News:

There is also the shroud of turin, which verifies Jesus in a new way than other evidences.

Main Menu

Darwinism is made up

Started by Whitney, December 18, 2010, 04:28:17 PM

Previous topic - Next topic

Whitney

Quote from: "Achronos"For example the Darwinist, if true to the Darwinian creation narrative that chaos/randomness (no preexisting logic) was the state of the beginning of the universe, has to conclude that the laws that govern the operations of matter actually arose from the matter itself.

 :shake: There is no such thing as Darwinism...no one worships Darwin.

Can you point to where in evolution theory it states that life arose from chaos and randomness?  I'll give you a big hint that should help you realize why what you said is a huge facepalm moment....the theory of evolution is about how life changed after it started and has nothing to do with how life started.  In fact, there is nothing about evolution that would prevent one from accepting it and remaining a creationist; they could just assume a god started the ball rolling.

LARA

Yeah, Darwinism is definitely a poor term, except when used correctly in historical contrast to the once competing theory of Lamarckism, the idea that environmental effects are passed down by heredity to future generations, the classic example being a giraffe's neck being stretched physically to grasp leaves and this physical change goes on to be inherited.

Definitely an annoying misuse of the term.

Perhaps instead of 'Darwinist', these people should just insert the term 'scientist' since they basically oppose so many different ideas, hypothesis and theories in science such as the Miller/Urey Experiment in chemistry ( a decent link on this one for any interested parties:  http://www.chem.duke.edu/~jds/cruise_ch ... iller.html), evolutionary theory in biology, the Big Bang theory in physics, and the evidence for the age of the earth in geology.  But the use of the term scientist, while much more correct for these folks, would make their near total rejection of the vast amount of empirical evidence that conflicts with their religious beliefs so much more obvious.
Freedom is the freedom to say that two plus two make four. If that is granted, all else follows.
                                                                                                                    -Winston Smith, protagonist of 1984 by George Orwell

McQ

Thanks, Whitney. Great point. This is usually the argument of the uninformed, or willfully ignorant.
Elvis didn't do no drugs!
--Penn Jillette

Inevitable Droid

So now I'm using the message board search function to see if abiogenesis has been raised as a topic.  I'll be surprised if it hasn't, but if it hasn't I'll raise it, just for giggles.
Oppose Abraham.

[Missing image]

In the face of mystery, do science, not theology.

Sophus

This thread makes me wonder how Squid's book is coming along.
‎"Christian doesn't necessarily just mean good. It just means better." - John Oliver

Velma

Quote from: "Whitney"
Quote from: "Achronos"For example the Darwinist, if true to the Darwinian creation narrative that chaos/randomness (no preexisting logic) was the state of the beginning of the universe, has to conclude that the laws that govern the operations of matter actually arose from the matter itself.

 :shake: There is no such thing as Darwinism...no one worships Darwin.

Can you point to where in evolution theory it states that life arose from chaos and randomness?  I'll give you a big hint that should help you realize why what you said is a huge facepalm moment....the theory of evolution is about how life changed after it started and has nothing to do with how life started.  In fact, there is nothing about evolution that would prevent one from accepting it and remaining a creationist; they could just assume a god started the ball rolling.
I'd also like for creationists to point out anywhere Darwin, or current evolutionary biology, addresses how the universe came into being.  They are mixing up three different areas of study and demanding that that biology answer a physical cosmology question.  It's like taking your car to your hairdresser or barber and demanding that s/he tell you why it quit running that morning.
Life is but a momentary glimpse of the wonder of the astonishing universe, and it is sad to see so many dreaming it away on spiritual fantasy.~Carl Sagan

Gawen

Quote from: "Velma"I'd also like for creationists to point out anywhere Darwin, or current evolutionary biology, addresses how the universe came into being.  
My thoughts exactly.
The essence of the mind is not in what it thinks, but how it thinks. Faith is the surrender of our mind; of reason and our skepticism to put all our trust or faith in someone or something that has no good evidence of itself. That is a sinister thing to me. Of all the supposed virtues, faith is not.
"When you fall, I will be there" - Floor

Tank

#7
I grew up in a village a few miles from Down House where Darwin lived while he wrote Origin of Species. It's worth a couple of hours to look around if one is interested in Darwin's life and it is also an interesting insight into Victorian England.

Darwin considered his ideas on daily walks around the perimeter of the grounds, it was insightful to take that walk and try to get into his mind set while he considered his theory. Having been a faithful Christian and creationist he must have had a difficult time coming to terms with what he saw on his travels. He was vexed and troubled by what he had discovered. He knew full well the impact his ideas would have on the establishment at the time. I have a sneaking suspicion that he may never have published OoS if Alfred Russel Wallace had not been there to unintentionally spur him on.

Darwin was first and foremost a pragmatic observer, I would go as far as to say an obsessive compulsive in this respect. He was his own greatest sceptic. The detail of his work and his breadth of correspondence with other naturalists all over the world are both quite breath taking. All his works, including letter, journals, sketches, note books etc. can be found at Darwin Online. Now I haven't read all of his works, his style is frankly an excellent cure for insomnia, it's the content that keeps one reading, but I have not seen any speculation about how life came about. His ideas relate to natural selection. This process can be seen to apply to all replicating systems where there is inheritance and variation between individual items and generations of items. But it says nothing about the origins of the replicators in the first place, that is the purview of abiogenesis.

Darwin had nothing substantive to say about the origin of life. So to conflate Darwin's ideas about natural selection and how this leads to the evolution of distinct 'species' (an erroneous human categorisation failure if there ever was one) with ideas about the origin of life is simply wrong.
If religions were TV channels atheism is turning the TV off.
"Religion is a culture of faith; science is a culture of doubt." ― Richard P. Feynman
'It is said that your life flashes before your eyes just before you die. That is true, it's called Life.' - Terry Pratchett
Remember, your inability to grasp science is not a valid argument against it.

karadan

Quote from: "Whitney"
Quote from: "Achronos"For example the Darwinist, if true to the Darwinian creation narrative that chaos/randomness (no preexisting logic) was the state of the beginning of the universe, has to conclude that the laws that govern the operations of matter actually arose from the matter itself.

 :shake: There is no such thing as Darwinism...no one worships Darwin.

Can you point to where in evolution theory it states that life arose from chaos and randomness?  I'll give you a big hint that should help you realize why what you said is a huge facepalm moment....the theory of evolution is about how life changed after it started and has nothing to do with how life started.  In fact, there is nothing about evolution that would prevent one from accepting it and remaining a creationist; they could just assume a god started the ball rolling.

Maybe it stems from the fact religious people cannot comprehend the non-belief in a deity so as a consequence, have to label atheists as possessing a belief structure overseen by a single figurehead, of which we give praise to.
QuoteI find it mistifying that in this age of information, some people still deny the scientific history of our existence.

The Magic Pudding

I love the Darwin story, I don't have a shrine but he's freaken awesome.
His understandable reluctance to publish his work illustrates the chains religion placed on the growth of humanity and science.
But that doesn't happen now of course.
If you haven't seen the movie "Creation," I recommend it.

Anyway as Tim Minchin says

Quote"That defense is always... 'But evolution is only a theory'. ...Which is true. I mean... it is a theory, and it's good that they say that, I think. It gives you hope, doesn't it? That... That maybe they feel the same way about... the... theory of.......... gravity. ....And they might just float the fuck away."

Baggy

I have often thought that people of religion are shooting themselves in the foot when they suggest that atheism uses evolution to 'prove' there is no god. That simply isn't the case. As someone above has pointed out you can still quite easily believe that a god started they whole ball rolling (as indeed I did before I shed religious beliefs). What you can't do of course is believe the bible literally, which most liberal Christians don't in any case.

I think Darwin's increasing loss of belief was a process brought about by the fact that the bible was believed far more literally then then now by more people and he could not reconcile the two. I think the 'red in tooth and claw' aspect - the sheer brutality of the evolutionary process also perhaps made it pretty clear to him that any god there might be certainly isn't a compassionate one.

Tank

If there is a watershed moment in Darwin's life where he seriously and positively changed his world view it was the death of his eldest daughter Anne. He never attended church after her death. He would go with the family but would not enter the church.
If religions were TV channels atheism is turning the TV off.
"Religion is a culture of faith; science is a culture of doubt." ― Richard P. Feynman
'It is said that your life flashes before your eyes just before you die. That is true, it's called Life.' - Terry Pratchett
Remember, your inability to grasp science is not a valid argument against it.

Inevitable Droid

The theory of evolution is a component of why educated people in our day will see Deism as a superfluous hypothesis, whereas educated people in the 1700's, for example Thomas Jefferson or Patrick Henry, often saw Deism as perhaps not superfluous.  Absent the theory of evolution, we would have no scientific answer for how the myriad species originated, and absent any scientific answer, a theological answer might not seem superfluous, even to the educated.

As for Darwin himself, he is a hero, one of the greatest heroes, of the attitude described at the bottom of my sig.  In the face of mystery, do science, not theology.
Oppose Abraham.

[Missing image]

In the face of mystery, do science, not theology.

Whitney

Quote from: "Tank"If there is a watershed moment in Darwin's life where he seriously and positively changed his world view it was the death of his eldest daughter Anne. He never attended church after her death. He would go with the family but would not enter the church.

For those that haven't seen it, the movie Creation gives a pretty good account of his life.  You can rent it from netflix http://www.netflix.com/Movie/Creation/70121931

I think young earthers should watch it too...it shows that he truly did struggle spiritually with the release of Origins and, as tank said, it was the loss of his daughter which knocked him out of belief rather than his research directly.

Being_Brave

Quote from: "karadan"
Quote from: "Whitney"
Quote from: "Achronos"For example the Darwinist, if true to the Darwinian creation narrative that chaos/randomness (no preexisting logic) was the state of the beginning of the universe, has to conclude that the laws that govern the operations of matter actually arose from the matter itself.

 :hmm:

(Just for the record, now that I know about it I do try and make the distinction clear to other Creationists that abiogenesis and evolution are different things. Thanks to my un-named youtube buddy who helped me understand it better:D )