Posted on 02/11/2009 5:26:59 PM PST by GodGunsGuts
There have been thousands of experiments on the ability of selective pressure to effect change in populations. Every time DNA is sequenced it puts the theory of common descent to the test, and every time there is a sequence analysis we see the evidence for evolution. The fossil record tests theories and hypotheses about the history of life every time a new fossil is found.
To say that Darwin's ideas cannot or have not been tested is to deny an immense body of work that has contributed mightily to our understanding of natural processes that go into modern medicine, biological products, and fermentation.
Beer is good.
==In that case, no wonder he’s so impressive!
Haven’t you heard? Darwood’s fanciful creation myth is crumbling. Even the Evos are abandoning ship:
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/02/10/science/10essa.html
I can only respond that God has clearly given His fundamentalist children the gift of sincerity. ;-)
There we go, that’s better- Wasn’t so hard, was it? Your previous statement specifically called out his service- perhaps you didn’t mean his service to this country but we’ll just have to take your word for it I guess
Are we going to decide science questions with a military dick waving contest?
“Beer is good.”
Some of the posters on this thread must be using drugs that I am unfamiliar with.
My advice is stick with the beer.
To put it all at your grade level, he saw only what fit his preconceived notions, and ignored the bountiful evidence to the contrary.
If you have a personal stake in barnacles, please forgive me.
Beer is proof that God loves us and wants us to be happy.
Ben Franklin
“Credit Darwin’s towering genius. No mind ran so freely, so widely or so freshly over the hills and vales of existence. But there’s a limit to how much credit is reasonable. Parking evolution with Charles Darwin overlooks the limits of his time and all subsequent progress.”
The theme of the essay you sourced was that to give one man too much credit was a discredit to the entirety of the field and more recent and previous geniuses who contributed to the field.
Did you not read it all?
Yes, I read the ENTIRE article. And despite all the flowery language, I couldn’t help but notice that they are calling for something that, until modern times, was nothing short of treason. Namely, they are calling for the death of Darwinism. It’s easy to get all caught up in the flowery language...that is, until you realize all those flowers are meant for Darwin’s (long overdue) funeral.
Thanks for the ping!
“Darwin is one of the greats. Newton and Einstein are right up there with him.”
You might as well include Adam Smith. Darwin borrowed his idea of spontaneous order in markets (the invisible hand) and applied it to biology.
Nor was the idea of spontaneous order entirely original with Adam Smith as it was also advanced by the French Physiocrats. Even in biology, the idea of spontaneous order can be found in Malthus prior to Darwin. Malthus bridged economics and biology (growth of food supply vs. growth of population). Evolution was also introduced by Alfred Russel Wallace. In the 20th century, the Austrian school of economics has argued eloquently and forcefully to explain our prosperity in terms of spontaneous order. I think most of our economic problems are due to government’s meddling in spontaneous order. For example, government forced banks to make subprime loans in the name of affordable housing.
Spontaneous order is often found in games. Many football games have close and exciting finishes, despite the fact that neither side wants a close and exciting finish. It’s a byproduct of the system. One hopes that justice is the result of our legal system, even if it may not be objective of either the defense or the prosecuting attorney.
I think the idea of spontaneous order in systems is a brilliant idea. I think it is easy to see it in markets. However envy and resentment of “the rich” prevent many from appreciating how much our prosperity is due to the spontaneous order of free people serving one another in free markets.
I think the spontaneous order of ecosystems is likewise easy to see, for example the numerical relationship between predator and prey. That spontaneous order can give us life and the incredible variety of life we see seems to me to be a vast extrapolation (and wishful thinking) from the data. Darwin wrote a chapter titled “On the Imperfection of the Geological Record.” What was the imperfection that he described? It failed to support his theory.
Ole Ben missed the idea by just a bit as Ps. 104:15 says God gave mortal man wine to make his heart rejoice.
I knew when you shook Darwin’s tree lots of strange stuff would fall out, I just didn’t think it would be so bad on this post.
“How so?”
The “equality of man” is interesting topic.
The Declaration of Independence states “We hold these truths to be self-evident, than Men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, among these are the Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness.” This has been criticized as false. Men are not equally tall, strong, educated, or intelligent. For that matter, the unalienable rights are sometimes denied. The important thing is that we are each made in the image of God.
The alternative title to Darwin's most famous book is “The Preservation of Favored Races in the Struggle for Life.” One of his supporters on FreeRepublic concluded that he was racist though less so than many of his day. I will accept that. I don't think he should be judged by today's standards on racism. Still I don't see anything here that prevents the demeaning of individuals from races that are presumed to be less. If I remember right, Darwin was pretty clear on the merits of the different races in his book the Descent of Man.
Christianity was born in a time of slavery and slavery was an accepted fact for many Christians. Yet Christian principles were at odds with slavery. I think it was Paul who said a Christian slave owner should treat his Christian slave well, as they were brothers in Christ. Hardly perfect from today's "superior" standards. But I think that is the point. Paul was leaning against the winds of his time because of his Christian views. Later, Christians pushed for the abolition of the slave trade, and then the abolition of slavery, due to Christian principles.
Chapter four of Darwin's most famous book is titled “Natural Selection: or the Survival of the Fittest.” I am not aware that Darwin advanced “social Darwinism,” but I don't think he ever opposed it either. A straightforward reading of his theory suggests that the death of the less fit is part of the natural order and it nothing to be opposed. It performs a useful function in strengthening the race and species. Christians especially had this crazy idea of helping the weak and the unfit.
Hitler, no Christian, later tried to use government to improve the human race. Darwin supporters have pointed out that this is artificial selection, not natural selection. Technically correct. Still, it is a logical outgrowth of evolutionary theory. Artificial selection gets quicker results than leaving it up to nature. Socialists, such as Hitler, always want Government to take charge, why not do so with the species itself?
Well said. I kept my comment cryptic hoping that some would think it through on there own.
Happy Birthday Chuckles! In Hell.
:)
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.