Jump to content
The Education Forum

Was Darwin wrong?


Jack White
 Share

Recommended Posts

Long ago, after I stated that one of the greatest hoaxes is Darwin's theory of evolution,

"Colby" challenged me to a debate on the subject. He and his cohorts slunk away after

I asked many questions that they refused to answer. So now I am starting my own

thread on this, as I think about it a lot. DO NOT MOVE THIS BACK TO THE COLBY THREAD!

First, let me summarize Darwin's theory as I learned it in high school in the 1940s. Let

me know if this summary is wrong.

...ALL LIFE originated with a single cell which was "somehow" created by some "unexplained"

combination of certain "unknown" chemicals in ancient oceans.

...this SINGLE CELL then "somehow" REPLICATED ITSELF" and also MUTATED ITSELF" into

various forms to account for ALL animal, vegetable and microbic LIFE on earth.

Darwin's "theory" to me is beyond belief of any intelligent person. Intellectually it makes

NO SENSE that such things "JUST HAPPEN". It is the equivalent of saying that a pebble

in Manhattan dirt EVOLVED into the Empire State Building.

Darwinism is not a religious issue. It is prima facie against the LAWS OF SCIENCE, so

it is not scientific. Sure, MUTATIONS occur; but MUTATIONS DO NOT ACCOUNT FOR

ALL THE BEGINNINGS OF LIFE. The Theory of EVOLUTION should be called "An ancient

and discredited theory of MUTATIONS as the cause of the diversity of life, called

THE ORIGIN OF THE SPECIES."

If Darwin's theory is correct, scientists ought to be able to "create life" in a laboratory

and "mutate life" into endless varieties. That is required as proof by the SCIENTIFIC

METHOD". It has never been done.

I am interested in any INTELLIGENT DISCUSSION of this subject...not the usual

nonsense and ad hom personal attacks, which will be ignored.

Jack

Link to comment
Share on other sites

First, let me summarize Darwin's theory as I learned it in high school in the 1940s. Let

me know if this summary is wrong.

...ALL LIFE originated with a single cell which was "somehow" created by some "unexplained"

combination of certain "unknown" chemicals in ancient oceans.

Your summary is wrong with the first sentence. Whoever taught you this in high school didn't know what he or she was talking about. Darwin's theory had nothing to do with the origin of life.

The last paragraph of his book On the Origin of Species does include a brief allusion to life perhaps being "breathed into" an original form. But that was a bit of poetic religious speculation on his part, having nothing to do with his well-argued theory about evolutionary change through natural selection.

But the origin of life being separate from Darwin's theory has been reiterated here before, and you will obviously continue to ignore this fact.

Edited by Ron Ecker
Link to comment
Share on other sites

First, let me summarize Darwin's theory as I learned it in high school in the 1940s. Let

me know if this summary is wrong.

...ALL LIFE originated with a single cell which was "somehow" created by some "unexplained"

combination of certain "unknown" chemicals in ancient oceans.

Your summary is wrong with the first sentence. Whoever taught you this in high school didn't know what he or she was talking about. Darwin's theory had nothing to do with the origin of life.

The last paragraph of his book On the Origin of Species does include a brief allusion to life perhaps being "breathed into" an original form. But that was a bit of poetic religious speculation on his part, having nothing to do with his well-argued theory about evolutionary change through natural selection.

But the origin of life being separate from Darwin's theory has been reiterated here before, and you will obviously continue to ignore this fact.

"about evolutionary change through natural selection. "

But Ron...where did the life come from which EVOLVED THROUGH NATURAL SELECTION?

Your statement admits that some life which "pre-existed" MUTATED THROUGH NATURAL SELECTION.

You may be correct about ON THE ORIGIN OF SPECIES, but you seem unfamiliar with the

debate concerning THE THEORY OF EVOLUTION, which is a required subject in most American

schools, but scoffed at by many, including scientists, who have studied the subject. All forms of

life cannot have mutated from a single accidental cell, as is TAUGHT. This idea is anti-scientific.

It is not a matter of religion. It is a matter of cause and effect...a common scientific law.

Nothng "JUST HAPPENS", as evolutionists insist.

Jack

Edited by Jack White
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Long ago, after I stated that one of the greatest hoaxes is Darwin's theory of evolution,

"Colby" challenged me to a debate on the subject. He and his cohorts slunk away after

I asked many questions that they refused to answer. So now I am starting my own

thread on this, as I think about it a lot. DO NOT MOVE THIS BACK TO THE COLBY THREAD!

Actually you points were all adressed it was you who "slunk away" and didn't get back to us

First, let me summarize Darwin's theory as I learned it in high school in the 1940s.

“Jack D. White was born on January 17, 1927, in San Angelo, Texas. His parents, John Nathan White and Billie Lorena Dumas White, moved the family to Fort Worth shortly after his birth and he was raised and educated there. After graduation from Amon Carter Riverside High School in 1944...”

http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/JFKwhiteJ.htm

Several locations are occasionally referred to as the "Buckle of the Bible Belt":

· Dallas-Fort Worth, Texas home to three major evangelical seminaries, Dallas Theological Seminary, Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary and Criswell College; Southern Methodist University; the conservative Catholic University of Dallas; and several of America's largest megachurches including the Potter's House pastored by T.D Jakes.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bible_Belt#.2..._the_Bible_Belt

No set boundaries exist for the Bible Belt, though most dictionaries mention the South and Midwest. Dallas vies with other cities, large and small, for the unofficial title "Buckle of the Bible Belt."

http://www.dallasnews.com/sharedcontent/dw...1.1066ceb8.html

By dint of history, geography and dominant culture, the leading contenders for the buckle of the Bible Belt seem to be in Texas and Tennessee.

[…]

Memphis does nose out Dallas for most mentions as the buckle in a survey of news citations. But Texas edges out Tennessee as a whole.

http://www.texnews.com/religion97/belt091397.html

Continuing in the 1920s, 37 bills were introduced in 20 states that would make the teaching of evolution illegal in public schools. Texas Gov. Miriam Ferguson, as the head of the state Textbook Commission, provided leadership that led to a 1925 policy that textbooks would be accepted only if references to evolution were deleted.

[…]

During the 1930s and 1940s a gradual increase could be seen in the coverage of evolution, but overall the topic continued to be marginalized, Skoog noted.

[…]

Sputnik I, the first artificial satellite launched late 1950s by the Soviets, led the United States to be concerned about falling behind in science education. "This concern sparked an interest in evolution again," said Skoog.

http://www.depts.ttu.edu/communications/vi...n-evolution.php

summer 1925: Scopes Trial

(Battle in the Schools)

Scopes trial puts controversy on center stage. This legendary test case over the teaching of human evolution makes headlines around the world. William Jennings Bryan, who leads the prosecution against John Scopes, sees it as a battle to uphold Christianity and the right of majority rule. Lead defense attorney Clarence Darrow, a self-proclaimed agnostic, views it as a battle against social conservatism more than a fight for Darwinism. Despite the myth later promoted, the trial is not a decisive win for Darrow. Both sides claim victory in the court of public opinion, and THE TRIAL SPURS ON THE ANTI-EVOLUTIONIST CRUSADE.

c. 1925: Textbooks Censored

(Battle in the Schools)

Biology textbooks censored. FEARING LOSS OF SALES IN THE SOUTH AND WEST, PUBLISHERS REMOVE REFERENCES TO EVOLUTION FROM BIOLOGY TEXTBOOKS, including George William Hunter's A Civic Biology, the book at issue in the Scopes trial. The teaching of evolution is curbed around the country.

1925-1930: Anti-Evolution Bills Spread

(Evolution Challenged) (Battle in the Schools)

Anti-evolution bills spread. In the years following the Scopes trial, some 35 new anti-evolution bills are proposed in 20 states, and three states pass laws. By the 1930s, many areas in which fundamentalists hold political sway have passed some form of restriction on teaching evolution. Some involve administrative rulings; others are school board resolutions. ALMOST ALL THE SOUTH AND SOME OF THE WEST ARE AFFECTED. ONCE IN PLACE, NO SOUTHERN ANTI-EVOLUTION LEGISLATION IS REPEALED FOR 40 YEARS.

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/evolution/religion...ution/1925.html (click links on bottom of page for later dates)

c. 1942: Evolution Shunned

(Battle in the Schools)

EVOLUTION SHUNNED IN U.S. SCHOOLS. With TEXTBOOKS EFFECTIVELY CENSORED by commercial concerns and many anti-evolutionist rulings and regulations in place, the teaching of evolution hits a low point. IN HIGH SCHOOL SCIENCE CLASSES, PARTICULARLY IN THE SOUTH, ONE OF THE GREATEST OBSTACLES TO TEACHING EVOLUTION MAY BE SELF-CENSORSHIP. Many teachers and administrators fear offending parents and community leaders. One concerned scientist later estimates that LESS THAN HALF OF ALL HIGH SCHOOL SCIENCE TEACHERS IN THE EARLY 1940S TAUGHT ANYTHING ABOUT EVOLUTION.

1957: Sputnik

(Battle in the Schools)

Sputnik launches push for science education. The Soviet space capsule Sputnik is the first human-made structure launched into outer space. Fearful that the Soviets are gaining an edge in the space race, the U.S. government rallies to improve science education. The National Science Foundation sponsors textbooks written by professional biologists that stress evolution as the "warp and woof of modern biology." Increasingly, high schools -- even in the South -- begin teaching evolution. The reforms lead teachers to challenge the anti-evolutionist laws in place since the 1920s. But the new textbooks and reforms also spawn protest from many conservative Christians.

Let me know if this summary is wrong.

Ron already took care of that

Darwinism is not a religious issue. It is prima facie against the LAWS OF SCIENCE,

If that were the case more scientists would agree with you and skeptacism about evolution wouldn't be limited to religious people. AFAIK there are only two biologists who have said they doubt evolution and they bothsay they are evangelical Christians.

If Darwin's theory is correct, scientists ought to be able to "create life" in a laboratory

and "mutate life" into endless varieties. That is required as proof by the SCIENTIFIC

METHOD". It has never been done.

Rubbish, just because scientists don't know how to do things doesn't mean they can't occur in nature.

As for that Nat Geo cover I have that issue (or had it I couldn't find my copy) the answer of course was a resounding "NO!"

Edited by Len Colby
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Colby as usual is full of --it.

Posting crap about the so-called "bible belt" is extraneous

to this discussion. Colby KNOWS NOTHING ABOUT MY

RELIGIOUS BELIEFS! Uninformed opinion is crap!

He erroneously implies that I am a CREATIONIST!

Nothing could be farther from the truth! Creationists are

as far off base as the evolution cultists. They all are full

of uninformed crap.

Colby is full of crap. He cannot resist erroneous uninformed

crap. This is defamatory, and I request that Colby's post

be removed immediately!

My position on evolution is that anyone who claims to

know the origin of life IS A FOOL. It is a mystery.

Jack

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Len,

If you have a point to make, could you make it more succinctly?

Jack,

Regardless of your actual beliefs, was the school system you went through as described by Len? Was evolutionary theory taught?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Len,

If you have a point to make, could you make it more succinctly?

Jack,

Regardless of your actual beliefs, was the school system you went through as described by Len? Was evolutionary theory taught?

Exactly Evan though the order in which I put the quotes could lead one to believe I was implying Jack is a fundamentalist my point was as Mark Twain might have said it his 'account of having been taught evolution in high school were greatly exagerated''. Textbooks mentioning it were banned in the state at the time and it seems unlikely that his teachers would have mentioned it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Dallas Theological Seminary

A bit off topic, but one of my favorite fundamentalist arguments was made by a professor from that institution, Dr. Norman Geisler. He testified for the creationist defense at the Arkansas creationism trial in 1981. He testified that UFOs are "satanic manifestations for the purposes of deception." When asked how he knew that UFOs exist, he said that he read it in Reader's Digest.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Jack

I was very interested in this topic the last time it was raised. It seemed to get buried because no=one knew what the debate was about.

Can you clarify - is it evolution or abiogenesis (how life began), that you want to discuss? In particular, why do you consider it (whatever "it" is) a political conspiracy?

Unless we can clarify these things there's little point continuing fom my point of view.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...