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.
Sub-atomic particles have not been observed either. And yet they are rightly included in the literature of science. Their existence is posited from consistent observation of effects, just as conscious purpose is inferred from consistent observation of effects that could only be the result of a purposeful plan rather than randomity, accident, chance.
Indeed. Thanks for the ping!
If you believe natural law comes into existence through the sole agency of inanimate objects, such as free floating atoms, then you believe not only in animism (objects ability to instruct themselves) but also deny the best predictions of probability theory and information theory.
Amen to your righteous posts, 1001 silverlings.
"It is exceedingly dangerous to confuse the orthodox concept of the incomprehensibility of God with the ultimate mysteriousness of the universe as held by modern thought. Modern thought in general, and modern logic in particular, holds . . . that God is, at most, an aspect of Reality as a whole. Hence, God is himself surrounded by darkness or mystery, just as man is surrounded by darkness or mystery. In other words, modern thought believes in an ultimate irrationalism, while Christianity believes in an ultimate rationality. It is difficult to think of two types of thought that are more radically opposed to one another. It is the most fundamental antithesis conceivable in the field of knowledge. . . . The very foundation of all Christian theology is removed if the concept of the ultimate rationality of God be given up." -- Cornelius Van Til, An Introduction to Systematic Theology, (Phillipsburg, NJ: Presbyterian and Reformed Publishing, 1995), p. 13
"A scientific method not based on the presupposition of the truth of the Christian story is like an effort to string an infinite number of beads, no two of which have holes in them, by means of a string of infinite length, neither end of which can be found." -- The Protestant Doctrine of Scripture (Phillipsburg, NJ: Presbyterian and Reformed Publishing Co., 1968), p. 2.
There have been a few statistical studies which show that those being prayed for *sometimes* ahve a higher statistical likelihood of healing...
Try checking for cases where medical care was given up (medically incurable situation) and then were healed by prayer. They are out there - just look.
It has been enjoyable exchanging ideas with you - mainly because I felt like expressing the ideas. But, it appears as though it is a waste of time to debate someone who has not figured out the spell check option or is too lazy to use it.
Not only false but ridiculous as well.
The scientific method cannot be limited in advance to verifying "the truth of the Christian story" or any other dogma, or it is no longer the scientific method.
These folks are doing apologetics, not science.
"Religion has no place in a science classroom"
No fundamentalist is arguing this.
Ah, but the Discovery Institute is. ID is a stealth attempt to get religion in science classes. They would never admit it in public, but when they're talking amonst themselves the candor is amazing, as evidenced by their own internal documents.
However, like it or not, there is an agenda behind this theory of evolution
That can't go unchallenged. No, there is not. The only "agenda behind this theory of evolution" is the advancement of knowledge.
There is no anti-God agenda, as evidenced by the simple fact that a majority of scientists are Christians, just like the majority of the rest of the United States. The notion is absurd on its face.
it is a concept that is the antithesis of our JudeoChristian culture and our way of life
If you had limited it just to being an "antithesis of our JudeoChristian culture," I would have pointed you to the writings of Pope John Paul II, who declared that it isn't (and who ought to know). But the rest of the sentence intriques me.
How on Earth could scientific knowledge be antithetical to "our way of life"?
"Animism, to which evolutionists obviously subscribe..."
Every primate knows how to peel a banana, even those who do not have bananas in their natural environment. Hand a banana to any adult or older juvenile primate, and it will peel it and eat it...even if it has never seen one before.
Humans are no different.
Say what? It's the *anti*evolutionists who seem to be addicted to posting goofy and incorrect material from the Moonies, parroting the Moonie talking points.
But you can observe and test one, but not the other. That's what science is about...
"I think the Grand Master's gang is onto "Moonie" talking points. They think if they say "Moonie" every other sentence, somehow that's scoring--trying to smear by association."
Well it can be, but that was called the Dark Ages.
To introduce ID in a science class is absurd (I understand the article was not doing this).
Indeed, it is quite *impossible* to prove or disprove the existence of a supernatural creator and it is quite absurd to introduce *any* 'designer' (including a naturalistic non-teleological one) into the classroom purely through axiom and definition. Evos basically insist that they get to have their cake and eat it too... by definition.
Scientists are not honest enough to admit that they merely eliminate any ideology that competes with their personal favorite through the use of the 'naturalistic' axiom and the 'naturalistic explanation only' as acceptable definition.
Unfortunately, such is the state of 'science' today.
"If you believe natural law comes into existence through the sole agency of inanimate objects, such as free floating atoms, then you believe not only in animism (objects ability to instruct themselves) but also deny the best predictions of probability theory and information theory."
Evos basically insist that they get to have their cake and eat it too... by definition.
It isn't the fault of scientists that words mean things.
""A scientific method not based on the presupposition of the truth of the Christian story is like an effort to string an infinite number of beads, no two of which have holes in them, by means of a string of infinite length, neither end of which can be found." -- The Protestant Doctrine of Scripture (Phillipsburg, NJ: Presbyterian and Reformed Publishing Co., 1968), p. 2.
"Are you a moonie?" Again, "Are you a moonie?" from the newest evo persona, following with some inquisitorial demands and boorish questions. Tell Grand Master that he needs a new bag to carry.
If someone was defending the journalistic integrity of The Daily Worker, wouldn't it be reasonable to ask if that person was a communist?
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.