Search This Blog

Saturday, April 24, 2010

Darwinism is a religion and an excuse for bad behavior.


Aldous Huxley:
Admits motive for anti-Christian bias

Aldous Huxley was a British novelist who wrote Brave New World (1932), and was a grandson of ‘Darwin’s Bulldog’, T.H. Huxley. He was also the brother of the leading atheistic evolutionist Sir Julian Huxley (see quotes: Humanism as religion and Human soul and religion are just the product of religion), and died the same day as Christian apologist C.S. Lewis (see his quotes Materialistic Thoughts and Science began with belief in a Lawmaker), and the assassination of JFK (22 Nov. 1963). He is infamous for his advocacy of a drug-fueled utopia. In his mid-life he got involved in eastern mysticism. Aldous Huxley made this frank admission about his anti-Christian motivation:

"I had motive for not wanting the world to have a meaning; consequently assumed that it had none, and was able without any difficulty to find satisfying reasons for this assumption. The philosopher who finds no meaning in the world is not concerned exclusively with a problem in pure metaphysics, he is also concerned to prove that there is no valid reason why he personally should not do as he wants to do, or why his friends should not seize political power and govern in the way that they find most advantageous to themselves. … For myself, the philosophy of meaninglessness was essentially an instrument of liberation, sexual and political."

Reference

Huxley, A., Ends and Means, 1937, pp. 270 ff.

Scientists are the high priests of Darwinism

"Anyone who questions man’s reasoning, particularly on the origin of the physical world, faces an arrogance almost beyond comprehension. Many scientists realize the weak underpinnings of scientific models but the spokesmen of naturalism and their media advocates will not abide anything that questions either the supremacy of man, his reasoning power or his conclusions. I have seen media interviewers, who gladly try to tear Christian and conservative guests to pieces, grovel before a scientist who is [one of the] illuminati of evolutionary thought. No one would dare to try to question a living example of the superiority of man’s reasoning power. They are in the presence of a high priest of the one and only knowledge — let all the earth keep silent before him!"

Dr Emmett Williams, Creation Research Society Quarterly, 29(2):84, September 1992.

ALL OF US HAVE WORLDVIEWS...PRESUPPOSITIONS WE BRING TO ANY QUESTION

I have had the pleasure of meeting some very brilliant scientists and theologians, such as Jonathan Sarfati and Gary Bates, Tas Walker, Gary DeMar, Hank Hannegraff and RC Sproul, Jr. among others. Each of these men would agree that their belief in God is a factor in their worldview and their overall system of beliefs. In fact everyone has some kind of opinion about a supreme being, positive or negative and of course often expressed in very different ways. Everyone has an opinion on whether or not there is a supernatural component to existence or outside the scope of existence as part of a greater reality. Everyone has metaphysical things to say about the Universe and life and if anyone claims to have no worldview they are simply fooling themselves. I leave it to your judgment whether Darwinists or Christians have the superior worldview. I do hereby assert that Darwinism is in fact a religion.

One of the most popular religions in the world is Darwinism and it exists and flourishes among scientists. Michael Ruse was professor of philosophy and zoology at the University of Guelph, Canada (recently moved to Florida), He was the leading anti-creationist philosopher whose (flawed) arguments seemed to convince the biased judge to rule against the Arkansas ‘balanced treatment’ (of creation and evolution in schools) bill in 1981/2. At the trial, he and the other the anti-creationists loftily dismissed the claim that evolution was an anti-god religion.

Ruse is the rather entertaining source of the repeated claim that he made on camera during the "Expelled" movie about life forming "on the backs of crystals!"

Yet we have the following statement made by Ruse:

"Evolution is promoted by its practitioners as more than mere science. Evolution is promulgated as an ideology, a secular religion—a full-fledged alternative to Christianity, with meaning and morality. I am an ardent evolutionist and an ex-Christian, but I must admit that in this one complaint—and Mr [sic] Gish is but one of many to make it—the literalists are absolutely right. Evolution is a religion. This was true of evolution in the beginning, and it is true of evolution still today… Evolution therefore came into being as a kind of secular ideology, an explicit substitute for Christianity."

Ruse, M., How evolution became a religion: creationists correct? National Post, pp. B1,B3,B7 May 13, 2000.

There is absolutely no question that the first underpinning of any belief system is the decision to either consider or rule out the supernatural. Darwinism is certainly a religion and a component of many atheist's catechism into their particular branch of humanism.

Professor Richard Lewontin, a geneticist (and self-proclaimed Marxist), is certainly one of the world’s leaders in evolutionary biology. He wrote this very revealing comment (the italics were in the original). It illustrates the implicit philosophical bias against Genesis creation—regardless of whether or not the facts support it.

‘We take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs, in spite of its failure to fulfill many of its extravagant promises of health and life, in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated just-so stories, because we have a prior commitment, a commitment to materialism.
It is not that the methods and institutions of science somehow compel us to accept a material explanation of the phenomenal world, but, on the contrary, that we are forced by our a priori adherence to material causes to create an apparatus of investigation and a set of concepts that produce material explanations, no matter how counter-intuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is an absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door.
The eminent Kant scholar Lewis Beck used to say that anyone who could believe in God could believe in anything. To appeal to an omnipotent deity is to allow that at any moment the regularities of nature may be ruptured, that Miracles may happen [but see the difference between origin and operational science—Ed.].’

Richard Lewontin, Billions and billions of demons, The New York Review, p. 31, 9 January 1997

This quote should be recognizable to you as I have used it before. Lewontin asserts that science is not required to have a naturalist materialist point of view but it is instead scientists who prefer to adhere to that point of view because they cannot countenance any other possibility. Again, science should not be limited to only one set of possibilities when investigating things unknown or uncertain.

"It is no more heretical to say the Universe displays purpose, as Hoyle has done, than to say that it is pointless, as Steven Weinberg has done. Both statements are metaphysical and outside science. Yet it seems that scientists are permitted by their own colleagues to say metaphysical things about lack of purpose and not the reverse. This suggests to me that science, in allowing this metaphysical notion, sees itself as religion and presumably as an atheistic religion (if you can have such a thing)."

Shallis, M., In the eye of a storm, New Scientist, pp. 42–43, January 19, 1984.

In fact, it is fair to say that many scientists clearly have allowed their religion to cloud their ability to think clearly. Richard Dawkins is obviously one such scientist, a fellow so clouded in his thinking that he could say to Bill Moyers of PBS,

"Evolution has been observed. It’s just that it hasn’t been observed while it’s happening."

Oh, okay, we have observed it but it wasn't happening at the time. That sneaky evolution! It either happens so fast we cannot see it or so slow we cannot last long enough to detect it. That Dawkins is a respected Darwinist and that he could make such a statement with a straight face is a sign to me that he simply has allowed his mind to accept anything but God. It appears it is possible to brainwash one's own self!

Dr Scott Todd, an immunologist at Kansas State University: "Even if all the data point to an intelligent designer, such an hypothesis is excluded from science because it is not naturalistic" Todd, S.C., correspondence to Nature 401(6752):423, 30 Sept. 1999

So Dawkins is certainly not alone. I am reminded of Luke 16 when Jesus taught about a beggar in paradise and a rich man in the place of torment, especially verses 27 to 31:

"He answered, 'Then I beg you, father, send Lazarus to my father's house, for I have five brothers. Let him warn them, so that they will not also come to this place of torment.'

"Abraham replied, 'They have Moses and the Prophets; let them listen to them.'

" 'No, father Abraham,' he said, 'but if someone from the dead goes to them, they will repent.'

"He said to him, 'If they do not listen to Moses and the Prophets, they will not be convinced even if someone rises from the dead.' "

If Richard Dawkins has made up his mind that there is no God, no proof or evidence will change his mind. "The fool has said in his heart, 'there is no God.'"

Charles Lyell and James Hutton whose uniformitarian views of the rock records helped Darwin formulate his particular hypothesis did admit that he had a particular objective in mind when he posited (incorrectly) that the rock formations found around the world had been formed by long-term steady accumulations of debris over millions of years. His aim was to "free science" from God and the Bible. Now this is rather ironic in that belief in God and the Bible had led scientists to believe that logical and orderly processes could be found in nature to explain how things worked. What follows is a list of prominent Theists and Bible-believers who helped shaped modern science:

Early

  • Francis Bacon (1561–1626) Scientific method. However, see also Culture Wars:
    1. Part 1: Bacon vs Ham
    2. Part 2: Ham vs Bacon
  • Gerardus Mercator (1512–1594) Cartography; inventor of the Mercator projection, the standard map for navigation because a course at a constant bearing corresponds to a straight line. He wrote “When I saw that Moses’ account of the world’s origin was in many ways different from that of Aristotle and the other philosophers, I began to doubt their teaching and set about studying nature’s secrets instead.” He was in prison for 7 months suspected of being a Lutheran and his great life’s work, his atlas, contained a thesis on the first chapter of Genesis where he defended God’s word against the philosophers. (Thanks to Catherine Olaussen, Norway)
  • Galileo Galilei (1564–1642) (WOH) Physics, astronomy (see also The Galileo ‘twist’, The Galileo affair: history or heroic hagiography?, and Galileo Quadricentennial: Myth vs fact
  • Johann Kepler (1571–1630) (WOH) Scientific astronomy
  • Athanasius Kircher (1601–1680) Inventor
  • John Wilkins (1614–1672)
  • Walter Charleton (1619–1707) President of the Royal College of Physicians
  • Blaise Pascal and article from Creation magazine (1623–1662) Hydrostatics; barometer
  • Sir William Petty (1623 –1687) Statistics; scientific economics
  • Robert Boyle (1627–1691) (WOH) Chemistry; gas dynamics
  • John Ray (1627–1705) Natural history
  • Isaac Barrow (1630–1677) Professor of mathematics
  • Nicolaus Steno (né Niels Stensen, 1631–1686) Stratigraphy; see also Geological pioneer was a biblical creationist.
  • Thomas Burnet (1635–1715) Geology
  • Increase Mather (1639–1723) Astronomy
  • Nehemiah Grew (1641–1712) Medical doctor, botany

Back to top

The age of Newton

  • Isaac Newton (1642–1727) (WOH) Dynamics; Calculus; Gravitation law; Reflecting telescope; Spectrum of light (wrote more about the Bible than science, and emphatically affirmed a Creator. Some have accused him of Arianism, but it’s likely he held to a heterodox form of the Trinity—See Pfizenmaier, T.C., Was Isaac Newton an Arian? Journal of the History of Ideas68(1):57–80, 1997)
  • Gottfried Wilhelm Leibnitz (1646–1716) Mathematician
  • John Flamsteed (1646–1719) Greenwich Observatory Founder; Astronomy
  • William Derham (1657–1735) Ecology
  • Cotton Mather (1662–1727) Physician
  • John Harris (1666–1719) Mathematician
  • John Woodward (1665–1728) Paleontology
  • William Whiston (1667–1752) Physics, Geology
  • John Hutchinson (1674–1737) Paleontology
  • Johathan Edwards (1703–1758) Physics, Meteorology
  • Carolus Linnaeus (1707–1778) Taxonomy; biological classification system
  • Jean Deluc (1727–1817) Geology
  • Richard Kirwan (1733–1812) Mineralogy
  • William Herschel (1738–1822) Galactic astronomy; Uranus (probably believed in an old-earth)
  • James Parkinson (1755–1824) Physician (old-earth compromiser*)
  • John Dalton (1766–1844) Atomic theory, gas law
  • John Kidd, M.D. (1775–1851) Chemical synthetics (old-earth compromiser*)

Back to top

Just before Darwin

  • The 19th Century Scriptural Geologists, by Dr Terry Mortenson
  • Timothy Dwight (1752–1817) Educator
  • William Kirby (1759–1850) Entomologist
  • Jedidiah Morse (1761–1826) Geographer
  • Benjamin Barton (1766–1815) Botanist; Zoologist
  • John Dalton (1766–1844) Father of modern atomic theory; chemistry
  • Georges Cuvier (1769–1832) Comparative anatomy, paleontology (old-earth compromiser*)
  • Samuel Miller (1770–1840) Clergy
  • Charles Bell (1774–1842) Anatomist
  • John Kidd (1775–1851) Chemistry
  • George Young (1777–1848) Geology
  • Humphrey Davy (1778–1829) Thermokinetics; safety lamp
  • Andrew Ure (1778–1857) Chemistry
  • Benjamin Silliman (1779–1864) Mineralogist (old-earth compromiser*)
  • Peter Mark Roget (1779–1869) Physician; physiologist
  • Thomas Chalmers (1780–1847) Professor (old-earth compromiser*)
  • David Brewster (1781–1868) Optical mineralogy, Kaleidoscope (probably believed in an old-earth)
  • William Buckland (1784–1856) Geologist (old-earth compromiser*)
  • William Prout (1785–1850) Food chemistry (probably believed in an old-earth)
  • Adam Sedgwick (1785–1873) Geology (old-earth compromiser*)
  • John Murray (1786?–1851) Geology
  • George Fairholme (1789–1846) Geology
  • Michael Faraday (1791–1867) (WOH) Electro magnetics; Field theory, Generator
  • Samuel F.B. Morse (1791–1872) Telegraph
  • John Herschel (1792–1871) Astronomy (old-earth compromiser*)
  • Edward Hitchcock (1793–1864) Geology (old-earth compromiser*)
  • William Whewell (1794–1866) Anemometer (old-earth compromiser*)
  • William Rhind (1797–1874) Geology
  • Joseph Henry (1797–1878) Electric motor; galvanometer

Back to top

Just after Darwin

  • Richard Owen (1804–1892) Zoology; Paleontology (old-earth compromiser*)
  • Matthew Maury (1806–1873) Oceanography, Hydrography (probably believed in an old-earth*)
  • Louis Agassiz (1807–1873) Glaciology, Ichthyology (old-earth compromiser, polygenist*)
  • Henry Rogers (1808–1866) Geology
  • James Glaisher (1809–1903) Meteorology
  • Philip H. Gosse (1810–1888) Ornithologist; zoology
  • Sir Henry Rawlinson (1810–1895) Archaeologist
  • James Simpson (1811–1870) Gynecology, Anesthesiology
  • James Dana (1813–1895) Geology (old-earth compromiser*)
  • Sir Joseph Henry Gilbert (1817–1901) Agricultural chemist
  • James Joule (1818–1889) Thermodynamics
  • Thomas Anderson (1819–1874) Chemist
  • Charles Piazzi Smyth (1819–1900) Astronomy
  • George Stokes (1819–1903) Fluid Mechanics
  • John William Dawson (1820–1899) Geology (probably believed in an old-earth*)
  • Rudolph Virchow (1821–1902) Pathology
  • Gregor Mendel (1822–1884) (WOH) Genetics
  • Louis Pasteur (1822–1895) (WOH) Bacteriology, Biochemistry; Sterilization; Immunization
  • Henri Fabre (1823–1915) Entomology of living insects
  • William Thompson, Lord Kelvin (1824–1907) Energetics; Absolute temperatures; Atlantic cable (believed in an older earth than the Bible indicates, but far younger than the evolutionists wanted*)
  • William Huggins (1824–1910) Astral spectrometry
  • Bernhard Riemann (1826–1866) Non-Euclidean geometries
  • Joseph Lister (1827–1912) Antiseptic surgery
  • Balfour Stewart (1828–1887) Ionospheric electricity
  • James Clerk Maxwell (1831–1879) (WOH) Electrodynamics; statistical thermodynamics
  • P.G. Tait (1831–1901) Vector analysis
  • John Bell Pettigrew (1834–1908) Anatomist; physiologist
  • John Strutt, Lord Rayleigh (1842–1919) Similitude; model analysis; inert gases
  • Sir William Abney (1843–1920) Astronomy
  • Alexander MacAlister (1844–1919) Anatomy
  • A.H. Sayce (1845–1933) Archaeologist
  • John Ambrose Fleming (1849–1945) Electronics; electron tube; thermionic valve

Back to top

The modern period

  • Dr Clifford Burdick, Geology
  • George Washington Carver (1864–1943) Inventor
  • L. Merson Davies (1890–1960) Geology; paleontology
  • Douglas Dewar (1875–1957) Ornithology
  • Howard A. Kelly (1858–1943) Gynecology
  • Paul Lemoine (1878–1940) Geology
  • Dr Frank Marsh, Biology
  • Dr John Mann, Agriculturist, biological control pioneer
  • Edward H. Maunder (1869–1931) Astronomy
  • Prof. Nicolae Paulescu (1890–1960) Human physiology, medicine
  • William Mitchell Ramsay (1851–1939) Archaeology
  • William Ramsay (1852–1916) Isotopic chemistry, element transmutation
  • Charles Stine (1882–1954) Organic Chemistry
  • Dr Arthur Rendle-Short (1885–1955) Surgery
  • Sir Cecil P. G. Wakeley (1892–1979) Surgery
  • Dr Larry Butler, Biochemistry
  • Prof. Verna Wright, Rheumatology (deceased 1997)
  • Arthur E. Wilder-Smith (1915–1995) Three science doctorates; a creation science pioneer
This is not a complete list. There are thousands of scientists who believe in God in the world today and their numbers are doubtless dwarfed by Darwinists. But this is a very hard thing to determine, since at least a tacit approval of long ages and Darwinism is a requirement for most teaching positions and research positions whether or not the particular discipline directly applies to origins. The ruling paradigm demands belief in Darwinism or at least that those who do not agree keep their mouths shut about it.

The Atheists Know … Why Christianity has to Fight Evolution

"Christianity has fought, still fights, and will continue to fight science to the desperate end over evolution, because evolution destroys utterly and finally the very reason Jesus’ earthly life was supposedly made necessary. Destroy Adam and Eve and the original sin, and in the rubble you will find the sorry remains of the Son of God. If Jesus was not the redeemer who died for our sins, and this is what evolution means, then Christianity is nothing."

Reference

G. Richard Bozarth, ‘The Meaning of Evolution’, American Atheist, p. 30. 20 September 1979.

Evolution incompatible with Christianity

"People seem to think that Christianity and evolution do or can go together. But I suggest this is only possible for the intellectually schizophrenic. Biological theory does not require or allow any sort of divine guidance for the evolutionary process …"

David Oldroyd, The (Australian) Weekend Review, 20–21 March 1993, p. 5. (David Oldroyd was associate professor in the School of Science and Technology Studies at the University of New South Wales, Australia.)

Eventually a logical man must look carefully at Genesis and decide whether the meaning of the words are literal or figurative. Bible exegetical rules indicate that the days of creation are 24 hour days.

OT Professor Todd Beall:
take Genesis 1 as written, rather than crave secular respectability

Todd Beall, Ph.D., Professor of Old Testament, Capital Bible Seminary, Lanham, MD:

In fact, it is fascinating that the day-age advocates insist (correctly) that Gen 1 speaks of the days in sequential action, while the framework hypothesis advocates insist (correctly) that the days of Gen 1 are literal 24-hour days. Only the literal 24-hour day view holds that the days are both sequential and literal 24-hour periods. …
Why not take the words of Gen 1 at face value, as simple, straightforward sequential narrative of God’s miraculous creative activity? If that causes some intellectuals to label us as “narrow-minded clowns”, then so be it. The claims of Christ are narrow (John 14:6: “I am the Way, the Truth, and the Life; no man comes to the Father but by Me”); the gospel is narrow; and the cross is regarded as foolishness by the wisdom of this world (1 Cor 1:18–31). But it is true nonetheless. Heb 11:3 says that “by faith we understand that the worlds were framed by the word of God, so that the things which are seen were not made of things which are visible.” Do we really think that contemporary science is more authoritative than God’s revelation? Sometimes our intellectual pride may get in the way of our faith: if the inerrant Scripture in Gen 1 states that God created the world in six literal days, then why should we not simply accept it, rather than try to find all kinds of ways to explain it away? Sometimes the plain, simplest, most natural reading of the text is, indeed the best. Such is the case with Gen 1, despite all the attempts to explain it in some other, more complicated way.

Related articles

Reference

  1. Todd Beall, Christians in the public square: How far should Evangelicals go in the Creation-Evolution debate?, Evangelical Theological Society, 15 November 2006.
The fact is that not only is Darwinism a religion, it is a bad religion. It must be zealously protected from inspection lest it be cast aside as bad philosophy and bad science. It is quite ironic that one of the censors of the ruling paradigm is named Eugenie!

The atheistic anti-creationist Eugenie Scott, leader of the anticreationist National Center for Science Education, tacitly admitted that if students heard criticisms of evolution, they might end up not believing it!

“In my opinion, using creation and evolution as topics for critical-thinking exercises in primary and secondary schools is virtually guaranteed to confuse students about evolution and may lead them to reject one of the major themes in science.” Larry Witham, Where Darwin Meets the Bible, p. 23, Oxford University Press, 2002.]
You wonder if Eugenie was named for Eugenics, one of the tenets of thought that is peripheral to Darwinism and in fact may be an unavoidable conclusion drawn from Darwin's writings.
"Since Darwin’s death, all has not been rosy in the evolutionary garden. The theories of the Great Bearded One have been hijacked by cranks, politicians, social reformers—and scientists—to support racist and bigoted views. A direct line runs from Darwin, through the founder of the eugenics movement—Darwin's cousin, Francis Galton—to the extermination camps of Nazi Europe." Martin Brookes, ‘Ripe old age,’ New Scientist 161(2171):41, 1999.

Sir Arthur Keith was a British anthropologist, an atheistic evolutionist and an anti-Nazi, but he drew this chilling conclusion:

"The German Führer, as I have consistently maintained, is an evolutionist; he has consciously sought to make the practice of Germany conform to the theory of evolution." Keith, A., Evolution and Ethics, Putnam, NY, USA, p. 230, 1947.
The legacy of Darwin includes Eugenics (as practiced in the United States by advocates such as the founder of Planned Parenthood, Margaret Sanger) and ethnic cleansing as practiced by Adolf Hitler and his henchmen. Consider that now that our society has been soaked in Darwin for a few decades we have legalized abortion and government-mandated euthanasia either purposefully or simply a side effect of the rationing and waiting lines typical of government-run healthcare that we will have under Obamacare unless it is quickly defunded and repealed.

Darwinism also provided the excuse for the most immoral sexual activities to be practiced and studied by the heinous Alfred Kinsey and the infamous Institute. Perhaps Indiana's best known pedophile, Kinsey is an example of applied Darwinism.

From a debate between two evolutionists. Jaron Lanier is a computer scientist; Richard Dawkins is a professor at Oxford and an ardent atheist.

Jaron Lanier: "There’s a large group of people who simply are uncomfortable with accepting evolution because it leads to what they perceive as a moral vacuum, in which their best impulses have no basis in nature."
Richard Dawkins: "All I can say is, That’s just tough. We have to face up to the truth."

‘Evolution: The dissent of Darwin,’ Psychology Today 30(1):62, Jan-Feb 1997.

That's just tough. Darwinism means the end of morality because there are no absolutes, there is no purpose to life, there are no consequences for actions beyond those that cannot be avoided in this lifetime. Darwinism means no basis for calling an action either good or evil and if taken to the extreme it means no free will. Darwinism leads to the conclusion that we are all simply what we have evolved to be and we suffice to give life to the next generation as a reason for living if that is indeed reason enough.

The greatest joke?

"I myself am convinced that the theory of evolution, especially the extent to which it’s been applied, will be one of the great jokes in the history books of the future. Posterity will marvel that so very flimsy and dubious an hypothesis could be accepted with the incredible credulity that it has." – Malcolm Muggeridge, well-known British journalist and philosopher—Pascal Lectures, University of Waterloo, Ontario, Canada.

Sadly, if Darwinism is a joke then mankind and morality and millions of unborn children are the butt of said joke. Tragedy would be a better term. Darwinism is the excuse for the lack of moral standards, the abandonment of our traditional belief systems and the acceptance of various behaviors once considered unmentionable. Not my idea of a joke.

Hat tip to creation.com.

38 comments:

Jon Woolf said...

"Evolution incompatible with Christianity"

Well, so much for your declarations in the previous post that

"Belief in a young Earth is not necessary to be a Christian."

and

"Belief in Darwinism does not disqualify one from being a Christian."

AmericanVet said...

Nope. Evolution is incompatible with Christianity but it does not preclude salvation. God does not require an intelligence test or a worldview examination in order to be saved, nothing but faith in Christ's redemptive work on the cross.

There is a big difference between what should be a logical conclusion for an informed Christian and God's requirements to join His family.

creeper said...

All this nonsense about "Darwinism" being a religion is quite simply debunked by the fact that people of all faiths accept the theory of evolution, in many cases even large majorities. See here.

As for the list of scientists you copied, could you name a single one that did not employ the method of natural materialism, i.e. the scientific method? We've had this discussion before, and you were unable to name any that employed the supernatural in any way in their scientific work.

Also... since this is hardly an original argument on your part, I'll dig up an earlier response as well - this one from the much-missed Dan S.:

Here's what Augustine of Hippo (354-430 CE) had to say on this issue in De Genesi ad litteram libri duodecim (The Literal Meaning of Genesis):

"Usually, even a non-Christian knows something about the earth, the heavens, and the other elements of this world, about the motion and orbit of the stars and even their size and relative positions, about the predictable eclipses of the sun and moon, the cycles of the years and the seasons, about the kinds of animals, shrubs, stones, and so forth, and this knowledge he hold to as being certain from reason and experience. Now, it is a disgraceful and dangerous thing for an infidel to hear a Christian, presumably giving the meaning of Holy Scripture, talking nonsense on these topics; and we should take all means to prevent such an embarrassing situation, in which people show up vast ignorance in a Christian and laugh it to scorn. The shame is not so much that an ignorant individual is derided, but that people outside the household of faith think our sacred writers held such opinions, and, to the great loss of those for whose salvation we toil, the writers of our Scripture are criticized and rejected as unlearned men. If they find a Christian mistaken in a field which they themselves know well and hear him maintaining his foolish opinions about our books, how are they going to believe those books in matters concerning the resurrection of the dead, the hope of eternal life, and the kingdom of heaven, when they think their pages are full of falsehoods and on facts which they themselves have learnt from experience and the light of reason? Reckless and incompetent expounders of Holy Scripture bring untold trouble and sorrow on their wiser brethren when they are caught in one of their mischievous false opinions and are taken to task by those who are not bound by the authority of our sacred books. For then, to defend their utterly foolish and obviously untrue statements, they will try to call upon Holy Scripture for proof and even recite from memory many passages which they think support their position, although they understand neither what they say nor the things about which they make assertion."

-- creeper

Hawkeye® said...

I've said the same thing myself...

Evolution is in fact nothing more than a "religion". It could hardly be called a "science", except perhaps in the most oblique of fashions. For starters, let us consider the definition of "science" as put forth by Merriam-Webster...

SCIENCE
1 : the state of knowing : knowledge as distinguished from ignorance or misunderstanding

2a : a department of systematized knowledge as an object of study (the science of theology)

2b : something (as a sport or technique) that may be studied or learned like systematized knowledge (have it down to a science)

3a : knowledge or a system of knowledge covering general truths or the operation of general laws especially as obtained and tested through scientific method

3b : such knowledge or such a system of knowledge concerned with the physical world and its phenomena : NATURAL SCIENCE

From these definitions it is patently obvious that #1 does not apply. No one who espouses Evolution can say with any certainty that they possess a "state of knowing". They can merely say that they possess a "state of believing". As such, they fall into the second half of definition #1, which is a state of "ignorance or misunderstanding". And I mean that in the kindest of ways. If the opposite of "knowing" is "ignorance", then they are clearly ignorant about such things (as am I myself).

Definition #2 can be the only one which might apply to Evolution as it has indeed become an "object of study" and there are various "departments" within various organizations that have attempted to develop a "systematized knowledge" of this subject. However, as Merriam-Webster suggests here, the "science of evolution" is equally credible to the "science of theology".

Definition #3, to which evolutionists obviously aspire, is clearly the most unfitting of all as it pertains to Evolution. While evolutionists may suggest that they possess "a system of knowledge covering general truths or the operation of general laws" regarding their hypothesis of Evolution, they conveniently ignore the second half of the definition which says... "especially as obtained and tested through scientific method". Evolution cannot be tested in the laboratory. There are no mechanisms whereby it can be shown that simple creatures evolve into more complex creatures. If they cannot use "scientific method" to validate their hypothesis, then they clearly do not qualify as a "science".

Hawkeye® said...

continued...

If Evolution is not science, than what can it be other than religion? Let us consider the definition of religion and see if it applies...

RELIGION
1a : the state of a religious (a nun in her 20th year of religion)

1b : (1) the service and worship of God or the supernatural : (2) commitment or devotion to religious faith or observance

2 : a personal set or institutionalized system of religious attitudes, beliefs, and practices

3 : (archaic) scrupulous conformity : CONSCIENTIOUSNESS

4 : a cause, principle, or system of beliefs held to with ardor and faith

Definition #1a might apply (i.e., an evolutionist in the 20th year of his religion), but only insofar as it is has been determined that Evolution is in fact a religion.

Definition #1b begins to get closer to the idea of Evolution as a religion by suggesting that evolutionists may indeed be conducting "service and worship" to THEIR "God".

While we tend to think of religious services and worship in a narrow and ecclesiastical manner, there is nothing to say that all religions and all worship must be conducted in the same manner. This is certainly apparent from the disparate methods of worship around the globe. It is likewise reasonable to assume then that a uniquely modern religion would consider uniquely modern methods of worship and service...

Evolutionists offer regular "sermons" and "encyclicals" to their faithful followers, who desperately desire Evolution to be true, yet cannot prove it. "Worship" suggests exalting something above all else. There are clearly those evolutionists who exalt the idea of Evolution to a level beyond mere consideration. There are those who work tirelessly night and day to prove its validity. These, one might call the "high priests" of Evolution. And so it goes, but I stray.

Definition #2 of "religion" comes closest yet to suggesting that Evolution is a religion. Clearly, there are those who "personally" believe in Evolution. And beyond that, Evolution has clearly become an "institutionalized system of... attitudes, beliefs, and practices". But that does still not fully make it a religion.

Definition #4 probably says it best, when it defines religion as "a cause, principle, or system of beliefs held to with ardor and faith". Is Evolution anything other than this? If one believes in something that one cannot prove "with ardor and faith", one must be speaking of "religion". If one exalts a single idea above all others, one must be performing an act of "worship". If one seeks to convert others to one's own belief system that one cannot prove, then one must be "proselytizing".

Dare I say it, Christianity is easier to believe than Evolution. Christianity is more "scientific" than Evolution. At least with Christianity, we have the testimony and the writings of first hand eyewitnesses who saw Jesus, heard Jesus, and touched Jesus. We have the accounts of historians that lived only a few years after Jesus who recognize him as a real life human being. We have the accounts of his followers who testify that he died and rose from the dead, and who they themselves went to a martyr's death believing in the resurrection and proclaiming the good news of Christ's gospel.

What eyewitnesses do we have of Evolution? Who has seen a bacteria become a trilobite? Who has seen a trilobite become a fish? Who has seen a fish become an amphibian or a reptile or a bird? Who has seen an ape become a man? Who can show the mechanism by which Evolution works? Who can show how simple creatures become more complex? Clearly, one needs more "faith" to believe in Evolution than to believe in Jesus of Nazareth. So which is the "religion", and which is the "science"?

creeper said...

"Evolution cannot be tested in the laboratory. There are no mechanisms whereby it can be shown that simple creatures evolve into more complex creatures. If they cannot use "scientific method" to validate their hypothesis, then they clearly do not qualify as a "science"."

You're mistaken both if you think that evolution can not be (and has not been) tested in the laboratory and if you think that all science is limited to the laboratory.

But in order for you to test evolution against the definitions of science and religion, it would help if you first of all defined evolution as you understand it. You may have noticed that the term can take on all kinds of different specific meanings depending on the context and, in the case of this blog, on what particular point Radar is trying to make.

As far as the present-day theory of evolution goes, definitions 2a, 3a and 3b for science certainly apply, while none of the definitions for religion do.

-- creeper

creeper said...

If you think there is no evidence for evolution, I can only recommend that you try to read a little outside of your usual comfort zone and consult some mainstream textbooks. Understanding the science involved won't make you stop believing in God, and indeed many, many Christians and people of other faiths take the theory of evolution on board as the most likely explanation for the abundance of species on our planet.

"At least with Christianity, we have the testimony and the writings of first hand eyewitnesses who saw Jesus, heard Jesus, and touched Jesus. We have the accounts of historians that lived only a few years after Jesus who recognize him as a real life human being. We have the accounts of his followers who testify that he died and rose from the dead, and who they themselves went to a martyr's death believing in the resurrection and proclaiming the good news of Christ's gospel."

This is not as solid as you make it out to be, Hawkeye. Biblical scholars do not, for example, generally accept that the gospels were written first-hand by any of the Apostles, but that they were written by other authors who presumably heard the accounts, either first-hand from the witnesses themselves or through an unknown number of intermediaries. Outside the Bible, there are only one or two independent mentions of Jesus as an actual person. But I don't have to tell you this, I presume you already know all that.

Personally, I don't doubt the existence of a historical Jesus, perhaps as a Gandhi of his time, a religious leader in a tumultuous era. But as for his miracles, including a miraculous birth as well as his crucifixion, it should give one pause that there was no shortage of hagiographies around at the time, and plenty of tales of demi-gods made the rounds.

Were they all for real as well? I doubt you'd agree with that.

So how would we differentiate between them? Is it possible that Jesus's hagiography was adorned with a few embellishments so it could compete with other demi-gods?

-- creeper

radar said...

creeper, I used the quotes of Darwinists who themselves admitted that Darwinism is a religion! Darwinists said it so how can you debunk it?! Do you consider yourself an authority in the world of Darwinists above Huxley and Dawkins? I am interested in knowing what your credentials are...

radar said...

Furthermore creeper, I stand by the statement that while Darwinists have tried for decades to prove evolution they have not and they cannot.

In order for organisms to have arisen from simple to complex, there needs to be a means by which information is added to the genome. Never is this observed nor is there any evidence at all that it is possible. Every change in organisms has been shown to be a selection from the information already existing within the organism. You will find no instance of speciation that does not agree with that statement.

Anytime mutations take place that seem to be helpful to an organism that mutation involves an information loss. For instance the mosquitoes who developed resistance to Chloroquinine have lost a great deal of their transport ability and so do not do well in normal situations because they have impaired uptake of nutrients.

Similar stories abound...a bacteria that is not easily killed by one substance has a reduced pumping ability to transmit anything within. A bacteria that can metastasize an unusual substance will also be more likely to take in deadly substances and die. In all cases mutations lead to information LOSS and speciation leads to information LOSS and that is all there is to it.

Jon Woolf said...

creeper, I used the quotes of Darwinists who themselves admitted that Darwinism is a religion! Darwinists said it so how can you debunk it?!

Easily.

Michael Ruse has deteriorated considerably from the brilliant thinker who testified effectively in McLean v. Arkansas and neatly skinned creationism alive in But Is It Science? Lewontin -- well, I don't know what his problem is, but the fact that he is, or at least once was, a Marxist is probably related. Dawkins was once a brilliant thinker and analyst, but he's become an egotistical blowhard who mistakes his own prejudices for useful rules about reality.

Me, I agree with Stephen Jay Gould: science and religion are nonoverlapping magisteria. Render unto science that which is science's bailiwick, and unto religion that which is religion's.

Do you consider yourself an authority in the world of Darwinists above Huxley and Dawkins?

On biology, no. On the relationship between science and religion -- yes.

On an entirely unrelated item: in future, can you please avoid that 'embedded PDF' trick you used in the post on carbon-dating? It screwed up my browser something fierce.

radar said...

Alas, creeper, the majority of Biblical scholars DO believe that John wrote John and that Matthew wrote Matthew and so on. As a matter of fact I have done a lot of research on this issue and I think I have compelling evidence that every New Testament book was written within 35 years of the crucifiction of Christ.

Even though unbelieving Jews tried to scrub every reference to Jesus from their records, a few remain. There are mentions of Christ within Roman documents of the time and of course Josephus also confirms his existence. In fact based on documentation from the earliest extant writers we have more evidence for Tiberius and many other Roman figures of the same time.

Not one New Testament writer mentions the death of Peter or Paul nor the destruction of Jerusalem and the Temple in AD 70, which leads me and large numbers of Biblical scholars to conclude that all New Testament books were written very early on and passed on from church to church.

radar said...

Woolf, by what authority do you stand above Dawkins and Huxley on the subject of Darwinism and religion?

I have at least gone to seminary and have the classroom credits to cobble together a BA in one or two different religious study fields if that made any difference to me (as a professional in an entirely different field, not) and have held the title of "Assistant Pastor" and had the honor of being given the pulpit to preach in church.

I have also been called on to speak in other area churches, have made teaching videos and was on the board of directors as the editor of all classroom materials developed by the Christian Service Center.

Having read through the Bible several times in more than one version, having taken and completed courses in Koine Greek and Hebrew studies and especially having become a Christian I am able to not only read the scripture but understand it and comment on it with some authority.

I know far more about the makeup of organisms than Darwin ever imagined and based upon his ludicrous positions it may be that I know more about them than Dawkins. I know that neither Dawkins nor Woolf have come up with a comprehensible answer to facilitated variation theory.

radar said...

Since I used the quotes of Darwinists to hoist Darwinism on its own petard, I knew that the commenters could not impugn their own kind. Thus Darwinism is exposed as being a subject that involves metaphysical and not simply scientific questions.

Creationism also involves both scientific and metaphysical issues. I do not know how you can possibly separate them out. I know the Discovery Institute has deliberately separated the metaphysical from physics, so to speak, but their findings then call for a conclusion and that conclusion must needs include the metaphysical.

Can you truly investigate origins without the slant of a worldview? I realize that people like William Dembski and Stephen C Meyer make the attempt. However, when you conclude that organisms are intelligently designed the very next question becomes "by Whom?"

Richard Dawkins suggested that space aliens (directed panspermia) had "seeded' the Earth with life but that just moves the scrutiny to another time and another place, in effect running away from the evidence.

Woolf and creeper also run away from the evidence in that they do not address facilitated variation theory. When you take the wrapping paper off of K & G, you get intelligent design underlined and bolded.

radar said...

As to sources, I prefer to use only the best sources for most of my material - creation.com, answersingenesis, institute for creation research and discovery Institute are my most common references along with biblegateway for bible quotations.

There are areas of contention between creationists, by the way, which is natural when science is involved. Science involves answering questions that have gone unanswered. When scientists seek those answers they may differ along the way.

No serious scientist denies that DNA is crucial to the reproduction and sustenance of organisms. Some serious scientists believe it simply happened by a a long series of happy accidents and others believe it is a part of the coding system used by God to allow for the replication and sustenance of organisms. When you look at it that way, which side of the equation seems more logical and which more blinded by metaphysical considerations?

radar said...

http://creation.com/anthrax-and-antibiotics-is-evolution-relevant

Speciation happens. Darwinism doesn't. End of story, really. So we have demonstrated facilitated variation theory and explained how the development of resistance in organisms is NOT Darwinism, not increase but rather either information-neutral or information decrease.

Here is where Darwinism dies. No explanation for information, no explanation for how it could increase and no explanation for life itself or for existence either. Darwinism cannot supply the information lab, the computer, the software nor the power source for the computer. Nothing left but fairy tales.

Jon Woolf said...

"Woolf, by what authority do you stand above Dawkins and Huxley on the subject of Darwinism and religion? "

Mine. They have an axe to grind. So do you. I don't.

"Thus Darwinism is exposed as being a subject that involves metaphysical and not simply scientific questions."

Only if you choose to make it so. I don't.

"As to sources, I prefer to use only the best sources for most of my material - creation.com, answersingenesis, institute for creation research and discovery Institute are my most common references ..."

ROFLMAO

I can and have documented bold-faced lies from all these sources.

"No explanation for information, no explanation for how it could increase and no explanation for life itself or for existence either."

I posted multiple comments with explanations of the origins of genetic information. You ignored them.

"Can you truly investigate origins without the slant of a worldview? I realize that people like William Dembski and Stephen C Meyer make the attempt. "

[snork] Not that I've ever seen.

Your education in religious studies is impressive, even if what you've done with it isn't.

"I know far more about the makeup of organisms than Darwin ever imagined and based upon his ludicrous positions it may be that I know more about them than Dawkins. "

If so, you haven't demonstrated it. You haven't even demonstrated that you know as much about it as I do, and I'm quite sure I don't know as much about it as Dawkins does. On topics political and religious he's a horse's ass, but in the realm of biology he knows his stuff.

Anonymous said...

Here is where Darwinism dies. No explanation for information, no explanation for how it could increase and no explanation for life itself or for existence either. Darwinism cannot supply the information lab, the computer, the software nor the power source for the computer. Nothing left but fairy tales.

WHAT IS DARWINISM?

lava

radar said...

I haven't seen either a Woolf or a Dawkins try to explain facilitated variation nor have any of you given any reasonable explanation for the vast amount of information in the cell. We have organisms that are far more complex than the space station that Darwinists tell us just happened by a series of mistakes. There really isn't anything left to say until you have some kind of logical explanation...

radar said...

If you want a good laugh, tune into the Discovery Channel's "Into the Universe with Stephen Hawking."

The explanation for life? We won the lottery! Wow. The chances of all the parts of even the simplest protein accidently bumping into each other and becoming a living thing are far far less likely than a lottery and certainly beyond that every addition to the organism would require another blind chance that is statistically impossible. Multiply the statistical impossiblities by billions and billions and you might have one higher life form. Trouble is that we have more organisms on Earth than we have been able to count.

The other hilarity (besides the panspermia part) was when the announcer intoned about the "power of evolution." Hahahahahaha! Evolution is now being presented as powerful magic. Is this science or Lord of the Rings?

Jon Woolf said...

I haven't seen either a Woolf or a Dawkins try to explain facilitated variation

Yes, you have. Go back through the comments to the two posts in which you ranted madly about "facilitated variation." If you still don't see it, read them again. Rinse and repeat as many times as necessary.

And now I am "throwing down the gauntlet" to you, Radar. You can say that you don't accept the answer, and that's honest, if perhaps rather short-sighted and simpleminded. But to say that no answer has been attempted is a lie. If you wish to hold to your self-imposed rule that "I do not intentionally post false data and have no plan to begin to do so," then you will not repeat that lie.

The chances of all the parts of even the simplest protein accidently bumping into each other and becoming a living thing are far far less likely than a lottery

Then, obviously, that isn't the way it happened. And scientists don't claim that's the way it happened. The "747 in a junkyard" model so beloved by you and your fellow creationists is a strawman, another lie you made up in order to avoid having to confront the reality of what evolutionary theory says.

creeper said...

Could you please, once and for all, define "Darwinism"? Or perhaps use more specific terms when they are appropriate?

A statement like "Speciation happens. Darwinism doesn't." makes no sense whatsoever. If "Darwinism" is something like "atheism", then it doesn't happen any more than "Christianity happens". Incidentally, speciation is evolution at the species level and above. Your faith requires you to deny this - you're only allowed to believe that micro-evolution is possible.

"Alas, creeper, the majority of Biblical scholars DO believe that John wrote John and that Matthew wrote Matthew and so on."

Hm, that's news to me. As far as I understand it, the issue regarding the gospels of Matthew, Mark and Luke are the remarkable similarities between those gospels, making it close to impossible that all three were independently written by three separate authors (incidentally, Matthew, Mark and Luke are not identified within the text as the authors of their respective gospels).

There are a number of theories for these similarities, but as far as I know, no scholar has proposed that it was just a coincidence, and that the gospels were written first-hand by eye witnesses - let alone that a majority of Bible scholars are on board with this.

Could you name a Bible scholar that has proposed this theory? Other than yourself, I mean.

And how does such a theory account for the similarities?

"As a matter of fact I have done a lot of research on this issue and I think I have compelling evidence that every New Testament book was written within 35 years of the crucifiction of Christ."

No argument there, and you don't need to tout any independent research to back that up, since as far as I know that's pretty much the mainstream consensus anyway.

"the "power of evolution." Hahahahahaha! Evolution is now being presented as powerful magic. Is this science or Lord of the Rings?"

This is where Highboy would make a snarky comment about reading comprehension. No, evolution is not presented as powerful magic, but as powerful. Indeed, the combination of reproduction with variation and natural selection is a powerful mechanism. Nothing magical about it.

-- creeper

creeper said...

"I haven't seen either a Woolf or a Dawkins try to explain facilitated variation nor have any of you given any reasonable explanation for the vast amount of information in the cell. We have organisms that are far more complex than the space station that Darwinists tell us just happened by a series of mistakes. There really isn't anything left to say until you have some kind of logical explanation..."

First, facilitated variation doesn't contradict the theory of evolution, so there's no additional logical explanation required. Read up on the theory of evolution itself if you're looking for explanations. I'm pretty sure that Jon had already explained this to you in the comments on the respective two posts.

Second, complexity by itself is not evidence of design, since complexity can be achieved by other means. That argument is a mere argument from incredulity and doesn't really get you very far. Yes, IDers pursue a specific argument based on irreducible complexity, but that is different from arguing that all complexity necessitates a designer.

Third, re. "the space station that Darwinists tell us just happened by a series of mistakes" and other arguments along the lines of "based on chance alone", a 747 in a junkyard etc.: random chance plays a part in evolution, but you consistently block out the all-important ingredient of natural selection, which does make progress and the addition of information possible. And every time you leave that out, you're simply misrepresenting facts.

-- creeper

creeper said...

And while we're on the subject of the Gospels: there's another contradiction in the Bible, namely the date on which Jesus was crucified. In John, it is the 14th of Nisan, in Matthew/Mark/Luke it is the 15th of Nisan.

-- creeper

AmericanVet said...

Had it not been for the rise of the literal interpretation of the Bible and the subsequent appropriation of biblical narratives by early modern scientists, modern science may not have arisen at all. In sum, the Bible and its literal interpretation have played a vital role in the development of Western science. — Peter Harrison, Andreas Idreos Professor of Science and Religion at the University of Oxford

radar said...

creeper, who told you John and the other gospels disagree on the date of death? Do you even know what Nisan is? The gospels do not disagree, sorry.

I was laughing about that Hawking show. It was hilarious. A few million years of amino acids bonking into each other until, voila, a living organism simply happens and then we are off to the races. That it happened once is statistically impossible. For the variety of life we have statistically impossible is an understatement.

radar said...

I am going to simply post what creationists have done to correct Linnaeus (who did a brilliant job with the information he had) and put an end to the whole speciation-is-Darwinism thing.

No, I read your "answers" to the K & G findings and they do not answer much of anything. The mother still controls the child and mutations almost always just switch on or off a set of information already written into the code.

Natural selection is not a force like gravity. Evolution has no power whatever. No lab has ever observed one kind of organism changing into another kind or gaining in information. You can all talk in circles but you never managed to deal with the fatal errors of Darwin -

No means for life to start
No means for adding information
No means for one kind to transition into another
No explanation for irreducible complexity
No explanation for symbiotic relationships that are often between not just two but thousands of organisms

Darwinists simply substitute chance and time and good luck for God. But anyone who is not philosophically married to naturalism can see the vacuity of such arguments.

creeper said...

"creeper, who told you John and the other gospels disagree on the date of death? Do you even know what Nisan is? The gospels do not disagree, sorry."

I've heard this in a couple of places over the years. It's due to the fact that in the synoptic Gospels (Matthew, Mark and Luke), the Last Supper was said to be a Passover meal, while in the Gospel of John it says it was "the day of Preparation of the Passover", i.e. a day earlier.

Re. whether the synoptic Gospels were actually written by their alleged authors, what is your take on the similarities between them? I can't find any indication of Bible scholars (let alone a majority of them) claiming that despite the unlikelihood of three writers writing near-identical passages entirely independently of each other.

Or am I misunderstanding your position?

-- creeper

Jon Woolf said...

"The mother still controls the child"

Disproved.

"and mutations almost always just switch on or off a set of information already written into the code."

Also disproved. Even if it wasn't, your statement still allows for mutations that introduce new information. Do you see why?

"No lab has ever observed one kind of organism changing into another kind"

Define a kind.

"or gaining in information."

Define information, without using your self-serving circular version.

"No means for life to start"

Irrelevant. Abiogenesis is a separate subject from evolution.

"No explanation for irreducible complexity"

"No explanation for symbiotic relationships that are often between not just two but thousands of organisms"

Both also wrong. These things can be explained in evolutionary terms, but the explanation takes rather longer than a comment on a Blogspot post.

"But anyone who is not philosophically married to naturalism can see the vacuity of such arguments."

And anyone who is not philosophically enslaved by religious fundamentalism can see the vacuity of your arguments, Radar. You won't even define your terms in ways that allow for any discussion at all.

WHAT IS GENETIC INFORMATION?

WHAT IS A BIBLICAL KIND?

Jon Woolf said...

AmericanVet quoth: "Had it not been for the rise of the literal interpretation of the Bible and the subsequent appropriation of biblical narratives by early modern scientists, modern science may not have arisen at all."

And if not for the rigid anti-science attitude of the Renaissance-era Church, modern science might have progressed much faster and farther than it actually has.

creeper said...

"I am going to simply post what creationists have done to correct Linnaeus (who did a brilliant job with the information he had) and put an end to the whole speciation-is-Darwinism thing."

Except that creationists aren't simply "correcting" Linnaeus, they're just throwing the whole system out and replacing it with... nothing, just because it happens to disagree with the YEC position. Jon posted one such embarrassing interlude with Sarfati that highlighted this particular bit of non-science.

BTW, could you please define "speciation" and "Darwinism"? It's a pretty nonsensical debate if you just keep using Darwinism to mean different things all the time.

"Natural selection is not a force like gravity."

Nobody said it was.

"Evolution has no power whatever."

Getting sloppy with the terminology again. The theory of evolution has a great deal of explanatory power. Natural selection consists of (1) reproduction with variation and (2) selection. Over time, these factors have the power to result in changes in an organism. It's not a "power" in the sense of how one could think about, say, gravity or magnetism with an immediate and measurable effect. Which I think we're agreed on.

"No lab has ever observed one kind of organism changing into another kind or gaining in information."

Re. "one kind of organism changing into another kind": of course they have. You even devoted a post to one such experiment.

Re. "gaining in information": that would be the nylon-eating bacteria again.

If you even want to start having this discussion, you'll have to be more specific, of course, since otherwise you're just engaging in willful ignorance and misrepresentations.

In your own words, what does it mean for an organism to gain or lose information?

-- creeper

creeper said...

"You can all talk in circles but you never managed to deal with the fatal errors of Darwin -

No means for life to start
No means for adding information
No means for one kind to transition into another
No explanation for irreducible complexity
No explanation for symbiotic relationships that are often between not just two but thousands of organisms"


I don't really get why you're so hung up on Darwin, Radar. Plenty of science has been conducted since Darwin's day, and while Darwin made significant advances, understanding of evolution has certainly advanced since then.

"No means for life to start"

And the theory of plate tectonics doesn't nail down the origin of the Earth. That doesn't make it any less valid. There's no "fatal error for Darwin" here, nor is there one for the theory of evolution as it stands.

"No means for adding information"

Wrong. Natural selection (reproduction with variation plus selection) accounts for that. Though come to think of it, you never were able to define information in this particular context and what it would mean for information to be gained or lost when we had that discussion. So before you make this claim, you'll have to define this.

"No means for one kind to transition into another"

Define "kind". Define "transition". But basically, same as previous answer.

"No explanation for irreducible complexity"

Nice idea in principle, but in practice no such examples of irreducible complexity have yet been found. Keep in mind that they actually have to be irreducible, i.e. that there is no theoretical path by which the components to which it can be reduced can come together to form the whole.

"No explanation for symbiotic relationships that are often between not just two but thousands of organisms"

Any that could not have evolved? This would bring us back to irreducible complexity, I suppose.

"Darwinists simply substitute chance and time and good luck for God."

For the umpteenth time, that is a misrepresentation, as you're once again leaving out selection. Chance PLUS selection.

Do you really not understand such a simple principle, or can you just not go a day without dropping a misrepresentation in public?

"But anyone who is not philosophically married to naturalism can see the vacuity of such arguments."

Amen to what Jon said about this. Time and time again you're unable to back up your claims and hide behind unclear terms, half-finished arguments and an ever-growing pile of fallacies.

Speaking of which, can we take it that you've blown your wad on dating methods, and that in the end all you had were some poorly conducted experiments that tried to add to "the appearance of age", but somehow couldn't close the deal?

Will these questions continue to go unanswered, or do you have any more parts in your dating method series coming up?

1. What are the dating methods (plural) that indicate a very young Earth?

2. Why are all the results indicated by all dating methods that do indicate an old Earth interpreted falsely, and how should they have been interpreted and why?


-- creeper

Jon Woolf said...

I bet I can predict his answers, creeper.

1: all the ones that take the Bible into account.

2: they're interpreted on the physical evidence alone, not the Bible or the "corrective factors" devised by studies like RATE. After all, any dating method that disagrees with his interpretation of Genesis 1 must, by definition, be wrong.

The fact that answer 1 is really a nonanswer, and answer 2 is not in any way scientific, will completely escape his grasp.

radar said...

creeper never actually answers my questions or addresses my statements. You simply dismiss significant problems with naturalistic materialistic macroevolutionistic Darwinist fairy tales. Truly the Hawking special's explanation for the beginning of life was ludicrous in the extreme. And so are your complete non-answers. Complete non answers. Sadly lacking in substance. So I will go back to education mode next post and explain in detail what a "kind" is and why it is the beginning of understanding classification of creation.

creeper said...

"creeper never actually answers my questions or addresses my statements. You simply dismiss significant problems with naturalistic materialistic macroevolutionistic Darwinist fairy tales."

If you could name a question that you think I haven't previously addressed, I'll be happy to answer it for you. I suspect it's a matter of you not liking the answer or it "not computing" for you, since I do respond to rather a lot on your blog. I have had weeks (and months) where I didn't comment on this blog, so maybe it's something from one of those periods.

But by all means, let's have it.

"Truly the Hawking special's explanation for the beginning of life was ludicrous in the extreme. And so are your complete non-answers. Complete non answers. Sadly lacking in substance."

Didn't see the special, so I can't judge Hawking's answers. But Hawking is a genius, so how can he be wrong? (Just kidding Radar. That's an "argument from authority" fallacy, which you're prone to use on this blog. Just wanted you to see what they looked like.)

"So I will go back to education mode next post and explain in detail what a "kind" is and why it is the beginning of understanding classification of creation."

Ah, that "education" should be interesting. Especially since "kinds" are not the beginning of understanding classification of creation, but the end, throwing out a truckload of carefully acquired knowledge just because some people think it doesn't line up with a literal interpretation of the most ancient parts of the Bible.

And it looks more and more like you're running away from the dating method series. Was that really it? Or are you intending on answering the questions?

1. What are the dating methods (plural) that indicate a very young Earth?

2. Why are all the results indicated by all dating methods that do indicate an old Earth interpreted falsely, and how should they have been interpreted and why?


-- creeper

Jon Woolf said...

Radar wrote: Truly the Hawking special's explanation for the beginning of life was ludicrous in the extreme.

I didn't see the show in question, and I politely decline to accept your description of it. However, even if you're right, so what? ALL the proposed explanations for abiogenesis that I've seen sound ludicrous on their faces. Including the one about a magician who had no origin of his/her/its own wishing life into being. All that means is that somehow, somewhere, we're all making a bad assumption. There's a piece of the puzzle that we don't have yet.

highboy said...

"I've heard this in a couple of places over the years. It's due to the fact that in the synoptic Gospels (Matthew, Mark and Luke), the Last Supper was said to be a Passover meal, while in the Gospel of John it says it was "the day of Preparation of the Passover", i.e. a day earlier."

http://www.thebereans.net/contra-c13.shtml

"Re. whether the synoptic Gospels were actually written by their alleged authors, what is your take on the similarities between them? I can't find any indication of Bible scholars (let alone a majority of them) claiming that despite the unlikelihood of three writers writing near-identical passages entirely independently of each other."

What are you talking about here? You're asserting that because the Synoptics tell near identical stories that its unlikely that would have been written independently? And while they are the same in most respects (hence "synoptics") there are obvious differences in perspective. The striking similarities coupled with these differences (example: Mark's focus on miracles, Luke's emphasis on the lower-classed, Matthew's emphasis on His Jewish heritage) are rather strong indication that they were written by 3 different authors. When cops interrogate witnesses, they do so independently to makes sure all the stories gel, because if they do, the likelyhood that they are telling the truth is multiplied. Same goes with the Synoptics, though you're trying to state the opposite is more likely. Further, in reading some of your earlier comments on this thread, you seem to be assuming (again) that what is written in the Gospels must be embellishment to combat other stories in circulation, while ignoring the fact that those hagiographies have zero corroborative sources, do not have 62 other books that span thousands of years that validate the concept. You've already conceded that Gospels were likely written 35 years after Christ's death, or at least you agree that is what the consensus is, which in terms of ancient literature, might as well be breaking news.

highboy said...

How the hell did you guys get on the subject of the Gospels on this thread anyways? You guys just love to scrap!LOL.

Jon Woolf said...

Hawkeye brought it up originally, with his claim that there's more direct evidence for the life of Jesus than there is for evolution. Not exactly a well-defended, or even well-defensible, position to take.