Why do many prominent evolutionists insist that macroevolution is a fact?
Richard Lewontin, an influential evolutionist, candidly wrote that many scientists are willing to accept unproven scientific claims because they “have a prior commitment, a commitment to materialism.”
Many scientists refuse even to consider the possibility of an intelligent Designer because, as Lewontin writes, “we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door.”30
In this regard, sociologist Rodney Stark is quoted in Scientific American as saying: “There’s been 200 years of marketing that if you want to be a scientific person you’ve got to keep your mind free of the fetters of religion.”
He further notes that in research universities, “the religious people keep their mouths shut.”
If you are to accept the teaching of macroevolution as true, you must believe that agnostic or atheistic scientists will not let their personal beliefs influence their interpretations of scientific findings.
You must believe that mutations and natural selection produced all complex life-forms, despite a century of research that shows that mutations have not transformed even one properly defined species into something entirely new.
You must believe that all creatures gradually evolved from a common ancestor, despite a fossil record that strongly indicates that the major kinds of plants and animals appeared abruptly and did not evolve into other kinds, even over aeons of time.
Does that type of belief sound as though it is based on facts or on myths?
Really, belief in evolution is an act of “faith.”
Answers & Comments
Verified answer
Darwinism is a mythology.
"With the failure of these many efforts, science was left in the somewhat embarrassing position of having to postulate theories of living origins which it could not demonstrate. After having chided the theologian for his reliance on myth and miracle, science found itself in the inevitable position of having to create a mythology of its own: namely, the assumption that what, after long effort could not prove to take place today had, in truth, taken place in the primeval past."—*Loren Eisley, The Immense Journey (1957), p. 199.
It is a faith.
"[The theory of evolution] forms a satisfactory faith on which to base our interpretation of nature."—*L. Harrison Matthews, "Introduction to Origin of Species," p. xxii (1977 edition).
Evolution makes man into his own god. It is "a nontheistic religion."
"Humanism is the belief that man shapes his own destiny. It is a constructive philosophy, a nontheistic religion, a way of life."—*American Humanist Association, promotional brochure.
This bewitching power that captivates men so that they will live and die in defense of pointless thinking and factless theory is termed by them a "religion."
"It is a religion of science that Darwinism chiefly held, and holds over men's minds."—*Encounter, November, p. 48 (1959).
*Huxley, *Charles Darwin's personal champion, made a startling admission:
" `Creation,' in the ordinary sense of the word, is perfectly conceivable. I find no difficulty in conceiving that, at some former period, this universe was not in existence, and that it made its appearance in six days (or instantaneously, if that is preferred), in consequence of the volition of some preexisting Being. Then, as now, the so-called a priori arguments against Theism and, given a Deity, against the possibility of creative acts, appeared to me to be devoid of reasonable foundation."—*Thomas H. Huxley, quoted in *L. Huxley, Life and Letters of Thomas Henry Huxley, Vol. I (1903), p. 241 (1903).
A co-developer of the Piltdown Man hoax, said this:
"A Belief in Evolution is a basic doctrine in the Rationalists' Liturgy."—*Sir Arthur Keith, Darwinism and Its Critics (1935), p. 53.
"Biogenesis" is the theory that life originated from nonlife one day when some sand and seawater changed itself into a living being. It is accepted by faith, for there is no evidence to support such an idea.
"It is therefore a matter of faith, on the part of the biologist, that biogenesis did occur and he can choose whatever method of biogenesis happens to suit him personally; the evidence of what did happen is not available."—*G.A. Kerkut, Implications of Evolution (1960), p. 150.
The theory of evolution up the ladder from simple organisms to more complex ones, requires a level of faith not based on fact that is astonishing.
"If complex organisms ever did evolve from simpler ones, the process took place contrary to the laws of nature, and must have involved what may rightly be termed the miraculous."—*R.E.D. Clark, Victoria Institute (1943), p. 63.
Is evolution then a science or a faith? Lacking evidence for its support, what is it?
"The fact of evolution is the backbone of biology, and biology is thus in the peculiar position of being a science founded on an improved theory—is it then a science or faith?"—*L.H. Matthews, "Introduction to Origin of the Species, by *Charles Darwin (1971 edition), pp. x, xi (1971 edition).
There are thousands of facts in support of Creation and the existence of the Creator who made that creation. But evolution is solo fide; it is by faith alone.
"The more one studies paleontology, the more certain one becomes that evolution is based on faith alone . . exactly the same sort of faith which it is necessary to have when one encounters the great mysteries of religion."—*Louis Trenchard More, quoted in Science and the Two-tailed Dinosaur, p. 33.
The best description of the facts discovered by geologists—is to be found in the book of Genesis.
"If I, as a geologist, were called upon to explain briefly our modern ideas of the origin of the earth and the development of life on it to a simple, pastoral people, such as the tribes to whom the Book of Genesis was addressed, I could hardly do better than follow rather closely much of the language of the first chapter of Genesis."—*Wallace Pratt, quoted by W.L. Copithorne, in "The Worlds of Wallace Pratt," The Lamp, Fall 1971, p. 14.
After looking over all the evidence, the Genesis account of Creation is far more believable than is the evolutionary tale.
"Given the facts, our existence seems quite improbable—more miraculous, perhaps, than the seven-day wonder of Genesis."—*Judith Hooper, "Perfect Timing," New Age Journal, Vol. 11, December 1985, p. 18.
Why do many prominent evolutionists insist that macroevolution is a fact?
- It could be the massive number of facts that prove it, but that is just a guess on my part.
Richard Lewontin, an influential evolutionist, candidly wrote that many scientists are willing to accept unproven scientific claims because they “have a prior commitment, a commitment to materialism.”
- And 3 million other scientists say that guy is an idiot.
Many scientists refuse even to consider the possibility of an intelligent Designer because, as Lewontin writes, “we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door.”30
- Many scientists refuse to consider an intelligent designer since that is fantasy and science does not deal with magic and fantasies.
“There’s been 200 years of marketing that if you want to be a scientific person you’ve got to keep your mind free of the fetters of religion.”
- Science is fact and intelligence, religion is belief and fantasy. That is why.
He further notes that in research universities, “the religious people keep their mouths shut.”
- And so they should since all they can say is - goddidit - which is not research.
If you are to accept the teaching of macroevolution as true, you must believe that agnostic or atheistic scientists will not let their personal beliefs influence their interpretations of scientific findings.
- And that is an absolute since science is about facts not beliefs. Since all you can understand is beliefs it makes sense that you think every one operates that way.
You must believe that mutations and natural selection produced all complex life-forms, despite a century of research that shows that mutations have not transformed even one properly defined species into something entirely new.
- And if you did any of that research you mentioned earlier you would discover that the change of one species to another has been observed, tested and documented many different times in both plants and animals, but then all you deal with are "beliefs" regardless of reality.
You must believe that all creatures gradually evolved from a common ancestor
- Proven many times and many ways and it is not a "belief".
despite a fossil record that strongly indicates that the major kinds of plants and animals appeared abruptly and did not evolve into other kinds, even over aeons of time
- And we are back to that research thing. You need to read something other than fundie captions.
Does that type of belief sound as though it is based on facts or on myths?
- Your "interpretation" of the facts does, but then as a good fundie you make up whatever is convenient to fit your paradigm.
Really, belief in evolution is an act of “faith.”
- Not if you deal with the facts rather than fantasies.
Let me summarize the question:
Appeal to authority (Lewontin) - a logical fallacy
Ad homin attack (scientists refuse...) - a logical fallacy
Plain old logical falacy (huh, if "macroevolution" is true, then you must believe scientists.... - say what?)
Misstatement of facts (the fossil record, there are many many intermediate forms) - logical fallacy
So the whole question is one big pile of steaming s***
It is not faith, we've observed speciation. We've observed novel abilities evolving in the lab. For example, a bacteria strain that could not grow using citrate was able to in just 20 years in a few flasks. In fact there was a speciation event, where the early (and inefficient) citrate users were becoming proportionately more common (outcompeting the glucose users), and there was evolution in the glucose using population in response to this new selection pressure that nearly outcompeted the citrate users (but as the citrate metabolism became more efficient, the glucose only population entered rapid decline). Inability to use aerobically use citrate used to be a defining characteristic of e. coli.
Also, many other traits of these bacteria changed over the 20 year time frame of the experiment.
Imagine the complexity of the variations that build up not in a few flasks in a lab, but the entire surface of the earth - not in 20 years, but 20 thousand, 20 million.... 200 million.... 2 billion...
Evolution and speciation are observed processes. As are mutations leading to increased fitness.
Evolution has been demonstrated, it is as "proven" as the theory of gravity.
>>Why do many prominent evolutionists insist that macroevolution is a fact?
Because we have multiple sources of confirming evidence for it.
http://talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/section1.html
>>If you are to accept the teaching of macroevolution as true, you must
>>believe that agnostic or atheistic scientists will not let their personal
>>beliefs influence their interpretations of scientific findings.
That's a ridiculous claim, given that there are plenty of monotheists who understand and accept what creationists call "macro"evolution.
>>a century of research that shows
>>that mutations have not transformed even one properly defined
>>species into something entirely new.
You are a big fat liar:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nylon-eating_bacteria
>>You must believe that all creatures gradually evolved from a
>>common ancestor, despite a fossil record that strongly indicates
>>that the major kinds of plants and animals appeared abruptly and
>>did not evolve into other kinds, even over aeons of time.
I'm guessing that like many uneducated creationists, you're trying to use the Cambrian Explosion as evidence of creationism. It's not. This claim of creationists has already been debunked now for decades.
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CC/CC300.html
(Pretty sad though that a person who isn't a creationist can not only identify which argument you're using, but word it much better.)
>>Does that type of belief sound as though it is based on facts or on myths?
More like a set of dishonest "straw man" fallacies, a favorite tactic of creationists when they have no explanations.
Belief in evolution is not an act of faith, because evolution is backed up by the evidence.
Not all biologists are either atheist or agnostic. You're trying to use the assertion that they are to "prove" that they are biased. It doesn't work, both because it is untrue and because it is no indicator of bias.
There is /no/ evidence for an "Intelligent Designer." Belief in such a being is a matter of faith, not evidence. Faith is the appropriate confirmation for religious matters. It's funny to me how many people who support Creationism use "faith" as if it were a /bad/ thing.
A will written con job--pretty much appeal to authority. But you have to look at what you've cherry picked. Lewontin clearly firmly believes that evolutionary theory is how speciation occurred--there is no question about it--yet you lie for jebus and twist words to make it sound as if he somehow believes your creationist gargabe. Stark is a religionista --a religious sociologist--so of course he'd spew your gunk.
In reality--support for evolutionary theory--comprises literally tens of thousands of pounds of evidence all intricately woven together. Your bible--has no evidence at all for many of it's major stories. If you used the same logic for believing or not believing your buybull as you wish to do for evolutionary theory.--you'd not be a christian.
Guess youre just so much smarter than thousands of Ph D's worldwide.
Peace be unto you all. What you say is very true, but the people are so brainwashed they don't realize that real science disproves evolution. It has been firmly embedded in their mind as fact and they do not see the circular reasoning and circular logic which is used to prove this so-called fact. Take these quotes from scientific journals which prove the point that the evidence does not support evolution.
"Darwin anticipated that microevolution would be a process of continuous and gradual change. The term macroevolution, by contrast, refers to the origin of new species and divisions of the taxonomic hierarchy above the species level, and also to the origin of complex adaptations, such as the vertebrate eye. Macroevolution posed a problem to Darwin because his principle of descent with modification predicts gradual transitions between small-scale adaptive changes in populations and these larger-scale phenomena, yet there is little evidence for such transitions in nature. Instead, the natural world is often characterized by gaps, or discontinuities. One type of gap relates to the existence of 'organs of extreme perfection', such as the eye, or morphological innovations, such as wings, both of which are found fully formed in present-day organisms without leaving evidence of how they evolved."-- Reznick, David N., Robert E. Ricklefs. 12 February 2009. Darwin's bridge between microevolution and macroevolution. Nature, Vol. 457, pp. 837-842.
"Darwin argued that the incompleteness of the fossil record gives the illusion of an explosive event, but with the eventual discovery of older and better-preserved rocks, the ancestors of these Cambrian taxa would be found. Studies of Ediacaran and Cambrian fossils continue to expand the morphologic variety of clades, but the appearance of the remains and traces of bilaterian animals in the Cambrian remains abrupt." -Erwin, Douglas H., Marc Laflamme, Sarah M. Tweedt, Erik A. Sperling, Davide Pisani, Kevin J. Peterson. 2011. The Cambrian Conundrum: Early Divergence and Later Ecological Success in the Early History of Animals. Science, Vol. 334, pp. 1091-1097.
It's not like science tries to make its findings a secret, you know...
All the evidence it collects is compiled in scientific journals you are absolutely free to go read for yourself.
If, like most people, you lack the specific training and time to actually keep up with all the reasearch, lucky for you, tons of vulgarizers are working hard to make it accessible to the general public. There are museums you can visit, excellent television programs such as Nova you can watch, you can read books and magazines... You know... watch a nature show once in a while, visit a national park, pick up a copy of National Geographic, etc..., etc...
Science has nothing to do with faith. You are being wilfully ignorant and that is not cute. If you can't be bothered to actually take a look at what science is finding, I can't be bothered "debating" you.
Evolution is fact. Your ancient mythology is not.
Deal with it.
The belief in evolution sounds as if it is based on facts, because it is based on facts.
If evolution, as you say, is a vast conspiracy made up by scientists, then pure science will eventually uncover the truth. If you have proof that life was intelligently designed, please come forward with it. Right now, your proof sounds more like "well we don't have all the facts about evolution, so it must be wrong, and I'm just going to go with my own idea instead of searching for more evidence"
The good doctor is simply saying(if you read the WHOLE quote) that it isn't science at all to posit without evidence a "creator" or "intelligent designer" and then try to squeeze the factual evidence in around that unfounded assumption. That's why "you cannot allow a divine foot in the door", there's no testable evidence of the divine. MEGA-UBER-FAIL.