On Wikipeebia. Philip has commented on the subject of macro evolution. Citing an article from uncommondescent.com
“I just read this article: http://www.uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/a-world-famous-chemist-tells-the-truth-theres-no-scientist-alive-today-who-understands-macroevolution/ about macro-evolution.
It’s credible as “Professor James M. Tour is one of the ten most cited chemists in the world. He is famous for his work on nanocars (pictured above, courtesy of Wikipedia), nanoelectronics, graphene nanostructures, carbon nanovectors in medicine, and green carbon research for enhanced oil recovery and environmentally friendly oil and gas extraction. He is currently a Professor of Chemistry, Professor of Computer Science, and Professor of Mechanical Engineering and Materials Science at Rice University. He has authored or co-authored 489 scientific publications and his name is on 36 patents. Although he does not regard himself as an Intelligent Design theorist, Professor Tour, along with over 700 other scientists, took the courageous step back in 2001 of signing the Discovery Institute’s “A Scientific Dissent from Darwinism”, which read: “We are skeptical of claims for the ability of random mutation and natural selection to account for the complexity of life. Careful examination of the evidence for Darwinian theory should be encouraged.”
I thought others both inside and outside the scientific community might find it interesting.”
Ian then replied that,
” scepticism is a good thing”
Which is very true. Skepticism is a good thing. It’s a good thing to at least be a little bit skeptical of everything you read,or what you hear someone say.As Ian goes on further to say, it also has things to do with “honesty and objectivity”.
I’m picking, that maybe Ian, might have even been quietly suggesting, that maybe Philip might do well, to even at least be a little bit skeptical too, of things he read within the article he posted.
Why? would Ian not just make that suggestion,straight-up and openly to someone like Philip. Well maybe because it can also be real-easy ,to deeply offend someone, specially among groups of believers.So people are forced to try make their point in a real diplomatic manner.Kind of like they are speaking in riddles,or parables.Kind of like Jesus did back within his time, when little doubt he were wary of deeply offending believers of those times too
For a start, maybe Philip could do well to at least question the statement that “there’s no scientist alive today who understand macro evolution”
I’m pretty sure its in the very least a little bit misleading, for anyone to say that.
No ? scientist alive, that understand macro evolution?
Sounds a bit far-fetched.Maybe it’s somewhat true, to say that scientist may not say that they understand macro evolution fully yet
To me ,the main problem seems to be that theist don’t understand that in some respect (as far as i know) micro and macro evolution is kind of talking about much the same thing. Except mainly
1.Micro evolution describes the changes the we can observe happening within our own lifetime.
2. While, macro evolution describes changes that mostly will need to happen over many more generations.
Here is another comment that Philip had already made a page or two earlier, in the same thread
“Many in the scientific community remain creationists out of scientific conviction bolstered by their faith in Jesus. Many do not have enough faith to believe in evolution. Here they will draw a distinction between micro evolution and macro evolution. Micro evolution can be seen in changes in animals and plants around us as they are adapted to their long term environments. Macro evolution cannot be seen or evidenced. No-one has even seen an inter-species from any genus whatsoever.”
end quote See here http://wikipeebia.com/forums/viewtopic.php?f=5&t=351&p=2435&hilit=macro+evolution#p2435 (my bold)
Don’t ? have enough faith to believe in evolution . For a start if evolution was wrong, Philip would need to have remain as an exact replica of his own ancestors.
So let’s get real Philip. People really don’t need to use faith, to believe in evolution.
1 . Philip himself, is evidence of macro evolution.For he has genes of common descent with so many other living organisms on earth too .Scientist study DNA to help them understand this. And i’m pretty sure, that they use much the same technology, that forensic science also uses, to help convict criminals of crimes. So to argue with this science, is a bit like someone arguing with police for using forensic science, in convicting the criminals like they do
Do?people like Philip,ever mach down to their local police station,and try and convince police that the conviction they made, is wrong.
No . I don’t think so
2.The changes that happen within the process of divergent evolution.That set us apart from our common ancestor.Has likely happened over millions of years, or maybe billions of years (im not sure of the exact time limit) . So how? does someone like Philip even propose that we could even set up a science study,so as to be able to actually say that someone has seen this situation occur for themselves.So as to please Philip, that “someone” had actually “personally observed” this phenomena for themselves. It’s just not possible that’s all.Simply because the process may likely take millions of years to complete
So the fact that someone has never “personally seen” this process (macro evolution).Still says very little about whether it may still have actually happened.At first glance the statement that Philip made, may seem pretty amazing to some folk. Especially the folk that live their lives by faith, and so maybe won’t tend to bother to think much more about what they read or hear people state.The folk that at very used to listening to priests and preachers guidance perhaps.The faithful,non skeptics. But that’s the main people that will really be likely to find it so convincing.
As i see it (though i admit i could be wrong.And i invite someone to point out where i’m wrong too, if i am)this is the big problem.
1.Too many theists don’t fully understand evolution for starters.
2.They then they just go right ahead, bowl on in and mislead people,by misrepresenting the details. They do this without even adding any words of caution,so as to advise people to also further explore and study the science, and thus way look into matters further.
And thus they are involved in misleading.They may even be unwittingly setting some people-up, to later on end up looking like real fools.
3.Then even worse, people like Ian just don’t even bother to try and help explain these issue either(not that i really blame Ian for that though.For its mighty hard to try getting someone to re-consider things, that they already decided to faithfully deny).And as ive already explained, it’s also real easy to deeply offend faithful folk.
Thus these things serve to also further compound the ongoing problem.
Anyway i’m pretty sure in the very least,it’s misleading , to have suggested that “there’s no scientist alive today who understand macro evolution”. I’m pretty certain that Philip should at least exercise his skepticism, in regard to a statement being as broad as this kind of statement is
As far as i know plenty of scientists alive today, do say they feel they may be beginning to partly understand some aspects of macro evolution.The big problem is there is so much confusion, and information being bandied about, that can be misleading.And maybe it’s somewhat true, that scientist still haven’t figured out every single aspect in regard to macro evolution as yet. But that’s what science is about. Scientists don’t expect to learn every single thing there is to learn,all at once, right away. Sometimes it may take them some years, or maybe even many generations.To work things out. And yes, they may even change their conclusions along the way too
That’s science. Unlike religious faith, the conclusions may change.And with science, there is nothing shameful about being found to be wrong.Scientist fully expect that they may make some mistakes.
Where as with religion.The conclusion’s have become cocooned within copious amounts of pride.There beliefs rests on attitude that their knowledge is absolute. They lived with this belief for thousands of years now.And much harm has been caused to human lives due to their attitude.Therefore much pride is also at stake
When people like Professor James M. Tour get into discussion with other scientists .The scientist they talk to may not even be absolutely sure what angle Professor James M. Tour is actually coming from.After all the professor admits himself that
“Assuming that I have something significant to contribute to the evolution vs. creation debate, many ask me to speak and write concerning my thoughts on the topic. However, I do not have anything substantive to say about it. I am a layman on the subject. Although I have read about a half dozen books on the debate, maybe a dozen, and though I can speak authoritatively on complex chemical synthesis, I am not qualified to enter the public discussion on evolution vs. creation. So please don’t ask me to be the speaker or debater at your event, and think carefully about asking me for an interview because I will probably not give you the profound quotations that you seek. You are of course free to quote me from what is written here, but do me the kindness of placing my statements in a fair context.”
So. The man himself admits he is only a layman on this subject. For all we know, the other scientist’s that Professor James M. Tour had been busy asking, if they understand evolution and macro evolution. Might even also be “laymen” in regards to this particular subject, as well too. Perhaps they were? professor’s of Chemistry too
Therefore. They will be honest, to say they don’t fully understand it
This is not to say that the man ( Professor James M. Tour) doesn’t mean well. It doesn’t even prove the man wrong either. But it does suggest that we should not just take what the man says, as proof to suggest ,that other scientists,studying in the field of evolution, are those whom are wrong.
For a start
Why? is it
1 .That theist seem to find it so easy to be extra quick to become skeptics in regard to matters of evolution.
2.Yet just as quickly, will throw their skepticism away, when it comes to needing to be a little skeptical of religious beliefs
That’s something mighty suspect . In my opinion anyway.And knowing this, should make more people somewhat more wary of these folks claims.
There is a number of discussions going on, on the internet ,in regards to the claims that were made by Professor James M. Tour
For one instance See this on here http://sandwalk.blogspot.co.nz/2014/03/a-chemist-who-doesnt-understand.html
Or perhaps this one here too http://www.reddit.com/r/TrueAtheism/comments/1zebgw/this_has_been_making_the_rounds_on_facebook/
Has Professor Tour’s skepticism, perhaps? got more to do with questions in regard to the issue of abiogenesis. Rather than being about the issue of biological evolution
Who knows for sure
Macro evolution happens. It’s been documented.A number of scientist feel they know some of the mechanisms. They still have questions of the importance of various mechanisms. They may not fully understand full details of specific lineages. And so on
But i doubt they still question the reality of the process (macro evolution).
People like Philip might do well to at least do some more research outside of internet sites run by theists.He might do well to at least also offer some alternative views on these subjects he chooses to discuss,unless his agenda is to be misleading. Otherwise it can be like an exclusive brethren member reading up on all the ministry, that were written only by the exclusive brethren leaders. To then use this material only alone, in which to try to prove exclusive brethren-ism.
Because lets face it.There is good reason to be somewhat skeptic of theists claims.Theist have an agenda to prove religious beliefs.And they don’t care if they cannot offer even an once of evidence either.
If science macro evolution is wrong.Then why don’t these theist-scientists put their conclusion to the test,and take it through the usual professional academic process of peer-review . See here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peer_review
They might do something more to help their credibility, if they did
There is heaps of information available out there, on the subject of evolution.Like this article here for instance . DNA proves evolution http://eveloce.scienceblog.com/16/dna-proves-evoution/
It might not be perfect.For all i know, some of it might even be a little incorrect (because as a layman myself, i cant be sure).But to me its still an interesting easy to read article to have a look through. And helps explain, in a reasonably simple format, in regard to how DNA helps prove evolution.
The thing is. So many scientist today, do seem to agree with these details.We can be pretty sure of this, because they are even teaching it in our science classes.The police are using the science too, to help convict criminals.Knowledge gained from it, is even being used within progress being made in medical science as well now.And so on
So by this we understand.The evidence to help prove evolution, continually keeps on mounting up.Year after year. Most scientists no longer deny it . Like i said , to try and do so, would be like someone also trying to deny the science, that the police also uses, to help convict criminals
They use the science to help convict people. So that helps show us how certain, the science has pretty much become these days.
I mean, maybe there are some aspects of gravity that are still no fully understood yet. So does this also need to throw doubt? on the idea that gravity actually happens
No. Of course not
What skeptic theists need to try understanding.Is that the evidence for evolution has been continuing to mount up.
How about evidence? for creation.
Have we? gained anymore evidence for creation and intelligent design.Do we? see evidence for intelligent design and creation, still mounting up year after year
No. We don’t
Check out what wikipedia has to say on the issue http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_Scientific_Dissent_From_Darwinism
Especially this bit
“ there appear to be a few who appear on the list who are not firmly committed to the agenda advanced by the Discovery Institute, and who have been misled into signing or who have changed their minds”
end quote (my color added)
So some people were even misled into signing up
And what about this bit here too
“Professor Brian Alters of McGill University, an expert in the creation-evolution controversy, is quoted in an article published by the NIH as stating that “99.9 percent of scientists accept evolution“
end quote (my bold)
The Wikipedia article says things like how it’s “misleading”and been called “intellectually dishonest”
Sure .Wikipedia might not be a perfect place to reference. But in general its still become known to not be so bad either.For the credibility of the site will be at stake, if they allowed too many claims to are rubbish. I suggest anyone interested in this issue, should take a good read right through this wikipeedia.
We already know how shifty and misleading the exclusive brethren group can be.So (to me) it really doesn’t look so good for some people involved in this issue, either
They would have us believe that there is some big conspiracy.And that there is people with an agenda,to conspire to prove macro evolution. But then why? don’t they just get busy in providing the evidence that disproves macro evolution
Year after year the science of DNA has improved.And more and more evidence has mounted up for evolution.
Can we hope? to perhaps someday soon,to see some progress being made, by scientists with beliefs in intelligent design . Maybe they can actually prove that God exists, and that prayer heals humans . So our hospital can perhaps? then look forward to adopting a process what would indeed be mighty useful .
If faith is a truth claim.Why? are we not using it in our hospitals and medical practices.To heal people
But we never see them make any progress in this regard.We are forced to still need to rely on whats been written within ancient holy books.We are forced to rely on faith alone
They would have us faithfully believe in God,and even more that its a loving God, that has been involved in intelligent design . They are opposed to the idea that events have simply evolved and occurred randomly, naturally
However.We do see evidence of wasps that lay eggs within insects. We see animal’s getting literally eaten alive
See this video below for instance
Reader beware: this video below is even more graphic, in regard to an animals pain and suffering in death (In my opinion. Its also nasty in regard to attitude and comments,of those that are making the video too.I simply can’t begin to understand the attitude, of some people, whom seem to me,to take? some form of pleasure,from observing another beings extreme pain and suffering )
Leaving the idea of creation, and a creator right out of the picture.Even these things, to me, seem far more easy to understand. They really are
If God was involved in creation and intelligent design.Then how? is this very extreme animal suffering explained.
Did these animals have anything to do with (story) Adam and Eve decision within the garden of Eden.
Theism obviously hasn’t even properly taken into account and deeply considered issues such as these.
Theism has come up with some conclusion,that was first made back in very ancient times.And then has stubbornly stood by all of it.In a manner that is both dogmatic, and utterly foolish.
Any great wonder ? then.That Larry Moran of the sandwalk blog http://sandwalk.blogspot.co.nz/ . Publicly claims that he personally sees theists, as being idiots
Can anyone? really blame him for thinking of theists that way
Theism has caused many people,so much endless amounts of extreme harm.I know this from my own personal experiences. I’ve experienced ongoing shit myself over the years,time and time again, that has slowly mounted-up, and in the end served to drive me partly insane. And i’m still recovering from some of these past experiences.I’ve had to learn to always remember to be very wary of anyone involved in religious faith.Even members of my own family
But to understand whether its fair comment to consider theists as idiots.For just one instance.Perhaps lets just consider this fact below
Take the sex abuse issues.That occurred within the Catholic church(a very prominent world renown organisation) .And think about the way even they continually tried to deny it, and cover it up.
1.Idiots ? .
2. Perhaps brainy intelligent types ?
3. Does? respect perhaps need to be something that is to be earned.Or should there just be some people whom can simply lay claim it, as of right
The latter just sets us up for a system that is bound to become used for abuse.Which is exactly what has been happening.All over the world.And not just within the Catholic church either
But even so. These sorts of people (people whom believe in God) have chosen to take up positions, which will have direct influence on lots of people earthly lives.Therefore they also have need to accept extra responsibility
In my opinion. It really would take a real idiot to not understand things like this
(Note :any material cited above, within this blog post.Is used here under law of fair use)