"...What about evolution? It certainly has the function of knowledge but has it conveyed any?...It is true, evolution does not convey any knowledge, or if so, I haven't yet heard it."
-Dr. Colin Patterson, PhD - Paleontology
Thursday, January 31, 2008
Wednesday, January 30, 2008
Appearing suddenly, disappearing abruptly
"Each species of mammal-like reptile that has been found appears suddenly in the fossil record and is not preceded by the species that is directly ancestral to it. It disappears some time later, equally abruptly, without leaving a directly descended species." [ New Scientist vol. 93 No. 1295, The Reptiles that became Mammals, by Tom Kemp, March 4, 1982, p. 581.]
Labels:
creation,
evolution,
intelligent design,
natural selection
Tuesday, January 29, 2008
The Trilobite Eye
"Although extinct now, the trilobite nevertheless speaks to us today concerning ingenious design and purposiveness in nature. Unlike the lens of a human eye, which is composed of living, organic tissues, trilobite eyes were composed of inorganic calcite. Consequently, many trilobite lenses have been preserved in the fossil record allowing paleontologists to study them. What they have discovered is truly impressive.
Unlike human eyes which are composed of a single lens, trilobite eyes have a very special double lens design with anywhere from 100 to 15,000 lenses in each eye, depending on the subspecies. This special design allowed the trilobites to see underwater perfectly, without distortion. Implicit knowledge of Abbe’s Sine Law, Fermat’s Principle, and various other principles of optics are inherent in the design of these lenses. They appear to have been carefully designed by a very knowledgeable physicist, and indeed, the creationist would agree---they were!”
(Scott M. Huse, “The Collapse of Evolution, p. 27)
Unlike human eyes which are composed of a single lens, trilobite eyes have a very special double lens design with anywhere from 100 to 15,000 lenses in each eye, depending on the subspecies. This special design allowed the trilobites to see underwater perfectly, without distortion. Implicit knowledge of Abbe’s Sine Law, Fermat’s Principle, and various other principles of optics are inherent in the design of these lenses. They appear to have been carefully designed by a very knowledgeable physicist, and indeed, the creationist would agree---they were!”
(Scott M. Huse, “The Collapse of Evolution, p. 27)
Monday, January 28, 2008
Denying the obvious
"Biologists must constantly keep in mind that what they see was not designed but rather evolved." - Francis Crick, Nobel Prize winner, "What Mad Pursuit", 1988 p. 138.
Labels:
creation,
evolution,
intelligent design,
natural selection
Sunday, January 27, 2008
An honest quote
"An honest man, armed with all the knowledge available to us now, could only state that in some sense, the origin of life appears at the moment to be almost a miracle."
- Francis Crick, Nobel Prize winner, "Life Itself: Its Origin and Nature", 1981 (p. 88)
- Francis Crick, Nobel Prize winner, "Life Itself: Its Origin and Nature", 1981 (p. 88)
Labels:
creation,
evolution,
intelligent design,
natural selection
Saturday, January 26, 2008
Unfalsifiable
"Some evolutionary biologists are of the opinion that it is not necessarily the fittest that survive through the evolutionary process, but those that are best adapted to the requirements of evolution. Others have emphasized that survival of the organism is not as important as its fecundity. In both cases the problem of predictability remains. In a symposium volume celebrating 100 years of Darwinism the prominent geneticist Waddington (1960, p. 385) evaluates the matter of fecundity. He states:
Natural selection, which was at first considered as though it were a hypothesis that was in need of experimental or observational confirmation, turns out on closer inspection to be a tautology, a statement of inevitable although previously unrecognized relation. It states that the fittest individuals in a population (defined as those which leave most offspring) will leave most offspring.
Another problem associated with the untestability of evolutionary theory is that the theory explains too much. Grene (1959) points out that "whatever might at first sight appear as evidence against the theory is assimilated by redefinition into the theory." Evolutionary theory is broad enough to accommodate almost any data that may be applied. Two ecologists Birch and Ehrlich (1967) emphasize this. They state:
Our theory of evolution has become, as Popper described, one which cannot be refuted by any possible observations. Every conceivable observation can be fitted into it. It is thus 'outside of empirical science' but not necessarily false. No one can think of ways in which to test it.
No matter what is observed, there usually is an appropriate evolutionary explanation for it. If an organ or organism develops, it has positive survival value; if it degenerates, it has negative survival value. If a complex biological system appears suddenly, it is due to preadaptation. "Living fossils" (contemporary representatives of organisms expected to be extinct) survive because the environment did not change. If the environment changes and an evolutionary lineage survives, it is due to adaptation. If the lineage dies, it is because the environment changed too much, etc. Hence the concept cannot be falsified. Platnick (1977) states that this type of situation "makes of evolutionary biologists spinners of tales, bedtime storytellers, instead of empirical investigators."
(Ariel A. Roth, 'DOES EVOLUTION QUALIFY AS A SCIENTIFIC PRINCIPLE?'
from: http://www.grisda.org/origins/04004.htm )
Natural selection, which was at first considered as though it were a hypothesis that was in need of experimental or observational confirmation, turns out on closer inspection to be a tautology, a statement of inevitable although previously unrecognized relation. It states that the fittest individuals in a population (defined as those which leave most offspring) will leave most offspring.
Another problem associated with the untestability of evolutionary theory is that the theory explains too much. Grene (1959) points out that "whatever might at first sight appear as evidence against the theory is assimilated by redefinition into the theory." Evolutionary theory is broad enough to accommodate almost any data that may be applied. Two ecologists Birch and Ehrlich (1967) emphasize this. They state:
Our theory of evolution has become, as Popper described, one which cannot be refuted by any possible observations. Every conceivable observation can be fitted into it. It is thus 'outside of empirical science' but not necessarily false. No one can think of ways in which to test it.
No matter what is observed, there usually is an appropriate evolutionary explanation for it. If an organ or organism develops, it has positive survival value; if it degenerates, it has negative survival value. If a complex biological system appears suddenly, it is due to preadaptation. "Living fossils" (contemporary representatives of organisms expected to be extinct) survive because the environment did not change. If the environment changes and an evolutionary lineage survives, it is due to adaptation. If the lineage dies, it is because the environment changed too much, etc. Hence the concept cannot be falsified. Platnick (1977) states that this type of situation "makes of evolutionary biologists spinners of tales, bedtime storytellers, instead of empirical investigators."
(Ariel A. Roth, 'DOES EVOLUTION QUALIFY AS A SCIENTIFIC PRINCIPLE?'
from: http://www.grisda.org/origins/04004.htm )
Friday, January 25, 2008
A theory in conflict
"The explanatory doctrines of biological evolution do not stand up to an objective, in-depth criticism. They prove to be either in conflict with reality or else incapable of solving the major problems involved."
(Pierre-P. Grasse', Evolution of Living Organisms [New York: Academic Press, 1977], p. 202)
(Pierre-P. Grasse', Evolution of Living Organisms [New York: Academic Press, 1977], p. 202)
Labels:
creation,
evolution,
intelligent design,
natural selection
Thursday, January 24, 2008
A theory of desperation
"Evolutionary theory has been enshrined as the centerpiece of our educational system, and elaborate walls have been erected around it to protect it from unnecessary abuse. - - What the 'record' shows is nearly a century of fudging and finagling by scientists attempting to force various fossil morsels and fragments to conform with Darwin's notions, all to no avail. Today the millions of fossils stand as very visible, ever-present reminders of the paltriness of the arguments and the overall shabbiness of the theory that marches under the banner of evolution."
(Jeremy Rifkin, Algeny [New York: Viking Press, 1983], pp. 112, 125)
(Jeremy Rifkin, Algeny [New York: Viking Press, 1983], pp. 112, 125)
Labels:
creation,
evolution,
intelligent design,
natural selection
Wednesday, January 23, 2008
Acceptance despite evidence
"The theory of evolution is universally accepted not because it can be proved by logical, coherent evidence to be true, but because the only alternative, special creation, is clearly incredible!"
(D.M.S. Watson, Scientist)
(D.M.S. Watson, Scientist)
Labels:
creation,
evolution,
intelligent design,
natural selection
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
