Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community

The Answer Finally Comes

arroba Email

For any of us who have spent considerable time here at UD in, for lack of a better word, dialogue with our Darwinist friends, each has certainly had the experience of running into a brick wall. What do I mean? Well, we studiously, carefully, energetically present an argument that seems, from a logical point of view, to be unassailable, only to have the Darwinist(s) we’re arguing with (did I say “argue” instead of “dialogue”?) simply dismiss the argument in ‘hand-wave’ fashion.

It’s happened to me so many times and for so long, that I simply not call the other person a “true believer.” It’s my way of saying that there isn’t any further I can go: not in the face of a dogmatic attitude.

Well, here’s the answer to this—finally.

Researchers wondered if “belief in science” could be just as helpful to atheists in stressful and adverse moments just as it has been shown to be for those who believe in religion. The ‘answer’ is: “YES”!!!!

The study is talked about at Science 2.0.

Here’s a little snippet (one of many you’ll find):

“We found that being in a more stressful or anxiety-inducing situation increased participants’ “belief in science”,” says Dr. Miguel Farias, who led the study in the Department of Experimental Psychology at Oxford University. “This belief in science we looked at says nothing of the legitimacy of science itself. Rather we were interested in the values individuals hold about science.”

Our “true believer” Darwinist friends will, of course, tell us this need to ‘believe’ developed via evolution. Is this what they mean by a ‘vicious circle’?

Standing outside this ‘vicious circle’, I would ask this: does this mean that scientists are just as biased as religionists, or does this mean that whether you ‘believe in God’ or not, to do science well you must fight against any inherent biases?

I would hope everyone would agree that the answer is ‘yes’ to the second part of the question.

You know, Dr. Turell, I've heard comments similar to yours from other scientists as well. They simply examined the evidence available (without the use of a Bible) and came to the same conclusion you did. Barb
Hello Dr Turell, a few questions: -) if a person is a citizen of a country, does he in general have to live by the laws of that country? -) if person A damages person B, should B expect A to pay for the damages? if yes: is that even if person A was ignorant of the law? if yes: does it make sense for person A to venture to learn the law, to protect himself to not damage others? -)If person A was providing support to person B, does person B owe person A debt of gratitude? if yes: Should person B learn about the nature of person A so he would know how that debt of gratitude might be properly paid? thanks es58
Darwin postulated that species change into other species by a gradual collection of mutations, wherein, the specimens with the 'stronger' mutations survive. Those with the weaker mutations don't. To date, nothing has ever been found to prove this. There are no transitional fossils. There are no vestigal organs. There is no junk DNA. No one has ever found a mechanism whereby such a transition might ever have happened. In addition, despite all manner of attempts, no one has been able to create even the simplest living organism. With the discovery of DNA and the advent of micro-biology, and mega computing power, all manner of evidences are being discovered which contradict the concept of either randomness accounting for speciation, or for a gradual transformation of anything into something else. I have spent some time reviewing the arguments. I have come to the conclusion, Darwinism has fundamentally failed to prove anything it postulated. Yet, we are subjected to a daily diet of fairy stories and faith statements by those who profess to 'know' all about Darwinian evolution. Whenever I ask anyone to demonstrate this magical event (supposedly repeated over millions of years, and millions of species) there comes tautology, referals to peers, who refer to other peers, who refer to others, ad nauseam, disinformation, fraud, and 'it is because we say it is' answers. I have asked several quite straightforward questions. I have asked these questions many times. So have other people, right up the line to the top scientists in the fields. Yet NO ONE, scientist, philosopher, or layman, seems able to answer them. So here they are again:- 1) How did life come to be on this planet? I don't want tautologies such as "It was the origin of the first self replicating molecule". I don't want theories, ideologies, ifs and maybes. I want the scientifically proven and demonstrable MECHANISM. 2) Demonstrate the mechanism whereby a liver changes into a lung, or a dog into a giraffe. I don't want waffle such as "enzymes do this or that", or “we believe” fairy stories. I want the demonstrable, proven, repeatable factual mechanism; where the molecules are built and how. 3) Give an example, ANY example, of a genetic mutation or an evolutionary process which can be seen to increase the information in the genome. Here's a hint: anybody who can produce the FACTUAL proof to any of these simple questions will be the next Nobel Prize winner. Seems the moment one challenges Darwinism, one is greeted with the following steps: 1) Ridicule 2) 'You don't understand evolution' arguments 3) Exasperated irritable referrals to other people 4) Wildly inaccurate statements about the nature of species and the so-called evidences 5) Eventual hate mail. Now, if Darwinian evolution was so well proven, none of these should be necessary. It should be the simplest matter to produce some mechanistic, provable, repeatable evidence, such as in chemistry, or mathematics. But no, there NEVER comes forth any such thing. Of late, I have discovered that the scientific community, if they can be called that, have ditched the gradual randomness concept and the Tree of Life representation, and have moved to a different platform. In this latest fantasy world,random mutations 'suddenly' happened, all at once, and then suddenly stopped, all at once. Once again, no one can explain how any of this took place, just that it 'must have done'. The Tree has morphed too, into a network rather than a bottom-up structure (presumably to try and explain why fully completed species appear millions of years earlier than Darwin ever anticipated, and why the same organs keep appearing in different species which had no known contact with one another). These new ideas fall under the banner 'Neo-Darwinism'. Quite fascinating. When one questions this, and asks 'were the old Darwinists wrong then?' back comes the typical pomposity 'It is the Scientific Method'. In other words, "we got it wrong for 150 years". I say they have still got it wrong. I know it, and I believe they do too, that's why there's a constant refusal to meet in open debate with scientists from the Intelligent Design school, or those from the Creationist groups. Rather than face these new scientific schools in open debate, the Darwinists try to ridicule, belittle, and smear. Now why would they do that if they had such overwhelming proof? Fact is, they don't have ANY proof whatsoever. What they have is 150 of atheists trying to find, sift and fit only those 'evidences' that suit their hatred of the idea that some external intelligence created Life and all it's manifestations. The ID guys believe it was 'aliens' in some form or another. The Creationists believe it was God. Whatever, there is a growing body of scientists now who accept that no way was Life and the 1.5million species surviving today, the result of random accidents. The complexities and sheer scale of molecular mutations necessary to achieve transitions from one species to another is so vast, as to render such a concept unacceptable. So...my questions remain. I know that whatever responses are produced, usually malignant, will not answer, or even attempt to. I know this because Darwinism is a fraudulent pseudo-science and cannot provide any. Darwinism is the ignorance and blind faith of those who accuse Christians of ignorance and blind faith. Usutu
Hello Dr Turell, I am not sure if I have ever seen you comment here before. Perhaps I have. If not, then welcome to UD. Upright BiPed
I come from a very different background. As a physician I am filled with the knowledge of various sciences, and I trust science to find new infomation about our reality. But as PaV notes I had an inherent bias as an agnostic after medical school. Studying cosmology and particle physics as newly developed knowledge convinced me there had to be a God. Then delving into Darwin's theory, I saw how weak it is, and that thorougly convinced me. Note I didn't use the Bible at all. I was convinced from my interpretation of the scientific data. There is more than one way to skin the cat. turell
When discussing science and scientists, the conclusion is generally reached that ‘if there is a way to world peace and happiness, man’s intelligence will have to bring it about.’ Modern science has come to be treated like a “sacred cow,” that must be viewed with reverence and that must be considered ahead of the Bible and of God. The scientists’ supposedly “advanced” intellectuality, with all its theories, has been treated as the up-to-date form of enlightenment that has made the Bible “out-of-date,” “obsolete.” In reality their technology is able to delve into God’s laws only to a limited extent and can operate only within the framework and limitations of those laws. But news channels nearly always honor the technology rather than the God who made it possible. They speak as though man is great, ‘wresting nature’s secrets’ away and becoming master of the universe. Barb
In times past, one thing sure to turn up the Darwinian Mock-o-meter was having an evolution critic say something like "I don't believe in evolution" or "Why do you believe in evolution". This would be met with howls of sarcastic, derisive laughter amid retorts that evolution is SCIENCE and isn't something one believes in. One merely accepts the evidence for evolution in a scientific way. Or so it was often said. Well...maybe not! Maybe the "believe in evolution" commentators were on to something! I'm reminded of the promo quote for the old TV show "X-Files": "I Want to Believe". DonaldM

Leave a Reply