Fact, Fable, and Darwin (If you haven't read this already, you should!!!)

American Enterprise Magazine ^ | 8/04 | Rodney Stark

[ProudGOP]

Without question, Charles Darwin would be among the most prominent biologists in history even if he hadn't written The Origin of Species in 1859. But he would not have been deified in the campaign to "enlighten" humanity. The battle over evolution is not an example of how heroic scientists have withstood the relentless persecution of religious fanatics. Rather, from the very start it primarily has been an attack on religion by militant atheists who wrap themselves in the mantle of science.

This is eloquent? This is ignorance. Darwin spent no time advocating atheism.

And just where does it say that Darwin was advocating atheism? I don't believe the "militant atheists" mentioned by the article were referring to Darwin himself.

So, your dismissal of the entire article based on the above paragraph is curious.

Also, I noticed that you didn't mention any of the "favorable evidence" that has "exploded in volume". Shall I just take your word for it?

[bondserv]

You haven't been watching, have you?

"...begin to become different species,"

Begin to become different species, or became a different species? Seems to me this is not what you claim. Take another look at what you are tauting.

[bondserv]

Of late your comments bring me a strange joy in reading.

Otherwise, I think this thread probably belongs on the religion forum.

There is a quite confidence to this line, which brings on a slow smile.

[nonsporting]

What the average Creationist thinks the definition of "theory" is, a scientist would call a "hypothesis" not a theory.

I couldn't help but notice from the article that "the great philosopher of science Karl Popper suggested that the standard version of evolution even falls short of being a scientific theory, being instead an untestable tautology". Untestable tautology. He also called it a "metaphysical research programme" (Karl Popper, Unended Quest (Glasgow: Fontana, Collins. 1976), p.151).

[RipSawyer]

"They still have classes in "music theory" too. You going to propose that there is no such thing as "music"."


I heard someone once refer to a political theory, all this political stuff going on must be a bad dream.

[RipSawyer]

" why would He create a process in which He had to sit around for a few billion years while He watched the slime mold turned into humanity? It seems pointless. As God, He can do what He wants, but the slow, ruthless process of evolution to enable "life" to give rise to a species He could relate to, reveal Himself to, and ultimately to redeem, seems a waste of valuable resources."

Do you realize you are making no sense whatsoever? If God is God then he is outside of time and all other limitations. What could a "waste of valuable resources" mean in such a context?

[longshadow]

Worthy of noting this suberterfuge:

"Even when the great philosopher of science Karl Popper suggested that the standard version of evolution even falls short of being a scientific theory, being instead an untestable tautology, he was subjected to public condemnations and much personal abuse."

.... in which the author conspicuously fails to inform his readers that Popper subsequently reversed himself after realizing he was in error. His first opinion about natural selection was based upon what others had told him, not upon his own analysis. Popper's final opinion, which is the only one that counts, was that it DID meet the test of being scientific.

But we mustn't let facts stand in the way of a good anti-Evolution screed.

;-)

[Ichneumon]

I'll point out the "facts and fables" in this pap later tonight, but right now I have to run a few errands. Check back later.

[longshadow]

I couldn't help but notice from the article that "the great philosopher of science Karl Popper suggested that the standard version of evolution even falls short of being a scientific theory, being instead an untestable tautology". Untestable tautology. He also called it a "metaphysical research programme" (Karl Popper, Unended Quest (Glasgow: Fontana, Collins. 1976), p.151).

Popper recanted two years later:

"I mention this problem because I too belong among the culprits. Influenced by what these authorities say, I have in the past described the theory as "almost tautological", and I have tried to explain how the theory of natural selection could be untestable (as is a tautology) and yet of great scientific interest. My solution was that the doctrine of natural selection is a most successful metaphysical research programme. It raises detailed problems in many fields, and it tells us what we would expect of an acceptable solution of these problems."

I still believe that natural selection works this way as a research programme. Nevertheless, I have changed my mind about the testability and logical status of the theory of natural selection; and I am glad to have an opportunity to make a recantation. My recantation may, I hope, contribute a little to the understanding of the status of natural selection.

[emphasis added]

From "Natural Selection and the Emergence of Mind", Dialectica, vol. 32, no. 3-4, 1978, pp. 339-355

[RadioAstronomer]

There is a reason we still call it a theory after all these years.

In science, a theory will ALWAYS remain a theory no matter how much evidence is accumulated.

[Fester Chugabrew]

Darwin spent no time advocating atheism.

The author of this article makes no such assertion.

[RadioAstronomer]

Evolution creates more problems than it solves and it blasphemes God in the doing.

Evolution makes no reference to God at all. And indeed the evidence shows the first few chapters of Genesis got it wring. Relegating the rise of mankind to an accident in nature instead of making it a direct and willful act of God.

Not accident, natural selection.

Theorizing attempts to gloss this over and make it seem acceptable amongst liberals who have more ability to be duped by philosophy than they have faith in God.

Straw Man. There are conservatives that accept the evidence for the scientific theory of evolution.

Evolution has come along like the snake in the garden and has said 'God didn't really say that. He knows that if you do x you'll be as a god yourself...' It makes God's word a lie on it's face and those pretending at Christianity in some part haven't the sense to recognize blasphemy as the same groups largely have surrendered faith in God to philosophy and reason to begin with.

Again evolution could care less what you believe.

[RadioAstronomer]

in this pap later tonight

Codswallop and flapdoodle come to mind as well. :-)

[PatrickHenry]

The genetic engineers changed the gene, not natural selection.

Correct. So what? The point to which I responded, back in post #39, was: "Someone has observed the rise of a new specie [sic] in the lab? Funny, I missed that bit of news."

[My2Cents]

Well, I knew someone would bring this up. I was being somewhat factious in my comments. If God is God, He can do what he darn well pleases -- He can snap His finger and create man out of the dust -- I have no problem with that, because I have no problem with God being God. But the evolutionist insists on trying to figure out how God would use this inefficient means of causing specie after specie to branch out of a root which goes back to some bit of organic goo.

Actually, my point is that the evolutionist twists and turns to try to say that God can fit into their view of origins, and the fact is it's an ackward fit. Why don't they simply admit that their theory is a convenient way to explain origins while giving them the ability to thumb their collective noses at God in the process? That's what Darwin did.