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 1-2021-4041-6061-80 ... 221-236 next last
To: Semper

> Does "real effort" exclude mental effort?

Depends on the process. The "effort" required to compose a sonnet, devise a battle plan, think througha puzzle is a different order fo thing than the "effort" required to wish real hard.

> See if you can conceive of something/anything beyond your limited awareness based upon the physical senses and grossly incomplete scientific information.

It's called "imagination." Everyone has it to some degree or another. But there's a difference between science fiction... and fantasy.


21 posted on 10/16/2006 8:47:00 AM PDT by orionblamblam (Prayers... give people the feeling they're doing something without making any real effort.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: orionblamblam

Pop Quiz: Can monkeys pray?


22 posted on 10/16/2006 8:58:38 AM PDT by scottdeus12 (Jesus is real, whether you believe in Him or not.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: Liberal Classic
Opinion pieces coming from media organs of his cult should be viewed with suspicion.

Opinion pieces coming from the vast majority of Main Stream Media should be viewed with suspiction. It seems as though you have dismissed all the ideas in this piece based only on its source.

23 posted on 10/16/2006 8:58:43 AM PDT by Semper
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: Semper
It seems as though you have dismissed all the ideas in this piece based only on its source.

Discredited ideas, suspicious source. What's to trust?

24 posted on 10/16/2006 9:03:07 AM PDT by Coyoteman (I love the sound of beta decay in the morning!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: Semper

No, articles coming from the mainstream media should be viewed critically. Articles coming from Moon's evil cult should be viewed with suspicion by *any* thinking person, Christian, Jew, or atheist. I have considered the source, and I deem it to be unreliable.

Semper Fi


25 posted on 10/16/2006 9:06:39 AM PDT by Liberal Classic (No better friend, no worse enemy. Semper Fi.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: orionblamblam
think througha puzzle is a different order fo thing than the "effort" required to wish real hard.

Equating "wishing real hard" to prayer displays major ignorance regarding the nature of prayer. Reaching a conclusion based upon a grossly inadequate understanding of an essential element of the matter is not the result of "real effort".

26 posted on 10/16/2006 9:07:45 AM PDT by Semper
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]


27 posted on 10/16/2006 9:12:08 AM PDT by Michael_Michaelangelo (The best theory is not ipso facto a good theory.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Coyoteman

Discredited ideas, suspicious source. What's to trust?

Several Discovery Institute senior fellows, one of them a Moonie, write an opinion piece that gets printed in an offshore Moonie publication that is admitted by the Moonies to be a propaganda rag for their ideas and causes. No reason to be suspicious or skeptical...LOL. After all, it's about on par with a lot of the other anti-science ID/creationist sources referred to on FR...except for that Moonie connection thing. LOL

Maybe DI considers this peer review.

28 posted on 10/16/2006 9:15:28 AM PDT by ml1954 (ID = Case closed....no further inquiry allowed...now move along.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: highball

Good question. I don't suspect foul play, because as far as I'm concerned, Behe is more identifiable with ID than Gonzalez.


29 posted on 10/16/2006 9:18:29 AM PDT by DaveLoneRanger (Lord, help me to be the Christian conservative that liberals fear I am.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: highball

Good question. I don't suspect foul play, because as far as I'm concerned, Behe is more identifiable with ID than Gonzalez.


30 posted on 10/16/2006 9:18:37 AM PDT by DaveLoneRanger (Lord, help me to be the Christian conservative that liberals fear I am.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: Coyoteman
What's to trust?

The Truth. To get that, you analyze and test. The "crying wolf" story is an example of an unreliable source speaking the truth. It was not believed because of the source but it was still the truth. It is too easy to dismiss (or accept) something based only upon who expresses it.

31 posted on 10/16/2006 9:20:39 AM PDT by Semper
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: DaveLoneRanger

Whitehead seems to be a vital link in evolution as it is meant in philosophy. He once visited Darwin's house, that much is known. Whether Darwin's wife served tea and crumpets is not of record. If we want to notch this tedium up a notch we could examine Whitehead's work. He was not a Positivist even though associated with Russell.


32 posted on 10/16/2006 9:22:04 AM PDT by RightWhale (Repeal the law of the excluded middle)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Semper
Opinion pieces coming from the vast majority of Main Stream Media should be viewed with suspiction. It seems as though you have dismissed all the ideas in this piece based only on its source.

Not necessary.

We can dismiss it either on its extremely limited sample (only interviewing people from one advocacy group) or its intellectual dishonesty ("forgetting" to mention that everyone interviewed was from the same source, implying that the sample was larger than it was in fact).

Either way, we have ample reason to dismiss it.

33 posted on 10/16/2006 9:26:05 AM PDT by highball (Proud to announce the birth of little Highball, Junior - Feb. 7, 2006!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: DaveLoneRanger
Good question. I don't suspect foul play, because as far as I'm concerned, Behe is more identifiable with ID than Gonzalez.

And yet, he didn't mention the connection.

If I could find Gonzalez's link in a 5-second Google search, why couldn't the author?

It's mentioned for all the others - why hide the connection those two men have with the DI?

34 posted on 10/16/2006 9:28:46 AM PDT by highball (Proud to announce the birth of little Highball, Junior - Feb. 7, 2006!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: Liberal Classic
For heaven's sake will you people please stop shilling for the Moonie cult?
Is The Washington Times doing so also?
Science is not evil. Science is a tool
On this we agree.
People on these threads are calling mainstream Christians and Jews things like heretics, apostates, idolators, or worse, but at the same time stumping for the Moonie cult.
A source from the same parent company that owns the Washington Times is not "stumping" for the Moonie cult. When I first posted this, I was not aware the parent source was Moonie-based. I never said I agreed with the source either. Does posting from The Lutheran mean PatrickHenry is stumping for them? It seems as if one frevo can post from a religious source, and when it is moved to the Religion forum, everyone has a cow! Yet you're insisting I am endorsing the Moonie religion because the source is owned by the Unitarian church! DUH-BULL STAN-DARD?
The Moonies are a mind-control sex-cult. They worship their false Christ in the so-called Reverend Sun Myung Moon. Sun Myung Moon is evil! His cult is evil! His followers are deceived. Opinion pieces coming from media organs of his cult should be viewed with suspicion.
On the evils of the Moonie cult, we agree. I'm still unclear as to how you arrive at some kind of standard of good vs. evil, though.

If you think I endorse anything from the Moonies, you are mistaken, if not deluded. They're about as far from where I am as they can get.
35 posted on 10/16/2006 9:29:38 AM PDT by DaveLoneRanger (Lord, help me to be the Christian conservative that liberals fear I am.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: DaveLoneRanger

So who exactly wrote this article?

And why use a pseudonym?


36 posted on 10/16/2006 9:30:49 AM PDT by highball (Proud to announce the birth of little Highball, Junior - Feb. 7, 2006!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: DaveLoneRanger
If you think I endorse anything from the Moonies, you are mistaken

Are you kidding?

The whole ID movement is kneedeep in the Moonie cult.

Jonathan Wells is a protege of the reverend and calls him "father".

37 posted on 10/16/2006 9:32:50 AM PDT by RightWingNilla
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: scottdeus12

> Pop Quiz: Can monkeys pray?

Don't know. At least one member of the great apes branch of primates can, though. Not that it ever does 'em much good.


38 posted on 10/16/2006 9:33:12 AM PDT by orionblamblam (Prayers... give people the feeling they're doing something without making any real effort.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: highball

Darned if I know. You think we can find out?


39 posted on 10/16/2006 9:33:27 AM PDT by DaveLoneRanger (Lord, help me to be the Christian conservative that liberals fear I am.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

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

This whole article is pathetic.

Keep posting this garbage. It does more to discredit this ID nonsense than anything else.

40 posted on 10/16/2006 9:35:08 AM PDT by RightWingNilla
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-80 ... 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