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