Search This Blog

Tuesday, April 23, 2013

Darwinism is all about the Worldview and not the Science!

From the beginning of this blog, when discussing science, it was proposed to the reader that every single one of you has assumptions by which you live.   You do not wake up in the morning with a blank sheet of paper for a mind.   You have underlying assumptions by which you make decisions today and by which you have decided to do things in the past.  I am not simply talking about science,  in fact science itself is an offshoot of philosophy and philosophy underlies all of science.   So kick about what I say about Darwinism all you like, but before you do...let's try something different.  Let's go back and make sure the foundational aspect of what people both believe and assert to others and defend is apparent to all.   It begins with assumptions for EVERYONE.

Like directions, if you are not at the right starting point you will not end up in the right place.   Once I lived in Monterey, California.   If I took the first right and then the first left and went about four blocks until I came to a major T intersection, I could then turn left and bear right to drive by what we called the "Seal Pier" (although they were actually Sea Lions and it was actually the Coast Guard Pier) and if I kept driving past the pier area I would be in Cannery Row.  If I followed the exact same directions from my old house in South Bend, Indiana I would wind up on a highway that would not hit a T intersection but rather keep going South to Indianapolis and beyond.  Exact same directions, different starting point.  If I 

If you begin with a worldview that limits answers to naturalistic ones only, you might NEVER get to an answer.   If you begin with a worldview that allows for all possibilities and apply Occam's Razor, you will find yourself having great difficulty not being in agreement with the ID guys if not a Creationist.  

I did mention that Evolution is absolutely built on worldview rather than evidence...

That post was a follow-up to this one: 

Darwin's motivation was based on worldview, not science.




Excerpt is quoted from Jonathan Sarfati's book, Refuting Evolution Book 2.  

"What is science? What is a theory?

Scientific American devoted the first five points of its article on ‘creationist nonsense’ to defending evolution against charges that it’s not good science. In this chapter we will look at each in turn, but first it’s absolutely essential to define terms carefully. How can you know whether something is ‘true science’ or ‘just a theory,’ unless you know what these terms mean? Yet evolutionists often make sweeping claims without adequately defining their terms.

The 16th century philosopher Sir Francis Bacon, considered the founder of the scientific method, gave a pretty straightforward definition of science:

observation → induction → hypothesis → test hypothesis by experiment → proof/disproof → knowledge.

This view of science, however, depends on two major philosophical assumptions: causality and induction, which must be accepted by faith. Many modern scientists are so ignorant of basic philosophy that they don’t even realize they have made these assumptions, although several philosophers, such as David Hume and Bertrand Russell, have pointed it out.1

The editors of Scientific American and other leading evolutionists define ‘science’ in a self-serving way that excludes God and His Word. They openly equate science with the philosophy of ‘methological naturalism’ as has already been shown ‘to explain the universe purely in terms of observed or testable natural mechanisms.’ [SA 85]

The prominent evolutionary biologist Richard Lewontin has spoken bluntly about this anti-God, materialistic bias:

We take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs, in spite of its failure to fulfil 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.2

Most people think that ‘science’ follows the evidence wherever it leads. But it is impossible to avoid letting our worldview color our interpretation of the facts. Creationists are honest about the philosophical basis behind their interpretation, whereas naturalists often pretend that they don’t operate from any philosophical bias. The late atheist Stephen Jay Gould, unlike many of his peers, was candid about this bias:

Our ways of learning about the world are strongly influenced by the social preconceptions and biased modes of thinking that each scientist must apply to any problem. The stereotype of a fully rational and objective ‘scientific method,’ with individual scientists as logical (and interchangeable) robots is self-serving mythology.3

The philosopher of science David Hull had earlier noted:

… science is not as empirical as many scientists seem to think it is. Unobserved and even unobservable entities play an important part in it. Science is not just the making of observations: it is the making of inferences on the basis of observations within the framework of a theory.4

Dr Scott Todd, an immunologist at Kansas State University, was candid about how certain conclusions would be avoided at all costs, regardless of the evidence:

Even if all the data point to an intelligent designer, such an hypothesis is excluded from science because it is not naturalistic.5

1. D. Batten, ‘It’s Not Science.’
2. R. Lewontin, Billions and Billions of Demons, New York Review (9 January 1997): p. 31; Amazing admission.
3. S.J. Gould, Natural History 103(2):14, 1994.
4. D. Hull, The Effect of Essentialism on Taxonomy Two Thousand Years of Stasis (II), British Journal for the Philosophy of Science 16(61):1–18, 1965.
5. S.C. Todd, correspondence to Nature 410(6752):423 (30 September 1999); A designer is unscientific—even if all the evidence supports one!


~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Can you see that Darwinists have conned the public into believing that science is limited to naturalistic conclusions, powers and origins?   They admit to "absurdity" and "failure" in association with naturalism when applied to the real world.  They admit to refusals to consider the supernatural even if " ...all the data point to an intelligent designer..."

In other words, while normal scientists before Darwin and both Creation scientists and Intelligent Design scientists will consider both natural and supernatural causes for origins or phenomena, the Darwinist will intentionally ignore ANY AND ALL EVIDENCE THAT DOES NOT SATISFY HIS METAPHYSICAL SIDE!   This is not science, it is religion!

There is no reason we should allow them to impose this nonsense on young people!   Force-feeding Darwinism to students is tantamount to child abuse.   Nonsense presented as fact while being supported by no evidence but rather a rather involved set of stories and suppositions and outright lies?   This is what your kids are taught in school today.   Haeckel's chart was exposed as a fraud within months of its presentation and we still find it in some school textbooks today.   I still have Darwinist commenters who think devolution and speciation is a problem for Creationists when it is actually mainline Creation Science Biology 101.

If the Laws of Thermodynamics are true, then the natural world COULD NOT create itself and a supernatural force or mind must have been the creative force.    It is entirely unreasonable to limit science to naturalism and in fact I would argue it is unscientific.    Darwinists have become the new Luddites!!!

In a metaphysical purple haze, the Darwinist is unable to see the continually mounting evidence against his pet belief system.   


Now we will begin explaining why Creation Science is indeed science and far better science than Darwinism!

13 comments:

Anonymous said...

"I still have Darwinist commenters who think devolution and speciation is a problem for Creationists when it is actually mainline Creation Science Biology 101."

The problem with devolution is that there is no scientific evidence for it.

As for speciation, well... do creation scientists have a problem with the generation of new species or don't they?

highboy said...

"As for speciation, well... do creation scientists have a problem with the generation of new species or don't they?"

I'm against the generation of new species and I'm calling on lawmakers to shut it down.

Anonymous said...

Precisely.

Charles Alexander said...

These peope don't bother to learn what creationists really believe, but they sure do love to spout of uninformed opinions. How about letting Google be your friend?

Anonymous said...

"How about letting Google be your friend?"

So you couldn't find scientific evidence for devolution either?

radar said...

Anonymous said...

"How about letting Google be your friend?"

So you couldn't find scientific evidence for devolution either?

Like you never hear "Free Bird" or Stairway To Heaven" on classic rock stations?

Ring speciation is devolution. The accumulation of mutations in humans and other vertebrates is devolution. We have found some kinds have devolved to the point they cannot mate with each other, or if they mate they produce sterile offspring.

Sometimes it is on purpose, such as the deliberate mating of animals to limit their features. You can breed toy poodles for the rest of your life and you will never get a dog similar to the standard dog because so many traits have been bred out...intentional devolution.

ANYWAY, speciation is a selection of traits from the menu of choices in the parents. If one or more traits are hazardous to the health of the organism then it will be theone that withand

Anonymous said...

"The accumulation of mutations in humans and other vertebrates is devolution. We have found some kinds have devolved to the point they cannot mate with each other, or if they mate they produce sterile offspring."

That would apply to speciation/evolution. What you're proposing is something different: that there used to be more genetic information, and that it got lost over time.

And for this particular proposition, there appears to be no scientific evidence. Or could you point to some?

"ANYWAY, speciation is a selection of traits from the menu of choices in the parents. If one or more traits are hazardous to the health of the organism then it will be theone that withand"

Leaving aside the utter incoherence of this paragraph... you really don't know what speciation means, do you? How do you propose new species are generated by traits being selected from the parents?

Cowboy Bob said...

So, Nonny accuses and tries to manipulate, going after emotions and ridicule, because Radar doesn't buy into the Darwinist propaganda. How good is that?

Anonymous said...

The comment preceding yours includes a very specific question for evidence for what creationists are proposing in this instance and a question highlighting a stark logic problem stemming from Radar's assertion. These questions are not posed "because Radar doesn't buy into the Darwinist propaganda" but because what Radar is proposing happens to be unsupportable. Notice how he will be unable to answer these questions.

Thanks for stopping by though.

radar said...

I cannot be blamed for the ignorance of commenters. Speciation is information loss and we know this by many centuries of breeding and also by the results of ring speciation.

Breeders do not magically pull genetic information out of their hats, they breed out the unwanted qualities and mate only the resulting offspring with the wanted qualities until the get the organism they want.

My mother-in-law is a dog breeder and has done it for years. She has to carefully inspect the puppies for known problems because "purebred" Samoyeds have more problems than mutts. Hip Dysplasia is one problem typical of the breed and bloat is also a danger.

Edward Blyth and Gregor Mendel understood speciation. Mendel showed how breeding out characteristics could result in producing desired results. Blyth identified Natural Selection as an aspect of the conservation of the kinds.

Perhaps a couple of courses in agronomy would help you quit making such silly commments?

radar said...

Maybe some commenters just do not understand how speciation works? There is a fantastic amount of genetic information in, say, a mutt. Breeders know this, Agronomists know this and frankly any Geneticist would know this. Speciation is simply a matter of certain traits being selected out from all the available traits in the gene pool.

The only time mutation is involved is when a mutation causes an information loss which coincides with an unusual situation, like the Australian islands variety of wingless beetles. A mutation that took away the ability to produce working wings has become dominant because there is so much wind that a winged beetle (which will naturally try to fly to get around) will often be blown into the ocean. The beetles are more vulnerable to become prey with only their legs to get them around, but on an island with few predators it can survive. But it is information loss that caused them to be unable to produce working wings. That is devolution in action.

Otherwise, speciation is simply certain traits being selected from the information-rich genome. If you do not "grok" this, please, go back to school or at least quit saying things that embarrass you?

Anonymous said...

"Speciation is information loss and we know this by many centuries of breeding"

What new species did these many centuries of breeding produce? Hint: your mother-in-law doesn't produce new species, nor do other dog breeders.

"and also by the results of ring speciation."

How does speciation leading to a ring species (which is what I guess you mean by ring speciation) indicate an information loss?

Anonymous said...

And of course Radar once again can't back up his overblown claims.