CEG\'er
Joined: Jul 2000
Posts: 443 |
Originally posted by Viss1:
Originally posted by cjbaldw:
The point is that evolution is presented as fact in most curriculum
Is it? I have only my own personal experience from 20-odd years ago to go by, but I remember it being presented as "this is the theory that most scientists subscribe to."
Is the colored glasses phenomenon more prevalent today than it was say 10 years ago?
Yes, times have changed since you and I went to school Viss1. Obviously, this topic to an extent is subjective as it quite often comes down to the personal attitudes and beliefs of the presentor of the evolutionist materials, and therein lies the battle that is being fought. Essentially, what we're all batting around here is a battle for the consciousness of the culture.
Persons who do know share scientific naturalists a priori commitment to naturalism are wise to think that the reigning theory is not merely incomplete, but quite inconsistent with the empirical evidence in existence. The analysis and the questions surrounding the origins of life cannot be left to the sole determination of a class of experts, because important questions surrounding religion, philosophy, and cultural power are at stake. Naturalistic evolution is not merely a scientific theory, it is the official creation story of modern culture. The scientific priesthood that has authority to interpret the official creation story gains immense cultural influence thereby, which it might lose if the story were called into question at the most basic levels. The experts therefore have a vested interest in protecting the story (just as those in the religious circles do), and in imposing rules of reasoning that make it invulnerable. When we decide to critically ask, "Is the theory (of evolution) true?" we should not be satisfied with the answer, "It is good science, as we define science." We are really struggling with the basic definitions of science in regard to evolution, and if you look far enough under the covers, you won't like what you see.
The colored glasses phenomenon has been at work within the scientific naturalist community for decades now, it's not a question of the last 10-20 years. Even Darwin himself basically stated that the complete fossil record, under his theory, would comprise itself primarily of transitional fossil records. The history at current of fossil species includes two undisputed features particularly inconsistent with Darwin's gradualism:
1) Stasis - most species exhibit no directional change during their tenure on earth. They appear in the fossil record looking pretty much the same as when they disappear.
2) Sudden appearance - species arrive suddenly, not gradually by any kind of steady transformation of it's ancestors, it appears all at once and completely formed.
Anyways, all of this is great info to share, but the bottom line is that I do not "believe" in the theory of evolution because an objective analysis of the supporting empirical evidence does not support it in my analysis. I recognize I'm in the minority, and that the scientific naturalist community has spent a considerable amount of time and energy creating a myriad of arguments to defend their ground, but that doesn't make their underlying philosophy correct. What I see is people on both sides of the table digging in their heels and refusing to let go of their prejudices in an effort to find the real truth, and until we are willing to do just that, the truth of the origins of life will remain uncovered.
|
