Darwin’s Sad Legacy (evolution invented to give death and suffering a positive explanation?)

AiG ^ | April 14, 2009 | Dr. Tommy Mitchell

[GodGunsGuts]

The common thread throughout Darwin’s life was his continual struggle with the issue of death and suffering. He was never able to reconcile the existence of death, disease, and struggle with the character of a loving God:

I cannot persuade myself that a beneficent and omnipotent God would have designedly created the Ichneumonidae with the express intention of their feeding within the living bodies of Caterpillars, or that a cat should play with mice.[1]

Darwin was unable to understand why a loving Creator God would allow the horrible things he witnessed in nature and everyday life. Animals fed on one another; creatures ripped each other apart; women died in childbirth, etc. The world seemed heartless and cruel. Darwin’s eventual expansion of the concept of evolution seemed to provide a somewhat positive purpose for the suffering and death he could not explain.

Two of Darwin’s biographers went so far as to imply that...

[Glenn]

Fools.

[Filo]

Science, like religion, is absolutely dogmatic. Facts may change and theories may change but philosophical naturalism is always assumed 'a priori'.

Not assumed - proven.

That's correct. The basic premise of evolution is philosophical naturalism. Since that is assumed 'a priori', nothing can ever undermine that assumption.

Exactly. The fact that things are rational, predictable and provable is assumed much like the sum of 2+2 is "assumed."

That's a far cry from attributing that which we don't (or, in some cases, can't) understand to the great ugga bugga in the sky.

Uh oh. You used the 'ilk' word. That automatically makes you 'the winner'. No evolutionist has ever been desperate or irrational enough to fake evidence.

The difference is that if they do they are eventually found out and the results corrected as happened with the Piltdown man hoax.

The biblical hoax hasn't been fixed yet. . .

[Filo]

Wow, that's powerful stuff! You've convinced me.!

I wasn't trying to convince you. You'd have to be convinced to read some books and I'm quite sure that's not gonna happen. . .

[GodGunsGuts]

I know! You would think the Temple of Darwinistic Materialism would realize that their fanciful creation myth is just a sad attempt to put a positive spin on suffering and death. Duh!

[Cedric]

I wasn't trying to convince you.

Ya, I know. You're trying to convince yourself.

[Filo]

Ok, this is the one and only graph in , pray tell, where is the data to back up those data points on Darwood's so-called "Tree of Life"???

There is plenty of other observational data. Not all data is graphical.

Funny thing, dearth of "evidence" aside - Darwin was still right!

And which of those articles that you pictured but clearly didn't read debunked Evolution and "proved" or even supported creationism?

And now that the have discovered that the genome is at least 93% functional (as opposed 97% "junk" as the Evos predicted), that is going to throw all the Evo's phylogenetic trees that supposedly show common ancestry into complete disarray. Indeed, that is one of the reasons the Evos themselves are finally being forced to cut down darwood's tree (just as creationists have been predicting all along). LOL!!!

Which, again, does nothing to disprove Evolution - even with your falsifications.

[Filo]

Ya, I know. You're trying to convince yourself.

No need there. I already know the truth and I also know how to identify those who will never understand it.

[Cedric]

Dearth of "evidence" aside - Darwin was still right!

If I pay for the bumper sticker will you put it on your Volvo?!

[Filo]

If I pay for the bumper sticker will you put it on your Volvo?!

I wouldn't drive a POS like that, but I'll be happy to put it on my Olds (right next to my "Preserve Freedom - Kill Liberals" bumper banner.

Sorry, but no bumper stickers on the 'Vette.

Of course your misrepresentation above is par for the course with 'thumpers.

[GodGunsGuts]

So now you admit that Darwood was faced with a “dearth of evidence” when he dishonestly decided to push forward with his materialist creation myth. If I didn’t know any better I might think you’re starting to make some progress. But then you had to go against your own better judgment and declare that Darwood was “right” anyway. Ok, I’ll bite, give me the top three reasons why you think Darwood was “right”, despite the “dearth” of supporting evidence, and despite the mountain of falsifying evidence to the contrary.

[haroldeveryman]

“It’s called free will.”

This jogged my memory about something I learned in school a long time ago.

One of the main philosophical arguments against the existence of God has to do with the existence of evil. If God is all good and all powerful, then evil would not exist. However, there is evil in the world. Therefore, If there is a God, He is either unwilling, or unable to to prevent it. This negates the Judeo-Christian idea that God is both all good and all powerful. The other possibility is that there is no God.

The counter to this argument is that it is not “analytical”, since what we call “good” and “evil” interact in a complex way. Unless we are talking about mathematically defined quantities, the whole may be more than the sum of its parts. For example, a story with a “bad” tragic ending may be more uplifting or more interesting than than the same story with a “good” happy ending. So the fact that “evil” happened in the story elevated the status of the hero (”Gran Torino”). Or demonstrated the depth of a man’s love for a woman (Romeo and Juliet).

Your “free will” response was interesting. Even a priest would admit that God can’t or doesn’t do things that are logically contradictory (like make a square circle). So if the best of all worlds required men to have “free will” then He would have to allow evil to exist.

[GodGunsGuts]

==Which, again, does nothing to disprove Evolution - even with your falsifications.

So your saying the fact that the creationists and IDers made the correct prediction re: “junk” DNA, and the fact that the Evo’s prediction about the same turned out to be dead wrong, says nothing about the neo-Darwoodian ToE’s power to make accurate predictions?

[GourmetDan]

"Not assumed - proven."

Dude, philosophical naturalism hasn't been proven. It's based on a logical fallacy, which you commit next.

"Exactly. The fact that things are rational, predictable and provable is assumed much like the sum of 2+2 is "assumed.""

Nope. That's you committing the fallacy of equivocation for equating the existence of natural physical laws with philosophical naturalism.

"That's a far cry from attributing that which we don't (or, in some cases, can't) understand to the great ugga bugga in the sky."

As opposed to attributing that we don't (or, in some cases, can't) understand to nothing that is nowhere. You actually think that's an empirical position or are you back to your logical fallacy?

"The difference is that if they do they are eventually found out and the results corrected as happened with the Piltdown man hoax."

'Eventually' being the operative term that permits the fallacy of argument from ignorance to persist. How long will you wait until they 'eventually' figure out that macroevolution won't and can't ever work? Be kinda tough when that happens after you're dead and it's too late to change your mind. I'm sure 'science' will be sorry to have misled you though.

"The biblical hoax hasn't been fixed yet. . ."

The hoax of philosophical naturalism obviously hasn't been fixed yet either. I guess you aren't able to understand that.

Biblical creation is equivalent to philosophical naturalism. Both are philosophical positions that are not empirically provable.

In effect, what you believe is no more empirical than what I believe. The only difference is that I understand that and you don't.

[Filo]

So now you admit that Darwood was faced with a “dearth of evidence” when he dishonestly decided to push forward with his materialist creation myth. If I didn’t know any better I might think you’re starting to make some progress. But then you had to go against your own better judgment and declare that Darwood was “right” anyway. Ok, I’ll bite, give me the top three reasons why you think Darwood was “right”, despite the “dearth” of supporting evidence, and despite the mountain of falsifying evidence to the contrary.

Darwin had much less evidence at the time of Origins than we have now. That is why I said he had a "dearth" of evidence.

Meanwhile it was clearly sufficient evidence for him to reach the correct conclusion about Evolution and the natural processes that exist.

I am not going against any judgment, especially not mine.

I merely oppose the religious nonsense that people like you cling to and spout when confronted with things they refuse to understand.

[GodGunsGuts]

So what evidence do you think Darwood was able to muster for his fanciful creation myth at the time? And what new evidence has been developed since Darwood’s time that makes the neo-Darwoodian TOE any stronger now than the disaster it was in Darwood’s time?

[Filo]

So your saying the fact that the creationists and IDers made the correct prediction re: “junk” DNA

They didn't. They spouted religious dogma which is substantially different from a prediction.

and the fact that the Evo’s prediction about the same turned out to be dead wrong

Which is not the case.

says nothing about the neo-Darwoodian ToE’s power to make accurate predictions?

Exactly.

You are attributing "predictions" and predictive abilities to Evolution which simply don't exist.

Evolution can and will predict that species evolve from other species and this has been proven beyond a shadow of a doubt.

The specifics of that evolution (i.e. which species are ancestors of which others) is not a part of evolutionary theory. It is an offshoot of Evolution in other scientific areas such as biology, comparative anatomy, genetics and so on.

[Filo]

Dude, philosophical naturalism hasn't been proven. It's based on a logical fallacy, which you commit next.

You're playing semantic games. Reality is that the universe is rational and predictable. Evolution is an offshoot of that rational nature via genetics, chemistry, physics, statistics/math and so on.

Nope. That's you committing the fallacy of equivocation for equating the existence of natural physical laws with philosophical naturalism.

Semantic hokum.

As opposed to attributing that we don't (or, in some cases, can't) understand to nothing that is nowhere. You actually think that's an empirical position or are you back to your logical fallacy?

There is no logical fallacy - at least not in my argument.

The "nothing that is nowhere" concept is yours. I am sure there is a rational explanation waiting to be discovered and I am equally sure that it will never be a supernatural being.

'Eventually' being the operative term that permits the fallacy of argument from ignorance to persist. How long will you wait until they 'eventually' figure out that macroevolution won't and can't ever work? Be kinda tough when that happens after you're dead and it's too late to change your mind. I'm sure 'science' will be sorry to have misled you though.

Macroevolution has and does work. It's well documented and fully understood by those who bother to try.

In effect, what you believe is no more empirical than what I believe. The only difference is that I understand that and you don't.

Except that I can prove what I believe with evidence and can further substantiate with any additional evidence we find.

Knowledge only ever serves to erode what you believe in.

[Filo]

So what evidence do you think Darwood was able to muster for his fanciful creation myth at the time? And what new evidence has been developed since Darwood’s time that makes the neo-Darwoodian TOE any stronger now than the disaster it was in Darwood’s time?

That is all well documented from Galapagos to the fossil record, genetic records and more.

You're just playing stupid games now.

[GodGunsGuts]

Evidence from the Galapagos please. Evidence from the fossil record please. Evidence from genetic records please. Or is it suddenly starting to dawn on you that the Evos got butkis.

[Filo]

Evidence from the Galapagos please. Evidence from the fossil record please. Evidence from genetic records please. Or is it suddenly starting to dawn on you that the Evos got butkis.

Seriously, read a book other than the only one you seem to bother with.