...
Post A Reply
my profile
|
directory
login
|
register
|
search
|
faq
|
forum home
»
EgyptSearch Forums
»
Deshret
»
"Darwinists don't accept direction in evolution." -- Swenet
» Post A Reply
Post A Reply
Login Name:
Password:
Message Icon:
Message:
HTML is not enabled.
UBB Code™ is enabled.
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Swenet: [QB] [QUOTE]» [b]Turf Control[/b] The secular transformation of Charles is not unusual. Students encounter an ever more [b]powerful yet cunning force when entering the academic mainstream[/b]— one for which believers are often unprepared. [b]It is not simply ideological. It is political. As such, it deserves attention.[/b] The doctrines of naturalism and postmodernism [b]have become institution- alized in Western culture such that they go unquestioned and are accepted as fact[/b]. Over time it has become obvious that [b]those holding the intellectual reins of power have proven no more open-minded than their creationist forebears[/b]. In fact, the [b]naturalists in particular carefully guard the turf of evolutionism, even in the face of legitimate academic and scientific challenges to its validity[/b]. "In technical circles, where the [b]empirical flaws are common knowledge[/b]," says Finley, who supports creationism on scientific grounds, "[b]evolutionists debate the possibility that a new naturalistic explanation of life may be thought up, but in public presentations they preach doctrinaire evolution and pretend that the empirical problems do not exist[/b]." Referring to the ape-to-man theory, another group of scholars note that these [b]observations are assumed and go unchallenged[/b]. 2 Absolutely no secret is made of this [b]ideological commitment to naturalistic evolution[/b]. Recently, the American Association for the Advancement of Science offered a seminar titled "Good Science, Bad Science: Teaching Evolution in the States." Various states were graded on how favorably they handled evolution in the classroom. A's were given to states that carefully hewed the ideological line. Some received PS. One state, Kansas, was rated an F— , because it had the temer- ity to refuse to claim that Darwin's notion of evolution accounts for all major aspects of living things. The seminar, however, falsely accused Kansas of "remov- ing all references to evolution. " Such is the hysteria surrounding any perceived challenge to naturalism. [b]Any critique of naturalistic evolution seems to elicit a forceful dismissal[/b]. When asked whether [b]myriad scientific problems with naturalism should be cited in the teaching curriculum, noted evolutionist Stephen Jay Gould had a ready response: "We have no time to teach the conflicts."[/b] Valid opposition to evolu- tion is given no voice. Scholar Henry Creechan notes, [b]"Any scientist who rejects evolution tends to be branded a religious fanatic, or similar. The media either ignores them or discredits them by disparagement."[/b] The commitment to naturalism [b]is far more philosophical than scientific[/b]. In the face of indisputable [b]scientific evidence to the contrary, naturalistic theories are stated as fact[/b]. And it doesn't end there. So committed are the devotees of naturalism that when some of its claims do not stand up to rigorous scrutiny, [b]scholars have been willing to help the cause along in rather dubious ways[/b]. » [b]Fraud[/b] Jonathan Wells, author of Icons of Evolution, makes a powerful case for stipulat- ing a [b]nonscientific bias present among naturalists[/b]. He points out that during his academic career at the University of California, the very [b]prospect of ques- tioning prevailing scientific paradigms was unthinkable[/b]. No longer so for Dr. Wells, once he noticed a set of drawings of vertebrate embryos (fish, chicken, humans, etc.) that were used to support the doctrine that all living organisms emanated from a common ancestor. [b]The drawings were fake[/b]. The renderings, [b]known to be forgeries for over a century, were foundational to Charles Darwin[/b], who wrote, "I view all beings not as special creations, but as the lineal descendants of some few beings." Darwin held that differentiation among species occurred over time as organisms adapted for surcival. [b]He rooted his theory of evolution in embryology, finding it to have "by far the strongest single class of facts"[/b] favoring his paradigm. Ernst Haeckel assisted Darwin by providing drawings of various vertebrates designed to indicate that they were virtually identical in their earliest stages of development. [b]Haeckel "doctored his drawings to make embryos appear more alike than they really were." Haeckel's drawings have lingered in academic cir- cles despite critiques by his contemporaries[/b]. Even when in 1997 British embry- ologist Michael Richardson provided [b]conclusive evidence that the drawings were contrived, the drawings still held firm in academe[/b]- Beyond the fraudulent draw- ings, Haeckel [b]omitted the earliest embryonic stages[/b], in which differences among the vertebrates are more pronounced. As far back as 1976, [b]embryologist William Ballard stated that "only by semantic tricks and subjective selection of evidence" and by "bending the facts of nature" could one claim that the earliest stages of embryonic development are more similar than their adult forms[/b]. 10 Richardson, comparing the textbook drawings with actual embryos, stated in the renown journal Science, "[b]It looks like it's turning out to be one of the most famous fakes in biology.[/b]" Such evidence [b]did not dampen naturalistic spirits[/b]. At the 2000 conference, Eugenie Scott, executive director of the National Center for Science Education, [b]boldly proclaimed that no one would seriously question "that embryos are more similar than the mature bodies[/b]. "12 Little wonder, then, that [b]although convinc- ingly debunked, Haeckel-like drawings are everywhere[/b]. Wells reviewed all his textbooks, [b]finding such drawings "all obviously wrong."[/b] Although naturalist Gould wrote that we should "be astonished and ashamed by a century of mind- less recycling that has led to the persistence of these drawings in a large number, if not a majority, of modern textbooks," [b]his scholarly hands were not clean[/b]. Gould [b]knew for decades that the drawings were false but remained silent, appar- ently to protect the general theory of naturalism against formidable attack[/b]- It only begins with Haeckel. "My search revealed a startling fact, however," notes Wells. "[b]Far from being exceptions, such blatant misrepresentations are more often the rule." so common is this academic fraud that Wells called them "Icons of Evolution."[/b] Wells found [b]many instances of fraud[/b]. In the 1950s, British physician Bernard Kettlewell theorized that peppered moths had gone from light to dark color over the past century to be camouflaged by darkened tree bark and hence spared from being eaten by birds. In the 1980s, it was determined that peppered moths [b]do not rest on tree trunks, but rather they fly by night and hide in higher branches during daylight hours[/b]. Kettlewell had [b]manufactured an artificial exper- imental situation. Moreover, he "proved" his hypothesis by having photogra- phers actually glue dark-colored dead moths to the bark of trees and shamelessly presented the fabricated pictures as "Darwin's missing evidence."[/b] Kettlewell —who to this day is regarded as having made a powerful score, as his experiment is recounted in [b]many introductory biology texts, often accom- panied by photos of the moths on the tree trunks—has his defenders[/b]. One aca- demic administrator asserted, "[b]You get a better picture if you glue the moth to the tree."[/b] Moreover, Canadian textbook author and apologist Bob Ritter [b]betrays the bias found in the politics of naturalism, arguing, "You have to look at the [high school] audience. How convoluted do you want to make it for the first-time learner? We want to get across the idea of selective adaptation. Later on, they can look at the work critically."[/b] Politics was also at work in the 1970s when Peter and Rosemary Grant found that the beaks of finches in the Galapagos Islands increased in size by 5 percent after a drought, assumedly because the beak Structures were strengthened by having to crack hard seeds. This small finding was regaled in a 1999 booklet by the United States National Academy Of Sciences as providing "a particularly compelling example" of the origin of the species. Given that the change in size occurred in a single year, the publication projected that "if droughts occur about once every 10 years on the islands, a new species of finch might arise in only about 200 years. "21 [b]What the booklet did not report, however, was that the beaks returned to pre-drought size after the rains came. "No net evolution occurred. "[/b] Harvard biologist [b]Louis Guenin was irate[/b], believing that this [b]suppression of evidence verges on scientific misconduct[/b]. Using the metaphor of the securities industry, Guenin stated in a 1999 issue of Nature that [b]were a stockbroker to highlight a stock moving up 5 percent in a given year without telling the unsus- pecting investor that that same stock dropped 5 percent the following year, he could well be charged with fraud.[/b] Other students of evolution have detected a [b]centuries-old bias in the form of an intellectually rigged system. "Science, real science ... has been co-opted by an ancient philosophical/religious doctrine the origins of which can be traced back to at least 400—700 years before Christ[/b]. "24 These efforts to [b]suppress "strong neg- ative evidence ... are in gross violation of the scientific attitude[/b]," says Finley.2S Darwin was unbending on the critical matter of the origin of the human race in The Descent of Man. "My object is to show that there is no fundamental difference between man and the higher animals in their mental faculties," he wrote.26 He extended this parallelism to religion, using a dog as an example. That a dog tends to imagine some hidden dimension to items moved by the wind was, to Darwin, similar to "the belief in the existence of one or more gods."27 Darwin's theory, however, lacked a missing link between humans and ani- mals. Then in 1912, [b]Charles Dawson uncovered what appeared to be the miss- ing link—part Of a human skull and part of the lower jaw of an ape—in a gravel pit in Piltdown, England. It wasn't until the 1950s that a group of scientists determined that "the jaw had been chemically treated to make it look like a fos- sil, and its teeth had been deliberately filed down to make them look human. Piltdown Man was a forgery. "[/b] Modern texts rarely mention this fraud. If anything, Darwinians use the forged finding as illustrative of the self-correcting nature of science. [b]This cor- rection, however, took four decades.[/b] In decrying the politics of naturalism, [b]Wells reviewed ten popular high school biology textbooks, eight by established publishers.[/b] Similar to the Amer ican Association for the Advancement of Science, he evaluated them on an scale. An A signified that a "book had full disclosure of the truth, discussion of relevant scientific controversies, and a recognition that Darwin's theories—like all scientific theories—might have to be revised or discarded if it doesn't fit the facts." An F "indicates the textbook uncritically relies on logical fallacy, dog- matically treats a theory as an unquestionable fact, or blatantly misrepresents published scientific evidence." [b]Among the ten textbooks in question, none received an A, B, or C. One rated a D+, and two a D -. The remaining eight were accorded F's.[/b] The [b]cooked evidence is "good propaganda," Bethell points out. "So they remain in the textbooks[/b], even though [b]no reputable scientists would stand behind them[/b], and our children are caught [b]misinformation in the name of a 'higher truth,' because ... as every educated person knows, evolution must be true."[/b] [/QUOTE][URL=https://books.google.nl/books?id=2-pwrcPl1OQC&pg=PA64&dq=one+of+the+most+famous+fakes+in+biology+wells+icons+of+evolution&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjJy5-u9ordAhUSJlAKHZq3CnsQ6AEINzAD#v=onepage&q=one%20of%20the%20most%20famous%20fakes%20in%20biology%20wells%20icons%20of%20evolution&f=false]Source[/URL] [/QB][/QUOTE]
Instant Graemlins
Instant UBB Code™
What is UBB Code™?
Options
Disable Graemlins in this post.
*** Click here to review this topic. ***
Contact Us
|
EgyptSearch!
(c) 2015 EgyptSearch.com
Powered by UBB.classic™ 6.7.3