Evolution Important Question, But Debate Left Us No Wiser

realclearpolitics.com ^ | May 10, 2007 | Kathleen Parker

[Coyoteman]

The fact that it isn't -- and worse, that one is not permitted to have any reservations about it at all, nor to question any of its tenets (lest one be labelled a superstitious, knuckle-dragging troglodyte) -- is very curious to me.

There should be nothing "curious" about this. The primary objections to the scientific theory of evolution are coming from religion, not science. The objections are based on religious belief, not scientific evidence.

What do you expect scientists to do when folks come calling with this type of "science" -- kiss 'em?

[DungeonMaster]

But what about a president who doesn't believe in Darwin? And are Darwin and God mutually exclusive?

Yes

[betty boop]

The primary objections to the scientific theory of evolution are coming from religion, not science. The objections are based on religious belief, not scientific evidence.

Hi Coyoteman!

Darwinist evolutionary theory is based on a mechanistic, deterministic, Newtonian worldview -- everything reduces to bodies in motion and strict causality -- that has been significantly undermined and challenged by discoveries in quantum mechanics. It is a "'science" that is sorely in need of "updating" -- and I say this not as someone speaking "religiously," but as someone who is looking at the scientific aspects of the problem.

Well, FWIW. Good to see you, Coyoteman!

[ahayes]

Jeepers!

That is why I described it earlier as a "reduction": Reductions generally involve important omissions. Darwinist theory, for example, has no theory of the origin of life, does not come to grips with the origin of intelligence or consciousness, assumes randomness (without defining what randomness is or giving evidence for it), has no good account of "irreducible complexity," and does not explain/account for the information-intensive basic structures of life at the level of DNA, nor demonstrate any principle that could account for how the amazingly complex higher biological forms organize and integrate their astronomical number of internal parts -- at the organic, cellular, molecular, atomic, and subatomic levels -- into an organized, dynamic, singular whole that is submitted to a sort of "global governance."

I have often been distressed by the failure of the theory of gravity to account for black hole evaporation, time dilation, the relatively high boiling point of water, and why I can put two socks in the dryer and get one sock back out.

The scientific realm is full of theories that explain one particular realm of the physical world, yet we do not call these worthless since they are not universal.

Moreover, many of your objections are wrong. Evolutionary theory has addressed many of these (I do wish you and other creationists would drop the obsolete label "Darwinist", in the last century and a half we significantly expanded on Darwin's original theory), and some of them are irrelevant.

• "no theory of the origin of life" -- neither does it explain where my socks go, but that's not what it's supposed to do.
• "does not come to grips with the origin of intelligence or consciousness" -- we've been doing a lot of research in this area that was not possible only a few decades ago and our pool of knowledge is vastly expanded.
• "assumes randomness (without defining what randomness is or giving evidence for it)" -- randomness is a mathematical concept, what exactly are you saying that evolutionary theory alleges?
• "has no good account of "irreducible complexity"" -- unfortunately for poor Behe "irreducible complexity" has been pretty much stomped into the ground, sowed with salt, and paved over (see this story, another article will probably come out next week also addressing the evolution of multicomponent systems).
• "does not explain/account for the information-intensive basic structures of life at the level of DNA" -- I'm not sure what you mean here, this either lies outside the purview of evolutionary theory or has been covered by basic chemistry.
• "or demonstrate any principle that could account for how the amazingly complex higher biological forms organize and integrate their astronomical number of internal parts -- at the organic, cellular, molecular, atomic, and subatomic levels -- into an organized, dynamic, singular whole that is submitted to a sort of "global governance."" -- What the heck is a "global governance"? Are we talking about Gaia? Subatomic? At any rate, the above article covers this, so will the one coming out next week.

Plus the Benedictine monk Gregor Mendel -- the "father of genetics" -- was pretty confident that his studies on selective breeding refuted Darwin's theory of natural selection. There are scientists who agree that he did just that.

It is impossible for me to understand how anyone living today could think that Mendelian genetics refute modern evolutoinary theory. This can only be so if the person in question is either completely blinded by bias or utterly ignorant of both Mendelian genetics and evolutionary theory, or both biased and ignorant. Betty! I am aghast! Next you will be telling me that Mendellian genetics prove that meiotic drive cannot exist! There is more in population genetics than was dreamed of in Mendel's science.

[ahayes]

Can you provide a scientific article that concludes that quantum mechanics renders Newtonian and Einsteinian physics useless? Right now it looks like wishful thinking on your part.

[GourmetDan]

"There should be nothing "curious" about this. The primary objections to the scientific theory of evolution are coming from religion, not science. The objections are based on religious belief, not scientific evidence."

As you know, this is because 'science' is based on the philosophy of naturalism. Science requires a 'natural' explanation and has one. No surprise since that is a requirement of the philosophy.

Science will always have a natural answer to every question because it is *required*. Even if nature was supernaturally-created, science is *required* to propose purely natural explanations by its philosophical foundation.

To imply that objections to naturalism must come from naturalists is circular reasoning at its best.

We also need to keep in mind that when coyoteman speaks of 'evidence', he means 'interpretations of evidence', not evidence in the strict sense of observable, repeatable tests. That evidence is the same for everyone but only coyoteman's interpretations (naturalistic) are acceptable.

Objections are unreasonable because those are 'religious belief' while 'naturalist philosophy' is 'scientific', but then we are back to the initial assumption of science again (that of naturalism). It's a nice neat little circle that no naturalist can escape.

[hosepipe]

[ Objections are unreasonable because those are 'religious belief' while 'naturalist philosophy' is 'scientific', but then we are back to the initial assumption of science again (that of naturalism). It's a nice neat little circle that no naturalist can escape. ]

Like a "WHo's on first?" skit... Lou Costello never did "get it".. Abbott just double talked his way around the bases..

[RightWhale]

You can’t believe both God and Darwin

Mutually exclusive? Amazing what our language can produce, including nonsense.

[MEGoody]

I know it’s not polite to tell people that they’re wrong to think the earth is less than 10,000 years old, and it’s even worse to tell their kids, but you’ve got to do it.

I don't believe anyone knows how old the earth really is (but God, of course). Having said that, the belief that it is 10,000 years old is as valid as the belief that it is a billion years old (or whatever the most current guess is).

It’s either tough love or the Republican party is going to be the joke of the 21st century.

Alienate the 'religious right' and the Republican party might not be a 'joke', but they will definitely be out of power.

[RightWhale]

Darwinist evolutionary theory is based on a mechanistic, deterministic, Newtonian worldview

That is incorrect, as you noted. It is supposedly based on random mutation; thermodynamics, quantum mechanics, statistical mechanics. But, that is incorrect, too. Depends who you talk to: if it's Marxists, it is progress toward improvement. That is incorrect, too. It's amusing to watch all the arguments on all sides--all incorrect.

[MEGoody]

I do know that I would never vote for someone who publicly acknowledged belief in Creationism or ID. Electing irrational people is not rational.

Please So you'd rather vote for Hillary than someone who believes in Creationism or ID. The doesn't seem rational.

[ahayes]

Science will always have a natural answer to every question because it is *required*. Even if nature was supernaturally-created, science is *required* to propose purely natural explanations by its philosophical foundation.

If the universe were miraculously created 6000 years ago we would not be able to come up with the models that we have because the evidence would not allow us to draw the conclusions that we have. There is no one who has plausibly explained the evidence from a young universe perspective. It cannot be done.

If we were coming up with:

• every object containing carbon testing to 6000 years old
• all other radiometric methods useless because the levels would be the same in old rocks and contemporary ones
• only a few stars visible, those within 6000 ly, and more appearing over recorded history
• all fossil remains jumbled together (and indeed most remains unfossilized, since 6000 years is awful short to fossilize something properly) instead of laid out in organized strata
• no tremendously thick layers of strata
• genomic evidence leading every which-way and not able to be organized into a phylogeny indicating common descent
• no transitional species, instead of the multiple examples that we have (this always gives me a giggle!)
• genetic evidence leading to a single common ancestor for every "kind", instead of the nonsensical results we come up with giving several original "kinds" of mice (by chromosome count--mutations are inevitably detrimental so a change in chromosome count should inevitably be fatal) and multiple original "kinds" of toads (by antimicrobial peptide class--mutations can't lead to any new information so all classes must have been present in the initial organisms, requiring several ancestral "kinds" of toad), for instance

then you might have a point, but as it is the evidence we have all points towards common ancestry and an ancient universe, most definitely not a recent origin.

I could go on, but time does not allow me.

[ahayes]

That was an excellent example of a false dilemma. Thank you.

[Jeff Gordon]

So you'd rather vote for Hillary than someone who believes in Creationism or ID.

Give me a break.

[Jeff Gordon]

So the real issue is, would you vote for someone who believes in God, or is that too irrational?

No, the real issue for me the ability of our President to think rationally. Belief in any of the forms of creationism is irrational.

[streetpreacher]

This question was important? It was idiotic. Who cares?

[streetpreacher]

You’re certainly working at becoming the joke of this forum.

[streetpreacher]

And there’s nothing Libertarian at all about your mindset.

[streetpreacher]

CL has a pocket sized carbon dating machine that he carries around with him.

[TASMANIANRED]

“Belief in Darwinism” places the argument in terms of faith.

You can only find the Theory of Evolution credible or not credible based on evidence.

If belief in Darwinism came before belief in God this world would be a terrible place.

It would be normal for the strong to prey on the weak, It would be normal for step fathers to murder their new love interest’s children, It would be normal to eliminate the weak, handicapped, deformed and different...

Rape would be normal, incest would be normal,

There would be no medicine, no art, no music, no literature.

Without God individual humans are as expendable as individual gnus..