This is very difficult to talk about. It really is an incredibly large topic. Almost to big.
But everyone, yes. This is what I was kinda talking about in my OP. (sorry I meandered so much, it was really hard to get started)
QuoteThis is because Darwin was an absolute favourite of the British ruling classes. His theories proved to them (so they thought) that they were the fit to survive
I dont know what happens in the UK (or happened in the past)
But just these last few years, people with mental disabilities have been forcefully sterilized in California. Eugenics in the 21st century. It is not only about race though. But yes, Darwin WAS a racist nut-bag. And I don't mean race like species. I mean race like racial. He often wrote of people who he considered to be inferior in derogatory terms. So also did the people in his circle. And he him self through his work, or rather the way he represented his work, helped the Nazis do what they did. And not only the Nazis. Mostly I am talking about Darwin apart from evolution as a scientific idea.
I think it was martin who said I should separate the two; Darwin and evolution. And I am. As I said, one of the problems Im having is Darwin.
But everything I have read, heard, and am currently looking into gives him credit. But from what I think I know, Darwin did not discover evolution. But he gets all the credit because of his studies in the Goulopoulos islands. So what? Why is he immune from the same shame that we give everyone else who was like him?
There is also the mean spirited, basically hateful voice of the current politics around evolutionists, that smacks of tyranny. Where decent of any kind is absolutely persecuted with a Nazi level of self satisfaction and pride. You can already catch a whiff of it (just a taste) here and in other threads in this forum, everywhere in academia, and all over the net.
^^ that is 1 of 2 parts of what I was trying to say in my OP. (But I know I absolutely butchered my own post). As I said this is difficult to write about. An essay would be one thing. but posting a conversation like were trying to do here on such complex subjects is really hard.
The 2nd part of what I was attempting to say in my OP is on the subject of Genetics, as it relates to trying to understand evolution.
Consider the man James M. Tour (<-- this is the man from the "show" I was talking about in my OP. But I only just found him now)
http://chemistry.rice.edu/FacultyDetail.aspx?RiceID=1027He "is one of the ten most cited chemists in the world"
He is a Nobel scientist, his Resume is to long to write here. But without a doubt he is a qualified authority on the subject of genetics.
He doe not believe in evolution. He says he tries, but he just cant. This is an interesting read. It deals with much of what I was saying at the top of this post... And much better too.
QuoteAlthough most scientists leave few stones unturned in their quest to discern mechanisms before wholeheartedly accepting them, when it comes to the often gross extrapolations between observations and conclusions on macroevolution, scientists, it seems to me, permit unhealthy leeway. When hearing such extrapolations in the academy, when will we cry out, "The emperor has no clothes!"?
...I simply do not understand, chemically, how macroevolution could have happened. Hence, am I not free to join the ranks of the skeptical and to sign such a statement without reprisals from those that disagree with me? ... Does anyone understand the chemical details behind macroevolution? If so, I would like to sit with that person and be taught, so I invite them to meet with me.
Quote... I will tell you as a scientist and a synthetic chemist: if anybody should be able to understand evolution, it is me, because I make molecules for a living, and I don't just buy a kit, and mix this and mix this, and get that. I mean, ab initio, I make molecules. I understand how hard it is to make molecules. I understand that if I take Nature's tool kit, it could be much easier, because all the tools are already there, and I just mix it in the proportions, and I do it under these conditions, but ab initio is very, very hard.
I don't understand evolution, and I will confess that to you. Is that OK, for me to say, "I don't understand this"? Is that all right? I know that there's a lot of people out there that don't understand anything about organic synthesis, but they understand evolution. I understand a lot about making molecules; I don't understand evolution. And you would just say that, wow, I must be really unusual.
Let me tell you what goes on in the back rooms of science – with National Academy members, with Nobel Prize winners. I have sat with them, and when I get them alone, not in public – because it's a scary thing, if you say what I just said – I say, "Do you understand all of this, where all of this came from, and how this happens?" Every time that I have sat with people who are synthetic chemists, who understand this, they go "Uh-uh. Nope." These people are just so far off, on how to believe this stuff came together. I've sat with National Academy members, with Nobel Prize winners. Sometimes I will say, "Do you understand this?"And if they're afraid to say "Yes," they say nothing. They just stare at me, because they can't sincerely do it.
I was once brought in by the Dean of the Department, many years ago, and he was a chemist. He was kind of concerned about some things. I said, "Let me ask you something. You're a chemist. Do you understand this? How do you get DNA without a cell membrane? And how do you get a cell membrane without a DNA? And how does all this come together from this piece of jelly?" We have no idea, we have no idea. I said, "Isn't it interesting that you, the Dean of science, and I, the chemistry professor, can talk about this quietly in your office, but we can't go out there and talk about this?"
If you understand evolution, I am fine with that. I'm not going to try to change you – not at all. In fact, I wish I had the understanding that you have.
But about seven or eight years ago I posted on my Web site that I don't understand. And I said, "I will buy lunch for anyone that will sit with me and explain to me evolution, and I won't argue with you until I don't understand something – I will ask you to clarify. But you can't wave by and say, "This enzyme does that." You've got to get down in the details of where molecules are built, for me. Nobody has come forward.
The Atheist Society contacted me. They said that they will buy the lunch, and they challenged the Atheist Society, "Go down to Houston and have lunch with this guy, and talk to him." Nobody has come! Now remember, because I'm just going to ask, when I stop understanding what you're talking about, I will ask. So I sincerely want to know. I would like to believe it. But I just can't.
Now, I understand microevolution, I really do. We do this all the time in the lab. I understand this. But when you have speciation changes, when you have organs changing, when you have to have concerted lines of evolution, all happening in the same place and time – not just one line – concerted lines, all at the same place, all in the same environment ... this is very hard to fathom.
I was in Israel not too long ago, talking with a bio-engineer, and [he was] describing to me the ear, and he was studying the different changes in the modulus of the ear, and I said, "How does this come about?" And he says, "Oh, Jim, you know, we all believe in evolution, but we have no idea how it happened." Now there's a good Jewish professor for you. I mean, that's what it is. So that's where I am. Have I answered the question? (52:00 to 56:44)
QuoteEvolution has just been dealt its death blow. After reading "Origins of Life", with my background in chemistry and physics, it is clear evolution could not have occurred. The new book, "Who Was Adam?", is the silver bullet that puts the evolutionary model to death.
Quote"We are skeptical of claims for the ability of random mutation and natural selection to account for the complexity of life. Careful examination of the evidence for Darwinian theory should be encouraged."
QuoteIn the last few years I have seen a saddening progression at several institutions. I have witnessed unfair treatment upon scientists that do not accept macroevolutionary arguments and for their having signed the above-referenced statement regarding the examination of Darwinism. (I will comment no further regarding the specifics of the actions taken upon the skeptics; I love and honor my colleagues too much for that.) I never thought that science would have evolved like this. I deeply value the academy; teaching, professing and research in the university are my privileges and joys...
But my recent advice to my graduate students has been direct and revealing: If you disagree with Darwinian Theory, keep it to yourselves if you value your careers, unless, of course, you're one of those champions for proclamation; I know that that fire exists in some, so be ready for lead-ridden limbs. But if the scientific community has taken these shots at senior faculty, it will not be comfortable for the young non-conformist. When the power-holders permit no contrary discussion, can a vibrant academy be maintained? Is there a University (unity in diversity)? For the United States, I pray that the scientific community and the National Academy in particular will investigate the disenfranchisement that is manifest upon some of their own, and thereby address the inequity.
But maybe you guys are right that believing in evolution means your smart. Anyone who does not believe must be a buffoon.
Now the rest of what I was badly atempting to say in my OP. I still cant
I really do need to spend a lot of time reading.
@T-U
Hey man, I read your post and will read those links too. Its too much to read and comment on now though. But your effort is not waisted. I do take what you wrote serious. It just requires more time to think on.