Darwinism Evolution

Darwin’s Newly Discovered Role in the Wool Industry

Spread the love

Although it is widely known that Charles Darwin was a man of independent means (approximately US$10,000,000 in current money), recent historiographical studies have unearthed a new source of that money. Previously, it was thought that his wealth all derived from a shrewd marriage and wise investments. It has now come to light that a significant portion of that wealth derived from ownership of a wool factory, wool being the commodity that Darwin used to pull over the eyes of the scientific community.

16 Replies to “Darwin’s Newly Discovered Role in the Wool Industry

  1. 1
    crandaddy says:

    You crack me up, Bill XD!!!

  2. 2
    Milt says:

    Speaking of pulling the wool…

    I just read that you signed on at Southern Seminary

    I went there…I’m sorry, I paid my dues to the fundamentalists who took over the school during, and immediately following my graduation (1989)

    Be an “evangelical” christian as I have heard you described. Jim Wallis is and that God for that.

    But dear Dr. Dembski, please be wary of your new home. Believe you me, life has just changed for you.


  3. 3
    Milt says:

    “thank” God for that…

    sorry, I was shaking in amazement…lost control of any typing abilities I might have

  4. 4
    dave says:

    Speaking of wool and eyes, does someone want to deal with this?: http://www.scienceagogo.com/ne....._sys.shtml

  5. 5
    jboze3131 says:

    the title of the piece tells us that this isnt as much science as an agenda piece.

    then, when they explain the process, it goes like this (VERY detailed stuff here. its almost as if they saw it with their own eyes!):

    “The identification of this single crystallin gene strongly suggests that it is the gene from which the more complex vertebrate βγ-crystallins evolved….

    The researchers say this suggests that prior to the evolution of the lens, there was a regulatory link between two tiers of genes, those that would later become responsible for controlling lens development, and those that would help give the lens its special physical properties. This combination of genes appears to have then been selected in an early vertebrate during the evolution of its visual system, giving rise to the lens.”

    its amaziing how precise evolutionary science is! so, we bring to the table the presupposition that natural selection is responsible for all life on earth and all change within life on earth (i guess goulds camp doesnt care much for this study since he said NS does NOTHING in nature), then we say that PERHAPS this is what happened and MAYBE this gene is the connection to our presupposed idea, and it APPEARS that this COULD POSSIBLY BE THE CASE.

    only evo bio could tell such fancy tales and get away with it. forget that whole hard data stuff, lets talk about what “probably” took place and what “appears to be” the case. data like this wouldnt even make it into a court room let alone a science that so many proclaim is the backbone of all biology.

  6. 6
    mattdunn says:

    This is a funny play on words and all, hilarious, but:

    I thought that you accepted the evidence for common descent and that lots of traits (just not all, particularly the so-called ‘irreducibly complex’ ones) are the product of completely natural processes such as selection?

    If this is an accurate account of your views, why would you claim that Darwin was somehow deceiving the scientific community? If ‘Origin of Species’ accomplishes anything, it establishes the fact that evolution has occurred. That it establishes natural selection as the primary mechanism of evolution is more dubious (however I believe, subsequently, that natural selection’s efficacy has been empirically demonstrated eventhough you do not).

    Anyway, the bottom line is that I find it puzzling that you think Darwin’s work was accepted at the time because of some non-evidential method of persuasion (aka he pulled the wool over their eyes) rather than because of the arguments he made in ‘Origin’.

    Or perhaps you’re simply willing to distort your actual views for the sake of comedy?

    Also, what do you think about comments like the third from the top (from jboze3131)? As a trained philosopher, Dr.Dembski, I hope that you would educate your loyal followers on the problem of induction and how no scientific theory can ever be proved correct. And also, jboze, why do you claim that Gould and “his camp” think that NS isn’t responsible for anything in nature? This is simply false as anybody who has ever read any Gould can see.

  7. 7
    jboze3131 says:

    i hardly need to be educated on the subject. the point is- you can’t point to something and say, ‘look, this is fact, if you deny it you’re not a real scientist, and you’re a fool.’ then say- what evidence do we have for this fact that only a nut would deny? well, we have this and that, and it APPEARS that this is what causes this and that…MAYBE this is how this happened, and it seems POSSIBLE that the result is this.

    if you brought evidence into a court room and said- hey, we THINK this is what POSSIBLY happened and MAYBE this is what the end result was, the judge would laugh at you. in biological evolution, that testimony of evidence is enough to call anyone who denies it or sees it different an anti-science fool.

    YOU don’t see a problem with that?

    as for gould…what i meant was, he saw it not in the same way as neo-darwinists. gould said that NS worked not to improve things but make them worse. neo-darwinists see lifes changes as a result of NS working on random mutations (happy accidents), gould didnt see it that way. which is why we have PE. which is why we have the ideas from gould that NS didnt evolve better things but rather did the opposite.

  8. 8
    Smidlee says:

    That’s one of my favorite Darwin stories: “The little eyeball that could.”
    Also Darwinists needs to put some wool over those trilobite fossils since this seems to get them “eye” trouble.

  9. 9
    FishyFred says:


    It’s not our fault that you don’t have sufficient education to determine for yourself who is right on this case. I guess that’s why you’ve chosen to stake your claim based on misinformation from an organization that does a bang-up job of PR.

    And I don’t see a problem with the way scientific articles are worded. I have never read a scientific article that asserted its findings or analyses as fact. Hence, the PC way to word is that data suggests this and supports that. What a scientist is doing when publishing findings in a journal is adding to the body of evidence supporting one thing or another. This is the whole “evolution is a theory, not a fact” tactic again.

  10. 10
    jboze3131 says:

    misinformation? id love to see all this evidence, since you make such a claim.

    you think its fine to say- X is a fact, and if you deny X as a fact of nature, youre a fool.

    the evidence for X being a fact= A possibly mixed with B, which suggests that A and B also MIGHT have mixed with C at some point, and PERHAPS D came along and then we think that MAYBE E came along. after that, POSSIBLY F came to the line, and we think it might have happened this way- G joined in. eventually, over time, in processes we cant fully explain, with mechanisms werent not totally sure of, the evidence SUGGESTS that this is what MIGHT have happened.

    but like i said, if you deny X as a fact (theres no debate about it among “true” scientists) then youre one of those anti-science fools.

    youre right, theres no problem with these just-so stories with all these “perhaps” “maybe” “possibly” “suggests” etc. terms. in other words- weve NO clue whatsoever, but we THINK this MAYBE, POSSIBLY how it MIGHT have taken place- we dont know where, when, or how, but if you deny it youre a fool who wants to undermine science.

    get real!

  11. 11
    FishyFred says:

    You are perfectly free to deny X as a fact. The reason the scientific community does not share your view is because you are not providing any data or evidence that disproves X in opposition to the mountains of evidence supporting X.

  12. 12
    jboze3131 says:

    mountains of evidence that support X?!?!

    did you not read what i posted?

    if someone says PERHAPS, MAYBE, THIS SUGGESTS, WE THINK IT MIGHT, and other such phrase- these are people with little evidence to back up their claims, which is why they use all these phrases to begin with.

    so when it comes to the the supposed fact of eye evolution (fact in the sense that, we know this must be how it happened, and it deals a “blow” to ID)- all we know is that this and this MIGHT have PERHAPS, POSSIBLY taken place, and thats evidence! ding ding, were done, if you dont buy X (eye evolution in this case) youre a fool.

    like i said- this sort of evidence wouldnt even stand up in a court of law, yet you say that this evidence is solid and that X is backed up by mountains of evidence.

    and believe it or not, the dembski is part of the “Scientific community,” and it seems to me that he doesn’t buy into a lot of the so-called facts either. that and the fact that there ARE mounds of evidence showing that X cannot, indeed, be a fact. like the other post where you think that it makes sense for 5 million yrs to equal man from chimp, yet in the same amount of time generation-wise a scientist with a purpose and acting as an intellient agent couldnt get e coli to change into anything new at all. just more e coli that were slightly adapted to their environments! thats solid evidence to back up X and no evidence against it? thats called refusing to look at the evidence with an open mind!

  13. 13
    crandaddy says:

    This hardly deals a blow to ID. If you presume evolution and look at homologous structures (as this article appears to do), your circular reasoning will always work in your favor. I think a much better question to ask concerning the eye is how did the first light-sensitive cell form. Go here: http://www.arn.org/docs/mm/vidgraphics.htm

    mattdunn: “I thought that you accepted the evidence for common descent and that lots of traits (just not all, particularly the so-called ‘irreducibly complex’ ones) are the product of completely natural processes such as selection?”

    You forgot to mention specified complexity, too, but you are correct. If random, unguided evolution fails to explain the origin of any structure, then intelligent design is the only logical alternative.


  14. 14
    curtrozeboom says:

    jboze, those phrases and the statements connected with them are not the evidence. They are summaries, filtered down to laymans terms, that would not have been made if there wasn’t sufficient evidence to back them up. If you want to see the evidence for yourself, you need to do what every other skeptical scientist does and research it. If your research brings you to a different conclusion, you can submit your conclusion and criticism for publication. But, your idea will also have to be subjected to the same harsh cycle of criticism.

    Yes, it is wrong to call someone a fool for doubting a scientific conclusion. Science is built on such doubt. Denying a theory because of a stretch in reasoning, or too much range of error, might be acceptable. But to make a criticism of a scientific explanation on the BASIS that it is not certain, (as you seem to be doing) is foolish. You might as well say that I have no idea how long it will take me to get home tonight because I’m not certain of the traffic conditions, even though I have made the trip hundreds of times in many different conditions. It might take me 20-30 minutes, but if I don’t get there because reality fails, I’m blaming you 😉 Seriously, there is no difference.

  15. 15
    jboze3131 says:

    im not criticising because of the basis that it isnt certain. the problem is- the evidence can be interpreted more than one way. the majority in science want you to believe that mud to man is the only viable explanation or interpretation and any idea outside of that is foolish.

    this article on the eye IS lacking in evidence. that much is obvious from the statements themselves. you say that the summary itself wouldnt have been writeen and made if not backed by evidence. who says? i see scientific studies and papers all the time on wormholes. wormholes!! legit scientists who are respected among the majority actually believe that there might be wormholes that would allow you to travel a million light years in a second or by bending the universe itself into a wormhole! of course this doesnt mean that there is any logic or evidence to back the idea up.

    heck, i believe hawking (a giant among scientists) actually proposes the idea of multiple parallel universes and dimensions (billions of them!) that idea is so outlandish, its a joke…yet we see papers, studies, etc. on this topic all the time. doesnt make it reasonable. doesnt mean its back by evidence.

    with the eye thing- its their presupposed idea of mud to man evolution that they see the evidence in. you can look at the same evidence and see that this is what a designer would have done.

    the problem is- they cant even explain the theory without all the just-so modifiers (maybe, perhaps, we suppose, it could have happened this way, its possible that this is what happenend.) they say nothing in this article with ANY certainty. its clear that the ideas are based on the fact that they KNOW mud to man evolution is true, and they see all their evidence thru that lens. if there is sufficient evidence to back this stuff up, there would be no need to use the words perhaps, maybe, possibly, the evidence “suggests”, it may have happened, etc. if they truly had empirical evidence to back this up, they wouldnt need all the words of speculation to write about it.

    if you went into a court room and said i THINK I MIGHT have seen the defendant at the possible scene of the crime, and perhaps i saw him running away from the scene (well, it appeared that he was running, maybe he wasnt running at all), and from what i could see in the light it possibly could have been a gun he was holding or maybe the shape of the object suggests something other than a gun. and all of this suggests that just maybe the defendant was possibly the murderer…like i said, youd be laughed out of court.

    strong evidence doesnt require all of these MAYBES. and of course the terms used were describing the evidence!

    the article read (in part):
    “The identification of this single crystallin gene strongly suggests that it is the gene from which the more complex vertebrate βγ-crystallins evolved”

    thru the lens of mud to man evolution their evidence SUGGESTS that MAYBE this is what happened. theres no tangible evidence to conclude this is the case, but PERHAPS this is how the story went millions of yrs ago. we cant test it, we cant repeat the test, we cant even see the evidence that MIGHT or MIGHT NOT exist to make this theory more than a just-so story, but you still think that the terms dont relate to the evidence.

    itd be different if we had the materials and evidence involved inside a lab and we could transform (over time) and with mechanisms they could use to evolve the gene into the other gene, and in turn evolve one eye into another…until we can do that, its history, not science.

    did you know that when you get a hip replacement, you cant cross your legs for the rest of your life? *rather, you cant cross the leg the bone was replaced in over the other?? were talking about the top of the femur and the hip, and modern man spending hundreds of millions of dollars, working with thousands of experts have created a hip that is so far below what nature (supposedly) created with a billion (happy accidents) that when you get the replacement you cant even cross your legs ever again as long as you live! think about it- brilliant man and a billion dollars can only get this far and this only the bone connected to the hip! the eye is about a million times more complex. there is NO artificial eye for someone who is blind. even the artificial devices they use for people with near blindness cant even barely see anything- they can see light and a tiny bit of shape…even with that, their brains can hardly process the info. yet, were supposed to believe that a billion happy accidents created an eye in humans that man will never get to a point of being able to actually CREATE via his purpose and knowledge. the fact is, even the most advanced devices man has created for artificial vision- these devices that they have spent hundreds of millions to develop along with thousands of experts working for decades- these things cant even compare to the complexity of the most simplest light sensitive spot in nature. that defies logic…and it only holds up when you come to the table with the presupposition that mud to man evolution is a fact and never to be debated. it all goes hand in hand with the just-so evidence involved with the article itself.

  16. 16
    DaveScot says:

    curtrozeboom fishyfred mattdunn

    What you boys need to admit to yourselves is that the story of evolution long past is a narrative – a story made up to fit the empirical evidence that can be observed. Evolution was a one-time event and the study of it is what’s called a theoretical science (as opposed to experimental science). Theoretical science is that which cannot be tested or repeated. No one among us can haul a primitive chordate into a laboratory and repeat its evolution. Indeed, we can’t even examine the DNA of a primitive chordate because they’re all dead and their DNA disintegrated. Nothing remains of them except imprints in rocks. It’s an assumption (part of the narrative), not an observation, that primitive chordates even used DNA. Granted it’s a reasonable assumption but it remains theoretical nonetheless.

    Modern biology is the study of living tissue not imprints in rocks. Claims of discovery (like penicillin’s ability to kill bacteria) are repeatable. Other scientists can repeat the experiments and verify the results. Be a sport and let me know right away when someone repeats in a laboratory the evolution of the vertebrate eye. Until they do, it’s a narrative, and a poorly detailed narrative at that with far more theoretical steps missing than described.

    I hope this helps you understand the difference between theoretical and experimental science. No matter how much the evolutinary biologists want the story of mud to man to acquire the status and respect of experimental science it just isn’t going to happen. Deal with it.

Leave a Reply