Dismantling Darwinism

Decisions Magazine ^ | August 2003 | by Jim Dailey

[goodseedhomeschool (returned)]

save to read later

[Aric2000]

Science tries to find answer through natural laws, that is it's job.

It can not do anything else, therefore, when you are doing science, to say that god did it, is admitting ignorance, but not looking for further answers. It stops all further investigation.

If you want to believe that god did it, please feel free, if it gives you comfort, please feel free, but do not try and claim that it is scientific, because it is not.

God as a causation cannot be used by science, that is just the way of things, and how it should be. God is for the religions, evidence and natural explanations of phenomona are for science.

The 2 are totally different, and have no place together as far as I am concerned.

It's like oil and water, they do not mix, but when you try you get nothing but frustration.

[ThirstyMan]

Can nature do her own creating? I say no.
What do you say?
That's the question Johnson asks.
Can science answer that question? I say no.
What do you say?
Science studies what already exists, so how can it identify where it ultimately came from?
Can ask of science anything we want? Sure, but that doesn't mean it will give us an accurate answer.

[ThirstyMan]

Perhaps you miss my point. I'm not trying to mix up a spiritual potion that eliminates the need for science. In my life science is much respected.

What I'm asking you is if you've considered that science can be misused to answer questions beyond its scope. I noticed you identified "god in the gaps" in your tag line as a source of ignorance. I'd like to suggest that "science in the gaps" is just as ignorant.
You do recognize that as well, don't you?

[Aric2000]

Of course, science has a specific purpose.

Evolution is a specific scientific tool, to try and use it for any moralistic or political goal is insane.

To say that since evolution does not use god as a causation, therefore there is no god is ridiculous.

There is a place for things, and there is NOT a place for things.

Religion is for morals etc, science is NOT.

You are absolutely correct, science has been used for things that it was NEVER meant to be used, and I find that VERY disturbing.

[ThirstyMan]

Thanks.
I appreciate your statements of clarity.
It's getting way past my bedtime and so I must sign off. It's been very nice dialoguing with you.

[Aric2000]

Me too, I am out of here for the night as well, gonna watch the 2 towers, 139 mintues of it, so it will be a late night.

Have a good one.

[Natural Law]

Darwin's Theory only describes the process by which organisms adapt to a changing environment. Darwin was a devout Christian and never proported to have cited the origins of life, only the "Origins of Species". Further he defined species as organism uniquely adapted to an environment.

Please remember that God also created the laws of thermo-dynamics, physics and mathematics that scientists use. Dos didn't just create simple, easy to explain systems and processes. Are you willing to let your piety deny God the full credit he so richly deserves?

[Salman]

Two issues need to be adressed here, one is "Darwinism" as such, and the other is what goes on in the public schools.

Darwinism -- That is to say natural selection. I aver that there is no question that this takes place. Even if one posits a miraculous creation in 3760 BCE, it has been taking place ever since.

My own position is what has been called "old earth creationism" or I would say more precisely "old universe creationism". Taking as a reasonable plausible inference modern theories of geology and cosmology, there is definitely a beginning in time of the universe and later of the earth. I believe that a uniquely self-existent God willed the universe into existence with laws of physics that permitted evolution.

This is "intellegent design" if you like, but not that which has been touted as such.

Darwin himself admitted that he had no theory or hypothesis of the ultimate origin of life. His theory of natural selection (somewhat modified by more recent work) only makes sense once life already exists.

The public schools -- The public schools keep being dumbed down. Even forty years ago (when I went to elementary school) the public schools in New York City were not really teaching evolution. I really learned about the theory of evolution from my father. The public schools are teaching Flintstonism, which is not the same thing.

I believe that the theory of evolution should be taught, even if it turns out not to be true, because it is a part of our cultural heritage, like it or not. I am of the same opinion about the Bible. If you are American of whatever ancestry, the Bible is part of your cultural heritage, whether you believe in it or not. So you should learn it.

So I get to p*ss off everybody.

[Tribune7]

My point is that this issue is over, not quite as far over as the flat earth theory but close.

No, it's not. That's one of th points of the article.

[Junior]

Your average creationist also conflates Darwinism with the Big Bang.

[Tribune7]

Science explains the physical world with facts and figures, and if a scientific theory is disproven, then all well and good.

The point is that one doesn't need to provide a replacement theory to say something isn't right. Debunking -- even without a new explanation -- is still very useful.

[Junior]

It was a fascinating scientifically based show ...

Was it? Or did it just seem "scientifically based?" (lots of "scientific-sounding" words and arguments that sound good at first glance, but don't hold up under real scrutiny). Unfortunately, most Americans, regardless of political stripe, wouldn't recognize real science if it smacked them on the butt and called them "sweetie." That's why there's always some con-man able to get backing for the latest "free energy" device.

[Batrachian]

I never said there is no need for God. I said that the mechanics of speciation are adequately explained by Darwin's theory.

Religion serves to show people how to behave, but does not explain physical processes in the "real world". The theory of evolution should be no more controversial than the Pythagorean theory. They both describe mechanistic processes. Religion serves another purpose.

Where do you think breeds of dogs come from? They evolve through artificial selection. Is it really so preposterous that such a thing can occur randomly in nature?

[Saturnalia]

But what if they put on fake mustaches?
They can be their own evil twins! :O

[Fester Chugabrew]

For some reason darwinism has a latent association with idiocy. You know, like people who kill themselves via stupid behavior. This kind of idiocy will not be easily dismantled, if ever, but it is fitting to see such connotations bestowed upon the "enlightened" elitists of science. There is more wisdom in an infant's first flatulation, yea, more wisdom in a single beer fart, than in the combined decades of pompous, self-satisfied darwinist teaching.

[gore3000]

Darwin never claimed that evolution was the "creative power" of life.

Nevertheless, evolution is taught together with nonsensical materialist origin of life theories. Further, if a Creator who made the first living thing is admitted, then that other living things than the very first one were created can no longer be absolutely denied in the way that evolutionary theory does.

[gore3000]

It's an inherent limitation of science. They can only deal with things that are observable, quantifiable, testable.

Evolution is not observable, quantifiable or testable. For example, no one has ever seen a species transform itself into another more complex species. Also I have yet to see a formula defining evolution so it is not quantifiable. In addition, there is no way to test whether a species has been transformed from another species or whether it has been intelligently designed. So by your very own terms evolution is not science.

[ThirstyMan]

I never said there is no need for God. I said that the mechanics of speciation are adequately explained by Darwin's theory.

It has been stated by those touting Darwinian theory and taught in public schools, that God was not present at the beginning, is not found in the middle nor will he be there in the end. The term they've used to cloak their philosophical intrusion of materialistic thought into science? unguided. That is a horrible conclusion to attribute to science!

This was/is a severe unwarranted extrapolation of "scientific" explanations. When the honest scientific community is alert to this kind of divisive violation and in response delineates clearly the limits of valid scientific deductions, [as has been done on this thread] then the heat generated by these God mocking false prophets who "use" science will be exposed and their negative influence will be dissipated.

My fight is only against this kind of bad science. Too often the philosophy of these false radicals is defended/tolerated for fear of being labeled, or losing ground to the dreaded creationists.

As I read Johnson, I see him trying to carefully provide us with the logic for the honest limits of science, especially for and to the the believing community.

[mitch5501]

"Religion serves to show people how to behave, but does not explain physical processes in the "real world"."

Would the origin of life be a "physical process in the real world"?...and if it is,or rather was,is God then exluded from the debate?

"I never said there is no need for God....

True you didn't...but when you say religion does not explain processes in the real world...what comes across is that God is not a part of the real world.I'm not saying that that is what you mean,just that that is how it comes across.

Take care

mitch