Skip to comments.The challenge to Darwin’s theory of evolution – Part 3
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 designers 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 sciences old materialistic framework that has been sustained for almost 150 years since Darwins 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.
where are the previous parts of this series...recent?
I can see that you don't know the difference between 'evidence' and 'interpretation of evidence'. The actual fossil is evidence. Dating those fossils is 'interpretation of evidence', which is not observable and not science.
"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.
Naturalism is simply an ideology based on religious faith. There is no data, other than to say, the universe is really intricate therefore, there must not be a designer...that is not science.
The one referred to in the post to which I replied. It claimed that all scientific inquiry has to be in conformity with one sect's interpretation of scripture. Of course, other groups may differ. Harun Yahya (famous for providing the Kansas Conservatives with expert testimony) required conformity with other writings.
The truths of the Bible, expressed today, must be described much differently.
LOL. Some important "truths of the Bible" can be summed up in the following words -- God creates all things by His will alone. Men struggle to understand that will by seeking to put their own fingerprints on God's handiwork. Yet all of life is happening exactly according to God's will.
Amazing; difficult to comprehend; true nonetheless.
With this understanding, life becomes knowable and joyful and productive because it is God-centered. All science, biology, chemistry, physics, become what God wills us to understand.
Thus the Period Table of the Elements was written by God and discovered by man, according to His will.
All life is known by its fruit. If the fruit of biology and chemistry reflects God's grace, then it is worthwhile. If the fruit of biology and chemistry does not reflect God's grace, but instead demeans God and His word, then it is not worthwhile.
Therein lies the difference between sheep and wolves; myth and truth; condemnation and acquittal.
Were there no laws of nature (God), there would be no existence. The fact that there is an observable existence is proof that there are laws of nature (God).
If God were defined as the "Laws of Nature", would you be an Atheist?
Are you accepting someone else's definition of God or can you determine your own? Or do you just want to be a contrarian?
There are at least two ways of interpreting this phrase:
God is a superhuman male being who does things which please him. (The stuff of myth in a male dominated, dictatorial, primitive society)
Or, mankind exists because of a Principle which is the Source of all life. That Principle is unchanging, infinite, perfect and Spiritual and it is made evident by all life. (The stuff of a spiritually evolving society)
All science, biology, chemistry, physics, become what God wills us to understand.
This concept of a God "willing" us to do things is just a step above the myths of a sun god, etc. The concept of an anthropomorphic god is about as primitive as a fertility god or whatever. The Bible is saying (in a way those of 2000 years ago might understand) that God is All Being, All Life, the Principle which underlies all action. That is what we are striving to understand with science. The more we understand and apply God's principle, the closer we are to salvation and eternal life.
LOL. So knowledge brings salvation? That's what the Gnostics believed. And apparently, many still follow them to this day.
No it isn't, but thanks for playing.
There is no data, other than to say, the universe is really intricate therefore, there must not be a designer...that is not science.
You're right, that goofy argument isn't science, which is why no one's stupid enough to actually make it.
The laws of nature did not arise by themselves and from nothing. To do so, they would have had to exist before they existed and would have had to create themselves when there was nothing to create themselves from -- for the laws of nature and the matter they govern are inseparable.
It follows, that either:
i) the "rules" (natural laws) by which matter behaves were put in place by matter itself (non-sentient, inanimate material) when matter did not yet have the "rules" to guide it
ii) these highly ordered, complex and consistent "rules" arose from sentient, intelligent agency.
There are no other possibilities here and to believe alternative (i) is to believe not only in animism but in magic.
No. Knowledge is necessary but action is what counts. If you do not live by God's law, you do not have salvation.
My point is SHE WAZ a "human being", not an animal similar to those seen in Kenya Africa!! You know this is true, you just choose to ignore the truth. It doesn't matter what some arbitrary classification that human beings have created to call one thing (person) or another; it doesn't change the Fact: A human is a human, and AN Ape IS and APE!..!
Asa I have said earlier to you friend: A Human is a human, and an Ape is an APE, Go to the Zoo (take your three year old kid) and ask them, I'll bet they're smart enough to call an ape "ape" and daddy "daddy" (ie his human parent)!..duh
"The laws of nature did not arise by themselves and from nothing. To do so, they would have had to exist before they existed and would have had to create themselves when there was nothing to create themselves from."
> SHE WAZ a "human being",
She was also an ape. As am I. As are *you.* You are also an animal. Does this bother you?
> A human is a human, and AN Ape IS and APE!..!
Yes... and a human is an ape, just as a tiger is a cat.
Being fat, drunk and stupid is no way to go through life, son.
If God were defined as the "Laws of Nature", would you be an Atheist?
Are you accepting someone else's definition of God or can you determine your own?"
> Knowledge is necessary but action is what counts.
Exactly. We are our deeds.
> If you do not live by God's law, you do not have salvation.
Oooh, so close. Sorry, no Asgard for you.
"Amazing; difficult to comprehend; true nonetheless."
Yes, it is. However, many commonly accepted scientific notions, as I've noted, are inferred rather than directly observed with the senses. That is, they are secondary to observations of other physical entities and processes and are the product of sound reasoning.
Similarly, Intelligent Design Theory relies on powerful reasoning tools that other sciences routinely call upon, such as probability theory and information theory. It has been developed and elaborated in a rigorous, logically consistent, scientifically disciplined way, free of unwarranted assumptions (see The Design Inference: Elimenating Chance Through Small Probabilities by Dembski).
When we view the monoliths of Easter Island, most of us recognize that the probability that these got there by chance or by the unguided operation of natural law is vanishingly small. The best and most probable explanation is that they got there by intelligent and purposeful agency, in this case, human beings. Proven scientific criteria and parameters for making such determinations have been developed and demonstrated by Intelligent Design Theory.
"Asa I have said earlier to you friend:"
You are confusing "God" with effect. By definition (see dictionary), He is cause.
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.