"Collapse" of Evolution

[Foster Zygote]

Has anyone else seen this (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aFXVTBzwSUE&mode=related&search=)? I've only watched part one of seven so far but it's so full of holes I can't imagine how bad it's going to get. It's the usual pseudo-scientific propaganda, aimed at those with little to no scientific knowledge who have already made up their minds. Darwin is referred to as an "amateur" naturalist. It makes mention of the dedication Marx made in Das Kapital as though it has anything to do with evolution. It even implies that evolutionary theory was based on the idea of spontaneous generation, I kid you not. It asserts that spontaneous generation was a common idea at the time and then lets the viewer assume that it was a notion held by educated biologists too.

On a positive note it's only received one out of five stars. =0)

Utter crap.

Steven

[Temporal Renegade]

I would attempt a somewhat witty remark about it, but words fail me (although the beginning did remind me of a Monty Python sketch...).

[icantlogoff]

I no longer have an opinion of whether we came here by evolution or creation, but the argument of ..... evolution can't be true blah blah blah, so it must be creation is just garbage!
From what i understand the evidence the creationists asked from evolution, is something they can't provide for their own case of creation. SO surely its just arrogant to assume we should default to God being a creator?

There is from what i understand no evidence of a God creating things, unless you say it must be God

As you can see I am sat on the fence at present while i find my own way to my view of what happened. But this film ( watch all 7 parts) is utter rubbish.

regards

Steve

[Loss Leader]

It asserts that spontaneous generation was a common idea at the time and then lets the viewer assume that it was a notion held by educated biologists too.

I think I read that Darwin believed small worms could spontaniously generate in sea water. I know I read that someone famous believed it. Why one person's mistaken belief means we must invalidate all his beliefs is completely oopaque to me.

[Dr Adequate]

Obviously if animals could just pop into existence this would overturn common descent.

Darwin must be spinning in his grave.

[brodski]

I think I read that Darwin believed small worms could spontaniously generate in sea water. I know I read that someone famous believed it.
Didn't Pasteur believe this, and then go on to debunk himself?

Why one person's mistaken belief means we must invalidate all his beliefs is completely oopaque to me.

Well it's all part of they "Darwinian religion" myth, they treat On Origin of Species as "our" Bible, and Darwin as it's prophet, not realizing that science moves on, Darwin as wrong about some things, he lacked information on many more, but he was right about the BIG things, and totally revolutionized the field of biological study.
Not bad considering he was only hired to provide suitable social conversation for the captain of the Beagle!

[Beerina]

Didn't Pasteur believe this, and then go on to debunk himself?

Carl Sagan briefly believed it, too, after fruit flies "spontaneously" generated in a sealed bottle in a lab on an experiment he had been working on. Turns out the fruit flies had evolved to dive-bomb the bottles while they were briefly open for other purposes.

[William Rea]

The film has more to do with the politics of the religious right than science.

1 of 7 was enough for me.

[KingMerv00]

I didn't get a chance to watch the movie but isn't it more accurate to say that creationism collapsed in the last century? Evolution is pretty much accepted throughout the scientific world while creation is laughed at.

[c4ts]

These people are obviously out of touch with the scientific community. Of course evolution will appear to be gone when you never look at it to begin with.

[Meadmaker]

I recently read "Spark of Life", which is about the current state of knowledge regarding the origin of life. It begins with some historical background. "Educated biologists" did indeed believe in spontaneous generation for much of the 19th century, and the religious implications were never far from the debate. After all, if life could spontaneously pop into existence, then it wasn't necessary to have a God in order to create life.

It's a good book, by the way. Not too technical, but not fluff. The historical part is just a chapter or two at the beginning.

[Loss Leader]

After all, if life could spontaneously pop into existence, then it wasn't necessary to have a God in order to create life.


I should think it would be the opposite. If life can come out of nothing, it would be effect without cause. The only person who can do that kind of thing is God.

[Foster Zygote]

I should think it would be the opposite. If life can come out of nothing, it would be effect without cause. The only person who can do that kind of thing is God.

Not to mention that Darwin, despite what the creators of this video may well think, did not want to prove that God wasn't necessary. He simply went where his observations, curiosity, and intellectual honesty led him.

Steven

[Meadmaker]

I should think it would be the opposite. If life can come out of nothing, it would be effect without cause. The only person who can do that kind of thing is God.

That makes sense to me, too. However, you and I have a lot more information available than the most "educated biologist" of the late 18th and early 19th century.

Check out their speeches and writings on the subject. They weren't saying, by the way, that somebody "did that kind of thing". They were saying that it "just happened". One day, no life. Two weeks later, maggots. And all without the intervention of God. It just happened. This contradicted Christian teaching. Life wasn't created way back in the original seven days; it was an ongoing process.

It's fascinating stuff, to read the speculations of people who had no microscopes.

[drkitten]

That makes sense to me, too. However, you and I have a lot more information available than the most "educated biologist" of the late 18th and early 19th century.

[....]

It's fascinating stuff, to read the speculations of people who had no microscopes.

Given that the microscope was invented in the early 1600s (van Leeuwenhoek, Holland), I find it difficult to imagine an "educated biologist" of the late 18th century that didn't have a microscope. By Even Newton had a microscope. By the time the 18th century rolled around, compound microscopes were commonplace and cheap.

The discovery that "living things were made of cells" was made in the 17th century (Robert Hooke).

[Loss Leader]

The discovery that "living things were made of cells" was made in the 17th century (Robert Hooke).

Let's be a little more clear. Hooke found cells in plants in 1665. Plant cells are boxy and much larger than animal cells. Plant cells are also naturally dyed for greater contrast. It wasn't until 1839 that the theory was put forth that plants and animals are composed entirely of cells.

Theories of abiogenesis persisted until the middle of the 19th century.

[Foster Zygote]

It's fascinating stuff, to read the speculations of people who had no microscopes.

Well, except for the microscope bit I see what your saying and I agree. =0)

History is critical to the understanding of the present and this is certainly true of science. Perhaps ironically, a theory of abiogenisis is still the last major piece of the puzzle yet to be found.

Steven

[elliotfc]

Obviously if animals could just pop into existence this would overturn common descent.

Darwin must be spinning in his grave.

An agnostic buried at Westminster Abbey? He's been spinning for a while.

-Elliot

[brodski]

An agnostic buried at Westminster Abbey? He's been spinning for a while.

-Elliot

Maybe you should tell Westminster City council, they are very keen to invest in renewable energy sources. ;)

[Dr Adequate]

I should think it would be the opposite. If life can come out of nothing, it would be effect without cause. The only person who can do that kind of thing is God. No, if things can happen, you don't need God to explain them. Eg: if people could walk on water, then this would not require a supernatural explanation. God is only needed to explain things which can't happen.