Name some. - Reader comments at The New York Sun

Recent Blog Posts

Reader comment on:
Evolution's Trap
in response to reader comment: Lots of Non Religious Scientists

Submitted by MPW, May 28, 2007 14:07

You start out by claiming there are a bunch of atheist scientists who have come out against evolutionary theory. One would think it would occur to you in the course of the 500+ words following to name a few (since there are so many, surely you can find more than one). How about correcting this omission, as well as giving us links to your sources so we can check for ourselves? I'm not holding my breath. I can think off the top of my head of only two scientists in relevant fields who are prominent evolution deniers. Biochemist Michael Behe is a devout Catholic. Jonathan Wells has openly described how his religious beliefs (Rev. Sun Myung Moon's Unification Church) led him to reject evolution, and *then* go get a cell biology PhD in order to be a more effective witness for evolution denial. Of course, one's religious beliefs are irrelevant if one can produce science backing up one's claims. These guys have barely even attempted to, let alone succeeded. And I could go on and on about your other ridiculous factual and logical errors. To anyone with halfway decent knowledge about evolutionary biology, your post is a howler, Chris. For example, no evolutionary scientist has ever said we evolved from monkeys, fish or birds. (And what's "goo"?) Again, I confidently predict that you can't find any credible source to the contrary. And your repeated assertions that scientists haven't found any fossil or other evidence to back up evolution since Darwin's day is just typical foot-stomping, "la la la I can't hear you!" tactics. It would be as if O.J. Simpson simply kept repeating, "You don't have any bloody gloves and there aren't any blood stains in my Bronco" in the blithe confidence that saying it made it so. One point that goes to the heart of your problem: you complain that evolution theory changes to fit newly discovered facts, and brag about how Christianity doesn't, as if that's a reason to trust the latter and distrust the former. Your ideas about knowledge are purely authoritarian. You're regurgitating almost at random a bunch of falsehoods that you've swallowed because your religious sources fed them to you, and you've made little to no attempt to examine them critically, because you think revising one's beliefs is a sign of weakness. (And if you think Christianity hasn't changed in 2000 years, you don't know much more about your own religion than you do about science.) Chris, you've been cheated out of a rich and exciting intellectual heritage that belongs to all thinking humans, whatever their religious convictions or lack thereof. Here's just one of the many good places to start - at the website of the Field Museum in Chicago. http://www.fieldmuseum.org/evolvingplanet/allabout_5.asp You can find many more strong sources just by googling. Better yet, get thee to a library. Start doing a little learning about evolution, and science in general, from real scientists, and take back what's yours.

Note: Comments are screened, and in some cases edited, before posting. We reserve the right to reject anything we find objectionable.

Other reader comments on this article

Comment	By	Date
If evolutionists want to end the arguments all they have to do is, get their brilliant heads together and assemble... [MORE]	James Collins	Jun 1, 2007 11:01
At the end I would change "opposition to conservative Christian beliefs" to "opposition to religious beliefs". Christians do not have a monopoly... [MORE]	D Hollander	May 27, 2007 21:49
They believe, to generalize broadly, that evolution is just one of the ways that a deity or deities works in... [MORE]	MPW	May 28, 2007 13:02
One does not "believe" in evolution anymore than one believes in gravity. Gravity exists, and exerts its influence throughout the... [MORE]	MacTurk	May 25, 2007 13:01
MacTurk comments that "One does not believe in evolution any more than one believes in gravity. Gravity exists ... "... [MORE]	Steve Bartholomew	May 27, 2007 22:00
Regarding those writers who believe that evolution is an absolute fact have yet to show me the creatures or whatever... [MORE]	E. Koos	May 25, 2007 04:51
Dear Sir, This was a deliberate, scripted, planned in advance question designed to embarass the candidates. It was posed by a... [MORE]	Roy Lofquist	May 25, 2007 01:41
It'shard to believe that anyone claiming to be aware of the science in biology would at this date still be... [MORE]	Harry Eagar	May 24, 2007 23:37
There have been 22 species of human alone. Perhaps if we weren't in the unusual point of our evolutionary history... [MORE]	Scott Baker	May 24, 2007 16:49
When a politician is asked about evolution the question could be rephrased: "Does religion trump science in the arena of... [MORE]	Del Dodge	May 24, 2007 14:52
Its even easier to just say yes, and that evolution is just one of many laws (gravity, electromagnetism) and processes... [MORE]	Charles Miller	May 24, 2007 14:15
Mr. Blackwell is wrong on everything. First, there is no difference between macro and micro evolution. One is just a... [MORE]	Scott Baker	May 24, 2007 11:02
We can't DO evolution. We can DO hybridization (aritifical selection). We can breed animals to our hearts content, and my... [MORE]	Pepper	May 24, 2007 13:24
Scott Baker made a misstep when he talks about intermediate forms in nature. It is true there exist fish and... [MORE]	Paul Hamilton	May 24, 2007 13:50
If one is longer and more complicated then that is in fact a difference. A fish eye is a fish... [MORE]	Wallyhuck	May 24, 2007 14:31
Mr. Baker, you seem to be needlessly blind on just about every subject Mr. Blackwell mentions. 1. Microevolution and macroevolution, as... [MORE]	Mark Romer	May 24, 2007 18:31
No intermediate forms? Then why do horses have "chestnuts"? Why do whales have vestigial pelvises? Could a flying squirrel be... [MORE]	Thomas Collet	May 25, 2007 14:28
Nonsense, nonsense, nonsense. Blackwell should really learn some real science, and not the religion infused garbage he's been reading. The... [MORE]	Grant Canyon	May 24, 2007 09:55
As the previous two comments demonstrate, "evolution" is an emotionally freighted term that is broadly defined. It seems to be... [MORE]	Charles Putnam	May 24, 2007 14:02
There is a myth propagated by opponents of Darwinian evolution that many credentialed scientists question evolution's veracity. The only serious... [MORE]	Thomas Collet	May 24, 2007 17:59
There are a plethora of scientists that will say evolution does not have a leg to stand on. Many of... [MORE]	Chris Leach	May 25, 2007 07:52
Dr Scott Todd, an immunologist at Kansas State University: ‘Even if all the data point to an intelligent designer, such an... [MORE]	Donald Dunnam	May 25, 2007 14:13
If any scientist can disprove evolution he needs to get his paper typed up and off to the Nobel commitee... [MORE]	Thomas Collet	May 25, 2007 17:33
You start out by claiming there are a bunch of atheist scientists who have come out against evolutionary theory. One...	MPW	May 28, 2007 14:07

Reader comment on:Evolution's Trapin response to reader comment: Lots of Non Religious Scientists

Other reader comments on this article

Comment on Evolution's Trap

Reader comment on:
Evolution's Trap
in response to reader comment: Lots of Non Religious Scientists