The Unraveling of Scientific Materialism

First Things ^ | Phillip E. Johnson

[Hajman]

Wolf -> German Shepard -> yappy little lapdog -> St. Bernard. No genetic engineering, or even especially unntural breeding required, yet substantial morphological change, plus a change in species (wolf to dog). So far no speciation within dog, which is hardly surprising considering that inter-breed breedign is done all the time.

Micro Evolution. Aleration in existing structures to variations of those structures within the bounds of the pre-existing information for those structures. And this proves Macro Evolution...how? This hardly proves that humans started out as pond bacteria.

-The Hajman-

[gjenkins]

"One can reasonably deduce certain interpretations and STICK to that in the face of rather ridiculous claims to the contrary."

Not at the expense of sweeping inconsistencies under the rug, one can't. We do not know the answer to this question. As much as I do not like the creationist's desire to tell me what the creator has in mind, I also do not like the materialist's desire to explain away human consciousness (soul?) using his latest Lego set.

[Kyrie]

You'll always demand absolute proof from science, and accept without any proof anything in the Bible.

If you could tell so much about me from the little you've read on FR, it's no wonder you think you can see "massive amounts of evidence" for whatever you have decided must be true. Let's examine some more evidence...

I have never seen what I would call "absolute proof" for conservation of momentum, but I believe in it. Nor have I ever seen "absolute proof" for the thermonuclear source of sunlight, but I don't dispute it--even with the missing neutrinos. In fact, we know that it is impossible to prove that any humanly comprehensible axiom system for arithmetic is logically consistent, but I believe that Peano's axioms are consistent. I even believe--since it also cannot be proven--that the Zermelo-Fraenkel axiomatization of Set Theory is consistent. I believe in the Axiom of Choice, even though it requires me to accept the Banach-Tarski paradox. On the other hand, since I believe in the consistency of ZF, I must also believe in the consistency of ZF plus the Axiom of Constructibility. I do believe in its consistency, but I don't believe it is true. How about you?

But as a good evolutionist, you are free to ignore any and all contradictory evidence and continue to spout your lies about me.

I'm quite happy to go by best available evidence. Religion just doesn't happen to measure up in that criteria.

But are you, or are you not, evaluating all the evidence (good, better, best) on the basis of an a priori assumption of materialism as Lewontin says? If so, it would only be expected that (theistic) religion would not fare well by your criteria.

More remarkable is your reluctance to admit your own religion (atheistic? materialistic?), and its unavoidable effect on your interpretation of evidence.

[RightWhale]

Lewontin and Sagan attributed the vote to the audience’s prejudice in favor of creationism

If I had been there I would have voted against whatever Sagan was defending. Sagan had a small view of mankind's potential. It's no way to live.

[denydenydeny]

I'll keep this in mind when I next hear someone babbling on about "breeds" of dogs such as the legendary Mastiff and the mythical Chihuahua. Such morphological changes, being completely undemonstrated, must therefore be a lie by Big Darwinism.

But of course dog breeding is unnatural selection. It is the product of the deliberate, intelligent design of dog breeders. It is of no assistance to Darwinism at all.

[FastCoyote]

The evolution versus creation debate is so meaningless--> you are both right. Nothing could happen if evolution did not occur. On the other hand, evolutionary processes imply nothing about the existence or absence of God. My own view is that evolution IS God, the thoughtful changing of the universe to higher forms is God's thought process on display. How hard is this to figure out?

[Hajman]

The point is that change can be spontaneous, and is obvious to see. the evolution of the eye, while remarkable, is not miraculous. A flatworms photosensitive eyespots are neither eyes nor entirely new structures. But they are a link.

They also already exist. Just about anything can be taken as an intermediate of two other things. It's not conclusive, though it makes for an interesting theory. Can an organism with no information or structure for such be observed to gain such through observable time? If no, then it remains a theory.

-The Hajman-

[185JHP]

Thanks for blasting some nastiness into smithereens. And you did it with style AND substance. You're right - Gould made up the new hoax - p.e. - because he saw how the old hoax was being exposed. It's great for you and the other truth-tellers to blast this hoax - 'cause there are "young skulls full of mush" who read these threads, and might be influenced by "psuedoscience spoken fluently." Didn't take you long, either. FReegards

[RightWhale]

How hard is this to figure out?

What is hard to figure out is why the C/E debate is so important to some. I figure the universe was created and we are trying to figure out the way it works. Assuming evolution as one of the mechanisms helps organize things such as naming the animals. You see an animal and say that is an annelid, or that one is an arthropod. It's our job. Just doing our job.

[Hajman]

It also makes for the only theory to fit the facts. nothing else out there coems [sic] close.

Doesn't do much good when the theory is lacking. Though, I don't mind if they admit it's theory. I can work with that. However, it's when they claim it proves Macro Evolution as fact that it goes beyond objectivity.

Yes. Random mutations have been observed to create entirely new structures... most of whom are not only essentially useless, but are "contra-survival." But when you are talking time spans of billions of years, even a one in a billion success is nonetheless a new structure. A photosensitive cell only needs to develop once in order for photosensitive cells to exist.

Then they're not observed. They're infered. Observed being the ability to see it with our own eyes (or instruments) as it's happening.

-The Hajman-

[RaceBannon]

Yes, even a lawyer can explain why evolution is wrong, that is why we know that any thinking person can refute the lies of an evolutionist.

[jlogajan]

even a lawyer can explain why evolution is wrong

Only a lawyer would try to claim evolution is wrong. Lawyers get paid to say the darndest things.

[mugwump62]

you can't explain faith with science... enough said.