Intelligent Design

It’s Not What They Don’t Know That Scares Me

Spread the love

As the old saying goes, it’s not what they don’t know that scares me, but what they know for sure. Nowhere is that more applicable than with evolution asThe Guardian’s Andrew Brown reminds us today when hewrites, “Evolution is actually true.” Don’t blame the messenger, Brown is merely repeating what evolutionists say. And while it is true that evolution in a limited sense it true (change over time, adaptation, and so forth), no such nuance is intended by evolutionists. When evolutionists inform their audiences that evolution is true, they are referring to the origin of species. The problem here is not that this claim of knowledge is questionable or controversial—the problem is that the claim is unequivocally false. We can argue about how the scientific evidence bears on the theory of evolution (not well), its predictions (mostly false), how likely is it that evolution is true (not very), and so forth. Some may be more charitable toward the theory that says the species arose spontaneously. But we certainly do not know evolution—in the broad sense as intended by Brown and the evolutionists—to be true.  Read more

6 Replies to “It’s Not What They Don’t Know That Scares Me

  1. 1
    Barb says:

    Brown writes, “It is the same horror I feel when people are ignorant of history; it seems a betrayal of the fragile collective enterprise of civilisation.”

    Methinks that thou doth protest too much. Creationism is not going to end civilization as you know it.

    “Knowledge of history, like knowledge of science, is won with difficulty, and by moral virtues as well as purely intellectual ones.”

    Difficulty? How difficult is it to memorize when the Battle of Agincourt took place, or to know the names of the Presidents? Fifth graders are capable of both? Only science demands absolute proof in the form of experimentation.

    Moral virtues? Where? History is said to be written by the victors, with the conquered getting little in the way of fair treatment. How is this a moral virtue? And how is eugenics—a direct descendent of Darwinian evolution—a moral virtue? Or the atomic bomb, for that matter?

    “To throw them away dishonours our ancestors and cheats our descendants.”

    We’re not throwing anything away. We’re saying that we’re reviewing both sides of the issue. And dishonors…who, exactly?

    “Darwinian evolution comes freighted with moral meaning: it is the knife that cuts our last bonds to childishness and faith. To reject it is then especially immoral in a way that disbelieving or misunderstanding quantum physics wouldn’t be.”

    Faith is not equivalent to childishness. This is a non sequitur of the highest magnitude, and betrays Brown’s complete lack of understanding of what biblical faith really is. Faith is based on evidence. And Darwinian evolution does come freighted with moral meaning, because believing it requires that you not have any absolute moral truths.

    All morality is relative, according to Darwin. We are all victims (?) of our molecules. This is utter nonsense, of course, but Darwinists must believe it, because to acknowledge that we have free will and are capable of conscious decision making goes against their creed.

  2. 2
    Axel says:

    ‘All morality is relative, according to Darwin.

    Brown is a moral relativist. Surely?

  3. 3
    redwave says:

    “Yet they continually make religious premises and arguments, and make truth claims that are far beyond, and contradictory to, science.”

    Cornelius Hunter, for clarity would you explain, what are “religious premises and arguments”?

  4. 4
    Cornelius Hunter says:

    redwave:

    Here are some examples:

    http://darwins-god.blogspot.co.....s-not.html

  5. 5
    Mung says:

    Further:

    Charles Darwin’s use of theology in the Origin of Species.

    Abstract

    This essay examines Darwin’s positiva (or positive) use of theology in the first edition of the Origin of Species in three steps. First, the essay analyses the Origin’s theological language about God’s accessibility, honesty, methods of creating, relationship to natural laws and lack of responsibility for natural suffering; the essay contends that Darwin utilized positiva theology in order to help justify (and inform) descent with modification and to attack special creation. Second, the essay offers critical analysis of this theology, drawing in part on Darwin’s mature ruminations to suggest that, from an epistemic point of view, the Origin’s positiva theology manifests several internal tensions. Finally, the essay reflects on the relative epistemic importance of positiva theology in the Origin’s overall case for evolution. The essay concludes that this theology served as a handmaiden and accomplice to Darwin’s science.

    CH, you’re too modest. Didn’t you write an entire book about this?

  6. 6
    Cornelius Hunter says:

    Mung: “The harvest truly is plentiful, but the laborers are few. …”

Leave a Reply