Dismantling Darwinism

Neither of these things (speaking of irreducible complexity of living organisms and that living organisms is that they contain complex specific information) can be explained by the Darwinian theory. They don't even try to explain them; all they do is huff and puff and bluff and say, "You're not allowed to challenge our scientific fact."

And it you don't believe this point, just wait a few seconds for Aric's next post.

This dogma is not science at all. None of it has been demonstrated by experiment, which is what would have to happen for it to be truly scientific.

A fact lost on the "evolution is sciece" folks.

Was it? Or did it just seem "scientifically based?"

Well, isn't that equally true of evolution? Evolutionists always just seem to dismiss any argument against evolution or in favor of any other theory as "unscientific" without adressing the issues presented. Perhaps you could address the issues in this movie and explaiin why they are unscientific? Or answer the questions that were presented? It seems to me that people tend to believe what they want to believe, whether there is any "truth" or "facts" behind it or not and whether or not the basic tenets are demonstratable and provable or not.

From Patrick Henry's link; [post#22] "Who Promotes Unlocking the Mystery of Life?"

"In contrast, not a single national scientific organization, such as the National Academy of Sciences or the American Association for the Advancement of Science, recommend the tape. Nor do national science education organizations such as the National Science Teachers Association or the National Association of Biology Teachers.
It is clear from the statements made on these web sites that the motivating factor behind the distribution of Unlocking is evangelism."

OK, I have some free time and feel energized to once again take some time to address this subject.
#1 Essentially the charge here is that because no member of the scientific community has come forward to challenge evolution, the claims of Behe and Johnson are false.
Am I right? If so, is this correct logic? I don't think so. It doesn't prove anything is wrong about their ideas, at least not by anything but guilt by association [or lack thereof].

#2. The Nat'l Ass'n of Biology Teachers [cited in the article] has hardly proven itself to be an unbiased house of true science.
I believe it was the high school biology teachers, working mostly with BS degrees, who were were forced to remove the word "unguided" from their Darwinian thesis...which they only did with much vocal protest and three rounds of voting.

#3. Who suffered wrong for their mis-statement of true science?
It would have been those who felt that there was guidance which was being falsely denied by a group of pseudo-scientific teachers. That's a fact, right? So there are legitimate reasons for creationists to be the ones most likely to take aim at false materialistic dogma attaching itself as Truth to science.

#4. There are legitimate reasons for a scientist to NOT want his name out there associated with creationists or their cause. Right? [some creationists would be downright embarrassing for a scientist to be associated with] And the science person's career advancement would surely suffer.

#5. Since rejoining this "crevo" discussion last night, having personally given it a l-o-n-g rest, I'd like to see the silly antagonism set aside. I know, wishful thinking.
Impugning the other side based soley on credentials or with whom they associate or their motivation for involvement, as this article did, isn't very good science. It is a polemic being demonstrated, not all that helpful for showing seekers where to go.

#6. Attack the ideas instead of the person who is promoting those ideas, or even his motivation. Motives are difficult [ha!] to use as a proof in science...rather irrelevant...especially if one is "right" yet found with supposedly "wrong" motives.

Evolution actually is a scientific theory, in that it meets all the prerequisites for a historical-science theory. One can make predictions using the theory of evolution and then test those predictions, for example.

Truthfully, there are only a handful of people on FR qualified to actually discuss the theory of evolution in the manner befitting the subject (and no, I'm not one of them). However, the "objections" raised by creationists toward evolution have already been put to rest. It surprises me that people who are somewhat ignorant of science (as most Americans are) believe that scientists in the actual fields in question haven't considered and tested for all the objections that might possibly be raised on the subject, and that laymen with only the flimsiest grasp of the actual science involved might "put one over" on folks doing actual research in the field.

#1: Essentially the charge here [that "not a single national scientific organization ... recommend the tape"] is that because no member of the scientific community has come forward to challenge evolution, the claims of Behe and Johnson are false. Am I right?

I wouldn't put it quite that way. But yes, it's possible (just possible, mind you) that the reason no scientific organization recommends the tape is because they know the field, and they don't see any scientific merit to the tape.

#2. The Nat'l Ass'n of Biology Teachers [cited in the article] has hardly proven itself to be an unbiased house of true science.

Well, they teach evolution. I suppose in some circles that makes them suspect.

#3. Who suffered wrong for their mis-statement of true science? [Presumably you're talking about word "unguided" from their Darwinian thesis.] It would have been those who felt that there was guidance which was being falsely denied by a group of pseudo-scientific teachers. That's a fact, right? So there are legitimate reasons for creationists to be the ones most likely to take aim at false materialistic dogma attaching itself as Truth to science.

Evolution is indeed "unguided." If some text had to be altered for political reasons, it's a pity.

#4. There are legitimate reasons for a scientist to NOT want his name out there associated with creationists or their cause. Right?

Right. As there are ligitimate reasons for astronomers to NOT want their names associated with astrology.

#5. Since rejoining this "crevo" discussion last night, having personally given it a l-o-n-g rest, I'd like to see the silly antagonism set aside. I know, wishful thinking. Impugning the other side based soley on credentials or with whom they associate or their motivation for involvement, as this article did, isn't very good science.

Science isn't a contest of credentials. It's all about facts and reasoning. For example: Is Evolution Science?.

#6. Attack the ideas instead of the person who is promoting those ideas, or even his motivation.

Good advice. That's why those who support evolution get especially annoyed when creationists falsely accuse them of advancing an agenda of atheism or socialism.

#1. no "scientific" company doesn't mean they're wrong
PH's response: "...But yes, it's possible (just possible, mind you) that the reason no scientific organization recommends the tape is because they know the field, and they don't see any scientific merit to the tape."

Yes that is possible.
How are new paradigms are formed? They are not often simply embraced. They are tested, heavily resisted, promoted still, in the face of opposition and then, only sometimes accepted.

The insights of a lawyer [Johnson] into philosophical mistakes being made within this discipline are wholly within his realm of expertise.
The insights of a microbiologist [Behe] into the inner developments, i.e., the complexity of a cell and the difficulty envisioning its' evolution, is wholly within his field of study as well.

#3. Who was wronged?
PH's response: "Evolution is indeed 'unguided.' If some text had to be altered for political reasons, it's a pity."

Well for you to state such is to enter over onto the other side's turf with a scientific observation offered as a false proof. Guidance or no guidance? That is a spiritual question.

How are new paradigms are formed? They are not often simply embraced. They are tested, heavily resisted, promoted still, in the face of opposition and then, only sometimes accepted.

Yes. That's why evolution, although originally resisted, is now so widely accepted in the scientific community. And what would be the testing procedure for the "new" paradigm of creationism? Or intelligent design? I think you'll agree that these concepts fail at the threshhold, because they are inherently untestable.

Well for you to state such ["Evolution is indeed 'unguided.'"] is to enter over onto the other side's turf with a scientific observation offered as a false proof. Guidance or no guidance? That is a spiritual question.

Here we must deal with the issue of who has the burden of proof. If someone claims that evolution is guided, it's up to him to produce some evidence for that proposition. I agree that it's a spiritual matter, so no evidence is going to be found. Thus, because science has no evidence for any "guiding spirit" which directs the process of evolution, it is entirely correct for them to leave that concept out of their texts (as it is also omitted from chemistry and physics texts). It is correct, however, for religious texts to state that there is a "guiding spirit" involved, because that is a matter of faith.

PH: "Yes. That's why evolution, although originally resisted, is now so widely accepted in the scientific community"

Evolution is indisputable. It is how a species adapts to the environment. And over time this adaptation can cause a totally different looking creature. We've been there and agreed on that, right?

What we are disputing is material science's drift into theological and philosophical areas, supplying such answers from within scientific observations.

One such derivitive: because you cannot see or measure anything controlling or guiding the end product,[as you have stated such instrumentation does not exist] such an influence does not exist. Fine, such an influence can not be proven OR disproven. Silence then is the proper comment from material scientific observation. Not to be tolerated from "material science" is a statement that such an influence does not exist.

We shouldn't be asking material science to make a definitive philosophical statement.
We are no longer in a discussion on the merits of evolution. We are now asking science to tell us and answer to a bad question, "Does an outside influence exist?" It is just as gross a violation of the bounds of good science for an atheist to say "No, it doesn't" as it is for the Christian to say "Yes, it does". Plain and simple.[and btw I believe that all Christians are creationists]

The most I am willing to accept is a "points to" response from science. That is, science "points to" or "doesn't point to" the need for a Creator. That is why I am willing to entertain the work of Behe as at least "pointing to" the difficulty of making the end product using the mechanism of evolution.

Forcing all explanations to submit to material observation works in its limited scope just fine. But know that we will only reach answers that extend to the farthest limits of science. Limiting the quest to material answers will not ensure that the answer science reaches will be the most accurate explanation possible...if indeed there are and were other influences. In the end our accuracy is only a representation of reality, not adherance to an artificial "scientific method".

As constructed, material science simply ensures its answer will be solely materialistic. And as such, when properly stated, material science will not comment as to the existance or non-existance of any other influence.

That is why the philosophical word "unguided" is not good science.

Guidance is indeed a spiritual question, which is why evolution does NOT and CANNOT use it.

Intelligent Design fails this test with just the title.

Intelligent design? What does that mean? it means guided by something, or someone, it is religious, and to say the least, unprovable. Therefore unscientific.

It is religion, trying to get itself accepted as science.

As I said in another post, I have no problem with the bible or creationism being taught in public schools, as long as it is in a religious studies class, but creationism/ID do NOT belong in a science class, they are NOT scientific.

Evolution IS scientific, and therefore should be taught in a science class.

It should be taught as a scientific theory, NOT as a worldview, it should NOT be taught as an excuse to bash religion, because that is NOT what it is for.

It should be taught as the best scientific theory to explain the available evidence, the evidence should be explained in detail, and it's conclusions etc, but no morality or any other religous concept should be allowed to get involved within the teaching of it. It is science NOTHING more, it is a scientific tool, NOTHING more. If evolution is scientifically disproven tomorrow, it will NOT effect ANYONES worldview in the least, or shouldn't.

If it is taught to be otherwise, the science teacher should be fired and a true science teacher without an agenda should be brought in.

What we are disputing is material science's drift into theological and philosophical areas, supplying such answers from within scientific observations.

Silence is the position of science on such matters. At least I think it's the proper position. The existence (or non-existence) of the spirit world is something that can't be tested, so it's an unscientific concept. If some scientist ventures into the realm of theology and starts sounding off, he's just giving his personal opinions. That's something he's free to do, but it's not part of his science.

Well, if a process, as described by science (whether chemistry, evolution, or whatever), appears to work as described by the theory, there's not much more to say. The presence of a "guiding spiritual force," is not only a non-scientific concept, it's also not needed for the sufficiency of the theory of evolution. Whatever spiritual comfort may be had by assigning a spiritual cause, such a cause would be unverifiable surplusage in science. Surely, if the theory accounts for the phenomena it purports to explain, it is permissible to say so.

I like what you've said. I was responding to Patrick Henry's idea that "unguided" is a valid evolutionary word.
The inclusion of that word has been addressed already by Alvin Plantinga and his challenge of the NABT's statement on evolution. He urged them to remove it and they did, rightfully so.
Now to your specifics on ID, you write:
"Guidance is indeed a spiritual question, which is why evolution does NOT and CANNOT use it.
Intelligent Design fails this test with just the title.
Intelligent design? What does that mean? it means guided by something, or someone, it is religious, and to say the least, unprovable. Therefore unscientific."

Can't say I disagree with you. The door swings both ways doesn't it?
I'll only go so far with such information...as I stated. The complexity "points to" a need and the inadequate explanations of material science, at least in my mind as a believer.

That is a spiritual, philosophical conclusion by me. I won't try to hide that. I believe that the glory of God is revealed in the beauty of His creation. I don't need science to supply me this affirmation however. I just don't want science used to make statements denying it.

Here is the first line from the _Decision_ article posted:
"Generations of American schoolchildren have been taught that Darwin's theory of evolution is the explanation for the origin of life"

According to our discussions these last 14 hours or so Patrick, both you and Aric also believe that to teach such to school children is a misconstruction of good science and a misrepresentation of Darwin's theory.
Patrick, I think I recall you saying that to use evolution as a platform to venture into origins of life is very unwarranted. And Aric has said that anyone who uses science to provide a worldview is mistaken as well.

You know we all aren't that far apart, IF I have understood you both correctly. Ha! We'll see.

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.