Sterkustu rökin samkvæmt Darwin, falsanir?

Eitt sinn sagði Darwin að teikningar manns að nafni Ernst Haeckel væru sterkustu rökin fyrir kenningu hans. Eftir tíma Darwins þá uppgvötuðu menn að Haeckel hefði falsað teikningarnar og hann var dæmdur af hans eigin starfsbræðrum í Háskólanum Jena fyrir að falsa gögn, sjá: Ernst Haeckel.  Eitt af því skaðlegasta við allt þetta var að sú hugmynd komst á kreik að dýr væru að fara í gegnum sín þróunarstig á fósturskeiðinu og að t.d. væru tálkn fiska að finna í fóstrum manna á ákveðnum stigum ferlisins.  Svo einhverjir fengu þá flugu í kollinn að fóstureyðing væri ekki mikið merkilegra en að drepa fisk.

Almennileg skoðun á hvernig fóstrið vex er best útskýrt með sameiginlegum hönnuði sem notar sömu hönnunar munstur á mismunandi hátt eftir aðstæðum. Þetta er allt betur útskýrt hérna fyrir neðan svo vonandi gefur fólk sér tíma til að lesa þetta með opnum huga.

 

7. Evolving views of embryology.

PBS observes that Darwin boasted that embryology provided "the strongest single class of facts in favor of" his theory of evolution. But Darwin penned those words in the 1860s, and developmental biologists have learned much since that time. In fact, Darwin staked much of his evidential support upon the work of the 19th century embryologist Ernst Haeckel. After Darwin, it was discovered that Haeckel promoted fraudulent data to falsely support vertebrate common ancestry by overstating the similarities between vertebrate embryos in their earliest stages of development.

Haeckel’s infamous embryo drawings obscured the differences between vertebrate embryos in their earliest stages, leading to widespread belief in the false idea that “ontogeny recapitulates phylogeny” (i.e. development replays evolutionary history). The factual data reveal that vertebrate embryos develop very differently from their earliest stages in a pattern that is unexpected if all vertebrates share a common ancestor. Darwin himself was a victim of Haeckel’s fraud, and had Darwin known the truth, perhaps he might never have made the statement that PBS quotes above.

But there are even stronger reasons to understand that modern developmental biology challenges Darwin. Biologists have discovered, as PBS puts it, that “microbes to man … share a common ‘tool kit’ of so-called master genes.” PBS claims this supports Darwinian evolution because living animal groups inherited these genes from a common ancestor. While intelligent design is certainly compatible with common ancestry, PBS ignores the possibility that such recurring fundamental genetic programs across species could also be explained as the result of common design, i.e. the re-usage of genetic programs that fulfill the functional requirements of animal development. Indeed, common design may be the best explanation for the many instances where these master genes control the growth of analogous body parts in widely diverse organisms where it is even not thought that the common ancestor even had the body part in question.

For example, vertebrates, sea urchins, insects, and various other invertebrate groups all use the same regulatory genes to control growth of their widely diverse types of limbs, but it is not thought that their common ancestor had a common limb. Similarly, vertebrates, insects, and jellyfish use similar master control genes to control the development of their widely different eyes, but their alleged common ancestor is not thought to have had a common type of eye. In these cases, living animal groups would NOT be expected to have inherited their genetic “tool kits” from a common ancestor because there is no reason to believe that the common ancestor was using that genetic toolkit for some common body part. As Wolf-Ekkehard Lönnig, plant geneticist at the Max Planck Institute for Genetics writes, "No theorist in evolutionary biology will ever derive chicken and insects from a winged common ancestor, and yet, clearly related sequences are specifically expressed in wing buds and imaginal disks."¹

Darwinists try to resolve such quandaries by appealing to extreme examples of convergent genetic evolution, what one might term genetic predestination. But such examples of extreme convergence strain the credulity of Darwin’s mechanism. Can blind and undirected natural selection cause many animal groups to independently deploy precisely the same genetic toolkits for development? Such a high level of genetic similarity seems highly unlikely to evolve independently numerous times in the history of life.

Reference Cited:
1. Wolf-Ekkehard Lönnig, "Dynamic genomes, morphological stasis, and the origin of irreducible complexity," in Dynamical Genetics pages. 101-119 (Valerio Parisi, Valeria De Fonzo, and Filippo Aluffi-Pentini eds., 2004) (quoting Cohn M.J., and Tickle, C. 1996, Trends Genet. 12, 253-257).

Darwinismi - grundvallaður í vísindum eða studdur af heimspeki

Þetta hefði kannski átt að heita "mislukkuðu spá Darwins númer 5" en þar sem það var að rugla marga í ríminu þá sleppi ég þeim titli. Þetta er sant svar www.judgingpbs.com við darwiniskum áróðri PBS. 

Það sem margir darwinistar neita að sjá eða þræta fyrir eru tengsl darwinisma við guðleysi sem þá tegund af trú. Mjög margir darwinistar hafa opinberlega viðurkennt hvernig hugmyndir Darwins höfðu gífurleg áhrif á trúarhugmyndir almennings þannig að guðleysi jókst enda rökrétt út frá hugmyndafræðinni sjálfri.  Þess vegna virkar það afskaplega kjánalegt að neita þessu. Annað sem kom út frá þessu var sú hugmyndafræði að vísindin gætu ekki innifalið hugmyndina um Guð. Það er að segja að í sköpunarverkinu/raunveruleikanum má ekkert vera útskýrt vegna aðgerða Guðs. Sannleikurinn er sá að ef Guð er til og vísindi skilgreind þannig að Guð er útilokaður þá sitja vísindin eftir sem lygi sem lítið gagn er að.  Greinin fyrir neðan útskýrir þetta miklu betur en:

 

6. Darwinism: grounded in science
or propped by philosophy?

PBS observes that the famous 19th century naturalist, T.H. Huxley, declared that "evolution excludes creation and all other kinds of supernatural intervention." But modern Darwinists have gone much further than Huxley. In Proceedings for the National Academy of Sciences, leading evolutionary biologist Francisco Ayala celebrates that "Darwin’s greatest accomplishment” was to show that the origin of life’s complexity “can be explained as the result of a natural process—natural selection—without any need to resort to a Creator or other external agent."¹

America’s great champion of evolution, the late Stephen Jay Gould, similarly announced that “[b]efore Darwin, we thought that a benevolent God had created us,”² but because of Darwin’s ideas, “biology took away our status as paragons created in the image of God.”³ Richard Dawkins is Oxford University’s Charles Simonyi Professor for the Public Understanding of Science and is probably the most famous evolutionist in the world. Yet Dawkins believes that God is a “delusion” and that "Darwin made it possible to become an intellectually fulfilled atheist.”⁶

Gould's and Dawkins's views are by no means uncommon among leading scientists. A 2007 editorial by the editors of the world's top scientific journal, Nature, stated that "the idea that human minds are the product of evolution" is an "unassailable fact," and thus concluded, "the idea that man was created in the image of God can surely be put aside.”⁴

Also noteworthy is the fact that key public defenders of Darwin involved in the Dover trial who were featured in PBS’s “Judgment Day: Intelligent Design on Trial” documentary have strong ties to secular humanist groups. For example, Eugenie Scott is Executive Director of the National Center for Science Education. She is also a public signer of the Third Humanist Manifesto, an aggressive statement of the humanist agenda to create a world with “without supernaturalism” based upon the view that “[h]umans are… the result of unguided evolutionary change” and the universe is “self-existing.”⁵ Similarly, Dover plaintiffs’ expert Barbara Forrest, also featured in the PBS show, is a long time board member of the New Orleans Secular Humanist Association.

Indeed, PBS-NOVA’s star theistic evolutionary biologist Ken Miller has claimed in five editions of his textbooks that evolution works “without either plan or purpose” and is “random and undirected.”⁷ Two additional editions of Miller’s textbooks state: “Darwin knew that accepting his theory required believing in philosophical materialism, the conviction that matter is the stuff of all existence and that all mental and spiritual phenomena are its by-products.”⁸ Harvard paleontologist and author Richard Lewontin explains how this materialism is an overriding assumption propping Darwinian thought:

"[W]e have a prior commitment … to materialism. 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 … produce material explanations… [T]hat materialism is absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door."⁹

Finally, leading Darwinian philosopher of science Michael Ruse admits that “for many evolutionists, evolution has functioned … akin to being a secular religion” whose main doctrine is “a commitment to a kind of naturalism.”¹⁰ Is it possible that there is more propping up the support of Darwinism than the mere empirical evidence?

References Cited:
1. Francisco J. Ayala, "Darwin’s greatest discovery: Design without designer," Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences USA, Vol. 104:8567–8573 (May 15, 2007) (emphasis added).
2. Stephen Jay Gould, Ever Since Darwin: Reflections in Natural History, page 267 (W.W. Norton, 1977).
3. Stephen Jay Gould, Ever Since Darwin: Reflections in Natural History, page 147 (W.W. Norton, 1977).
4. "Evolution and the brain," Nature, Vol. 447:753 (June 14, 2007).
5. "Humanism and its Aspirations," at http://www.americanhumanist.org/3/HumandItsAspirations.htm.
6. Richard Dawkins, The Blind Watchmaker, page 6 (W. W. Norton, 1986).
7. Kenneth R. Miller & Joseph S. Levine, Biology (1st ed., Prentice Hall, 1991), pg. 658; (2nd ed., Prentice Hall, 1993), pg. 658; (3rd ed., Prentice Hall, 1995), pg. 658; (4th ed., Prentice Hall, 1998), pg. 658; (5th ed. Teachers Ed., Prentice Hall, 2000), pg. 658.
8. Kenneth R. Miller & Joseph S. Levine, Biology: Discovering Life (1st ed., D.C. Heath and Co., 1992), pg. 152; (2nd ed.. D.C. Heath and Co., 1994), p. 161; emphasis in original.
9. Richard Lewontin, "Billions and Billions of Demons," New York Review of Books, page. 28 (January 9, 1997).
10. Michael Ruse, “Nonliteralist Antievolution” AAAS Symposium: “The New Antievolutionism,” February 13, 1993, Boston, MA (1993).

Mislukkuðu spár Darwins - Svarti kassinn

Þegar Darwin var að skoða heiminn í kringum sig þá hafði hann ekki möguleika á því að skoða inn í minnstu einingar lífsins, hvernig mörg prótein mynduðu örsmáar vélar sem vinna síðan saman eins og sjálfstæð verksmiðja. Það er á þessu leveli sem reynir mest á trú darwinista, það er hérna sem staðreyndirnar virkilega reyna á trúna og ég skal viðurkenna það að mín kristna trú virðist vera svo ræfilslega lítil og aumingjaleg við hliðina á trú margra darwinista í þessu máli.  Heimur hinna örsmáu véla í lífverum er einstaklega heillandi og framtíðin mjög spennandi í þeim efnum. Ég vorkenni mínum darwinista vinum þar sem hver uppgvötin á fætur annari sýnir ennþá ótrúlegra lag af flókinni hönnun og alltaf verða darwinískar útskýringar grátbroslegri með tímanum. 

 

5. Opening Darwin’s black box.

“Darwin was ignorant of the reason for variation within a species,” writes Lehigh University biochemist Michael Behe in his book Darwin’s Black Box, “but biochemistry has identified the molecular basis for it.”¹ There were other things that Darwin did not know. For example, Darwin assumed that the cell was like a primitive blob of protoplasm that could easily evolve new biological functions. As Behe explains, “To Darwin, then, as to every other scientist of the time, the cell was a black box. ... The question of how life works was not one that Darwin or his contemporaries could answer.”²

Modern technology has allowed biochemists to open Darwin’s black box, revealing a micro-world of mind-boggling complexity. Even leading proponents of evolution have acknowledged this complexity. Past U.S. National Academy of Sciences President Bruce Alberts has described this complexity in the journal Cell as an elaborate factory: “The entire cell can be viewed as a factory that contains an elaborate network of interlocking assembly lines, each of which is composed of a set of large protein machines.”³

But could such integrated complexity evolve in a stepwise, Darwinian fashion? Behe recalls that in Origin of Species, Darwin admitted that if “any complex organ existed which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down."⁴ According to Behe, “by opening the ultimate black box, the cell,” modern biochemistry “has pushed Darwin’s theory to the limit.”⁵

The simplest cell requires hundreds of genes, numerous complex biological machines and biochemical pathways, and a fully functional genetic code in order to survive. Darwinian evolution – blind natural selection acting on random mutations – has failed to provide Darwinian explanations for how basic cellular biochemistry might have evolved. Five years after Behe published Darwin’s Black Box, biochemist Franklin Harold stated 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.”⁶

Mislukkuðu spár Darwins - Náttúruval

Margir halda að fyrst að náttúruval er raunverulegt afl í náttúrunni að það sanni einhvern veginn darwinisma, að einfaldar sameindir urðu að sjarmerandi bloggurum landsins. Það sem fæstir gera sér grein fyrir er að náttúruval er í eðli sínu eins og delete takkinn á lyklaborðinu eða gæðaeftirlit sem hendir út öllu sem er gallað eða verra en ákveðin staðall. Sem sagt náttúruval er eyðandi afl sem skapar ekki. Hið skapandi afl í darwiniskum fræðum eru tilviljanir, að DNA kóðinn verði fyrir handahófskenndri breytingu og ef breytingin var léleg þá er henni hent.  Til fróðleiks þá var það sköpunarsinninn Edward Blyth sem kom fyrst með hugmyndina um náttúruval og auðvitað tengdi það ekki einhverri ímyndaðri darwiniskri þróun.

Fyrir neðan er greinin. Í von um málefnalega umræðu.

 

3. The role of natural selection in evolution is controversial among scientists.

As noted in the Introduction, PBS asserts that the data “unequivocally” support the view that “[e]volution happens through natural selection.” In this dogmatic statement, PBS has again failed to clearly define “evolution.” If by “evolution,” PBS means that we can observe small-scale changes within species, then no one doubts that natural selection plays a role. But in fact, many scientists have questioned whether natural selection acting upon random mutation is sufficient to generate new species or new complex biological features. As evolutionary scientist Robert L. Carroll queries:

"Can changes in individual characters, such as the relative frequency of genes for light and dark wing color in moths adapting to industrial pollution, simply be multiplied over time to account for the origin of moths and butterflies within insects, the origin of insects from primitive arthropods, or the origin of arthropods from among primitive multicellular organisms? How can we explain the gradual evolution of entirely new structures, like the wings of bats, birds, and butterflies, when the function of a partially evolved wing is almost impossible to conceive?"¹

Leading biologist Lynn Margulis, who opposes ID, also 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.”² She further observes that “new mutations don’t create new species; they create offspring that are impaired.”³

Stanley Salthe, author of an evolutionary biology textbook, proclaims, “I have become an apostate from Darwinian theory and have described it as part of modernism’s origination myth.”⁴ Evolutionary philosopher Jerry Fodor recently wrote that “at a time when the theory of natural selection has become an article of pop culture, it is faced with what may be the most serious challenge it has had so far.”⁵ National Academy of Sciences member Phil Skell also questions the explanatory utility of natural selection:

Natural selection makes humans self-centered and aggressive – except when it makes them altruistic and peaceable. Or natural selection produces virile men who eagerly spread their seed – except when it prefers men who are faithful protectors and providers. When an explanation is so supple that it can explain any behavior, it is difficult to test it experimentally, much less use it as a catalyst for scientific discovery. Darwinian evolution – whatever its other virtues – does not provide a fruitful heuristic in experimental biology.⁶

Indeed, over 700 doctoral scientists have signed a public statement proclaiming their agreement that, "We are skeptical of claims for the ability of random mutation and natural selection to account for the complexity of life."⁷ Yet PBS presents natural selection as the “unequivocally” accepted mechanism of evolution. Clearly there are significant scientific voices who dissent from the Darwinian view. Unfortunately, their voices are left out of PBS’s one-sided discussion of evolution.

 References Cited:
1. Robert Carroll, Patterns and Processes of Vertebrate Evolution, page 9 (Cambridge University Press, 1997).
2. Lynn Margulis & Dorion Sagan, Acquiring Genomes: A Theory of the Origins of the Species, page 29 (Basic Books, 2003).
3. Lynn Margulis quoted in Darry Madden, "UMass Scientist to Lead Debate on Evolutionary Theory," Brattleboro (Vt.) Reformer (Feb 3, 2006).
4. Stanley Salthe ,quoted in Discovery Institute, “40 Texas scientists join growing national list of scientists skeptical of Darwin,” September 5, 2003. Available: http://www.discovery.org/scripts/viewDB/index.php?command=view&id=1555.
5. Jerry Fodor, "Why Pigs Don’t Have Wings," London Review of Books (October 18, 2007) at http://www.lrb.co.uk/v29/n20/fodo01_.html.
6. Philip S. Skell, "Why Do We Invoke Darwin? Evolutionary theory contributes little to experimental biology," The Scientist (August 29, 2005), available at http://www.discovery.org/scripts/viewDB/index.php?command=view&id=2816.
7. See "A Scientific Dissent from Darwinism," at http://www.dissentfromdarwin.org.

  

4. The role of natural selection in evolution is controversial among scientists. (continued)

As discussed in Slide #1, proponents of Darwinism often employ the “Evolution” Bait-and-Switch, using evidence for small-scale changes and then over-extrapolating to claim that such modest evidence proves Darwin’s grander claims. In fact, this is precisely what PBS does in its online materials for “Judgment Day: Intelligent Design on Trial.”

A PBS web slide asserts, “Evolution happens through natural selection,” and then goes on to discuss small-scale changes in the sizes of beaks in finches on the Galapagos Islands as supporting evidence. Such small-scale changes do not demonstrate that natural selection can cause large-scale evolutionary changes, such as the origin of new body plans or perhaps even the origin of new species. In fact, all of the finch species in the Galapagos Islands remain so genetically similar that they can interbreed after millions of years of alleged evolutionary change.

If anything, the Galapagos finches demonstrate the limits of natural selection. Beak sizes increased during a drought, yet when the drought ended, finch-beaks predictably returned to their normal sizes. As biologist Jonathan Wells observes in Icons of Evolution, the bait-and-switch occurs when “evidence for oscillating natural selection in finch beaks is claimed as evidence for the origin of finches in the first place.”¹ Are such Darwinist extrapolations warranted? According to UC Berkeley law professor and Darwin-critic Phillip Johnson, “When our leading scientists have to resort to the sort of distortion that would land a stock promoter in jail, you know they are in trouble.”²

References Cited:
1. Jonathan Wells, Icons of Evolution: Why Much of what we teach about evolution is wrong, page 174 (Regnery, 2000).
2. Phillip Johnson, "The Church of Darwin," The Wall Street Journal (August, 16, 1999).

Mislukkuðu spár Darwins - 2

Kafli tvö frá judgingPBS sem er svar við þeirra darwiniska áróðri. Núna er fjallað um hvernig nýjar upplýsingar hafa kollvarpað hugmyndum manna um heiminn í gegnum söguna og hvernig vísindi eiga að fjalla um öll mál þannig að vísindin eru opin fyrir því að hafa rangt fyrir sér. Þegar Darwin skrifaði sína bók þá sýndi hann töluvert meiri heiðarleika en darwinistar í dag virðast geta gert eins og sést t.d. á þessum orðum hérna:

Charles Darwin
A fair result can be obtained only by fully stating and balancing the facts and arguments on both sides of each question...

En í dag þá fullyrða darwinistar að hitt og þetta í þeirra trú er staðreynd og þeir sem efast um einhver atriði þeirra hugmynda ættu að vera bannfærðir úr heimi vísindanna. Margir benda á Galileo sem dæmi þar sem trúaðir menn voru þrjóskir til að viðurkenna að þeir höfðu rangt fyrir sér en horfa ekki á plankann í þeirra eigin auga. Um leið og það er óvísindalegt að efast um hugmyndir Darwins þá er búið að skaða mögulega vísindalega framþróun því að það á að vera hægt að efast um allt í vísindum. Vísindi snúast ekki um að vera komin með einn sannleika sem má ekki draga í efa heldur að hafa þá afstöðu að þetta er líklegast miðað við gögnin í dag og á morgun gæti allt kollvarpast vegna nýrra uppgvötana.

Fyrir neðan er sjálf greinin sem ég var að fjalla um.

 

2. Following the evidence wherever it leads.

No one doubts that Darwin was a gifted scientist who made careful observations of the natural world. The same could be said for Sir Isaac Newton, an early proponent of intelligent design whose ideas inspired both modern physics and modern science as a whole.

Yet despite the long-lasting success of Newton’s ideas, technological advancements in the early 20th century overturned Newtonian physics and replaced them with Einstein’s theories. If history is to be our guide, science must always be open to following the evidence where it leads, even if that means challenging orthodoxy.

PBS urges viewers to believe that “nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of evolution.” Such a statement reverses the scientific process by putting conclusions ahead of empirical observations of nature. PBS also quotes evolutionary paleontologist Niles Eldredge, stating, "Nothing that we have learned in the intervening 175 years has contravened Darwin's basic description of how natural selection works," and asserting that the data “unequivocally” support Darwin’s view. Such dogmatic statements fly in the face of the scientific spirit, which opposes dogmatic attachments to theories and promises to follow the evidence wherever it may lead.

In 1998, the U.S. National Academy of Sciences printed a guide to teaching evolution that included an essay by the eminent evolutionary biologist Ernst Mayr, which stated: “One of the most characteristic features of science is this openness to challenge. The willingness to abandon a currently accepted belief when a new, better one is proposed is an important demarcation between science and religious dogma.”¹ PBS may claim that evolution is open to scrutiny, but the authoritarian and one-sided treatment of the subject in "Judgment Day: Intelligent Design on Trial" shows that they treat it more like a religious dogma than a science.

Were PBS to promote the tentative, skeptical mindset that underlies all good science, their online materials would have stated, “Nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of the data.”

http://www.judgingpbs.com/dfp-slide2.html

Mislukkuðu spár Darwins - 1

Ef einhver hélt að Nostradamus hefði verið slappur að spá fyrir eða að Völvan léleg að spá um atburði næsta árs þá situr Darwin samt á botninum. Þegar menn koma fram með vísindakenningar þá eiga þær að geta spáð fyrir um eitthvað til að hafa eitthvað gildi fyrir vísindalega þekkingu. Ef síðan spáin rætist þá styrkir það kenninguna ef hún rætist ekki þá veikir það alvarlega kenninguna. Ef Darwin væri á lífi í dag þá vil ég trúa því að hann væri búinn að afskrifa þessa hugmynd sína vegna þess að hún einfaldlega passaði ekki við þær uppgvötanir sem voru gerðar á síðustu öld.

Hérna er fyrsta greinin í röð frá www.judgingpbs.com sem er svar við PBS rökstuðningi við darwinisma og að hann hefði spáð rétt fyrir um ýmsa hluti.  Fyrsta dæmið fjallar um skilgreiningar á hvað þróun er því að hugtakið þýðir mjög mismunandi hluti. Ef þróun er að dýr breytast með tímanum þá er það ekki umdeilt. Ef hugtakið er notað til að fjalla um að einfrömungar urðu að einstaklingum með aðeins tilviljunum og náttúruvali þá er það mjög umdeilt.  Greinin sem fjallar um þetta er hérna fyrir neðan.

 

1. Evolution happens. So what?

PBS confidently instructs us that “evolution happens.” But should that matter? Even Darwin’s scientific critics agree that evolution happens. PBS is introducing equivocation into the discussion by failing to clearly define “evolution.”

Some use “evolution” to refer to something as simple as minor changes within individual species that occur over short periods of time (Evolution #1). Others use the same word to mean something much more far-reaching, such as claiming that all living organisms are descended from a single common ancestor (Evolution #2), or that natural selection has the power to produce all of life’s complexity (Evolution #3). Used one way, “evolution” isn’t controversial at all (i.e. Evolution #1); used another way, it’s hotly debated (i.e. Evolution #2 or Evolution #3). Used equivocally, “evolution” is too imprecise to be useful in a scientific discussion.

When you see the word “evolution,” you should ask yourself, “Which of the three definitions is being used?”

Critics of neo-Darwinism today usually take issue with Evolution #2 or Evolution #3. But the discussion gets confusing when a Darwinist takes evidence for Evolution #1 and tries to make it look like it supports Evolution #2 or Evolution #3. Proponents of Darwinism, including PBS, commonly pull this “Evolution” Bait-and-Switch, using evidence for small-scale changes, such as changes in the sizes of bird beaks (Evolution #1) and then over-extrapolating from such modest evidence to claim that it proves Darwin’s grander claims (Evolution #2 or Evolution #3).

http://www.judgingpbs.com/dfp-slide1.html

Trúin með augum barnanna - alvarlega fyndið

Þetta er brandari sem ég fékk sendann frá vini mínum og því miður er hann á ensku. Þetta eru svör barna við hinum og þessum spurningum úr Nýja og Gamla Testamentinu. Alveg meiriháttar hvað getur komið út úr smá misskilningi eða vegna þess að þau ruglast á orðum.  Njótið! 

PAY SPECIAL ATTENTION TO THE WORDING AND SPELLING. IF YOU KNOW THE BIBLE EVEN A LITTLE, YOU'LL FIND THIS HILARIOUS! IT COMES FROM A CATHOLIC ELEMENTARY SCHOOL TEST. KIDS WERE ASKED QUESTIONS ABOUT THE OLD AND NEW TESTAMENTS. THE FOLLOWING STATEMENTS ABOUT THE BIBLE WERE WRITTEN BY CHILDREN. THEY HAVE NOT BEEN RETOUCHED OR CORRECTED. INCORRECT SPELLING HAS BEEN LEFT IN.

1. IN THE FIRST BOOK OF THE BIBLE, GUINESSIS. GOD GOT TIRED OF CREATING THE WORLD SO HE TOOK THE SABBATH OFF.

2. ADAM AND EVE WERE CREATED FROM AN APPLE TREE. NOAH'S WIFE WAS JOAN OF ARK. NOAH BUILT AND ARK AND THE ANIMALS CAME ON IN PEARS.

3. LOTS WIFE WAS A PILLAR OF SALT DURING THE DAY, BUT A BALL OF FIRE DURING THE NIGHT.

4. THE JEWS WERE A PROUD PEOPLE AND THROUGHOUT HISTORY THEY HAD TROUBLE WITH UNSYMPATHETIC GENITALS.

5. SAMPSON WAS A STRONGMAN WHO LET HIMSELF BE LED ASTRAY BY A JEZEBEL LIKE DELILAH.

6. SAMSON SLAYED THE PHILISTINES WITH THE AXE OF THE APOSTLES.

7. MOSES LED THE JEWS TO THE RED SEA WHERE THEY MADE UNLEAVENED BREAD WHICH IS BREAD WITHOUT ANY INGREDIENTS.

8, THE EGYPTIANS WERE ALL DROWNED IN THE DESSERT. AFTERWARDS, MOSES WENT UP TO MOUNT CYANIDE TO GET THE TEN COMMANDMENTS.

9. THE FIRST COMMANDMENTS WAS WHEN EVE TOLD ADAM TO EAT THE APPLE.

10. THE SEVENTH COMMANDMENT IS THOU SHALT NOT ADMIT ADULTERY.

11. MOSES DIED BEFORE HE EVER REACHED CANADA. THEN JOSHUA LED THE HEBREWS IN THE BATTLE OF GERITOL.

12. THE GREATEST MIRICLE IN THE BIBLE IS WHEN JOSHUA TOLD HIS SON TO STAND STILL AND HE OBEYED HIM.

13. DAVID WAS A HEBREW KING WHO WAS SKILLED AT PLAYING THE LIAR. HE FOUGHT THE FINKELSTEINS, A RACE OF PEOPLE WHO LIVED IN BIBLICAL TIMES.

14. SOLOMON, ONE OF DAVIDS SONS, HAD 300 WIVES AND 700 PORCUPINES.

15. WHEN MARY HEARD SHE WAS THE MOTHER OF JESUS, SHE SANG THE MAGNA CARTA.

16. JESUS WAS BORN BECAUSE MARY HAD AN IMMACULATE CONTRAPTION.

17. ST. JOHN THE BLACKSMITH DUMPED WATER ON HIS HEAD.

18. JESUS ENUNCIATED THE GOLDEN RULE, WHICH SAYS TO DO UNTO OTHERS BEFORE THEY DO ONE TO YOU. HE ALSO EXPLAINED A MAN DOTH NOT LIVE BY SWEAT ALONE.

19. IT WAS A MIRICLE WHEN JESUS ROSE FROM THE DEAD AND MANAGED TO GET THE TOMBSTONE OFF THE ENTRANCE.

20. THE PEOPLE WHO FOLLOWED THE LORD WERE CALLED THE 12 DECIBELS.

21. THE EPISTELS WERE THE WIVES OF THE APOSTLES.

22. ONE OF THE OPPOSSUMS WAS ST. MATTHEW WHO WAS ALSO A TAXIMAN.

23. ST. PAUL CAVORTED TO CHRISTIANITY, HE PREACHED HOLY ACRIMONY WHICH IS ANOTHER NAME FOR MARRAIGE.

24. CHRISTIANS HAVE ONLY ONE SPOUSE. THIS IS CALLED MONOTONY

Getur sannleikurinn verið óvísindalegur?

Í umræðum mínum við marga þá virðist það vera algjörlega bannað að trúa að Guð hafi skapað eitthvað því að það væri óvísindalegt.  Ef Guð virkilega skapaði eitthvað í þessum alheimi er þá rökrétt að skilgreina vísindin þannig að sá sannleikurinn er útilokaður vegna þess að einhver hópur manna ákvað að það að Guð skapaði er óvísindalegt?

Hvað finnst fólki um orð eins og þessi:

Richard Lewontin, 1997. Billions and billions of demons
Our willingness to accept scientific claims that are against common sense is the key to an understanding of the real struggle between science and the supernatural. We take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs, in spite of its failure to fulfill many of its extravagant promises of health and life, in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated just-so stories, because we have a prior commitment, a commitment to materialism. 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 absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door

Sagan C., "Cosmos," [1980], Macdonald: London, 1981, reprint, p.4
The cosmos is all that is or ever was or ever will be...

Skemmtileg tilvitnun um hvernig darwinisminn sjálfur grefur undan vísindum og ástæðu til að treysta sínum eigin hugsunum.

Grene M The Faith of Darwinism 
From another perspective, David Lack, loyal Darwinian though he is, gives the game away. In the book I have already mentioned, he refers to Darwin's question: "Can the mind of man, descended, as I believe, from the lowest animal be trusted when it draws such grand conclusions?" and he comments: `Darwin's "horrid doubt" as to whether the convictions of man's evolved mind could be trusted applies as much to abstract truth as to ethics; and "evolutionary truth" is at least as suspect as evolutionary ethics. At this point, therefore, it would seem that the armies of science are in danger of destroying their own base. For the scientist must be able to trust the conclusions of his reasoning. Hence he cannot accept the theory that man's mind was evolved wholly by natural selection if this means, as it would appear to do, that the conclusions of the mind depend ultimately on their survival value and not their truth, thus making all scientific theories, including that of natural selection, untrustworthy.' Lack concludes from this that the old opposition of science and religion is still, and must remain, an "unresolved conflict." But I think one may conclude, on the contrary, that it is the conventional logic of science, and the view of mind implied in it, that needs revision. For, as Plato argued long ago about Protagonas' "man the measure," there is surely something wrong in a theory which, at its very root, invalidate itself." 

Hérna er einn vísindamaður sem lagði mikið á vogarskálar vísindanna sem fannst að hans rannsóknir væru nátengdar því að kynnast Guði betur.

James Prescott Joule
It is evident that an acquaintance with natural laws means no less than
an acquaintance with the mind of God therein expressed 

Það eru fáir vísindamenn sem hafa bjargað jafn mörgum mannslífum og þessi hérna en þetta er það sem hann hafði að segja um vísindin og skaparann. 

Louis Pasteur
The more I study nature, the more I stand amazed at the work of the Creator.

Síðan tilvitnun sem mér áhugaverð um þetta efni um að treysta ályktunum hugans ef darwinismi er sannleikurinn.

Haldane J.B.S
It seems to me immensely unlikely that mind is a mere by-product of matter. For if my mental processes are determined wholly by the motions of atoms in my brain I have no reason to suppose that my beliefs are true. They may be sound chemically, but that does not make them sound logically. And hence I have no reason for supposing my brain to be composed of atoms. In order to escape from this necessity of sawing away the branch on which I am sitting, so to speak, I am compelled to believe that mind is not wholly conditioned by matter.

Að lokum mjög skemmtilegur fyrirlestur sem Phillip Johnson hélt sem hann gaf titilinn "Can science know the mind of God" sem hann fékk frá Stephen Hawkin, sjá: http://www.uctv.tv/search-details.asp?showID=6290

Hvað finnst fólki, geta vísindin þekkt huga Guðs?  Getur sannleikurinn verið óvísindalegur?

Aðeins Guð getur skapað plánetur

Að gas geti orðið að grjóti er að mínu mati frekar kjánalegt. Í leit sinni hafa darwinistar aftur og aftur bent á eitthvað eins og þessa plánetu og sett það síðan fram eins og að það sanni að gas geti safnast saman og orðið smá saman að plánetum og stjörnum. Eina sem þeir fundu þarna er ákveðin tegund af plánetu og hvort hún var að mótast úr geimryki er alveg óþekkt. Gæti verið en rannsóknirnar sýna ekki fram á akkurat það.

Nánar um þetta hérna: http://creationsafaris.com/crev200801.htm#20080104b

New Planet, or Dusty Brown Dwarf?   01/04/2008    
A planet has been found associated with a dusty disk, reported National Geographic News and Astrobiology.com.  This is “one of the most exciting discoveries in the study of extrasolar planets,” a Max Planck Institute researcher said, because they “have directly proven” that planets form from dust disks.  Moreover, they must form rapidly, because the planet cannot be older than its parent star, which is much younger – 8 to 10 million years – than other extrasolar planets found so far, they said.
    Previous estimates called for a hundred million of years or more for a planet to form.  Earth is thought to be 4.5 billion years old, with multicellular life appearing only in the last 0.5 billion.  This star, TW Hydrae, is 1/500th the age of the sun according to the scientists.  Dust disks are thought to evaporate within 30 million years, so it was reassuring for them to find a planet forming within the time limit.
    The NG News article mentioned some cautions.  For one thing, the giant planet is very close to the star and revolves around it every 3.5 Earth-days, with a mysterious disruption in the motion every nine days.  Also, the mass of the planet is in doubt.  Jack Lissauer (NASA-Ames) appreciated the discovery.  “However,” he said, “I do think that the authors have substantially underestimated the uncertainties in the mass of the object.”  If it is as big as a brown dwarf, that makes the combination a binary star system – a very common occurrence among stars.

The astronomers have merely associated a dust disk with an orbiting object that is not observed but only inferred via wobbles in the parent star (circumstantial evidence).  Unless they explain how dust particles accrete into large bodies (a major problem in planetary physics; see 12/05/2007), they have not proved that this object emerged from the disk.  Perhaps it did, but the observations do not create an open-and-shut case.
    Astronomers do not know how stars form; they do not know how planets form (see 07/15/2005 entry and its embedded links).  They have not, therefore “directly proven” that planets form from dust disks.  Distinctions are important in science.  Reporters often charge into conclusions without proper warrant.  The astronomers’ claims may be plausible.  They might even be true.  Hypothesis, though, is not confirmation.  Let him who puts his armor on not boast like the one who takes it off.
    Alert readers must constantly beware of claims that go far beyond the evidence: the star “is” 8-10 million years old (no human observers watched it for that long).  The planet “is” about ten times as massive as Jupiter (it could be far smaller or far bigger).  “Its host star is still surrounded by the disk of gas and dust from which it was only recently born” (theories of planet birth are full of problems).  “This discovery allows scientists to draw important conclusions about the timing of planet formation”  (the conclusions are based on assumptions about the timing – circular reasoning).  “Finally, perhaps in the future we will be able to answer the question: Are we alone in the Universe?”  (How did they get there from a blip on a graph?)

Ný pláneta finnst

Loðfílar, sem betur fer erum við með heimildir um hvað gerðist

Nei, við erum ekki með sögulegar heimildir af því sem gerðist akkurat fyrir loðfílana en við erum með heimildir hvað gerðist á þessum tímum og það getur hjálpað okkur til að leysa svona ráðgátur.

Því miður er ég í tímahraki akkurat núna svo ég læt nægja að benda á greinar sem útskýra hvað gerðist fyrir loðfílana út frá sögunni sem Biblían segir.

http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/faq/mammoth.asp

http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/FrozenMammoths.html

Frosinn loðfíll gæti varpað ljósi á loftslagsbreytingar