Is Darwinian Theory Even Science?

Discussion in 'Science and Technology' started by PoliticalChic, Nov 15, 2012.

  1. PoliticalChic
    Offline

    PoliticalChic Diamond Member

    Joined:
    Oct 6, 2008
    Messages:
    55,963
    Thanks Received:
    15,718
    Trophy Points:
    2,190
    Location:
    Brooklyn, NY
    Ratings:
    +25,089
    1. A major difference between scientists and the religious, is the insistence on ‘facts,’ which is what science demands. After all, how scientific would one be if he began with his conclusion…and searched for ‘facts’ to support same?



    2. Now, take Darwin, and the theory of evolution. We are often told that the reason said theory won the day was that it fit the facts. Not according to historian Neal Gillespie.

    a. “The most extensive research into Darwin's religious attitudes and motivations has been done by historian Neal C. Gillespie (Georgia State University).He begins his book with this comment: "On reading the Origin of Species, I, like many others, became curious about why Darwin spent so much time attacking the idea of divine creation." Business Profiles and Company Information | ZoomInfo.com

    b. Positivism: a theory that theology and metaphysics are earlier imperfect modes of knowledge and that positive knowledge is based on natural phenomena and their properties and relations as verified by the empirical sciences. Positivism - Definition and More from the Free Merriam-Webster Dictionary

    3. Historians have documented meticulously the fact that Darwinism has had a devastating impact, not only on Christianity, but also on theism. Many scientists also have admitted that the acceptance of Darwinism has convinced large numbers of people that the Genesis account of creation is erroneous, and that this has caused the whole house of theistic cards to tumble: As a result of the widespread acceptance of Darwinism, the Christian moral basis of society was undermined. Furthermore Darwin himself was "keenly aware of the political, social, and religious implications of his new idea. . . . Religion, especially, appeared to have much to lose . . Raymo, “Skeptics and True Believers,” p.138.




    4. Acclaimed Oxford zoologist Richard Dawkins has written extensively about the implications of Darwinism. In a speech titled "A Scientist's Case Against God," Dawkins argued that Darwinism "has shown higher purpose to be an illusion" and that the Universe consists of "selfish genes;" consequently, "some people are going to get hurt, others are going to get lucky, and you won't find any rhyme or reason for it"
    Easterbrook, Gregg. 1997. "Of Genes and Meaninglessness." Science, 277:892, August 15.

    a. Ironic, isn't it that 'evolution' is a keystone of Liberalism, yet the highest goal of same is 'equality.'

    5. The central message of Richard Dawkins' voluminous writings is that the universe has precisely the properties we should expect if it has "no design, no purpose, no evil and no good, nothing but pointless indifference" (Easterbrook, p. 892).
    Dawkins even admitted that his best-selling book, The Selfish Gene, was an attempt to get rid of what he regarded as an "outright wrong idea" that had achieved a grip in popular science—namely, the erroneous "assumption that individuals act for the good of the species," which he believes is "an error that needed exploding, and the best way to demonstrate what's wrong with it . . . was to explain evolution from the point of view of the gene" (Easterbrook, p. 892). Dawkins added that the reason why The Selfish Gene was a best seller could be because it teaches the "truth" about why humans exist, namely humans,. . . are for nothing. You are here to propagate your selfish genes. There is no higher purpose to life. One man said he didn't sleep for three nights after reading The Selfish Gene. He felt that the whole of his life had become empty, and the universe no longer had a point (quoted in Bass, p. 60).

    a. Dawkins obviously is proud of the depressing effect his writings have on people. Raymo even claims that the dominant view among modern Darwinists is that our minds are "merely a computer made of meat" (pp. 187-188), and that "almost all scientists" believe the idea that a human soul exists is a "bankrupt notion"; and consequently, the conclusion that our minds are "merely a computer made of meat" is considered by Darwinists "almost a truism" (pp. 192-193, emphasis his).




    6. Why do so many people believe the pessimistic, nihilistic, and depressive Darwinist view? One reason is they are convinced that science has proven Darwinism to be true. Sadly, however, many scientists are unaware of the large body of evidence supporting creationism. And numerous scientists recognize that, at best, the view common among elite scientists is unscientific. Shallis (Shallis, "In the Eye of a Storm." New Scientist, January 19, pp. 42-43) argues that: “It is no more heretical to say the Universe displays purpose, as Hoyle has done, than to say that it is pointless, as Steven Weinberg has done. Both statements are metaphysical and outside science. . . . This suggests to me that science, in allowing this metaphysical notion, sees itself as religion and presumably as an atheistic religion .”

    a. Darwinists have indoctrinated our society for over 100 years in a worldview that has proven to be tragically destructive. And they often have done this by a type of deceit that began before the Piltdown hoax and continues today in many leading biology textbooks (Wells, Jonathan. 2000. Icons of'Evolution: Science or Myth. ).


    Again?

    “It is no more heretical to say the Universe displays purpose, as Hoyle has done, than to say that it is pointless, as Steven Weinberg has done. Both statements are metaphysical and outside science. . .
     
    • Thank You! Thank You! x 2
  2. L.K.Eder
    Offline

    L.K.Eder unbannable non-troll

    Joined:
    May 29, 2009
    Messages:
    20,389
    Thanks Received:
    3,617
    Trophy Points:
    280
    Location:
    theartching thapphireth
    Ratings:
    +6,856
    this "pessimistic, nihilistic, and depressive Darwinist view?"


    Authors of the highest eminence seem to be fully satisfied with the view that each species has been independently created. To my mind it accords better with what we know of the laws impressed on matter by the Creator, that the production and extinction of the past and present inhabitants of the world should have been due to secondary causes, like those determining the birth and death of the individual. When I view all beings not as special creations, but as the lineal descendants of some few beings which lived long before the first bed of the Silurian system was deposited, they seem to me to become ennobled. Judging from the past, we may safely infer that not one living species will transmit its unaltered likeness to a distant futurity. And of the species now living very few will transmit progeny of any kind to a far distant futurity; for the manner in which all organic beings are grouped, shows that the greater number of species of each genus, and all the species of many genera, have left no descendants, but have become utterly extinct. We can so far take a prophetic glance into futurity as to foretel that it will be the common and widely-spread species, belonging to the larger and dominant groups, which will ultimately prevail and procreate new and dominant species. As all the living forms of life are the lineal descendants of those which lived long before the Silurian epoch, we may feel certain that the ordinary succession by generation has never once been broken, and that no cataclysm has desolated the whole world. Hence we may look with some confidence to a secure future of equally inappreciable length. And as natural selection works solely by and for the good of each being, all corporeal and mental endowments will tend to progress towards perfection.
    It is interesting to contemplate an entangled bank, clothed with many plants of many kinds, with birds singing on the bushes, with various insects flitting about, and with worms crawling through the damp earth, and to reflect that these elaborately constructed forms, so different from each other, and dependent on each other in so complex a manner, have all been produced by laws acting around us. These laws, taken in the largest sense, being Growth with Reproduction; inheritance which is almost implied by reproduction; Variability from the indirect and direct action of the external conditions of life, and from use and disuse; a Ratio of Increase so high as to lead to a Struggle for Life, and as a consequence to Natural Selection, entailing Divergence of Character and the Extinction of less-improved forms. Thus, from the war of nature, from famine and death, the most exalted object which we are capable of conceiving, namely, the production of the higher animals, directly follows. There is grandeur in this view of life, with its several powers, having been originally breathed into a few forms or into one; and that, whilst this planet has gone cycling on according to the fixed law of gravity, from so simple a beginning endless forms most beautiful and most wonderful have been, and are being, evolved.



    Literature.org - The Online Literature Library
     
  3. del
    Offline

    del BANNED

    Joined:
    Sep 3, 2008
    Messages:
    45,052
    Thanks Received:
    9,830
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Ratings:
    +9,885
    it would be painful to be as stupid as the op
     
  4. PoliticalChic
    Offline

    PoliticalChic Diamond Member

    Joined:
    Oct 6, 2008
    Messages:
    55,963
    Thanks Received:
    15,718
    Trophy Points:
    2,190
    Location:
    Brooklyn, NY
    Ratings:
    +25,089
    Gee....how can I still call you 'birdie'???


    1. While I appreciate the post, as it is in Darwin’s actual words, it is spectacularly easy to refute.



    2. From your post:

    “not as special creations, but as the lineal descendants”… “ordinary succession by generation has never once been broken, and that no cataclysm has desolated the whole world. Hence we may look with some confidence to a secure future of equally inappreciable length. And as natural selection works solely by and for the good of each being, all corporeal and mental endowments will tend to progress towards perfection.”

    Let me offer the testimony of a more contemporary mind:

    Sir John Maddox, editor emeritus of the foremost journal of science, Nature, wrote in a classic Time magazine essay, “How the brain manages to think is a conundrum with a millennial time scale. All animals have brains so as to be able to move about. Signals from the senses- eyes, ears, nostrils, or skin, as the case may be- send messages to the spinal cord, which moves the limbs appropriately. But thinking involves the consideration of alternative responses, many of which have not been experienced but have been merely imagined. The faculty of being conscious of what is going on in the head is an extra puzzle.” (“Thinking,” March 29, 1999, p. 206)

    a. So…”“not as special creations”? Wrong.

    b. And “mental endowments will tend to progress.” Sure isn’t the case in human abilities, is it?



    3. And this: In an essay entitled "Sir Charles Lyell on Geological Climates and the Origin of Species" (1869), Alfred Wallace, co-author with Darwin, outlined his sense that evolution was inadequate to explain certain obvious features of the human race. Certain of our "physical characteristics," Wallace observes in this essay, "are not explicable on the theory of variation and survival of the fittest" -- the criteria of Darwinian natural selection. These characteristics include the human brain, the organs of speech and articulation, the human hand, and the external human form with its upright posture and bipedal gait. Thus, only human beings can rotate their thumbs and ring fingers in what is called "ulnar opposition" in order to achieve a grip, a grasp, and a degree of torque denied to any of the great apes. So, too, with the other items on Wallace's list. What remains is evolutionary fantasy, of the sort in which the bipedal gait is assigned to an unrecoverable ancestor wishing to peer (or pee) over tall savannah grasses. (From Berlinski’s “The Devil’s Delusion,” chapter eight.)

    a. And that takes care of Darwin’s ““ordinary succession by generation has never once been broken,”

    b. A fib. Watch this:

    David B. Kitts, evolutionist and paleontologist,: "Despite the bright promise that paleontology provides a means of 'seeing' evolution, it has presented some nasty difficulties for evolutionists the most notorious of which is the presence of 'gaps' in the fossil record. Evolution requires intermediate forms between species and paleontology does not provide them." (“Evolution," 28:467)



    4. There are no laboratory demonstrations of speciation, millions of fruit flies coming and going while never once suggesting that they were destined to appear as anything other than fruit flies.

    a. Steven J. Gould said: "In any local area, a species does not arise gradually by the steady transformation of its ancestors; it appears all at once and fully formed." (Natural History, 86:12-16)

    Now, whose theory would his support, Darwinists, or creationists?




    In summary….’evolution’ is perhaps a political theory…or a theological one, but certainly not a scientific one.


    So....how come a bright bird like you has been fooled this long???
     
    Last edited: Nov 15, 2012
  5. Ravi
    Offline

    Ravi Diamond Member

    Joined:
    Feb 27, 2008
    Messages:
    81,432
    Thanks Received:
    12,698
    Trophy Points:
    2,205
    Location:
    Hating Hatters
    Ratings:
    +29,887
    Onward to 2016!
     
  6. PratchettFan
    Offline

    PratchettFan Gold Member

    Joined:
    Jun 20, 2012
    Messages:
    7,238
    Thanks Received:
    745
    Trophy Points:
    190
    Ratings:
    +1,706
    In response to the question posed..... yes.

    I won't bother to explain why. If you haven't figured it out by now you aren't going to.
     
    • Thank You! Thank You! x 1
  7. Koios
    Offline

    Koios Recreational Kibitzer

    Joined:
    Nov 12, 2012
    Messages:
    2,841
    Thanks Received:
    116
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Ratings:
    +116
    Yes; the very essence of scientific method, employing what no pseudoscience ever does, which is the most vital aspect of the scientific method: null hypothesis.
     
  8. PoliticalChic
    Offline

    PoliticalChic Diamond Member

    Joined:
    Oct 6, 2008
    Messages:
    55,963
    Thanks Received:
    15,718
    Trophy Points:
    2,190
    Location:
    Brooklyn, NY
    Ratings:
    +25,089


    Can’t begin to tell you how many times I’ve seen, essentially, the very same post!

    It always means one of the following:

    1. The poster never got beyond junior high school level in science….but doesn’t want anyone to know that.
    2. The poster has a palpable fear that other members of his herd might believe he isn’t toeing the party line.
    3. The poster couldn’t comprehend the carefully crafted critiques in the OP and my later post.

    So that I may address you correctly….which of the above apply?
     
  9. L.K.Eder
    Offline

    L.K.Eder unbannable non-troll

    Joined:
    May 29, 2009
    Messages:
    20,389
    Thanks Received:
    3,617
    Trophy Points:
    280
    Location:
    theartching thapphireth
    Ratings:
    +6,856
    strange, i almost get the impression that you did not post anything supporting that darwin's worldview was pessimist, nihilistic, and depressive.

    or that he attacked the idea of divine creation, seeing that darwin himself credits a creator.

    read more primary sources.
     
    • Thank You! Thank You! x 1
  10. PoliticalChic
    Offline

    PoliticalChic Diamond Member

    Joined:
    Oct 6, 2008
    Messages:
    55,963
    Thanks Received:
    15,718
    Trophy Points:
    2,190
    Location:
    Brooklyn, NY
    Ratings:
    +25,089


    Even stranger, I disproved Darwin's specific language in your post.
     

Share This Page

Search tags for this page

content