Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Darwinism the root of the culture of death: expert
LifeSiteNews ^ | 2/17/12 | Kathleen Gilbert

Posted on 02/17/2012 4:17:50 PM PST by wagglebee

WASHINGTON, February 17, 2012 (LifeSiteNews.com) - What do Planned Parenthood founder Margaret Sanger, “father of the sexual revolution” Alfred Kinsey, Lenin, and Hitler have in common?

All these pioneers of what some call the culture of death rooted their beliefs and actions in Darwinism - a little-known fact that one conservative leader says shouldn’t be ignored.

Hugh Owen of the Kolbe Center for the Study of Creation told an audience on Capitol Hill before the March for Life last month that the philosophical consequences of Darwinism has “totally destroyed many parts of our society.”

Owen pointed to Dr. Josef Mengele, who infamously experimented on Jews during the Holocaust, Hitler himself, and other Nazi leaders as devotees of Darwinism who saw Nazism and the extermination of peoples as nothing more than a way “to advance evolution.” Darwinism was also the “foundation” of Communist ideology in Russia through Vladimir Lenin, said Owen, who showed a photograph of the only decorative item found on Lenin’s desk: an ape sitting on a pile of books, including Darwin’s “Origin of Species,” and looking at a skull.

“Lenin sat at this desk and looked at this sculpture as he authorized the murder of millions of his fellow countrymen, because they stood in the way of evolutionary progress,” Owen said. He also said accounts from communist China report that the first lesson used by the new regime to indoctrinate religious Chinese citizens was “always the same: Darwin.”

In America, the fruit of Darwinism simply took the form of eugenics, the belief that the human race could be improved by controlling the breeding of a population.

Owen said that Planned Parenthood founder Margaret Sanger, a prominent eugenicist, promoted contraception on the principles of evolution. “She saw contraception as the sacrament of evolution, because with contraception we get rid of the less fit and we allow only the fit to breed,” he said. Sanger is well-known to have supported the spread of “birth control,” a term she coined, as “the process of weeding out the unfit.”

Alfred Kinsey, whose “experiments” in pedophilia, sadomasochism, and homosexuality opened wide the doors to sexual anarchy in the 20th century, also concluded from Darwinist principles that sexual deviations in humans were no more inappropriate than those found in the animal kingdom. Before beginning his sexual experiments, Kinsey, also a eugenicist, was a zoologist and author of a prominent biology textboook that promoted evolution.

Owen, a Roman Catholic, strongly rejected the notion that Christianity and the Biblical creation account could be reconciled with Darwinism. He recounted the story of his own father, who he said was brought up a devout Christian before losing his faith when exposed to Darwinism in college. He was to become the first ever Secretary General of the International Planned Parenthood Federation.

“The trajectory that led from Leeds and Manchester University to becoming Secretary General of one of the most evil organizations that’s ever existed on the face of the earth started with evolution,” said Owen.


TOPICS:
KEYWORDS: abortion; communism; cultureofdeath; darwinism; deatheaters; eugenics; fascism; gagdadbob; lifehate; moralabsolutes; onecosmosblog; prolife
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-50 ... 501-550551-600601-650651-669 next last
To: exDemMom; Alamo-Girl; betty boop; YHAOS

” Dr. Soyfer, a former Soviet scientist who had met Lysenko, documents the destruction of science and scientists “

Spirited: Of course they did. But just as Richard Dawkins, Lewontin, and all such fools who pretend to discover something about mankind by studying slimemold colonies seek not truth and reality but rather personal power through propagation of “second realities” so was this the case with scientific Marxist socialists.

There are some scientists who do not confuse their field of endeavor with philosophy and religion but many more who do. Of this last group are all metaphysicians (i.e. Dawkins) who falsely claim that evolutionism is a fact.

At bottom, the real purpose behind naturalism is keeping God the Father out while the real purpose behind evolutionism is the reconciliation of opposites. Death (matter) with life. Slimemold with consciousness. Man with God.

This is the very particular science of magic.


551 posted on 03/17/2012 2:27:48 AM PDT by spirited irish
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 548 | View Replies]

To: wagglebee
What the Darwinists consistently avoid is the FACT that at some point there HAD TO BE a Creator, even if that Creator did nothing more than "get the ball rolling."

*sigh*

There is no religion of "Darwinism." Ditto for the imaginary religions of "Scientism", "Materialism", "Naturalism", or whatever "-ism" you want to attribute to scientists. Science is an academic pursuit. It is not a religion, nor are we scientists its worshippers.

552 posted on 03/17/2012 4:44:22 AM PDT by exDemMom (Now that I've finally accepted that I'm living a bad hair life, I'm more at peace with the world.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 536 | View Replies]

To: YHAOS
I am truly astonished to discover that you apparently hold no one to be of account who is found in a philosophy department (or in a encyclopedia of philosophy?). Really?! Scientists are held to be of no account if they are associated with Philosophy?

I did a quick check on a few names in my Oxford Companion to Philosophy (new edition). Just a few. Imagine what I found:
Niels Bohr - Danish physicist who made fundamental contributions to understanding atomic structure and quantum mechanics.
Nicolaus Copernicus - the first astronomer to formulate a scientifically-based heliocentric cosmology that displaced the Earth from the center of the universe.
René Descartes - philosopher, mathematician, scientist, and writer.
Albert Einstein - theoretical physicist - widely considered one of the greatest physicists of all time.
Galileo Galilei - Italian physicist, mathematician, astronomer, and philosopher.
Sir Isaac Newton - an English mathematician, physicist, astronomer, alchemist, and natural philosopher.
Max Planck - discoverer of quantum physics.
Aristotle - Greek philosopher and scientist.

Apparently, none of these worthies fit your definition of “influential or well-known among scientists.”

Their inclusion in an encyclopedia of philosophy does not make them philosophers. Most of the names on that list were scientists who used the scientific method--observation, logical deduction, formulation of testable hypotheses, experimentation, etc. Perhaps some of them engaged in philosophical thought meandering as a hobby, I don't know.

The only exceptions on that list would be Descartes and Aristotle. Descartes may have had some training in logical thought, but whatever contributions he may have made to mathematics and science (I don't know what they supposedly are) are obscured by his diving head first into the existentialist nonsense world of philosophy. Cogito ergo sum doesn't even come close to being a scientific concept. I don't know what Aristotle is remembered for (genuine scientific contribution, or philosophical nonsense) and I can't look him up because my internet is buggy.

553 posted on 03/17/2012 5:23:07 AM PDT by exDemMom (Now that I've finally accepted that I'm living a bad hair life, I'm more at peace with the world.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 518 | View Replies]

To: Alamo-Girl
Also, I'd like to clear up some confusion over the terms I have been using which evidently have resulted in your claiming a "false dichotomy."

I've been comparing the discipline of historical sciences (e.g. anthropology, Egyptology, archeology and evolution biology) to hard sciences (e.g. physics and chemistry.)

The use of the term "historical sciences" is, as far as I can tell, meant to denigrate the pursuit of knowledge where a body of evidence was formed in the past. To my knowledge, real scientists do not use this terminology.

There *is* a demarcation between observation and controlled experimentation; there isn't a single discipline you mentioned above that doesn't use both methods. Both are hypothesis-driven; both rely on logical deduction.

Moreover, I'm focusing on the philosophical divide between them. To the historical sciences, the absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. To the hard sciences, the absence of evidence is evidence of absence.

There is no philosophical divide to speak of. Of necessity, the scientific method is driven by the nature of the problem being studied, but because one approach is better suited than another approach does not mean that the other approach is invalid. Furthermore, we are constrained by evidence: without evidence, there is nothing to test or observe. To try to infer the existence of something in the absence of all evidence regarding said existence is not science.

The divide is so great, the historical sciences are often seen as inferior to the hard sciences. Physics, for instance, is often seen as far more rigorous and reliable than archeology.

Again, what divide? And physics is seen by whom as being more rigorous and reliable than archeology? Many branches of physics are based purely on observation (any kind of astrophysics, for example), while archeology is based on examination of physical evidence--to me, archeology with its measurements and biochemical analyses seems a bit more reliable than inferences made about the nature of radiowave emitters located millions of lightyears away.

Personally, I value physics far above any other science discipline and mathematics above physics.

All sciences are fundamentally physics. Mathematics, to a large extent, was invented to conceptualize physical phenomena.

As an aside, just about every life process conforms to a logarithmic model. Evolution, our physical senses, bacterial growth, population growth, response to pharmaceuticals, etc., can all be explained by logarithmic functions. *I* find that pretty fascinating.

When examining methodology, the opposite of "historical" science is "experimental" science and chief among the "experimental" sciences are the "hard" sciences, e.g. physics and chemistry.

The article I linked for you earlier examines methodological and epistemic differences between historical sciences and experimental sciences.

The author of that article was not a scientist, and was (like Popper) attempting to explain the scientific method from an outsider's point of view. Her use of the term "historical" in conjunction with science is unfortunate and inaccurate. She came close to, but did not quite grasp, that the methodologies she should have been discussing are "observational" vs. "controlled experimental." That said, she did not say that "historical" (i.e. observational) is less reliable than controlled experimental. It most certainly has its place within the realm of scientific investigation.

Biology has a leg in both methodologies; many of its hypotheses are "historical" (e.g. evolution biology and astrobiology) but not all (e.g. molecular biology.)

To reiterate, most scientific disciplines have both observational and controlled experimental components. It is difficult to think of any scientific discipline that does not incorporate elements of both methodologies. I should point out, however, that "astrobiology" barely qualifies as a scientific discipline. At such time as we find evidence of extraterrestrial life, then astrobiology will become valid. Until then, so-called astrobiologists are merely taking their knowledge of life-supporting conditions on earth and extrapolating it to other planets. I would say that with n=1 of known life-supporting planets, we have no hypothetical basis on which to extrapolate whether life exists on other planets, because we have no idea what other forms life might take, or the chemistries it might use.

I will also add, that while you try to relegate evolution biology to having no more basis than examination of fossils (that literal creationists either deny exist, or insist are actually only a few thousand years old despite the scientific measurements indicating otherwise), when I go into the lab and do certain types of experiments, I have to control for evolutionary processes just as much as for any other factor. I grow human cells. They evolve. I have a few weeks in which to conduct experimental manipulations before they evolve to the point where I can no longer be sure that I am looking at results from the same experiment that I started. After about 20 generations, or 6-10 weeks, I throw the cells away and start with a new batch. That is not a "historical" observation, it is an experimental reality.

But to whatever extent a hypothesis presupposes that the absence of evidence is not evidence of absence, it is a "just so" story - inferior to my eyes and the eyes of many others.

Again, scientists cannot test what isn't there. If you have a way to test, examine, or quantitate something of which there is no evidence, please share it.

554 posted on 03/17/2012 7:08:49 AM PDT by exDemMom (Now that I've finally accepted that I'm living a bad hair life, I'm more at peace with the world.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 529 | View Replies]

To: spirited irish
Spirited: Of course they did. But just as Richard Dawkins, Lewontin, and all such fools who pretend to discover something about mankind by studying slimemold colonies seek not truth and reality but rather personal power through propagation of “second realities” so was this the case with scientific Marxist socialists.

I do not know that Dawkins is a slimemold researcher. People who research slimemolds (fascinating organisms, btw) are not doing so because they're trying to discern any metaphysical components of what it means to be human, but because knowing the biology of simpler organisms informs us about the biology of more complex organisms.

Anyway, Dawkins and other atheists make a big mistake when they try to use science as evidentiary proof of atheism. Scientists can no more prove than disprove the existence of God.

There are some scientists who do not confuse their field of endeavor with philosophy and religion but many more who do. Of this last group are all metaphysicians (i.e. Dawkins) who falsely claim that evolutionism is a fact.

For the nteenth time, "evolutionism" is not a religion. No matter how many times you or any literal creationist try to make it one, it is not. Shall I once again link to the explanations of what a theory is, and what it does? Evolution, as a theory, works very well, as can be seen by the remarkable advances in the biological and medical sciences which wouldn't have been possible without that theoretical framework.

Unless you have arbitrarily decided that God cannot possibly exist if the book of Genesis is not a literal account, there is nothing intrinsic to the theory of evolution that excludes the existence of God. Nothing!

At bottom, the real purpose behind naturalism is keeping God the Father out while the real purpose behind evolutionism is the reconciliation of opposites. Death (matter) with life. Slimemold with consciousness. Man with God.

This is the very particular science of magic.

At bottom, the real purpose behind creationism is to convince people that science is just another religion, so as to discredit it as being an inferior religion. But science is only a method of describing the physical universe, which simply cannot be used to examine non-physical topics.

Put it this way:

Richard Dawkins says that the fact that the process of evolution occurs by well-defined chemical and physical mechanisms is proof positive that there is no God.

I say that the fact that the physical and chemical processes driving evolution resulted in sapient and sentient species despite the logic that would seem to indicate that awareness is not a property of physical matter is proof positive that God exists.

Which of us is correct? Who has the evidence on their side? Honestly, I would say neither.

555 posted on 03/17/2012 8:21:42 AM PDT by exDemMom (Now that I've finally accepted that I'm living a bad hair life, I'm more at peace with the world.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 551 | View Replies]

To: exDemMom; Alamo-Girl
"Again, scientists cannot test what isn't there. If you have a way to test, examine, or quantitate something of which there is no evidence, please share it."

Do you see how easily you fell into logical fallacy here? You went from 'cannot test what isn't there' to 'test, examine, or quantitate something of which there is no evidence'. Very smooth move there. Very smooth.

The assumed events known as the Big Bang, long-ages, abiogenesis and macroevolution are clearly untestable and may or may not exist. By slipping in the requirement for 'no evidence' you have moved from science to interpretation and philosophy. This allows you to claim that 'evidence' (no matter how flimsy) for these assumed events exists that allows you to 'quantitate' them.

In reality, you are not 'quantitating', you are extrapolating and that act assumes that extrapolation is not only possible but appropriate; something that you must assume and cannot know. This is not science, no matter how often you claim that it is. It is philosophy.

556 posted on 03/17/2012 8:35:15 AM PDT by GourmetDan (Eccl 10:2 - The heart of the wise inclines to the right, but the heart of the fool to the left.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 554 | View Replies]

To: exDemMom; spirited irish
"Evolution, as a theory, works very well, as can be seen by the remarkable advances in the biological and medical sciences which wouldn't have been possible without that theoretical framework."

What remarkable advance could not have been made without belief in evolution?

"But science is only a method of describing the physical universe, which simply cannot be used to examine non-physical topics."

Evolution is just such a non-physical topic. It is a philosophical belief, unobservable and untestable. Evolutionary 'theories' such as punctuated equilibrium actually predict that evidence to support them cannot be found.

This is clearly philosophical no matter how many times you claim that it is not.

557 posted on 03/17/2012 8:42:20 AM PDT by GourmetDan (Eccl 10:2 - The heart of the wise inclines to the right, but the heart of the fool to the left.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 555 | View Replies]

To: exDemMom; spirited irish
"I say that the fact that the physical and chemical processes driving evolution resulted in sapient and sentient species despite the logic that would seem to indicate that awareness is not a property of physical matter is proof positive that God exists."

You may believe that 'evolution resulted in sapient and sentient species' as a philosophical position but it is scientifically impossible to claim that it is a fact. Real scientists know that and would never make that claim.

558 posted on 03/17/2012 8:47:43 AM PDT by GourmetDan (Eccl 10:2 - The heart of the wise inclines to the right, but the heart of the fool to the left.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 555 | View Replies]

To: GourmetDan
Do you see how easily you fell into logical fallacy here? You went from 'cannot test what isn't there' to 'test, examine, or quantitate something of which there is no evidence'. Very smooth move there. Very smooth.

Wow, I don't even want to try to wrap my brain around that one. How you can assume that something is present despite no evidence of it is beyond me. By that (lack of) logic, I must assume that the lack of evidence of an elephant being in this room does not indicate that there really is no elephant here. Wow.

The assumed events known as the Big Bang, long-ages, abiogenesis and macroevolution are clearly untestable and may or may not exist. By slipping in the requirement for 'no evidence' you have moved from science to interpretation and philosophy. This allows you to claim that 'evidence' (no matter how flimsy) for these assumed events exists that allows you to 'quantitate' them.

I'm not a physicist, so I won't address the evidence that led to the big bang theory. I'm not sure what you mean by "abiogenesis", unless you mean the hypothesis that living creatures can arise from non-living matter. That hypothesis is only taught as a matter of history in science classes, in order to demonstrate how the scientific method was used to show that it was a false hypothesis that was correctly rejected. And simply rejecting the huge body of evidence supporting "macro" evolution because you think that evolution is proof-positive that God does not exist and you don't want to believe that God doesn't exist is not a valid argument. If you want to address the actual evidence, and you can offer a scientifically-sound, hypothesis-driven alternate theory, by all means, feel free to do so. This may take you a few years...

I should also point out that just because a science is primarily observation based, and not controlled-experiment based, does not make the science invalid. I already discussed this.

In reality, you are not 'quantitating', you are extrapolating and that act assumes that extrapolation is not only possible but appropriate; something that you must assume and cannot know. This is not science, no matter how often you claim that it is. It is philosophy.

Here, I have not quantitated anything. I generally save the quantitating for when I'm in the lab gathering data. As far as extrapolating goes, that is a perfectly valid method of advancing science. In order to extrapolate, one must make certain assumptions which one believes are supported by the data. Those assumptions can be tested. If what one has extrapolated then turns out to not be the case, then one must revisit the assumptions and data. This is an iterative process, familiar to most, if not all, scientists.

559 posted on 03/17/2012 10:51:01 AM PDT by exDemMom (Now that I've finally accepted that I'm living a bad hair life, I'm more at peace with the world.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 556 | View Replies]

To: GourmetDan
You may believe that 'evolution resulted in sapient and sentient species' as a philosophical position but it is scientifically impossible to claim that it is a fact. Real scientists know that and would never make that claim.

Starting with the fact that I'm a real scientist, and I did make that claim, as I believe most real scientists that I know would also claim, that rather shows your last statement was disproved before you even typed it.

You may choose to believe that sapient and sentient species do not exist. I, however, believe otherwise. I take their apparent existence as being sufficient proof that they do indeed exist. As I've said, I really don't get into all of that existentialist nonsense aka philosophy.

560 posted on 03/17/2012 11:00:33 AM PDT by exDemMom (Now that I've finally accepted that I'm living a bad hair life, I'm more at peace with the world.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 558 | View Replies]

To: exDemMom
"How you can assume that something is present despite no evidence of it is beyond me."

No, the point was that you claim to be able to 'test' something that may not be there because you claim to be able to 'quantitate' from 'evidence' when what you are really doing is extrapolating based on a philosophy.

"And simply rejecting the huge body of evidence supporting "macro" evolution because you think that evolution is proof-positive that God does not exist and you don't want to believe that God doesn't exist is not a valid argument."

So now you claim to know that I "think that evolution is proof-positive that God does not exist and you don't want to believe that God doesn't exist is not a valid argument." Not even an original strawman but entirely fallacious nonetheless.

"If you want to address the actual evidence, and you can offer a scientifically-sound, hypothesis-driven alternate theory, by all means, feel free to do so."

Again... the 'evidence' is simply philosophy masquerading as 'science'.

"I should also point out that just because a science is primarily observation based, and not controlled-experiment based, does not make the science invalid. I already discussed this."

And I already pointed out that extrapolating observations into unobservable, assumed events is not science but philosophy.

"As far as extrapolating goes, that is a perfectly valid method of advancing science. In order to extrapolate, one must make certain assumptions which one believes are supported by the data. Those assumptions can be tested."

So how does one test extrapolations made back into unobserved time and unobservable assumed events?

561 posted on 03/17/2012 11:08:34 AM PDT by GourmetDan (Eccl 10:2 - The heart of the wise inclines to the right, but the heart of the fool to the left.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 559 | View Replies]

To: exDemMom
"Starting with the fact that I'm a real scientist, and I did make that claim, as I believe most real scientists that I know would also claim, that rather shows your last statement was disproved before you even typed it."

Can you not see that you simply 'begged the question' as to whether you and your stated belief that 'most real scientists you know' (fallacy of appeal to popular opinion noted) are, in fact, real scientists? A scientist relies on observation and testing. There is simply no way to scientifically observe and test the claim that 'evolution resultd in sapient and sentient species'. You pile fallacy on top of fallacy on top of fallacy and claim it is 'science'. It is not. That is purely a philosophical position, not a scientific one.

"You may choose to believe that sapient and sentient species do not exist."

Another strawman fallacy where you try to imply what I may believe. As I said, fallacy on top of fallacy on top of fallacy.

"As I've said, I really don't get into all of that existentialist nonsense aka philosophy."

The fact is that philosophy and logical fallacy are the bulk of your position.

562 posted on 03/17/2012 11:16:34 AM PDT by GourmetDan (Eccl 10:2 - The heart of the wise inclines to the right, but the heart of the fool to the left.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 560 | View Replies]

To: exDemMom; Alamo-Girl; spirited irish; YHAOS; betty boop; metmom; GourmetDan
There is no religion of "Darwinism." Ditto for the imaginary religions of "Scientism", "Materialism", "Naturalism", or whatever "-ism" you want to attribute to scientists. Science is an academic pursuit. It is not a religion, nor are we scientists its worshippers.

From Dictionary.com:

re·li·gion

/rɪˈlɪdʒən/ Show Spelled[ri-lij-uhn] Show IPA
noun
1.
a set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe, especially when considered as the creation of a superhuman agency or agencies, usually involving devotional and ritual observances, and often containing a moral code governing the conduct of human affairs.
2.
a specific fundamental set of beliefs and practices generally agreed upon by a number of persons or sects: the Christian religion; the Buddhist religion.
3.
the body of persons adhering to a particular set of beliefs and practices: a world council of religions.
4.
the life or state of a monk, nun, etc.: to enter religion.
5.
the practice of religious beliefs; ritual observance of faith.

A person's "religion" is the system of beliefs by which they live their life. It may or it may not be what they CLAIM it is (e.g. plenty of claim to be Christians, but they are actually atheists, secularists or Darwinists).

You can try all you want to say that there are no worshipers of Darwinism, but that doesn't make you correct.

563 posted on 03/17/2012 1:28:09 PM PDT by wagglebee ("A political party cannot be all things to all people." -- Ronald Reagan, 3/1/75)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 552 | View Replies]

To: spirited irish; exDemMom; betty boop; YHAOS
Thank you for sharing your insights, dear spirited irish!

Interestingly, Marx loathed philosophy and insisted his theories were science, not philosophy:

Marxism: Science or Philosophy?

“We recognize only one single science, the science of history. You can view it from two sides, and divide it into the history of nature and the history of people... . In direct opposition to German philosophy which came down from heaven to earth, we here intend to rise from earth to heaven — that is we will not start from what people say, imagine, represent to themselves, nor from thought-of, represented or imagined people, in order to arrive afterward at bodily people; we will start from really acting people, and try to deduce from their actual life-process the development of these ideological images and reflections of that life-process. For these misty formations in the brains of people are necessary sublimations of their material, empirically ascertained life-process, which is bound up with material conditions. In this way morals, religion, metaphysics, and other forms of ideology, lose their apparent independence. They have no history, they have no development; only people, developing their material production and their material relations, change also in the course of this activity their thinking and the products of their thinking... .

“Thus where speculation stops, that is, at the threshold of real life, a real positive science begins, a representation of the activity, the practical process of the development of people. Phrases about consciousness disappear, their place to be occupied by real knowledge. When you begin to describe reality, then an independent philosophy loses its reason for being. In its place may be found, at the most, a summary of the general results abstracted from an investigation of the historical development of man... .

Sir Karl Popper addressed that claim in his speech (linked earlier) and of course found the claim wanting.

564 posted on 03/17/2012 9:28:18 PM PDT by Alamo-Girl
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 551 | View Replies]

To: exDemMom; spirited irish; betty boop; YHAOS
The use of the term "historical sciences" is, as far as I can tell, meant to denigrate the pursuit of knowledge where a body of evidence was formed in the past. To my knowledge, real scientists do not use this terminology.

Google the term and you will discover people on both sides of the creation/evolution debate objecting to the term as helpful to the other side.

I use it to describe a real difference between science disciplines. And I am not alone. From the evolution side of the debate:

This is Science!

Empirical and Historical Science

The sciences are not all the same either. Although the process of science remains the same, the nature of the observations may differ. These observations can be either non-historical (time independent) or historical (time-dependent) (Simpson, 1963). Sciences like physics, chemistry and much of molecular biology are largely non-historical, although they may rely on historical observations in particular instances. They deal with observations that are not expected to change with time — they are time independent. An experiment done today should produce the same results as one done 10 years ago or 10 years in the future. For example, water should always flow downhill because the effect of gravity does not change with time, whether it be a billion years ago, yesterday, or today. We can expect that gravity will not change in another billion years. Sciences like astronomy, anthropology, much of biology, geology, paleontology, and evolutionary biology are largely historical, although each uses experiments commonly.

Historical sciences rely on observations or evidence (results) of phenomena that happened in the past. These results arose through a series of events, the history, and each event was contingent on previous ones. Historical scientists can only infer the causes from the results, since the results happened in the past...

Historical science has a greater margin of error most of the time than non-historical, experimental science because scientists cannot repeat each event and must view only the results of those events through a filter of time. That margin should not, however, be mistaken for a lack of knowledge. We understand the formation of the Grand Canyon in all aspects, but not in every detail. In evolutionary biology, so-called missing links are details, not evidence that destroys the theory. Just because you may not have any information about your great great grandmother does not invalidate her existence nor that she is a part of your history. Paleontology and evolutionary biology are largely historical sciences that reveal the broad patterns, and very commonly even the detailed patterns, of evolutionary history. Gaps do exist in that record, just as there are likely to be gaps in your own family's historical record, but that does not invalidate or make the science less substantive.

As I mentioned earlier at post 509, Henry Gee, Editor of "Nature" was not so kind. He said:

“For example, the evolution of Man is said to have been driven by improvements in posture, brain size, and the coordination between hand and eye, which led to technological achievements such as fire, the manufacture of tools, and the use of language. But such scenarios are subjective. They can never be tested by experiment, and so they are unscientific. They rely for their currency, not on a scientific test, but on assertion and authority of their presentation.”

Evidently you have no use for Philosophers of Science like Sir Karl Popper and Carol Cleland - both of whom I've linked earlier in this thread.

Likewise, I have no use for "just so" stories which constitute much of the hypotheses offered by the historical sciences, e.g. anthropology, archeology, Egyptology, evolution biology.

That we are able to observe adaptation of wildlife in the field or evolution of bacteria in the laboratory does not make "just so" stories any less the fabrications that they are.

In my view, the historical record is simply too spotty for historical sciences to be taken as seriously as the hard sciences, e.g. physics.

Mathematics, to a large extent, was invented to conceptualize physical phenomena.

We are polar opposites here as well. For instance, I would say that the geometry (e.g. circle) exists, and the mathematician came along and discovered it.

Again, scientists cannot test what isn't there. If you have a way to test, examine, or quantitate something of which there is no evidence, please share it.

Obviously they cannot test what is not there. It is equally ridiculous to say that there can only be one explanation for evidence in the historical record.

As Cleland put it, paraphrased, the inability to perform tests should be offset by proliferating alternative explanations and then searching for a smoking gun to discriminate between them.

Failure to do that makes the only explanation offered smack of religious dogma as well as a "just so" story.

565 posted on 03/17/2012 10:17:47 PM PDT by Alamo-Girl
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 554 | View Replies]

To: wagglebee; exDemMom; spirited irish; YHAOS; betty boop; metmom; GourmetDan
Interestingly, the 7th Court of Appeals ruled that atheism is a religion: Kauffman v McCaughtry

If Kauffman had complained about not being able to have a study group in Darwinism, Scientism, Materialism or Naturalism instead of Atheism, I imagine the court would have ruled the same way.

566 posted on 03/17/2012 10:31:48 PM PDT by Alamo-Girl
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 563 | View Replies]

To: wagglebee; exDemMom; Alamo-Girl; YHAOS; betty boop; metmom; GourmetDan

from wagglebee: a set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe, especially when considered as the creation of a superhuman agency or agencies

Spirited: In the context of religion there has always been a “religion of Darwinism,” though not in the exact form it has taken today.

When searching for a natural (Godless) mechanism to explain biological evolution Darwin enthroned “randomness and chance,” thereby reviving the very ancient idea of Chaos, the watery void, the “one substance” that was believed (i.e., Sumerians, Babylonians, Egyptians, Greeks) to be the first thing in existence from which the god (i.e., Ra) and/or gods and goddesses created themselves and then mankind, and all else.

Since all things are of Chaos, and Chaos is the antithesis of order, absolutes, universal truth-claims, enduring principles, history, etc., there is no logical source for true science. Magic replaces true science, myth replaces history and moral relativism replaces universal truth-claims.

With Darwinism “nothingness, randomness, and chance” are Chaos and rather than the gods, “matter” spontaneously generated (created) itself from “nothing” (Chaos). And the first things generated by matter? The earth (the Goddess Gaia) and a “watery pond” teeming with primordial life.

And of course, because there is no logical source for universal truth-claims, America and the West have naturally fallen into myth, magic, and moral relativism.

This is a brief sketch your religion, exDemMom.


567 posted on 03/18/2012 2:32:19 AM PDT by spirited irish
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 563 | View Replies]

To: GourmetDan
What remarkable advance could not have been made without belief in evolution?

PubMed is the largest and most widely used medical/biological research database in existence. It also contains a wide variety of articles from other disciplines.

A search with the keyword "evolution" returns 311,652 hits. Keeping in mind that "evolution" has other meanings unrelated to the theory, I read the titles of the articles on the first two pages of hits. Out of those, 26/40, or 65% were studies directly examining evolutionary principles. Of the remaining, the relation of 6 (15%) to evolutionary principles was unclear, and another 7 (17.5%)were clearly not related to the theory of evolution. The remaining article was, in fact, a letter to the editor about one of the evolutionary articles, so I did not categorize it.

Since discussion of the theory of evolution involves a fairly specialized vocabulary, I also did a search of "phylogeny", a method of examining evolutionary relationships. This resulted in 106,145 hits, all of which discuss evolutionary research, since phylogeny has no alternate meanings.

This is by no means an exhaustive listing of research related to evolution: many people base their research in evolutionary principles without ever using the terminology. Any time animals are used in a study as proxies for human disease, evolutionary principles are being applied. The testing of prototype drugs starts on simple organisms, and works its way up through organisms that are more and more closely related to humans, until the last stage before human testing is in non-human primates--this whole testing scheme becomes totally meaningless if one tries to pretend that nothing has an evolutionary relationship to anything else.

The field of microbiology uses the theory of evolution extensively. Microorganisms evolve constantly, which puts selective pressure on us to evolve, which puts pressure on them, etc., in a kind of biological arms-race.

Whether you choose to accept the scientific evidence, or you continue to deny its existence because you feel that acknowledging it is equivalent to admitting that there is no basis for religious faith is up to you. As long as people with your attitude don't have the ability to direct that religion be taught in science classes, or to withhold research funding for evolutionary research, I really don't care. Personally, I have not bought into this ridiculous belief that God can't possibly exist if the Genesis creation story isn't literal.

568 posted on 03/18/2012 6:56:23 AM PDT by exDemMom (Now that I've finally accepted that I'm living a bad hair life, I'm more at peace with the world.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 557 | View Replies]

To: exDemMom
The problem with the religion of evolution is similar to the problem with the religion of global warming.

The global warming faithful have begun to re-define the term to mean anything they say it means, so any weather anomaly can be said (by them) to be caused by anthropogenic activity.

In the same way, the evolution zealots have begun to re-define the term to mean anything they say it means, so any change or adaptation can be said (by them) to be evolution. No one disputes that adaption takes place, that's part of The Design, but the unproven part is whether or not one species evolves into a completely different species. The religion of evolution tries to disingenuously equate adaption with evolution, and have suckered many uninformed into believing that they are equal.

569 posted on 03/18/2012 7:12:55 AM PDT by jda ("Righteousness exalts a nation . . .")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 568 | View Replies]

To: spirited irish; betty boop; exDemMom; wagglebee
Thank you so much for your informative essay-post, dear sister in Christ!

And of course, because there is no logical source for universal truth-claims, America and the West have naturally fallen into myth, magic, and moral relativism.

This is a brief sketch your religion, exDemMom.

That is also the reasoning behind Marxism, BTW.

570 posted on 03/18/2012 7:21:28 AM PDT by Alamo-Girl
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 567 | View Replies]

To: GourmetDan
No, the point was that you claim to be able to 'test' something that may not be there because you claim to be able to 'quantitate' from 'evidence' when what you are really doing is extrapolating based on a philosophy.

Obviously, you have absolutely no understanding of how the scientific method works, and no desire to learn how it works. I included a link to an explanation of it, even though I think that trying to describe it to you is a waste of time.

So now you claim to know that I "think that evolution is proof-positive that God does not exist and you don't want to believe that God doesn't exist is not a valid argument." Not even an original strawman but entirely fallacious nonetheless.

All anti-scientists have a motivation. That is the only motivation that makes sense within the context of creationism-based anti-science. If you didn't feel that scientific fact is a threat to your religion, you wouldn't be arguing so strenuously against it.

And I already pointed out that extrapolating observations into unobservable, assumed events is not science but philosophy.

If logical deductions are not a valid part of scientific method, then not only must we throw away science, but we should ditch criminal law, as well. People make extrapolations about the most likely sequence of events all the time, without direct observation. Fact of life: we cannot observe every process at all times. Logical deduction =/= philosophy.

So how does one test extrapolations made back into unobserved time and unobservable assumed events?

You mean, like testing the supposition that events outlined in Genesis actually took place as described--that circa 6000 years ago, God spoke and the entire universe sprang into existence? That God spoke again, and all of the plants and animals sprang fully formed from the soil? That God took a bit more of the soil and formed a man, and took a rib from that man to make his nearly identical twin sister? Please, you tell me, because I have no idea.

571 posted on 03/18/2012 7:46:43 AM PDT by exDemMom (Now that I've finally accepted that I'm living a bad hair life, I'm more at peace with the world.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 561 | View Replies]

To: exDemMom
"Out of those, 26/40, or 65% were studies directly examining evolutionary principles."

Unfortunately, 'examining evolutionary principles' simply begs the question that evolution exists in the first place. Again we see the use of logical fallacy as 'argument' for evolution.

You said, "...remarkable advances in the biological and medical sciences which wouldn't have been possible without that theoretical framework" and have failed to name a single one. Lots of hand-waving but couldn't name a single 'remarkable advance'.

I'm trying to understand what 'remarkable advance' you think couldn't have been made without an evolutionary framework? Should be easy for you to name one so that we could discuss it.

"The field of microbiology uses the theory of evolution extensively. Microorganisms evolve constantly, which puts selective pressure on us to evolve, which puts pressure on them, etc., in a kind of biological arms-race."

And how would that differ from a biology that was created with a broad ability to adapt? Unless you contend that certain unique evidences are supportive only of evolution, you are engaging in a philosophical choice, not reaching an empirical conclusion.

"Whether you choose to accept the scientific evidence, or you continue to deny its existence because you feel that acknowledging it is equivalent to admitting that there is no basis for religious faith is up to you."

Ah, again with implying that you can understand my beliefs and motivations. You couldn't be more wrong. But I understand that you need to misrepresent me before you respond to my points.

So, to reiterate...

What scientific evidence have I denied?

What 'remarkable advance' could only have been made using an evolutionary framework?

And how does one test extrapolations made back into unobserved time and unobservable assumed events?

572 posted on 03/18/2012 7:46:45 AM PDT by GourmetDan (Eccl 10:2 - The heart of the wise inclines to the right, but the heart of the fool to the left.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 568 | View Replies]

Comment #573 Removed by Moderator

Comment #574 Removed by Moderator

Comment #575 Removed by Moderator

Comment #576 Removed by Moderator

Comment #577 Removed by Moderator

Comment #578 Removed by Moderator

Comment #579 Removed by Moderator

Comment #580 Removed by Moderator

Comment #581 Removed by Moderator

Comment #582 Removed by Moderator

Comment #583 Removed by Moderator

Comment #584 Removed by Moderator

Comment #585 Removed by Moderator

Comment #586 Removed by Moderator

Comment #587 Removed by Moderator

Comment #588 Removed by Moderator

Comment #589 Removed by Moderator

Comment #590 Removed by Moderator

Comment #591 Removed by Moderator

Comment #592 Removed by Moderator

Comment #593 Removed by Moderator

Comment #594 Removed by Moderator

Comment #595 Removed by Moderator

Comment #596 Removed by Moderator

To: exDemMom
"Obviously, you have absolutely no understanding of how the scientific method works, and no desire to learn how it works. I included a link to an explanation of it, even though I think that trying to describe it to you is a waste of time."

Ah, again with assigning motive to me. Do you feel that you need to do that to establish a position?

One question. How is the scientific method able to reproduce extrapolations made back into unobserved time and unobservable assumed evolutionary events?

"All anti-scientists have a motivation."

And scientists don't? LOL!

"That is the only motivation that makes sense within the context of creationism-based anti-science. If you didn't feel that scientific fact is a threat to your religion, you wouldn't be arguing so strenuously against it."

Again with implying that you know my motivations. How often should I tell you that you have no idea what my motivations are before you stop assigning motive to me? Hmmm?

"If logical deductions are not a valid part of scientific method, then not only must we throw away science, but we should ditch criminal law, as well."

So you equate science with criminal law? Do you realize how subjective criminal law is? You do realize that police are allowed to lie to suspects to gain confessions and prosecutors withhold evidence if the right questions aren't asked (Ted Stevens' trial as the most recent example). Are scientists likewise allowed to lie to the public and withhold evidence that doesn't support the story they want the public to believe? I don't think you meant to be quite so honest in your comparison, but I appreciate it nonetheless.

"You mean, like testing the supposition that events outlined in Genesis actually took place as described--that circa 6000 years ago, God spoke and the entire universe sprang into existence? That God spoke again, and all of the plants and animals sprang fully formed from the soil? That God took a bit more of the soil and formed a man, and took a rib from that man to make his nearly identical twin sister? Please, you tell me, because I have no idea."

By admitting that extrapolations into unobserved time and unobserved assumed events are equivalent to the Biblical account of creation, you have admitted the philosophical and religious nature of 'science' (aka philosophical naturalism).

597 posted on 03/18/2012 8:06:30 AM PDT by GourmetDan (Eccl 10:2 - The heart of the wise inclines to the right, but the heart of the fool to the left.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 571 | View Replies]

To: GourmetDan
Can you not see that you simply 'begged the question' as to whether you and your stated belief that 'most real scientists you know' (fallacy of appeal to popular opinion noted) are, in fact, real scientists? A scientist relies on observation and testing. There is simply no way to scientifically observe and test the claim that 'evolution resultd in sapient and sentient species'. You pile fallacy on top of fallacy on top of fallacy and claim it is 'science'. It is not. That is purely a philosophical position, not a scientific one.

Again, your lack of understanding of the scientific method and flat-out refusal to believe the voluminous evidence of geology, the fossil record, astrophysics, modern biology, and several other scientific disciplines do not make science into a "philosophical position."

598 posted on 03/18/2012 8:07:03 AM PDT by exDemMom (Now that I've finally accepted that I'm living a bad hair life, I'm more at peace with the world.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 562 | View Replies]

To: exDemMom
Attributing motives to another Freeper and other forms of mind reading are "making it personal."

Discuss the issues all you want, but do not make it personal.

599 posted on 03/18/2012 8:14:58 AM PDT by Religion Moderator
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 598 | View Replies]

To: exDemMom
"If logical deductions are not a valid part of scientific method, then not only must we throw away science, but we should ditch criminal law, as well."

Logical deductions are always based on philosophical beliefs.

"People make extrapolations about the most likely sequence of events all the time, without direct observation. Fact of life: we cannot observe every process at all times.

This time we have the logical fallacy of the non sequitur. The fact that people make extrapolations all the time and the fact that we cannot observe every process at all times does not mean that it is 'scientific' to extrapolate back into unobserved time frames and assumed unobserved events to support the philsophical belief in evolution.

Logical deduction =/= philosophy."

Logical deduction is firmly based in a person's philosophy. If I believe that the Easter Bunny leaves candy eggs on Easter morning and I go out and see candy eggs on Sunday morning, I will logically deduce that the Easter Bunny left them. The evolutionary bias in 'science' is as firmly based on philosophy as is belief in the Easter Bunny.

600 posted on 03/18/2012 8:16:16 AM PDT by GourmetDan (Eccl 10:2 - The heart of the wise inclines to the right, but the heart of the fool to the left.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 571 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-50 ... 501-550551-600601-650651-669 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson