Woensdag, 25 Augustus 2010 21:30
Evolution Quotes, wat 'n alfabetiese lys van aanhalings oor evolusie is.
The Religious Nature of Evolution Theory and its Attack on Christianity (creation.com)
(Skeppingsleerder. Direkteur van Answers in Genesis.)
“Creationists and evolutionists, Christians and non-Christians all have the same evidence—the same facts. Think about it: we all have the same earth, the same fossil layers, the same animals and plants, the same stars—the facts are all the same.
The difference is in the way we all interpret the facts. And why do we interpret facts differently? Because we start with different presuppositions. These are things that are assumed to be true, without being able to prove them. These then become the basis for other conclusions. All reasoning is based on presuppositions (also called axioms). This becomes especially relevant when dealing with past events.”
Ons neem die kant van die wetenskap, ten spyte van die ooglopende absurditeit van sommige van sy konstruksies, ten spyte van sy versuim om baie van sy buitensporige beloftes van gesondheid en die lewe te vervul, ten spyte van die verdraagsaamheid van die wetenskaplike gemeenskap vir ongegronde stories, want ons het 'n vooropgestelde verbintenis, 'n verbintenis tot materialisme.
Dit is nie dat die metodes en instansies van die wetenskap ons op een of ander manier dwing om vir ons 'n materialistiese verduideliking van die waarneembare wêreld te aanvaar nie, inteendeel, ons word gedwing deur ons vooropgestelde nakoming tot materialisme wat 'n apparaat vir ondersoek en 'n stel konsepte skep wat 'n materialistiese verduideliking veroorsaak, maak nie saak hoe teen-intuïtief nie, maak nie saak hoe verborge aan die oningewydes. Verder, materialisme is 'n absolute, want ons kan nie 'n Goddelike voet in die deur toelaat nie.
Die vooraanstaande Kant-geleerde Lewis Beck het gesê dat enigiemand wat in God kan glo, kan in enigiets glo. Om 'n beroep op 'n almagtige godheid te maak is om enige oomblik toe te laat dat die reëlmatigheid van die natuur gebreek kan word, dat wonderwerke kan gebeur.
[Uit Amazing admission]
Wetenskaplikes, net soos ander, vertel soms doelbewuste leuens, omdat hulle glo dat klein leuens groot waarhede kan dien.
Dit is nie meer ketters om te sê dat die heelal geen doel vertoon nie, soos Hoyle gedoen het, as om te sê dat dit sinneloos is, soos Steven Weinberg gedoen het. Beide stellings is metafisies en buite die wetenskap. Tog blyk dit dat wetenskaplikes deur hul eie kollegas toegelaat word om metafisiese dinge te sê oor die gebrek aan die doel en nie die omgekeerde nie. Dit dui vir my daarop dat die wetenskap, in die feit dat hierdie metafisiese siening toegelaat word, sien homself as godsdiens en vermoedelik as 'n ateïstiese godsdiens (as daar so iets bestaan).
[Shallis, M. [Astrophysicist, Oxford University], In the eye of a storm, New Scientist, pp. 42–43, January 19, 1984. [Quotable quote: The religion of scientism]
Wetenskap is fundamenteel 'n speletjie. Dit is 'n spel met een oorheersende en definiërende reël. Reël nommer 1: Kom ons kyk hoe ver en tot watter mate kan ons die gedrag van die fisiese en materiële heelal verduidelik in terme van suiwer fisiese en materiële oorsake, sonder aanroeping van die bonatuurlike.
Jy mag reg wees, spesiale skepping is waarskynlik die waarheid en evolusie is verkeerd. Tog, evolusie is wetenskap, en skeppingsleer is godsdiens, daarom moet net evolusie in skole onderrig word.
Mens is gedwing om tot die gevolgtrekking te kom dat baie wetenskaplikes en tegnoloë lippe-diens aan die Darwiniaanse teorie betaal net omdat dit kwansuis 'n Skepper uitsluit ...
Selfs as al die data op 'n intelligente ontwerper dui, is so 'n hipotese uitgesluit van die wetenskap, want dit is nie naturalisties nie.
[‘DNA marvellous messages or mostly mess?’, Creation 25(2), bl. 26-31, 2003, S. C. Todd in sy korrespondensie aan Nature 401, bl. 423, 30 Sep. 1999] [Uit A designer is unscientific even if all the evidence supports one]
(Professor in filosofie en dierkunde. Sien homself as 'n ateïs en agnos.)
Evolusie word deur sy praktisyns as meer as net wetenskap bevorder. Evolusie word gepromulgeer as 'n ideologie, 'n sekulêre godsdiens - 'n volwaardige alternatief tot die Christelike geloof, met betekenis en moraliteit. ... Evolusie is 'n geloof. Dit was waar van evolusie in die begin, en dit is vandag nog waar van evolusie. ... Evolusie het dus tot stand gekom as 'n soort sekulêre ideologie, 'n eksplisiete plaasvervanger vir Christenskap.
[‘Did creationists ‘hijack’ Gould’s idea?’, TJ 16(2), bl. 22-24, 2002] [Michael Ruse (professor in filosofie en dierkunde, University of Guelph, Kanada), National Post, 13 Mei 2000, bl. B1, B3 en B7] Michael Ruse - evolution is a religion]
(Lid van die Intelligente Ontwerp beweging. Dus is hy teen evolusie, maar nie noodwendig 'n Christen nie.)
[M. Behe, Darwin’s Black Box, p.243.]
[Chinese paleontologist, quoted by Berkeley law professor and Darwin critic Phillip E. Johnson. Uit http://bevets.com/equotesc.htm.]
[Kyk Charles Lyell’s hidden agenda—to free science “from Moses”]
(Evolusionis en ongelowige.)
Scientists jumped on Darwin’s Origin of Species because the idea of God was too restrictive to their sexual morals.
Wetenskaplikes het Darwin se Origin of Species aangegryp, omdat die idee van God te beperkend was op hul seksuele morele waardes.
[Julian Huxley, genoem "the bulldog of Darwin" op ’n VSA TV-program ’Evolution’s Bloopers and Blunders’]
...skryf in sy boek, The Battle for the Beginning, die volgende oor evolusie:
“Thanks to the theory of evolution, naturalism is now the dominant religion of modern society”.
“Naturalism has now replaced Christianity as the main religion of the Western world, and evolution has become naturalism’s principal doctrine.”
"Danksy die teorie van evolusie, is naturalisme nou die oorheersende godsdiens van die moderne samelewing".
"Naturalisme het nou die Christendom as die hoof godsdiens van die Westerse wêreld vervang, en evolusie het naturalisme se belangrikste leer geword."
..., in sy boek, Darwin’s Enigma, skryf die volgende:
“Darwin has had a more significant impact on every facet of society throughout the world than any other person in the last several hundred years. To some degree, the theory of evolution has influenced the fields of philosophy, economics, education, science, politics, and to a minor degree, all major organized religious denominations, which now teach it exclusively in their seminaries, either implicitly or explicitly.”
"Darwin het 'n groter impak gehad op elke faset van die samelewing in die wêreld as enige ander persoon in die laaste paar honderd jaar. In 'n mate het die teorie van evolusie die velde van die filosofie, ekonomie, onderwys, wetenskap, politiek, en tot 'n mindere mate, al die groot georganiseerde godsdienstige denominasies beïnvloed, wat dit nou uitsluitlik in hul kweekskole onderrig, hetsy implisiet of uitdruklik."
(Skotse geoloog en naturalis.)
“The past history of our globe must be explained by what can be seen to be happening now.”
"Die geskiedenis van ons wêreld moet verduidelik word deur dit wat gesien kan word nou besig is om te gebeur." [Hierdie is presies die definisie van naturalisme.]
James Hutton (1726-97) Theory of the Earth
Sometimes logic and reason against the tide of evolutionary indoctrination come to the fore in surprising places. The following challenge to the British Broadcasting Corporation appeared on the Peter Hitchens feature page of the International Express (UK), on 5 January 2000:
[Uit Darwinisma cult]
In September 1992, a Scientific American article called ‘Mind and Brain’ said that human brain is …
‘the most complex structure in the known universe, complex enough to coordinate the fingers of a concert pianist or to create a three-dimensional landscape from light that falls on a two-dimensional retina’. A few lines further on, the author said,
This is the stark reality of what evolutionary science is teaching our generation—even the most complex structure in the universe is said to have no plan, no purpose, in defiance of all ordinary logic. Trying to explain design without a designer—in other words, justifying atheism, is what evolution has always been all about, despite the attempts by ‘theistic evolutionism’ to disguise the obvious.
(Source: Gerald D. Fischbach, ‘Mind and Brain’, Scientific American 267(3):24, September 1992.
[Uit Twisted thinking]
"We have no acceptable theory of evolution at the present time. There is none; and I cannot accept the theory that I teach to my students each year. Let me explain. I teach the synthetic theory known as the neo-Darwinian one, for one reason only; not because it’s good, we know it is bad, but because there isn’t any other. Whilst waiting to find something better you are taught something which is known to be inexact, which is a first approximation…"
"Ons het nie op die oomblik 'n aanvaarbare teorie vir evolusie nie. Daar is geen; en ek kan nie die teorie aanvaar wat ek tans aan my studente onderrig elke jaar nie. Laat ek verduidelik. Ek onderrig die sintetiese teorie bekend as die neo-Darwinistiese een, vir een rede alleenlik: nie omdat dit goed is nie, ons weet dit is sleg nie, maar omdat daar nie 'n ander is nie. Terwyl ons wag om iets beter te kry, word jy iets onderrig wat ons weet nie akkuraat is nie, wat 'n eerste benadering is... "
Van 'n Franse opname van die internasionaal erkende genetikus, Professor Jerome Lejeune, by 'n lesing gegee in Parys op 17 Maart 1985. Vertaal na Engels deur Peter Wilders van Monaco.
[Uit No acceptable theory of evolution lejeune]
(Nie 'n skeppingsleerder nie)
‘Although at the beginning the paradigm was worth consideration, now the entire effort in the primeval soup paradigm is self-deception on the ideology of its champions.’
[Uit Primeval soupfailed paradigm - Yockey]
[Uit Chemical evolution: based on (blind) faith not fact (Yockey)]
James A Shapiro (1997)
(Department van Biochemie en Molekulêre Biologie, Universiteit van Chicago.)
But the neo-Darwinian advocates claim to be scientists, and we can legitimately expect of them a more open spirit of enquiry. Instead, they assume a defensive posture of outraged orthodoxy and assert an unassailable claim to truth, which only serves to validate the Creationists’ criticism that Darwinism has become more of a faith than a science.
Maar die neo-Darwinistiese voorstaanders maak daarop aanspraak dat hulle wetenskaplik is, en ons kan daarom tereg van hulle verwag om 'n meer oop en ondersoekende gees te hê. In plaas daarvan, openbaar hulle 'n verdedigende houding van woedende ortodoksie en handhaaf 'n onaanvegbare aanspraak op die waarheid, wat net die kreasioniste se kritiek bevestig dat Darwinisme meer van 'n geloof as 'n wetenskap is.
[Uit Quotable Quote: C.S. Lewis: Science began with belief in a Lawmaker]
"Daar is tans geen gedetailleerde Darwinistiese weergawe van die evolusie van enige biochemiese of sellulêre stelsel, net 'n verskeidenheid van wensdenkende bespiegelings."
[The way of the cell: molecules, organisms and the order of life, (Oxford University Press, New York, 2001), p. 205.]
“Darwinian explanations … are often too supple. … When an explanation is so supple that it can explain any behavior, it is difficult to test it experimentally, much less use it as a catalyst for scientific discovery.”
"Darwin se verduideliking ... is dikwels te soepel. ... Wanneer 'n verduideliking so soepel is dat dit enige gedrag kan verduidelik, is dit moeilik om dit eksperimenteel te toets, nog minder geskik om dit te gebruik as 'n katalisator vir wetenskaplike ontdekking."
[‘Why Do We Invoke Darwin? Evolutionary theory contributes little to experimental biology’, The Scientist 19(16):10, 29 August 2005.]
(Filosoof, evolusionis en agnos.)
“Darwinism is not a testable scientific theory, but a metaphysical research programme … ”
"Darwinisme is nie 'n toetsbare wetenskaplike teorie nie, maar 'n metafisiese navorsing program ..."
Alhoewel hy dit gesê het, het hy nogtans gedink dat evolusie waardevol is om dinge in die wêreld te verduidelik.
[Unended Quest, Fontana-Collins, Glasgow, p. 151, 1976.]
(Paleontoloog en evolusionis)
We have all seen the canonical parade of apes each one becoming more human. We know that, as a depiction of evolution, this line up is tosh (nonsense). Yet we cling to it. Ideas of what human evolution ought to have been like still colour our debates. ... almost every time someone claims to have found a new species of hominin, someone else refutes it.
Ons almal het die kanonieke (kerklike) parade van ape gesien waar elkeen besig is om meer menslik te word. Ons weet egter dat, as 'n uitbeelding van evolusie, hierdie gelid nonsens is. Tog hou ons daaraan vas. Idees van wat menslike evolusie behoort te gewees het kleur steeds ons debatte in. ... byna elke keer as iemand beweer dat hy het 'n nuwe Hominide-spesie gevind het, kom iemand anders en weerlê dit.
[Henry Gee in “Cranium with clout ...”, Nature 478: 34, 2011. Kyk ook Henry Gee in Nature: “We know that, as a depiction of evolution, this line-up is tosh. Yet we cling to it.”]
(Paleo-antropoloog en evolusionis)
The unilineal depiction of human evolution popularized by the familiar iconography of an evolutionary ‘march to modern man’ has been proven wrong for more than 60 years. However the cartoon continues to provide a popular straw man for scientists, writers and editors alike.
Die enkelafstammeling uitbeelding van menslike evolusie wat gewild gemaak is deur die bekende ikonografie van 'n evolusionêre 'mars na die moderne mens' is al vir meer as 60 jaar verkeerd bewys. Maar, die strokiesprent voorsien steeds 'n gewilde strooipop vir wetenskaplikes, skrywers en redakteurs.
[Palaeoanthropology: Five's a crowd in our family tree by Tim White.]
...after about 45 minutes we got to the point where I [David Catchpoole] asked him a simple yes/no question about whether there was any possibility that the history outlined in the Bible might be true. To my amazement, Brev said (after a long reflective pause) something that I’ve never previously heard any atheist or agnostic dare to admit:
“Uh-oh, I can see where that question leads … but it can’t, we can’t go there … because the consequences of that would change my whole life—if the Bible’s history is true then I’d have to devote my whole life to serving God … The commitment would be too great … No, it’s impossible.”
[Uit A candid admission: The real issue behind the creation/evolution battle over origins]
We are condemned to live only for a few decades and that’s too slow, too small a time scale to see evolution going on.
Ons is verdoem om net vir 'n paar dekades te leef en dit is te stadig, 'n te klein tydskaal om evolusie te sien voortgaan.
[Gesê in 'n gesprek met Lawrence Krauss - kyk Something From Nothing?]
Ons sien niks van hierdie stadige veranderinge wat aan die gang is nie, tot en met die hand van die tyd die verloop van die eeue gemerk het, en dan is ons kyk tot in 'n ou verlede van geologiese ouderdomme so onperfek, dat ons slegs sien dat die vorme van lewe tans anders is as wat hulle voorheen was.
[Uit Origin of Species.]
“The central question of the Chicago conference was whether the mechanisms underlying microevolution can be extrapolated to explain the phenomena of macroevolution. … At the risk of doing violence to the positions of some of the people at the meeting, the answer can be given as a clear, No.”
Die sentrale vraag van die Chicago-konferensie was of die meganismes onderliggend aan mikro-evolusie geëkstrapoleer kan word om die verskynsel van makro-evolusie te verduidelik. ... As die risiko geneem kan word om kwaad te doen aan sekere mense se posisies by die vergadering, moet die antwoord gegee word as 'n duidelike "nee".
Dr. Roger Lewin, “Evolution Theory under Fire,” Science. Vol. 210, 21 November 1980. p. 883-887. Kyk ook Microevolution Will Never Produce Macroevolution
Daar is nie so iets soos konsensus wetenskap. As dit konsensus is, is dit nie wetenskap nie. As dit wetenskap is, is dit nie konsensus nie. Punt.
[Uit Michael Crichton on consensus science.]
"all my life I had been duped into taking evolutionism as revealed truth"
My hele lewe lank is ek bedrieg deur evolusionisme as geopenbaarde waarheid te aanvaar.
[Uit Evolution Is Religion, Not Science.]
(Kyk ook Ernst Mayr, bevets.com)
Darwin introduced historicity into science. Evolutionary biology, in contrast with physics and chemistry, is a historical science -- the evolutionist attempts to explain events and processes that have already taken place. Laws and experiments are inappropriate techniques for the explication of such events and processes. Instead one constructs a historical narrative, consisting of a tentative reconstruction of the particular scenario that led to the events one is trying to explain.
Darwin het historisiteit in wetenskap bekendgestel. Evolusionêre biologie, in teenstelling met fisika en chemie, is 'n historiese wetenskap - die evolusionis poog om gebeurtenisse en prosesse wat reeds plaasgevind het te verklaar. Wette en eksperimente is onvanpaste tegnieke vir die uiteensetting van sodanige gebeurtenisse en prosesse. In plaas daarvan bou mens 'n historiese verhaal, wat bestaan uit 'n tentatiewe rekonstruksie van die spesifieke scenario wat gelei het tot die gebeure wat 'n mens probeer verduidelik.
[Uit "Darwin’s Influence on Modern Thought", Scientific American, July 2000, p.68]
‘… the evolutionary process faces constraints far more severe than anything impeding human designers. We biologists recognise these constraints, but we don’t often rise above our natural chauvinism and make enough noise about them. Every organism must grow from an initially smaller to an ultimately larger size. Nature in effect must transmute a motorcycle into an automobile while providing continuous transportation. The need for growth without loss of function can impose severe geometrical limitations.’
[Uit Critical characteristics and the irreducible knee joint.]