Intelligent Design

Evolutionary Thought in Action

Spread the love

Evolutionists claim evolution is a fact as much as gravity is a fact. As with gravity, we may not yet understand the details of evolution, but evolution in one way or another is an undeniable fact. Well is it? One evolutionist is certain and wrote this to me:  Read more

5 Replies to “Evolutionary Thought in Action

  1. 1
    Chimera says:

    Dr Hunter

    Although I have been pretty skeptical about evolution for a long time it was only until I started reading your blog and the Darwins predictions website that I really appreciated why evolutionists are so confident about their problematic theory.

    I do indeed see the metaphysics in this example, and with other examples such as bad design (which seems downright bizarre in itself) and I can see how design is ruled out by such religious arguments disguised as scientific evidence.

    The Darwinists say what is the point of your blog, but I certainly appreciate it.

  2. 2
    Lock says:

    That’s the way to do it…

    Of course evolution is a fact; assuming a, x, and y are true. But, as most of us already know and have studied with amazement quite thoroughly, those are philosophical assumptions pertaining to one’s metaphysic and the ultimate nature of reality.

    I am encouraged in face to face conversations within my own circle. Thogh many do not perceive that philosophy is another name for ‘religion’, once discussed, they grasp it very quickly. It is only a matter of letting them express the reasons for their own beliefs and asking the porper questions.

    The conversation always boils down to the ultimate nature of reality; ‘a what’ or ‘a who’. And it is very easy to see (with minimal guidance) that even if one believes in no god whatsoever, that theirs is a religious (metaphysical)belief.

    Is there a more central facet of this debate? I think not…

    Dawkins conversation with Ben Stein at the end of ‘Expelled’ captures this well. Dawkins rejects Stein’s question, “Who created all of this?” as question begging, but seems utterly oblivious to the fact that his own position does the same. Materialism asks, “What is the origin of all of this”.

  3. 3
    Mung says:

    Gilded lilies are absolute proof that evolution is a fact.

  4. 4
    DATCG says:

    re: response to Dr. Hunter…

    If the same “psuedogene” exist within a human and a jellfish, that show it to be “broken in the exact same place”

    Do we claim common descent from jellyfish to human?

    Or that of a banana?
    Horse?
    T-Rex?

    Most people would “objectively” say no to these examples.

    So, why then would people say yes to the Chimp-Human common descent? Even “objective” scientist?

    Unless it was not subjectively a metaphysical belief system? A system of belief, built around the an evolutionary pattern of emergent, mutational accidents through natural selection. A decidedly materialistic worldview.

    Not a single person has observed any transtions in past history from a chimp to a human. But they will have faith and believe that it happened.

    We all can observe an apple fall to the ground. Or a ball tossed in the air fall back to earth.

    One is a belief. The other is a fact. If materialist cannot determine which is a fact and which is an inferred belief at best, therein lies the problem and where objectivity falls to the ground.

  5. 5
    DATCG says:

    minor correction to above last paragraph… “One is a belief. The other is an observed fact”

    Also, in rebuttal to another commenter.

    A materialist commenter can quibble and quote string theorist all day long on the “illusion of gravity” but the facts are, if he stands underneath a falling baseball and it hits him on his head, his thick skulls will not feel an illusion.

    I wonder, would the same commenter like to perform a gravity experiment to test the string theory physicist “illusion” hypothesis?

    Would he be willing to stand beneath an Anvil? Oh, say, just 50ft above his head?

    Observers would know it is an illusion if the anvil does not injure or indeed kill him when the Anvil is released from above.

    Therefore, he could continue his argument about gravity. Otherwise, to his own demise, observers would note that the argument of gravity illusion is moot.

Leave a Reply