Forensic Evolution The Truth

[The One]

I t has often been said that if you tell a big enough lie often enough, people will believe you.

Some people consider the theory of evolution to be a form of forensic science but it isn’t. I find that the current crop of school science teachers ,at least here in the UK ,are not even aware of the work of people like Michael Behe http://www.lehigh.edu/~inbios/faculty/behe.html , the brilliant molecular biologist. Behe has effectively shown that evolution could not have happened because of the principle of Irreducible Complexity. To Darwin, the human cell was just a blob of gunk, not a lot more. But people like Behe have shown that the human cell is a miniature factory of amazing complexity moreover, you take one part away and nothing works.

Yet evolution remains largely unchallenged even though the theory is now in tatters, as many scientists will freely admit (especially privately).


http://www.google.co.uk/url?sa=t&sou...RipJkpZMbymoEg

[The One]

http://www.discovery.org/scripts/vie...BlogPosts=true

[king anthony]

If I may share the following on your thread; as sample introductions, meaning not to be the only source or as absolutes. What many people do not know is, Charles Darwin had dismissed his own theory after he had published it saying [paraphrased] 'it has no merit'; something he repeated until his passing. Scientists have also concluded Charles Darwin's final statements on the topic. So then why do some believe this!? Should not people seek to know what the ancients knew!?

Lloyd Pye - Everything You Know Is Wrong (part 1)

Intelligent Design - Unlocking The Mysteries Of Life

[conk]

Dear, er, ahm, God, don't let the fundamentalists hear you diss the theory of evolution. It will only fuel their insanity.

Years ago I watched a video about cellular mechanisms. It was marvelous. Cells have little rotors and stators that are very effectively make up a motor. Attached to that motor is a propeller. This could not have evolved, because it had no prior purpose. It must have been intelligently designed.....but by who or what?

[Fredkc]

I would like to share one of the best essays I have ever read on the "Religion of Evolution"

The Metaphysics of Evolution
by Fred Reed

The question of the origin of life interested me. The evolutionary explanations that I encountered in textbooks of biology ran to, "In primeval seas, evaporation concentrated dissolved compounds in a pore in a rock, a skim formed a membrane, and life began its immense journey." I saw no reason to doubt this. If it hadn't been true, scientists would not have said that it was.

Remember, I was fifteen.

In those days I read Scientific American and New Scientist, the latter then still being thoughtfully written in good English. I noticed that not infrequently they offered differing speculation as to the origin of life. The belief in the instrumentality of chemical accident was constant, but the nature of the primeval soup changed to fit varying attempts at explanation.

For a while, life was thought to have come about on clay in shallow water in seas of a particular composition, later in tidal pools with another chemical solution, then in the open ocean in another solution. This continues. Recently, geothermal vents have been offered as the home of the first life. Today (Feb 24, 2005) on the BBC website, I learn that life evolved below the oceanic floor. ("There is evidence that life evolved in the deep sediments," co-author John Parkes, of Cardiff University, UK, told the BBC News website. Link at bottom.)

The frequent shifting of ground bothered me. If we knew how life began, why did we have so many prospective mechanisms, none of which really worked? Evolution began to look like a theory in search of a soup. Forty-five years later, it still does.

Questions Arise
I was probably in college when I found myself asking what seemed to me straightforward questions about the chemical origin of life. In particular:

(1) Life was said to have begun by chemical inadvertence in the early seas. Did we, I wondered, really know of what those early seas consisted? Know, not suspect, hope, theorize, divine, speculate, or really, really wish.

The answer was, and is, "no." We have no dried residue, no remaining pools, and the science of planetogenesis isn't nearly good enough to provide a quantitative analysis.

(2) Had the creation of a living cell been replicated in the laboratory? No, it hadn't, and hasn't. (Note 1)

(3) Did we know what conditions were necessary for a cell to come about? No, we didn't, and don't.

(4) Could it be shown to be mathematically probable that a cell would form, given any soup whatever? No, it couldn't, and can't. (At least not without cooking the assumptions.) (Note 2)

Well, I thought, sophomore chemistry major that I then was: If we don't know what conditions existed, or what conditions are necessary, and can't reproduce the event in the laboratory, and can't show it to be statistically probable — why are we so very sure that it happened? Would you hang a man on such evidence?

Now the article goes on for quite a bit. IMO, it is all very good. At one point he describes his encounters with current-day biologists about their "scientific evidence" He describes it:

It was like giving a bobcat a prostate exam. I got everything but answers.

_____________________________

I really recommend you read the entire thing. it is excellent. Available here.

Fred