# Charlie Daniels battles Evolution once again. **URL:** \ **Category:** The BBQ Pit\ **Created:** [January 22, 2006, 8:13am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/charlie-daniels-battles-evolution-once-again/341095 "2006-01-22T08:13:58Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 3
**Author:** ![whole\_bean](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/96bed5/32.png) [@whole\_bean](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/whole_bean)\ **Post date:** [January 23, 2006, 4:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/charlie-daniels-battles-evolution-once-again/341095/41 "2006-01-23T16:50:16Z")
Does anyone know when Charlie found Jesus? I mean this is the guy that sang, “I get stoned in the morning/I get drunk in the afternoon.” In the same song he went on to condemn televangelists. The last line of the last verse is a classic request, “I don’t want much of nothing at all but I will take another toke.” When did this change happen? ---
**Author:** ![Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e99b99/32.png) [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Diogenes_the_Cynic)\ **Post date:** [January 23, 2006, 4:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/charlie-daniels-battles-evolution-once-again/341095/42 "2006-01-23T16:59:31Z")
> [@DrDeth](#): > > In his quote: "Darwin’s Theory is just that, an unproven idea written by a very fallible human being … > > Now I don’t expect these learned scholars to give any credence to what someone like me says, but now there are imminent [sic] scientists who say that Darwin’s Theory of Evolution is fatally flawed…" > > He specifically refers to **Darwin’s** Theory- and everthing here is the literal truth. What do you think “Darwin’s theory” is and how should it be distinguished from the theory of evolution? What do you think Charlie Daniels thinks “Darwin’s theory” is? What “imminent” scientists say that “Darwin’s theory” is flawed? What does “just a theory” mean in a scientific context? How is the “fallibility” of Darwin relevant to he soundness of evolutionary theory? ---
**Author:** ![Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e99b99/32.png) [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Diogenes_the_Cynic)\ **Post date:** [January 23, 2006, 5:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/charlie-daniels-battles-evolution-once-again/341095/43 "2006-01-23T17:04:12Z")
I almost forgot, what is “unproven” about “Darwin’s theory?” Is it really “literally true” o say that Darwinian evolution is unproven? ---
**Author:** ![Polycarp](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/82dd89/32.png) [@Polycarp](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Polycarp)\ **Post date:** [January 23, 2006, 5:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/charlie-daniels-battles-evolution-once-again/341095/44 "2006-01-23T17:30:35Z")
> [@Linty Fresh](#): > > “illiterate ucking morons.” > [@Mr. Blue Sky](#): > > Yeah! Uck you, Charlie Daniels! ::: sees, with dread, a new SDMB meme in the process of formation ::: Quick, kill it before it starts ucking with our minds! 😛 ---
**Author:** ![betenoir](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/258eb7/32.png) [@betenoir](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/betenoir)\ **Post date:** [January 23, 2006, 5:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/charlie-daniels-battles-evolution-once-again/341095/45 "2006-01-23T17:34:28Z")
> [@whole bean](#): > > Does anyone know when Charlie found Jesus? I mean this is the guy that sang, “I get stoned in the morning/I get drunk in the afternoon.” Well given what he did for the woman taken in adultery and then at the wedding in Cana, I’d say Jesus could help Charlie all day long. ---
**Author:** ![wevets](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/e9a140/32.png) [@wevets](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/wevets)\ **Post date:** [January 23, 2006, 5:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/charlie-daniels-battles-evolution-once-again/341095/46 "2006-01-23T17:39:46Z")
> [@DrDeth](#): > > He’s right here (even though he is so very wrong on other levels). _Evolution_ is a _fact_. Darwin’s theory is not so much that evolution happens (that had already been proposed)- it is HOW evolution happens. There \*are \*many scientist that say that Darwin’s theory is flawed (in fact, most do). Punctuated Equilibrium is much more likely to be correct. Actually, there’s at least one passage in _The Origin of Species_ that discusses the rate of evolutionary change and almost scoops Gould & Eldridge by 120 years. I recall being required to read it for introductory Evolutionary Biology, and I could probably find it again for you if you like. > [@](#): > > Face it- the random gradual process proposed by Darwin simply could not have done much of the “heavy lifting” of species adaption. There’s certainly a lot Darwin didn’t anticipate, but I don’t think the flaws in Darwin’s theory - whose process doesn’t strike me as random, so I’m a little confused about what you’re talking about here - rise to the level of rejection. There’s a very good reason that much of the current Modern Synthesis is called “Neo-Darwinian.” ---
**Author:** ![DrDeth](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/b487fb/32.png) [@DrDeth](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DrDeth)\ **Post date:** [January 23, 2006, 5:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/charlie-daniels-battles-evolution-once-again/341095/47 "2006-01-23T17:45:25Z")
> [@Diogenes the Cynic](#): > > What do you think “Darwin’s theory” is and how should it be distinguished from the theory of evolution? What do you think Charlie Daniels thinks “Darwin’s theory” is? > What “imminent” scientists say that “Darwin’s theory” is flawed? > > What does “just a theory” mean in a scientific context? > > How is the “fallibility” of Darwin relevant to he soundness of evolutionary theory? Read my first post here: "\*He’s right here (even though he is so very wrong on other levels). Evolution is a fact. Darwin’s theory is not so much that evolution happens (that had already been proposed)- it is HOW evolution happens. There are many scientist that say that Darwin’s theory is flawed (in fact, most do). Punctuated Equilibrium is much more likely to be correct. Face it- the random gradual process proposed by Darwin simply could not have done much of the “heavy lifting” of species adaption. Newton was wrong also (Einstein showed that). But still- Newtons “Three laws” hold most of the time. Doesn’t stop either of them from being brilliant, ground-breaking and posting theories that others have simply built upon\*." Any more questions? ---
**Author:** ![Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e99b99/32.png) [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Diogenes_the_Cynic)\ **Post date:** [January 23, 2006, 6:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/charlie-daniels-battles-evolution-once-again/341095/48 "2006-01-23T18:02:12Z")
> [@DrDeth](#): > > Read my first post here: "\*He’s right here (even though he is so very wrong on other levels). Evolution is a fact. Darwin’s theory is not so much that evolution happens (that had already been proposed)- it is HOW evolution happens. he theory of evolution is not _that_ evolution happens but _how_ it happens. > [@](#): > > There are many scientist that say that Darwin’s theory is flawed (in fact, most do). No they don’t. Darwin’s primary contribution was natural selection. That’s not something that any scientists dispute. Darwin didn’t know about DNA so he didn’t know how traits were mechanically passed on but he admitted as much. Genetic discoveries have done nothing but confirm natural selection. > [@](#): > > Punctuated Equilibrium is much more likely to be correct. Punk eek contradicts nothing about Darwinian evolution or natural selection. > [@](#): > > Face it- the random gradual process proposed by Darwin simply could not have done much of the “heavy lifting” of species adaption. Darwin never proposed anything “random” and he himself propsed species adaptation so I don’t know where you think the contradiction is. Punctuated equilibrium shows that evolution does not always occur at a constant rate but as far as I know, Darwin never claimed that it did and that would not constitute a “theory” in any case. > [@](#): > > Newton was wrong also So what? Darwin wasn’t. > [@](#): > > Any more questions? What is the difference between “darwins’ theory” and the “theory of evolution?” What is “unproven” about Darwinian evolution? What does “just a theory” mean? How does Darwin’s alleged “fallibility” compromise the the soundness of evolutionary theory? ---
**Author:** ![photopat](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/e95f7d/32.png) [@photopat](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/photopat)\ **Post date:** [January 23, 2006, 6:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/charlie-daniels-battles-evolution-once-again/341095/49 "2006-01-23T18:40:18Z")
I looked at that thread and had to keep reminding myself that posting “you’re all just a bunch of morons” wouldn’t really do any good. I hope one day the YECs (young earth creationists) will start holding him up as an authority. That’ll be good for some giggles. ---
**Author:** ![DrDeth](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/b487fb/32.png) [@DrDeth](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DrDeth)\ **Post date:** [January 23, 2006, 7:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/charlie-daniels-battles-evolution-once-again/341095/50 "2006-01-23T19:11:01Z")
> [@Diogenes the Cynic](#): > > What is the difference between “darwins’ theory” and the “theory of evolution?” > What is “unproven” about Darwinian evolution? > What does “just a theory” mean? > How does Darwin’s alleged “fallibility” compromise the the soundness of evolutionary theory? Start a GD thread. I am Not going to argue a scientific theory in the PIT. Your “cross examination” questions seem to be based upon some standard set of questions you ask those who don’t believe in Evolution and accept Fundamentalist ideas instead. I don’t. Like I said- _Evolution is a fact_. My statements are based upon very current scientific thought. Yep, sorry- Darwin was wrong. Not his fault, science has just marched on in the last century. If he \*hadn’t \* been shown to be outdated in the last 100 years- _then_ I’d say something was wrong. Even Einstein is (in a rather limited area) considered outdated. “Outdated” is just a nice way of saying “wrong”. It means to me “His theories and discoveries were brilliant and as correct as they could be _given the science of his time_”. As you said- Darwin didn’t know about DNA. ---
**Author:** ![wolf\_meister](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/wolf_meister/32/15202_2.png) [@wolf\_meister](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/wolf_meister)\ **Post date:** [January 23, 2006, 7:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/charlie-daniels-battles-evolution-once-again/341095/51 "2006-01-23T19:17:27Z")
Well Diogenes, here’s a link to a good artice from the New York Times that discusses the theories of those imminent scientists. [http://www.wehaitians.com/in%20explanining%20life%20complexity%20darwinists%20and%20doubters%20clash.html](http://www.wehaitians.com/in%20explanining%20life%20complexity%20darwinists%20and%20doubters%20clash.html) I don’t know what the heck the wehaitians site is, but at least you don’t have to sign up to read the darned New York Times article. ---
**Author:** ![Excalibre](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/898d66/32.png) [@Excalibre](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Excalibre)\ **Post date:** [January 23, 2006, 7:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/charlie-daniels-battles-evolution-once-again/341095/52 "2006-01-23T19:18:14Z")
Actually, I’d say that Charlie Daniels has been successful. It appears that in his own case, he successfully won the battle against evolution. ---
**Author:** ![Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e99b99/32.png) [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Diogenes_the_Cynic)\ **Post date:** [January 23, 2006, 7:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/charlie-daniels-battles-evolution-once-again/341095/53 "2006-01-23T19:44:35Z")
> [@DrDeth](#): > > Start a GD thread. I am Not going to argue a scientific theory in the PIT. Your “cross examination” questions seem to be based upon some standard set of questions you ask those who don’t believe in Evolution and accept Fundamentalist ideas instead. I don’t. Like I said- _Evolution is a fact_. My statements are based upon very current scientific thought. Yep, sorry- Darwin was wrong. Not his fault, science has just marched on in the last century. If he \*hadn’t \* been shown to be outdated in the last 100 years- _then_ I’d say something was wrong. Even Einstein is (in a rather limited area) considered outdated. “Outdated” is just a nice way of saying “wrong”. It means to me “His theories and discoveries were brilliant and as correct as they could be _given the science of his time_”. As you said- Darwin didn’t know about DNA. You still haven’t explained what Darwin was wrong about, what “Darwin’s theory” is or how it differs ferom the theory of evolution. I’m not trying to debate evolution with you but you said that Daniels’ statements were “literally true,” and I dispute that they are. I also seriously doubt that Daniels is able to recognize or articulate any distinction between Darwinian neo-Darwinian theory or that he even knows what the word “theory” mean in science. I think his statements betray a childish understanding of the subject and are inteneded to convey an opinion that neither speciation nor common descent are proven facts. Modifications to Darwinian theory are not anywhere on his radar screen. ---
**Author:** ![flight](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/bbce88/32.png) [@flight](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/flight)\ **Post date:** [January 23, 2006, 7:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/charlie-daniels-battles-evolution-once-again/341095/54 "2006-01-23T19:47:36Z")
Hey, lay off NASCAR. Yes, it is just a bunch of guys driving in circles. Yes, it is terribly boring (except for the crashes), but the engineering behind the vehicles is top notch. ---
**Author:** ![Spectre\_of\_Pithecanthropus](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/spectre_of_pithecanthropus/32/12343_2.png) [@Spectre\_of\_Pithecanthropus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Spectre_of_Pithecanthropus)\ **Post date:** [January 23, 2006, 8:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/charlie-daniels-battles-evolution-once-again/341095/55 "2006-01-23T20:20:01Z")
If it weren’t for them dadgummed college proferssors and other innalekshuals! ---
**Author:** ![DrDeth](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/b487fb/32.png) [@DrDeth](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DrDeth)\ **Post date:** [January 23, 2006, 8:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/charlie-daniels-battles-evolution-once-again/341095/56 "2006-01-23T20:31:40Z")
> [@Diogenes the Cynic](#): > > You still haven’t explained what Darwin was wrong about, what “Darwin’s theory” is or how it differs ferom the theory of evolution. I’m not trying to debate evolution with you but you said that Daniels’ statements were “literally true,” and I dispute that they are. I also seriously doubt that Daniels is able to recognize or articulate any distinction between Darwinian neo-Darwinian theory or that he even knows what the word “theory” mean in science. I think his statements betray a childish understanding of the subject and are inteneded to convey an opinion that neither speciation nor common descent are proven facts. Modifications to Darwinian theory are not anywhere on his radar screen. Like I said- start a GD thread. I don’t respond well to cross examination type questions, either. As to what I think Daniels knows about the various current theories concerning Evolution- I don’t know. But here’s what I did say “He’s right here (even though he is so very wrong on other levels)” My WAG is that he was coached by someone who carefully had Daniel’s phrase his statements in such a way they were techically true while _really_ being a crock of lies. For example, one could say that based upon Newtons laws- the Sun must be fairly new, and must burn out fairly quickly (in Geological times)- but we know that’s not true, thus Newton was wrong. Well, yes & no. Newton wasn’t wrong so much as now outdated in certain cases. So, if you want to debate why Darwin was wrong (if you must, I’ll concede “outdated”) then: start a GD thread. Start by answering your own cross examination questions. :dubious: If you want to get me to answer a bunch of cross examination type questions- then: go fuck yourself. :wally ---
**Author:** ![Ludovic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/7ab992/32.png) [@Ludovic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ludovic)\ **Post date:** [January 23, 2006, 8:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/charlie-daniels-battles-evolution-once-again/341095/57 "2006-01-23T20:40:29Z")
> [@DrDeth](#): > > For example, one could say that based upon Newtons laws- the Sun must be fairly new, and must burn out fairly quickly (in Geological times)- but we know that’s not true, thus Newton was wrong. Well, yes & no. Newton wasn’t wrong so much as now outdated in certain cases. Yeah, Newton’s Laws pretty much state that the sun must be a burning lump of coal :dubious: Many of the great scientists in the last few hundred years made _assumptions_ about the state of the world, and based on these assumptions, derived laws. They conceded that, if these assumptions are innacurate, the laws that are derived from them are just as inaccurate. Now I don’t know if Darwin was one example of this, but certainly you can’t say that I was “just plain wrong” if I couch a scientific theory with certain assumptions with the disclaimer that if these prove to be wrong then the theory does not hold. ---
**Author:** ![DrDeth](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/b487fb/32.png) [@DrDeth](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DrDeth)\ **Post date:** [January 23, 2006, 9:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/charlie-daniels-battles-evolution-once-again/341095/58 "2006-01-23T21:07:17Z")
> [@Ludovic](#): > > but certainly you can’t say that I was “just plain wrong” . And, I \*didn’t. \* ---
**Author:** ![wolf\_meister](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/wolf_meister/32/15202_2.png) [@wolf\_meister](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/wolf_meister)\ **Post date:** [January 23, 2006, 9:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/charlie-daniels-battles-evolution-once-again/341095/59 "2006-01-23T21:17:57Z")
**DrDeth** > [@](#): > > [Charlie] was coached by someone who carefully had Daniel’s phrase his statements in such a way they were technically true while really being a crock of lies. To me, it seems as if Charlie Daniels isn’t carefully phrasing anything and I think you are getting _way_ too involved in the semantics of this discussion. You said Mr Daniels’ statements are _techically true while really being a crock of lies_. I really have no idea what you mean by that and I am not one for enterng into hair-splitting arguments in semantics and so I’ll say, gee whiz you sure are right **DrDeth**. Besides (as others have mentioned) this isn’t a discussion about evolution as much as it is a pitting of Charlie Daniels. I’ve pitted him many times before because he is popular and has fans that _really_ listen to what he has to say. And I think that is scary. Maybe Charlie was coached by one of them thar intellectuble imminent scientists. ---
**Author:** ![DrDeth](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/b487fb/32.png) [@DrDeth](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DrDeth)\ **Post date:** [January 23, 2006, 9:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/charlie-daniels-battles-evolution-once-again/341095/60 "2006-01-23T21:33:45Z")
> [@wolf\_meister](#): > > **DrDeth** > > and I think you are getting _way_ too involved in the semantics of this discussion. > You said Mr Daniels’ statements are _techically true while really being a crock of lies_. I really have no idea what you mean by that and I am not one for enterng into hair-splitting arguments in semantics and so I’ll say, gee whiz you sure are right **DrDeth**. Maybe so- that’s a failing of mine. 😃 Here’s an example- “My opponent’s sister is a well known thespian” (technically true, but intended to be heard as “lesbian” thus a crock of lies). It is too suspicious to me that the statment is horribly misleading while being being precisely literally true. Daniels doesn’t strike me as the sort of person who knows enough about science to make this statement knowingly, and there are too many facts to be a coincidence. :dubious: THAT is the point I was trying to make. This isn’t just the statement of a dumb county singer. It’s really very clever, and I think he was coached. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/charlie-daniels-battles-evolution-once-again/341095.md?page=2) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/charlie-daniels-battles-evolution-once-again/341095.md?page=4)