Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community

Being An Evolutionist

arroba Email

Do you think the world arose spontaneously? No one would agree with that, not even an evolutionist. But that is, in fact, what evolutionists believe. Indeed they say it is a fact. A fact as much as gravity or the round Earth. There must be no design, no final causes, no teleology. The world must have arisen by itself—spontaneously. And no, natural selection does not change that. There is no magic ratchet or feedback loop to make the hypothesized evolutionary process not a spontaneous process. And in any case natural selection is finally meeting its long-awaited demise, thus confirming even more so what it is to be an evolutionist.  Read more

Thanks Barb, found the references so I don't need you to list them. :) First is from Jean Rostand, The Orion Book of Evolution, p. 17. Second is from Discovery Developments in Science, Volume 2, p. 22. Third is from Should Evolution Be Taught? by Moore, p. 111. bornagain77
Pity Dobzhanky and Lewontin weren't about, when Einstein was. But he'd have felt such a fool. It reminds me of people who edit Christ's words about money, as if he'd been a bit careless or clumsy in the way he expressed himself on the subject. 'It's not money' - they like to "correct" - it's how we use it, he meant....' How much more reliable the Gospels might have been if they'd been on hand with their priceless emendations. Axel
Barb, if you could, could you please provide the references for your quotes @2 ? bornagain77
Hunter's post reminds of this quote:
Let me try to make crystal clear what is established beyond reasonable doubt, and what needs further study, about evolution. Evolution as a process that has always gone on in the history of the earth can be doubted only by those who are ignorant of the evidence or are resistant to evidence, owing to emotional blocks or to plain bigotry. By contrast, the mechanisms that bring evolution about certainly need study and clarification. There are no alternatives to evolution as history that can withstand critical examination. Yet we are constantly learning new and important facts about evolutionary mechanisms. - Theodosius Dobzhansky
And this one:
It is time for students of the evolutionary process, especially those who have been misquoted and used by the creationists, to state clearly that evolution is a fact, not theory, and that what is at issue within biology are questions of details of the process and the relative importance of different mechanisms of evolution. It is a fact that the earth with liquid water, is more than 3.6 billion years old. It is a fact that cellular life has been around for at least half of that period and that organized multicellular life is at least 800 million years old. It is a fact that major life forms now on earth were not at all represented in the past. There were no birds or mammals 250 million years ago. It is a fact that major life forms of the past are no longer living. There used to be dinosaurs and Pithecanthropus, and there are none now. It is a fact that all living forms come from previous living forms. Therefore, all present forms of life arose from ancestral forms that were different. Birds arose from nonbirds and humans from nonhumans. No person who pretends to any understanding of the natural world can deny these facts any more than she or he can deny that the earth is round, rotates on its axis, and revolves around the sun. The controversies about evolution lie in the realm of the relative importance of various forces in molding evolution. - R. C. Lewontin "Evolution/Creation Debate: A Time for Truth" Bioscience 31, 559 (1981)
It is interesting that while every single proposed mechanism of evolution - natural selection, genetic drift, punk eek, etc etc - is not without controversy and not one of them as "firmly established as gravity", evolution remains a "fact, Fact, FACT!" Anyone who doubts or questions that is "stupid, insane or ignorant (or wicked)..." Look at Dobzhanky's quote above, evolution "...can be doubted only by those who are ignorant of the evidence or are resistant to evidence". And Lewontin "No person who pretends to any understanding of the natural world can deny these facts any more than she or he can deny that the earth is round, rotates on its axis, and revolves around the sun." Well, we have two problems here. First, if every single mechanism by which evolution is supposed to operate is the object of controversy among evolutionary biologists...and that is the case...then on what scientific basis does it remain an undisputed fact? Clearly there is more than science going one here, as Hunter so rightly has stated. Secondly, the critique of those who doubt the "fact" of evolution as being ignorant, or willfully recalcitrant, or just plain stupid is itself a very cleverly disguised ad hominem. One staunch defender of Darwinian evolution I know put it this way: "I've never known anyone who both understood AND rejected evolution". Well, what is that really saying? If you study evolution, and you study what evolutionary biologists say about evolution, and you understand it thoroughly, and you still reject it, then you are, as Dawkins said, either too stupid to get it, just ignorant of the real facts, perhaps insane, or maybe you're just perverse and willfully being provocative. In any case, the idea that it is inconceivable that anyone could actually understand yet doubt the fact of evolution means that no matter what objection to this supposed fact is raised, the evolutionist is always in a position to say "you're ignorant, stupid, insane, or just plain wicked...take your pick!" In all my years of engaging in online discussions here and elsewhere and debating evolutionists, it never ceases to amaze me that it is always the evolution critic who is in error either with facts, or logic, or reasoning, or understanding or whatever. Evolutionists, on the other hand, have a perfect understanding of ID and so are perfectly justified in and or all of their critiques of it, because, well, they're just so brilliant that they could not possibly be in error. To paraphrase the above quote: I've never known anyone who both understood and rejected intelligent design! There, I said it...I feel better already! DonaldM
Scientists are beginning to see that mutations are not the basis for evolution. The conclusion is clear. No amount of accidental genetic change can cause one kind of life to turn into another kind. As French biologist Jean Rostand once said: “No, decidedly, I cannot make myself think that these ‘slips’ of heredity have been able, even with the cooperation of natural selection, even with the advantage of the immense periods of time in which evolution works on life, to build the entire world, with its structural prodigality and refinements, its astounding ‘adaptations.’” Similarly, geneticist C. H. Waddington stated regarding the belief in mutations: “This is really the theory that if you start with any fourteen lines of coherent English and change it one letter at a time, keeping only those things that still make sense, you will eventually finish up with one of the sonnets of Shakespeare. . . . it strikes me as a lunatic sort of logic, and I think we should be able to do better.” The truth is as Professor John Moore declared: “Upon rigorous examination and analysis, any dogmatic assertion . . . that gene mutations are the raw material for any evolutionary process involving natural selection is an utterance of a myth.” Barb
Dr. Hunter, as to:
Masatoshi Nei’s new book, Mutation-Driven Evolution. The term “mutation-driven” means that mutations not only are supposed to provide the raw materials for evolutionary change, but that they also are supposed to cause evolutionary change without the help of the venerable natural selection.
Seems I remember that the highly superfluous addition of Natural Selection, over and above the primacy of random variation, was brought up to Darwin himself:
An Early Critique of Darwin Warned of a Lower Grade of Degradation - Cornelius Hunter - December 2012 Excerpt: And as for Darwin’s grand principle, natural selection, (Adam Sedgwick asked Charles Darwin) “what is it but a secondary consequence of supposed, or known, primary facts.” Yet Darwin had smuggled in teleological language to avoid the absurdity and make it acceptable. For Darwin had written of natural selection “as if it were done consciously by the selecting agent.” Yet again, this criticism is cogent today. Teleological language is rampant in the evolutionary literature. http://darwins-god.blogspot.com/2012/12/an-early-critique-of-darwin-warned-of.html
Here is the entire letter to Darwin in its polite but crushing critique:
Letter from Adam Sedgwick to Charles Darwin - 1859 http://www.darwinproject.ac.uk/entry-2548
Moreover, since successful reproduction is all that really matters on a neo-Darwinian view of things, how can anything but successful reproduction ever truly be ‘selected’ for on a consistent basis? Any other function besides successful reproduction, such as sight, hearing, thinking, color, etc.., would be highly superfluous to the primary criteria of successfully reproducing, and should, on a Darwinian view, be discarded as so much excess baggage since it would, sooner or later, slow down successful reproduction. Any other attribute that Darwinists try to credit to natural selection, besides selecting for successful reproduction, is nothing more than a pipe dream masquerading as science. All this brings up the matter as to how sexual reproduction itself got started since it is so much more cumbersome than asexual reproduction itself is to accomplish:
Walter ReMine on the Origin of Sexual Reproduction - interview http://kgov.com/ReMine-3 http://kgov.s3.amazonaws.com/bel/2012/20120727-BEL150.mp3 moreover, as Walter Remine pointed out in the preceding interview, sexual reproduction is now known to limit diversity, not promote it,, Sex Is Not About Promoting Genetic Variation, Researchers Argue - (July 7, 2011) Excerpt: Biology textbooks maintain that the main function of sex is to promote genetic diversity. But Henry Heng, Ph.D., associate professor in WSU's Center for Molecular Medicine and Genetics, says that's not the case.,,, ,,,the primary function of sex is not about promoting diversity. Rather, it's about keeping the genome context -- an organism's complete collection of genes arranged by chromosome composition and topology -- as unchanged as possible, thereby maintaining a species' identity. This surprising analysis has been published as a cover article in a recent issue of the journal Evolution.,,, For nearly 130 years, traditional perceptions hold that asexual reproduction generates clone-like offspring and sexual reproduction leads to more diverse offspring. "In reality, however, the relationship is quite the opposite," said Heng.,,, http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2011/07/110707161037.htm
Here is a humorous clip that goes horribly off track for the, ahem, 'world's greatest thinker':
Richard Dawkins interview with a 'Darwinian' physician goes off track - video Excerpt: "I am amazed, Richard, that what we call metazoans, multi-celled organisms, have actually been able to evolve, and the reason [for amazement] is that bacteria and viruses replicate so quickly -- a few hours sometimes, they can reproduce themselves -- that they can evolve very, very quickly. And we're stuck with twenty years at least between generations. How is it that we resist infection when they can evolve so quickly to find ways around our defenses?" http://www.evolutionnews.org/2012/07/video_to_dawkin062031.html
verse and music:
Matthew 19:4 "Haven't you read," he replied, "that at the beginning the Creator 'made them male and female,' Enya - Orinoco Flow (video) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LTrk4X9ACtw&ob=av2e

Leave a Reply