At Skeptic: Why Christians Should Accept the Theory of Evolution

_{Eric Hedin

June 17, 2022

Evolution, Religion}

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

Larry Arnhart writes:

American Christian fundamentalists reject Darwinian evolution for at least two reasons. The first is their belief that the Bible has revealed a clear teaching about the divine creation of the world that denies Darwinian evolution. The second reason is their belief that Darwinian evolution contradicts the foundational principle of the American creed that human beings have been created equal and endowed with rights by their Creator, as affirmed in the Declaration of Independence. In this article I will argue that both beliefs are mistaken, and that Christians should all accept the theory of evolution.

In short, religious fundamentalists reject the Darwinian idea of human evolution from earlier species of animals because they believe this contradicts what the Bible says about God creating everything, including human beings, and about God as a personal deity who hears prayers and demands faithful obedience. They think … the Bible as God’s Revelation contradicts Darwin’s naturalistic science of evolution.

Let’s see what Arnhart has to say about the evidence for intelligent design:

To all of this, the intelligent design theorist Stephen Meyer responds by arguing that although he personally believes in biblical revelation, he sees that the case for an Intelligent Designer as an alternative to materialist natural science is best made on purely scientific grounds without any appeal to biblical authority. He claims that the evidence of science based on our natural observations of the world point to the existence of an Intelligent Designer to explain the appearance of design in the natural world that cannot be explained plausibly by Darwinian evolutionary science.

Meyer’s argument suffers, however, from a fundamental sophistry. Intelligent design reasoning depends completely on the fallacy of negative argumentation from ignorance, in which intelligent design proponents argue that if evolutionary scientists cannot fully explain the step-by-step evolutionary process by which complex living forms arise, then this proves that these complex forms of life must be caused by the Intelligent Designer. This is purely negative reasoning because the proponents of intelligent design are offering no positive explanation of their own as to exactly when, where, and how the Intelligent Designer miraculously caused these forms of life. Meyer insists that the proponents of evolutionary science satisfy standards of proof that he and his fellow proponents of intelligent design cannot satisfy, because his sophistical strategy is to put the highest burden of proof on his opponents, while refusing to accept that burden of proof for himself.

The author shows an astounding lack of understanding of the positive case for intelligent design, made clearly by Casey Luskin in a series of recent articles (Common Objections, Physics, Genetics, Systematics, and Paleontology). The boundaries of science, or the limitations of natural processes, provide a positive case for intelligent design, as discussed in my book, Canceled Science.

Arnhart’s concluding paragraph:

So, there are good reasons to believe that two of the major arguments against Darwinian evolution made by American Christian fundamentalists are mistaken. There is no clear biblical revelation denying Darwinian evolution. And there is no reason to believe that the Declaration of Independence requires a creationist theology that contradicts Darwinian science.
Skeptic

It turns out that some American Christian fundamentalists may disbelieve in Darwinian evolution for the wrong reasons, but their disbelief is squarely in line with the scientific evidence.

Comments

Wow- seversky talks about credibility! Yet there isn't any credible evidence that evolution by means of blind and mindless processes produced the diversity of life! Evos don't have any credibility.ET_{June 21, 2022
June
06
Jun
21
21
2022
05:52 AM
5
05
52
AM
PDT}

BA77/60
Sorry to upset your atheistic druthers Sev, but all of science, every nook and cranny of it, is based on the presupposition of intelligent design....
"Presuppositionalism" a/k/a confirmation bias a/k/a ideology a/k/a science stopper........chuckdarwin_{June 21, 2022
June
06
Jun
21
21
2022
05:35 AM
5
05
35
AM
PDT}

Seversky, "Science as a whole is most certainly not based in the presupposition of intelligent design." Sorry to upset your atheistic druthers Sev, but all of science, every nook and cranny of it, is based on the presupposition of intelligent design and is certainly not based on the atheist's presupposition of ‘methodological naturalism’. Again, you simply can't even 'do science' without first presupposing Intelligent Design to be true.
,,, from the essential Christian presuppositions that undergird the founding of modern science itself, (namely that the universe is contingent and rational in its foundational nature and that the minds of men, being made in the ‘image of God’, can, therefore, dare understand the rationality that God has imparted onto the universe), to the intelligent design of the scientific instruments and experiments themselves, to the logical and mathematical analysis of experimental results themselves, from top to bottom, science itself is certainly not to be considered a ‘natural’ endeavor of man. Not one scientific instrument would ever exist if men did not first intelligently design that scientific instrument. Not one test tube, microscope, telescope, spectroscope, or etc.. etc.., was ever found just laying around on a beach somewhere which was ‘naturally’ constructed by nature. Not one experimental result would ever be rationally analyzed since there would be no immaterial minds to rationally analyze the immaterial logic and immaterial mathematics that lay behind the intelligently designed experiments in the first place. Again, all of science, every nook and cranny of it, is based on the presupposition of intelligent design and is certainly not based on the presupposition of methodological naturalism.
Moreover, (as stated earlier in this thread at post 7), assuming ‘methodological naturalism’, (and forsaking Judeo-Christian Theism), as one’s starting philosophical presupposition for ‘doing science’, (as atheist's have self-servingly insisted that we do), actually drives science into catastrophic epistemological failure instead of facilitating any further notable scientific discovery.
Basically, because of reductive materialism (and/or methodological naturalism), the atheistic materialist (who believes Darwinian evolution to be true) is forced to claim that he is merely a ‘neuronal illusion’ (Coyne, Dennett, etc..), who has the illusion of free will (Harris), who has unreliable, (i.e. illusory), beliefs about reality (Plantinga), who has illusory perceptions of reality (Hoffman), who, since he has no real time empirical evidence substantiating his grandiose claims, must make up illusory “just so stories” with the illusory, and impotent, ‘designer substitute’ of natural selection (Behe, Gould, Sternberg), so as to ‘explain away’ the appearance (i.e. the illusion) of design (Crick, Dawkins), and who also must make up illusory meanings and purposes for his life since the hopelessness of the nihilism inherent in his atheistic worldview is simply too much for him to bear (Weikart), and who must also hold morality to be subjective and illusory since he has rejected God (Craig, Kreeft). Who, since beauty cannot be grounded within his materialistic worldview, must also hold beauty itself to be illusory (Darwin). Bottom line, nothing is truly real in the atheist’s worldview, least of all, beauty, morality, meaning and purposes for life.,,,
It would be hard to fathom a worldview more antagonistic to modern science, indeed more antagonistic to reality itself, than methodological naturalism, and/or Darwin's materialistic/natualistic theory, have turned out to be.
2 Corinthians 10:5 Casting down imaginations, and every high thing that exalteth itself against the knowledge of God, and bringing into captivity every thought to the obedience of Christ;
Of supplemental note, here is a list of empirical falsifications of Darwin's theory that Darwinists simply refuse to accept as falsifications of their theory.
1. Darwin’s theory holds mutations to the genome to be random. The vast majority of mutations to the genome are not random but are now found to be ‘directed’. 2. Darwin’s theory holds that Natural Selection is the ‘designer substitute’ that produces the ‘appearance’ and/or illusion of design. Natural Selection, especially for multicellular organisms, is found to be grossly inadequate as the ‘designer substitute. 3. Darwin’s theory holds that mutations to DNA will eventually change the basic biological form of any given species into a new form of a brand new species. Yet, biological form is found to be irreducible to mutations to DNA, nor is biological form reducible to any other material particulars in biology one may wish to invoke. 4. Darwin’s theory, (via Fisher’s Theorem in population genetics), assumed there to be an equal proportion of good and bad mutations to DNA which were, ultimately, responsible for all the diversity and complexity of life we see on earth. Yet, the ratio of detrimental to beneficial mutations is overwhelmingly detrimental. Detrimental to such a point that it is seriously questioned whether there are any truly beneficial, information building, mutations whatsoever. 5. Charles Darwin himself held that the gradual unfolding of life would (someday) be self-evident in the fossil record. Yet, from the Cambrian Explosion onward, the fossil record is consistently characterized by the sudden appearance of a group/kind in the fossil record, (i.e. disparity), then rapid diversity within the group/kind, and then long term stability and even deterioration of variety within the overall group/kind, and within the specific species of the kind, over long periods of time. Of the few dozen or so fossils claimed as transitional, not one is uncontested as a true example of transition between major animal forms out of millions of collected fossils. Moreover, Fossils are found in the “wrong place” all the time (either too early, or too late). 6. Darwin’s theory, due to the randomness postulate, holds that patterns will not repeat themselves in supposedly widely divergent species. Yet thousands of instances of what is ironically called ‘convergent evolution’, on both the morphological and genetic level, falsifies the Darwinian belief that patterns will not repeat themselves in widely divergent species. 7. Charles Darwin himself stated that “If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down.” Yet as Doug Axe pointed out, “Basically every gene and every new protein fold, there is nothing of significance that we can show that can be had in that gradualistic way. It’s all a mirage. None of it happens that way.” 8. Charles Darwin himself stated that “If it could be proved that any part of the structure of any one species had been formed for the exclusive good of another species, it would annihilate my theory, for such could not have been produced through natural selection.” Yet as Wolf-Ekkehard Lönnig pointed out, “in thousands of plant species often entirely new organs have been formed for the exclusive good of more than 132,930 other species, these ‘ugly facts’ have annihilated Darwin’s theory as well as modern versions of it.” 9. Charles Darwin himself stated that, ““The impossibility of conceiving that this grand and wondrous universe, with our conscious selves, arose through chance, seems to me the chief argument for the existence of God. Yet ‘our conscious selves’ are certainly not explainable by ‘chance’ (nor is consciousness explainable by any possible reductive materialistic explanation in general), i.e. ‘the hard problem of consciousness’. 10. Besides the mathematics of probability consistently showing that Darwinian evolution is impossible, the mathematics of population genetics itself has now shown Darwinian evolution to be impossible. Moreover, ‘immaterial’ mathematics itself, which undergirds all of science, engineering and technology, is held by most mathematicians to exist in some timeless, unchanging, immaterial, Platonic realm. Yet, the reductive materialism that Darwinian theory is based upon denies the existence of the immaterial realm that mathematics exists in. i.e. Darwinian evolution actually denies the objective reality of the one thing, i.e. mathematics, that it most needs in order to be considered scientific in the first place! 11. Donald Hoffman has, via population genetics, shown that if Darwin’s materialistic theory were true then all our observations of reality would be illusory. Yet the scientific method itself is based on reliable observation. Moreover, Quantum Mechanics itself has now shown that conscious observation must come before material reality, i.e. falsification of ‘realism’ proves that our conscious observations are reliable!. 12. The reductive materialism that undergirds Darwinian thought holds that immaterial information is merely ’emergent’ from a material basis. Yet immaterial Information, via experimental realization of the “Maxwell’s Demon” thought experiment, is now found to be its own distinctive physical entity that, although it can interact in a ‘top down’ manner with matter and energy, is separate from matter and energy. 13. Darwinists hold that Darwin’s theory is true. Yet ‘Truth’ itself is an abstract property of an immaterial mind that is irreducible to the reductive materialistic explanations of Darwinian evolution. i.e. Assuming reductive materialism and/or Naturalism as the starting philosophical position of science actually precludes ‘the truth’ from ever being reached by science! 14. Darwinists, due to their underlying naturalistic philosophy, insist that teleology (i.e. goal directed purpose) does not exist. Yet it is impossible for Biologists to do biological research without constantly invoking words that directly imply teleology. i.e. The very words that Biologists themselves are forced to use when they are doing their research falsifies Darwinian evolution. https://docs.google.com/document/d/1I6fT6ATY700Bsx2-JSFqL6l-rzXpMcZcZKZfYRS45h4/
Verse:
1 Thessalonians 5:21 but test everything; hold fast what is good.
bornagain77_{June 21, 2022
June
06
Jun
21
21
2022
02:04 AM
2
02
04
AM
PDT}

Seversky, besides Horgan, Tom Bethell also interviewed Karl Popper after the Darwinian backlash and Popper once again reiterated his claim that Darwinism was not a testable scientific theory.
Tom Bethell on Karl Popper's rejection of Darwinian Evolution as a testable scientific theory - 5:54 minute mark https://youtu.be/MLdZzf8HoUU?t=352 In his autobiography, Karl Popper said he had come to the conclusion that “Darwinism is not a testable scientific theory, but a metaphysical research program.”8 To say that a species now living is adapted to its environment “is almost tautological,” he wrote. “Adaptation or fitness is defined by modern evolutionists as survival value, and can be measured by actual success in survival. There is hardly any possibility of testing a theory as feeble as this.” Further controversy ensued, for Popper—apparently under pressure in England—partially recanted in 1978. Later, in 1988, I had a chance to interview Popper myself, when he spent a week at the Hoover Institution at Stanford University. I immediately brought up the issue of natural selection. He told me that his opinion had not changed. He also said he thought that natural selection had in fact been falsified “by Darwin’s own theory.” Distortions introduced by sexual selection sometimes meant that offspring were not better adapted than their parents, he said. When I mentioned that Darwinism had evidently benefited from the idea of Progress, widely accepted in the mid-nineteenth century but widely rejected in the late twentieth, Popper said that “I have been one of the people who have destroyed it.” He said he had “preached” along those lines in his book The Poverty of Historicisms. Tom Bethell, Darwin’s House of Cards (2016) (pp. 14–15)
Moreover, it turns out that Popper did not really ever take back his criticism of Darwinism but instead he merely, and cleverly, rephrased his wording so as to give the gestapo Darwinists the superficial impression that he had taken back his criticism of Darwinism,,,
Laszlo Bencze: Karl Popper Never Really Retracted His Doubt Of Darwin - November 9, 2020 Most of us know that at one point Karl Popper turned his attention to evolution and made the following statement: “…Darwinism is not a testable scientific theory, but a metaphysical research programme—a possible framework for testable scientific theories.” — Unended Quest An Intellectual Autobiography, Karl Popper, p. 168 The statement aroused so much controversy and animosity amongst his academic colleagues that he was forced to “recant” in the following statement: “I have in the past described the theory as ‘almost tautological’, and I have tried to explain how the theory of natural selection could be untestable (as a tautology) and yet of great scientific interest. My solution was that the doctrine of natural selection is a most successful metaphysical research programme. It raises detailed problems in many fields, and it tells us what we would expect of an acceptable solution of these problems. “I still believe that natural selection works in this way as a research programme. Nevertheless, I have changed my mind about the testability and the logical status of the theory of natural selection; and I am glad to have an opportunity to make a recantation. My recantation may, I hope, contribute a little to the understanding of the status of natural selection.” — Popper Selections, Karl Popper (edited by David Miller), p. 242 Note that his choice of the word “recantation” is significant. He might well have used “reevaluation” or “disavowal” or “repudiation.” I believe he chose recantation deliberately to ally himself with Galileo and to make clear that he was being persecuted by misguided and dimwitted authorities just as Galileo was. Furthermore, he writes that natural selection is “a most successful metaphysical research program.” Wait a minute. Wasn’t that what he was to apologize for? So within his recantation he is reaffirming his original point of view, the very one that got him in trouble. He goes on to say that he is glad to have an opportunity to make a recantation. Sure he is. He would much prefer to have a root canal without anesthesia than to recant a statement integral to his life’s work as philosopher. Finally, in his summary sentence he is “glad to contribute a little to the understanding of the status of natural selection.” So what did he contribute? He contributed the understanding of natural selection as a metaphysical research program. I never noticed these points until a friend pointed them out to me. Now they jump forth as obvious. https://uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/laszlo-bencze-karl-popper-never-really-retracted-his-doubt-of-darwin/
bornagain77_{June 20, 2022
June
06
Jun
20
20
2022
07:11 PM
7
07
11
PM
PDT}

Relatd/56
God was on earth, lived on earth, but people saw the miracles and still refused to believe them. When He rose from the dead, one of His disciples, Thomas, asked for proof. John 20:27 Then he said to Thomas, “Put your finger here, and see my hands; and put out your hand, and place it in my side. Do not disbelieve, but believe.”
Thomas is a man after my own heart. He wanted proof of what even then was an extraordinary claim. Wouldn't you? What if I suddenly proclaimed myself to be God reincarnated on Earth, would you take me at my word? Or would you want something more than that? The other obvious question is why the story of Doubting Thomas is only to be found in John? Why didn't the three other gospels mention it?Seversky_{June 20, 2022
June
06
Jun
20
20
2022
06:57 PM
6
06
57
PM
PDT}

Bornagain77/50
Moreover, on top of the fact that science itself is dependent on the presupposition of intelligent design, Darwinian evolution itself is NOT based on any discernible scientific footing
Science as a whole is most certainly not based in the presupposition of intelligent design. That would be a violation of the principle of parsimony, of not multiplying entities beyond necessity.
Karl Popper, who is widely regarded as one of the, in not THE, leading philosophers of science of the 20th century, called evolution via natural selection “almost a tautology” and “not a testable scientific theory but a metaphysical research program.”
As Horgan says, Popper withdrew his criticism of evolution. Horgan implies that Popper was somehow browbeaten into his recantation which seems to be at odds with Popper's reputation as a a man not easily intimidated.
As well, Imre Lakatos, who is also considered one of the leading philosophers of science in the 20th century, stated that “nobody to date has yet found a demarcation criterion according to which Darwin can be described as scientific,”
And yet, as the Anglo-Irish statesman Edmund Burke wrote
Though no man can draw a stroke between the confines of day and night, yet light and darkness are upon the whole tolerably distinguishable.
Seversky_{June 20, 2022
June
06
Jun
20
20
2022
06:49 PM
6
06
49
PM
PDT}

God was on earth, lived on earth, but people saw the miracles and still refused to believe them. When He rose from the dead, one of His disciples, Thomas, asked for proof. John 20:27 Then he said to Thomas, “Put your finger here, and see my hands; and put out your hand, and place it in my side. Do not disbelieve, but believe.”relatd_{June 20, 2022
June
06
Jun
20
20
2022
04:46 PM
4
04
46
PM
PDT}

Why not just come out into the open and declare Himself?
What would a world be like if that were the case? Would the best of all possible worlds require doubt?jerry_{June 20, 2022
June
06
Jun
20
20
2022
04:39 PM
4
04
39
PM
PDT}

Seversky
The only two scholars since William Paley who have made any credible attempt to place ID on a scientific footing are Michael Behe and William Dembski.
Douglas Axe has done some good work. Also, Wolf-Ekkehard Lönnig is an excellent, pro-ID scholar although he mainly critiques evolution and does not necessarily provide an ID-science argument: http://www.we-loennig.de/ The Evolution of the Long-Necked Giraffe http://www.weloennig.de/Giraffe.pdf With Plant Galls, Wolf-Ekkehard Lönnig Falsifies Darwinism https://evolutionnews.org/2017/10/wolf-ekkehard-loennig-falsifies-darwinism/Silver Asiatic_{June 20, 2022
June
06
Jun
20
20
2022
04:19 PM
4
04
19
PM
PDT}

Seversky at 49, Still looking for reasons to not trust God, as if he manipulates people like a human would. God is God. He acts as God. He's not an average human being.relatd_{June 20, 2022
June
06
Jun
20
20
2022
04:16 PM
4
04
16
PM
PDT}

BA77 at 50, Well said. It seems strange that unguided chance is still the idea accepted by many. But this clashes immediately with an ordered and intelligible universe and planet. But the alternative involves God, which some people do not believe in, so that choice is excluded.relatd_{June 20, 2022
June
06
Jun
20
20
2022
03:59 PM
3
03
59
PM
PDT}

Whatever Sev. I just found it very humorous, since it is filled with Christian themes, that you would cite 'The Lord of the Rings' in particular as your 'preference'. :)bornagain77_{June 20, 2022
June
06
Jun
20
20
2022
03:58 PM
3
03
58
PM
PDT}

Sev: "The only two scholars since William Paley who have made any credible attempt to place ID on a scientific footing are Michael Behe and William Dembski." Funny, you can't even do science in the first place without first presupposing Intelligent Design to be true.
Physics and the Mind of God: The Templeton Prize Address – by Paul Davies – August 1995 Excerpt: “People take it for granted that the physical world is both ordered and intelligible. The underlying order in nature-the laws of physics-are simply accepted as given, as brute facts. Nobody asks where they came from; at least they do not do so in polite company. However, even the most atheistic scientist accepts as an act of faith that the universe is not absurd, that there is a rational basis to physical existence manifested as law-like order in nature that is at least partly comprehensible to us. So science can proceed only if the scientist adopts an essentially theological worldview.” https://www.firstthings.com/article/1995/08/003-physics-and-the-mind-of-god-the-templeton-prize-address-24 Taking Science on Faith – By PAUL DAVIES – NOV. 24, 2007 Excerpt: All science proceeds on the assumption that nature is ordered in a rational and intelligible way. You couldn’t be a scientist if you thought the universe was a meaningless jumble of odds and ends haphazardly juxtaposed. ,,, the very notion of physical law is a theological one in the first place, a fact that makes many scientists squirm. Isaac Newton first got the idea of absolute, universal, perfect, immutable laws from the Christian doctrine that God created the world and ordered it in a rational way. Christians envisage God as upholding the natural order from beyond the universe,,, http://www.nytimes.com/2007/11/24/opinion/24davies.html Science and Theism: Concord, not Conflict* – Robert C. Koons IV. The Dependency of Science Upon Theism (Page 21) Excerpt: Far from undermining the credibility of theism, the remarkable success of science in modern times is a remarkable confirmation of the truth of theism. It was from the perspective of Judeo-Christian theism—and from the perspective alone—that it was predictable that science would have succeeded as it has. Without the faith in the rational intelligibility of the world and the divine vocation of human beings to master it, modern science would never have been possible, and, even today, the continued rationality of the enterprise of science depends on convictions that can be reasonably grounded only in theistic metaphysics. http://www.theistic.net/papers/R.Koons/Koons-science.pdf The War against the War Between Science and Faith Revisited - July 2010 Excerpt: … If science suffered only stillbirths in ancient cultures, how did it come to its unique viable birth? The beginning of science as a fully fledged enterprise took place in relation to two important definitions of the Magisterium of the Church. The first was the definition at the Fourth Lateran Council in the year 1215, that the universe was created out of nothing at the beginning of time. The second magisterial statement was at the local level, enunciated by Bishop Stephen Tempier of Paris who, on March 7, 1277, condemned 219 Aristotelian propositions, so outlawing the deterministic and necessitarian views of creation. These statements of the teaching authority of the Church expressed an atmosphere in which faith in God had penetrated the medieval culture and given rise to philosophical consequences. The cosmos was seen as contingent in its existence and thus dependent on a divine choice which called it into being; the universe is also contingent in its nature and so God was free to create this particular form of world among an infinity of other possibilities. Thus the cosmos cannot be a necessary form of existence; and so it has to be approached by a posteriori investigation. The universe is also rational and so a coherent discourse can be made about it. Indeed the contingency and rationality of the cosmos are like two pillars supporting the Christian vision of the cosmos. http://www.scifiwright.com/2010/08/the-war-against-the-war-between-science-and-faith-revisited/ The Judeo-Christian Origins of Modern Science - Stephen Meyer - video - (April 2022) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ss-kzyXeqdQ
Moreover, on top of the fact that science itself is dependent on the presupposition of intelligent design, Darwinian evolution itself is NOT based on any discernible scientific footing, Karl Popper, who is widely regarded as one of the, in not THE, leading philosophers of science of the 20th century, called evolution via natural selection “almost a tautology” and “not a testable scientific theory but a metaphysical research program.”
Dubitable Darwin? Why Some Smart, Nonreligious People Doubt the Theory of Evolution - John Horgan - July 6, 2010 Excerpt: Early in his career, the philosopher Karl Popper ,, called evolution via natural selection “almost a tautology” and “not a testable scientific theory but a metaphysical research program.” Attacked for these criticisms, Popper took them back (in approx 1978). But when I interviewed him in 1992, he blurted out that he still found Darwin’s theory dissatisfying. “One ought to look for alternatives!” Popper exclaimed, banging his kitchen table. http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/cross-check/dubitable-darwin-why-some-smart-nonreligious-people-doubt-the-theory-of-evolution/
As well, Imre Lakatos, who is also considered one of the leading philosophers of science in the 20th century, stated that “nobody to date has yet found a demarcation criterion according to which Darwin can be described as scientific,”
Does Evolution have a Hard Core ? Excerpt: “ people think that there are goodies and baddies among scientific theories, and once you have defined a demarcation criterion. you should divide all your theories between the two groups. You would end up. for example, with a goodies list including Copernicus’s (Theory1), Galileo’s (T2), Kepler’s (T3), Newton’s (T4) … and Einstein’s (T5), along with but this is just my supposition Darwin’s (T6). Let me just anticipate that nobody to date has yet found a demarcation criterion according to which Darwin can be described as scientific, but this is exactly what we are looking for.” – Imre Lakatos (November 9, 1922 – February 2, 1974) a philosopher of mathematics and science, quote was as stated in 1973 LSE Scientific Method Lecture So basically, the demarcation problem is a fun mind-game philosophers enjoy playing, but when they realize the implications regarding the theory of evolution, they quickly back off… http://www.samizdat.qc.ca/cosmos/philo/hardcore_pg.htm
quote:
“There exists no model successfully describing undirected Darwinian evolution. Hard sciences are built on foundations of mathematics or definitive simulations. Examples include electromagnetics, Newtonian mechanics, geophysics, relativity, thermodynamics, quantum mechanics, optics, and many areas in biology. Those hoping to establish Darwinian evolution as a hard science with a model have either failed or inadvertently cheated. These models contain guidance mechanisms to land the airplane squarely on the target runway despite stochastic wind gusts. Not only can the guiding assistance be specifically identified in each proposed evolution model, its contribution to the success can be measured, in bits, as active information.,,,”,,, “there exists no model successfully describing undirected Darwinian evolution. According to our current understanding, there never will be.,,,” – Robert J. Marks II – Top Ten Questions and Objections to ‘Introduction to Evolutionary Informatics’ – June 12, 2017 https://evolutionnews.org/2017/06/top-ten-questions-and-objections-to-introduction-to-evolutionary-informatics/
bornagain77_{June 20, 2022
June
06
Jun
20
20
2022
03:51 PM
3
03
51
PM
PDT}

Bornagain77/46
“In reading Chesterton, as in reading MacDonald, I did not know what I was letting myself in for. A young man who wishes to remain a sound Atheist cannot be too careful of his reading. There are traps everywhere — “Bibles laid open, millions of surprises,” as Herbert says, “fine nets and stratagems.” God is, if I may say it, very unscrupulous.” – C.S. Lewis, Surprised by Joy: The Shape of My Early Life
Why would God have to resort to unscrupulous stratagems to reveal His presence? Why not just come out into the open and declare Himself? And, going back to my previous response to Groovamos on religious belief, I was reminded of Isaac Asimov's science-fiction trilogy Foundation and Empire. In the second book of the series, Asimov introduces a character called The Mule who has telepathic powers. These powers are not about reading thoughts so much as manipulating emotions such that an implacably hostile enemy could be brought before him and turned into an adoring follower just by tweaking his emotions. Now, we have stories from the Bible about God hardening the Pharoah's heart which suggests God has similar powers. That being the case, how do you know that the need to worship God is not some being manipulating your thoughts and feelings?Seversky_{June 20, 2022
June
06
Jun
20
20
2022
03:46 PM
3
03
46
PM
PDT}

Seversky at 47, I was at a comic book convention and witnessed the wife of a man complain that a certain religion did not allow her son to do something. I said something about God and the husband said, "Show me God. If you can show me God I might believe in Him." God waits for you Seversky.relatd_{June 20, 2022
June
06
Jun
20
20
2022
03:40 PM
3
03
40
PM
PDT}

Groovamos/31
Another BS assertion by someone who has no basis for the statement, not being familiar with the extended activities of any of the contributors on here.
The only two scholars since William Paley who have made any credible attempt to place ID on a scientific footing are Michael Behe and William Dembski. Behe proposed that there are biological features which could not conceivably have emerged through natural processes. When biologists were able to show that there were at least conceivable natural origins, that claim was undermined. The mathematics Dembski employed to support his case have been criticized as flawed. Both Dembski and Behe deserve credit for their work but it hasn't really moved the needle on the credibility of ID.
Let me toss out a proposal. Suppose there were a sacrament that when smoked just once by atheists, were to convince more than half of those atheists of a gigantic error in their worldview, and lead subsequently to their questioning the basis of their atheism. Well guess what, such a substance does exist and the psychiatric dept at Johns Hopkins has interviewed 2,561 people who have smoked this substance. So then the accusation can be turned around:
You do realize that if religious belief can be influenced or modified by chemical agents or electromagnetic fields it calls into question the validity of such beliefs or the need for a god or designer to account for them?
In other words not only are millions of people out there and in history who have explored the issue including Aldous Huxley who grouped the fruits of the related quest for knowledge under the catch-all appellation “perennial philosophy” – but that there is an enormous body of literature out there describing it and at the outset blowing scientific materialism to bits.
Yes, there have been millions throughout history who have explored these issues but they are still undecided. We can show the existence of a phenomenon called gravity by watching an apple fall to the ground. It happened in Newton's day and it still happens now. We have nothing equivalent for the existence of a god.Seversky_{June 20, 2022
June
06
Jun
20
20
2022
03:24 PM
3
03
24
PM
PDT}

"personally I prefer The Lord Of The Rings"
J. R. R. Tolkien was a devout Roman Catholic from boyhood, and he described The Lord of the Rings in particular as a fundamentally religious and Catholic work. While he insisted it was not an allegory, it contains numerous themes from Christian theology. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christianity_in_Middle-earth “In reading Chesterton, as in reading MacDonald, I did not know what I was letting myself in for. A young man who wishes to remain a sound Atheist cannot be too careful of his reading. There are traps everywhere — "Bibles laid open, millions of surprises," as Herbert says, "fine nets and stratagems." God is, if I may say it, very unscrupulous.” - C.S. Lewis, Surprised by Joy: The Shape of My Early Life
bornagain77_{June 20, 2022
June
06
Jun
20
20
2022
03:14 PM
3
03
14
PM
PDT}

Relatd/27
1.) God as in the Judeo-Christian God.
The Judeo-Christian God may be your candidate but there are others here on Earth who are believed in just as fervently by their followers.
2.) Aliens – as if we have any aliens we can sit down with and talk to.
As if we have any gods we can sit down and talk to.
3.) A rock from space. A meteor carrying organic material hit the ground and life spread everywhere.
That's one possibility of how life got to Earth but it doesn't tell us anything about its origins.
If God then read the Bible.
Like I said, I have but personally I prefer The Lord Of The RingsSeversky_{June 20, 2022
June
06
Jun
20
20
2022
02:48 PM
2
02
48
PM
PDT}

Relatd - Yes I think we're making the same point. I think I failed to properly identify blind evolution as the "theory" that I was criticizing. However, with myself being an intelligent agent and not a blind force, I'm going to co-opt your metaphor of the driverless car. If Arnhart's thinking were correct then writing down a set of instructions that the car could follow would solve the whole problem. But even if we could observe the car making the trip, that would be analogous to common descent. The problem of design would remain.hnorman42_{June 20, 2022
June
06
Jun
20
20
2022
04:26 AM
4
04
26
AM
PDT}

Martin_r, yes. This is a measure of the ideologisation of science and civilisation. KFkairosfocus_{June 20, 2022
June
06
Jun
20
20
2022
03:11 AM
3
03
11
AM
PDT}

Relatd @41 I think that's the point I was making. I'll review my comment and see if I need to make any corrections.hnorman42_{June 19, 2022
June
06
Jun
19
19
2022
05:29 PM
5
05
29
PM
PDT}

Hnorman 42 at 40, "There is however a great deal of evidence against blind forces producing evolution..." So, starting in the ocean, followed by crawling onto land, followed by lemur-like creatures and then human beings - by blind forces? Imagine yourself starting a car and with no driver. How likely would it be for it to cross the country without hitting anything or careening into a river?relatd_{June 19, 2022
June
06
Jun
19
19
2022
04:58 PM
4
04
58
PM
PDT}

A couple of observations: Although the point seems to be anathema across the board I will say it once. (Okay, maybe more if I feel the need). In order to show an idea to be "only a theory" in the old sense of the term you do not need evidence against it -- only a lack of evidence for it. There is however a great deal of evidence against blind forces producing evolution and it's a fortunate bonus but it's not essential. Arnhart misses the point with regards to getting the step-by-step paths to complex forms. It's easy for us to postulate a set of instructions. The problem is getting a blind agent to find it.hnorman42_{June 19, 2022
June
06
Jun
19
19
2022
04:33 PM
4
04
33
PM
PDT}

ET at 37, What God did is spiritually discerned and can be known by natural reason as well. • The Church “proclaims that by the light of reason the human intellect can readily and clearly discern purpose and design in the natural world, including the world of living things.” • “Any system of thought that denies or seeks to explain away the overwhelming evidence for design in biology is ideology, not science.” • Again quoting John Paul II: “To all these indications of the existence of God the Creator, some oppose the power of chance or of the proper mechanisms of matter. To speak of chance for a universe which presents such a complex organization in its elements and such marvelous finality in its life would be equivalent to giving up the search for an explanation of the world as it appears to us. In fact, this would be equivalent to admitting effects without a cause. It would be to abdicate human intelligence, which would thus refuse to think and to seek a solution for its problems.” • Quoting the Catechism : “Human intelligence is surely already capable of finding a response to the question of origins. The existence of God the Creator can be known with certainty through his works, by the light of human reason . . . . We believe that God created the world according to his wisdom. It is not the product of any necessity whatever, nor of blind fate or chance.” Christoph Cardinal Schönbornrelatd_{June 19, 2022
June
06
Jun
19
19
2022
12:04 PM
12
12
04
PM
PDT}

CD at 36, Ooh, they're WhIte. The sworn enemy of the Leftist (wannabe) Dictatorship. Are you white? If you are, do you want to be black? Theistic evolution does not describe anything. Not in a generic sense. Where, exactly, did God intervene? On the other hand, if there was a process, the Catholic Church teaches that God intervened and did so infallibly. This is not the blind, unguided chance being marketed here.relatd_{June 19, 2022
June
06
Jun
19
19
2022
12:01 PM
12
12
01
PM
PDT}

Theistic evolutionists seem to be cowards in that they insist that God did it but we cannot tell, scientifically, that God did it. And yet not one TE can produce any evidence that blind and mindless processes did it! Watching evos and moronic religious people choke on science and evidence is worth the price of admission.ET_{June 19, 2022
June
06
Jun
19
19
2022
11:48 AM
11
11
48
AM
PDT}

According to Pew (2014) a majority of Christians already believe in evolution (54%). A little over half of those folks believe that evolution is part of God's design. Unsurprisingly, the majority of the 41% that do not believe in evolution are white evangelicals. (https://www.pewresearch.org/religion/religious-landscape-study/christians/christian/views-about-human-evolution/#demographic-information) Personally, I find the pissing match between the theistic evolutionists and evangelicals much more fascinating and entertaining than the old evolution-anti-evolution spat. Watching the Discovery Institute slinging mud at BioLogos is worth the price of admission...chuckdarwin_{June 19, 2022
June
06
Jun
19
19
2022
11:32 AM
11
11
32
AM
PDT}

Martin_r at 33, I trusted my teachers. And that was part of the problem. They, and others on TV, said life evolved. It self-upgraded until it accidentally produced human beings. Scientists today can only deal with what is actually in front of them. So those that deal with living things are sometimes unaware that what they think they know - meaning unguided chance - does not apply in the real world. If they are involved with drug discovery and cellular analysis, they are doing actual science with no need for Darwin. The actual results are the actual results. Even if they think the DNA code came from a natural - meaning non-God - process, that won't help them solve real problems today.relatd_{June 19, 2022
June
06
Jun
19
19
2022
11:07 AM
11
11
07
AM
PDT}

Martin: "I can’t decide what is more sophisticated … a broken jar/stone tool or a dino skeleton made of hi-tech material, or a DNA’s 4 letter digital code with encryption/decryption syntax." You may appreciate a little humor along that line
Dogbert Evolution https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SjhbtCWHj1g
bornagain77_{June 19, 2022
June
06
Jun
19
19
2022
09:03 AM
9
09
03
AM
PDT}

Relatd
To date, the discoveries of science are providing more and more evidence for Intelligent Design.
From the moment DNA's digital 4 letter code was discovered it was clear that life was created. Any advanced civilization would such a discovery consider as an ultimate proof of created/engineered system. Unfortunately, on this planet, there are people, natural science graduates, so called scientists / Darwinists, who only accept some sort of design. E.g. when they dig up a broken jar made of mud ... or a stone tool. On the other hand, when these people (Darwinists) dig up a giant dino skeleton made of sophisticated hi-tech material, for some unknown reason, this is not considered as designed/created/engineered system. I can't decide what is more sophisticated ... a broken jar/stone tool or a dino skeleton made of hi-tech material, or a DNA's 4 letter digital code with encryption/decryption syntax.martin_r_{June 19, 2022
June
06
Jun
19
19
2022
08:59 AM
8
08
59
AM
PDT}

Prev 1 2 3 4 Next

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply