Charles Darwin zealots have made science a substitute religion

Christopher Booker is troubled by the fervour surrounding the 200-year anniversary of Charles Darwin’s birth.

By Christopher Booker
Published: 5:09PM GMT 07 Feb 2009

Charles Darwin

Darwinians refuse to accept how much they don’t know Photo: PA

As councils ran out of the grit they had failed to stockpile because they fell for the Government line that climate change made it unnecessary, Britain was last week doubly-carpeted, partly by snow, partly by a blizzard of tributes to Charles Darwin. What did these have in common? In contrast to the centenary of Darwin’s death 26 years ago, what has been noticeable about this homage, not least on the BBC, is how relentlessly reverential it has been.

One would never have guessed from the adulation heaped on the great man by the likes of Sir David Attenborough that there is something very odd about Darwin’s theory. He did not, of course, originate the idea that life on earth had evolved. This notion went back to the ancient Greeks, and was accepted by many of Darwin’s predecessors, including his own grandfather Erasmus. The novelty of Darwin’s thesis was his claim that evolution could be explained solely by the process of natural selection, whereby an infinite series of minute variations gradually turned one form of life into another.

One great stumbling block to his argument is that evolution has repeatedly taken place in leaps forward so sudden and so complex that they could not possibly have been accounted for by the gradual process he suggested – “the Cambrian explosion” of new life forms, the complexities of the eye, the post-Cretaceous explosion of mammals. Again and again some new development emerged which required a whole mass of interdependent changes to take place simultaneously, such as the transformation of reptiles into feathered, hollow-boned and warm-blooded birds.

Years ago, a good illustration of this was Attenborough himself claiming to ‘prove’ Darwin’s theory by showing us a mouse and a bat, explaining how one evolved into the other. He seemed oblivious to the obvious point that, as the mouse’s forelegs evolved by minute variations to wings, there must have been a long period when the creature, no longer with properly functioning legs but as yet unable to fly, was much less ‘adapted to survive’ than it had been before.

As even Darwin himself acknowledged, these jumps in the story might have seemed to render his thesis â absurd’. He might therefore have recognised that some other critically important but unknown factor seemed to be at work, an â organising power’ which had allowed these otherwise inexplicable leaps to take place. But so possessed was he by the simplicity of his theory that, brushing such difficulties aside, he made a leap of faith that it must be right, regardless of the evidence. In this he has been followed by generations of ‘Darwinians’ who have found his theory so beguiling that, like him, they have refused to recognise how much it cannot explain.

What is fascinating about the Darwinians is their inability to accept just how much they do not know. Armoured in their certainty that they have all the answers when they so obviously don’t, neo-Darwinians such as Richard Dawkins rest their beliefs just as much on an unscientific leap of faith as the â Creationists’ they so fanatically affect to despise. It is revealing how they dismissively try to equate all those scientists who argue for ‘intelligent design’ with Biblical fundamentalists, as their only way to cope with questions they cannot answer.

Something strikingly similar has been taking place over the belief that the world is dangerously warming, due to the rise in man-made CO2. For a time the believers in this theory seemed to have the evidence on their side, as CO2 levels and temperatures rose in apparent harmony. But lately all sorts of evidence has been put forward by serious scientists to suggest that this theory is seriously flawed, not least the fact that recently falling temperatures were not predicted by any of those computer models on which the advocates of global warming rest their beliefs.

It becomes increasingly obvious that, like the Darwinians, the warming supporters are so convinced by the simplicity of their theory that they are unable to recognise how much they do not know – and like the Darwinians their response has been to become ever more fanatically intolerant of anyone who dares question their dogma. This might not matter so much if they hadn’t, on the basis of their faith, persuaded so many of the world’s politicians to propose measures which threaten to inflict a real economic disaster on the world.

At the end of David Attenborough’s tribute to Darwin last week, he showed the staff of the Natural History Museum reverentially moving the statue of Darwin into pride of place amid the Gothic columns of the Dinosaur Hall, like the altar of a cathedral. It has replaced the statue of Richard Owen, the great 19th century biologist who not only created the museum and coined the term â dinosaur’, but on purely scientific grounds was one of Darwin’s most trenchant critics. Seeing him replaced by Darwin is a warning of what happens when science ceases to be scientific and becomes a substitute religion. The symbolism of the change is more perfect than its perpetrators know.

Gill and Harry entangled in a southern scandal

There has been a hilarious twist to the bid by the shock troops of the global warming scare to pretend that, contrary to all the evidence, Antarctica has lately been warming up, Behind this claim were scientists belonging to America’s leading pro-warmist blog RealClimate, including Michael Mann, creator of the notorious â hockey stick’ graph, and Dr James Hansen’s colleague Gavin Schmidt of the Goddard Institute for Space Studies.

When their allies at Nature made a cover story of their claims, this hit headlines across the world, trumpeted by all the usual suspects, from the BBC to the Guardian’s George Monbiot (aka the Great Moonbat). But they hadn’t reckoned with the forensic expertise of the two leading US science blogs, Anthony Watts’s Watts Up With That and Climate Audit, run by Steve McIntyre, the chief demolisher of the â hockey stick’.

Combing through the data they discovered that the chief evidence for a warming Antarctica came from a single weather station, ‘Harry’. But the data for ‘Harry’ was not all it seemed. Secretly spliced in with it were lower temperature readings from a quite different weather station, ‘Gill’, so that the higher and later temperatures from ‘Harry’ (cocooned for several years in snow) made it look as though there had been a warming which didn’t exist.

So embarrassed was Schmidt when this sleight of hand was exposed that he pretended it had come to light through an ‘independent’ observer, who was then revealed to be himself (after reading the blogs run by his more assiduous critics). But perhaps Nature, Moonbat and Co. should apologise to their readers for having been fooled by such chicanery.

A long overdue goodbye to Iraq

Following the election victory of Iraq’s prime minister Nouri al-Maliki, whose forces last year liberated Basra from the insurgent militias, Major-General Andy Salmon, the British commander in southern Iraq, declared that this met Gordon Brown’s goals for removing Britain’s 4,000 troops from Iraq by the end of July’. The general seems to have forgotten that Maliki was so angry at how the British handed over Basra to the insurgents in 2007 that before Christmas he contemptuously asked us to leave Iraq as soon as possible, Mr Brown and Army commanders may wish to hide from us just how humiliating our failure in Iraq has been. But it has not escaped the notice of our Iraqi and American allies.

Deep trouble

As usual there has been a striking contrast in reporting on the â snow event’ between the BBC and the rest of us. BBC employees have religiously stuck to the politically correct script by describing snow-depths only in centimetres. But when members of the public are interviewed they cheerfully measure it in feet and inches. One exception was the BBC girl in Kent on the morning it began who, after describing how snow had ‘fallen heavily’ through the night, was so taken aback by the sight of all that white stuff she blurted out that it was ‘two inches’ deep. We must hope that, unlike Carol Thatcher, she keeps her job.

More on

Advertisements

About defendtheword

To contact us please send e-mail to defend.theword@ntlworld.com
This entry was posted in Apologetics, Atheism, Christ, Christianity, Church, Church History, Discernment, Evangelism, Evolution, Faith, God, Jesus, News, Photography, Prayer, Prophecy, Religion, Theology. Bookmark the permalink.

10 Responses to Charles Darwin zealots have made science a substitute religion

  1. misunderstoodranter says:

    Evolution is a theory, an awful lot of it is backed up by sciences from other fields – such as chemistry and in recent times it has been scrutinised by academics trying to find major problems with it. The problems that have been found are still open for debate – this is how science works.

    The trouble with ID people is that god is there safety net – we can’t explain it so god did it.

    Science doesn’t discount god totally, it sees god as a possibility, but before it defaults to that opinion, it thinks all the other earthly reasons why creation and life could have occurred and tests them first.

    The ID way of doing things is just to accept that god did it – and possibly learn how he may have done it – this is not science, because it assumes the end result, before all the other theories have been exhausted – by its nature it is ignorant, because it discounts all the other reasons for purpose or existence on the basis of the concept of a god that was probably someone else’s idea, and can not in its self be tested.

    When scientists claimed that they had performed cold fusion in a test tube, people celebrated, it was all over the world – but some parts of the scientific community were anxious to play the results of the experiment down until the experiment had been proven and tested – i.e. the lab, the method and the results scrutinised and repeated. On close examination of the cold fusion experiment mistakes were found and unsurprisingly the results of the experiment could not be repeated. Now non scientists see this as a failure – but true scientists don’t they see it as proof that the scientific method worked – it validated a claim, and the result of that validation was the claim was not true.

    The scientists (Martin Fleischmann and Stanley Pons) ruined their careers by making this claim without validating and ensuring that their tests were repeatable – some say this is because they were under media pressure to make the claim public – as a consequence some scientists have avoided getting involved with this theory at all – many in the scientific community think this is the dark side of science – and I agree it breeds ignorance, but this ignorance is not science, it is business and commercial pressure enforced ignorance – where the people who hold the purse strings have the ability to hold back an achievement – I think there may be something in Martin Fleischmann and Stanley Pons experiment – there are certainly things about the experiment that have not been fully explored and one day they may both be vindicated. I know that interest in their experiment is again gaining some momentum – by scientists who have learnt from their mistakes and are applying an improved methodology to their thinking.

    Many non-scientists think that science is a set of big achievements – when actually it is a set of many mistakes, refinements and hours of boring analytical auditing work.

    Just like the people who built the atomic bomb didn’t wake up and know exactly how to do it, Darwin didn’t wake up with his theory all planned out – it took him his life’s work to collect samples, and examine each one and find comparison – and he documented this processes meticulously by human standards. The reason Darwin is celebrated is because in the face of religious zealots he persisted to gather information at the peril of being outcast by a highly religious society (Victorians were still god fearing people). Richard Owen, wouldn’t accept Darwin’s findings – not because he had looked at them and come to a conclusion that they were wrong, but because the theory put doubt in people’s mind about their origin according to the bible. In addition, Owen was jealous of Darwin – many others were, Darwin had hit a nerve in society, he had made people think and this had made him famous. Darwin’s book was talked about and Owen’s own ideas on evolution were left in the shadows.

    Church leaders argued with the origin of the species they said it was out write wrong that we had not descended from monkeys and were not related to other life forms – but the evidence in DNA now supports Darwin’s view – and thankfully the scientific methodology has supported a theory, it is not perfect – but it is better than holding one bible above all others and claiming that book is the absolute truth over all other books.

    Science doesn’t have all the answers, and science probably never will, but it does have a proven method for finding out facts – the judge of science is often left to the conscience of society – and I for one am pleased that Darwin’s bust has replaced Owen’s – as it is a symbolisation that intellectuality honest people, can triumph over bigotry, jealousy and arrogance – don;t forget in Darwin’s time – he was the underdog – people laughed at him, the religious community closed ranks on him, like bullies on a play ground.

    One day Darwin’s bust may be replaced by another scientist who opened his mind and made new discovery.

  2. [“Evolution is a theory, an awful lot of it is backed up by sciences from other fields – such as chemistry and in recent times it has been scrutinised by academics trying to find major problems with it. The problems that have been found are still open for debate – this is how science works. The trouble with ID people is that god is there safety net – we can’t explain it so god did it. Science doesn’t discount god totally, it sees god as a possibility, but before it defaults to that opinion, it thinks all the other earthly reasons why creation and life could have occurred and tests them first.”]

    If only people like Richard Dawkins thought the same, problem is that many “scientists” are biased from start, they have been indoctrinated that bad boys of creationism are after them, (There is some truth in this) however reason and logic dictates that regardless of whether or not you agree with the opposition you should consider their propositions. Secondly scrutiny of Evolution does not unfortunately happen in fact whenever there is a problem the answer is we don’t know but one day we hope to find the answer to that question. And this happens over and over again.

    [“The ID way of doing things is just to accept that god did it – and possibly learn how he may have done it – this is not science, because it assumes the end result, before all the other theories have been exhausted – by its nature it is ignorant, because it discounts all the other reasons for purpose or existence on the basis of the concept of a god that was probably someone else’s idea, and can not in its self be tested.”]

    This is not strictly true, in fact ID as you will find in their own “manifesto” say that they are only saying that there is a original force, starting designer, never will they mention name God so much so that even Alien force is consider as one of the options. They do tend to work on reconstructing rather than forecasting which is how scientists prefer to work today on theories like Evolution. So problem of methodology is an issue but information and observations are still part and parcel of the process that is still part of what ID scientist do.

    [“When scientists claimed that they had performed cold fusion in a test tube, people celebrated, it was all over the world – but some parts of the scientific community were anxious to play the results of the experiment down until the experiment had been proven and tested – i.e. the lab, the method and the results scrutinised and repeated. On close examination of the cold fusion experiment mistakes were found and unsurprisingly the results of the experiment could not be repeated. Now non scientists see this as a failure – but true scientists don’t they see it as proof that the scientific method worked – it validated a claim, and the result of that validation was the claim was not true.”]

    Cold fusion is not disproved, problem is that it requires more energy then it gives out, so it is not economically viable option.

    [“The scientists (Martin Fleischmann and Stanley Pons) ruined their careers by making this claim without validating and ensuring that their tests were repeatable – some say this is because they were under media pressure to make the claim public – as a consequence some scientists have avoided getting involved with this theory at all – many in the scientific community think this is the dark side of science – and I agree it breeds ignorance, but this ignorance is not science, it is business and commercial pressure enforced ignorance – where the people who hold the purse strings have the ability to hold back an achievement – I think there may be something in Martin Fleischmann and Stanley Pons experiment – there are certainly things about the experiment that have not been fully explored and one day they may both be vindicated. I know that interest in their experiment is again gaining some momentum – by scientists who have learnt from their mistakes and are applying an improved methodology to their thinking.”]

    Your point about the pressures that scientist face today is 100% correct and I have no objections at all you bring valid point here.

    [“Many non-scientists think that science is a set of big achievements – when actually it is a set of many mistakes, refinements and hours of boring analytical auditing work. Just like the people who built the atomic bomb didn’t wake up and know exactly how to do it, Darwin didn’t wake up with his theory all planned out – it took him his life’s work to collect samples, and examine each one and find comparison – and he documented this processes meticulously by human standards. The reason Darwin is celebrated is because in the face of religious zealots he persisted to gather information at the peril of being outcast by a highly religious society (Victorians were still god fearing people). Richard Owen, wouldn’t accept Darwin’s findings – not because he had looked at them and come to a conclusion that they were wrong, but because the theory put doubt in people’s mind about their origin according to the bible. In addition, Owen was jealous of Darwin – many others were, Darwin had hit a nerve in society, he had made people think and this had made him famous. Darwin’s book was talked about and Owen’s own ideas on evolution were left in the shadows.”]

    First as per the article, remember that Darwin was not the originator of the theory but propagator and give possible explanation. This is something as a nation we need to be reminded of. We are so proud of our Brutishness that we so desperately want Darwin to be the one who open the eyes to the rest of the world. Unfortunately with America who loves all things British bays into this simplistic and ignorant proposition. Darwin himself was aware that there were huge issues with his theory and this is why he was hesitant to go anywhere with it. It is funny that that the founder of the museum and prominent scientist is replaced and you approve of it dismissing all the marvellous things he has done for our country. Remember that the National History Museum has contributed greatly to furthering of science in this country yet this is the thanks that Richard Owen gets people making unsubstantiated claims that he was jealous. This is like me saying to you that you are jealous of me and this is why we disagree so much. It just does not make sense to me.

    [“Church leaders argued with the origin of the species they said it was out write wrong that we had not descended from monkeys and were not related to other life forms – but the evidence in DNA now supports Darwin’s view – and thankfully the scientific methodology has supported a theory, it is not perfect – but it is better than holding one bible above all others and claiming that book is the absolute truth over all other books.”]

    I would shy away from simply using DNA as that way we end up related to all kinds of vegetables. What I find with DNA is, that one and the same designer was responsible and by changing it slightly made great variety of creatures that inhabit this earth. As for the Bible point Christians could rightly raise the Bible and say God did it through the process of evolution one does not exclude the other. That is only in the mind of people like Richard Dawkins. Funny how they tell Christians not to be too literalist in their interpretation but when it suits them they like to use literal interpretation to argue God out of our world views.

    [“Science doesn’t have all the answers, and science probably never will, but it does have a proven method for finding out facts – the judge of science is often left to the conscience of society – and I for one am pleased that Darwin’s bust has replaced Owen’s – as it is a symbolisation that intellectuality honest people, can triumph over bigotry, jealousy and arrogance – don;t forget in Darwin’s time – he was the underdog – people laughed at him, the religious community closed ranks on him, like bullies on a play ground.”]

    I’m glad that you find something that brings you joy but for me I’m ashamed that we neglect our greats and founders of our scientific collection models for the sake of people we have no way of verifying if their proposition is true.

    [“One day Darwin’s bust may be replaced by another
    scientist who opened his mind and made new discovery.”]

    I have no doubt that if humanity continues to exist, if we don’t kill each other, that there would be enough data and time, which will clearly point to the impossibility of proving this theory. Last year prominent scientist and evolutionist commented that Human evolution is complete and that we will not see any further changes to humanity, which made me laugh, this is brilliant way of saying don’t hold us accountable if there are no further observations to our evolution.

    One thing is for sure, and yes I agree with you as more data is made available answer will become clearer.

    Defend the word

  3. misunderstoodranter says:

    “Human evolution is complete and that we will not see any further changes to humanity, which made me laugh, this is brilliant way of saying don’t hold us accountable if there are no further observations to our evolution.”

    I don’t believe that either – humans are evolving all the time – if you do not believe me, go to a museum and try on the clothes from 1800s or so …. will they fit you? Pick an army officers uniform – someone who would have been big and strong – will it fit you? I doubt it – not unless you are very small by modern standards. Try on their shoes, will they fit you?

    Now some of the size issue is down to better diet for sure – but the increased intake in food, isn’t just fat, it is bone – people are taller and wider – the doors in our houses are made higher now that they were in typical houses say 300 or 400 years ago. The human body is an amazing thing it can adapt pretty quickly and is still adapting to its environment.

    The inability to digest milk (lactase deficiency) is normal in mammals, including humans. Following infancy (around 2 – 5 years for humans), the ability to produce the lactase enzyme, and therefore digest milk sugars (lactose), is lost. This is often termed lactose intolerance, a condition which leads to excess gas production and often diarrhea. Interestingly, although most human populations can’t digest milk (90% of the world, or more – see discussion in), a quick survey of a room full of adults in South Africa will show that many more are able to drink milk than we might expect. Why is this? In some populations that have a long history of dairy farming, the ability to digest milk has been retained into adulthood, through the evolutionary force of natural selection, as milk is a major nutritional source for these people. This is the case for the herders who inhabited regions of South Africa for much of the Holocene – the last 10,000 years. It is also true for other groups in Africa such as the Fulani of east Africa, and many northern European populations.. Therefore, the fact that many South African adults can digest milk tells us something about the recent evolutionary history of South Africans – that many of us had ancestors, whether from Africa or Europe or other places – who were pastoralists.”

  4. [“I don’t believe that either – humans are evolving all the time – if you do not believe me, go to a museum and try on the clothes from 1800s or so …. will they fit you? Pick an army officers uniform – someone who would have been big and strong – will it fit you? I doubt it – not unless you are very small by modern standards. Try on their shoes, will they fit you? Now some of the size issue is down to better diet for sure – but the increased intake in food, isn’t just fat, it is bone – people are taller and wider – the doors in our houses are made higher now that they were in typical houses say 300 or 400 years ago. The human body is an amazing thing it can adapt pretty quickly and is still adapting to its environment.”]

    You have answered your own proposition here, by saying “human body is an amazing thing it can adopt pretty quickly …to its environment”.

    What you are saying is that we witness Micro evolution not MACRO evolution. What you should also note is that the armoury and weapons used at the time are so heavy that you and I would struggle to lift them up let alone used them to fight each other.

    Their strength was amazing there are skeletons that are cut in half from top to bottom. This was only possible with single strike with the sward and that means amazing strength and skill, lastly we have also archaeological evidence that height was variable according to the regions. And yes food plays massive part in particular early days of human development. If your nutrition was right as a child likelihood is that you would be tall strong and healthier as adult.

    [“The inability to digest milk (lactase deficiency) is normal in mammals, including humans. Following infancy (around 2 – 5 years for humans), the ability to produce the lactase enzyme, and therefore digest milk sugars (lactose), is lost. This is often termed lactose intolerance, a condition which leads to excess gas production and often diarrhea. Interestingly, although most human populations can’t digest milk (90% of the world, or more – see discussion in), a quick survey of a room full of adults in South Africa will show that many more are able to drink milk than we might expect. Why is this? In some populations that have a long history of dairy farming, the ability to digest milk has been retained into adulthood, through the evolutionary force of natural selection, as milk is a major nutritional source for these people. This is the case for the herders who inhabited regions of South Africa for much of the Holocene – the last 10,000 years. It is also true for other groups in Africa such as the Fulani of east Africa, and many northern European populations.. Therefore, the fact that many South African adults can digest milk tells us something about the recent evolutionary history of South Africans – that many of us had ancestors, whether from Africa or Europe or other places – who were pastoralists.”]

    Thanks for your quote I have included another quote for you but neither of those answer our question as to why did the fish decide to live the ocean and become mammal? Quote is from Medical source blog:

    http://www.medicinenet.com/lactose_intolerance/article.htm

    Developmental causes of lactose intolerance
    The most common cause of lactase deficiency is a decrease in the amount of lactase that occurs after childhood and persists into adulthood, referred to as adult-type hypolactasia. This decrease is genetically programmed, and the prevalence of this type of lactase deficiency among different ethnic groups is highly variable. Thus, among Asian populations it is almost 100%, among American Indians it is 80%, and among blacks it is 70%; however, among American Caucasians the prevalence of lactase deficiency is only 20%. In addition to variability in the prevalence of lactase deficiency, there also is variability in the age at which symptoms of lactose intolerance appear. Thus, among Asian populations, the symptoms of deficiency (intolerance) occur around the age of 5, among Blacks and Mexican-Americans by the age of 10, and among the Finnish by age 20.

    It is important to emphasize that lactase deficiency is not the same as lactose intolerance. Persons with milder deficiencies of lactase often have no symptoms after the ingestion of milk. For unclear reasons, even persons with moderate deficiencies of lactase may not have symptoms. A diagnosis of lactase deficiency is made when the amount of lactase in the intestine is reduced, but a diagnosis of lactose intolerance is made only when the reduced amount of lactase causes symptoms.

  5. misunderstoodranter says:

    I am glad you liked the quote – as it was an example of evolution in progress.

    Micro / Macro evolution doesn’t exist – there is only evolution – this is where many non scientists get confused – the time lines we are talking about are millennia – a fish didn’t just pop out of the water one day with legs and walk around, it was a set of gradual mutations over millennia, and there are fossils that show this – I have some hanging on my wall.

    There is such a thing as a lungfish – actually there are several fish that can breath air – they probably developed this ability to adapt to the lack of oxygen in water, which can happen during hot days – it is probable that fish developed lungs before they developed legs and became amphibians. Any fish that crawled onto land would have had several advantages – the first is that they could probably find other waters that were either cleaner or had a better supply of food and oxygen – the second is that there probably were not many predators on the land. Don’t forget this is natural selection from generation to generation.

    You know can disregard the fossil record if you want, but it is daft to do so. Unlike the bible the fossil record wasn’t put there by man it wasn’t artificially doctored – it just is. If you don’t believe the literature on it – get a hammer and go dig in somewhere that have lime stone – there are plenty of places in England that you can go on a fossil hunt and I dare say that with some diligence you will find advanced large specimens towards the top of earth’s crust, and evidence of simpler life forms the deeper you go.

    The bible doesn’t mention Neanderthals – yet there is some evidence (although I admit it is limited) that modern man breed with them. There is other evidence that shows that modern man fought them and won.

    And rather amazingly, we have decoded the Neanderthal genome.

    So could Adam and Eve have been a Neanderthal? and if not then why not?

  6. [“Micro / Macro evolution doesn’t exist – there is only evolution – this is where many non scientists get confused – the time lines we are talking about are millennia – a fish didn’t just pop out of the water one day with legs and walk around, it was a set of gradual mutations over millennia, and there are fossils that show this – I have some hanging on my wall. There is such a thing as a lungfish – actually there are several fish that can breath air – they probably developed this ability to adapt to the lack of oxygen in water, which can happen during hot days – it is probable that fish developed lungs before they developed legs and became amphibians. Any fish that crawled onto land would have had several advantages – the first is that they could probably find other waters that were either cleaner or had a better supply of food and oxygen – the second is that there probably were not many predators on the land. Don’t forget this is natural selection from generation to generation.”]

    Well I guess we will disagree on that one, both of us start with our presuppositions and neither of us can say that one overturns the other. But you should note that Evolution only comes out when you are indoctrinated to think in that way.

    Micro evolution is evident, i.e. that within species there will be changes often these are downward trends rather than beneficial gains in information that one would hope for. As for the fish, besides still being fish one could also argue that these could have been pre-programmed designed codes and actions which would make sure its survival was not diminished if left rigidly in its original format. So the possibility of God being involved is still not precluded.

    [“You know can disregard the fossil record if you want, but it is daft to do so. Unlike the bible the fossil record wasn’t put there by man it wasn’t artificially doctored – it just is. If you don’t believe the literature on it – get a hammer and go dig in somewhere that have lime stone – there are plenty of places in England that you can go on a fossil hunt and I dare say that with some diligence you will find advanced large specimens towards the top of earth’s crust, and evidence of simpler life forms the deeper you go.”]

    Well I use to be able to do that in England when I use to live in Brighton but now that I’m in Cardiff I have to limit myself to Welsh beautiful hills. And note that your comments wrongly suggest that Christians would want to ignore fossil record. As Christian and someone who loves to learn I have loved spending time in Natural History Museum in London, difference is I give glory to God for his handy work as you tend to worship Mother Nature and Evolution. Lastly your first point on wanting to imply doctoring of the Bible is unsubstantiated, did you study 7,000 plus manuscripts of the New Testament that we know of today or did you analyse many translations of the Old Testament and look at the comparison of old and newer documents? If you did, you would find that doctoring is only related to clarifications as in when one talks about Jesus and is referring to Jesus as him, then subsequent scribes may have changed it to say Jesus, but you will note that the start of the sentence will always refer as Jesus. So again swiping statements should be carefully thought trough before committing oneself to such judgement.

    [“The bible doesn’t mention Neanderthals – yet there is some evidence (although I admit it is limited) that modern man breed with them. There is other evidence that shows that modern man fought them and won. And rather amazingly, we have decoded the Neanderthal genome. So could Adam and Eve have been a Neanderthal? and if not then why not?”]

    May I point out that jury is still out on this one, there are anthropologists that believe that Neanderthals have interbreed with Humans, there are others who believe that there are no difference between Humans and Neanderthals that these are just mutations that have been recorded to variation of conditions that they operated in. And yes there are others who believe what you propose.

    But interestingly enough there is even possibility that they may not have been related but diversity and multiplicity of organisms was simply so great that these “links” or even long lost relatives or as most recently suggested separately evolved branch of humanoid creatures are just another beings that was on Gods to do list at the time. So no there is no issue here, your suggestion only sidesteps the real issue, which is the fact that we do have life and we do have brains that enable us to understand and analyse these hypotheses.

    Defend the word

  7. misunderstoodranter says:

    [Well I guess we will disagree on that one, both of us start with our presuppositions and neither of us can say that one overturns the other. But you should note that Evolution only comes out when you are indoctrinated to think in that way.]

    Actually I was taught religion first at school, and had more religion than science. I only got interested in evolution by accident and observation – at first I thought it was my idea, and was corrected that someone else had thought of it first… oh the joys of being young.

    [Micro evolution is evident, i.e. that within species there will be changes often these are downward trends rather than beneficial gains in information that one would hope for. As for the fish, besides still being fish one could also argue that these could have been pre-programmed designed codes and actions which would make sure its survival was not diminished if left rigidly in its original format. So the possibility of God being involved is still not precluded.]

    Evolution is evident yes, it is happening all the time – science doesn’t preclude god – it just says it is unlikely in the face of the evidence that we have and the experiments that we have done. As for pre-programming – well yes this is the creationalist view – but until we default to that view, we should test out if it is possible without a design.

    [Lastly your first point on wanting to imply doctoring of the Bible is unsubstantiated, did you study 7,000 plus manuscripts of the New Testament that we know of today or did you analyse many translations of the Old Testament and look at the comparison of old and newer documents? If you did, you would find that doctoring is only related to clarifications as in when one talks about Jesus and is referring to Jesus as him, then subsequent scribes may have changed it to say Jesus, but you will note that the start of the sentence will always refer as Jesus. ]

    First, I am not just talking about the NT – but also the OT, the fact remains that it was man that wrote the bible and like all written documents it is open to corruption and interpretation, for example the Unicorns debate we had (which you put down to translation) – the fossil record is locked in the earth’s crust it doesn’t get translated – it pre-dates modern man and it could not have been altered either intentionally or accidentally – this is strong evidence. If some presented me with a book on fossils and I wanted to check it to verify the claims.

    [May I point out that jury is still out on this one, there are anthropologists that believe that Neanderthals have interbreed with Humans, there are others who believe that there are no difference between Humans and Neanderthals that these are just mutations that have been recorded to variation of conditions that they operated in. And yes there are others who believe what you propose.

    But interestingly enough there is even possibility that they may not have been related but diversity and multiplicity of organisms was simply so great that these “links” or even long lost relatives or as most recently suggested separately evolved branch of humanoid creatures are just another beings that was on Gods to do list at the time. So no there is no issue here, your suggestion only sidesteps the real issue, which is the fact that we do have life and we do have brains that enable us to understand and analyse these hypotheses.]

    It doesn’t really side step it does it – we know Neanderthals existed, we have their bones, and we know they have a different genome – was that genome Adam and Eves or was their genome the one we have?

  8. Sorry but the question is non relevant, Adam and Eve are parents of all humanity so it is you and I that should call him grandpa!

  9. misunderstoodranter says:

    It is relevant because Neanderthals are part of humanity as well – but the bible doesn’t mention this – why?

    The reason why is because Neanderthals pre-date the bible – and the authors of the bible were not aware that they existed – if they knew that they did exist – the authors of the bible would have written it in.

    But they didn’t and what they didn’t know is circumstantial proof that they made an assumption that man was unique – and clearly man was not unique and not made in gods image as the bible suggests.

  10. Just like the theory of Evolution you make gigantic leap of faith here. I give you whole list of possibilities that modern scientist have been thinking of. You just choose to use yours. Yet your evidence is just bunch of bones, they don’t have dates engraved on them and neither do they have part numbers that you could then reassemble and say this is the specimen that belongs here. That is just not being honest.

Comments are closed.