OPINION

'Consensus Science'? Please!!
Written by David Flanagan
Published August 30, 2005
page 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5

The fact is, darwinists themselves are at odds over exactly how their theory might be used to explain the origins of life. For example; darwinism cannot now and never could explain the APPEARANCE of life from lifelessness. In addition, as noted author and Berkeley Professor Phil Johnson once said, "Evolution is not controversial because it is entirely true or entirely false, but rather because part is true and part is false." What did he mean by that? Simply that darwinism elegantly explains how species adapt — called "Microevolution" — but never has proven where and how one species has or could have evolved into an entirely different species — "Macroevolution."

Now, evolutionists will tell you without hesitation that their theory is true and right, but if you ask a number of them exactly how it all happened, you'll get as many different theories and guesses as you will individuals. How can it be "true" and "right" if so many in their own discipline disagree? Evolutionary scientists have had well over a hundred years to gather evidence, yet evolution as a theory is more controversial than ever. Truly, if the proof were there, the world would know it. But it isn't and we don't.

  • Mr. Derbyshire identifies evolution as a reputable science, the basis for modern biology and genomics, but I disagree. I think evolutionists have borrowed on the reputation of truly modern and effective sciences in order to bolster their own position. The fact is, sciences such as genetics and biology do not need the theory of evolution to exist. Biology, after all, existed before evolution was proposed and genetics flowed naturally from the development and growth of that field and technology in general. But, as I mention somewhat in my earlier post, genetics also poses a growing challenge to evolution as well, because now we know that even microscopic life on this planet is enormously complex, irreducibly so. Meaning that much of life is so enormously complex and dependent upon a host of internal parts and systems all working in sync with one another that a precursor form is nearly impossible. So, how do evolutionists explain the problem of complexity? They MANIPULATE life in order to show how systems could change, failing to understand that they have just bolstered the claims of Intelligent Design, not blind materialistic forces.

  • At the very least, lets teach the controversy. Darwinian Evolution is a theory, and MUST be taught as such. If you want to REALLY confuse kids, try teaching philosophy or religion in the science classroom. That is what proponents of evolution want. They don't want sound, reasoned debate and a realistic look at the science, they want dogmatism.

    • page 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5
    Keep reading for information and comments on this article, and add some feedback of your own!
    'Consensus Science'? Please!!
    Published: August 30, 2005
    Type: Opinion
    Section: Culture
    Writer: David Flanagan
    David Flanagan's BC Writer page
    David Flanagan's personal site
    Spread the Word
    Like this article?
    Email this
    Submit to del.icio.us Save to del.icio.us
    RSS Feeds
    All RSS Feeds (240+)
    Comments on this article
    BC articles by David Flanagan
    All Culture Articles
    All Opinion articles
    All BC articles
    All BC Comments

    Comments

    #1 — August 31, 2005 @ 08:39AM — JR

    David Flanagan: I won't argue on the point that Darwinism is the consensus science of our age when it comes to origin of life theories.

    and

    How can it be "true" and "right" if so many in their own discipline disagree?

    Um...

    never mind.

    #2 — September 1, 2005 @ 23:24PM — Mr. O

    "At the very least, lets teach the controversy. Darwinian Evolution is a theory, and MUST be taught as such. If you want to REALLY confuse kids, try teaching philosophy or religion in the science classroom. That is what proponents of evolution want. They don't want sound, reasoned debate and a realistic look at the science, they want dogmatism."

    What a bunch of crap! I just spent the week preparing 8th graders for my State's standard Science test. You want to know what the first thing we reviewed was? The SCIENTIFIC METHOD! It's really simple, try and keep up if you can!

    1. Identify your problem
    2. Research
    3. Form a hypothesis
    4. Develop procedures to test your hypothesis
    5. Analyze the data
    6. Draw concludions
    7. Repeat ad nauseum!

    The real "controversy" the ID proponents are asking us to teach is, "do we throw out the SCIENTIFIC METHOD or not?!"

    Next we reviewed electromagnetism. I explained to them that lightning was, "the handy work of ZEUS, casting bolts of electricity down upon us hapless mortals!" Guess what, they told ME that this was not a scientific argument because there was no use of the SCIENTIFIC METHOD! Then we got down to some good old fashioned scientific dogmatism-we conducted actual experiments in class. I had students generating electricity and turning electric current into magnets in no time. Zeus never showed up though. Intelligent Designers-they just aren't emperical when you need 'em!

    #3 — September 1, 2005 @ 23:29PM — RogerMDillion

    Once you start teaching evolution in church, then get back to me about ID in schools.

    #4 — September 3, 2005 @ 11:24AM — Steve

    I know of few churches that discuss evolution or creation in the context of the current debate and of those that do, it seems they are split 50/50 on it. The Christian community is not as monolithic as some evolutionists think it is. But then again, neither is the scientific community. You Yanks sure do make this so black & white when oftentimes things are a bit more complicated...I wonder if it is a direct result of having a two party system...but that's another topic.

    #5 — September 3, 2005 @ 11:33AM — Steve

    JR,
    A consensus generally means a majority, doesn't mean there can't be significant disagreement, and it's obvious that disagreement is on the increase in recent years.

    #6 — September 30, 2005 @ 15:28PM — huck [URL]

    well there's this and I think it's relevant:

    Proof of the theory

    #7 — September 30, 2005 @ 16:19PM — JR

    consensus

    NOUN: The quality or condition of being in complete agreement or harmony: unanimity, unanimousness.


    Want comments emailed to you? No spam, promise! Address:

    Add your comment, speak your mind

    (Or ping: http://blogcritics.org/mt/tb/35138)

    Personal attacks are not allowed. Please read our comment policy.





    Remember Name/URL?

    Please preview your comment!

    Fresh
    Articles
    Fresh
    Comments