Why should anyone believe anything at all?"
Citsonga: “Indeed, thats why I am an agnostic.”
The simple fact that you call yourself an agnostic expresses the inescapable sense of inert spirituality and need of meaning, call it context if you like. Even though you are relegating your belief to a system of non-belief, it is an inherent trait that we all must recon with. You have merely decided to relinquish your faith to a form of belief which is epistemically tied to your feelings and desires by which you negate the God above. But why should any of it matter to you at all? Why bother with any of it? Why worry about politics or even science? Why should it matter what other people think and believe? What difference does it make? Why would a person seek identity as an atheist or agnostic? This is why James Sire asked: Why should anyone believe anything at all? Seems redundant if there is no God. The question does not imply whether or not anything is worth believing, but rather why are we made in such a way as to worry about it in the first place?
Hawk,
“Evolutionists David Raup's observation makes perfect sense when you take a look such fossil 'evidence' as Lucy, piltdown man, nebraska man, brontosaurus, etc. What were originally thought to be transition forms turn out not to be”
Where did David Raup ever go on record say such things to begin with?
Both Piltdown man and Nebraska man were found to be fakes as other fossils were found and modern testing were down to rule them out (funny you won’t mention any of the new fossils though), and a ‘Brontosaurus’ is not even the correct name of the dinosaur anymore, it’s Apatosaurus, but that would be nitpicking. =)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brontosaurus
How is ‘Lucy’, which is an Australopithecus Afarensis species (which we have numerous specimens of) not a transitional fossil?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Australopithecus_afarensis
Hawk, you’d should look up some of the evidence from the links I gave and tell me no hominid transitionals exist.
Faith,
Since you claim there are no transitional fossils, what do you make of these? and this is only hominids and whales mind you. =)
Hominids
www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-transitional.html
www.talkorigins.org/faqs/homs/
www.theistic-evolution.com/transitional.html
http://darwiniana.org/hominid.htm
www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/hominids.html
www.becominghuman.org/
Whales
www.talkorigins.org/features/whales/
www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CC/CC216_1.html
www.nsf.gov/od/lpa/news/02/pr0235.htm
www.pbs.org/wgbh/evolution/library/11/2/e_s_3.html
www.pbs.org/wgbh/evolution/
www.ucmp.berkeley.edu/mammal/cetacea/cetacean.html
www-personal.umich.edu/~gingeric/PDGwhales/Whales.htm
http://ngm.nationalgeographic.com/ngm/data/2001/11/01/html/ft_20011101.4.html
www.tolweb.org/Cetacea/15977
faithbytheword -
"Evolution is a theory just like that of the cat and puppies. There is no evidence for it."
False. There is a wealth of evidence in many fields of science.
"It is full of huge gaps."
False.
"There are no transitional fossils "
False.
"The Bible says God created the Heavens and Earth. Do you have any evidence that this is not true?"
Not relevant. There are many different religious accounts of the origin of the universe. Not all of them are true and so some are false. It logically follows that inability to disprove is not proof.
"The Bible was written by a great number of men (snip) and it has been 100% accurate."
False. It is logically incoherent and factually incorrect.
"Do you have any evidence that anything in the Bible is not true?"
Do you, as a person, believe anything unless you disprove it? How many gods do you worship since you can't disprove them all?
Get an education.
HAWK49,
way to go you quoted directly from the Discovery Institute, the hub of the ID movement. had you read into Gonzalez's background you'd find he hasn't brought in any grant money b/c he hasn't produced or advanced science at all. his career early on looked promising but has since stalled, this is why he doesn't deserve tenure and this is why he was denied 3 times in a row.
Perhaps the discussion should refocus on the original article regarding the bigotry of the ISU regents adhereing to the dogma of their religious worldview and denying tenure of a highly qualified scientist; though one who is skeptical of the evolutionary dogma.
Internal e-mails and other documents obtained under the Iowa Open Records Act completely contradict public claims by Iowa State University (ISU) that the denial of tenure to astronomer Guillermo Gonzalez was unrelated to his support for the theory of intelligent design. According to these documents: Dr. Gonzalez was subjected to a secret campaign of vilification and ridicule by colleagues in the Department of Physics and Astronomy who explicitly wanted to get rid of him because of his pro-intelligent design views, not his scholarship.
Dr. Gonzalez’s work and views on intelligent design were repeatedly attacked during department tenure deliberations.
Dr. Gonzalez’s colleagues secretly plotted to evade the law by suppressing evidence that could be used against them in court to supply proof of a hostile work environment.
One of Dr. Gonzalez’s colleagues admitted to another faculty member that the Department of Physics and Astronomy had violated the principle of academic freedom “massively” when it came to Gonzalez, while other colleagues expressed qualms that their secret plotting against Gonzalez was unethical or dishonest.
Dr. Gonzalez’s department chair misled the public after the fact by insisting that “intelligent design was not a major or even a big factor in this decision”—even though he had privately told colleagues that Gonzalez’s support for intelligent design alone “disqualifies him from serving as a science educator.”
In voting to reject tenure for Dr. Gonzalez, members of the Department of Physics and Astronomy all but ignored recommendations made by the majority of their own outside scientific reviewers, who thought Gonzalez clearly deserved tenure.
Discovery Institute
Now, although Behe supports the idea that some features of living things are best explained by intelligent design, he is not a “creationist” as that word is normally used. Behe is a molecular biologist whose scientific work has convinced him that Darwinian theory doesn’t conform to observation and experimental evidence. Why does Gould, who knows Haeckel’s drawings were faked, dismiss Behe as a creationist for criticizing them?
I suspect that there’s an agenda other than pure science at work here. My evidence is the more or less explicit materialist message woven into many textbook accounts. Futuyma’s Evolutionary Biology is characteristic of this,
informing students that “it was Darwin’s theory of evolution,” together with Marx’s theory of history and Freud’s theory of human nature, “that provided a crucial plank to the platform of mechanism and materialism” that has since
been “the stage of most Western thought.” One textbook quotes Gould, who openly declares that humans are not created, but are merely fortuitous twigs on a “contingent” (i.e. accidental) tree of life. Oxford Darwinist Richard Dawkins,
though not writing in a textbook, puts it even more bluntly: “Darwin made it possible to be an intellectually fulfilled atheist.”
These are obviously philosophical rather than scientific views. Futuyma, Gould, and Dawkins have a right to their philosophy. But they do not have the right to teach it as though it were science. In science, all theories – including Darwinian evolution – must be tested against the evidence. Since Gould knows that the real embryological evidence contradicts the faked drawings in biology textbooks, why doesn’t he take a more active role in cleaning up science
education? The misrepresentations and omissions I’ve examined here are just a small sampling. There are many more. For too long the debate about evolution has assumed “facts” that aren’t true. It’s time to clear away the lies that obstruct popular discussion of evolution, and insist that theories
conform to the evidence. In other words, it’s time to do science as it’s supposed to be done.
Permission is granted to copy this article for noncommercial
purposes provided credit is given to Discovery
Institute
agentorange: Evolutionists David Raup's observation makes perfect sense when you take a look such fossil 'evidence' as Lucy, piltdown man, nebraska man, brontosaurus, etc. What were originally thought to be transition forms turn out not to be.
AGENTORANGE & TORRUS
I am sorry if this has been too complicated. It was a sarcastic version of a theory. My point is this. Evolution is a theory just like that of the cat and puppies. There is no evidence for it. It is full of huge gaps. There are no transitional fossils and what you point as being so are species that may be extinct. The Bible says God created the Heavens and Earth. Do you have any evidence that this is not true? It also says He did it in 7 days. Man was the highlight of His creation and He made him from the dust of the ground. (It was not discovered by man until recent times that man is made up of the same essential elements as the soil yet the Bible said so 4000 years ago} Do you have any evidence that this is not true? The Bible was written by a great number of men from different continents and time periods under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, and they all wrote in agreement in how we got here , why we are here, and what was yet to come and it has been 100% accurate. What is the statistical probability that could happen? The four guys on the NFL pregame show can't even tell exactly what is going to happen in the game. Do you have any evidence that anything in the Bible is not true?
Evolution Theory is contradictory to the Bible. It is full of gaps and holes.
We allow evolution to be taught in the schools, as though it is fact .
It takes more faith to believe the theory of evolution than it does the Bible because of its 100 percent accuracy. My advice....throw the science books in the trash get you a copy of the Bible. There you will find out that your creator God loves you and created you for relationship with him. Sin has seperated you from Him, but He sent a remedy out of His love for you, and that remedy is the Son..Jesus Christ. He took the punishment for your sin and made a way for you to be reconciled to God the Father through faith. That faith includes to fully believe the Bible. Jesus is the Word. (John 1). I will be gone the rest of the day and can not respond but will tonight if you have any questions.
agentorange -
Keep in mind that faithbytheword is doing one of two things. Either is is playing stupid to be difficult because he doesn't want to understand or he is really as stupid as he seems. Either way it is not worth your time as he has made it clear he will not engage in rational discussion.
"Our cat gave birth to puppies. And we can use this to prove there is no God. Then we can do what ever we want and us dominant ones can crush the weaker ones. '
Whaaat? that or evolution wouldn't prove there is no god and in no way does evolution suggest that it's ethical or moral to dominant other species of popluations in your species. If you read anything in biology class you'd recall that organisms operate mostly in an altruistic and symbiotic nature just to survive. so in this respect many organisms survive b/c they are the most moral and most ehtical in all things considered.
evolution only deals with organisms changing, it doesn't suggest how we should run our laws or adjudicate or sanction laws, that is up for us as a concensus to decide what laws we sanction and what we uphold.
Well I know its not what you are used to. I think it has something to do with global warming around my house. Our cat gave birth to puppies. And we can use this to prove there is no God. Then we can do what ever we want and us dominant ones can crush the weaker ones. I always knew this difference between right and wrong that went on inside of us was a fake. There is no wrong. Whatever we feel is right is right. Let all the prisoners out because there is no wrong ,therefore no law.
FAITHBYTHEWORD,
you totally lost me. but your earlier examples of evolution don't conform do how biologists suggest life adapts and changes. you'll never see a cat give birth to an entirely differnt species in single genertaion, its somewhat a common misconception.
Agentorange & torrus
Sorry it took me so long to get back. I had to go see a lawyer. You had me a little worried with this evidence thing. But the lawyer said we are fine because they let the schools teach evolution and it has far less evidence than the cat & puppies.
Hawk, seems like you’re fond of quote mining too. Hilarious. Darwins theory isn’t on its deathbed, get real. Some of things Darwin sites were wrong and no longer used while many of them are and continually hold true to the theory of evolution.
“Evolutionist David Raup even admits that 120 years after Darwin and with many more fossils that now we have even fewer examples of evolutionary transition than before.”
Does this statement even make logical sense, that over time we’d have FEWER examples of transitional fossils? No, it doesn’t, what nonsense. If you want transitionals here are some, just whales and hominids this time.
Hominids
www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-transitional.html
www.theistic-evolution.com/transitional.html
www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/hominids.html
Whales
www.talkorigins.org/features/whales/
www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CC/CC216_1.html
www.nsf.gov/od/lpa/news/02/pr0235.htm
www.pbs.org/wgbh/evolution/library/11/2/e_s_3.html
www.pbs.org/wgbh/evolution/
www.ucmp.berkeley.edu/mammal/cetacea/cetacean.html
www-personal.umich.edu/~gingeric/PDGwhales/Whales.htm
http://ngm.nationalgeographic.com/ngm/data/2001/11/01/html/ft_20011101.4.html
www.tolweb.org/Cetacea/15977
FAITHBYTHEWORDMon Feb 11, 2008 12:39 pm : 0 : 1 Flag
torrus
Since you didn't offer any evidence against my cat having puppies I take it you are with me. We found them in the laundry room. My theory is that there was some kind of electrical spark that produced the cat because we didn't have one before and since dogs are more dominant than cats, it had puppies instead of kittens. I know that there are some gaps, like how did the cat get pregnant and of course I wasn't actually there when she gave birth but we have all the evidence we need with the cat and the puppies. I am going to load them up and head for the courts. The only thing they can come against us with is common sense (which we need to figure out where that came from...on our next project). With the evidence of the cat and puppies we will win in court and be able to teach it to the little children in the schools. If anyone comes against us with any other explanation of how the cat and puppies got here we will discredit them with our evidence.{never mind the gaps) And if other sceintist or biologist try to prove it wrong by probeing into other areas besides ours we will deny them tenure and have them fired. I knew I could rely on you because you already hold to the beleif that a life form can turn into another.
Your new 6th grade freind.
Faith,
“Since you didn't offer any evidence against my cat having puppies I take it you are with me.”
Pay attention holito8, this is an example of a complete misunderstanding of biology and genetics at work.
Firstly, cats can’t in a single generation give birth to an entirely different species, like a dog. This is isn’t at all what evolution predicts or suggests we should find in the fossil record at all. Rather is suggests that we should find (if evolution is true) intermediates between very similar groups of species according to their taxonomy, genetics and so on.
‘With the evidence of the cat and puppies we will win in court and be able to teach it to the little children in the schools.”
No, you won’t. Both the Cat and the puppies have genes which shows heredity and will show if such a thing happened, the genes can be observed and tested to know how close their relationship is (think big paternity test).
I am guessing Faith that you also asert evolutoin is just a 'theory' and with out the foggiest idea of what a theory means in the context of science, am I right?
Seed, I don't think it's split down the middle with christian scientists regarding common descent. the latest polls showed that across all realms of science, barely 40% believed in a personal deity (christian) god. at the higher ranked levels in science the figure droped to 7% that believe.
Even within science not even .05% of those in evolutionary realms of science, christian or not, doubt evolution. I think the split down the middle you're reffering to is the USA populace, and that is basically split, while with catholics being the most likely to accept evolution.
evolutoin was never meant to explain such philosophical questions, it's just a theory about life changing.
seedplanter "Why should anyone believe anything at all? "
Indeed, thats why I am an agnostic.
The fact that everyone must recon with is that even if nature has laws of random selection built in to the genetic sequence of living cells, where did it come from and why are we here? While Christian scientists are split down the middle in regards to common decent, it alone cannot answer the important questions that we for some strange reason inherently ask.
James Sire penned it like this, Why should anyone believe anything at all?
"A persistent debate in evolutionary biology is one over the continuity of
microevolution and macroevolution -- whether macroevolutionary trends are
governed by the principles of microevolution."
It should be noted that all of the scientists quoted above are believers in Darwinian evolution, and that all of them think the controversy will eventually be resolved within the framework of that theory. Stern, for example, believes that new developmental studies of gene function will provide "the current missing link." (p. 1079) The important point here is that the controversy has not yet been resolved, precisely because the evidence needed to resolve it is still lacking. It is important for students to know what the evidence does or does not show -- not just what some scientists hope the evidence will eventually show.
Since the controversy over microevolution and macroevolution is at the heart of Darwin's theory, and since evolutionary theory is so influential in modern biology, it is a disservice to students for biology curricula to ignore the controversy entirely. Furthermore, since the scientific evidence needed to settle the controversy is still lacking, it is inaccurate to give students the impression that the controversy has been resolved and that all scientists
have reached a consensus on the issue.
The speculations of The Origins of Species turned out to be wrong....it is ironic that the scientific facts throw Darwin out, but leave William Paley, a figure of fun to the scientific world for more than a century, still in the tournament with a chance of being the ultimate winner. atheists Fred Hoyle and Chandra Wickramasinghe.
I will lay it on the line -- there is not one such transition fossil for which one could make a watertight argument. atheist Colin Patterson
The extreme rarity of transitional forms in the fossil record persists as the trade secret of peleontology. The evolutionary tree that adorn our textbooks have data only at the tips and nodes of their branches, the rest is inference, however reasonable, not the evidence of the fossils. atheist Stephen Jay Gould
Evolutionist David Raup even admits that 120 years after Darwin and with many more fossils that now we have even fewer examples of evolutionary transition than before.
In the famous words of evolutionist Francis Crick, "Yo've got to keep in mind that all of this was not designed." Why must his students keep this in mind?
Darwins's theory is on its deathbed.
Agent,
I am not confused at all. I am using definition in biology and idea of evolution to show evolution contradicts itself logically.
torus,
if your "breed" simply means mate, there is no problem. But if you meant "reproduce", I would like to see an example that A and B can reproduce, B and C can reproduce, but not A and C. Do you have one?
Antony Flew is old and senile...great fabrication for an atheist on damage control. Where is your medical proof about his senility?
Mr. Flew asked for titles of books on Intelligent Design. He wrote Mr. Habermas that he was finding William Dembski's mathematics in The Design Inference over his head but that Michael Behe's Darwin's Black Box is an "incredible book." That title argues that the minimal cellular and biochemical requirements for life display an "irreducible complexity" that cannot be random but must have been designed. In January 2004, Mr. Flew told Mr. Habermas that he had definitely become a theist.
Mr. Habermas says the impact on the atheist movement is similar to what would happen in the evangelical world if Billy Graham or J.I. Packer renounced Christianity. Atheists have gone into damage-control mode, insisting that Mr. Flew is just proposing a hypothesis or that he is accepting only a very minimal God so that the change is no big deal. But, as Mr. Habermas told WORLD, for a leading atheist spokesman to believe in a Creator whom he calls God is a very big deal indeed.
For the 81-year-old Mr. Flew, renouncing his life's work and the reason for his fame is a matter of intellectual honesty. "My whole life has been guided by the principle of Plato's Socrates," he says. "Follow the evidence, wherever it leads."
ProfessorX,
is that all you can do. cite a link and leave? ya, like a BLOG site is a place for science accuracy and has authority in the matter. nice try. people, if you want science use sites like PBS, National geopgrahic, national history museum, etc. Don't go to nonsense like a blog site where someone can purposely mislead.
It's worth noting that the site evoluionfacts.blogspot.com is so full of ignorance and stupidity that anyone would be a fool to rely on it for either facts or reason. There are blatant lies, leaps of poor logic, hilarious videos, and so on. Every single argument there has since been discredited by basic reason.
DARWINISM AND ATHEISM REMAINS UNSCIENTIFIC AND MYTHICAL
http://www.evolutionfacts.blogspot.com
DARWISM AND ATHEISM REMAINS UNSCIENTIFIC AND MYTHICAL
http://www.evolutionfacts.blogspot.com
truthstands,
the way it should be look at is that population groups evolve, not individuals. true individuals in themselves do evolve but they are still part of the same genetic sequence shared amongst the species group and thus are the same species and can interbreed.
I think that's why you were getting confused.
truthstands - you're being dense, things are not so cut and dried. It's possible for A to breed with B and B with C but not A with C. In this case having clear-cut species separation is difficult and your question is moot. The answer to your 1...n-1 question is that the species are groupings, not individuals.
holito8 - I'm sorry you have trouble understanding agentorange's explanations. They're clear to me. Don't feel bad if you can't follow the science, grab a good book on evolution and join the 21st century. Happy to have you here with us.
annieforjesus - it's not a question of "different views", it's a question of fact. You can hold a different view on gravity if you like but I'd suggest you not jump out a building and depend upon it.
Agent,
Please just answer my question. Suppose a group of individuals (name them A1) in species A at generation 0 evolved to species B at generation n. Suppose no other species come from A. The question is, WHICH SPECIES do A1's DESCEDANTS at 1~n-1 belong to?
holito8,
well if it wasn’t evolution but quantum mechanics it would quasi hocus pocus to me as well =), so don’t worry we're all ignorant of things to some degree.
truth,
Well with population A1 being now B and not other species diverging from A, it’s basically a 1 to 1 whole sale change from an ancestral species to a new one. If no other species diverge from that A branch, then the only ancestor could be A to begin with. Perhaps I am not following your example. perhaps articulate your question.
It is really a sad state of affairs, when man can no longer hold differing views and respect others inspite of holding differing views; and that a Professor should lose his position or not be promoted due to that; well I would not want to attend that University.
I am so tired of this debate, any human being that denies their Creator is lost!
Agent,
Maybe I did make my question clear. Let me state it this way: Suppose a group of individuals (name them A1) in species A at generation 0 evolved to species B at generation n. Suppose no other species come from A. The question is, which spceies do A1's descedants at 1~n-1 belong to?
agentorange, since you are going to talk about hocus pocus and potions, you've reached a brick wall. But don't let that stop you...I know it will not.
truthstands,
I apologize for not making it easy to understand, pick up a book on evolution, specifically paleontology and biology and read up on it, it’s not something that can be spoon fed so easily. It’s like trying to teach calculus, but more complex.
“Now let's just focus on the first question. Suppose as you said only group A1 in A at generation 0 evolved to B at generation n. The question still holds, which spceies do A1 at 1~n-1 belong to?”
Their membership to which species they belong to is contingent on if they can produce viable offspring. There has to be a new generation for evolution to occur, so it would be generation 1 at the very least and not generation 0 at the point of speciation. If they have already diverged into different species then they are no longer A and A1 but A and B populations.
To have both A and A1 in the same group at generation 0 means they are the same species. If A and A1 diverge enough A1 will become B, while A (the original population) will still remain. Thus a ‘Y’ like divergence where the ancestral population remains around even though a new group has evolved. This is also found in the fossils we find as many of them overlap, while live in parallel periods and identical locations, while other locations only 1 species population is found.
"agentorange, you are wrong those only theories. Theories are not proof only conjecture. Those transistional fossil are replicas of what they thought existed that is not proof."
Well the evidence supports the theories of divergence, or descent with modification. it's not my fault you thought evolution meant a whole of a group with another group, that's not what it suggests at all. The genetics also shows divergence and not a t 1 for 1 type replacement as you thought, so DNA is wrong now too?
and those fossils aren't replicas. go to a musuem and see them for yourself first hand, or pick up a book on paleontolgy and see them.
Agent,
You stated a lot but didn't answer my questions. Now let's just focus on the first question. Suppose as you said only group A1 in A at generation 0 evolved to B at generation n. The question still holds, which spceies do A1 at 1~n-1 belong to?
agentorange, you are wrong those only theories. Theories are not proof only conjecture. Those transistional fossil are replicas of what they thought existed that is not proof.
”My second question is, why all the so-called "links" extincted while species at both ends survive?”
Consider the description I gave earlier with group A diverging (note: not a whole 1 for 1 exchange in groups) for group B via isolated genetic drifting. Think of this like a ‘Y’ when a single group diverges, it’s not a full exchange. As opposed to a liner step ladder like an ‘I’ where one group becomes another, this is a common misconception. With this in mind we now have two species groups and one can go extinct and not affect the other, this is what we see with the fossils.
“They should adapt the enviorment better than the one they are supposed to evolve from according to evolution, right? “
A species group that becomes physically isolated, say on an island, or other physical constraints like tectonic plate shifting for the long term will force a previously homogenous species to become genetically separated and undergo their own unique mutations that are unique to that habitat. Each will have a different habitat and this involves different preferred traits in response. Even species that migrate and move on their own will in time become less homogenous and you’ll have an original species group diverge. This divergence doesn’t incorporate all members of the original group, but just an isolated population of the original group.
“The only answer is they are just different species if such fossils exist.”
Well I agree, , homo habilis, homo ergaster, homo erectus, homo heidelbergensis, homo Neandethalensis and so on are different species, within the Genus ‘homo. They are by fossil and DNA analysis more similar to us than an extant (living) primate. Both us (H.Sapiens0 and Homo Neanderthalensis were direct descendants from homo heidelbergensis. Although neanderthalensis appeared first and later only in Europe, isreal and not too much eastward of Russia, the heidelbergensis populations that remained in Africa again become isolated and diverged into Sapiens. The Sapiens group about 60,000 YO moved out of Africa, eastward to India, austrialia, while around 40,000 YO moved north to inhabit Europe. At the same time 40,000 YO both sapiens and Neanderthals were living in Europe, but about 23,000 YO all Neanderthals were gone, we out competed them, starved them of resources, habitat, and won out.
Truth,
“Now, my first question is, suppose B comes from A and no other species in between, that is, species A at generation 0, gradually evolve, then at generation n, species B comes.’
This isn’t quite how it works, just b/c A over generations diverged and became B doesn’t mean some of A isn’t still around. Within evolution a given population doesn’t undergo a wholesale A to B type of transfer, rather a isolated group within A will become genetically isolated, begin to under go it’s own group of mutations while the original A group also undergoes it’s own mutilations.
As one of those genetically isolated groups become too genetically dissimilar to produce viable offspring they are a new species (this you pointed out) and their relative evolutionary trajectories will go on their own routes. From this perspective both A and B exist at the same time but they go on their own evolutionary relative paths. Evolution isn’t at the species level isn’t a 1 for 1 group exchange, but a branching out of a group, which leads to other species which from this divergence become too genetically dissimilar and can’t interbreed with the original A group and go down their own evolutionary trajectory with their own mutations, own relative genetic diversity and so on.
This is why both A and B could exist at the same time, both are independent of each other after the speciation occurs. Sometimes a newer species will inhabit the same habitat and overtime out compete the former close relative group, again though this isn’t a straight 1:1 group for group transfer.
I'll address the other 1 in a min, sorry I am busy.
Agent,
The widely accepted definition of species (of those sexually reproduce)is as following. The individuals within a species can reproduce while they cannot reproduce with those in another species. And if a and b can reproduce, we say they are in same species.
According to evolution, species gradually evolve. That means, if B are evolved from A, that is after many generations.
Now, my first question is, suppose B comes from A and no other species in between, that is, species A at generation 0, gradually evolve, then at generation n, species B comes. The question is, which species do generation 1~n-1 belong to? They should belong to either A or B. The problem is, if they belong to A, that means, individuals at generation n-1 give birth to a new species B; if they belong to B, that means, generation 0 give birth to a new species B. Both cases are ridiculous contradict to evolution theory.
My second question is, why all the so-called "links" extincted while species at both ends survive? They should adapt the enviorment better than the one they are supposed to evolve from according to evolution, right? The only answer is they are just different species if such fossils exist.
"I knew I could rely on you because you already hold to the beleif that a life form can turn into another."
just google 'observed speciation' period.
or go here- www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-speciation.html
Faith,
“Since you didn't offer any evidence against my cat having puppies I take it you are with me.”
Pay attention holito8, this is an example of a complete misunderstanding of biology and genetics at work.
Firstly, cats can’t in a single generation give birth to an entirely different species, like a dog. This is isn’t at all what evolution predicts or suggests we should find in the fossil record at all. Rather is suggests that we should find (if evolution is true) intermediates between very similar groups of species according to their taxonomy, genetics and so on.
‘With the evidence of the cat and puppies we will win in court and be able to teach it to the little children in the schools.”
No, you won’t. Both the Cat and the puppies have genes which shows heredity and will show if such a thing happened, the genes can be observed and tested to know how close their relationship is (think big paternity test).
I am guessing Faith that you also asert evolutoin is just a 'theory' and with out the foggiest idea of what a theory means in the context of science, am I right?
holito8,
‘There are MANY transitional fossils”
Yes, there are. Many advocates for ID, Simmons, ignore or are ignorant of them. Research them.
”Now I've taking many classes in biology in college and I have yet to see them.”
Haa, well that’s b/c biology is mostly on living systems, while Paleontolgy is the realm of science that deals with dead organisms (systems) and so that branch is the one you should look into to get up to speed on such fossils and their details.
“So please tell me where to find them. And I would like it proven beyond a shadow of a doutb they are real.’
Go to a museum, like NHS, or any other reputable main city museum (obviously not the creation ‘museum’ in KY) but real science based museums. many have websites that people can use for virtual tours, happy hunting.
Or, go to places like Borders, Barnes and Noble and other book stores, or even online (amazon.com) where you can see the photos for yourself in peer reviewed published articles, books and so on.
Refer to the links I gave below just to get an idea of hominid and whale fossils, both are good examples of transitionals from species to species and a collective progression.
Any questions?
holito8 -
Google is your friend.
There are MANY transitional fossils.
Now I've taking many classes in biology in college and I have yet to see them. So please tell me where to find them. And I would like it proven beyond a shadow of a doutb they are real.
torrus
Since you didn't offer any evidence against my cat having puppies I take it you are with me. We found them in the laudry room. My theory is that there was some kind of electrical spark that produced the cat because we didn't have one before and since dogs are more dominant than cats, it had puppies instead of kittens. I know that there are some gaps, like how did the cat get pregnant and of course I wasn't actually there when she gave birth but we have all the evidence we need with the cat and the puppies. I am going to load them up and head for the courts. The only thing they can come against us with is common sense (which we need to figure out where that came from...on our next project). With the evidence of the cat and puppies we will win in court and be able to teach it to the little children in the schools. If anyone comes against us with any other explanation of how the cat and puppies got here we will discredit them with our evidence.{never mind the gaps) And if other sceintist or biologist try to prove it wrong by probeing into other areas besides ours we will deny them tenure and have them fired. I knew I could rely on you because you already hold to the beleif that a life form can turn into another.
Your new 6th grade friend.
Holito8 -
Wrote:
"They sounds as far fetched as a house that burned was never there. They existed for a short time... a micro second? You honestly want people to believe a species evolved so fast that there wasn't enough time for fossils to be left."
I never said that. Think before you act the fool. There are MANY transitional fossils. Get that? They DO EXIST. The point is that they are obviously more rare than those for species which existed for a long time. If the basic math (simple ratios are...simple) doesn't make sense then there's no hope for you and I won't waste my time trying to educate you.
holito8,
"They sounds as far fetched as a house that burned was never there. They existed for a short time... a micro second? You honestly want people to believe a species evolved so fast that there wasn't enough time for fossils to be left. Illogical or logically foolish. Gone in 60 seconds.... "
Most species are around for many 10,000 of years, however natural fossilization is quite rare. So rare tht by in large we wont many fossils for most species that ever existed. It’s not illogical, you’re just not considering how rare natural fossilization really is.
If you want whale transitionals here you go. www.talkorigins.org/features/whales/
Plenty of other sources can be found though on PBS, national geographic and other reputable sources.
here's some from a theistic evolution site
http://www.theistic-evolution.com/transitional.html
this ones better though,
www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/section1.html
www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/images/hominids2.jpg
That since these species only existed for short times and since the chances of creatures being fossilized is small to begin with it logically follows that transitional fossils will be very rare indeed. They do exist of course.
They sounds as far fetched as a house that burned was never there. They existed for a short time... a micro second? You honestly want people to believe a species evolved so fast that there wasn't enough time for fossils to be left. Illogical or logically foolish. Gone in 60 seconds....
These comments have been saved and will be reposted as often as necessary if they are censored.
HAWK49,
"Antony Flew, former world famous atheist turned deist, is a perfect example of the direction ID can take somebody. At least he was intellectually honest and admitted macro evolution is a baseless theory."
Flew is very old and senile, but I doubt you're being honest about what he said about evolution. Let's see some references. Otherwise I'm going to have to conclude you're making things up. In any case, there's no such thing as a baseless scientific theory. You don't know what a scientific theory is. Look it up.
"The darwinian theory is on its deathbed."
On its deathbed? I'm trying to figure out if you're uneducated, or dishonest, or both. It's very obvious you know nothing about science, but you have insulted the hard work of tens of thousands of scientists.
"pales against the evidence for Intelligent Design."
First, let's get something understood about intelligent design. It's magic. It's not necessary to say anything else about ID. Invoking ID is equal to invoking magic.
Evidence for intelligent design magic? Let's have it. There is none.
"Macro Evolution that is the myth as it is not supported by evidence (only conclusions based on weak assumptions)"
More ignorance or dishonesty or both.
Evolution, whether the creationist calls it micro or macro, uses the same mechanisms including natural selection and genetic drift. I recently read what some scientist (Science Avenger) said about this common misconception (dishonesty?) that creationists have repeated thousands of times. I will quote him here (I hope he doesn't mind).
"The only difference between microevolution and macroevolution is time. The mechanisms are exactly the same. Creationists imply there is some sort of genetic limit or barrier that keeps the genotype of a species fixed within some range, but have never offerred even a speck of evidence for such a thing, or how it would work. It's just something they made up because macroevolution disturbs their religious sensibilities with regard to the biblical concept of 'kinds'."
He also talked about the creationists' total ignorance (dishonesty?) about fossils.
"Thousands have been found, it's hardly a secret. How did you miss all the hubbub about Tiktaalik? Not only is it a good transitional form between fish and tetrapods (4-legged critters), but the scientists found it EXACTLY where they expected to, you know, based on all those goofy dating methods creos love to whine about."
HAWK49, Before you continue spreading lies about evolution, educate yourself about the DNA analysis you know nothing about. Get your information from real scientists instead of professional liars for Jesus. If you don't want to educate yourself, then you're a complete waste of time.
Chris333 -
One sensible suggestion for the lack of many transitional fossils was given by Darwin himself: That since these species only existed for short times and since the chances of creatures being fossilized is small to begin with it logically follows that transitional fossils will be very rare indeed. They do exist of course.
faithbytheword -
Back to junior high school.
Hawk49 -
There is lots of evidence for macroevolution. Do a google search and follow some of the scientifically sound links. Look at the evidence. If you find a problem with the evidence please don't hesitate to report back to me.
According to Charles Darwin’s theory of evolution, all species have gone through evolution. Someone please help me, my brain has went lame. If all or even a vast majority of the species have went thru evolution, I’m suppose to be believe there is no evidence. If a house burns down, there is evidence it was there.
Ifeelfine,
"every fossil is a transitory fossil. Just look it up. "
This is shear assumption. For instance if I die today, tomorrow you will say my body was transistory in becoming a new life form. Well isn't that nice. Darwin was quite clear about what he expected to happen in the fossil record, once more discoveries were made, and he placed his bets that these "inbetween" fossils would appear. Well they didn't, and evolutionists cannot just say, "Well they ALL are" That sounds like wishful thinking.
Micro evolution is a theory that is supported by lots of evidence. Even IDers and Creationists agree with that aspect of evolution. Its Macro Evolution that is the myth as it is not supported by evidence (only conclusions based on weak assumptions) and pales against the evidence for Intelligent Design. The darwinian theory is on its deathbed.
By the way, ID only points to a god that created life, not the Biblical God. Antony Flew, former world famous atheist turned deist, is a perfect example of the direction ID can take somebody. At least he was intellectually honest and admitted macro evoltion is a baseless theory. Dr Dean Kenyon did the same thing along with most of the other IDers. In fact, all IDers are not creationists and don't acknowledge the Intelligent Designer as the God of the Bible.
Chris333 - every fossil is a transitory fossil. Just look it up.
Torrus,
How is that idiotic? Do you have proof that my cat didn't have these puppies? I have massive proof that she did, like her and the puppiess.
Torus,
Fossils are relatively rare, however we do have an abundance of fossils, and still few if any transistory fossils.
faithbytheword -
It's apparent you don't know the first thing about evolution or fossils. Fossils are hard to find because the conditions have to be right - the wikipedia article has a good summary, under "Rarity of Fossils". Beyond that, educate yourself before making such idiotic statements as "hey everybody...my cat just had puppies", which makes you out to be a fool.
Don’t worry about me, everybody, I’m being quite well looked after at the Discovery Institute’s ‘Center for Science and Culture’, where they’ve made me a senior fellow!
I really like it here. Everyone is super nice to me. Unlike those logic and reasony-types back at ISU, they seem really happy when I answer a difficult question about science with “God did it?”. They say “well done” but remind me to make sure I say “intelligent designer” instead of “God” when I’m being listened to by normal people… just in case.
I’ve written it on my arm to make sure I don’t forget.
seedplanter: "meta-Darwinism"
Have you ever in your life read anything about science that wasn't written by a god-soaked fake scientist?
DanS: "I was incarcerated for my Christian faith and tortured for 10 days, 40 years ago... IN SIDE the United States!"
I don't believe it. I never saw anything more dishonest. You got any evidence?
In a country that's infested with Christians your were tortured for being a Christian. Baloney. Pure dishonesty.
Hey everybody...my cat just had puppies.
torus
If all living things have evolved from different forms, and we have an extensive fossil record, then we should have tons of proof that evolution is true right? I mean if a fish evolved into a bird and this was done over time and we know that all things are born and then die latter then there should be tons of the mid evolved fossil in the record right ? Unless the fish fully evolved into a bird before it died. Where are all these fossils? You say there is a ton of evidence supporting evolution where is it?
Torus,
I agree, and you are right (in the one post you said to me), but they did not even give him a fair trial. It seems like ISU is a totalitarian institute.
Seedplanter wrote:
"I agree and this is exactly what methodological naturalistic evolution does! It assumes that it can fill the gaps"
Do you realize that since it was postulated, the theory of evolution has been refined and in fact still is being refined? As the years go by, evidence either supports or adjusts it. At present there is no evidence which contradicts the theory as a whole. Do you get that? Absolutely no evidence which suggests that the general statements which evolution makes are incorrect. The supporting evidence is, however, truly massive.
As a result of this overwhelming evidence it makes sense to keep using that theory as guidance. Given that overwhelming evidence any alternate suggestions for any gaps must be really, really good.
As I've said, anyone is free to suggest gap-filling pseudo-science as much as he wishes but until evidence is presented, these suggestions belong outside of the mainstream. No such evidence has ever held up to even passing scrutiny.
torus: "However the fact that there are unanswered questions is not justification for trying to fill in the holes with pseudo-science..."
I agree and this is exactly what methodological naturalistic evolution does! It assumes that it can fill the gaps, even though there is a growing trend toward meta-Darwinism do to its failure of explaining power.
This anti-religious bigotry and oppression has been going on in America for the past 50 years. I was incarcerated for my Christian faith and tortured for 10 days, 40 years ago... IN SIDE the United States! The secularist academic establishment is vicious! Always watch your back.
Hawk49 -
You are comparing apples and oranges. Evolution is a theory with lots of evidence. The fact that there are still unanswered questions is not denied by anyone, this is why it's still studied vigorously and critically.
However the fact that there are unanswered questions is not justification for trying to fill in the holes with pseudo-science, which is exactly what ID attempts to do. ID is not science, it is gibberish. Now, you or Gonzales or anyone can postulate such rubbish all you want but it does not belong in a reputable academic institution any more than astrology does.
Amen - take religion out of govt schools, including the religion of Humanism and its belief system fiounded on the myth of macro-evolution.
The NAS defines evolution as evolution by natural selection and claims that “[t]here is no scientific controversy about the basic facts of evolution,” asserting that evolution is “so well established that no new evidence is likely to alter” it. In doing so, the NAS treats Neo-Darwinian evolution like an unquestionable dogma, not like a science. Such proclamations from the NAS are dangerous because they threaten the prestige of the NAS as an objective and trustworthy voice advising society.
Moreover, the NAS’s claim that there is no controversy over evolution is a bluff, for there is significant scientific dissent from the view of evolution by natural selection. Leading biologist Lynn Margulis, who opposes ID, criticizes the standard Darwinian mechanism by stating that the “Darwinian claim to explain all of evolution is a popular half-truth whose lack of explicative power is compensated for only by the religious ferocity of its rhetoric." She further observes that “new mutations don’t create new species; they create offspring that are impaired.” In 2001, biochemist Franklin Harold admitted in an Oxford University Press monograph that "there are presently no detailed Darwinian accounts of the evolution of any biochemical or cellular system, only a variety of wishful speculations.” Other scientists have gone much further.
Over 700 doctoral scientists have signed a public statement asserting their agreement that they "are skeptical of claims for the ability of random mutation and natural selection to account for the complexity of life." But what are these scientists to do when the top scientific organization in the U.S. proclaims that evolution is as unquestionable as the existence of atoms or the heliocentric model of the solar system? Clearly the NAS’s statements threaten the academic freedom of scientists to dissent from Neo-Darwinian evolution.
crickets: "All it is is theory [evolution]"
All it is a theory? I would say you dont know what a theory is.
Here are two examples that seem to explain things pretty well:
General Relativity- explains gravity, seems to work. ........Oh its only a theory ....LOL
Quantim Mechanics- explains nature on an atomic level. Its what makes medical MRI's & cell phone's possible,.........Oh its only a theory.....LOL
.
may I suggest you read up on what a theory is and the scientific method.
crickets -
Not fear, more like embarrassment. The ID case has essentially been settled, it is not science. Consequently no university with a grain of sense and/or dignity wants it as part of its program except perhaps in the philosophy department along with dowsing, astrology and wicca.
chris333 -
The problem is that people who work at university X and publish things gain credence from being associated to X. If X wishes to keep some semblance of academic integrity it is necessary to make certain choices about who to hire. In this case ISU does not want its good name backing up the pseudo-scientific mumbo jumbo which Gonzales is purveying.
I see FEAR here. What are you afraid of? Afraid ID will prove to be right after all?
It surely makes more sense. It is my understanding that even Darwin reneged on
his own theory later in his life. All it is is theory
chris: "I will have to ask you what passages of scripture they used to support this? "
I dont know the passages, but as part of the Jim Crow South, they claim to have used Biblical passages to justify segregation. In the U.S. Supreme Court, BJ argued that the University met all other criteria for tax-exempt status and that the school's racial discrimination was based on sincerely held religious beliefs, they argued that "God intended segregation of the races and that the Scriptures forbid interracial marriage." I do not kow what passsages they used, the fact of the matter is they did say segregation was justified Biblically,true or not.
"What does Bob Jones have to do with this article?"
An earlier post brought up BJU, so I thought I would mention the history of racism at BJU as point of interest. Also the aforementioned lawsuit brought by the government on BJU was a big factor in the religious-right becoming politcally active in the Republican Party which has lead to attempting to get creationism & ID taught in the science class room and the intrusion of religion in government and the courts.
chris: "I do not know what religious right you are talking about, but I don't think many of them hold this view."
what I mean by religious-right, are US Christians that attempt to impose, through the legislative process, religion into government, schools and the courts.
Also citsonga, I do not know what religious right you are talking about, but I don't think many of them hold this view.
Dr. Gonzales has more than 60 publications - try getting a paper published if the editor or reviewers do not agree with you point of view. It is not an objective process. More intelligent design scientist don't publish because they are blocked out of the traditional process - just like get tenure at a university.
Oh get off yourselves all you people who are against Gonzales gaining tenure. He is going for a job as a teacher of astronomy and physics, not biology. This is clearly a case of shear discrimination. Iowa is not an atheist school, nor is it a Christian school, it should just give tenure based upon merits.
Citsonga,
" The view held of many of the religious-right, that God intended segregation of the races and that the Scriptures forbid interracial marriage. they argued that the government revoking their tax exempt status was religious persecution and discrimination. The discrimination part is rather comical in that, thats exactly what they were doing. "
I will have to ask you what passages of scripture they used to support this? What does Bob Jones have to do with this article? And what does your accusations of false Christians have to do with anything?
HampsteadPete: "Just curious, I wonder how long an evolutionist would last at Bob Jones. About ten minutes, I'll bet?
Yes indeed.
bob jones also has a lnog history of racial discrimination. They used biblical passages to justify keeping blacks from attending BJU. It wasn't until they were sued by the government to eliminate their tax exempt status did they reversed their discrimination against blacks. In fact it was these lawsuits against BJU that started the religious-right movement into politics. The view held of many of the religious-right, that God intended segregation of the races and that the Scriptures forbid interracial marriage. they argued that the government revoking their tax exempt status was religious persecution and discrimination. The discrimination part is rather comical in that, thats exactly what they were doing.
karl : "Evolutionists are bluffing when they say their beliefs are scientific. "
Bluffing? what does that mean. Your post is a bit silly.
Karl - The debate you point to is trash.
1. http://richarddawkins.net/article,119,Why-I-Wont-Debate-Creationists,Richard-Dawkins
2. http://pharyngula.org/index/weblog/comments/mastropaolo_gets_in_the_actbut_then_he_always_does/
Among others. Dr. Mastropaolo (PhD in ... kinesiology?) is simply looking for and not deserving of attention.
Evolutionists are bluffing when they say their beliefs are scientific. Be sure to look at the list of evolutionists who refuse the debate challenge from Dr. Joseph Mastropaolo. See the list at http://www.lifescienceprize.org/
Just curious, I wonder how long an evolutionist would last at Bob Jones? About ten minutes, I'll bet.
Peddle your foolishness to your own kids, stay the heck out of the public school system, and the legitimate universities.
torus:
"The department at ISU was clearly embarrassed. Intelligent design is not science any more than astrology is science and as such ISU does not want such a person wielding pseudo-science backed up by ISU's good name."
Very well stated. Perhaps he should stick to the Discovery Institute, they would love him there.
HyperionOverseer:
"blasted bureaucrats like this will burn in hell in the end."
Is that what gets you up in the morning, "knowing" that people that disagree with your brand of religious dogma will burn for an eternity.. You and your like are very scary
And persecution of true "free thinkers" and the enforcement of secular-dogma in academia goes on...
I like how people flag things here they disagree with. It speaks volumes.
The department at ISU was clearly embarrassed. Intelligent design is not science any more than astrology is science and as such ISU does not want such a person wielding pseudo-science backed up by ISU's good name.
seedplanter; There is another excellent movie coming out shortly and will open at major movie theaters. I believe you won't want to miss this one:
Q: At bottom, what’s really going on here [closed mindedness at ISU]? What is the relevance for those who don’t live in Iowa, or don’t follow developments in astronomy, or who might suspect this is just one isolated case, nothing to get excited about?
A: First, this is not an isolated case. In Spring, 2008, actor Ben Stein will be bringing out his documentary film Expelled (www.expelledthemovie.com), which tells the story of other scientists whose work has been shut down for questioning materialist assumptions, or merely for allowing others to question those assumptions. The film tells several stories including Dr. Gonzales’ but focuses primarily on Dr. Richard Sternberg. (Dr. Sternberg was subjected to harassment, discrimination, and demotion at the Smithsonian Institution because he edited an article by another scholar who questioned Darwinian evolution as an adequate explanation for the origin and history of life and supported intelligent design.) Second, these cases illustrate a much wider conflict going on in the culture. It’s a confrontation between rival worldviews. On one side there is dogmatic, totalitarian secularism. On the other, an embattled minority in the world of science and ideas who raise questions about the secularist creation myth: Darwinian evolution. Scientists and other scholars who support intelligent design or question parts of Darwinism only want a fair and open debate, a chance to present their ideas unhindered by threats or intimidation, whether open or concealed.
It does appear that ID is legitamate science regardless of what the critics want to believe and foolishly proclaim from the rooftops:
PEER-REVIEWED & PEER-EDITED SCIENTIFIC PUBLICATIONS SUPPORTING THE THEORY OF INTELLIGENT DESIGN (ANNOTATED)
By: Staff
Discovery Institute
July 1, 2007
Editors's Note: Critics of intelligent design often claim that design advocates don’t publish their work in appropriate scientific literature. For example, Barbara Forrest, a philosophy professor at Southeastern Louisiana University, was quoted in USA Today (March 25, 2005) that design theorists “aren’t published because they don’t have scientific data.”
Other critics have made the more specific claim that design advocates do not publish their works in peer-reviewed scientific journals—as if such journals represented the only avenue of legitimate scientific publication. In fact, scientists routinely publish their work in peer-reviewed scientific journals, in peer-reviewed scientific books, in scientific anthologies and conference proceedings (edited by their scientific peers), and in trade presses. Some of the most important and groundbreaking work in the history of science was first published not in scientific journal articles but in scientific books—including Copernicus’ De Revolutionibus, Newton’s Principia, and Darwin’s Origin of Species (the latter of which was published in a prominent British trade press and was not peer-reviewed in the modern sense of the term). In any case, the scientists who advocate the theory of intelligent design have published their work in a variety of appropriate technical venues, including peer-reviewed scientific journals, peer-reviewed scientific books (some in mainstream university presses), trade presses, peer-edited scientific anthologies, peer-edited scientific conference proceedings and peer-reviewed philosophy of science journals and books.
seedplanter;
thanks, I would like to see The Privelieged Planet also. It does sound fascinating.
If you look at Dr Gonzales record of publication, it is head and shoulders above any other professor in his department. ISU denial of his tenure is just the same bigoted attack on a faith that is different from the one the University expounds we see across the country. There is no room for truth in our world - not when you can get your way by bullying people.
I love how these articles don't even pretend like they're trying to be objective. All you get is Gonzalez complaining through the whole friggin essay—not a single statement or quotation is offered in defense of the Board's decision. What a JOKE of a journalist you are Katherine T. Phan.
blasted bureaucrats like this will burn in hell in the end.
He deserves tenure, Intellegent Design is actually more valid than the scientific model currently presented!
Thanks for the post Hawk, very interesting! Very interesting indeed!
I have been interested in Gonzalez’s video adaptation of The Priviledged Planet, but have not had the chance to check it out as of yet.
Fifth, the secret e-mails demonstrate that Gonzalez’s colleagues were motivated much less by their scientific judgment than by worries that their personal and departmental prestige would suffer as a result of protecting Gonzalez’s right to academic freedom. Indeed, they privately desired that Gonzalez would know “that this is not a friendly place for him to develop further his IDeas” and thus hoped “He may look for a better place as a result.”
Sixth, if such discrimination was appropriate, ethical, and legal, why did the faculty conduct their persecution of Gonzalez in secret, meanwhile concocting a ludicrous cover-up having to do with his scholarly productivity? Clearly, university official knew they were doing something wrong. Otherwise they all would have owned up honestly to their motivations.
Q: As part of the standard tenure process, didn’t Dr. Gonzalez’s department seek outside scientists to evaluate his fitness for tenure? If so, what did they say?
A: The department did indeed appoint outside reviewers to evaluate Dr. Gonzalez as a candidate. Of those who gave clear recommendations, two-thirds strongly supported his tenure promotion. As one of his external reviewers (whose advice ISU ignored) stated, “Dr. Gonzalez is eminently qualified for the promotion according to your guidelines of excellence in scholarship and exhibiting a potential for national distinction.” In other words, Dr. Gonzalez’s colleagues simply ignored the recommendations of the decisive majority of the outside reviewers they themselves had appointed!
Q: ISU claims that it declined to offer Gonzalez tenure because of a disappointing record of publications and obtaining grants. Is there any truth in these claims?
A: No. If you look through the record of emails among his colleagues, you won’t find them grousing about how Guillermo doesn’t publish enough or doesn’t get enough grants. On the contrary, key measures of productivity show that Gonzalez was more productive as a scholar during probationary period at ISU than any of the tenured faculty who voted against his tenure. No other tenured ISU astronomer besides Gonzalez co-authored a textbook with Cambridge University Press during that time. Moreover, his department’s tenure requirements do not even list grants as one of the criteria evaluated for tenure applicants. Instead, the official tenure standards emphasized the candidate’s publication record. On that score, Gonzalez published over 350 percent more peer-reviewed scientific articles than the number required by his department to “ordinarily” demonstrate excellence in research.
Gonzalez 2004 book "The Privileged Planet" was preceded by a book written in 1908 by John Phin, "The evolution of the atmosphere as a proof of design and purpose..." which discussed the "...intelligent and controlling design in the earliest stages of the development of this planet..." Gonzalez was not the first Christian apologist to point this out.
ISU decided Gonzalez was simply NOT "an outstanding scientist who is a leader in his field..." - his publications were down after coming to ISU, his funding of new projects was negligible, he had essentially no success with graduate students - and the only book he published was a religious apologia with the Name of the Creator left out. (Intelligent design creationists try very hard to follow the party line that they not mention who their "intelligent designer" actually is in public.) This will be particularly interesting if Gonzalez tries to claim religious discrimination.