Yup. Yet another defense of Darwin from someone best known from a Christian publication

Historian Arnold Toynbee stated: “I do not think that the Darwinian theory of evolution has given a positive account of an alternative way in which the universe may have been brought into existence.” (Intellectual Digest, December 1971, p. 59.) From the OP:

Darwin himself, Seagrave tells us, “clearly struggled with the objection that his theory looked much better ‘on paper’ than it did in real life.”

He did, actually. In the introduction to The Origin of Species, he wrote: “I am well aware that scarcely a single point is discussed in this volume on which facts cannot be adduced, often apparently leading to conclusions directly opposite to those at which I have arrived.” Why, even Darwin, in discussing the source of life, admitted: “Another source of conviction in the existence of God, connected with the reason and not with the feelings, impresses me . . . This follows from the extreme difficulty or rather impossibility of conceiving this immense and wonderful universe, including man with his capacity of looking backwards and far into futurity, as the result of blind chance or necessity. When thus reflecting, I feel compelled to look to a First Cause.” (Charles Darwin: His Life, chapter 3, p. 66.) The OP also mentions that two people may see the same thing but because one has “deep theorectical knowledge”, they don’t see the little details. Or, one person might have an a priori assumption that materialism is true, because nothing else possibly can be. Barr ignores the fact that humans may indeed see things differently, not because of knowledge, but because of prejudice. The OP goes on:

“Now, the human eye is certainly a remarkable organ, but it is an organ of sense, not of judgment. Judging truth and falsehood is the prerogative of reason, not of any bodily organ.”

The human eye is an organ of sense, but it can be an organ of judgment as well. How many times have attorneys asked witnesses, “Did you see the defendant?” or “What did you see?” In a court of law, our sense organ does a pretty good job of showing whether or not a crime was committed. Judging truth and falsehood is the prerogative of our human brain, which should be well-versed in reason, logic, and common sense. And the OP continues:

“the fact we do not see species evolving before our eyes is grounds for doubting that they have evolved. And that is clearly nonsense. We also do not see mountain ranges being thrust up, or the continents drifting, or the great galaxies turning like pinwheels before our eyes. The time scales are far too long. But we know that these things happen. We know it not by “direct observation” but by a combination of observation and inference, as indeed we know most things.”

It’s not a combination of observation and inference. First of all, the OP declares that we don’t observe continental drift. We also don’t observe species evolving into other species. Observation, then, is off the table. We ASSUME that they have because of “inference”; that is, we have been taught that they evolve and that no other explanation is necessary.Barb

June 10, 2013

June

06

Jun

10

10

2013

08:16 AM

8

08

16

AM

PDT

Copy Comment Link