Darwin textbook author burbles on, misleading many

_{Denyse O'Leary

May 23, 2013

Darwinism, Education, Intelligent Design}

Share: Facebook; Twitter; LinkedIn; Flipboard; Print; Email

Textbook author Douglas Futuyma has allowed us to know many of Darwin’s supposed truths over the years. Predictably, in an interview with Live Mint & The Wall Street Journal, Futuyma is allowed to get away with saying he “isn’t a believer” but making false statements about the beliefs of others.

Here’s the Live Mint/WSJ question:

Are you a believer?

And Futuyma’s response:

I’m not going to answer that. If I did then that would tend to colour the issue in a particular way and affect people’s reactions to whatever I have to say.

Now, why didn’t the interviewer (Jacob B. Koshy) stop it right then and there, and say: You tell me what you believe about whether this universe shows evidence of design or this interview ends. Now.

Why? Because his Live Mint/Wall Street Journal editor would never let him just confront profitable pop Darwin.

So Futuyma is allowed to burble on:

The point is that as an empirical fact, people are able to reconcile evolution and religion. Usually, the way this is done, is the way the Roman Catholic Church does and that is to say there is a God and he created the rules and gave energy and he left it to develop on its own.

No, sorry, Koshy, that is deism. Not even theism, let alone Roman Catholicism.

A person cannot even be declared a saint in the Catholic Church unless God is believed to have suspended the rules of the universe at least once as a result of that person’s prayers.

This isn’t even some kind of hidden doctrine. It is conventional Roman Catholic belief. Maybe you missed it if you listen to “religion” journalists who got trained in a typical J-school (and decided not to embarrass the Catholic Church by pointing out that it is not materialist, as if the Church would care).

So Futuyma burbles further, unhindered by fact,

These are the rules that science then tries to discover. I really don’t know if any religious person really believes that every biochemical reaction which is happening in my body is being controlled by God.

Most people worldwide believe that. Otherwise, why would they pray for healing? How could healing occur otherwise when all human efforts are exhausted?

It is a disgrace that so many legacy media still front stuff by people like Futuyma with reverence instead of questions. No wonder legacy media are declining. They should.

Comments

If the bible never existed, what proof of God’s existence would you have?
The existence of life itself. Evolutionary theory (as in common descent) attempts to explain biological similarity in terms of common descent. Even granting that, the first life appears to be miraculous. Second, some think that Quantum Mechanics implies there is a God. Whether true or not, it at least seems that physics doesn't preclude and ultimate MIND.
Darwinism has a lot of evidence. The fossil record, similar DNA, morphology, vitamin C pseudogene, retro viruses, simpler to complex organisms in the strata, chromosome 2 etc.
Many of those are in doubt on scientific grounds alone, and time may show that those claims are fallacious. I respect that you think those are good arguments, but the problem of the fossil record actually argues against Darwin's claims.
but it’s because they don’t want to let go of their beliefs so they try to find loopholes.
That's not universally the case. That may be true of some, but not all.
One can’t look at the evidence objectively and not see that Darwinism does indeed fit. Actually I think many have and think it doesn't fit, worse, it's not even a real theory of science. Jerry Fodor, Michael Denton, Fred Hoyle aren't creationists.
I used to be a Christian up until two years ago. I saw the evidence for evolution for the first time and started to lose my faith ever since.
There might be many reasonable arguments to reject Christianity. Evolutionism isn't one of them because evolutionism isn't scientific, it is speculation at best, and often falsified speculation. The fossil record may have some problems but it clearly shows change and transitions from one form to another all through out.
They show puntuated change with intervening times of statis. Transition isn't a fair word, especially Darwinian transitions. Transitionals are not to be found in the fossil record except for forced interpretations of skeletal remains, and further the most important changes are ignored since they involve soft tissue. Many transitionals couldn't exist even in principle based on physiology and anatomy. The transitionals don't exist because likely they were never there...
I know that IDists and creationists have counter arguments to these examples .
I respect that if you've not seen God face to face, that you might not believe. I respect that. However, critical thinking should not give Darwinism a pass, it's a failure of a theory as has been highlighted in Uncommond Descent many times. The details are extremely technical, but critical thinking usually is not swayed by simplistic answers. Darwinism is defended by simplistic, distorted interpretations of facts plus a lot of fabricated stories that have little basis in what we know about physiology and engineering. If meticulous details bore you, then you won't get to adequately understand the criticism of Darwin put forward. It is in the meticulous details that it becomes evident that evolutionism fails to explain the designs in life. Don Johnson's programming of life has never been challenged scientifically except by sophist type arguments. Don was an evolutionist, upon further consideration given his scientific abilities (which are quite exstensive) he rejected evolutionism.scordova_{May 24, 2013
May
05
May
24
24
2013
02:08 PM
2
02
08
PM
PDT}

JLAfan:
Darwinism has a lot of evidence. The fossil record, similar DNA, morphology, vitamin C pseudogene, retro viruses, simpler to complex organisms in the strata, chromosome 2 etc.
LoL! None of those support a mechanism, so they cannot support darwinism.Joe_{May 24, 2013
May
05
May
24
24
2013
12:24 PM
12
12
24
PM
PDT}

“Were you referring to Darwinism?” Darwinism has a lot of evidence. The fossil record, similar DNA, morphology, vitamin C pseudogene, retro viruses, simpler to complex organisms in the strata, chromosome 2 etc. I know that IDists and creationists have counter arguments to these examples but it’s because they don’t want to let go of their beliefs so they try to find loopholes. One can’t look at the evidence objectively and not see that Darwinism does indeed fit. I used to be a Christian up until two years ago. I saw the evidence for evolution for the first time and started to lose my faith ever since. I didn’t just hand wave Darwin it away. The fossil record may have some problems but it clearly shows change and transitions from one form to another all through out. “No need to complain then, you seem confident you’ll never answer to God when you die.” I am not entirely certain of this because of the evidence for near death experiences but it doesn’t mean there is a God in the after life either. It could be that there is an after life that was “created” by nature but science has worked on it because of it’s roots in supernaturalism. Maybe the it’s nothing more that the quantum realm we survive in. “But with respect to an ancestor couple even Darwinists suppose there was an Eve who is the mother of all women (as traced through mitochondrial DNA) — they call her Mitochondiral Eve. And then Darwinists hypothesize an Adam traceable through the Y-chromosome. They call him Y-chromosomal Adam. So it’s not unreasonable to suppose some couple that were parents to all humanity.” This was just a name that we tagged on to describe the findings. It doesn’t imply a first human couple or that they were the only ones. It just means that it can be traced to one man and one woman. “With respect to humanity dying due to sin, Barb was referring to orginal sin. If you believe humanity’s gene are improving, you’re mistaken on scientific grounds alone. The human race is getting sicker with each generation, which by the way raises the question, why isn’t humanity dead by now? This is in superficial agreement with the genealogy of Christ.” I don’t dispute that the genes are degrading but it’s due to the laws of thermodynamics not original sin. “But why should I complain either, if the Christian are right Darwinism will be meeting its end in due time when God calls all men into account. But since you think it’s all a myth, I find it astonishing you feel the need to sound off. I don’t believe in astrology, but neither do I visit astrology blogs to tell people they are irrational.” If Darwinism is right, Christianity will be meeting it’s end in due time which has already started as I mentioned. I sound off against it because people should learn to think critically. There are so many unanswered questions within Christianity that no one pays attention to. Once people do, they lose faith. The internet is riddled with bloggers of ex-believers who want to let others know what they have learned. I sure do want there to be a God but I can’t bring myself to remain in the same place I once was. “So why do I complain and rail against Darwin? Because science actually suggest there is good news for modern man if one is willing to follow the evidence where it leads.” And it should be to evolution just as it is to an old earth, no first couple, no world flood, no Exodus. “That’s Ken Ham, that’s not what the Bible teaches. The Bible teaches that the universe testifies of God’s existence if people are willing to consider the evidence fairly.” If the bible never existed, what proof of God’s existence would you have? Would you ascribe the laws to a law giver or deny evolution then or would you accept them as part of nature creating itself?JLAfan2001_{May 24, 2013
May
05
May
24
24
2013
11:32 AM
11
11
32
AM
PDT}

Clinging to a belief that has zero proof and clearly has been refuted by modern science.
Were you referring to Darwinism?
I guess I shouldn’t complain too much because the polls are showing Christianity is dying. Your kids, grand kids and great grand kids will eventually wake up and realize the truth. When that happens, your religion will die even more.
No need to complain then, you seem confident you'll never answer to God when you die. But with respect to an ancestor couple even Darwinists suppose there was an Eve who is the mother of all women (as traced through mitochondrial DNA) -- they call her Mitochondiral Eve. And then Darwinists hypothesize an Adam traceable through the Y-chromosome. They call him Y-chromosomal Adam. So it's not unreasonable to suppose some couple that were parents to all humanity. With respect to humanity dying due to sin, Barb was referring to orginal sin. If you believe humanity's gene are improving, you're mistaken on scientific grounds alone. The human race is getting sicker with each generation, which by the way raises the question, why isn't humanity dead by now? This is in superficial agreement with the genealogy of Christ. But why should I complain either, if the Christian are right Darwinism will be meeting its end in due time when God calls all men into account. But since you think it's all a myth, I find it astonishing you feel the need to sound off. I don't believe in astrology, but neither do I visit astrology blogs to tell people they are irrational. So why do I complain and rail against Darwin? Because science actually suggest there is good news for modern man if one is willing to follow the evidence where it leads.
The same book that sets out to prove the very same thing it claims, meaning God exists cause the bible says so and it’s true cause the bible is from God?
That's Ken Ham, that's not what the Bible teaches. The Bible teaches that the universe testifies of God's existence if people are willing to consider the evidence fairly.scordova_{May 24, 2013
May
05
May
24
24
2013
10:51 AM
10
10
51
AM
PDT}

Barb Let me get this straight. You believe that we descended from one couple because of an age old book written by ancient men who believe in a deity that may not exist over modern scientific evidence from fossils and genetics that we can see and verify with our eyes? The same book that sets out to prove the very same thing it claims, meaning God exists cause the bible says so and it's true cause the bible is from God? What causes these deformities from our descent from this once "perfect" man? Is it our sin? Do you have proof of that? Can you tell me that if I lie or steal or lust that this will degrade my genes or the genes of my children? Of course not. That's just blind faith versus what we can verify. This is what irrationality is. Clinging to a belief that has zero proof and clearly has been refuted by modern science. I guess I shouldn't complain too much because the polls are showing Christianity is dying. Your kids, grand kids and great grand kids will eventually wake up and realize the truth. When that happens, your religion will die even more.JLAfan2001_{May 24, 2013
May
05
May
24
24
2013
10:24 AM
10
10
24
AM
PDT}

‘Is the theory that man evolved from animals compatible with the Bible?’ Let's find out. Evolutionists generally claim that a population of animals gradually developed into a population of humans, denying that there was once only one man. However, the Bible presents a very different picture. It says that we originate from one man, Adam. The Bible account presents Adam as a historical person. It gives us the names of his wife and some of his children. It tells us in detail what he did, what he said, when he lived, and when he died. Jesus did not consider that account as just a story for uneducated people. Luke traced Jesus’ genealogy back to the first man. (Luke 3:23-38) Also, when the apostle Paul spoke before an audience that included philosophers who were educated in the famous Greek schools, he told them: “The God that made the world and all the things in it . . . made out of one man every nation of men, to dwell upon the entire surface of the earth.” (Acts 17:24-26) Clearly, the Bible teaches that we descended from “one man.” Is what the Bible says about man’s original condition compatible with evolution? According to the Bible, God made the first man perfect. It is impossible for God to make things any other way. The creation account says: “God proceeded to create the man in his image . . . After that God saw everything he had made and, look! it was very good.” (Genesis 1:27, 31) What is a perfect man like? A perfect man has free will and is able to imitate God’s qualities completely. A perfect man would live forever in perfect health, according to the Bible. The fall from perfection explains why the human body, though marvelously designed, is susceptible to deformities and disease. Evolution is therefore incompatible with the Bible. Evolution presents modern man as an improving animal. The Bible presents modern man as the degenerating descendant of a perfect man. The idea that God directed evolution in order to produce man is also incompatible with what the Bible says about God’s personality. If God guided the process of evolution, it would mean that he guided mankind into its present diseased and distressed state. However, the Bible says of God: “The Rock, perfect is his activity, for all his ways are justice. A God of faithfulness, with whom there is no injustice; righteous and upright is he. They have acted ruinously on their own part; they are not his children, the defect is their own.” (Deuteronomy 32:4, 5) Therefore, mankind’s present suffering is not the result of God-directed evolution. It is the result of one man’s losing perfection for himself and his offspring by rebelling against God. Taking into account the random sacrifice of Jesus (the foundation of Christianity), it's easy to see, then, that evolution is incompatible with Christianity. If we doubt that “in Adam all are dying,” how can we hope that “in the Christ all will be made alive”?Barb_{May 24, 2013
May
05
May
24
24
2013
07:56 AM
7
07
56
AM
PDT}

How about this, then? What wickedness! http://www.dallasnews.com/opinion/sunday-commentary/20130412-jeffrey-rosenfeld-and-christopher-mason-who-owns-your-dna-not-who-you-think..eceAxel_{May 24, 2013
May
05
May
24
24
2013
04:41 AM
4
04
41
AM
PDT}

as to: "that it was a 'natural' event"
Just how 'natural' can any event in the universe now be considered? ,,Quantum Mechanics has now been extended to falsify local realism (reductive materialism) without even using quantum entanglement to do it:
‘Quantum Magic’ Without Any ‘Spooky Action at a Distance’ – June 2011 Excerpt: A team of researchers led by Anton Zeilinger at the University of Vienna and the Institute for Quantum Optics and Quantum Information of the Austrian Academy of Sciences used a system which does not allow for entanglement, and still found results which cannot be interpreted classically. http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2011/06/110624111942.htm Physicists close two loopholes while violating local realism - November 2010 Excerpt: The latest test in quantum mechanics provides even stronger support than before for the view that nature violates local realism and is thus in contradiction with a classical worldview. http://www.physorg.com/news/2010-11-physicists-loopholes-violating-local-realism.html
The falsification for local realism (materialism) was recently greatly strengthened:
Zeilinger Group - Photons run out of loopholes - April 15, 2013 Excerpt: A team led by the Austrian physicist Anton Zeilinger has now carried out an experiment with photons, in which they have closed an important loophole. The researchers have thus provided the most complete experimental proof that the quantum world is in conflict with our everyday experience.,,, The young academics in Anton Zeilinger’s group,, have now achieved an important step towards delivering definitive experimental evidence that quantum particles can indeed do things that classical physics does not allow them to do. For their experiment, the team built one of the best sources for entangled photon pairs worldwide and employed highly efficient photon detectors designed by experts at NIST. These technological advances together with a suitable measurement protocol enabled the researchers to detect entangled photons with unprecedented efficiency. In a nutshell: "Our photons can no longer duck out of being measured," says Zeilinger. This kind of tight monitoring is important as it closes an important loophole. In previous experiments on photons, there has always been the possibility that although the measured photons do violate the laws of classical physics, such non-classical behaviour would not have been observed if all photons involved in the experiment could have been measured. In the new experiment, this loophole is now closed. "Perhaps the greatest weakness of photons as a platform for quantum experiments is their vulnerability to loss – but we have just demonstrated that this weakness need not be prohibitive," explains Marissa Giustina, lead author of the paper. http://vcq.quantum.at/research/research-groups/zeilinger-group/news/details/419.html
Thus no matter how distasteful some things are to us that may happen in this world, to claim that they are 'natural' is to miss the point of what science now tells us:
Four intersecting lines of experimental evidence from quantum mechanics that shows that consciousness precedes material reality (Wigner’s Quantum Symmetries, Wheeler’s Delayed Choice, Leggett’s Inequalities, Quantum Zeno effect): https://docs.google.com/document/d/1G_Fi50ljF5w_XyJHfmSIZsOcPFhgoAZ3PRc_ktY8cFo/edit
Verse, and music:
Romans 8:20-23 For the creation was subjected to frustration, not by its own choice, but by the will of the one who subjected it, in hope that the creation itself will be liberated from its bondage to decay and brought into the glorious freedom of the children of God. We know that the whole creation has been groaning as in the pains of childbirth right up to the present time. Not only so, but we ourselves, who have the firstfruits of the Spirit, groan inwardly as we wait eagerly for our adoption as sons, the redemption of our bodies.
And yes, which should be needless to say, at times it can be extremely difficult to understand why bad things are allowed to happen,,
Natalie Grant - Held http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8GDUBd2eWFw
bornagain77_{May 24, 2013
May
05
May
24
24
2013
04:04 AM
4
04
04
AM
PDT}

Most people worldwide believe that. Otherwise, why would they pray for healing?
Actually, I think if you were to go up to people who are praying for healing from, say, cancer, and asked, "Why are you praying for healing when God gave you cancer in the first place?", most would answer that God did not give them cancer - that it was a natural event - but that God can intervene to rid them of cancer.goodusername_{May 23, 2013
May
05
May
23
23
2013
09:02 PM
9
09
02
PM
PDT}

Prev 1 2

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply