Typically, anyone who doesn’t believe it is branded as a religious kook or an idiot.
Richard Neves, a Virginia Tech professor emeritus, has long fought this battle, despite being a nationally recognized scientist with an expertise in mussels.
“Those who are in charge of science in this country,” he said in a telephone interview, “from the National Academy of Sciences on down, they will not allow alternative hypothesis to be presented because their philosophical view is as strong as their scientific view.”
Almost religious in nature?
“It is,” Neves replied. “ . . . just as strong as any other typical religion we can think of. . . they need to have a more open mind and look at the lack of evidence that does not support the neo-Darwinian theory.”
I’ll be that kook too. (Something I’m sure many of you had concluded long ago.) The holes in the theory are just too glaring.
Too glaring if evidence matters.
But like we keep saying, Mark, evidence doesn’t matter. It never did. It’s not even about evidence. It’s about Darwin’s followers’ religion of evolution and its stranglehold on the education system.
On the day evidence ever does matter, the main task will be picking up all the pieces from a grand delusion of the age.
Meanwhile, the question isn’t, does Holmberg still have a job but will he ever have a real career again, if he doesn’t someday soon “see da light” about Darwin’s truth?
On the other hand, if Virginia Heffernan survives, maybe he will too.
Note: Evidence doesn’t matter? Oh, that’s true in cosmology, too
Follow UD News at Twitter!
Should we start the career countdown clock?
Darwinism is challenged scientifically and it has failed every challenge to date.
I like the ending:
LOL, and the Darwinian lynch mob in the comments.
He doesn’t sem to have much of a clue about the differences between law and theory.
I suspect he knows that a Law is a generalization and a theory is “a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world that can incorporate facts, laws, inferences, and tested hypotheses.” (etc etc see Science and Creationism: A View from the National Academy of Sciences, Second Edition (1999) or any other science book you care to read)….he goes for the “only a theory” attack as it’s cheap and requires zero thought from both him and his audience.
LP
Seems you are the one making a quibble over particular words. He is actually making a general issue, and making it clear that evolution shouldn’t be taught as a [“fact fact fact”].
On top of that, your making grandiose claims of his intellect based on your dubious quibble.
Why not answer his question? “why is it so important for you to believe in evolution?”
LP
I take it that you will officially denounce all the prior and future Darwinist arguments that compare the Theory of Evolution to Newtons Law of Gravity to argue about it’s ‘factness’?
It’ll be glad to know. We can cite your comment in the future.
I wouldn’t expect LP to do anything of the sort. According to his website he sees any theist as an “enemy”.
Yeah but LP is one smart guy. Just look how he holds his hand up to his chinny chin chin in such a thoughtful manner.
“Mr. Phipps in the morning sun”
… and that ‘thousand-yard squint’. Like stout Cortez, silent upon a peak in Darien. Except that LP has been quite loquacious.
Reminds me of a ‘head and shoulders’ photo that one of Dawkins’ hapless groupies had inserted in the Guardian; a wonderfully-impressive, heroic, chin-jutting, Charleton Heston kind of pose, the camera looking up at this Titan among men.
It is interesting that Mark Holmberg would start his video,,
,,would start his video by comparing Evolution to Gravity because, as was just previously mentioned, Darwinists have a history of declaring that the theory of evolution is just as well as established the theory of gravity (what you never hear is a physicist claiming that the theory of Gravity is just as well established as the theory of Evolution) 🙂 And for good reason, the theory of Gravity can be falsified whereas evolution has no mathematical basis in which to falsify it (and thus evolution as a theory does not even qualify as a ‘hard’ science in the first place!)
But there is another interesting point to draw out in this comparison of Gravity and Evolution, besides the fact that Evolution is not even a proper science in the first place. Gravity, when its mathematical details were first being worked out by Copernicus, Galileo, Kepler, and, of course, primarily Newton (who were all Christians by the way), their work unlocking the law of Gravity elicited such quotes as these:
But why would they, since they were unlocking the mysteries of Gravity, give God credit as the cause for Gravity? Well, contrary to the naivete that comes with being overly familiar with a concept, the law of Gravity is JUST a mathematical description of an effect. Gravity is not a ’cause’ for anything.
It seems readily apparent that founders of modern science understood this distinction between cause and effect quite well.
So when modern people claim that the law of Gravity ’causes’ something to fall to the earth, they really have no clue what they are talking about and they are missing an important point. Gravity has no causal power within itself as an abstract mathematical description. Only God can give causal adequacy to Gravity or to any other mathematical description of the universe. If anyone thinks otherwise, and thinks Gravity has causal adequacy within itself, they are free to try to explain how the Einstein’s 4-D space-time (General Relativity) ’emerged’ at the big bang as Hawking tried to do.
The fact is further born out in Godel’s incompleteness theorem:
i.e. even mathematics itself, at least mathematical equations that are specific enough to have counting numbers within them, are ultimately dependent on God for the truthfulness contained within the mathematics. i.e. God is even the ’cause’ for math too!
Another strong point in favor of God being the cause of Gravity is the fine tuning of Gravity:
And another fact that not only points out that Gravity is caused by God, but also points out the fact that God wants us mere humans to readily understand Gravity, is the ease with which Gravity is described mathematically by/for us:
In fact, all the equations of physics have this overall ‘simplicity’ about them that strongly suggests God wants us to readily understand them:
Another interesting point in the comparison of Gravity and Evolution, despite the claim of Darwinists that evolution is as well established as Gravity, is the fact that Gravity itself actually argues against evolution as to being plausible.
But what is devastating for the atheist (or even for the Theistic Evolutionist) who wants ‘randomness’ to be the source for all creativity in the universe, is that randomness, (i.e. the entropic processes of the universe), are now shown, scientifically, to be vastly more likely to destroy functional information within the cell rather than ever building it up’. Here are my notes along that line:
,,having a empirically demonstrated direct connection between the entropic processes of the universe and the information inherent within a cell is extremely problematic for Darwinists because of the following principle,,,
and this principle is confirmed empirically:
Thus, Darwinists are found to be postulating that the ‘random’ entropic events of the universe, which are found to be consistently destroying information in the cell, are instead what are creating information in the cell. ,,, It is the equivalent in science of someone (in this case a ‘consensus of scientists’) claiming that Gravity makes things fall up instead of down, and that is not overstating the bizarre situation we find ourselves in in the least with the claims of atheistic Darwinists and Theistic Evolutionists, since Gravity can now be thought of as an ‘entropic force’.
Music and Verse:
its cool to have media folks take on evolution. they can reach audiences YEC usually can’t.
it is about evidence and so if evolution is true, and a theory of science no less, then the evidence should be aplenty. If its not true it should be easily shown to be lacking in evidence.
in fact it should be shown not to be a theory of science but only a hypothesis.
This surely must dbe settled soon.
its cool to have media folks take on evolution. they can reach audiences YEC usually can’t.
it is about evidence and so if evolution is true, and a theory of science no less, then the evidence should be aplenty. If its not true it should be easily shown to be lacking in evidence.
in fact it should be shown not to be a theory of science but only a hypothesis.
This surely must dbe settled soon.
Robert Byers I think you are forgetting something:
Hypotheses are testable and falsifiable.
Rob, Evolutionists’ trick is that they’ve designed a system that can accommodate practically any data. It’s not an evidence game, but a way of organizing things into an infinite number of cubby holes…. then turning around and telling the public that they victoriously avoided potential falsification every step of the way.
sixthbook
Its right and fine hypothesis are testable and falsifiable.
Has this been done on evolution? I say no !
Where are the tests?
Exactly Robert. It’s impossible to test something that predicts everything and nothing at the same time.