"Written in Stone" excerpt available

Posted 8 November 2010 by Richard B. Hoppe

Some years ago I began following the blog of an undergraduate at Rutgers who split his posts between descriptions of work in paleontology and his problems getting a major put together in his preferred field of study. Over the years it has been a real pleasure to watch as Brian Switek, the author of Laelaps (first on Wordpress, later ScienceBlogs and finally on Wired's network) grew as an up and coming science writer and as a person. Brian's first book, Written in Stone: Evolution, the Fossil Record, and our Place in Nature is coming out on December 1, and NCSE has an excerpt. Sadly, it's not (yet?) available for my Nook (or for the Kindle) so I guess I'll have to wait a while to read the whole book. Hat tip to Adrian Thysse.

50 Comments

Brian Switek · 8 November 2010

Thanks for the kind words, Richard. The book is on its way to stores and should hit shelves between the 15th and the 22nd. As far as I am aware, the publisher is not yet planning an e-book version. You will have to reserve a little shelf space for it, but I think it's worth it. :)

John Kwok · 8 November 2010

Congratulations, Brian. I regret that I will miss your NYU event later this month, but hope that it generates a lot of favorable buzz. Any plans on speaking at the American Museum of Natural History?

Daniel J. Andrews · 9 November 2010

My copy should be coming in soon as I preordered it a while back. Looking forward to reading it.

Robert Byers · 10 November 2010

Its not written in stone.
In fact there is just stuff collected , sediment/life, and frozen like a photograph.
The interpretations based on these minor data items are what is being written.
Right or wrong the fossil record or geological presumptions behind all this is the important points about origin issues.
Saying stuff is written is just asserting ones conclusions are based on solid evidence.
Its not in these cases even if true conclusions.
In fact fossilism is a poor exhibit for the incredible conclusions made from them.

Fossils are mute. Stones are mute.
its presumptions surrounding them of unobserved processes that does all the talking.

Just Bob · 10 November 2010

8.1

Classic Byers virtually-unreadable nonsense!

Henry J · 10 November 2010

I'd expect that what "does the talking" is comparisons of those fossils to other fossils (anatomy, location, and age), and also to living and recently living things.

Oclarki · 10 November 2010

Robert Byers said: Fossils are mute. Stones are mute. its presumptions surrounding them of unobserved processes that does all the talking.

Rocks and the fossils they contain are hardly mute. Indeed, they speak with eloquence of past habitats and depositional environments. Perhaps you should remove those fingertips from your ears and listen...listen carefully...to what the rocks and fossils have to say.

DS · 10 November 2010

Robert Byers said: Fossils are mute. Stones are mute. its presumptions surrounding them of unobserved processes that does all the talking.

Take a lesson genius.

Ichthyic · 11 November 2010

byers needs to learn the difference between presumption and deduction.

presumption is what he creates his own fictions from.

Just Bob · 11 November 2010

And his BIBLE is mute--until someone reads and INTERPRETS the evidence there. (N.B., "interprets" in fundie-speak = claiming it means whatever you want it to mean: a skill perfected at "Bible study" sessions.)

Rolf Aalberg · 12 November 2010

Brian's book is #1 on my xmas wish list.

Robert Byers · 17 November 2010

Henry J said: I'd expect that what "does the talking" is comparisons of those fossils to other fossils (anatomy, location, and age), and also to living and recently living things.

Still mute. Comparing photos with other photos still demands presumptions surrounding them.

Robert Byers · 17 November 2010

Oclarki said:
Robert Byers said: Fossils are mute. Stones are mute. its presumptions surrounding them of unobserved processes that does all the talking.
Rocks and the fossils they contain are hardly mute. Indeed, they speak with eloquence of past habitats and depositional environments. Perhaps you should remove those fingertips from your ears and listen...listen carefully...to what the rocks and fossils have to say.

They don't speak whether in eloquence or stuttering. They are merely photos of a moment. it is the presumptions around interpretations of these photos that does all the talking and the wronging.

Robert Byers · 17 November 2010

Just Bob said: And his BIBLE is mute--until someone reads and INTERPRETS the evidence there. (N.B., "interprets" in fundie-speak = claiming it means whatever you want it to mean: a skill perfected at "Bible study" sessions.)

No. The bible is from a thoughtful mind. its not mute. it tells a full story on deeds and motives. Say its wrong but don't say its silent. Its been the loudest written words in history. Rocks are silent. Dead as a dodo.

Stanton · 17 November 2010

Robert Byers said:
Oclarki said:
Robert Byers said: Fossils are mute. Stones are mute. its presumptions surrounding them of unobserved processes that does all the talking.
Rocks and the fossils they contain are hardly mute. Indeed, they speak with eloquence of past habitats and depositional environments. Perhaps you should remove those fingertips from your ears and listen...listen carefully...to what the rocks and fossils have to say.
They don't speak whether in eloquence or stuttering. They are merely photos of a moment. it is the presumptions around interpretations of these photos that does all the talking and the wronging.

And yet, you repeatedly fail to explain how assuming that the literal interpretation of the English translation of the Bible is somehow, someway, supposed to be an accurate portrayal of reality, even though it completely contradicts reality. Tell us again the research you have done that trumps all of the research already done with fossils. Oh, wait, you can't, because you're a idiotic bigot.

Stanton · 17 November 2010

Robert Byers said:
Just Bob said: And his BIBLE is mute--until someone reads and INTERPRETS the evidence there. (N.B., "interprets" in fundie-speak = claiming it means whatever you want it to mean: a skill perfected at "Bible study" sessions.)
No. The bible is from a thoughtful mind. its not mute. it tells a full story on deeds and motives. Say its wrong but don't say its silent. Its been the loudest written words in history. Rocks are silent. Dead as a dodo.

So what does the Bible say about dinosaurs? What does the Bible say about breeding goats? What does the Bible say about how to cope with antibiotic resistant bacteria? What does the Bible say about how to breed better food crops? What does the Bible say about rainforests? What does the Bible say about Australia? What does the Bible say about toaster ovens? What does the Bible say about finding crude oil?

Dale Husband · 17 November 2010

Byers, you are a deluded blasphemer! If you believe that God created the universe, including rocks and fossils, then they should be listened to much more than the Bible, a book made by men. Do not commit anymore the sin of idolatry!

Robert Byers said: No. The bible is from a thoughtful mind. its not mute. it tells a full story on deeds and motives. Say its wrong but don't say its silent. Its been the loudest written words in history. Rocks are silent. Dead as a dodo.

Stanton · 17 November 2010

Dale Husband said: Byers, you are a deluded blasphemer! If you believe that God created the universe, including rocks and fossils, then they should be listened to much more than the Bible, a book made by men. Do not commit anymore the sin of idolatry!
Robert Byers said: No. The bible is from a thoughtful mind. its not mute. it tells a full story on deeds and motives. Say its wrong but don't say its silent. Its been the loudest written words in history. Rocks are silent. Dead as a dodo.

Given as how Byers worships his interpretation of the Bible as God, the sin is actually "Bibliolatry"

Just Bob · 18 November 2010

I figured you wouldn't get it, Robbie.

Here's one more try:
The Bible doesn't "say" anything until YOU read it. If you pick up one in, say, Japanese, then it doesn't say anything at all to you, because you lack the skill to read it. That would be like YOU trying to "read" a fossil: you don't understand that "language."

For those who can "read" the language of fossils, they say a hell of a lot. And as DH pointed out, what nature (or maybe God Himself) put into a physical fossil is a WAY more dependable testimony than the words made up, translated, mistranslated, and "interpreted" by fallible humans.

Joshua · 18 November 2010

If one uses the fossil record for evidence for evolution, then they need the evidence to support the drastic changes that occur in evolution. The fossil record does not show any such change. How does evolution explain the mass explosion of life in the Cambrian period? How can you evolution scientists say that we evolved from apes when you can't find a half ape, half human hybrid. Its not there.

Ok, so we have "Lucy." But shes more human than anything else. Read the evidence. The truth is there. Find me a frog that has teeth. If the fossil record gives us evidence for the creation of the world, then show me the evidence!

phantomreader42 · 18 November 2010

Stanton said: What does the Bible say about breeding goats?

Use striped sticks to change their colors!

John Vanko · 18 November 2010

Joshua said: If one uses the fossil record for evidence for evolution, then they need the evidence to support the drastic changes that occur in evolution. The fossil record does not show any such change. How does evolution explain the mass explosion of life in the Cambrian period? How can you evolution scientists say that we evolved from apes when you can't find a half ape, half human hybrid. Its not there. Ok, so we have "Lucy." But shes more human than anything else. Read the evidence. The truth is there. Find me a frog that has teeth. If the fossil record gives us evidence for the creation of the world, then show me the evidence!

The fossil record IS Evolution. "The fossil record does not show any such change." Indeed the fossil record is ALL about change. It is the fact of evolution for all to see. The fact that you won't look at the evidence doesn't make it go away. The Theory of Evolution seeks to explain the fact of evolution by descent with modification through natural selection. Deal with it. You are too dishonest to admit it but the evidence is right there in the fossil record.

phantomreader42 · 18 November 2010

Joshua said: If one uses the fossil record for evidence for evolution, then they need the evidence to support the drastic changes that occur in evolution. The fossil record does not show any such change. How does evolution explain the mass explosion of life in the Cambrian period? How can you evolution scientists say that we evolved from apes when you can't find a half ape, half human hybrid. Its not there. Ok, so we have "Lucy." But shes more human than anything else. Read the evidence. The truth is there. Find me a frog that has teeth. If the fossil record gives us evidence for the creation of the world, then show me the evidence!

Joshua, just go ahead and admit it, no matter how much evidence you're shown, you'll deny it until the day you die. You'll move the goalposts until you collapse from exhaustion. And you will never, ever, EVER dare subject your delusions to a millionth of the whiny, arbitrary demands you make of science. You've got nothing, you know it, all you're trying to do is hide from your total lack of evidence by screaming that you haven't been given full-motion video of the entire history of the fucking planet from every angle at every resolution, therefore all science is a hoax and your imaginary friend must have done it all. Show me a god. Make a living human from dirt and magic. Or fuck off.

didymos · 18 November 2010

Joshua said: Find me a frog that has teeth.

Does anyone else find that as funny as I do? Dumbass.

John Vanko · 18 November 2010

Good to hear from you phantomreader.

Have you welcomed Joshua and Byers into the Bathroom with your special 'welcome'?

We need phhht here too. Any one know where he's gone?

Just Bob · 18 November 2010

Hey, Josh, is there ANY evidence that would EVER convince you that evolution is real? If so, what would it be?

If the answer is no, there can never be any, then why are you arguing about evidence?

If the answer is yes, meaning there's a trace of reason left in you, then be careful, because that's admitting that your interpretation of the Bible COULD be wrong.

If the answer is yes, but the only "evidence" you would accept is Jesus personally visiting you and TELLING you that evolution is real--then you are as cracked as we think you are. (And if Jesus did that, I suspect that you would reject even Him, assuming His Presence was a trick of Satan--because YOU CAN'T BE WRONG.)

Stanton · 18 November 2010

didymos said:
Joshua said: Find me a frog that has teeth.
Does anyone else find that as funny as I do? Dumbass.

Of course, Joshua is too stupid and too dishonest to realize that frogs already have teeth: maxillary teeth and vomerine teeth, on the roof and back of the mouth, to help them seize prey. Some frogs, such as the South American horned frogs, are more than capable of drawing blood, in fact. But creationists like Joshua or Robert Byers are too cowardly and too stupid to check and see. They prefer to make arrogant, yet incorrect and inane pronouncements, then look around in utter bewilderment when no one bothers bowing down to worship them like the holy prophets they assume they are.

Just Bob · 18 November 2010

And there are birds with teeth.

And fish with legs and lungs.

And snakes and whales with useless vestigial legs.

And humans, now and then, born with TAILS.

Dang, that Satan guy must keep busy.

Stanton · 18 November 2010

Just Bob said: And there are birds with teeth. And fish with legs and lungs. And snakes and whales with useless vestigial legs. And humans, now and then, born with TAILS. Dang, that Satan guy must keep busy.

How did that saying go, "no rest for the wicked"

Henry J · 18 November 2010

How does evolution explain the mass explosion of life in the Cambrian period?

1) That "explosion" took several million years. 2) It was during that time that things like bones and shells became commonplace in life forms; before that, there were few or no hard parts, and soft parts don't fossilize nearly as frequently or as effectively as do bones.

The fossil record does not show any such change.

What it shows is that it is routine to find later species that are slightly modified versions of earlier species, and generally the later species is within geographic travel range of the predecessor, and it is also routine to find series of these slight changes that add up to large changes.

How can you evolution scientists say that we evolved from apes when you can’t find a half ape, half human hybrid. Its not there.

A hybrid is the result of interspecies mating. Plenty of intermediates between chimpanzee-like and human-like have been found, showing the expected gradual accumulation of differences. (Not that the validity of the theory would depend on finding such a series for any one species, anyway, when there are lots of them for which such series have been found. Besides which, genetic comparisons are more important than fossils as evidence, anyway, just not as dramatic. But drama is irrelevant to accuracy.)

Find me a frog that has teeth.

How is that relevant to anything? validity of the theory does not depend on either potential answer to that question.

If the fossil record gives us evidence for the creation of the world,

As the world had to exist prior to the lives of whatever turned into fossils, that question makes absolutely no sense. P.S. These answers came from an amateur. Think what a professional in a relevant field could do with the same questions.

Joshua · 20 November 2010

phantomreader42 said: Joshua, just go ahead and admit it, no matter how much evidence you're shown, you'll deny it until the day you die. You'll move the goalposts until you collapse from exhaustion. And you will never, ever, EVER dare subject your delusions to a millionth of the whiny, arbitrary demands you make of science. You've got nothing, you know it, all you're trying to do is hide from your total lack of evidence by screaming that you haven't been given full-motion video of the entire history of the fucking planet from every angle at every resolution, therefore all science is a hoax and your imaginary friend must have done it all. Show me a god. Make a living human from dirt and magic. Or fuck off.

Ok, the same can be said for you my friend. No matter how much evidence is shown to prove that evolution theory may be FALSE, you will not believe it. Darwin did not understand the complexity of the cell due to lack of technology he had. He JUST didn't know. However today we understand a great deal more about cells and how they work. The complexity of life can not be summed up by chance and random change. No way, I don't buy it. How can science even believe in such chance? So my question for you is, what do you have to prove to me that evolution is real? Show me proof. Go out and find me a creature who is evolving. According to evolution we are always adapting and changing. I don't argue that natural selection doesn't occur, it obviously does. However, there should be some evidence of evolution still occurring, right? I can't make a human out of dirt just as much as you can't make an animal evolve into some other species. If you can, I would love to see it.

DS · 20 November 2010

OK Joshua, here you go:

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/04/080417112433.htm

This is a creature that is evolving. The evolution has been well documented in the scientific literature.

Your turn. Provide proof from the scientific literature that evolution is impossible.

Oh, by the way, don't bother trying to disprove your misrepresentation of evolution, ("chance and random change"). Everyone already knows that that is nonsense (except apparently you).

Joshua · 20 November 2010

Just Bob said: Hey, Josh, is there ANY evidence that would EVER convince you that evolution is real? If so, what would it be? If the answer is no, there can never be any, then why are you arguing about evidence? If the answer is yes, meaning there's a trace of reason left in you, then be careful, because that's admitting that your interpretation of the Bible COULD be wrong. If the answer is yes, but the only "evidence" you would accept is Jesus personally visiting you and TELLING you that evolution is real--then you are as cracked as we think you are. (And if Jesus did that, I suspect that you would reject even Him, assuming His Presence was a trick of Satan--because YOU CAN'T BE WRONG.)

Is there evidence I would accept? Not the evidence we have now. It all can be refuted. What evidence would I accept, if you can positively show me, the gradual change of a creature into another? Say they discover a gradual change in apes into humans. They have all the different changes lined up. Then I would have to say there is some relevant conclusion to evolution theory. By saying this I do not intend to say that the Bible could be wrong, because I don't believe the evidence to prove evolutionary theory is out there. I think the more we learn about science it points away from evolution. I don't think my view is unreasonable. Quite the contrary. If we define reason as generating conclusions from premises then how can I be unreasonable? If my premises line up, then they would be reasonable. Now, if you define reason as believing in something that can be proven false, then my friend, I would say you are the unreasonable one.

Joshua · 20 November 2010

DS said: OK Joshua, here you go: http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/04/080417112433.htm This is a creature that is evolving. The evolution has been well documented in the scientific literature. Your turn. Provide proof from the scientific literature that evolution is impossible. Oh, by the way, don't bother trying to disprove your misrepresentation of evolution, ("chance and random change"). Everyone already knows that that is nonsense (except apparently you).

Clearly this is an example of micro evolution or adaptation. Not real solid evidence for macro evolution. The article doesn't even claim that this is evidence for macro evolution. It just explains how adaptions for a species can change over a short period of time which I do not have a problem with. I believe natural selection occurs and that animals can experience small change to adapt to their surroundings. I don't deny that.

DS · 20 November 2010

Joshua,

You didn't specify macro evolution. Moving the goalposts are we? Now, do you accept this as an example of evolution or not? If this is just "microevolution" do you have a problem with it or not? Do you accept that evolution can produce new structures through random mutation and natural selection or not? Do you disagree with Behe that this is impossible or not?

Do you really want proof of "macro evolution"? Would you accept it if you were presented with it, or would you just move the goalposts again? Would there be anything at all that would stop you from moving the goalposts? Anything?

Exactly what do you think qualifies you to pass judgement on "all of the evidence" we have now? Are you familiar with "all of the evidence"? Are you qualified to judge "all of the evidence"? You do realize that every real expert who has judged "all of the evidence" has concluded that evolution happened, don't you? What makes your opinion more correct that an all of the experts?

tresmal · 20 November 2010

Joshua said:
phantomreader42 said: (Snip)

Ok, the same can be said for you my friend. No matter how much evidence is shown to prove that evolution theory may be FALSE, you will not believe it.

When has anyone shown any evidence proving evolution wrong. Care to share any of it with us?

Darwin did not understand the complexity of the cell due to lack of technology he had. He JUST didn't know. However today we understand a great deal more about cells and how they work. The complexity of life can not be summed up by chance and random change(my emphasis).

Strawman.

No way, I don't buy it. How can science even believe in such chance?

Argument from personal incredulity.

So my question for you is, what do you have to prove to me that evolution is real? Show me proof. Go out and find me a creature who is evolving. According to evolution we are always adapting and changing. I don't argue that natural selection doesn't occur, it obviously does. However, there should be some evidence of evolution still occurring, right? I can't make a human out of dirt just as much as you can't make an animal evolve into some other species. If you can, I would love to see it.

tresmal · 20 November 2010

So my question for you is, what do you have to prove to me that evolution is real?

Try this.

Stanton · 20 November 2010

tresmal said:
So my question for you is, what do you have to prove to me that evolution is real?
Try this.

Not even God, Himself, could provide evidence of evolution being true that could convince an arrogantly stupid, lying coward like Joshua. After all, Joshua confessed that nothing on Earth could convince him that evolution is true, or even occurring. In other words, he takes pride in closing his eyelids so tight that not even even God could pry them open. On the other hand, Joshua refuses to explain why his inane and useless opinion is supposed to magically carry more weight than the actual scientists who study Evolution, or Geology, or Astronomy, or Chemistry, or Physics combined.

DS · 20 November 2010

Good one tresmal.

Perhaps Joshua would like to explain the nested hierarchy shown in Figure 4.4.1. After all, he asked for proof of human evolution. Apparently he is unaware of the fossil evidence, the chromosomal evidence, the genetic evidence, (both mitochondrial and nuclear), and the developmental evidence. Perhaps he is unaware that it all gives the same answer as that shown for retroviruses in the figure. Perhaps he should familiarize himself with all of the evidence before he passes judgement on all of the evidence.

RBH · 20 November 2010

Here's another for Joshua: Rhagoletis pomonella, speciation in progress. That's one of my favorites, because one can identify reproduction-relevant changes in the subpopulations (mating and host preferences) as well as the genetic changes associated with the process.

Just Bob · 20 November 2010

Joshua said: ... Say they discover a gradual change in apes into humans. They have all the different changes lined up. Then I would have to say there is some relevant conclusion to evolution theory.

You do realize (well, no, you probably don't) that you just explicitly stated here that the BIBLE COULD BE WRONG, or at least your interpretation of it.

By saying this I do not intend to say that the Bible could be wrong, because I don’t believe the evidence to prove evolutionary theory is out there.

But now your obvious psychological problems kick in. You admitted that in principle the Bible COULD be wrong. But then to keep yourself from being immediately damned to hell, you have to blatantly contradict your own statement, and claim that you didn't say what you clearly did in the PREVIOUS SENTENCE! Then you contradict yourself AGAIN

...because I don’t believe the evidence to prove evolutionary theory is out there

when you claim that the REASON you don't think the Bible is wrong is that there's not enough evidence! Don't you see that that's an admission that with the discovery of more evidence, the bible could be shown to be wrong? See, what you're doing is playing word games. Your fundamentalist religion demands that you believe that the Bible can't be wrong, no matter what. But then you try to sound reasonable, or sciency, or something, by saying that the problem is that there is just not enough evidence. Then your fundie brain shut-down mechanism kicks in, keeping you from recognizing that you just said that the real answer is NOT absolute biblical inerrancy, but merely not enough evidence yet. Which means that there could, at some point, be enough evidence. But you can't then admit that you just admitted that! My god, the fundie brain is a messy place!

DS · 21 November 2010

Looks like Joshua couldn't handle the truth. Now why is it that people who demand evidence are never willing to look at it? Oh well, maybe the goalposts got too heavy to move again.

Joshua · 22 November 2010

I will try to answer all these comments with one. Although I may not touch all on the criticisms but I will do my best.

I will not lie to you and tell you that I believe the Bible is truth and that I believe that God created the world. With that said, I never claimed to a Christian until a post or two ago. But in my original post I never claimed to be a Christian, so why did you assume that I was?

I didn't put forward my position that an intelligent designer existed, I just challenged Darwinian theory. Why do we have to accept a scientific proposal that is nearly 150 years old? I am just trying to get people to think outside the box. What if Darwin was wrong?

I am not apposed to science. I love science. It helps us understand the world around us. But I do believe science has it wrong on this one. There are too many holes in Darwinian theory, like how to explain the absence in the fossil record (if there was we would have heard about). How does Evolution explain the complexity of the cell? Or the complexity of life in general?

Scientists have tried to prove that evolution occurred in labs but have actually found otherwise. Many scientists are changing sides because they realize there are too many questions with the Darwinian theory. Now I am not indicating that they are becoming pro-designer, but rather looking for another explanation besides evolution. In fact, many of those who changed their view are not pro-intelligent designer.

I think we need to look at the evidence. I believe there to be a better explanation for the creation of the world besides evolution. Think outside the box and what they feed you in the classroom. Textbooks are not a good resource for good information. So do the research. You will be surprised by what you find.

Mike Elzinga · 22 November 2010

Joshua said: I think we need to look at the evidence. I believe there to be a better explanation for the creation of the world besides evolution. Think outside the box and what they feed you in the classroom. Textbooks are not a good resource for good information. So do the research. You will be surprised by what you find.

Just out of curiosity; do you know anything about the detailed history of the intelligent design/creationism movement? You seem to be suggesting that researchers in science don’t do any research; therefore will be surprised at what they will find if they do. What research have you or any other followers of ID/creationism done; and what did you or they find?

RBH · 22 November 2010

I'll take a shot here. Joshua asked

With that said, I never claimed to a Christian until a post or two ago. But in my original post I never claimed to be a Christian, so why did you assume that I was?

From the tenor and content of your comments. Pure fundamentalist creationism. Unmistakable to those of us who have been in this for some time.

Why do we have to accept a scientific proposal that is nearly 150 years old?

We don't. The modern synthesis was put together in the 1930s and 1940s, and in the last 30 or so years both molecular biology and evolutionary developmental biology have greatly extended the theory. We don't teach "Darwin's theory" except as an elementary introduction to natural selection for middle school students, if even then.

There are too many holes in Darwinian theory, like how to explain the absence in the fossil record (if there was we would have heard about).

The absence of what? Your sentence is missing a component.

Scientists have tried to prove that evolution occurred in labs but have actually found otherwise.

Unadulterated bullshit. See the papers here for a long-term laboratory study of evolution over tens of thousands of generations. Start with this particular one (pdf).

Many scientists are changing sides because they realize there are too many questions with the Darwinian theory.

See The Longest Running Falsehood in Creationism.

Textbooks are not a good resource for good information. So do the research. You will be surprised by what you find.

I do the research. Professionally. And judging from the paucity of references cited in your comments, I strongly doubt that you'd recognize research if it bit you on the ass.

Stanton · 22 November 2010

Joshua said: I am not apposed to science. I love science. It helps us understand the world around us. But I do believe science has it wrong on this one.

Then all of your previous posts paint you as a bald-faced liar.

There are too many holes in Darwinian theory, like how to explain the absence in the fossil record (if there was we would have heard about). How does Evolution explain the complexity of the cell? Or the complexity of life in general?

If you have to regurgitate the standard Creationist appeal to incredulity, then you've probably never even touched an elementary school science textbook before.

tresmal · 22 November 2010

Joshua said: I will try to answer all these comments with one. Although I may not touch all on the criticisms but I will do my best. I will not lie to you and tell you that I believe the Bible is truth and that I believe that God created the world. With that said, I never claimed to a Christian until a post or two ago. But in my original post I never claimed to be a Christian, so why did you assume that I was?

Because the overwhelming majority of evolution doubters are Christian. Further many of your points are old and tired creationist memes.

I didn't put forward my position that an intelligent designer existed, I just challenged Darwinian theory. Why do we have to accept a scientific proposal that is nearly 150 years old? I am just trying to get people to think outside the box. What if Darwin was wrong?

Are you aware that the theory has been dramatically changed and improved over the those 150 years? Do you have a problem with Newton? Why do we have to accept scientific proposals that are more than 300 years old?

I am not apposed to science. I love science. It helps us understand the world around us. But I do believe science has it wrong on this one.

First off if you're believing you're doing science wrong.

There are too many holes in Darwinian theory, like how to explain the absence in the fossil record (if there was we would have heard about).

Absence of what?

How does Evolution explain the complexity of the cell? Or the complexity of life in general?

Random mutation + natural selection + time, lots and lots of time. BTW how old do you think the Earth is?

Scientists have tried to prove that evolution occurred in labs but have actually found otherwise.

1) Scientists are not in the business of proving things.A scientist may be trying to disprove a theory or he may be trying to improve it but he is never ever in the business of proving it. 2)You're wrong. Quite a lot of results confirming evolution and none disproving or even challenging it have come out of the labs over the last few decades. Here's an example.

Many scientists are changing sides because they realize there are too many questions with the Darwinian theory.

Can you back that bald assertion up with some evidence? Who are these scientists? How many are there? Where is your source of information for this claim?

Now I am not indicating that they are becoming pro-designer, but rather looking for another explanation besides evolution. In fact, many of those who changed their view are not pro-intelligent designer.

Unless you are talking about scientists supporting differing versions of evolutionary theory, these scientists you are mentioning are mythical.

I think we need to look at the evidence.

Um, seriously just what do you think scientists have been doing for the past 150 years?

I believe there to be a better explanation for the creation of the world besides evolution.

Explaining the creation (interesting word choice there) of the world isn't the Theory of Evolution's job. Explaining the diversity, history and elaboration of life since it arose is. Evolution is a strictly a biological theory.

Think outside the box and what they feed you in the classroom.

You seem to be fixated on the notion that evolution accepters are mindlessly and uncritically accepting what they're taught. You're wrong.

Textbooks are not a good resource for good information.

They're not? How much do you know about biology texts in general and those specifically dealing with evolution? Can you offer an informed critique of these textbooks?

So do the research. You will be surprised by what you find.

You do know that many of the hosts of this site and many of the commenters are practicing scientists don't you? And once again just what do you think scientists have been doing for the past 150 years?

One last thought; have you considered the possibility that the overwhelming support that evolution has among scientists is the result of the "outside the box" independent and critical examination that you're proposing?

John Vanko · 22 November 2010

Joshua sounds like IBIG on different meds. Or two residents of the same ward that talk to each other all day long?

Different meds, slightly different personality, same arguments.

DS · 22 November 2010

Joshua wrote:

"I think we need to look at the evidence. I believe there to be a better explanation for the creation of the world besides evolution. Think outside the box and what they feed you in the classroom. Textbooks are not a good resource for good information. So do the research. You will be surprised by what you find."

Well then, why didn't you look at the evidence? What explanation do you have for the evidence? How do you explain the nested hierarchy of SINE insertions? What is your better explanation? You can think about a box for years if you want to, but that isn't going to explain the evidence. Come on Joshua, we're waiting. You8're the one who is going to be surprised by what you find.

Stanton · 23 November 2010

John Vanko said: Joshua sounds like IBIG on different meds. Or two residents of the same ward that talk to each other all day long? Different meds, slightly different personality, same arguments.

Joshua sounds like yet another victim of Dunning Kruger Syndrome.