4,604
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
create archive
Although not a [[creation science|creation scientist]] Swedish [[genetics|geneticist]], Dr. [[Heribert Nilsson]], Professor of Botany at the University of Lund in [[Sweden]], stated: "My attempts to demonstrate Evolution by an experiment carried on for more than 40 years have completely failed. At least, I should hardly be accused of having started from a preconceived antievolutionary standpoint."<ref>[http://www.custance.org/Library/Volume4/Part_I/chapter6.html Nilsson, Heribert, Synthetische Artbildung, Verlag CWK Gleerup, Lund, Sweden, 1953, page 1185]</ref>
[[Karl Popper]], a leading philosopher of science and originator of the [[Falsifiability as a Criterion of Demarcation of Science from Nonscience|falsifiability as a criterion of demarcation of science from nonscience]], stated that Darwinism is not a testable scientific theory, but a [[Metaphysics|metaphysical]] research programme.<ref>http://members.iinet.net.au/~sejones/PoE/pe05scnc.html</ref> Leading Darwinist and philosopher of science, [[Michael Ruse]] acknowledged regarding Popper's statement and [[Falsifiability of Evolution|the actions he took after making that statement]]: "Since making this claim, Popper himself has modified his position somewhat; but, disclaimers aside, I suspect that even now he does not really believe that Darwinism in its modern form is genuinely falsifiable."<ref>http://members.iinet.net.au/~sejones/PoE/pe05scnc.html</ref>
In respect to the [[Falsifiability of Evolution|falsifiability of the evolutionary position]], although offering a poor cure to the problem that Karl Popper described, commited evolutionists [[Louis Charles Birch]] & [[Paul R. Ehrlich]] stated in the journal ''[[Nature]]'' the following:
{{cquote|Our theory of evolution has become, as Popper described, one which cannot be refuted by any possible observations. Every conceivable observation can be fitted into it. It is thus outside of empirical science but not necessarily false. No one can think of ways in which to test it. Ideas, either without basis or based on a few laboratory experiments carried out in extremely simplified systems, have become part of an evolutionary dogma accepted by most of us as part of our training. The cure seems to us not to be a discarding of the [[Modern Synthesis|modern synthesis]] of evolutionary theory, but more skepticism about many of its tenets.<ref>L.C. Birch and P.R. Ehrlich, Nature, vol. 214 (1967), p. 349</ref>}}
The concept of naturalistic evolution differs from the concept of [[Theistic Evolution]] in that it states [[God]] does not guide the posited process of [[macroevolution]].<ref>Dr. [[Werner Gitt]], [http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/1749/ 10 Dangers of Theistic Evolution] First published: Creation 17(4):49–51, September 1995</ref> An article by CBS News begins with the observation that, "[[United States|Americans]] do not believe that humans evolved, and the vast majority says that even if they evolved, God guided the process. Just 13 percent say that God was not involved."<ref>[http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/11/22/opinion/polls/main657083.shtml CBS News (online), Poll: Creationism Trumps Evolution: Most Americans Do Not Believe Human Beings Evolved, July 14, 2007]</ref> Since [[World War II]] a majority of the most prominent and vocal defenders of the evolutionary position which employs methodological naturalism have been [[Atheism|atheists]].<ref>Dr. [[Don Batten]], [http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/737/ A ''Who’s Who'' of evolutionists] ''Creation'' 20(1):32
December 1997.</ref><ref>[[Jonathan Sarfati]], Ph.D.,F.M., [http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/3830 ''Refuting Evolution'', Chapter 1, Facts and Bias]</ref>
The theory of evolution was published by naturalist [[Darwin, Charles|Charles Darwin]] in his book ''[[The Origin of Species|On The Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection or The Preservation of Favored Races in the Struggle for Life]]'', in 1859.<ref>[[Charles Darwin]], (1859),[http://www.gutenberg.org/dirs/etext99/otoos610.txt The Origin of Species], Project Gutenberg online text</ref> How much credit Darwin actually deserves for the theory is disputed.<ref>[[Russell Grigg]], [http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v26/i2/brainchild.asp Darwin’s Illegitimate Brainchild: If You Thought Darwin’s Origin Was Original, Think Again!]</ref> Darwin's theory attempted to explain the origin of the various kinds of plants and animals via the process of ''[[natural selection]]'' or "survival of the fittest".
[[Image:Lamarck.jpg|thumb|175px|left|[[Jean-Baptiste Lamarck]] developed a theory stating that traits developed during a lifetime could be passed on to the organism's offspring.]]
The basic principle behind natural selection is that in the struggle for life some organisms in a given population will be better suited to their particular environment and thus have a reproductive advantage which increases the representation of their particular traits over time. Many years before Charles Darwin, there were several other individuals who published articles on the topic of natural selection.<ref>[[Russell Grigg]], [http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v26/i2/brainchild.asp Darwin’s Illegitimate Brainchild: If You Thought Darwin’s Origin Was Original, Think Again!]</ref> [[Lamarckism]] asserted that evolution occurs because organisms are able to inherit traits acquired by their ancestors and this has been rejected.<ref>[http://www.medterms.com/script/main/art.asp?articlekey=13567 MedicineNet.com, Definition of Lamarkism] </ref>
The great intellectuals in history such as [[Archimedes]], [[Aristotle]], [[St. Augustine]], [[Francis Bacon]], [[Isaac Newton]] and [[Lord Kelvin]] did not propose an evolutionary process for a species to transform into a more complex version. Even after the theory of evolution was proposed and promoted heavily in England and Germany, many leading scientists rejected it.<ref>Dr. [[John Ankerberg]] and Dr. [[John Weldon]], [http://www.johnankerberg.com/Articles/_PDFArchives/science/SC1W0104D.pdf Darwin, Evolution, and His Critics - Part 3, How Was Darwin's Theory of Evolution First Received]</ref>
Critics of the theory of evolution state that many of today's proponents of the theory of evolution have diluted the meaning of the term "evolution" to the point where it defined as or the definition includes change over time in the [[Genetics|gene]] pool of a population over time through such processes as [[mutation]], natural selection, and [[genetic drift]].<ref>[http://www.arn.org/docs/anderson/an_appb.htm Glossary Definitions of "Evolution"]</ref><ref>[http://members.iinet.net.au/~sejones/PoE/pe02phl4.html#lgclprblmsflcsqvctn Fallacies used to support evolution:Equivocation]</ref><ref>[http://www.arn.org/docs/meyer/sm_meaningsofevolution.pdf The Meanings of Evolution]</ref><ref>[[Jonathan Sarfati]],Ph.D., F.M. [http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/3262/ ''Refuting Evolution 2'', Chapter 1, Argument: Creationism is religion, not science]</ref><ref>[http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/evolution Dictionary.com, definition for "evolution"]</ref> Dr. [[Jonathan Sarfati]] states the following in relation to the diluted definition of the word "evolution":
{{cquote|...many evolutionary propagandists are guilty of the deceitful practice of equivocation, that is, switching the meaning of a single word (evolution) part way through an argument. A common tactic, ‘bait-and-switch,’ is simply to produce examples of change over time, call this ‘evolution,’ then imply that the GTE [General Theory of Evolution] is thereby proven or even essential, and [[creation]] disproved. The [[Public Broadcasting Service|PBS]] ''Evolution'' series and the ''[[Scientific American]]'' article are full of examples of this fallacy.<ref>[[Jonathan Sarfati]],Ph.D., F.M. [http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/3262/ ''Refuting Evolution 2'', Chapter 1, Argument: Creationism is religion, not science]</ref>}}
Darwin did not first propose in his book ''Origin of Species'' that man had descended from non-human ancestors. He suggested that later in a book entitled ''[[Descent of Man]]''.
Although Darwin is most well known regarding the beginnings of the evolutionary position, evolutionary ideas were taught by the [[Ancient Greece|ancient Greeks]] as early as the 7th century B.C. <ref>Dr. [[Jerry Bergman]], [http://www.answersingenesis.org/tj/v15/i2/naturalism.asp Evolutionary Naturalism: An Ancient Idea] First published: TJ 15(2):77–80 August 2001</ref>
[[Karl Popper]], a leading philosopher of science and originator of the [[Falsifiability as a Criterion of Demarcation of Science from Nonscience|falsifiability as a criterion of demarcation of science from nonscience]], stated that Darwinism is not a testable scientific theory, but a [[Metaphysics|metaphysical]] research programme.<ref>http://members.iinet.net.au/~sejones/PoE/pe05scnc.html</ref> Leading Darwinist and philosopher of science, [[Michael Ruse]] acknowledged regarding Popper's statement and [[Falsifiability of Evolution|the actions he took after making that statement]]: "Since making this claim, Popper himself has modified his position somewhat; but, disclaimers aside, I suspect that even now he does not really believe that Darwinism in its modern form is genuinely falsifiable."<ref>http://members.iinet.net.au/~sejones/PoE/pe05scnc.html</ref>
In respect to the [[Falsifiability of Evolution|falsifiability of the evolutionary position]], although offering a poor cure to the problem that Karl Popper described, commited evolutionists [[Louis Charles Birch]] & [[Paul R. Ehrlich]] stated in the journal ''[[Nature]]'' the following:
{{cquote|Our theory of evolution has become, as Popper described, one which cannot be refuted by any possible observations. Every conceivable observation can be fitted into it. It is thus outside of empirical science but not necessarily false. No one can think of ways in which to test it. Ideas, either without basis or based on a few laboratory experiments carried out in extremely simplified systems, have become part of an evolutionary dogma accepted by most of us as part of our training. The cure seems to us not to be a discarding of the [[Modern Synthesis|modern synthesis]] of evolutionary theory, but more skepticism about many of its tenets.<ref>L.C. Birch and P.R. Ehrlich, Nature, vol. 214 (1967), p. 349</ref>}}
The concept of naturalistic evolution differs from the concept of [[Theistic Evolution]] in that it states [[God]] does not guide the posited process of [[macroevolution]].<ref>Dr. [[Werner Gitt]], [http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/1749/ 10 Dangers of Theistic Evolution] First published: Creation 17(4):49–51, September 1995</ref> An article by CBS News begins with the observation that, "[[United States|Americans]] do not believe that humans evolved, and the vast majority says that even if they evolved, God guided the process. Just 13 percent say that God was not involved."<ref>[http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/11/22/opinion/polls/main657083.shtml CBS News (online), Poll: Creationism Trumps Evolution: Most Americans Do Not Believe Human Beings Evolved, July 14, 2007]</ref> Since [[World War II]] a majority of the most prominent and vocal defenders of the evolutionary position which employs methodological naturalism have been [[Atheism|atheists]].<ref>Dr. [[Don Batten]], [http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/737/ A ''Who’s Who'' of evolutionists] ''Creation'' 20(1):32
December 1997.</ref><ref>[[Jonathan Sarfati]], Ph.D.,F.M., [http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/3830 ''Refuting Evolution'', Chapter 1, Facts and Bias]</ref>
The theory of evolution was published by naturalist [[Darwin, Charles|Charles Darwin]] in his book ''[[The Origin of Species|On The Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection or The Preservation of Favored Races in the Struggle for Life]]'', in 1859.<ref>[[Charles Darwin]], (1859),[http://www.gutenberg.org/dirs/etext99/otoos610.txt The Origin of Species], Project Gutenberg online text</ref> How much credit Darwin actually deserves for the theory is disputed.<ref>[[Russell Grigg]], [http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v26/i2/brainchild.asp Darwin’s Illegitimate Brainchild: If You Thought Darwin’s Origin Was Original, Think Again!]</ref> Darwin's theory attempted to explain the origin of the various kinds of plants and animals via the process of ''[[natural selection]]'' or "survival of the fittest".
[[Image:Lamarck.jpg|thumb|175px|left|[[Jean-Baptiste Lamarck]] developed a theory stating that traits developed during a lifetime could be passed on to the organism's offspring.]]
The basic principle behind natural selection is that in the struggle for life some organisms in a given population will be better suited to their particular environment and thus have a reproductive advantage which increases the representation of their particular traits over time. Many years before Charles Darwin, there were several other individuals who published articles on the topic of natural selection.<ref>[[Russell Grigg]], [http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v26/i2/brainchild.asp Darwin’s Illegitimate Brainchild: If You Thought Darwin’s Origin Was Original, Think Again!]</ref> [[Lamarckism]] asserted that evolution occurs because organisms are able to inherit traits acquired by their ancestors and this has been rejected.<ref>[http://www.medterms.com/script/main/art.asp?articlekey=13567 MedicineNet.com, Definition of Lamarkism] </ref>
The great intellectuals in history such as [[Archimedes]], [[Aristotle]], [[St. Augustine]], [[Francis Bacon]], [[Isaac Newton]] and [[Lord Kelvin]] did not propose an evolutionary process for a species to transform into a more complex version. Even after the theory of evolution was proposed and promoted heavily in England and Germany, many leading scientists rejected it.<ref>Dr. [[John Ankerberg]] and Dr. [[John Weldon]], [http://www.johnankerberg.com/Articles/_PDFArchives/science/SC1W0104D.pdf Darwin, Evolution, and His Critics - Part 3, How Was Darwin's Theory of Evolution First Received]</ref>
Critics of the theory of evolution state that many of today's proponents of the theory of evolution have diluted the meaning of the term "evolution" to the point where it defined as or the definition includes change over time in the [[Genetics|gene]] pool of a population over time through such processes as [[mutation]], natural selection, and [[genetic drift]].<ref>[http://www.arn.org/docs/anderson/an_appb.htm Glossary Definitions of "Evolution"]</ref><ref>[http://members.iinet.net.au/~sejones/PoE/pe02phl4.html#lgclprblmsflcsqvctn Fallacies used to support evolution:Equivocation]</ref><ref>[http://www.arn.org/docs/meyer/sm_meaningsofevolution.pdf The Meanings of Evolution]</ref><ref>[[Jonathan Sarfati]],Ph.D., F.M. [http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/3262/ ''Refuting Evolution 2'', Chapter 1, Argument: Creationism is religion, not science]</ref><ref>[http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/evolution Dictionary.com, definition for "evolution"]</ref> Dr. [[Jonathan Sarfati]] states the following in relation to the diluted definition of the word "evolution":
{{cquote|...many evolutionary propagandists are guilty of the deceitful practice of equivocation, that is, switching the meaning of a single word (evolution) part way through an argument. A common tactic, ‘bait-and-switch,’ is simply to produce examples of change over time, call this ‘evolution,’ then imply that the GTE [General Theory of Evolution] is thereby proven or even essential, and [[creation]] disproved. The [[Public Broadcasting Service|PBS]] ''Evolution'' series and the ''[[Scientific American]]'' article are full of examples of this fallacy.<ref>[[Jonathan Sarfati]],Ph.D., F.M. [http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/3262/ ''Refuting Evolution 2'', Chapter 1, Argument: Creationism is religion, not science]</ref>}}
Darwin did not first propose in his book ''Origin of Species'' that man had descended from non-human ancestors. He suggested that later in a book entitled ''[[Descent of Man]]''.
Although Darwin is most well known regarding the beginnings of the evolutionary position, evolutionary ideas were taught by the [[Ancient Greece|ancient Greeks]] as early as the 7th century B.C. <ref>Dr. [[Jerry Bergman]], [http://www.answersingenesis.org/tj/v15/i2/naturalism.asp Evolutionary Naturalism: An Ancient Idea] First published: TJ 15(2):77–80 August 2001</ref>