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?
It’s sad what public schooling does to people.
> I suppose Im close-minded and thuggish because I dont think physics classes should be forced to recognize the divine intelligence behind falling objects.
Actually you are close-minded because you fail to ask “why does gravity make the objects fall?”
"The following is a quote from Ernest Haeckel:
not composed of any organs at all, but consist entirely of shapeless, simplehomogeneous matter nothing more than a shapeless, mobile, little lump of mucus or slime, consisting of albuminous combination of carbon.
On the other hand, 21st century technology reveals that although the tiniest bacterial cells are incredibly small, weighing less than 10-12 grams (or 1 picogram), the entire cell is incredibly integrated and each part works as part of a team.
Cell biology illustrates overwhelming evidence of intelligent design; in particular, due to the many irreducibly complex molecular machines. Cells are so tremendously complicated that we are only beginning to understand their internal workings, and indeed many functions within the cell still remain a total mystery.
An analogy sometimes used, is the comparison of a cell to a city. For instance, the workers can be compared to the protein, the powerplant to the mitochondria, the roads to the actin fibres and microtubules, the trucks to the Kinosin and Dynein, the factories to the ribosomes, the library to the nucleic acid, the recycling centre to the Lysosome, the police to the chaperones, and the post office to the golgi apparatus.
As technology increases, science continuously opens black boxes within already opened ones, and as more and more of these are being exposed, the phenomenal complexity of the whole system pushes evolutionary theories to breaking point."
"Actually you are close-minded because you fail to ask why does gravity make the objects fall?
22 posted on Sunday, February 22, 2009 11:44:31 PM by bluejay
You're not supposed to ask questions which raise doubts about scientific materialism. Although clearly Newton was very interested in such things.
The best scientific data indicates that the universe had a beginning. Logic dictates that something cannot create itself. This leads inexorably to a intelligent force beyond the confines of the known physical universe. Call it what you want, but it exists. It HAS to.
Given this fact, what purpose is served by intentionally ignoring, or actively arguing, against it? It is logically impossible and scientifically unsupportable to contend, as Carl Sagan famously did, that “the universe is all there is, and all there ever will be”.
Pressed hard, a Darwinist will relent concerning the origin of life, but the subtle subliminal argument made daily by advocates of Darwin is identical to Sagan’s ignorant assertion. Once this fairy tale is established, it is used to try and shame and intimidate “non believers” into conforming to the assertion that our lives evolved out of nothing, for no reason, and cannot hope for any lasting significance once the universe reaches its heat death.
Should a person ever truly believe this, for what reason would they want to draw another breathe?
The great scientists were great because they questioned convention and sought truth. Einstein recognized the hand of the divine in science. Natural law is no less God’s creation than anything else.
It’s closed-minded and thuggish to pound into a child’s head that they are, without question, apes. Once convinced of that ‘truth’, they’ll not be apt to question anything. ‘Monkey-see, monkey-do’. They’ll buy just about anything they’re taught or shown by self-appointed intellectuals. It’s a force for stagnation and de-humanization rather than enlightenment.
Secular humanism is an oxymoron. Science losing its’ humility and humanity proscribes death. Find me a ‘scientist’ stumping for death, and I’ll show you somebody who has replaced Darwinian theory for religion.
It is astonishing how people will view the same evidence and reach diametrically opposed opinions about it.
The "almost identical genetic material" described above is precisely what Darwin was discussing in suggesting that minute changes in it would have dramatic effects. They do.
Is that any different from thinking that consciousness causes matter?
Isn't either just as much a "miracle"?
A friend was telling us about a book, “I Don’t Have Enough Faith To Be An Athiest”, which sounds interesting. Gets in to creationism, evolution, etc. We’ll be ordering it.
"It is logically impossible and scientifically unsupportable to contend, as Carl Sagan famously did, that the universe is all there is, and all there ever will be. Pressed hard, a Darwinist will relent concerning the origin of life, but the subtle subliminal argument made daily by advocates of Darwin is identical to Sagans ignorant assertion."
25 posted on Sunday, February 22, 2009 11:56:41 PM by ks_shooter
Bingo. It is a metphysical assertion and a priori truth claim of the kind Sagan & Co. protest when made by Christians or theists. There is no empirical event, lab experiment, or observation which could prove this claim, the central proposition of ontological materialism.
The modern physical sciences do not have the epistemological ability to determine with certain knowledge all of the things or beings which exist or the metaphysical structure of reality (such as claimed in obtological materialism either as a presupposition or declared metaphysical doctrine in the case of Sagan). That is ipso facto metaphysical in its very nature. It is unclear whether Professor Sagan understood what he was doing when he made such a claim. Based on other things he said and wrote one might conclude his background in philosophy was quite weak. It's such an obvious mistake.
But the advocates of scientism make these claims and errors all the time. The presupposition of scientific materialism usually just assumes this without reflection or critical examination. There simply is no epistemological foundation or any way to prove the claim that the universe is all there is, and all there ever will be." Once that house of cards falls apart, the rest of the Weltanschauung of scientism gets pretty shaky.
Universe -- All matter and energy, including the earth, the galaxies, and the contents of intergalactic space, regarded as a whole.That is its primary definition, "all there is", and by extension from laws of conservation of matter and energy, "all there ever will be".
It isn't philosophical; it's definitional.
Exactly right. Rhetoric, not serious inquiry and disagreement.
Neat how such complexity evolved from earlier forms, isn’t it? Amazing how long hundreds of millions of years really is, isn’t it? Nearly inconceivable for some people, it’s so far out of our human daily experience.
Huh?! Cephalopods go back all the way to the Cambrian. And if you actually meant "order" instead of "class," then you can go back to the Late Cretaceous, with Palaeoctopus newboldi.
This comment posted on another site says it best :
I think one of the best examples of an honest man seeking the truth is Antony Flew. He was a vehement atheist for something like the last 50 years, convinced until just fairly recently that a God did not exist, that life evolved completely accidentaly, and even at one point, that humans had no free will. In other words, he was a hard-determinist).
But then, by honestly looking at the evidence, he came to the conclusion that a God had to exist (although he is a Deist and does not believe in an afterlife) and that the genetic coding within DNA is prime example of intelligence. He was also inspired by the careful balance of the cosmological constants and natural laws and this sort of thing.
As far as ever becoming a theist, he said he is definitely open to the idea and says you cannot limit an omnipotent Being except for the logically impossible (such as a round square). He says he never knows what may happen. One day he may hear God speak to him, saying, Can you hear me now?
If everybody was this honest, we wouldnt have these angry, raving atheists (not all, but those such as Richard Dawkins) and evolutionists (again, a prime example being Richard Dawkins) screaming at others for doubting their faith.
Notice the discussion of some species dispensing with red blood cells entirely.
I think these critters are sufficiently different from their more primitive ancestors who live in warm surface waters to merit special attention.
He spoke of "changes" not of "identical genetic material".
I think it is a very serious error to impute scientific knowledge to Darwin that he couldn't have had at that time.
Moslems do this to the point of distraction. They find a word in the Koran and then posit various scientific fields on top of it and ultimately credit that development to Mohammad.
Although the results of the survey do seem to suggest people in the UK are not up to modern standards regarding biological sciences, they also suggest in the most powerful way that the people in the UK still have a thriving CLASS SYSTEM.
Traditionally the lower classes there do not need to believe the ideas propounded by the upper classes. Sometimes you'll run into a working class guy who can elaborate on that thought for hours, if not days. Try Hyde Park ~ they show up there quite regularly.
My own thought on the results here are that lower class folks in UK probably should never be surveyed about upper class shibboliths.
That is not religion!
When posters bring religion into such a thread, that doesn't change the nature of the initial categorization ~ for example, you wouldn't be able to change a discussion of totalitarianism as a political structure simply by noting that Joe Stalin had been a seminarian.
I don’t believe that I am putting words in his mouth. Sagan was a self-described, famous atheist. I observed him make this statement on his show “Cosmos”, years ago.
He was tying to make a point concerning the origins of the universe, not simply offering a definition of a word. I think most people have a good enough grasp on what is meant when somebody refers to “the universe” that they don’t need it to be explained to them.
He also made the statement that the universe “exploded into being”. Coming from an individual that assumes a purely materialistic reality, that is one of the most unscientific expressions of faith that I have ever heard.
Sagan may have been a poor philosopher, and can be forgiven his imprecise statements, but that is all the more reason for him to have limited himself to his area of expertise, and to not attempt to leverage his reputation to promote his flawed view of reality.
“Should a person ever truly believe this, for what reason would they want to draw another breathe?”
Because nothing really matters but the moment, nothing.
Oh, you can rail & cry over the past and hope for the future, but the only thing that should concern anyone is the now of life, live there be happy.
“Because nothing really matters but the moment, nothing.”
That is the inescapable logical conclusion of a materialistic world view, and it is a very short walk from there to nihilism. Very few people who profess this believe actually live by it, and those that do are mostly in prison, or dead.
No believe is more destructive to the nobility of man. Love and morality are only an illusion from this perspective.
There is a cognitive dissonance on a grand scale at work here. Many people who ascribe to a materialistic world view, with it’s denial of purpose in the universe, and believe that humans are just grown-up germs, are also driven to “save the planet” and “fight social injustice”.
Do you also post burning crosses in the front yards of black people you don’t agree with?
The Icthus (fish) is a historically sacred symbol to Christians. It was used to secretly communicate their identity as believers to each other so they wouldn’t be tortured and killed by the Roman government.
Maybe the next time some uppity black person you disagree with posts here you can reply with a picture of a noose.
In the case of the atheistic radical Darwinists, it seems to have set in as some sort of adolescent crisis and the monkey bones mythology with its elaborate pictures and graphs seems to provide a sort of secular Illustrated Children's Bible for them. But they do seem to be Freudian sexual anxieties behind the anti-Christian hysteria. The real question is why obsessing on pictures of imaginary prehistoric ape men ( and demanding that others do so) seems to relieve the anxieties for them. You would have to study when the adolescent crisis set in and what series of events led to the fixation on the prehistoric ape men mythology as a solution. Something makes them feel comforted by obsessing on pictures of large, imaginary, prehistoric ape men. It may be a little like the geeks and nerds who turn to comicbooks with images of ultra-muscular superheroes like Superman, Batman, Spiderman, Captain America, and the Flash. Just a little more like the Swamp Thing monster obsessions.
There's always some kid in middle school, usually awkward around girls, who can't stop talking about Bigfoot, Sasquatch, Lizardman, the Wolfman, or various other mythical boogiemen and rural swamp monsters. It seems to be of that type. Then you see a sickly Victorian neurasthenic like Huxley latching on to this with obsessive-compulsive fury. Something psychological -in abnormal psychology - seems to be behind this. Most normal people don't get this hysterical about their hairy monster fantasies. Or it goes away when they finish puberty.
Because it works... silly.
Name calling is the time honored tactic of those who are forced to debate without the benefit of the facts being on their side.