Thoughts on Christian Darwinism

_{Gil Dodgen

April 18, 2011

Intelligent Design}

Share: Facebook; Twitter; LinkedIn; Flipboard; Print; Email

Christian Darwinism is the ultimate oxymoron. Its thesis is: accidentally on purpose, and intentionally designed with no intention or design.

Let’s face it, either the Christian worldview is correct or the Darwinian worldview is correct in this particular debate. The two views are completely, irrevocably, and catastrophically irreconcilable on many levels.

The big problem for Christian Darwinists is that rigorous scientific investigation, empirical evidence, basic combinatorial mathematics, and what is now known from cutting-edge information theory, renders the Darwinian mechanism completely impotent to produce anything but the utterly trivial in the history of life.

I ask myself, Where does this bizarre Christian Darwinism self-contradictory reasoning come from?

I think I have an answer. The Darwinian establishment has been remarkably successful in convincing people that anyone who disagrees with Darwinian orthodoxy has abandoned reason, and this establishment has the power to excommunicate such heretics from respectable company.

Some “Christians” would rather enjoy the company of those who seek to destroy their faith through unreason, rather than to defend it through reason, even when the science and evidence is on their side.

This is a pathetic phenomenon to observe.

Comments

---James Grover: “I think the general cause of ID as an objective, nonreligious enterprise is not helped by posts like this one.” The Christian Darwinists started this party by injecting religion into a scientific discussion, insisting that a credible, omnipotent God must have done it Darwin’s anti-design way and could not have done it any other way. Because this error occurs at the intersection of science and religion, its corrective must be expressed in scientific/religious terms. Gil is simply making the unassailable point, and the eminently relevant point, that Christianity, which posits a directed process, cannot be reconciled with Darwinism. What could be more ridiculous than saying God designed the evolutionary process, except that he didn't. ---“Surely the people here don’t believe objectively that Dembski, Wells, Behe et al are always right, or that all of the criticisms of their ideas are always wrong. You wouldn’t know that to read through this blog, however. To me, that’s really the strongest evidence of ID being a religious construct.” Actually, we ID proponents welcome any constructive criticism from informed critics. The problem is not our unwillingness to accept the criticism but our critics’ unwillingness to become informed. You, for example, misuse of the word “construct” by characterizing it as a form of collective agreement. In fact, an ID construct, properly understood, is part of an ID methodology, such as “specified complexity” and irreducible complexity.” Obviously, these methodologies, contain no religious references, so ID science cannot be “about religion,” to use one of those mindlessly murky phrases that Darwinists [and Christian Darwinists] love to use. By manipulating the language and using words in multiple ways, our adversaries hope to discredit us by creating confusion about the ID arguments that are actually being made. This is their only hope because they certainly have no arguments. Thus, they are reduced to motive mongering. Ironically, it is our adversaries who refuse to follow the evidence wherever it leads, Darwinists, and Christian Darwinists alike.StephenB_{April 19, 2011
April
04
Apr
19
19
2011
02:18 PM
2
02
18
PM
PDT}

A “Christian” that goes around picking and choosing the Bible verses that suit his/her beliefs is inconsistent. This is the reason why non other than Dawkins has far more respect for YEC’s than “Christian Darwinists”. So, because you are lukewarm, and neither hot nor cold, I will spit you out of my mouth. – Rev. 3:16
Help me out here. So being a YEC is being HOT, and being a Darwinist is being COLD. And anyone in between Jesus will spew out of his mouth, and we know this because of some verse pulled out of it's context from a letter John wrote to some church in Asia 2000 years ago?Mung_{April 19, 2011
April
04
Apr
19
19
2011
10:51 AM
10
10
51
AM
PDT}

Or, rather, mutatis mutandis, the same holds for theistic evolutionists.AMW_{April 19, 2011
April
04
Apr
19
19
2011
10:32 AM
10
10
32
AM
PDT}

O'Leary @ 6: It’s not unreasonable to assume that in an age when the science elite is dominated by atheists, proponents of any Christian view of evolution that could never be in direct conflict with atheism have a social advantage. By the same logic, it's not unreasonable to assume that in an age (and a country) that the bulk of the general populace are theists who doubt the theory of evolution, the proponents of any Christian view of biology that is firmly in direct conflict with atheism have a social advantage. Especially when those proponents overwhelmingly publish in the popular press. Does that mean ID proponents aren't really convinced by their own arguments? Are they just following their baser instincts? Maybe a few, but I doubt that most of them are. Mutatis mutandis for theistic evolutionists.AMW_{April 19, 2011
April
04
Apr
19
19
2011
10:30 AM
10
10
30
AM
PDT}

I think the general cause of ID as an objective, nonreligious enterprise is not helped by posts like this one. Speaking only for myself, I'm a bit wary of ID advocates who seem to believe that the leading lights of the movement are never wrong, at least not substantively wrong. What I mean by this is that many IDers (especially the ones in this forum) seem to believe that to question or criticize the work of say, Dembski, is to show weakness. This seems to me to be a religious approach and certainly not a scientific one. Surely the people here don't believe objectively that Dembski, Wells, Behe et al are always right, or that all of the criticisms of their ideas are always wrong. You wouldn't know that to read through this blog, however. To me, that's really the strongest evidence of ID being a religious construct. That, and posts like this one from Mr. Dodgen.James Grover_{April 19, 2011
April
04
Apr
19
19
2011
07:16 AM
7
07
16
AM
PDT}

Christian-Darwinism is simply complacent, apathetic, unwise and ultimately, compromising. So sad...many so-called Christian Darwinists are oblivious to the fact that those who they cozy up to in the name of science have a more subtle and sinister motive, to rid the world of theism entirely. Even more sad is that they (apparently) are unaware that there is simply no need to compromise truth when the evidence clearly suggests that design is the better explanation.Bantay_{April 19, 2011
April
04
Apr
19
19
2011
06:23 AM
6
06
23
AM
PDT}

AMW, It is funny but I find the term 'Theistic Evolution' to be severely misconstrued from what the proper usage should actually be. Theistic Evolutionists state, as is popularly held today, that God's actions cannot be distinguished from the purely material processes of the universe. Whereas the more proper usage of the term 'Theistic Evolution' would state something to the effect, gradual evolution occurred but purely material (non-teleological) processes are insufficient to account for the change that is supposed to have occurred. Which is fully consistent within a broad scope of ID. This 'disingenuous of definition' for Theistic Evolution has always struck me as a blatant 'compromise' to accommodate the atheist's materialistic worldview, as well as struck me as being severely out of touch with what modern science tells us about reality.,, For one thing science shows us that reality is Theistic, not materialistic, in its ultimate foundation; "As a man who has devoted his whole life to the most clear headed science, to the study of matter, I can tell you as a result of my research about atoms this much: There is no matter as such. All matter originates and exists only by virtue of a force which brings the particle of an atom to vibration and holds this most minute solar system of the atom together. We must assume behind this force the existence of a conscious and intelligent mind. This mind is the matrix of all matter." Max Planck - The Father Of Quantum Mechanics - Das Wesen der Materie [The Nature of Matter], speech at Florence, Italy (1944)(Of Note: Max Planck was a devout Christian, which is not surprising when you realize practically every, if not every, founder of each major branch of modern science also 'just so happened' to have a deep Christian connection.) Ions have been teleported successfully for the first time by two independent research groups Excerpt: In fact, copying isn't quite the right word for it. In order to reproduce the quantum state of one atom in a second atom, the original has to be destroyed. This is unavoidable - it is enforced by the laws of quantum mechanics, which stipulate that you can't 'clone' a quantum state. In principle, however, the 'copy' can be indistinguishable from the original (that was destroyed),,, Atom takes a quantum leap - 2009 Excerpt: Ytterbium ions have been 'teleported' over a distance of a metre.,,, "What you're moving is information, not the actual atoms," says Chris Monroe, from the Joint Quantum Institute at the University of Maryland in College Park and an author of the paper. But as two particles of the same type differ only in their quantum states, the transfer of quantum information is equivalent to moving the first particle to the location of the second. http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/2171769/posts etc.. etc.. The main point being AMW is that reality itself reduces to a 'information theoretic' foundation, just as is postulated by Theism (particularly postulated in John 1:1-3), i.e. reality does not reduce to a purely material foundation as postulated by materialism!!! Thus I personally find it particularly disconcerting that Theistic Evolutionists would even feel any need whatsoever to accommodate the atheistic materialists in the first place since one, 'material reality' is merely a 'secondary reality' based on the primary reality of God in the first place, (a fact which is directly contrary to what Theistic Evolutionists popularly believe is possible today), and two, purely material processes are grossly inadequate to explain even the most minor parts of the staggering levels of integrated information we find within even the simplest of life. further notes; Quantum Information/Entanglement In DNA & Protein Folding - short video http://www.metacafe.com/watch/5936605/ In the preceding video, 'Gretchen' asked if quantum entanglement/information could also somehow be measured in protein structures, besides just DNA, and it turns out that quantum entanglement/information has already been detected in protein structures. Here is one such measure; Proteins with cruise control provide new perspective: Excerpt: “A mathematical analysis of the experiments showed that the proteins themselves acted to correct any imbalance imposed on them through artificial mutations and restored the chain to working order.” http://www.princeton.edu/main/news/archive/S22/60/95O56/ The preceding is solid confirmation that far more complex information resides in life than meets the eye, for the calculus equations used for ‘cruise control’, that must somehow reside within the quantum information that is ‘constraining’ the entire protein structure to its ‘normal’ state, is anything but ‘simple information’. For a sample of the equations that must be dealt with, to ‘engineer’ even a simple process control loop like cruise control for a single protein, please see this following site: PID controller Excerpt: A proportional–integral–derivative controller (PID controller) is a generic control loop feedback mechanism (controller) widely used in industrial control systems. A PID controller attempts to correct the error between a measured process variable and a desired setpoint by calculating and then outputting a corrective action that can adjust the process accordingly and rapidly, to keep the error minimal. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PID_controller Information and entropy – top-down or bottom-up development in living systems? A.C. McINTOSH Excerpt: It is proposed in conclusion that it is the non-material information (transcendent to the matter and energy) that is actually itself constraining the local thermodynamics to be in ordered disequilibrium and with specified raised free energy levels necessary for the molecular and cellular machinery to operate. http://journals.witpress.com/journals.asp?iid=47 Quantum entanglement holds together life’s blueprint - 2010 Excerpt: “If you didn’t have entanglement, then DNA would have a simple flat structure, and you would never get the twist that seems to be important to the functioning of DNA,” says team member Vlatko Vedral of the University of Oxford. http://neshealthblog.wordpress.com/2010/09/15/quantum-entanglement-holds-together-lifes-blueprint/ It is very interesting to note that quantum entanglement, which conclusively demonstrates that ‘information’ in its pure 'quantum form' is completely transcendent of any time and space constraints, should be found in molecular biology on such a massive scale, for how can the quantum entanglement 'effect' in biology possibly be explained by a material (matter/energy) 'cause' when the quantum entanglement 'effect' falsified material particles as its own 'causation' in the first place? (A. Aspect) Appealing to the probability of various configurations of material particles, as Darwinism does, simply will not help since a timeless/spaceless cause must be supplied which is beyond the capacity of the material particles themselves to supply! To give a coherent explanation for an effect that is shown to be completely independent of any time and space constraints one is forced to appeal to a cause that is itself not limited to time and space! i.e. Put more simply, you cannot explain a effect by a cause that has been falsified by the very same effect you are seeking to explain! Improbability arguments of various 'special' configurations of material particles, which have been a staple of the arguments against neo-Darwinism, simply do not apply since the cause is not within the material particles in the first place! Yet it is also very interesting to note, in Darwinism's inability to explain this 'transcendent quantum effect' adequately, that Theism has always postulated a transcendent component to man that is not constrained by time and space. i.e. Theism has always postulated a 'eternal soul' for man that lives past the death of the body. Further notes: The ‘Fourth Dimension’ Of Living Systems https://docs.google.com/document/pub?id=1Gs_qvlM8-7bFwl9rZUB9vS6SZgLH17eOZdT4UbPoy0Y Quantum no-hiding theorem experimentally confirmed for first time - March 2011 Excerpt: In the classical world, information can be copied and deleted at will. In the quantum world, however, the conservation of quantum information means that information cannot be created nor destroyed. http://www.physorg.com/news/2011-03-quantum-no-hiding-theorem-experimentally.html Poly-Functional Complexity equals Poly-Constrained Complexity https://docs.google.com/Doc?docid=0AYmaSrBPNEmGZGM4ejY3d3pfMjdoZmd2emZncQ&hl=en etc.. etc.. etc..bornagain77_{April 19, 2011
April
04
Apr
19
19
2011
05:36 AM
5
05
36
AM
PDT}

The basic problem with "Christian Darwinists" is their inconsistency with the faith they proclaim to have. A Christian believes that God is the Creator, which Jesus himself affirmed: But from the beginning of creation, 'God made them male and female'. - Mark 10:6 For in those days there will be such tribulation as has not been from the beginning of the creation that God created until now, and never will be. - Mark 13:9 A "Christian" that goes around picking and choosing the Bible verses that suit his/her beliefs is inconsistent. This is the reason why non other than Dawkins has far more respect for YEC's than "Christian Darwinists". So, because you are lukewarm, and neither hot nor cold, I will spit you out of my mouth. - Rev. 3:16aedgar_{April 19, 2011
April
04
Apr
19
19
2011
04:51 AM
4
04
51
AM
PDT}

AMW at 3, "The bottom line is this. Anytime you have to explain a social phenomenon in terms of the character failings of the people involved your explanation is probably wrong and even more probably self-serving." A quibble: Actually many "social" phenomena ARE best explained by "the character failings of the people involved." For example, false accusations of childhood sexual abuse may stem from a global sense of failure on the part of the accuser combined with an inability to accept responsibility for personal choices that led to perceived failure. Such false accusations thrive in an era when there are plenty of true accusations. The true accusations account for the complete certainty of those who make the false ones. But because - in the case of the false ones - there is no fact base for the abuse, they require a separate origin account. Personal circumstances and disposition are the best place to begin. It is *intellectual* history that cannot be accounted for by mere character failings, and I think that is what you meant. However, it can be very difficult to separate intellectual from social history. It's not unreasonable to assume that in an age when the science elite is dominated by atheists, proponents of any Christian view of evolution that could never be in direct conflict with atheism have a social advantage.O'Leary_{April 19, 2011
April
04
Apr
19
19
2011
04:05 AM
4
04
05
AM
PDT}

re Neil 4: Christopher Hitchens Understands Christianity Better Than Some (Christians do) Excerpt: In the local Portland Monthly the infamous atheist Christopher Hitchens was interviewed by Marilyn Sewell. I found Hitchens’ response to the following question by Sewell to be dead accurate. The religion you cite in your book is generally the fundamentalist faith of various kinds. I’m a liberal Christian, and I don’t take the stories from Scripture literally. I don’t believe in the doctrine of the atonement (that Jesus died for our sins, for example). Do you make a distinction between fundamentalist faith and liberal religion? I would say that if you don’t believe that Jesus of Nazareth was Christ and Messiah, and that he rose again from the dead and by his sacrifice our sins are forgiven, you’re really not in any meaningful sense a Christian. Touche! It appears that Christopher Hitchens understands the basics of Christianity better than many self proclaimed Christians. http://nearemmaus.wordpress.com/2010/02/01/christopher-hitchens-understand-christianity-better-than-some/ Darwin's Theory of Evolution - The Premise Darwin's Theory of Evolution is the widely held notion that all life is related and has descended from a common ancestor: the birds and the bananas, the fishes and the flowers -- all related. Darwin's general theory presumes the development of life from non-life and stresses a purely naturalistic (undirected) "descent with modification". That is, complex creatures evolve from more simplistic ancestors naturally over time. In a nutshell, as random genetic mutations occur within an organism's genetic code, the beneficial mutations are preserved because they aid survival -- a process known as "natural selection." These beneficial mutations are passed on to the next generation. Over time, beneficial mutations accumulate and the result is an entirely different organism (not just a variation of the original, but an entirely different creature). http://www.darwins-theory-of-evolution.com/ '''''''''' Evolution of the Genus Homo - Annual Review of Earth and Planetary Sciences - Tattersall, Schwartz, May 2009 Excerpt: "Definition of the genus Homo is almost as fraught as the definition of Homo sapiens. We look at the evidence for “early Homo,” finding little morphological basis for extending our genus to any of the 2.5–1.6-myr-old fossil forms assigned to “early Homo” or Homo habilis/rudolfensis." http://arjournals.annualreviews.org/doi/abs/10.1146/annurev.earth.031208.100202 Man is indeed as unique, as different from all other animals, as had been traditionally claimed by theologians and philosophers. Evolutionist Ernst Mayr http://www.y-origins.com/index.php?p=home_more4 “Something extraordinary, if totally fortuitous, happened with the birth of our species….Homo sapiens is as distinctive an entity as exists on the face of the Earth, and should be dignified as such instead of being adulterated with every reasonably large-brained hominid fossil that happened to come along.” Anthropologist Ian Tattersall (curator at the American Museum of Natural History) Mark 10:6 But from the beginning of creation, ‘God made them male and female.’bornagain77_{April 19, 2011
April
04
Apr
19
19
2011
02:45 AM
2
02
45
AM
PDT}

Let’s face it, either the Christian worldview is correct or the Darwinian worldview is correct in this particular debate.
There isn't a single Christian worldview. And, for that matter, there isn't a single Darwinian worldview either.Neil Rickert_{April 18, 2011
April
04
Apr
18
18
2011
10:49 PM
10
10
49
PM
PDT}

I'm a former YEC turmed TE/EC. When I read what atheist evolutionists have to say about the thought processes and motivations of creationists I get frustrated. They mostly cast aspersions and suggest that the person in question is irrational and simply doesn't want to face the evidence. Those were not my motivations for being a YEC. This post is the photo-negative of those atheist posts. I did not accept the theory of evolution because I was seeking approval. On a personal level my acceptance has actually been rather costly. The bottom line is this. Anytime you have to explain a social phenomenon in terms of the character failings of the people involved your explanation is probably wrong and even more probably self-serving.AMW_{April 18, 2011
April
04
Apr
18
18
2011
08:58 PM
8
08
58
PM
PDT}

Sure, it's pathetic. But then, human beings are, in general, pathetic; so one expects that many, if not all, of them will do pathetic things.Ilion_{April 18, 2011
April
04
Apr
18
18
2011
08:56 PM
8
08
56
PM
PDT}

Christians need to stop being intimidated by darwinists and the media and proudly and LOUDLY proclaim "the emperor (darwin) has no clothes!" It's laughable that some people actually believe blind random chance could build molecular machines so complex and efficient that our best engineers look to them for guidance.Blue_Savannah_{April 18, 2011
April
04
Apr
18
18
2011
08:47 PM
8
08
47
PM
PDT}

Prev 1 2

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply