Intelligent Design

Evolutionists: Skepticism is a Science Stopper

Spread the love

It began practically as soon as Origin of Species was published. In the second half of the nineteenth century and even more so in the twentieth century, questioning evolution was cast as anti science. From an evolutionary perspective this makes sense. If evolution is an obvious and undeniable scientific fact, then is not skepticism tantamount to an attack on science itself? But once again, evolution’s criticism is more of a reflection of evolution itself.  Read more

3 Replies to “Evolutionists: Skepticism is a Science Stopper

  1. 1
    Barb says:

    But if you’re ruling out supernatural force(s) or anything beyond the natural realm, you’re not objectively or impartially examining all the evidence.

    If evolution truly were an obvious and undeniable scientific fact, ID wouldn’t exist. The fact is, there are holes in evolutionary theory and there are unanswered questions regarding life’s origins.

    To attack anyone who questions evolution makes the scientists look as rabid and unreasoning as the fundamentalist creationists they abhor. And when you become that which you hate, you have lost the battle and the war.

  2. 2
    leenibus says:

    Cornelius,
    I usually confine my comments at Uncommon Descent to scientific matters, however your latest article is even more breathtakingly perverse than usual.

    In George Orwell’s famous novel “1984”, Big Brother’s repeated message was
    War is peace
    Freedom is slavery
    Ignorance is strength

    To this we can now add your messages:
    Evolution is religion
    Methodological naturalism is non-scientific
    And now – Skepticism (concerning the supernatural) is a science stopper

    Presumably you think if you repeat any nonsense often enough, people may believe it.

  3. 3
    bornagain77 says:

    leenibus,

    Let’s see if you pass the litmus test of your own standards:

    War is peace – clearly false

    Freedom is slavery – clearly false, yet interestingly “freedom’ is the battle cry from many people desiring to do as they wish, not as they ought, and ironically this unfettered ‘freedom’ leads to a ‘slavery’ to various sins, with ‘freedom’ then taking on a completely different meaning!

    Ignorance is strength – clearly false – but how many times have I heard neo-Darwinists appeal to what we don’t know, our ignorance, to defend against what we do know!

    Now to your examples;

    Evolution is religion – contrary to your vehement objections this is true!

    Evolution Is Religion–Not Science by Henry Morris, Ph.D.
    Excerpt: Evolution is promoted by its practitioners as more than mere science. Evolution is promulgated as an ideology, a secular religion—a full-fledged alternative to Christianity, with meaning and morality,,, Evolution is a religion. This was true of evolution in the beginning, and it is true of evolution still today.
    Darwinian atheist Michael Ruse – Prominent Philosopher
    http://www.icr.org/article/455/

    I think Michael Behe does an excellent job, in this following debate, of pointing out that denying the overwhelming evidence for design in biology makes the science of biology ‘irrational’. As well Dr. Behe makes it clear that materialistic evolutionists themselves, by their own admission in many cases, are promoting their very own religious viewpoint, Atheism, in public schools, and thus are in fact violating the establishment clause of the constitution:

    Should Intelligent Design Be Taught as Science? Michael Behe debates Stephen Barr – 2010 – video
    http://www.isi.org/lectures/fl.....4/lectures

    Methodological naturalism is non-scientific – this is also a true statement;

    Methodological naturalism is the a-priori imposition of the materialistic philosophy onto the scientific method, to the dogmatic exclusion of all other philosophies, especially Theism. Yet the scientific method could care less if the answer is a ‘materialistic one or not, especially in these questions of origins, Thus in questions of origins all answers are artificially force fitted into a predetermined mold. Thus methodological naturalism is not only ‘non-scientific’, it is actually ‘anti-scientific”;
    Notes;
    http://docs.google.com/Doc?doc....._5fwz42dg9

    And now – Skepticism (concerning the supernatural) is a science stopper – this is also a true statement. The following clearly illustrates why materialism becomes a science stopper;

    BRUCE GORDON: Hawking’s irrational arguments – October 2010
    Excerpt: The physical universe is causally incomplete and therefore neither self-originating nor self-sustaining. The world of space, time, matter and energy is dependent on a reality that transcends space, time, matter and energy. This transcendent reality cannot merely be a Platonic realm of mathematical descriptions, for such things are causally inert abstract entities that do not affect the material world. Neither is it the case that “nothing” is unstable, as Mr. Hawking and others maintain. Absolute nothing cannot have mathematical relationships predicated on it, not even quantum gravitational ones. Rather, the transcendent reality on which our universe depends must be something that can exhibit agency – a mind that can choose among the infinite variety of mathematical descriptions and bring into existence a reality that corresponds to a consistent subset of them. This is what “breathes fire into the equations and makes a universe for them to describe.,,, the evidence for string theory and its extension, M-theory, is nonexistent; and the idea that conjoining them demonstrates that we live in a multiverse of bubble universes with different laws and constants is a mathematical fantasy. What is worse, multiplying without limit the opportunities for any event to happen in the context of a multiverse – where it is alleged that anything can spontaneously jump into existence without cause – produces a situation in which no absurdity is beyond the pale.
    For instance, we find multiverse cosmologists debating the “Boltzmann Brain” problem: In the most “reasonable” models for a multiverse, it is immeasurably more likely that our consciousness is associated with a brain that has spontaneously fluctuated into existence in the quantum vacuum than it is that we have parents and exist in an orderly universe with a 13.7 billion-year history. This is absurd. The multiverse hypothesis is therefore falsified because it renders false what we know to be true about ourselves. Clearly, embracing the multiverse idea entails a nihilistic irrationality that destroys the very possibility of science.
    http://www.washingtontimes.com.....arguments/

Leave a Reply