Saturday, May 29, 2010
Tuesday, May 25, 2010
Evolution (what else?)
Why do standards in the historical sciences differ from those in other arms of scientific research? The historical sciences, namely evolution seems to be exempt from the most basic of scientific foundation stones i.e. objectivity. I always thought that for science to operate correctly, there needed to be a certain level of objectivity, so that a person's own feelings, personality etc could not intrude on the findings of the research being undertaken. For evolution, this seems not to be the case. I base this statement on these few simple, yet I believe profound revelations:
1. If someone asks a scientist how the world came about, he has basically two options from which to draw an answer:
(a) The world was created by God.
(b) The world evolved based on mutation and natural selection.
2. If the scientist does not want to accept that there is a God, then they are left with only one option, namely evolution.
These two simple facts pose some dangerous situations for the scientific world. Namely, if scientists only have one option from which to choose, then how can they ever truly be objective in their findings? Once objectivity disappears, then there is the real risk of people simply fitting in the "facts" to what they believe or want to believe. Suddenly we are left with the situation, that if evidence does not fit in with the accepted view, then either the evidence is dismissed as an anomaly, or the theory is "bent" in order to fit in the new evidence. To suddenly consider that the theory is incorrect would be inconceivable, as it would leave nothing else to fall back on, other than creation.
One thing that has been a thorn in the side of evolutionists since its inception, is that the fossil record does not include anything in its "evolving" state e.g. a lizard with partially developed feathers. Only recently I read one scientist say, that this particular aspect was concentrated upon by people such as creationists, but in fact it was largely unimportant. Unimportant!! More like unbelievable. So in other words, any remnants of being able to be objective about evolution has been totally obliterated. I mean, now they don't even want to bother with evidence. Why can't people see how unbelievable this is. Why can't trained scientists see how utterly laughable this is. Oh yes, I was forgetting, THEY HAVE NOTHING TO FALL BACK TO.
What this means, is that science will make evolution work, irrespective of any evidence to the contrary that might arise e.g. Evolution is based on small changes happening over large periods of time. However, when it was discovered that some evidence in the fossil record could not fit in to this particular view, then they decided that at certain times throughout history, evolution has occurred in much shorter, compacted time periods. Did they think, "Well, maybe the whole concept of evolution is wrong."? No of course not, because that would have left them with nothing else to turn to. So they simply change things to fit in with what they want. Is this an objective way of doing things? Hardly. If this was done in other areas of scientific research, they would have been a laughing stock.
Scientists have become lazy and gullible in regards to the origins of the world. They simply accept any old trash dished out to them which has the label of evolution on it. They don't even bother disputing findings, just so long as it keeps the status quo or if the theory can be carefully twisted in order to accept the new findings.
I believe half the reason a lot of scientists accept evolution so readily, is that they don't even realise what evolution is all about. A case in point is a scientist in Queensland, Australia who was doing research on the cane toad. He discovered that toads now in northern Queensland have back legs larger than what they used to. He then goes on record saying how amazing this was, because we were seeing evolution happen right in front of our eyes! For all his knowledge, he was obviously pretty ignorant of evolution. For a start, what he found was not evolution. Evolution is the changing from one species into another. What is the toad changing into? A giraffe? He simply discovered an amazing designed in feature of all living things. The ability to adapt to their surroundings. What he found, I already knew. Cane toads 20 years ago, when they weren't so widespread as they are now, were quite slow. They sat on the road and rarely moved when the lights of an approaching vehicle shone on them. So these toads were easily killed. However, if you see a toad on a road these days, chances are as soon as your lights touch it, it will quickly hop away, avoiding their impending death. This is no different to the light coloured moths that inhabited a forest in England. They would hide on light coloured tree trunks. However, when industry arrived and pollution coloured the tree trunks a darker shade, the light coloured moths began to be eaten, and the moths ended up, after a few generations, darker in colour, which enabled them to once more hide on the tree trunks. Was this evolution? No. They were still moths! Natural selection? Yes. A wonderful design feature included in the moths makeup? Yes. But definitely not evolution. Same as the toads.
This same mistake happens time and time again. The incredible thing, is that people just accept it. They don't question it. They simply think, "Oh well, a scientist is saying it, so it must be correct".
Another amazing occurrence is when people such as David Attenborough, make evolution out to be almost some form of intelligent force. In an episode for gliding possums, he says something along the lines of, "In order for the possums to get around more easily in the forest, they evolved skin between their front and rear legs." How bizarre is that! "They evolved skin". It was like they had some sort of option. As if one day they said, "Hmmm, skin between the legs would be good so we can glide around the place. Ok, let's do it.". I wonder if he ever looks at his productions and ever thinks about what he has said. This type of thinking is not only incorrect, but if I was an evolutionist, I would be pretty mad at him for casting evolution in such a ludicrous light.
Too often scientists do this. Making out that evolution is some sort of intelligent force. If you don't believe me, look at some of those documentaries with an open mind. You'll soon see that I'm right. Objectivity? What objectivity. No matter how hard the science world argues against creation, when these types of attitudes are put forward, it seems that evolution has suddenly taken on a lot of the traits of a religion.
1. If someone asks a scientist how the world came about, he has basically two options from which to draw an answer:
(a) The world was created by God.
(b) The world evolved based on mutation and natural selection.
2. If the scientist does not want to accept that there is a God, then they are left with only one option, namely evolution.
These two simple facts pose some dangerous situations for the scientific world. Namely, if scientists only have one option from which to choose, then how can they ever truly be objective in their findings? Once objectivity disappears, then there is the real risk of people simply fitting in the "facts" to what they believe or want to believe. Suddenly we are left with the situation, that if evidence does not fit in with the accepted view, then either the evidence is dismissed as an anomaly, or the theory is "bent" in order to fit in the new evidence. To suddenly consider that the theory is incorrect would be inconceivable, as it would leave nothing else to fall back on, other than creation.
One thing that has been a thorn in the side of evolutionists since its inception, is that the fossil record does not include anything in its "evolving" state e.g. a lizard with partially developed feathers. Only recently I read one scientist say, that this particular aspect was concentrated upon by people such as creationists, but in fact it was largely unimportant. Unimportant!! More like unbelievable. So in other words, any remnants of being able to be objective about evolution has been totally obliterated. I mean, now they don't even want to bother with evidence. Why can't people see how unbelievable this is. Why can't trained scientists see how utterly laughable this is. Oh yes, I was forgetting, THEY HAVE NOTHING TO FALL BACK TO.
What this means, is that science will make evolution work, irrespective of any evidence to the contrary that might arise e.g. Evolution is based on small changes happening over large periods of time. However, when it was discovered that some evidence in the fossil record could not fit in to this particular view, then they decided that at certain times throughout history, evolution has occurred in much shorter, compacted time periods. Did they think, "Well, maybe the whole concept of evolution is wrong."? No of course not, because that would have left them with nothing else to turn to. So they simply change things to fit in with what they want. Is this an objective way of doing things? Hardly. If this was done in other areas of scientific research, they would have been a laughing stock.
Scientists have become lazy and gullible in regards to the origins of the world. They simply accept any old trash dished out to them which has the label of evolution on it. They don't even bother disputing findings, just so long as it keeps the status quo or if the theory can be carefully twisted in order to accept the new findings.
I believe half the reason a lot of scientists accept evolution so readily, is that they don't even realise what evolution is all about. A case in point is a scientist in Queensland, Australia who was doing research on the cane toad. He discovered that toads now in northern Queensland have back legs larger than what they used to. He then goes on record saying how amazing this was, because we were seeing evolution happen right in front of our eyes! For all his knowledge, he was obviously pretty ignorant of evolution. For a start, what he found was not evolution. Evolution is the changing from one species into another. What is the toad changing into? A giraffe? He simply discovered an amazing designed in feature of all living things. The ability to adapt to their surroundings. What he found, I already knew. Cane toads 20 years ago, when they weren't so widespread as they are now, were quite slow. They sat on the road and rarely moved when the lights of an approaching vehicle shone on them. So these toads were easily killed. However, if you see a toad on a road these days, chances are as soon as your lights touch it, it will quickly hop away, avoiding their impending death. This is no different to the light coloured moths that inhabited a forest in England. They would hide on light coloured tree trunks. However, when industry arrived and pollution coloured the tree trunks a darker shade, the light coloured moths began to be eaten, and the moths ended up, after a few generations, darker in colour, which enabled them to once more hide on the tree trunks. Was this evolution? No. They were still moths! Natural selection? Yes. A wonderful design feature included in the moths makeup? Yes. But definitely not evolution. Same as the toads.
This same mistake happens time and time again. The incredible thing, is that people just accept it. They don't question it. They simply think, "Oh well, a scientist is saying it, so it must be correct".
Another amazing occurrence is when people such as David Attenborough, make evolution out to be almost some form of intelligent force. In an episode for gliding possums, he says something along the lines of, "In order for the possums to get around more easily in the forest, they evolved skin between their front and rear legs." How bizarre is that! "They evolved skin". It was like they had some sort of option. As if one day they said, "Hmmm, skin between the legs would be good so we can glide around the place. Ok, let's do it.". I wonder if he ever looks at his productions and ever thinks about what he has said. This type of thinking is not only incorrect, but if I was an evolutionist, I would be pretty mad at him for casting evolution in such a ludicrous light.
Too often scientists do this. Making out that evolution is some sort of intelligent force. If you don't believe me, look at some of those documentaries with an open mind. You'll soon see that I'm right. Objectivity? What objectivity. No matter how hard the science world argues against creation, when these types of attitudes are put forward, it seems that evolution has suddenly taken on a lot of the traits of a religion.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)