Crackpot?

On the subject of "crackpot" that's a term that I prefer not to use,and in my opinion, has no place in science. Some ideas have more support than others. In science, as you well know, we never prove or disprove anything, we simply say what is more or less likely. We can safely say that astrology is "highly unlikely" to be valid, based upon a complete absence of supporting evidence. On the other hand, we can safely say that QED is "highly likely" to be valid, based upon a massive amount of evidence. Some other ideas, like QM, relativity, abiogenesis, panspermia, etc. have various amounts of supporting evidence. It is up to each individual to study the evidence and consider the liklihood of each theory being correct. Sometimes a consensus emerges in the scientific community, but often times even this consensus can be wrong. The cases of Lynn Margulis and Barbara McClintock comes to mind. In each of these cases, there was a strong aversion to these theories, which later proved to be correct. As for darwinism, I have studied the evidence and I have come to the conclusion that it is not strong enough to defend the idea. Others may reach different conclusions, but where the problem lies is with those who want to elevate an unproven theory to the status of "carved in stone" truth.
My belief is that many people support darwinism because they have been taught it for so long, or devoted their life's work to it, or are too scared of being labelled "crackpot" to oppose it.
I have asked evolutionists repeatedly to present the evidence for evolution.
What they do instead, is present evidence that different species are related. The fact that we're all closely related does not say anything about the mechanism of evolution.
Prof. Gould has provided 3 main evidences, small scale mutation and selection,
the fossil record, and the historical study of related species. All of these evidences are flawed and can be shown to be unsupportive.
As for the status of "why" questions in the field of science, I agree that they more properly belong to the field of philosophy. But who decides what is philosophy and what is science? Is there a definitive boundary? At one time some people believed that mind and body were separate entities. Now, most agree that they are one.
Most of the questions we're concerned with here can be properly framed without using the word "why?". For example, we can ask "by what mechanism did life come to appear on the earth and by what series of steps did it give rise to the diversity we observe today. Same with the universe. By what mechanism did the universe come to be in it's present state and what series of steps causes it to change over time?


"Here begins Homo ignoramus. He does not know what life is or how it came to be and whether it originated from inorganic matter. He does not know whether other planets of this sun or of other suns have life on them, and if they have, whether the forms of life there are like those around us, ourselves included. He does not know how this solar system came into being, although he has built up a few hypotheses about it. He knows only that the solar system was constructed billions of years ago. He does not know what this mysterious force of gravitation is that holds him and his fellow man on the other side of the planet with their feet on the ground, although he regards the phenomenon itself as "the law of laws." He does not know what the earth looks like five miles under his feet. He does not know how mountains came into existence or what caused the emergence of the continents, although he builds hypotheses about these, nor does he know from where oil came- again hypotheses. He does not know why, only a short time ago, a thick glacial sheet pressed upon most of Europe and North America, as he believes it did; nor how palms could grow above the polar circle, nor how it came about that the same fauna fill the inner lakes of the Old and the New World. He does not know where the salt in the sea came from. Although man knows that he has lived on this planet for millions of years, he finds a recorded history of only a few thousand years. And even these few thousand years
are not sufficiently well known." -Velikovsky

I read those words when I was 15 years old. And they changed the course of my life. Not for the particular examples cited, but because of our immense arrogance. Lord Kelvin said a hundred years ago that all of the problems in physics had been solved. All that was left was to dot the I's and cross the T's.
Evolutionists and cosmologists of today display the same arrogance. They know
nothing of how the universe came to be and how the life on earth came to be. And they have the arrogance to even suggest that darwinian evolution and big bang cosmology have answered most of the questions.

Where is the outrage?

from "Boston Legal" 3/14/2006 "Stick it"

Alan Shore's closing argument

Alan Shore: When the weapons of mass destruction thing turned out to be not true, I expected the American people to rise up. Ha! They didn't.

Then, when the Abu Ghraib torture thing surfaced and it was revealed that our government participated in rendition, a practice where we kidnap people and turn them over to regimes who specialize in torture, I was sure then the American people would be heard from. We stood mute.

Then came the news that we jailed thousands of so-called terrorists suspects, locked them up without the right to a trial or even the right to confront their accusers. Certainly, we would never stand for that. We did.

And now, it's been discovered the executive branch has been conducting massive, illegal, domestic surveillance on its own citizens. You and me. And I at least consoled myself that finally, finally the American people will have had enough. Evidentially, we haven't.

In fact, if the people of this country have spoken, the message is we're okay with it all. Torture, warrantless search and seizure, illegal wiretappings, prison without a fair trial - or any trial, war on false pretenses. We, as a citizenry, are apparently not offended.

There are no demonstrations on college campuses. In fact, there's no clear indication that young people seem to notice.

Well, Melissa Hughes noticed. Now, you might think, instead of withholding her taxes, she could have protested the old fashioned way. Made a placard and demonstrated at a Presidential or Vice-Presidential appearance, but we've lost the right to that as well. The Secret Service can now declare free speech zones to contain, control and, in effect, criminalize protest.

Stop for a second and try to fathom that.

At a presidential rally, parade or appearance, if you have on a supportive t-shirt, you can be there. If you are wearing or carrying something in protest, you can be removed.

This, in the United States of America. This in the United States of America. Is Melissa Hughes the only one embarrassed?

*Alan sits down abruptly in the witness chair next to the judge*

Judge Robert Sanders: Mr. Shore. That's a chair for witnesses only.

Really long speeches make me so tired sometimes.

Judge Sanders: Please get out of the chair.

Alan: Actually, I'm sick and tired.

Judge Sanders: Get out of the chair!

Alan: And what I'm most sick and tired of is how every time somebody disagrees with how the government is running things, he or she is labeled unAmerican.

U.S. Attorney Jonathan Shapiro: Evidentally, it's speech time.

Alan: And speech in this country is free, you hack! Free for me, free for you. Free for Melissa Hughes to stand up to her government and say "Stick it"!

U.S. Attorney Jonathan Shapiro: Objection!

Alan: I object to government abusing its power to squash the constitutional freedoms of its citizenry. And, God forbid, anybody challenge it. They're smeared as being a heretic. Melissa Hughes is an American. Melissa Hughes is an American. Melissa Hughes is an American!

Judge Sanders: Mr. Shore. Unless you have anything new and fresh to say, please sit down. You've breached the decorum of my courtroom with all this hooting.

Alan: Last night, I went to bed with a book. Not as much fun as a 29 year old, but the book contained a speech by Adlai Stevenson. The year was 1952. He said, "The tragedy of our day is the climate of fear in which we live and fear breeds repression. Too often, sinister threats to the Bill of Rights, to freedom of the mind are concealed under the patriotic cloak of anti-Communism."

Today, it's the cloak of anti-terrorism. Stevenson also remarked, "It's far easier to fight for principles than to live up to them."

I know we are all afraid, but the Bill of Rights - we have to live up to that. We simply must. That's all Melissa Hughes was trying to say. She was speaking for you. I would ask you now to go back to that room and speak for her.

The verdict? Watch it and see...

Evolution and Development

Just as development is the unfolding of an algorithm that is already present in the zygote at the time of fertilization, so evolution is the unfolding of an algorithm that was already present at a time before evolution began.
In addition, just as a mature adult represents the culmination of this developmental algorithm, so the present state of life on earth represents the culmination of the evolutionary algorithm and no further evolution can be expected.
We know the immediate origin of the developmental algorithm, it was inherited from the previous generation. But the question of where this information originally came from remains unanswered. In evolution, one would be wise to suspect that this algorithm has a long history, and probably did not originate on the earth, but came to earth from elsewhere, fully front-loaded to unfold in a compatible environment into the biosphere we see today.