Only religion prevents us from seeing the Darwinian truth about evolution.
Or at least that’s what one would think reading ScienceDaily:
Generally seen as antithetical to one another, evolution and religion can hardly fit in a scientific discourse simultaneously. However, biologist Dr Aldemaro Romero Jr., Baruch College, USA, devotes his latest research article, now published in the open access Research Ideas and Outcomes (RIO), to observing the influences a few major religions have had on evolutionists and their scientific thinking over the centuries.
…
“Since the advent of Modern Synthesis we have a pretty consistent set of evidence that evolution is not linear, that there is not such a thing as direction for evolutionary processes, and that nothing is predetermined since natural selection, the main evolutionary mechanism, is a process that is not moved by any mystical force, nor directs beings toward a particular end,” points out Dr Aldemaro Romero Jr..
“Therefore, I hope this paper serves as a warning to scientists that no matter what reductionist view they have in the way they practice their research, if they do not understand the historical roots and the philosophical framework of their research, they are doomed at presenting only a very partial (and many times biased) view of nature,” he concludes. More.
Abstract: Evolution has always been considered a battleground between religion and science. Despite that perception, there are some indications that religious beliefs have influenced and continue to influence some current interpretations in evolutionary biology. To that end I present evidence on how pervasive the theological idea of predestination, which has been long discussed in the the Jewish, Christian and Muslim traditions, has influenced some of the elucidations of the nature of biological evolution. I will concentrate on the history of ideas about the evolution of cave organisms to epitomize the strong influence of religion on some evolutionary ideas as shown not only by some of the interpretations but also by the terminology still used today. I conclude that scientists need to understand the historical and philosophical framework of their research if they really want to claim that their work is really value-free. Paper. (public access) – Aldemaro Romero Jr. The influence of religion on science: the case of the idea of predestination in biospeleology. Research Ideas and Outcomes, 2016; 2: e9015 DOI: 10.3897/rio.2.e9015
It’s as if Dr. Romero has never heard of the possibility that Darwinism (the Modern Synthesis) is under siege from within the academy and—whatever his point is—simply doesn’t deserve to be the scale for values around evolution that he is making it out to be.
See also: How can we believe in naturalism if we have no choice?
If naturalism can explain religion, why does it get so many basic facts wrong?
and
Blind cave fish and devolution (= getting their eyes back)
Follow UD News at Twitter!
Dr. Romero states:
Since Dr. Romero is concerned with the philosophical baggage hidden within the words that scientists use, perhaps he would like to examine why it is impossible for biologists to describe molecular biology without using words that imply purpose and agency?
This working biologist agrees with Talbott’s assessment:
Also of note:
Of related note, since Darwinian evolution has no real time empirical evidence to prove that it can create functional information, nor does Darwinian evolution even have a rigid mathematical basis to test against as other overarching theories of science have, and since all of science itself is ultimately dependent on a epistemology that necessarily incorporates Theological presuppositions about the rational nature of the universe and our ability to understand that rational basis, then (faulty) theological premises must lie at the core of Darwin’s theory. And indeed faulty theology is found to lie at the core of Darwin’s theory! (or is that ‘lie at the core of Darwin’s religion?’)
There is no such thing as religion. Its just conclusions, whatever the source, about the invisible world of God/spirits and what he thinks and wants us top do.
Religion just nicely itemizes these conclusions in their genre.
I don’t see why these conclusions , called religion, would influence conclusions/investigation into blind cave fish or anything.
the world/universe of nature is a finished thing since creation week.
There has been no more creation since creation week.
So one could study the finished project without other conclusions from the invisable world.
Only God/Satan interfering would affect nature and confuse investigation.
otherwise these contrary conclusions don’t mix.
The bible only speeds up understanding natures conclusions in this or that.