Remember, normal text is copied from Evolution 101 by the Understanding Evolution team! (Milwaukee’s #1 News Team) http://evolution.berkeley.edu/
BOLD font is me, Rent A Friend 2000, being Bold.
The big issues
A page from Darwin’s notebook. [Editor’s Note: Believe it or not, this is in English. And that may be the worst drawing of a giraffe I have ever seen.]
All available evidence supports the central conclusions of evolutionary theory, that life on Earth has evolved and that species share common ancestors.
Give them a break. They haven’t read my critique yet. Or anything Answers in Genesis has put out in the past thirty years. I guess they were too busy getting their PhD’s to find out about any of the available evidence which DOESN’T support the central conclusions of evolutionary theory. But I hope YOU have seen how NONE of the available evidence supports the evolutionary theory, and in fact how it opposes it at every turn. Weren’t you taking notes? I’ve been taking notes. I’m taking notes right now in case I say something brilliant.
Biologists are not arguing about these conclusions.
It’s funny how they used the word “Biologists” to mean, “evolutionists.” Did these guys not have a dictionary? I expect not, otherwise they would be able to define the word “evolution.” (note to self- get Understanding Evolution Team! a dictionary for Darwin Day). Or perhaps they live in such a tiny evolutionary bubble that they have never heard of Michael Behe, Steve Austin, or Dr Dwane Gish, or all of the scientists on this list who are arguing AGAINST their conclusions:
and the scientists on this one:
But they are trying to figure out how evolution happens, and that’s not an easy job. It involves collecting data, proposing hypotheses, creating models, and evaluating other scientists’ work. These are all activities that we can, and should, hold up to our checklist and ask the question: are they doing science?
Have I answered this question already? I think I have.
All sciences ask questions about the natural world, propose explanations in terms of natural processes, and evaluate these explanations using evidence from the natural world.
Can you feel how much they REALLY want to say “Scientists do not accept any supernatural ANYTHING!!!”? They want it so bad they can taste it. They used the word NATURAL three times in one sentence. Who talks like that? But to show you they aren’t alone, here’s Dr Scott Todd, an immunologist at Kansas State University:
‘Even if all the data point to an intelligent designer, such an hypothesis is excluded from science because it is not naturalistic.’
-correspondence to Nature, 30 Sept. 1999.
So, there is a conclusion which SCIENCE is NOT ALLOWED to reach, even if ALL Of the evidence supports it, namely, God. But surely it’s because SCIENCE has proven this anti-SuperNatural worldview, right? Think again:
“It is not that the methods and institutions of science somehow compel us to accept a material explanation of the phenomenal world, but, on the contrary, that we are forced by our a priori adherence to material causes to create an apparatus of investigation and a set of concepts that produce material explanations, no matter how counter-intuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is an absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door.”
-Richard Lewontin, Billions and billions of demons, The New York Review, p. 31, 9 January 1997.
Remind me again, what is the definition of “blind religious faith”? Because I suspect it might be different than the definition of “Observational Science.” A blind faith in a godless universe is still a faith, and not a reasonable faith.
Evolutionary biology is no exception.
Except for the fact that Evolution violates the laws of thermodynamics and biogenesis, and any information sciences, and the fact that it is not based on any observable evidence. Otherwise, yeah, it’s all natural, natural and natural.
I mean, “science.”
Darwin’s basic conception of evolutionary change and diversification (illustrated with a page from his notebook at left) explains many observations in terms of natural processes and is supported by evidence from the natural world.
Did I miss it? Because I read their whole web page here and I saw NO evidence from the NATURAL world. I did see hypothetical examples, guesswork, speculation, and conclusions which could not possibly be derived from the observations, and lots of phrases like “Probably,” and “We can’t be sure”.
I would suggest that, if there was evidence which supported it, the Understanding Evolution Team! should have listed some on this web site. But that’s just me. I don’t want to tell them how to do their jobs.
Join me next week for part 20B.