Darwinism?

[DannyM]

Getting back to Danny's question... In a nutshell, what the evolutionists tend to do is use microevolution to prove macroevolution. We all know that certain aspects of microevolution does occur and it mainly happens with adaptability of the organism to it's environment. It does change in time, and we do have some facts to prove that. However we could also say that it was pre-programmed by the creator to do this, just like in the different races of people we see today, or the different types of cats, etc.. But what the evolutionist do is say that since these small changes happen on a small scale, then we can project this belief into the bigger changes as well (i.e. macroevolution). Therefore macroevolution is also a fact that has empirical evidence. And then what they do is say that there really isn't any micro or macro evolution. There is no distinction between the two.. We will just call the whole thing evolution, and go along on our merry way... Therefore it is indisputable..

Once you know this.. It's easy to diffuse their bomb. I mean firecracker..

And we call this science! Let's have compassion for the Darwinian scientists as they develop desperate theories positing the existence of infinite universes. The first living thing's reproductive capability is evidence of a plan. Nevertheless, the Darwinians continue to insist that all of evolution is the result of mere chance events. Stephen J. Gould once compared the evolutionary process to a drunk reeling back and forth between the bar room wall and the gutter. He has also described intelligence as an "evolutionary accident". This is a classic case of the dogmatic atheist attributing everything to a wonderful accident. All I can say is Some accident! How on earth does this analogy come anywhere near to explaining the 'evolutionary process' in which unbelievably complex, intelligent humans are the end result? How does "a drunk reeling back and forth between the bar room wall and the gutter" account for such complexity?

Materialist-science cannot explain life- it merely asserts that it must have originated by chance from inorganic materials. But this 'explanation' is based solely on materialist-science's total, unflinching commitment to materialism. But there's no evidence it can happen, or could have happened. In fact, it would be a miracle if it did. So why is it not unscientific to claim that it did, if miracles are taboo and outside the domain of science?

"Science itself does not support the atheist world view. It only supports it if you confuse science with materialism."

Perry Marshall

Ah ha! But scientists constantly mix materialism with their science. Don't the two go hand in hand for Darwinists?

"[The scientists] say, you know, about evolution, it surely happened because their fossil record shows that. But look, my body and your body are miracles of design. Scientists are pretending they have the answer as to how we got this way when natural selection couldn't possibly have produced such machines."

Kurt Vonnegut, novelist and self-described secular humanist.

[Gman]

And we call this science! Let's have compassion for the Darwinian scientists as they develop desperate theories positing the existence of infinite universes. The first living thing's reproductive capability is evidence of a plan. Nevertheless, the Darwinians continue to insist that all of evolution is the result of mere chance events. Stephen J. Gould once compared the evolutionary process to a drunk reeling back and forth between the bar room wall and the gutter. He has also described intelligence as an "evolutionary accident". This is a classic case of the dogmatic atheist attributing everything to a wonderful accident. All I can say is Some accident! How on earth does this analogy come anywhere near to explaining the 'evolutionary process' in which unbelievably complex, intelligent humans are the end result? How does "a drunk reeling back and forth between the bar room wall and the gutter" account for such complexity?

Yes.. Including Stephen Hawking. He calls life an accident too..

http://discussions.godandscience.org/vi ... =6&t=34309

But many biology books do not really state it as being an "accident" although they will reveal their hypothesis for chemical evolution.

You will see some of that in this post.. "How did life arise?"

http://discussions.godandscience.org/vi ... 91&start=0

Materialist-science cannot explain life- it merely asserts that it must have originated by chance from inorganic materials. But this 'explanation' is based solely on materialist-science's total, unflinching commitment to materialism. But there's no evidence it can happen, or could have happened. In fact, it would be a miracle if it did. So why is it not unscientific to claim that it did, if miracles are taboo and outside the domain of science?

"Science itself does not support the atheist world view. It only supports it if you confuse science with materialism."

Yes very true... Macro evolution needs miracles too.. It's not really science. It's just a belief...

Ah ha! But scientists constantly mix materialism with their science. Don't the two go hand in hand for Darwinists?

"[The scientists] say, you know, about evolution, it surely happened because their fossil record shows that. But look, my body and your body are miracles of design. Scientists are pretending they have the answer as to how we got this way when natural selection couldn't possibly have produced such machines."

Kurt Vonnegut, novelist and self-described secular humanist.

There maybe only natural facts we find in the world. But can natural facts explain everything? No.. And if one thinks that they can, they are really making their own reality..

[touchingcloth]

In a nutshell, what the evolutionists tend to do is use microevolution to prove macroevolution. We all know that certain aspects of microevolution does occur and it mainly happens with adaptability of the organism to it's environment.
...But what the evolutionist do is say that since these small changes happen on a small scale, then we can project this belief into the bigger changes as well (i.e. macroevolution). Therefore macroevolution is also a fact that has empirical evidence.

Your argument might be more compelling if the consensus of science was "small scale change happens. In light of this, all organisms must share a common ancestor". You ignore the fact that there are multiple lines of evidence that support evolution.

And then what they do is say that there really isn't any micro or macro evolution. There is no distinction between the two.. We will just call the whole thing evolution, and go along on our merry way...

Out of interest, how would you define macroevolution? Ignoring the obvious answers ("a dog gives birth to a cat"), where would you place the demarcation? If the reality is more subtle than dogs giving birth to cats, then is a dog giving birth to a dog with a brand new allele coding for a different fur colour macroevolution? Or if the reality is more subtle and slow-moving than dogs moving into cats, then could macroevolution only be described over multiple, rather than just on single, generations?
As a related question, is there a working definition for "species" that you are aware of that can classify every extant, extinct and potentially unknown creature into distinct categories?

However we could also say that it was pre-programmed by the creator to do this, just like in the different races of people we see today, or the different types of cats, etc..

We could do, and it's an interesting hypothesis. Imagine how cool it would be if a line of very compelling evidence emerged that made it clear that random mutations were not random at all, but that certain beneficial mutations always emerged more often than non-beneficial ones.
Also the question of whether or not every creature was the product of a separate creation rather than a common ancestry is a good test for evolution. I'd imagine that there are statistical techniques able to assign a likelihood to the probability of, say, protein sequences between 2 species being the product of common ancestry vs separate ancestry.

[Gman]

Your argument might be more compelling if the consensus of science was "small scale change happens. In light of this, all organisms must share a common ancestor". You ignore the fact that there are multiple lines of evidence that support evolution.

No they do not all share a common ancestor.. That is an assumption based on micro-evolution and a few "so called" fossil links.. What they really reveal is a common designer..

Also evolution has never been seen to create any new information. It can resemble the information a bit via natural selection, but not create anything new..

Out of interest, how would you define macroevolution? Ignoring the obvious answers ("a dog gives birth to a cat"), where would you place the demarcation? If the reality is more subtle than dogs giving birth to cats, then is a dog giving birth to a dog with a brand new allele coding for a different fur colour macroevolution? Or if the reality is more subtle and slow-moving than dogs moving into cats, then could macroevolution only be described over multiple, rather than just on single, generations?

Microevolution deals with changes in the gene pool of a single population. Macroevoution simply “considers” broad patterns of evolutionary change over long periods of time and includes the origin of new groups. But considering micro-evolution doesn't necessarily mean that it will lead to macroevolution or the creation on new species.

As a related question, is there a working definition for "species" that you are aware of that can classify every extant, extinct and potentially unknown creature into distinct categories?

Are you referring to the fruit fly experiment or debacle? Or perhaps in plants?

We could do, and it's an interesting hypothesis. Imagine how cool it would be if a line of very compelling evidence emerged that made it clear that random mutations were not random at all, but that certain beneficial mutations always emerged more often than non-beneficial ones.

That's isn't how certain evolutionary scientists define it.. It's an accident. But the dreamers will dream..

Also the question of whether or not every creature was the product of a separate creation rather than a common ancestry is a good test for evolution. I'd imagine that there are statistical techniques able to assign a likelihood to the probability of, say, protein sequences between 2 species being the product of common ancestry vs separate ancestry.

Again that could also fall into a common designer technique as well.. What about HARs? Some of them are very different in humans than in chimps...

[Proinsias]

I can't answer your question Danny. To me evolutionary theory is a helpful way of looking at the world, much like Newtonian physics. No deep truths, just a handy new angle on things.

If our universe is all that there is, then why is it that I can comprehend things which lie outside of this universe? Why is my brain not constrained by the limitations of this universe, if this is "all that there is"?

How do you know you can comprehend things which lie outside of this universe? and what are these things?

To me it seems entirely natural when someone says 'this is all that there is' for others to think 'maybe there's more to it'.

[DannyM]

Hey Proinsias,

I can't answer your question Danny. To me evolutionary theory is a helpful way of looking at the world, much like Newtonian physics. No deep truths, just a handy new angle on things.

To me, evolutionary theory can seem quite interesting when I look at this theory and see honesty and sense being made... An Evolutionary Manifesto - http://www.uvm.edu/~jdavison/davison-manifesto.html

Darwinism is what I take issue with, and for me it is destroyed in this paper...

If our universe is all that there is, then why is it that I can comprehend things which lie outside of this universe? Why is my brain not constrained by the limitations of this universe, if this is "all that there is"?

How do you know you can comprehend things which lie outside of this universe? and what are these things?

Well, unless you want to posit God as being constrained by this universe, then I am clearly thinking outside of the universe. Even strict materialists think outside the universe and its limitations. Our universe does not contain within itself the reasons for its own existence; it is not self-explanatory. If it has an explanation at all, it must be of a different order. Hence I am simply not constrained by the universe and its limitations. And any 'thing' we try to rationalise our way to as being the cause of this universe must therefore not be a part of the contingent order; this, you surely need to admit, would be no help at all, either as an explanation, or in any other way...?

Darwinist-materialists deny that the universe has any need of an explanation outside itself. So upon what evidence does this denial rest? Since the best scientific evidence suggests that the universe - space, time and matter - came into being some 14 billion years ago, and has continued in existence without interruption ever since, what cause or causes do they invoke to explain [this improbable] phenomenon? When did cause and effect simply become abandoned? And why is it somehow 'sufficient' to lazily put it down to a wonderful accident?

I'm not necessarily asking you to answer all this, Pro, but rather offering up these questions for anyone to take a stab at.

On another note, good to 'see' you...been a long while.[/quote]

[touchingcloth]

Hey Danny - when you say Darwinism do you mean philosophies influenced by natural selection (e.g. Social Darwinism), or are you using it as a shorthand for "the theory of evolution through natural selection"? I've heard the term used both ways in the past...

[DannyM]

Hey Danny - when you say Darwinism do you mean philosophies influenced by natural selection (e.g. Social Darwinism), or are you using it as a shorthand for "the theory of evolution through natural selection"? I've heard the term used both ways in the past...

TC, I'm talking about the Darwinism of Random Mutations + Natural Selection plus those philosophies that project RM+NS onto origins et cetera...

[DannyM]

But many biology books do not really state it as being an "accident" although they will reveal their hypothesis for chemical evolution.

You will see some of that in this post.. "How did life arise?"

http://discussions.godandscience.org/vi ... 91&start=0

Nice one Gman...You deftly expose some of the absurd claims of evolutionists...

[Gman]

But many biology books do not really state it as being an "accident" although they will reveal their hypothesis for chemical evolution.

You will see some of that in this post.. "How did life arise?"

http://discussions.godandscience.org/vi ... 91&start=0

Nice one Gman...You deftly expose some of the absurd claims of evolutionists...

If you know philosophy, then you can understand science too...

[DannyM]

But many biology books do not really state it as being an "accident" although they will reveal their hypothesis for chemical evolution.

You will see some of that in this post.. "How did life arise?"

http://discussions.godandscience.org/vi ... 91&start=0

Nice one Gman...You deftly expose some of the absurd claims of evolutionists...

If you know philosophy, then you can understand science too...

Haha, indeed. You suddenly see through the anti-empirical rhetoric of scientific naturalism...

[Gman]

But many biology books do not really state it as being an "accident" although they will reveal their hypothesis for chemical evolution.

You will see some of that in this post.. "How did life arise?"

http://discussions.godandscience.org/vi ... 91&start=0

Nice one Gman...You deftly expose some of the absurd claims of evolutionists...

If you know philosophy, then you can understand science too...

Haha, indeed. You suddenly see through the anti-empirical rhetoric of scientific naturalism...

Yes but it is pretty stealthy.. While many science books don't claim to go against the "designer" view or the existence or non-existence of God, it does when it touches on theology or ultimate questions.. When it does you can guarantee someone is mixing their philosophy with their science..

[DannyM]

Yes but it is pretty stealthy.. While many science books don't claim to go against the "designer" view or the existence or non-existence of God, it does when it touches on theology or ultimate questions.. When it does you can guarantee someone is mixing their philosophy with their science..

I found this article quite good...

http://www.bethinking.org/science-chris ... ything.htm

"Science can be defined as an intellectual endeavour to explain the workings of the physical world, informed by empirical investigation and carried out by a community trained in specialised techniques. Scientific naturalism, however, is a philosophy which goes well beyond science."

Naturalism is self-refuting. Scientific naturalism claims that science is the only true source of knowledge. It is therefore fair to ask whether science itself can be used to justify naturalism. It cannot. The data which science generates can provide no support for or against such a philosophy. Since the truth of scientific naturalism cannot be scientifically demonstrated, it cannot be a valid form of knowledge, and so is hoist by its own petard.

Naturalism is self-defeating. Science has shown that the properties of the universe depend on the remarkable fine-tuning of the cosmological constants which define the properties of matter. Turn the dial even slightly to change one of these critical parameters and the universe would be completely different from the one we inhabit and, in most cases, incompatible with life.

As the physicist Steven Weinberg has commented: 'There is reason to believe that in elementary particle physics....there is simplicity, a beauty, that we are finding in the rules that govern matter that mirrors something that is built into the logical structure of the Universe at a very deep level'.

It is a remarkable fact that conscious beings have appeared who can understand and describe the properties of this mathematically elegant universe. Yet there is no explanation for the existence of such a universe within the framework of scientific naturalism. To say that it 'just happened' displays a startling lack of curiosity. The more science uncovers of the remarkable universe we inhabit, the more pressing becomes the need to explain the reason for its existence, and the more obvious becomes the failure of naturalism to provide any satisfactory explanation."

[Gman]

Some great points there Danny..

A dogmatic belief is unhealthy for sure. This over arching explanatory model is so much hand waving, well evolution did at that, we don't understand how but it's going to do that. Well that isn't science, that's just a verbal place holder. That is why many believe that the existence of intelligent life could exist elsewhere in the universe and that life could be the result of “seeding” by aliens known as the “panspermia” hypothesis.

In other words.. They realize that they don't have a real working model for the origins of life.. So what do they do? Easy.. Shift the existence of life to another planet or use the multiverse theory to explain it all.. I mean belief. Life came from comets or aliens.. Well, anyone can do that. Just make it up. Maybe it was a giant hamburger that fell from the sky... The only thing they use are real objects for their beliefs.. And this somehow makes it scientific?

But God uses real objects too.. That seems to be the part they always miss.. Aliens are scientific, God isn't.. Whatever..

[DannyM]

That is why many believe that the existence of intelligent life could exist elsewhere in the universe and that life could be the result of “seeding” by aliens known as the “panspermia” hypothesis.

In other words.. They realize that they don't have a real working model for the origins of life.. So what do they do? Easy.. Shift the existence of life to another planet or use the multiverse theory to explain it all.. I mean belief. Life came from comets or aliens.. Well, anyone can do that. Just make it up. Maybe it was a giant hamburger that fell from the sky... The only thing they use are real objects for their beliefs.. And this somehow makes it scientific?

But God uses real objects too.. That seems to be the part they always miss.. Aliens are scientific, God isn't.. Whatever..

Yep, anything but God will suffice... no matter how absurd the postulation... everything is 'theoretically plausible'... unless it is God; how amusing that these scientists scratch around for anything other than the dreaded G word ... Hey, you gotta laugh Gman!!