Tracy Zdelar posts about God and evolution on Hall of Fame Moms: 5/13: {Part 2} Darwin & the Bible? (16 July 2010). Her post is punctuated with quotes from Charles Darwin, and seeing that what she has to say about evolution is negative, we can expect the worst (if not dishonesty, then ignorance). Let me provide some context.
Quote #1 If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed[,] which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive[,] slight modifications[,] my theory would absolutely break down.
Context This passage, in Darwin’s hand, comes from chapter 6 (p. 189) of On the Origin of Species (1859, Murray: London), “Difficulties on theory,” in a section where he covers organs of extreme perfection. Immediately following the quoted passage, Darwin wrote: “But I can find out no such case.” This is a perfect example of quote-mining in which a sentence immediately following a passage that works for creationist purposes (to make Darwin seem like he doubts his own theory or idea) is simply not shown.
—–
Quote #2 Such simple instincts as bees making a beehive could be sufficient to overthrow my whole theory.
Context These are not Darwin’s exact words. Here is what he actually wrote, in the chapter on instinct in On the Origin of Species (p. 207): “The subject of instinct might have been worked into the previous chapters; but I have thought that it would be more convenient to treat the subject separately, especially as so wonderful an instinct as that of the hive-bee making its cells will probably have occurred to many readers, as a difficulty sufficient to overthrow my whole theory. I must premise, that I have nothing to do with the origin of the primary mental powers, any more than I have with that of life itself. We are concerned only with the diversities of instinct and of the other mental qualities of animals within the same class.” Essentially, although some might think this would be a problem for Darwin’s theory, he did not think it was.” Again, the sentences after what is quoted are crucial to understanding what he was stating.
—–
Quote #3 Often a cold shudder has run through me, and I have asked myself whether I may have not devoted myself to a phantasy.
Context This quote comes from a letter from Darwin to his mentor, the geologist Charles Lyell, from 23 November 1859, whilst On the Origin of Species was being published. Darwin expressed how much it means to him that he has Lyell’s support, and here is the quote in context: “I rejoice profoundly that you intend admitting doctrine of modification in your new Edition. Nothing, I am convinced, could be more important for its success. I honour you most sincerely:—to have maintained, in the position of a master, one side of a question for 30 years & then deliberately give it up, is a fact, to which I much doubt whether the records of science offer a parallel. For myself, also, I rejoice profoundly; for think-ing of the many cases of men pursuing an illusion for years, often & often a cold shudder has run through me & I have asked myself whether I may not have devoted my life to a phantasy. Now I look at it as morally impossible that investigators of truth like you & Hooker can be wholly wrong; & therefore I feel that I may rest in peace.” Here we have another instance of a very telling sentence being omitted from a quote, Darwin stating that he did not feel that he had been devoting himself to a phantasy.
Tracy, your use of these quotes to attempt to undermine Darwin’s credibility and thoughts about his own theory, is, if not dishonest, then a sign of your ignorance when it comes to Darwin’s writings. Will you correct your post?
File under: quote-mining
The Dispersal of Darwin 
Quote-mining is one of the most intellectually dishonest, contemptible exercises in creationist propaganda around.
As I said on Twitter, the quotes came from the dvd(s) we watched. I should have clearly stated that in my post. But its referenced in my reply to your comment of the above info you shared at my blog. I posted your reply and that will stand as your ‘Darwin’ defense.
But let me ask, when you look at a bridge do you wonder how it got there? or do you understand immediately someone built it? Same with a painting, did it happen by chance? That would be pure foolishness. Same thing with people, animals, trees, the universe…to think it happened by pure chance is utterly ridiculous. Its plain as day that there is a Creator behind creation and I don’t care what scientist disagrees.
But you made my evening a little bit more interesting and I have enjoyed meeting you online 🙂 I hope you feel likewise.
Traci, sure, the point about chance seems like an obvious one but your reference to “pure chance” is a tricky one that Christians should be careful to understand when used in accusation. Pure chance, I take you to mean as being undirected actions. I’m all about the sovereignty of God but I also know that I can describe his actions in terms of chance quite well and that doesn’t detract from him still being the author of those events. You would agree that the sex of all babies is determined by God but you could also predict with great accuracy that 50.005% of live births will be boys or that there is a 50.005% chance of an individual birth as being a boy. If someone can make this prediction without reference to God does than mean that we must deny the ability to predict birth sex ratios. Chance as described in statistics describes this very very well. The development of complexity from similar “random” actions can certainly result when natural selection occurs. The appearance is of change/evolution over time as the result of chance happenings. Even if they are not truly happening by chance, events can be accurately described by probabilistic statistics. The world is constructed via principles which we recognize as natural laws but which of these are not also God’s laws? those laws can be shown to very effectively organize material in a manner that results in the development of matter and life over time. Darwin is very much describing the world as it works and the mechanisms of natural selection, genetic drift and mutations are powerful forces which do shape our world today, in the past and will in the future. You may choose to believe that organisms did not evolve over time and were created by special fiat but that does not negate the fact that these are mechanisms of change that are plainly seen in creation and are effective agents of change.
Thanks for these examples. I only recently found your blog and I immediately added it to my skeptic/atheist/science link list to visit every day. I completely support those views.
In this article, though, one thing you say confused me. Could you examine this statement closely to make sure it says what you intended to say:
“This is a perfect example of quote-mining in which a sentence immediately following a passage that works for creationist purposes (to make Darwin seem like he doubts his own theory or idea) is simply not shown.”
The sentence structure really threw me.
Thanks for your work and sharing of it!
threeoutside – Let me clarify. Creationists and other anti-evolutionists would like to make it appear that Darwin doubted his own ideas. If that is the case, then his credibility is damaged.
One tactic in quote-mining is to provide a quote that looks like he is doubting his theory, but then to not show the next sentence(s) that show otherwise.
Thanks for reading!
Thanks for the clarification! I thought that was what you meant but it’s good to be sure!
I never met a Creationist who wasn’t a baldfaced liar.
Knowing this probably won’t help …
“But let me ask, when you look at a bridge do you wonder how it got there? or do you understand immediately someone built it? Same with a painting, did it happen by chance?”
Have you ever seen a bridge reproduce itself? You have children. Did you “build” them? Or did they come about by the natural means of sex, development and birth? Are they identical to you? Are they exactly what you planned when you got pregnant?
All of this was pointed out as an objection to the “watchmaker” argument (though you probably don’t realize you are making it) by the great philosophers David Hume and Immanuel Kant in the 1700s.
Nor does evolutionary theory propose “pure chance.” That’s what natual selection is about.
“… the quotes came from the dvd(s) we watched.”
That’s not much of an excuse, since there is a searchable database of most of what Darwin wrote online:
http://darwin-online.org.uk/
But ignorance, they say, is bliss.
I wonder what Tracy now thinks about the honesty and integrity of the makers of the DVD?
Pingback: Young-Earth Creationists Undermine Confidence in the Bible « Exploring Our Matrix
It doesn’t matter about the integrity of the makers of the DVD, nor what Darwin did or did not write, apparently. Just know that evolution is wrong and every living thing was created by God.
That is Tracy’s line of thinking…
I love how she states in the comments, “Regardless of anything Darwin says, God created everything. Period.”
But she is the one bringing out quotes from Darwin and sharing them. If what he says doesn’t matter, then why did she bother?
I happened to see your post link in my stats so hopped over for another visit. I know the reason you bothered to point out my post, etc etc was because Darwin was in it, but look, Darwin may be the center of the theory of evolution that you believe in but he isn’t center at ALL in the theory that I believe in.
God created and I believe science DOES back that up- just watch the scientific dvds I mentioned in THAT post and you’ll see some amazing scientific evidence that cannot be explained by evolution!
Science should be about finding the truth – not defending someone’s biased theories no matter how much you love that person. Are you willing to do that? Because I sense you have a devotion to “Darwin”.
Go to your local library and see if they have the same dvd’s I mentioned in my post. Our local library did: “Incredible Creatures that Defy Evolution”. – I think there are at least 3 in the series.
I hope you will and if you do, send me a Tweet @tzdelar and let me know what you thought of it. I’d like to hear your thoughts.
Have a great rest of the week 😉
I have put on of the DVDs on hold through my library…
Even if the entire context was not included, the quote “often a cold shudder has run through me & I have asked myself whether I may not have devoted my life to a phantasy” still shows that Darwin had doubts “OFTEN”.
You don’t have to go to the library if you have netflix. All three volumes of “Incredible Creatures that Defy Evolution” are available on “instant view”. I especially like the story of the muscle (first story on Volume 3), but all of the animals featured prove Darwin was wrong. Another favorite of mine is the Pacific Golden Plover. This bird would be in the drink and extinct unless he was made exactly how he is. I will read and watch anything on evolution because I want the truth to be known. I was inundated with it from Kindergarten through college. But once the truth is revealed, you just know it. Challenge yourself and do the research. Dr. Jobe Martin, who does the book and video set, was a college professor who taught evolution. He changed his tune when he really started to look at the intricacies of the different animals.
Sorry Gary, Dr. Jobe Martin never taught evolution. He taught Dentistry.
http://creationwiki.org/Jobe_Martin
Sorry Tim Pedersen, Dr Martin was teaching on the evolution of the tooth, when his dentistry students brought to his attention the potential flaws in what he taught. There are many aspects of evolution to teach. It was his investigation on this matter that brought him to the conclusion the theory hinged on many assumptions. I know that dentistry seems to not give Martin the proper credentials to talk about evolution. But, many doctors and scientists in seemingly distant fields of expertise are taught evolution as the foundation to their specialty. It is in these fields that people investigate that foundation. Just as an eye doctor may come to a place that he questions such assumptions. It is not a complete knowledge of the theory of Evolution that each person must first understand before they find the truth. It is we that need to hear the experts of the eye and the tooth etc to see that maybe our assumptions are greater than we realize. Darwin is not mis quoted to show he doubted his own theory. He is quoted due his amazing intelligence. I think he believed whole heatedly his theory. I also hold dear his words that if one animal could be found that did not evolve (para-phrasing if you will allow) his theory would breakdown. Not be destroyed but have a hole in an otherwise sealed theory. It is this statement that many search for just one creature. Well, there have been many found that are worthy more investigation. So this began with birds and I believe there also lay the answer.
You are free to believe whatever pleases you. The proof of creation are the events that cannot be accurately described by probabilistic statistics, therefore evolutionist will have to answer to the obvious Creator a later date.
Most evolutionist will be satisfied with their world view till their last breath, that is absolutely normal. People are naturally against the creator.
Quoting Darwin in is this quote “If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed[,] which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive[,] slight modifications[,] my theory would absolutely break down.” is not being dishonest or ignorant, it is simply pointing to a thing that he said to demonstrate what his toughts where about the matter. Using this is perfectly sound.
It appears according to what we know today, that he was correct in this statement. There is ample proof of this, but pro evolutionists don’t like this at all, as we can see from the original poster’s writings.
Pingback: Creationists - Page 1001 - US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum
so TRUTH is less important that what Darwin thinks about his theory?
have one simple question to all evolutionists :Are you seakers of truth or just haters of God?
i dont know what must be done for hardcore evoulutionist to just consider other posibilities
i am Christian ,yes.
every morning i consider other things and every evening i lay down more convinced
Thank God for giving me a brain for thinking
I don’t believe in God, therefore I cannot hate him (her, it, they…)
I agree it is shady to not include the entire context, and yes, I also watched the video in which they put the quote without the whole context. Knowing what I know about quotes, I immediately googled the phrase and came upon your blog. I will say to those who say creationists are all “bald faced liars” there are countless scientists and scientific facts/studies that have been “left out” in order to help along an evolutionary argument. There is bias and cloudiness on both sides.
Regardless of the misuse of the quote, it still has validity in the argument of which it is used. Irreducible complexity is a legitimate question that natural selection cannot answer. I know there are arguments that somewhat “invalidate” the concept, but they seem to be vague at best.
Jake, when I post about quote-mining, I am concerned with the practice of writing history. So it does matter when a historical figure’s words are taken out of context. However one feels about the scientific evidence, it is wrong to make others think Darwin thought or said something when they know he did not.
You say, “Regardless of the misuse of the quote, it still has validity in the argument of which it is used.” I disagree. The argument in which it is used is in the context of Darwin’s writing. If one is talking about current thoughts about design, irreducible complexity, leave Darwin’s words out. He cannot speak for today, only what was available to him in his time.
Thanks for stopping by and commenting!
Evolution seems to be as much a religion as any I’ve known. Devotion to Darwin at all cost. I also find it odd that evolutionists feel they can judge someone else. Calling them names like, ”bald face liars” If you believe yourself to be related to the earthworm and simply a random accident you should only be concerned with survival of the fittest and perhaps getting your next meal. Where do you get your idea of what is right and what is wrong? And why should you care? It’s all meaningless. And Darwin DID say, “often a cold shudder has run through me & I have asked myself whether I may not have devoted my life to a phantasy” and it does show that Darwin had doubts. And OFTEN. It seems as though the only thing that eased his conscience and helped moved him along his chosen path, was that some other men were also believing in evolution with him. Pretty weak.
Blind faith is required to accept evolution as a fact where nothing has been documented as repeatable or observable to demonstrate one kind becoming another kind.
John
What is a “kind”? You creationists repeatedly refuse to classify, in detail, what a “kind” is.
Dog, Cat, Fish, Bird, Cow, Bacteria are examples of “kind”. Nothing has been documented as repeatable or observable to demonstrate one “kind” becoming another “kind”. Science requires these demonstrations. It’s not sufficient to make a statement that evolution is true because the Professor says it’s true. That would require “blind faith”.
Bacteria that mutates is still bacteria, A finch is still a finch no matter what it’s beak mutates to.
All an evolutionist needs is documentation.
There is tons of documentation for species becoming other species over time. All one needs to do is put down the book with the talking donkeys and talking snakes, and pick up a college (or even high school level) book on evolution. There are also similar “kinds” which cannot interbreed with those of the same “kind” and therefore are different “kinds”.
Typical lying deceit by idiot atheist/evolutionists in their brain dead fixation to continue pretending that evolution is not long past credible.
Listen, fools and get the plain truth that exposes your absurd self-deception. The “simple cell” that Darwin fantasized *DOES NOT* and never did, exist.
Hear it from your compadres since you’re too dishonest TO HEAR IT BECAUSE IT’S TRUE:
And the editor of this special issue was a man named Bruce Alberts, who was the President of the National Academy of Sciences, and in his introduction he states, “We have always underestimated cells. Undoubtedly, we still do today. But at least we are no longer as naive as we were when I was a graduate student in the 1960’s. The chemistry that makes life possible is much more elaborate and sophisticated than anything we students had ever considered. Indeed, the entire cell can be viewed as a factory that contains an elaborate network of interlocking assembly lines, each of which is composed of a set of large protein machines.” –http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/kansas/kangaroo10.html
Are you listening, you lying fools? Notice the source of the quote (but don’t take my word for it–copy and paste it and see it’s verbatim.
Then, notice the author, idiots. It’s not a “televangelist”! It was the President of the National Academy of Sciences, a man with far more knowledge and much a better education than Darwin, trying to get you lying fools to quit pretending that a book that is over 150 years old gives anyone a competent picture of knowledge of the amazing complexity of cells that has now shown THINKING MEN (obviously that excludes idiots who regard a 156 year old book as *the defining authority* on cell development(!) when Darwin, rather than seeing the “complexity of a city” thought it was a “glob,” kind of like pro-abortion idiots suggest to young women considering abortion, “it’s only a glob of tissue,” LYING THROUGH THEIR TEETH about the young child whose heart was beating and circulating *his own blood* throughout his body BEFORE HIS MOTHER EVEN KNEW SHE WAS PREGNANT! (If you’re not too stupid to search the Internet, you can verify that fact also.)
You lying fools have only two problems. The first is your abject and willful ignorance. The second is your pretense that it’s not so.
Experience tells me that only idiots and lying fools will respond to my remarks and NOT ONE will provide ANY SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE to dispute one thing I’ve said. That’s the proof of BOTH your ignorance AND your dishonesty.
The moral of this story is evolutionists and atheists have no morals but they both have a religion (defined in [hilarious and ignorant] self-mockery as “Religion is belief without evidence”(!) which is what atheism and evolution BOTH ARE, and again, if you’re not too stupid to search, you can find you (idiot atheists and evolutionists) are, in fact, the authors of that incredibly self-daming definition and if you think that you can find ONE IOTA of scientific evidence, confirmed (verified) by the scientific method, then YOU PRESENT IT (while I guffaw).
“There is tons of documentation for species becoming other species over time. All one needs to do is put down the book with the talking donkeys and talking snakes, and pick up a college (or even high school level) book on evolution. There are also similar “kinds” which cannot interbreed with those of the same “kind” and therefore are different “kinds”.”
This is the level of stupidity that you fools pretend passes for knowledge. Of course said “documentation” is nothing more than the rantings of an ignorant evolutionist pushing his religion down someone’s throat. NOT A WORD of said “documentation” contains ONE EXAMPLE of scientific evidence, DOCUMENTED BY THE SCIENTIFIC METHOD (without which it’s NOT “scientific” because a scientist talking about children’s fairy tales doesn’t make those fairy tales “science” because a scientist said them), which Method you hypocritical liars impose on creationists while you ignore your own accountability to the standards which you impose upon others.
While atheism and evolution are your religions, your main tenets are hypocrisy and continual lying. Here is where you are absolutely unable to prove me wrong. Any quote of any of your favorite documents proclaiming either atheism or evolution, will not only be void of ANY SCIENCE, but I can simply go before and after the quote and show lies in both places. Credibility and integrity is something completely foreign to evolutionists and atheists. I CHALLENGE you to try to prove me wrong, you pack of liars.
No takers? I think you scared them all off…
Bear in mind that even Darwin did not state that his theory was an attempt to explain the origin of LIFE, merely the origin of differentiation between modern species, as highlighted in your quote from p.207 of Origin: “I must premise, that I have nothing to do with the origin of the primary mental powers, any more than I have with that of life itself.”
Furthermore, at the time Darwin was writing, science’s understanding of the biology of microscopic life was very limited; research in more recent times has demonstrated the existence of a “complex organ…which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive[,] slight modifications…”, the bacterial flagellum which is, in essence, a biological outboard motor on a molecular level, as well as many other “molecular machines.”
As noted Darwinist Fred Hoyle calculated, the odds of the necessary combination of chemicals for life to occur by chance are on the order of 1:10^40,000, whereas the total number of atoms in the known universe is only 10^80, prompting his assertion that, “The chance that higher life forms might have emerged in this way is comparable to the chance that a tornado sweeping through a junkyard might assemble a Boeing 747 from the materials therein.”
Darwin did eventually doubt and deny his theory, it was just a moment after he died. Don’t make the same mistake.
Oh sure, Les, sure.
To do justice to you and Darwin I attached the full quote.
Quote #1 If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed[,] which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive[,] slight modifications[,] my theory would absolutely break down.“But I can find out no such case.”
But in my observation the last part of the quote “But I can find out no such case.” actually causes even more problems to Darwinian evolution paradigm. I find that recent diacoveries about DNA and information theory, bacterial flagellum engineering, quantum physics and consciousness, rationality, the marvels of mathematical patterns everywh ere in nature, plainly and straightforwardly point to a Master Mind behind such evidence, not blind unguided processes.
My short observation is: it is plain common sense that behind a painting is a painter, behind a Ferrari is an engineer, behind a computer programmer is a programmer, behind a constitution is a law maker.
But our un-willigness to accept that our universe is governed by such finely-tuned laws and and have their lawmaker a Creator of Infinitely more knowledge than ours is. It is highly arrogant to claim that our rational thoughts simply arise from blind and unguided processes. How can you even trust your very thoughts at this very moment?
My slightly longer observation 🙂
I came across this video recently
Watch “A Dramatic Demonstration of the Power of Mental Frames” on YouTube
and understood why the adherents to evolution and atheism continue to strongly “believe” in their “fact based” theory in spite of astronomical evidence to the contrary from all fields of hard sciences, mathematics, semiotics and DNA origin implications, language, consciousness, human creativity in art, music, poetry, architecture.
Then, we go to the core of human sin problems: the moral law and the inner conviction of the conscience, and un-willigness to yield to God’s moral law by surpassing the truth. And the most defintite evidence is the person of Jesus Christ, His life, death, and resurrection. His teaching and His philosophy are unmatched and cannot be explained as having earthly origin.
That’s why the scientific establishment refused to accept big bang.
Why?
Because the big bang claimed a definite beginning, and that was such an uncomfortable idea for the atheist community. But even today people like Steve Hawking will push for an Eternal or mutiverse theory, which leading cosmologists like Alexander Vilenkin has demonstrated to be false and showing that this universe had a definite beginning. Even atheist scientists like David Berlinsky oppose evolution.
More on how science in quantum physics points to the composition of the universe being mental and spiritual (this coming from an atheist physicist) and also pointing to a consciousness behind it.
The Quantum Enigma of Consciousness and the Identity of the Designer
http://www.uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/the-quantum-enigma-of-consciousness-and-the-identity-of-the-designer/
John Lennox is a PhD mathematician at Oxford and a Christian theist, who unashamedly and publicly confesses Christ Jesus and has given many lectures and has had debates on the subject of God vs evolution. He is no dummy and has the power of reason to sort out Truth from fable. He has openly stated that he exposed himself intentionally to the opposing worldviews to his own in order to test the truthfulness of his worldview, and still remains a commited Christian theist and still finds Jesus Christ head and shoulders above all others, as the only possible explanation to the origin and existence of this universe, as its Creator, and Jesus is the only one capable of answering adequately and practically the problem of evil and death.
Respectfully,
Alex
I stumbled across this page as I was ‘Googling’ quotes from Darwin. I didn’t read all of your mis-quotes (sorry), or all of the comments that have been made, but I thought I’d make one observation that someone else may have already made: It is interesting that, although Darwin ‘could find no such case’ of irreducibly complex organs, science has since advanced and demonstrated that the the function of blood clotting, the eye, and even the production of DNA (which is necessary for even the most basic of life forms to exist) are both irreducibly complex and, therefore, pose a significant challenge to his theory.Without the fully formed eye, sight would have never been possible. Without the complex function of blood clotting, all life forms would have eventually sustained at least a minor cut and bled to death. Finally, without DNA, which is necessary to produce RNA, which is necessary to produce the proteins that are in turn necessary to produce DNA (kind of a circular “chicken/egg” quandary), there could have been no life forms at all.
Yes he may have said “But I can find out no such case” but in the 20th century we have found out in such case. Natural selection suggest that one part of a multi-part system of a cell would be expelled from the cell for a better part. Dr. Barry Hall did an experiment in efforts to prove this theory, but when he did take a part out of a cell he had to keep it on life support until a new system came along to take its place, he thought he had proven natural selection true but that could have never happened in natural conditions, if he didn’t keep the cell alive it would have died proving natural selection false. Read what Dr. Michael Behe would have to say about complex Biological systems. He has a degree in chemistry with honors from Drexel University, a biochemistry doctorate at the university of Pennsylvania, and has authored many articles and has contributed to several books. There is so much information out there, do all of your research not just Darwin’s, not coming from a religious perspective but intelligent design is truly the only logical explanation for life.
Quote #1 If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed[,] which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive[,] slight modifications[,] my theory would absolutely break down.
“:Context This passage, in Darwin’s hand, comes from chapter 6 (p. 189) of On the Origin of Species (1859, Murray: London), “Difficulties on theory,” in a section where he covers organs of extreme perfection. Immediately following the quoted passage, Darwin wrote: “But I can find out no such case.” This is a perfect example of quote-mining in which a sentence immediately following a passage that works for creationist purposes (to make Darwin seem like he doubts his own theory or idea) is simply not shown.:”
There are many comments here, so I confess that I have not read them and may be asking a question that has already been asked and answered. If so, feel free to copy and paste the answer to my question!
What is your point regarding Quote/Context #1? I’ve read the that quote in context from within On the Origin of Species in context and I’m not sure how it could be ‘quote mined’ to say something that it doesn’t mean. When considered from within its context, it seems to mean exactly what it says whether it is considered as a stand alone quote, or not.
Also, is the purpose of this post primarily to defend Darwinian Evolution from an attacker? I may have missed it.
Folks while i Am a Believer in a Creator i also believe that said creator gave us a Brain and Intelligence to be used That being said Darwin’s Statement on his Theory and Irreducible Complexity is well and Truly said in that He Knows of none and in his day with the Technology of his age it was impossible to Find but in ours it is well Known that such an Example Exists The Flagellum Motor by name and it is at that Level that his theory Does Break down but this does not mean that his theory doent work on a larger scale only that they Origin of Species is not the Origin of Life its self.
//Quote #1 If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed[,] which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive[,] slight modifications[,] my theory would absolutely break down.
Context This passage, in Darwin’s hand, comes from chapter 6 (p. 189) of On the Origin of Species (1859, Murray: London), “Difficulties on theory,” in a section where he covers organs of extreme perfection. Immediately following the quoted passage, Darwin wrote: “But I can find out no such case.” This is a perfect example of quote-mining in which a sentence immediately following a passage that works for creationist purposes (to make Darwin seem like he doubts his own theory or idea) is simply not shown.//
Let me correct both your’s (and Charles Darwin’s) own faulty and wholly dishonest reasoning:
“But I can find no such case.”
Good for you, Mr. Charles Darwin.
No, really, because here in the 21st Century it has been LONG since proven otherwise.
Therefore, while your opinion is appreciated, ultimately, it’s wrong and needs to be entirely ignored from this point forward. Because as you confessed yourself already your whimsical theory of evolution has been sufficiently broken down a 1,000 times over, no less.
Have we forgotten that Darwin did cite in his Origin of Species that one transitional fossil has not yet been found or known unto science and admitted that was something that could be “urged against my theory?”
He admitted that he didn’t have transitional forms to confirm his assumptions. I read it in context myself. And we have yet to still discover an honest transitional form of any kind living or dead.
Thank you for reading and I would love to read a response concerning the best transitional fossils that have been found in science since.
J
J – Check out Donald Prothero’s book “Evolution: What the Fossils Say and Why It Matters” (https://amzn.to/2mL1ZtW
Can you clarify for me what you mean by “an honest transitional form”?
There are taxa-defining novel homologs (the pentadactyl limb, the flower, the diaphragm, etc.); these homologs are not led up to via series of intermediates; and they do persist and exert their constraining powers in diverse lineages in different taxa for millions of years. In other words, typology is no anti-Darwinian fantasy. The testimony of biologists has left a lasting mark on the evolutionary debate and left Darwinists with an uphill battle trying to perpetrate the illusion that there are no novel taxa-defining homologs in nature.
Darwin has been proved wrong over and over and over again. Why is this even still a conversation you ask? Religion plain and simple.
Darwin: “But I can find out no such case.”
Modern biologists (if honest): “We see such cases everywhere we look.”
The greater goal is not to determine what Darwin believed or doubted, but rather to improve upon his flawed understanding of truth. And that should also be the goal of future scientists relative to our own science. It is a mistake for creationists to appeal to Darwin’s misgivings about his theory, if he had any. Let us assume he had none, and use modern scientific methods to determine if living things were intelligently designed or not.
Soli Deo Gloria
Darwin, whether he rationalized it or not, often felt that cold shutter. That is the point.
The quotes are factual. Not taken out of context. Especially the one where he questions what he has been teaching. It makes no sense for Darwin to have taken what is occurring between those species of the same kind, which is easily observed, as what is born are the same kinds of organisms as the two that mated them into existence, and then take this to mean that two dinosaurs of the same kind could have had descendants that one day laid an egg from which a baby bird hatched.
This is not what is observed when two organisms OF THE SAME KIND MATE.
“…as what is born are the same kinds of organisms as the two that mated them into existence, and then take this to mean that two dinosaurs of the same kind could have had descendants that one day laid an egg from which a baby bird hatched.”
Still repeating that tired old lie about evolution happening to individuals, I see. How can you possibly have studied evolution for years without understanding that it only happens to populations?
You have not supplied any evidence it is a lie, and you do not seem to know what ‘”TELLING A LIE IS”.
I firmly believe what I’m telling you. Does this constitute as a lie?
But, please list what it is that I’ve lied about.
Also add the science that demonstrates that what I’ve said was not based upon sound science.
You say it happens to populations. Populations of what?
“You have not supplied any evidence it is a lie,…”
You have not supplied any evidence that any evolutionary biologist has portrayed evolution as happening to individuals. Nor will you, because none do.
“…and you do not seem to know what ‘”TELLING A LIE IS”.”
If you had read carefully, I accused you of repeating a lie, not that you originated it.
This lie is a standard part of duping uncritical thinkers like you. Evolution happening to individuals makes no sense whatsoever. You lack the most basic understanding of evolution. Thus, your claim to have studied it for years is an obvious lie and a blatant violation of the Ninth Commandment.
“I firmly believe what I’m telling you.”
I don’t believe you. If you firmly believed it, you would have provided evidence instead of ranting and fake indignation.
“Also add the science that demonstrates that what I’ve said was not based upon sound science.”
We’re talking about your blatant misrepresentation of science. You need to point to a single case of an evolutionary biologist describing single animals evolving. No one who understands the most basic evolutionary concepts thinks that individuals evolve; only populations do.
“You say it happens to populations. Populations of what?”
Organisms, of course. No one who has studied evolution for years would ask such a ridiculous question.
How about if you, given all of your alleged years of studying evolution, tell us what the broadest definition of evolution is. Not your stupid, creationist straw man, but how evolutionary biologists, particularly population biologists, define it.
“If you had read carefully, I accused you of repeating a lie, not that you originated it”
Still you did not supply any evidence it was a lie, that was being repeated. .
And what I said still holds true. Whether it is I that said it, or another person, as long as we believe what we are saying, this is not a lie.
“This lie is a standard part of duping uncritical thinkers like you. Evolution happening to individuals makes no sense whatsoever. You lack the most basic understanding of evolution.”
When are you going to get around to supplying evidence to support what you are saying?
“I don’t believe you. If you firmly believed it, you would have provided evidence instead of ranting and fake indignation.”
I clearly laid out my evidence. It is reminding you that what is observed as each of the descendants from each of the different kinds of lifeforms are born. They have always been classified under the classifications of the original parent organisms.
It is up to you to demonstrate what is observed is not what I say it is.
And you can not do this.
“We’re talking about your blatant misrepresentation of science.”
Again, no evidence to support your claim.
Where have I misrepresented science.
I simply pointed out that dogs give birth to dogs. A male and female dog will mate and a baby dog will be the result.
Cats, birds, cows, horses, elephants, apes and humans all mate with those of their own kind, and those of their own kind are what are the resulting descendant offspring.
Now, please produce the evidence that shows this is not scientifically sound.
““You say it happens to populations. Populations of what?”
Organisms, of course. No one who has studied evolution for years would ask such a ridiculous question.”
““You say it happens to populations. Populations of what?”
Really. Then school me. Show me I don’t know what I’m talking about.
Just tell me what populations are the evolutionists referring to?
What is the male and female of that population?
“Really. Then school me. Show me I don’t know what I’m talking about.”
You’ve demonstrated it very well. No one who has studied evolution, as you repeatedly claim to have done, would have to ask a biologist what he means by “population.” No one who has studied any evolutionary biology, whether he accepts it or not, would honestly claim that evolution is supposed to happen to individuals, again whether he accepts it or not.
You repeatedly bear false witness. Why is the Ninth Commandment optional for you?
“Just tell me what populations are the evolutionists referring to?”
Populations of organisms that exhibit interbreeding, of course. What else would it possibly mean in any evolutionary context?
“What is the male and female of that population?”
Why did you go from the plural to the singular? And are you really that clueless that you don’t even know that many, many species reproduce asexually?
“Populations of organisms that exhibit interbreeding, of course. What else would it possibly mean in any evolutionary context?”
Exactly. And which of the organisms in those populations are the ones that are mating?
They are those that are part of that population. In other words, they are species that make up those different kinds of organisms in each of the particular populations.
If two species of the dog population mate, then they will reproduce another member of that DOG POPULATION. OR OF THE CANINE KIND POPULATION.
Cats, birds, pigs, elephants, rhinos, horses, apes and even humans make up those of their own kind populations.
They mate and their offspring that are born, are added to those particular population kinds.
They do not go on to begin new lineages of any new kinds of organisms.
Just in case you have problems understanding this, this means that the evolutionist’s dinosaur to birds, land animal to whale, or ape like creatures to humans, are entirely based upon fakes science.
If what you are claiming evolution is, then you should not be accepting the fake science premise that dinosaurs laid an egg with a baby bird in it.
Or that the descendants of some land animal became the ancestors of whales. Or, that something of an ape kind went ont to have descendants that became the ancestors of humans.
Because according to what you claim evolution to be, would not support any of the fake science.
Now, again. explain to me how I am wrong. How am I lying?
“Populations of organisms that exhibit interbreeding, of course. What else would it possibly mean in any evolutionary context?”
Interbreeding still only occurs among species of the same kinds of organisms.
When humans interbreed, they are doing so with other humans that are of their own close family members.
You should take the time to think this through.
“Why did you go from the plural to the singular? And are you really that clueless that you don’t even know that many, many species reproduce asexually?”
You are not helping your cause.
Male and females of the same kind are the ones that mate. It has been this way for as long as man has been around.
Those organisms that reproduce asexually are not mating. But, when they do reproduce their descendant is always identical to the parent organism.
And this is easily seen, because some organisms are able to reproduce both sexually and asexually.
When they reproduce with a mate, the offspring is not identical to either parent, but it remains as the same kind of organism as the two parent organisms, the male and female parent organisms that mated.
But, when the organism, that can reproduce either sexually or asexually, when it reproduces asexually the resulting descendant is still the same kind of lifeform, as well as it it identical to its parent that reproduced it.
So, again, you don’t know what you are talking about.
Your quote 1 response does not make any sense.
Yes the next sentence saying “But I can find out no such case” does not add anything to your argument. When written so long ago the knowledge of a single was rudimentary. Since that time numerous biochemist have shown the IC of living cells. So it doesn’t matter what Darwin knew at the time, it’s what we know now. And yes, the present knowledge now absolutely breaks down.
If the first instance you present is
“a perfect example of quote-mining in which a sentence immediately following a passage that works for creationist purposes (to make Darwin seem like he doubts his own theory or idea) is simply not shown.” , then you don’t understand what your own argument it.
With Darwin’s statement being: ” If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed[,] which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive[,] slight modifications[,] my theory would absolutely break down.”
Your claim that the next sentence ““But I can find out no such case.” is left out intentionally because it doesn’t support the agenda of the quote-miner (in this case, creationists), is absurd and disingenuous.
The follow up sentence of “But I can find out no such case.” has literally the exact same meaning as the first word in the original quite “IF”. There is zero information conveyed in the follow up sentence that is not already conveyed in the first sentence. This is clearly you’re bias and pushing back against the agenda of creationists with you’re own agenda that is counter to theirs. People rightfully leave the second sentence out because it adds nothing. But your insistence that it does make a difference when it clearly doesn’t, just shows you’re agenda. You are u ironically doing the exact thing you are accusing others of doing, when the others themselves aren’t even doing what you claim they are. You are showing that creationists are looking at this quote more critically than you are, and you are showing your adherence to dogmatic scientific beliefs in your reactionary response that indicates you being personally offended in what you see as an attack on you and your beliefs.
It’s incredulous that there are intelligent scientists and others that can genuinely believe that blind unguided purposeless molecules of different mattee just happened to manoeuvre or organise themselves randomly into making the most complex and sophisticated orgasm such as the human or animal body, which had so many systems inside that are dependant on each other and have such an amazingly complicated design code built into the DNA of every cell that instructs the particular cells into making the various different organs and systems (nervous system, respiratory system, circulatory system, endocrine system, skeletal system etc etc…). They certainly have more faith than I do in their atheism than I do in my creationism, as it takes great faith to believe that such a thing is probable if not impossible. There is absolutely no disputing that there is an intelligent Mind behind all of the universe and all the various types of living beings within it. Every single engineering and other types of design (graphic designs, artistic designs, electrical, mechanical and civil designs etc) that we know of in our universe came from instructions from an intelligent mind. Why then do some people not clearly see that living organisms, that are much much more complex than any of the above mentioned types of design, had to have been designed and not just came together over millions of years by unguided mechanisms that instruct the cells to make certain body parts and systems (respiratory system, nervous system, secretary system, endocrine system etc etc). Just think, what would make a DNA molecule ‘decide’ to construct an ear or an eye or a heart or a brain, that has amazing functionality and btw the above systems need each other to function, i.e. the brain needs air and blood so it needs to have lungs and a heart to be there. Likewise the heart and lungs need a brain to control their working. So which evolved first? They all needed to be made simultaneously.
It is beyond belief there are so many who blindly accept the universall common descent ancestor was not just a myth.