An example of how members of the scientific establishment quashed dissent with authoritarian tactics because it does not align with Darwinian orthodoxy
Continue reading...
Continue reading...
Christian Forums
This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!
-
-
Guest, Join Papa Zoom today for some uplifting biblical encouragement! --> Daily Verses
[__ Science __ ] The Darwinian Gestapo: Censoring Darwin to Protect Neo-Darwinian Theory
- Thread starter AIG.com
- Start date
Barbarian
Member
It's unfortunate that AIG copied Darwin's statement without checking original. Someone gave them an edited version that is extremely misleading.
The Complexity of Eyes: Darwin wrote, “To suppose that the eye with all its inimitable contrivances for adjusting the focus to different distances, for admitting different amounts of light, and for the correction of spherical and chromatic aberration, could have been formed by natural selection, seems, I freely confess, absurd in the highest degree. When it was first said that the sun stood still and the world turned round, the common sense of mankind declared the doctrine false; but the old saying of Vox populi, vox Dei, as every philosopher knows, cannot be trusted in science. Reason tells me, that if numerous gradations from a simple and imperfect eye to one complex and perfect can be shown to exist, each grade being useful to its possessor, as is certainly the case; if further, the eye ever varies and the variations be inherited, as is likewise certainly the case and if such variations should be useful to any animal under changing conditions of life, then the difficulty of believing that a perfect and complex eye could be formed by natural selection, though insuperable by our imagination, should not be considered as subversive of the theory. How a nerve comes to be sensitive to light, hardly concerns us more than how life itself originated; but I may remark that, as some of the lowest organisms, in which nerves cannot be detected, are capable of perceiving light, it does not seem impossible that certain sensitive elements in their sarcode should become aggregated and developed into nerves, endowed with this special sensibility.”
The bolded part is the part that was edited out. The remainder was given to AIG and presented as reflecting Darwin's opinion. I'm not accusing them of dishonesty. It appears that they were taken in by someone who abused their trust.
The other quotes are similarly edited to mislead. However, it is true that hardly any transitional fossils were known in Darwin's time. As YE creationist Kurt Wise admits, there have since been many, many transitions that confirm Darwin's "expectations" of transitionals:
Evidences for Darwin’s second expectation — of stratomorphic intermediate species — include such species as Baragwanathia27 (between rhyniophytes and lycopods), Pikaia28 (between echinoderms and chordates), Purgatorius29 (between the tree shrews and the primates), and Proconsul30 (between the non-hominoid primates and the hominoids). Darwin’s third expectation — of higher-taxon stratomorphic intermediates — has been confirmed by such examples as the mammal-like reptile groups31 between the reptiles and the mammals, and the phenacodontids32 between the horses and their presumed ancestors. Darwin’s fourth expectation — of stratomorphic series — has been confirmed by such examples as the early bird series,33 the tetrapod series,34,35 the whale series,36 the various mammal series of the Cenozoic37 (for example, the horse series, the camel series, the elephant series, the pig series, the titanothere series, etc.), the Cantius and Plesiadapus primate series,38 and the hominid series.39 Evidence for not just one but for all three of the species level and above types of stratomorphic intermediates expected by macroevolutionary theory is surely strong evidence for macroevolutionary theory. Creationists therefore need to accept this fact. It certainly CANNOT be said that traditional creation theory expected (predicted) any of these fossil finds.
Kurt Wise Toward a Creationist Understanding of Transitional Forms
The Complexity of Eyes: Darwin wrote, “To suppose that the eye with all its inimitable contrivances for adjusting the focus to different distances, for admitting different amounts of light, and for the correction of spherical and chromatic aberration, could have been formed by natural selection, seems, I freely confess, absurd in the highest degree. When it was first said that the sun stood still and the world turned round, the common sense of mankind declared the doctrine false; but the old saying of Vox populi, vox Dei, as every philosopher knows, cannot be trusted in science. Reason tells me, that if numerous gradations from a simple and imperfect eye to one complex and perfect can be shown to exist, each grade being useful to its possessor, as is certainly the case; if further, the eye ever varies and the variations be inherited, as is likewise certainly the case and if such variations should be useful to any animal under changing conditions of life, then the difficulty of believing that a perfect and complex eye could be formed by natural selection, though insuperable by our imagination, should not be considered as subversive of the theory. How a nerve comes to be sensitive to light, hardly concerns us more than how life itself originated; but I may remark that, as some of the lowest organisms, in which nerves cannot be detected, are capable of perceiving light, it does not seem impossible that certain sensitive elements in their sarcode should become aggregated and developed into nerves, endowed with this special sensibility.”
The bolded part is the part that was edited out. The remainder was given to AIG and presented as reflecting Darwin's opinion. I'm not accusing them of dishonesty. It appears that they were taken in by someone who abused their trust.
The other quotes are similarly edited to mislead. However, it is true that hardly any transitional fossils were known in Darwin's time. As YE creationist Kurt Wise admits, there have since been many, many transitions that confirm Darwin's "expectations" of transitionals:
Evidences for Darwin’s second expectation — of stratomorphic intermediate species — include such species as Baragwanathia27 (between rhyniophytes and lycopods), Pikaia28 (between echinoderms and chordates), Purgatorius29 (between the tree shrews and the primates), and Proconsul30 (between the non-hominoid primates and the hominoids). Darwin’s third expectation — of higher-taxon stratomorphic intermediates — has been confirmed by such examples as the mammal-like reptile groups31 between the reptiles and the mammals, and the phenacodontids32 between the horses and their presumed ancestors. Darwin’s fourth expectation — of stratomorphic series — has been confirmed by such examples as the early bird series,33 the tetrapod series,34,35 the whale series,36 the various mammal series of the Cenozoic37 (for example, the horse series, the camel series, the elephant series, the pig series, the titanothere series, etc.), the Cantius and Plesiadapus primate series,38 and the hominid series.39 Evidence for not just one but for all three of the species level and above types of stratomorphic intermediates expected by macroevolutionary theory is surely strong evidence for macroevolutionary theory. Creationists therefore need to accept this fact. It certainly CANNOT be said that traditional creation theory expected (predicted) any of these fossil finds.
Kurt Wise Toward a Creationist Understanding of Transitional Forms
Truthfrees
Member
yes - trying to erase God - such futility - best tp just surrender to God
Truthfrees
Member
yes - even darwin couldn't explain the holes in his theory
Consecrated Life
Member
Unfortunate indeed in that the unedited version does Darwin no favors in terms of illuminating his slipshod applications.
Rather than deviating completely off course, comparing apples to orangutans , which is literally what comparing the known functioning & composition of the organic eye was at the moment he wrote this , as compared with what was known about the functioning and composition of a completely inorganic object , the sun ?
Being confident in his studies of the eye , why not make his point , by remaining ON POINT ?
Detailing the evolutionary stages of the human eyes development up through the pertaining evolutionary chain that gave it to us for example ?
Only one answer for jumping so completely far afield from a very specific item you have laid claim to having cracked the code on when given an honest question about .
That answer being that every perspective you have already explored in hopes of solving the problem has offered you nothing but multiplied dilemma.
Much less problematic to veer as far away from the subject matter of the processes you claim to have figured out taking place on topside earth, the eye's evolution , by pointing out ancient mistakes of astrophysics .
Darwin would have made great politician's Press Secretary
Barbarian
Member
As you see, even knowledgeable YE creationists admit that there is very good evidence for Darwin's theory. In several phyla of animals, we see Darwin's predictions of transitional stages of the eye existing in different members of those phyla. Would you like to see those?
Once again, Darwin correctly predicted the evidence that would confirm his theory.
Consecrated Life
Member
Why do you think Darwin switched subjects so quickly & ran for the tall grass of inorganic ancient astrophysical interpretations when confronted with questions about the eyes evolution ?
Barbarian
Member
You've been misled about that. As I showed you, Darwin himself brought up the subject of eyes and explained how gradual changes could bring them about.
When it was first said that the sun stood still and the world turned round, the common sense of mankind declared the doctrine false; but the old saying of Vox populi, vox Dei, as every philosopher knows, cannot be trusted in science. Reason tells me, that if numerous gradations from a simple and imperfect eye to one complex and perfect can be shown to exist, each grade being useful to its possessor, as is certainly the case; if further, the eye ever varies and the variations be inherited, as is likewise certainly the case and if such variations should be useful to any animal under changing conditions of life, then the difficulty of believing that a perfect and complex eye could be formed by natural selection, though insuperable by our imagination, should not be considered as subversive of the theory. How a nerve comes to be sensitive to light, hardly concerns us more than how life itself originated; but I may remark that, as some of the lowest organisms, in which nerves cannot be detected, are capable of perceiving light, it does not seem impossible that certain sensitive elements in their sarcode should become aggregated and developed into nerves, endowed with this special sensibility.”
It's more than just reasoning. Since then, Darwin's prediction of eye evolution has been verified by the discovery of the many transitional forms he predicted. And Darwin's observation about the evolution of nerves has been verified by molecular biology and genetics.
Here's a summary of the stages found in mollusks, for example:
As you see, none of them require a major change in structure, only modification of something already there. And each one is useful, as Darwin said that it must be. Each one is an improvement on the previous one.
Did Darwin know all of this, when he formed his theory? No, of course he didn't. He predicted these stages, because the evidence showed that it happened that way.
Truthfrees
Member
great posts - thanks