Are there "weaknesses" in the therory of evolution? These scientists think so?

Question

"Evolution requires intermediate forms between species and paleontology does not provide them" (David Kitts, paleontologist and evolutionist).
"I admit that an awful lot of that [fantasy] has gotten into the textbooks as though it were true. For instance, the most famous example still on exhibit downstairs [in the American Museum of Natural History] is the exhibit on horse evolution prepared fifty years ago. That has been presented as literal truth in textbook after textbook. Now, I think that that is lamentable, particularly because the people who propose these kinds of stories themselves may be aware of the speculative nature of some of the stuff. But by the time it filters down to the textbooks, we've got science as truth and we have a problem" (Dr. Niles Eldredge, paleontologist and evolutionist).
"The intelligent layman has long suspected circular reasoning in the use of rocks to date fossils and fossils to date rocks. The geologist has never bothered to think of a good reply"

(J. O'Rourke in the American Journal of Science).
"The curious thing is that there is a consistency about the fossil gaps; the fossils are missing in all the important places" (Francis Hitching, archaeologist)

Again, my question is: why would it be "bad" to let our school kids KNOW that not all scientists are in agreement about evolution...without introducing "Creationism" or any other "ism"...shouldn't our kids have ALL the facts, or just the ones some folks have chosen for them?

Answer 1

Yes kids should have all the facts, and if something isn't 100 % prooven to be true it should not be taught as fact, thats my opinion.

Answer 2

""Evolution requires intermediate forms between species and paleontology does not provide them" (David Kitts, paleontologist and evolutionist)."

Ooops. Not much of a scientist, is that one? LOL.

Can't say I'm inclined to trust the other quotes either, once the first one so clearly demonstrated his lack of expertise.

I'm quite certain that evolutionary theory has weaknesses. I'm also quite certain that creationists don't have a clue what those weaknesses are. The quotes you gave are typical cluelessness about the topic.

You wrote: "Again, my question is: why would it be "bad" to let our school kids KNOW that not all scientists are in agreement about evolution...without introducing "Creationism" or any other "ism"...shouldn't our kids have ALL the facts, or just the ones some folks have chosen for them?"

Why are you so eager to censor the teaching of evolution? Afraid that after the children figure out that the Biblical creation story is false, they'll start questioning other things as well?

Answer 3

"Evolution requires intermediate forms between species and paleontology does not provide them."
To finish the quote:
"The gaps must therefore be a contingent feature of the record."
Nope, not a weakness.

The Elderedge "quote" isn't even his.

"Well, as more is learned about the evolution of the horse, more separate lineages have been recognized and it's far more complicated than early work indicated." I suspect that the quoted statements were actually made either by Eldredge or Gould. I have heard Gould repeatedly criticize the traditional museum treatment of horse evolution. And Eldredge said in his Sunderland interview that the AMNH [American Museum of Natural History] exhibit on the subject is "lamentable."*
Nope no weakness there.

The O'Rourke quote does have a period at the end because there is none.
"The geologist has never bothered to think of a good reply, feeling that explanations are not worth the trouble as long as the work brings results."
Later in the same article, he says:
"The first step is to explain what is done in the field in simple terms that can be tested directly. The field man records his sense perceptions on isomorphic maps and sections, abstracts the more diagnostic rock features, and arranges them according to their vertical order. He compares this local sequence to the global column obtained from a great many man-years of work against his predecessors. As long as this cognitive process is acknowledged as the pragmatic basis of stratigraphy, both local and global sections can be treated as chronologies without reproach."
No weakness here. There's the explanation.

Hitching is not an archaeologist. He is a TV script writer without scientific credentials. No weakness.

You have three scientists who find no weakness. You took their quotes out of context. The best you've got is a sensationalist writer. Thank you for showing Creationism is all about deception.

Answer 4

I have to tell you that the scientists that are against evolution are not respected scientists in their field, and most don't have any credentials in biology, genetics or chemistry. Most are paid off by the ID faction. One of the popular ID scientist is Michael Behe. He went to Lehigh University and waited until he had tenure before coming out with his book "Darwin's Black Box". His theory of irreducible complexity has been contested by the scientific community and his university has put this disclaimer on their website: While we respect Prof. Behe's right to express his views, they are his alone and are in no way endorsed by the department. It is our collective position that intelligent design has no basis in science, has not been tested experimentally and should not be regarded as scientific.

Richard Dawkins blew his theories into the cosmos, but he still keep postulating his BS to the world. There are many scientists that do what Behe is doing and they wouldn't do it for nothing, so if they are destroying their credibility with the scientific community, you can bet that there is some financial benefits coming in and it wouldn't be from the scientific community.


atheist

Answer 5

Research on Hitching turned up the following: Hitching is basically a sensational TV script writer and has no scientific credentials. In The Neck of the Giraffe he claimed to be a member of the Royal Archaeological Institute, but an inquiry to that institute said he was not. He implied in the
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/quotes/mine/part1-1.html
Whole section devoted to David Kitts- whom by the way is from the 70's

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/horses/horse_evol.html
Horse evolution.

"Acknowledgements" of The Neck of the Giraffe that paleontologist Stephen Jay Gould had helped in the writing of the book, but upon inquiry Gould said he did not know him and had no information about him. Hitching also implied that his book had been endorsed by Richard Dawkins, but upon inquiry Dawkins stated: "I know nothing at all about Francis Hitching. If you are uncovering the fact that he is a charlatan, good for you. His book, The Neck of the Giraffe, is one of the silliest and most ignorant I have read for years."

Answer 6

So you've taken some quotes without stopping to think what they actually mean, and you think that means you should plaster them (without explanation, presumably) all over textbooks. WRONG!


A couple of them are ludicrous outright, such as the claim that rocks and fossils are the only dating tools. If that's the standard to which you're holding yourself, it's no surprise why you're not getting your ideas in other people's textbooks.



Evolution is just about the most well-supported theory in any field. Every new discovery we come across confirms it again, in biology, paleontology, genetics, molecular biology, and everywhere else. NO ONE doubts it anymore except for naive people holding fast to archaic religious notions that require ignoring over a century of evidence.

Answer 7

The biggest thing isn't the fossils that exist. It is that they are sorted in the geology like this: http://pubs.usgs.gov/gip/fossils/succession.html

See fossils are sorted in the geology simple below more complex and more like modern animals and plants. It establishes the relative order that life appeared on Earth.There is no arguing this fact. It is just the way it is. Any theory has to fit into it. So why don't you explain how that fits with creationism to me? My email is open.

Answer 8

Again, over 95% of the scientists working in this area, archeology, paleontology, paleobotany, geology, and others, acknowledge that evolution is real. They also realize that not each individual creature that ever existed left complete skeletal remains. Will you people please study the science and do not believe someone who calls himself a scientist with nothing more than a degree from a school that teaches creationism..

Answer 9

Every form is an intermediate form. That's what evolution is all about.

Much of it is speculative, yes. Of course there are weaknesses. But it is constantly updated with the emergence of new evidence. The story in the Bible, on the other hand, makes sense only as a story, which is what it is. People who teach it as the literal truth really have no business teaching children at all.

Answer 10

Of course we should show that there are still areas of debate. Science is built on the idea that an Idea is vaild only as long as it can be proved to be the best explanation. As soon as we find evidence of aliens that directly planted humans and all other life on this planet...well we'll be using a new theory of how life started .

Answer 11

I can agree with you up to a point.

If there are dissenting opinions within the scientific community it is good that our children are taught why. Who knows, maybe my son will use that knowledge to prove the big bang.

I will never stand for Genesis to be taught in my son's school. If you want to teach your children creationism do it at home or church NOT in a classroom.