The description of the "scientific method" is very much oversimplified. The writer confuses "theory" with "hypothesis" for one thing. Also, the experiments are constructed to "falsify" the hypothesis.
I am not impressed.
June 3-08 #4 Talk - Evolution - A Scientific Dilemma
by still_in74 21 Replies latest watchtower bible
-
-
MissingLink
Hey kids. Fill in the "..." to see a completely differnet picture!
-
Awakened07
According to New Scientist: "An increasing number of scientists, most particularly a growing number of evolutionists . . . argue that Darwinian evolutionary theory is no genuine scientific theory at all. . . . Many of the critics have the highest intellectual credentials."—June 25, 1981, p. 828.
The ". . ." are red flags. These kinds of quotes, which are taken out of context, are not about evolutionists saying that they don't accept evolution(!!), but rather that they, or some other 'clique' in science, are against a certain understanding of the mechanism or process behind evolution.
This particular quote is, as far as I have found, attributed to Michael Ruse, who is a professor of philosophy and I think have specialized on things like social Darwinism in that respect, but he's not a biologist. Still, when you take a look at what he still believes - to this day, 27 years after the quote - there is nothing that points to him not accepting evolution. Quite the contrary, when you read this interview for instance. And even if it turns out the quote is not from him after all, it's utterly ridiculous to assert that evolutionists would argue that evolution has not occurred, or is not a scientific theory.
The words "Darwinian evolutionary theory" in the quote are probably key here; this was most likely about the debate surrounding 'punctuated equilibrium', which did and does counter Darwin's own idea of a steady, crawling pace of evolution. But debating the mechanism and process is not the same as denying that it has occurred.
-
still_in74
Where exactly did this source material come from?
i got it right out of the PDF 2008 TMS Download off this site! Probably 90% in my cong have bound copies of this PDF.
I presumed it came from the reasoning book but upon further review I think the dude that put this thing together has pulled some info on his own.
I couldnt care less where it came from, I just want this over with. Besides, not one person in the KH will be listening to a word I say anyway, I will be looking at glazed over eye-balls for 90% and furrowing eye-brows for 10% - (of course in a vain attempt to appear like they understand/give a shite about what I am saying)
-
still_in74
I give you a "G" Do they still give G, I, and W??
LOL! EVERYONE GETS "G" !!!!!!!!! Once I got a "W" when i was a kid and I was devastated.
Then when I was about 25 an elder that was a total A-Hole gave me a "W" for about 2 years straight. Problem with that was, I was probably the best speaker in the KH and he knew it.
I think he felt it his divine mission to "humble" me. Not that I really cared about those public speaking awards I have anyway. As for "I" I only ever knew of one school overseer that gave "I" - he would say that if you had a "W" on your slip you had to get an "I" on the talk after that, you couldnt go straight to a "G"... i would make fun of that but he was good man and I really like him. Still do I guess. But I always got a kick out of the fact that he was the only one that I had ever heard give an "I" -
moshe
If not evolution, then how does creation fit in with what has happened in the past 500 nillion years? You see, 99% of all life that ever existed is now extinct. Apparently, even as perfect as T-Rex must have been, he just got too big and mean for his own good and Jehovah must have decided to put him on the extinct list and give the little rodent mammals their chance. Man will likely get replaced, too at some point in time- go extinct, if you will. If you believe that Jehovah has directed the creation/existence of all life on earth, then you will have to agree that Jehovah just can't seem to make up his mind what kind of creatures he wants to live on this planet.- or just maybe, God has nothing to do at all with life and death.
-
still_in74
or just maybe, God has nothing to do at all with life and death.
you know, there is a part of me that is begining to think this way....
-
wifekeepsmeinit
Evolution, is it a Valid Argument
Many today believe that modern science and the Bible are hopelessly at odds. Most scientists believe the theory of evolution, which teaches that all living things evolved from a simple life form that came into existence millions of years ago. The Bible, on the other hand, teaches that each major group of living things was specially created and that human kind was created "from the dust of the ground. Is this a glaring scientific error in the Bible? Before deciding, let us look more closely at what science knows, as opposed to what it theorizes.
The theory of evolution was popularized by Charles Darwin. When he was on the Galápagos Islands in the Pacific, Darwin was impressed by the different species of finches on the different islands, which he concluded must all have descended from just one species. So he promoted the theory that all living things come from one original, simple form. He said it was natural selection, the survival of the fittest. Thanks to this theory, he claimed, land animals developed from fish, birds from reptiles, and so forth.
What Darwin observed in the Galapagos was not out of harmony with the Bible. All the races of mankind, for example, came from just one original human pair. So it is nothing out the ordinary that these species of finches would come from a common species. They did remain finches. They did not evolve into hawks or eagles. (vs)
Many scientists assert that evolution is no longer just a theory but that it is a fact. Others, while recognizing the theory’s problems, say that they believe it anyway. It is popular to do so.
How can the theory of evolution be tested? The most obvious way is to examine the fossil record to see if a gradual change from one kind to another really happened. Did it? No, as a most scientists admit to. The truth is, though, that the sudden appearance of animals in the fossil record supports creation much more than it does evolution. (vs)
Another question that scientists have failed to answer is: What was the origin of life. In Darwins time they thought that flies could develop from decaying meat and that a pile of old rags could spontaneously produce mice.
So how do scientists explain the source of life? A chance combination of chemicals and energy sparked a spontaneous generation of life
Even under far different conditions, though, there is a huge gap between nonliving matter and the simplest living thing. The idea that nonliving material could come to life by some haphazard chance is so remote as to be impossible. The Bible’s explanation, that ‘life came from life’ in that life was created by God, is convincingly clear. (vs.)
Despite the problems inherent in the theory of evolution, belief in creation is viewed today as unscientific, even eccentric. Why is this? Well it’s obviously not popular to think that life on earth was created by another life form, its too supernatural. But it does make good summertime movies.
In other words, the fact that creation involves a Creator makes it unacceptable. `They say that Miracles are impossible because they are miraculous!
The theory of evolution deals with a series of unique events, the origin of life, the origin of intelligence and so on. Unique events are unrepeatable and cannot be subjected to any sort of experimental investigation. So all they have is a theory. The truth is that the theory of evolution, despite its popularity, is full of gaps and problems. It gives no good reason to except it as fact. The first chapter of Genesis provides a complete and reasonable account of how these "unrepeatable" "unique events" came about during creative ‘days’ that stretched through millenniums of time.
Here is an outline that I wrote for a talk several years ago, I cant find the final copy of it, it had Bible verses to follow from and a different ending. All info in this came from the Evolution - Creation Book and couple of WT mags.
Hope this helps. I know its tough to write something that will keep them awake. I always like to use a little bit of humor.
-
wifekeepsmeinit
I found another copy of it a little more refined, better beginning and ending, still no verses or any quotes to back it up. At the very least it may give you something to work with.
The question, do you believe in evolution or in creation? Is much more that a matter of idle curiosity. Isn’t it?
How did life begin? Perhaps no other question has stirred more speculation and ignited more debates. Most of the controversy though does not lie with creationists but rather it lies with the evolutionists.
Virtually every detail of evolution, how it started, when it started, or even how the long the process took is hotly disputed.
The basic idea of evolution is that all plant and animal life came from one single celled life form, and all you see here is the result of that single cell. It also says the one single cell came to life as a result of some organic soup. Take a look ladies and gentleman, according to evolutionists this is where we as complex humans, including all the diversity on the planet originated from.
The theory of evolution was popularized by Charles Darwin when he wrote his book "the origin of the species" His main point of his book came from how many different types of finches (which are a type of bird) their were on the Galapagos islands. From that one point he concluded that all, living things came from one simple form. And thanks to this theory he claimed that birds descended from fish, animals from alligators and so on.
Now come to think of it, what Darwin observed, regarding the types of finches, is not out of harmony with creationists. All races of mankind descended from one human pair. So its nothing strange that there were so many different types of finches. But they did remain finches. They didn’t evolve into hawks or eagles.
Would you believe that there is not one species on the planet that scientists can prove descended from another living form. In other words there is no missing link for humans or any other animal on the planet. Now I’m sure everyone here has seen the pictures on T.V or on a poster showing how humans evolved from a monkey all the way up to an upright human being. All of them, every single one are an artists rendering, no skeletal remains have ever been found, nor will there ever will be.
But the world may say; but (your Name) hasn’t scientists proven evolution. So how can the theory of Evolution be tested? The most obvious way is to examine the fossil record to see if a gradual change from one kind to another really happened. Did it? NO. So obvious is this lack of evidence in the fossil record that evolutionists have come up with other alternatives to their theory. The truth is, the fossil record shows a sudden appearance of animals that supports creation.
Another interesting question evolutionists have failed to answer is; What was the origin of life? How did the simplest form of life from which we were all supposed to have descended, come into existence? 200 years ago, this question would not have been a problem. Most people back then thought that flies could develop from rotten meat and that a pile of old rags could spontaneously produce mice. But scientists have now proved in laboratory tests over and over again that "Life can only come from Life".
Despite the problems with the theory of evolution, belief in creation today is viewed as unscientific or worse just plain stupid. Why is this? Some believe its because creation involves supernatural causes, or the reason why so many people believe evolution is because so many people are taught evolution only.
So now if you still profess to believe in evolution you will accept that no evidence has ever been found to prove evolution and you will also accept ideas that neither you or anyone else has seen. As we have learned there is no missing link for humans or animals. No skeletal remains providing proof in the fossil record. And scientists have proved over and over again that Life can only come from pre-existing life. Does it reflect sound thinking when a person believes in an idea or a theory that runs against all the evidence? Or is it more reasonable in view of all the things around us, like these plants or these apples that speak of an intelligent designer to believe there is a creator.
-
JK666
si74,
We used to refer to that as a WIG. You had to have an "improved" after a "weak," before you could get a "good." Sheesh!
JK