Skip to comments.Why do people think Darwinism is a perfect creation? (the unabashed bigotry of staunch Darwinists)
Posted on 02/22/2009 6:59:30 PM PST by SeekAndFind
As an old hand at tangling with Darwinists, I was well aware that a howl of furious protests would greet my item last week describing their curious inability to recognise just how much of the story of evolution Darwin's theory cannot explain, For pointing out that they rely on no more than an unscientific leap of faith to believe that an infinite series of minute variations could bring about all those extraordinary leaps in the evolutionary story, such as the emergence of the eye and countless others, I was derided as "stupid", "idiotic" and "scientifically illiterate". Clearly I was unaware all these riddles had been solved by genetics and the decoding of the human genome.
The trouble is that, as my colleague Dr James Le Fanu has lucidly set out in his admirable new book Why Us? How Science Rediscovered The Mystery Of Ourselves (Harper Press, £18.99), the unravelling of the genome has done nothing of the kind. When mice, men and chimpanzees all turn out to be made of almost identical genetic material, the unknown factor which determines why the same building blocks should give rise to such an astonishing variety of different life-forms leaves the Darwinian thesis as full of holes as ever. To believe that genetics have solved the riddle relies as much on a leap of faith as that Biblical â Creationism' which causes the more fanatical Darwinians to foam at the mouth.
Last Tuesday various eminent figures from the scientific establishment wrote to the Daily Telegraph, prompted by the remarkable finding of a poll published in this newspaper two weeks ago that only 37 percent of those questioned agree that Darwin's explanation for evolution is â beyond reasonable doubt'.
(Excerpt) Read more at telegraph.co.uk ...
If this is Britain, the poll sample must have been saturated with Muslims.
Sarah Palin is the result of very Intelligent Design.
You should have posted this in religion rather than news.
So, what's different? Well, methylation is different (and that controls an awful lot of stuff). Then there's a new finding that you can't just take a nucleus and stuff it into an egg cell from a different species and make it do something. There's some sort of "control" mechanism at work there keeping that from happening. I don't think anyone has the slightest idea what it is yet, but they will.
I will make a prediction ~ it's gonna' be the same with insects. They all have pretty much the same stuff to work with but higher level coding makes them different.
Now, for octopi ~ they are NEW as far as animal classes go. Bet they still have the same deal ~ same genes, different command structure.
Now, another prediction, the "command structure" is actually operated out of micro-tubules somewhere in the cell structure ~ it uses the cell nucleus to "make stuff".
We'll be plugging into a cell operating system and talking to it within ten years!
I'm pretty sure Darwin didn't think of this ~ nor did Crick but he came closer!
Recently, I came to realize that something has to be created before it can evolve.
There's nothing particularly religious about Darwin or surveys or "the Telegraph" ~ it's not published by a church or anything like that (for instance).
Therefore, this article is a religious article.
If there were even a modicum of intelligence among the general population, this would not be news at all.
"As an old hand at tangling with Darwinists, I was well aware that a howl of furious protests would greet my item last week describing their curious inability to recognise just how much of the story of evolution Darwin's theory cannot explain..."
That's because their belief in materialism is irrational.
Are micro-tubules anything like angels?
Could be wrong, but sounds nearly supernatural to me.
What I find silly is that most people who believe in Darwins theory become emotional if a species is placed on the endangered list. Isnt that what survival of the fittest is about? If you cant adapt, youre gone.
There are about 2.5 million direct references to micro-tubules available on the net. I’d suggest you do your own research.
Darwin being wrong does not automatically make ID correct anymore than claiming that a fish can’t ride a bicycle proves the Earth is not flat. This is just simply another case where correlation does not imply causation.
Whoever suggested that this thread be filed under religion was correct.
You have it Wrong way around.
Barry Obama is the Central Casting chosen candidate
Sarah Palin got where she is by Natural Selection
Explain a universe that does not have an intelligent design or pattern? That can’t be done within empirical science. Science (or scientific materialism) cannot explain away intelligent causation or claim to have certain knowledge regarding lack of purpose in the cosmos. The whole thing is based on philosophical errors. A scientific model which claims to explain the biochemical processes or natural history of the evolution of the universe or primates does not answer the question about the meaning or purpose of the universe or human life. So the scientists who make such claims are doing what? Not science. Prehistoric monkey bones do not explain human life or human nature. And that is the claim - that human life can be explained purely in terms of natural processes by scientific materialism. There is no epistemological event which provides sufficient data for such an explanation. It’s just a model.
“Darwinist” is a ludicrous label, designed to be on the same sinister par with “Hitlerite” or “Stalinist”. I’m a proud “Copernican” because I believe the earth orbits the sun, and a “Einsteinist” too, because I accept that E = MC2, and a “Newtonist”, because I believe gravity makes objects fall, not God. I suppose I’m close-minded and thuggish because I don’t think physics classes should be forced to recognize the divine intelligence behind falling objects.
>>>Why do people think Darwinism is a perfect creation?<<<
Talk about your rhetorical straw men. Sheesh.
Science explains the mechanics of the universe, nothing more. Religion explains the meaning of the universe. In fact, the body I’ve received is filled with bad engineering and poor wiring - my back aches, my vision is lousy, my big toe is prone to hangnails. Some foods give me gas. Certainly a designer could have done better work.
My soul is another thing completely, though. I think C.S. Lewis, in response to a question about whether our body had a soul, said something like, “You are a soul. You have a body.”
“Explain a universe that does not have an intelligent design or pattern?”
I have no need to believe anything and will reserve my judgment only after all scientific research has been conducted and concluded or if the almighty himself should in the meantime show up with proof on his own.
Till then I’ll keep an open mind and suggest you do the same.
Scientism does not work very well for explaining original sin either. Back aches, hangnails, and infirmities are covered somewhere between Genesis and Job.
Not the design, but the Fall.
"I have no need to believe anything..."
18 posted on Sunday, February 22, 2009 11:13:55 PM by DoingTheFrenchMistake
Which one of the ontological presuppositions of scientism, atomistic materialism, mechanistic alienation, and the materialistic paradigm are you prepared to dispense "belief" in?
Do you think inert matter causes consciousness? What is the epistemological foundation of that conclusion, logically, empirically, or otherwise?
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.