Free Republic
Browse · Search
Bloggers & Personal
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

The challenge to Darwin’s theory of evolution – Part 3
World Peace Herald ^ | October 16, 2006 | Sekai Nippo

Posted on 10/16/2006 8:10:58 AM PDT by DaveLoneRanger

TOKYO -- To understand ID theory, we have to review Darwinism, and its founder.

English naturalist Charles Robert Darwin (1809-1882) conducted a scientific survey while aboard the British warship HMS Beagle from 1831 to 1836. Based on his encounter with diverse forms of life on the Galapagos Islands off Ecuador, Darwin wrote “The Origin of Species” in 1859. The central focus of the book was the theory of natural selection.

The natural selection theory is remarkably simple. It proposes that individual organisms gradually mutate and that those with favorable traits for adaptation are more likely to survive. It claims that the organisms evolved transcendent of species by the repetition of mutation and natural selection.

According to Darwin, “Natural selection acts only by the preservation and accumulation of small inherited modifications, each profitable to the preserved being; and as modern geology has almost banished such views as the excavation of a great valley by a single diluvial wave, so will natural selection banish the belief of the continued creation of new organic beings, or of any great and sudden modification in their structure.” (Origin of Species)

Mutation and natural selection are both gradual processes. Today researchers have made advances in population genetics, biochemistry, and neo-Darwinism (modern evolutionary synthesis) that explain DNA mutations which Darwin referred to as random. However, the basic concept is no different from the one established by Darwin.

Darwinism claims that all evolution of life can be explained by accidental mutation and natural selection, and implies that evolution has no purpose. It claims that humans are an extension of apes, and that human intelligence and language ability are accidentally acquired abilities.

Importantly, ID theory does not question the history of evolution as a process of life becoming more complex and advanced. Rather, it raises the question of why it evolved. It claims that the concept of an intelligent designer’s involvement can better explain the evolution of complex life forms.

A drastic change of world view

The legacy of Darwin is not limited to the interpretation of evolution. “Great scientists before Darwin, including Newton, considered that the universe and life are designed in some way,” (Dr. Paul Nelson), but the birth of Darwinism drastically changed the world view and value system of the Western world.

Darwinism came to be considered a truth rather than a hypothesis. Naturalism, which claims that the universe and life can be explained by materialistic factors alone, (Materialism and Darwinism can be considered forms of naturalism) became the mainstream thought and teaching around the world.

On the other hand, ID theory emerges as a new paradigm to interpret complex life, fossils and facts observed in the universe, challenging science’s old materialistic framework that has been sustained for almost 150 years since Darwin’s “Origin of Species.”

For this series of articles, Sekai Nippo interviewed leading scientists of the ID movement. These scientists include Stephen Meyer, director and senior fellow of the Center for Science and Culture (CSC) of the Discovery Institute, Jonathan Wells, senior fellow of CSC, Scott Minnich, associate professor of microbiology at the University of Idaho, senior fellow at CSC, Michael Behe, professor of biological sciences at Lehigh University in Pennsylvania, and Guillermo Gonzalez, assistant professor of astronomy at Iowa State University.

These scientists embrace different faiths, and their articles do not state the identify of the designer. They are engaged in a scientific debate and they think it is not the role of science to answer who the designer is.

Later in this series, we will introduce the core concepts of ID theory, irreducible complexity in the area of biochemistry, specified complexity in the area of logics, and the correlation between habitability and measurability in the area of cosmology and astronomy.

Cambrian fossils are a major issue for Darwinism. ID advocates stress that they prove the role of a designer.


TOPICS:
KEYWORDS: crevo; crevolist; evolution; intelligentdesign
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 101-120121-140141-160 ... 221-236 next last
To: MineralMan; Dr. Eckleburg
three members of the eighth generation of your ancestors. If you can name a single one, you are very exceptional.

Oh well, Noah, Shem or Japtheth.

121 posted on 10/16/2006 12:37:45 PM PDT by 1000 silverlings (why is it so difficult to understand)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 119 | View Replies]

To: ml1954
Maybe DI considers this peer review.

These articles do seem to flood FR though. Perhaps FR considers this paper a news source rather than a journal of religious opinion.

122 posted on 10/16/2006 12:40:50 PM PDT by Doctor Stochastic (Vegetabilisch = chaotisch ist der Charakter der Modernen. - Friedrich Schlegel)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: GourmetDan

Because there is measurable data on evolution: fossils, etc. That gives scientists data...they can also observe living things and compare their physiology to records of those that came before...again, they have data to observe.

ID is simply an ideology based on religious faith. There is no data, other than to say, the universe is really intricate therefore, there must be a designer...that is not science.


123 posted on 10/16/2006 12:42:40 PM PDT by Tulane
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 112 | View Replies]

To: Semper

I deny them my Source, Mandrake ...

124 posted on 10/16/2006 12:42:40 PM PDT by Gumlegs
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 102 | View Replies]

To: 1000 silverlings

"Oh well, Noah, Shem or Japtheth.
"

If you think those three are in the eighth generation of your ancestors, you are very old, indeed.

It is a serious question, and you have given a silly answer.

You cannot conceive of the lack of knowledge of those who lived 2000 years ago. They lived in the bronze age. They knew nothing about blood circulation. They did not know that microscopic life even existed. They did not know there was such a thing as a spermatazoan, nor a human ovum.

They did not know that the continent of North America existed. They did not have a glimmering of an idea of the distance from the Earth to the Moon, much less the distance to the stars.

Our ancestors of 80 generations ago knew virtually nothing about the world around them, except what they needed to know to grow their crops and raise their sheep and goats. Jerusalem was a city made of stone and mud.

Again, you have no concept of the ignorance of 2000 years ago. Fortunately, humans have continued to increase their knowledge of the world around them...to all of our benefits.


125 posted on 10/16/2006 12:44:12 PM PDT by MineralMan (Non-evangelical Atheist)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 121 | View Replies]

To: MineralMan; 1000 silverlings
I''ve come to realize it's very difficult to discuss anything spiritual with someone who calls himself an "atheist."

Even though I once called myself by the same name (during a foolish period in college when I thought I enjoyed the rebellion of conceit.)

Our frame of reference is now 180-degrees apart.

WHY I BELIEVE IN GOD by Cornelius Van Til

As Van Til concludes in his short essay...

"So you see when I was young I was conditioned on every side; I could not help believing in God. Now that I am older I still cannot help believing in God. I believe in God now because unless I have Him as the All-Conditioner, life is Chaos.

I shall not convert you at the end of my argument. I think the argument is sound. I hold that belief in God is not merely as reasonable as other belief, or even a little or infinitely more probably true than other belief; I hold rather that unless you believe in God you can logically believe in nothing else. But since I believe in such a God, a God who has conditioned you as well as me, I know that you can to your own satisfaction, by the help of the biologists, the psychologists, the logicians, and the Bible critics reduce everything I have said this afternoon and evening to the circular meanderings of a hopeless authoritarian. Well, my meanderings have, to be sure, been circular; they have made everything turn on God. So now I shall leave you with Him, and with His mercy."


126 posted on 10/16/2006 12:45:37 PM PDT by Dr. Eckleburg ("I don't think they want my respect; I think they want my submission." - Flemming Rose)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 119 | View Replies]

To: orionblamblam

And not being on the religion forum, lies such as this may be discussed.


127 posted on 10/16/2006 12:46:08 PM PDT by Doctor Stochastic (Vegetabilisch = chaotisch ist der Charakter der Modernen. - Friedrich Schlegel)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 77 | View Replies]

To: MineralMan; Dr. Eckleburg; RunningWolf; metmom; Mamzelle; Alamo-Girl

You might want to expand your own personal horizons a little, and google the Hindu concept of the atom. The Jews, believe it or not, were an ancient Oriental people and knew things that apparently, you do not.


128 posted on 10/16/2006 12:47:56 PM PDT by 1000 silverlings (why is it so difficult to understand)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 125 | View Replies]

To: Dr. Eckleburg
Even though I once called myself by the same name (during a foolish period in college when I thought I enjoyed the rebellion of conceit.)

Oh me too! When I was 18-20, I knew everything. I just get more and more stupid, apparently,according to some, the older I get.

129 posted on 10/16/2006 12:50:16 PM PDT by 1000 silverlings (why is it so difficult to understand)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 126 | View Replies]

To: Coyoteman
These folks are doing apologetics, not science.

As they (and their soulmates, the postmoderndeconstructionists) have been for decades. The purpose (as stated in ...Doctrine Of Scripture...) is to destroy scientific inquiry as a means of obtaining knowledge. At least the quoted document is upfront about the attack on science.

130 posted on 10/16/2006 12:51:36 PM PDT by Doctor Stochastic (Vegetabilisch = chaotisch ist der Charakter der Modernen. - Friedrich Schlegel)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 87 | View Replies]

To: MineralMan
I believe that there is nothing that is outside of the natural.

How complete is your awareness/understanding of the natural? It is not possible that after many evolutions of discovery, what seems natural then would seem supernatural now?

If the laws of nature are followed ...

What is the Source of the laws of nature? Why can it not be that the Source of those laws is God, the ultimate natural law?

It is a human conceit that there is some "intelligence" that is outside of the natural world.

I don't understand or agree with that. It is not conceit to believe there is something beyond yourself. It is conceit to believe that you are the ultimate authority on the nature of existence.

131 posted on 10/16/2006 12:52:53 PM PDT by Semper
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 116 | View Replies]

To: Ichneumon

I think he means that the anti-evolutionist addiction to the moonie point of view is being exposed.


132 posted on 10/16/2006 12:53:00 PM PDT by Doctor Stochastic (Vegetabilisch = chaotisch ist der Charakter der Modernen. - Friedrich Schlegel)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 91 | View Replies]

To: highball
" Are you a monkey? Are you a monkey?"

There is no obligation in conversation to address a boorish question such as that, particularly from a vulgar newbie, probably in fresh disguise from DC.

I had already made it clear that what Moonies believe is their own business, and that I much appreciate the Washington Times, which is a big point in their favor. The liberals have the Christian "Science" Monitor--and they never make apology for Mary Baker Eddy.

133 posted on 10/16/2006 12:53:59 PM PDT by Mamzelle
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 100 | View Replies]

To: 1000 silverlings

You wear it well. 8~)


134 posted on 10/16/2006 1:00:23 PM PDT by Dr. Eckleburg ("I don't think they want my respect; I think they want my submission." - Flemming Rose)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 129 | View Replies]

To: Semper
How complete is your awareness/understanding of the natural?>/i>

My understanding is limited, as is that of most people. However, I have no experience whatever with the supernatural, so I disregard it. Each year, I and the rest of humanity learn new things about the natureal world. That is, for me, sufficient.

What is the Source of the laws of nature?

Nature itself. Were there no laws of nature, there would be no existence. The fact that there is an observable existence is proof that there are laws of nature. We understand some of them.

It is not conceit to believe there is something beyond yourself. It is conceit to believe that you are the ultimate authority on the nature of existence.

I am using the word "conceit" in its secondary meaning, not in the meaning you are understanding. It's a rather archaic meaning, but is close to the word "concept" or "conception," or "construction," but "conceit" is better at describing what I mean. You can look it up in your dictionary or on the web.

135 posted on 10/16/2006 1:00:51 PM PDT by MineralMan (Non-evangelical Atheist)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 131 | View Replies]

To: Doctor Stochastic

"The purpose (as stated in ...Doctrine Of Scripture...) is to destroy scientific inquiry as a means of obtaining knowledge

Which Doctrine of Scripture are you referring to?


136 posted on 10/16/2006 1:01:25 PM PDT by scottdeus12 (Jesus is real, whether you believe in Him or not.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 130 | View Replies]

To: MineralMan

Preview is your friend, MineralMan! Crapola!


137 posted on 10/16/2006 1:01:47 PM PDT by MineralMan (Non-evangelical Atheist)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 135 | View Replies]

To: Dr. Eckleburg

:)


138 posted on 10/16/2006 1:03:24 PM PDT by 1000 silverlings (why is it so difficult to understand)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 134 | View Replies]

To: Doctor Stochastic

> And not being on the religion forum, lies such as this may be discussed.

Indeed. Until it's magically moved to the religion forum, and then anyone who dares bring up the fact that many of the IDer's "points" are outright fabrications can be banned or suspended.

Oooh: ammend the topic line with "prayer request." That shuts down *all* debate.


139 posted on 10/16/2006 1:04:01 PM PDT by orionblamblam (Prayers... give people the feeling they're doing something without making any real effort.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 127 | View Replies]

To: highball

I'm not re-defining anything. In fact, I'm using the definitions that the evos give.

I know they both have the word 'definition' in them, but there really is a difference between 'redefinition' and pointing out 'truth by definition'.

Equivocating the two isn't a substantive argument. Unfortunately for you, that's the evos.


140 posted on 10/16/2006 1:08:03 PM PDT by GourmetDan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 115 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 101-120121-140141-160 ... 221-236 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Bloggers & Personal
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson