Why the CSC Case is Important

What shaped Darwin’s thinking? Was it really based on an objective analysis of living things and of the fossil record? Stephen J. Gould, a professor of biology at Harvard University, is quoted as saying: “Phyletic gradualism was an a priori assumption from the start—it was never ‘seen’ in the rocks; it expressed the cultural and political biases of nineteenth-century liberalism.” Many scientists today raise serious questions as to the validity of theories set forth in support of evolution. Why, then, is belief in Darwin’s teaching still advocated? The article goes on to say: “There are those who argue that the abandonment of the evolutionary mechanism would inevitably lead to doubts that evolution had occurred at all. That is undoubtedly why Darwin is still defended so stoutly . . . because [his supporters] are materialists.” But their unwillingness to consider an alternative does not mean that evolution has to be right, does it? No more than the stubbornness of the religious leaders in Galileo’s day meant that he had to be wrong. Emotion and prejudice can blind scientists just as easily as it can blind religious leaders. Barb

Gem of a Quote here Dr. Hunter:

Evolution is not your typical scientific theory that makes predictions for evaluation against empirical findings. If that were the case it would have been dropped long ago as evolution is, if anything, a contra indicator. Practically all of evolution’s fundamental expectations are in the red. Whatever it says, go with the opposite.

For those who doubt that evolution is a contra indicator, please see Dr. Hunter's thoroughly researched site:

Darwin’s Predictions http://www.darwinspredictions.com/

Of related note, materialism itself, the philosophy that undergirds neo-Darwinism, is also a fairly good contra indicator (reverse compass) as far as making accurate predictions;

Theism compared to Materialism within the scientific method http://docs.google.com/Doc?docid=dc8z67wz_5fwz42dg9

bornagain77