Against the Ropes with Darwin: The Imminent End of Evolution Theory

[buffalo]

hecd2:

I’m sorry that for some Americans it seems galling, but it’s a fact: the opinions of the American public matter not the slightest in determining what is and what is not good science. That is determined by scientific considerations amongst the world scientific community. Sorry to disappoint, but popular polls are irrelevant.

Alec
evolutionpages.com

The issue is basically this - science by its own definition has only so much to say about the universe and our existence. The public is keenly aware of this limitation. There is so much more in the supernatural world that science does not address.

Science as a new god ultimately fails because it can only address parts of our existence…

 

[Steve_Andersen]

Orogeny:

In response to dts’ original post, I would argue that the debate over evolution is driven very much by the claim by some scientists that evolution proves there is no God or that religion is nothing but superstition.

scientists are free to personally believe or not believe whatever they wish…just like anybody else

but the theory of evolution says nothing one way or another about the supernatural
it is not its job

the only thing that science could definitively “prove” that might be interpreted as touching on religion would be young earth theories or literal interpretations of Genesis; hardly a concern of the CC or any serious mature religion
Orgeny:

The science of evolution is not threatened by creationists, IDers or any other group of “non-darwinian” advocates.

true, facts are facts regardless of opinion or popularity

However while science is not threatened…science education is as is the principal of disestablishment IMHO

If we start teaching the supernatural in science class where will it end? New age magic crystals?

to answer DTS’s question regarding the line between physics and metaphysics it seems pretty clear that sticking with the natural and measurable is clearly on the physics side of the line.

ID seems to be the “theory” that crosses the line
Orgeny:

In fact, I think that without some irresponsible claims by some scientists, evolution-vs-creation debates would be rare.

It is interesting that this “debate” only occurs in the US and predominantly in areas dominated by certain denominations. That seems to indicate that someone is stirring the pot and it’s not the scientists.

Pax

 

[john_doran]

Steve Andersen:

to answer DTS’s question regarding the line between physics and metaphysics it seems pretty clear that sticking with the natural and measurable is clearly on the physics side of the line.

so. is that principle natural and measurable? i.e. is the statement stipulating that methodology itself a piece of “metaphysics” or physics?

and where does it leave M-theory and loop quantum gravity? or any other theories proposing to describe the planck domain?

 

[Orogeny]

Steve Andersen:

scientists are free to personally believe or not believe whatever they wish…just like anybody else

Absolutely. However, my point is that the insistance of some scientists that evolution disproves God is the reason there is a debate to begin with. For example, where is the debate regarding the theory of gravity? God isn’t included in that theory, but one major difference between the theory of gravity and the theory of evolution is that no one that I am aware of has used the theory of gravity as a tool to refute religion. The same cannot be said regarding evolution. Therein lies the rub. I think that many people perceive evolution as an “athiestic” theory because of the public declarations of some scientists, not because of the science behind the theory.

but the theory of evolution says nothing one way or another about the supernatural
it is not its job

I agree 100% and have made that argument many times in these forums. But again, that is not my point.

If we start teaching the supernatural in science class where will it end? New age magic crystals?

You and I are on the same page here. ID, creationism or anything that calls on a supernatural effect does not belong in a science classroom.

to answer DTS’s question regarding the line between physics and metaphysics it seems pretty clear that sticking with the natural and measurable is clearly on the physics side of the line.

ID seems to be the “theory” that crosses the line

Once again, we agree.

The article dts linked to is laughable, but he started the post with this question:

Is this debate really about atheists (or materialists) overstepping the proper bounds of science?

I think so. There is no real scientific debate, but when a scientist declares that evolution is proof that God doesn’t exist, he is definately stepping out of the realm of science, just as do those who advocate ID.

Peace

Tim

 

[dts]

Steve Andersen:

It is interesting that this “debate” only occurs in the US and predominantly in areas dominated by certain denominations. That seems to indicate that someone is stirring the pot and it’s not the scientists.

Pax

Or, the absence of debate in Europe could be related to this:

Benedict XVI as 'God’s Response to Secularism’
Catholic Online, 7.22.2005
catholic.org/featured/headline.php?ID=2386

When meeting with Austrian bishops on that occasion, he expressed acute thoughts on the sickness of Europe: “The experience of the apparent absence of God weighs not only on those who are absent or those most distanced, but is general. The spiritual current of today’s conscience has a profound influence also on the active members of the Church. For this reason, the Good Shepherd feels obliged to leave space in the world and the Church above all to the light that comes from faith, in the active presence of God.”

The new Pope is certainly God’s response to the danger of secularism. And it is not just the name he has chosen which makes reference to it. Pope Benedict has expressed clearly his regret over the lack of reference to God in the preamble of the European Constitutional Treaty.

 

[Orogeny]

Steve Anderson:

It is interesting that this “debate” only occurs in the US and predominantly in areas dominated by certain denominations. That seems to indicate that someone is stirring the pot and it’s not the scientists.

dts:

Or, the absence of debate in Europe could be related to this:

Benedict XVI as 'God’s Response to Secularism’
Catholic Online, 7.22.2005
catholic.org/featured/headline.php?ID=2386

When meeting with Austrian bishops on that occasion, he expressed acute thoughts on the sickness of Europe: “The experience of the apparent absence of God weighs not only on those who are absent or those most distanced, but is general. The spiritual current of today’s conscience has a profound influence also on the active members of the Church. For this reason, the Good Shepherd feels obliged to leave space in the world and the Church above all to the light that comes from faith, in the active presence of God.”

The new Pope is certainly God’s response to the danger of secularism. And it is not just the name he has chosen which makes reference to it. Pope Benedict has expressed clearly his regret over the lack of reference to God in the preamble of the European Constitutional Treaty.

I see you making the assumption that one must be secular to accept evolution. I will state definitively that if that is your assumption, you are wrong.

The lack of debate in Europe could be because they have a much smaller number of fundamentalist protestants, the group that has the biggest problem with evolution.

Peace

Tim

 

[dts]

Orogeny:

I see you making the assumption that one must be secular to accept evolution. I will state definitively that if that is your assumption, you are wrong.

The lack of debate in Europe could be because they have a much smaller number of fundamentalist protestants, the group that has the biggest problem with evolution.

Peace

Tim

Actually, I wasn’t making that assumption. But, I was assuming that most secularists don’t have much interest in intelligent design.

I realize Christians can accept variants of evolution.

 

[philipmarus]

Steve Andersen:

The debate is not about athiest doing anything. Evolution has nothing to do with atheism.

Then why have I had professors in college at one of the Big Public Universitites in my state, lecture on how Evolution disproves the existence of God?

 

[buffalo]

philipmarus:

Then why have I had professors in college at one of the Big Public Universitites in my state, lecture on how Evolution disproves the existence of God?

Something smells fishy here!

 

[dts]

Intelligent design revisited
Townhall, David Limbaugh (archive)

August 19, 2005

townhall.com/columnists/davidlimbaugh/dl20050819.shtml

On those rare occasions that I write a column touching remotely on science, especially if I depart from the conventional wisdom of the greater scientific community, the contemptuous e-mails fill my inbox.

Such was the case a few columns ago when I broached the subject of Intelligent Design (ID) after President Bush indicated his receptiveness to ID theory being taught alongside evolution in the public schools. The hostile e-mailers pointed out what a consummate idiot and criminal trespasser I was for treading on their real estate . . .

Editor Explains Reasons for ‘Intelligent Design’ Article

By Michael Powell
Washington Post Staff Writer
Friday, August 19, 2005; A19

washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/08/18/AR2005081801680_pf.html

Evolutionary biologist Richard Sternberg made a fateful decision a year ago.

As editor of the hitherto obscure Proceedings of the Biological Society of Washington, Sternberg decided to publish a paper making the case for “intelligent design,” a controversial theory that holds that the machinery of life is so complex as to require the hand – subtle or not – of an intelligent creator.

Within hours of publication, senior scientists at the Smithsonian Institution – which has helped fund and run the journal – lashed out at Sternberg as a shoddy scientist and a closet Bible thumper.

“They were saying I accepted money under the table, that I was a crypto-priest, that I was a sleeper cell operative for the creationists,” said Steinberg, 42 , who is a Smithsonian research associate. “I was basically run out of there.”

An independent agency has come to the same conclusion, accusing top scientists at the Smithsonian’s National Museum of Natural History of retaliating against Sternberg by investigating his religion and smearing him as a “creationist.”

The U.S. Office of Special Counsel, which was established to protect federal employees from reprisals, examined e-mail traffic from these scientists and noted that “retaliation came in many forms . . . misinformation was disseminated through the Smithsonian Institution and to outside sources. The allegations against you were later determined to be false.” . . .

 

[rossum]

Creationists have been predicting the imminent end of Darwinism for a very long time. See this list of references.

I would take all such predictions with a very large pinch of salt.

rossum

 

[Orogeny]

philipmarus:

Then why have I had professors in college at one of the Big Public Universitites in my state, lecture on how Evolution disproves the existence of God?

They were wrong and what they said was inappropriate.

Peace

Tim

 

[dts]

techcentralstation.com/081905B.html

** Why ‘Theology Is a Simple Muddle’**
By Lee Harris

This is a dangerous world in which to propagate a doctrine of cosmic nihilism, which, unfortunately, is what the modern interpretation of Darwin comes down to, especially in the hands of evangelical atheists like Richard Dawkins. Indeed, it is almost beginning to appear as if Darwin’s great work is no longer being treated by some of its more enthusiastic defenders as a scientific theory, but simply as a weapon in the culture war between those who wish to eradicate Christianity and all religion, like Dawkins, and those who want to resist the imposition on their children of the doctrine of cosmic nihilism under the guise of a biology lesson. How much better off both sides would be if they had the intellectual honesty to declare, as Darwin did, “my theology is a muddle,” and that our science will always remain hopelessly hypothetical.

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

dts:

See the article linked below. Do you agree or disagree? Is this debate really about atheists (or materialists) overstepping the proper bounds of science?

Against the Ropes with Darwin
The Imminent End of the Evolution Theory

By Regis Nicoll
Breakpoint, August 18, 2005

pfm.org/AM/Template.cfm?Section=BreakPoint1&Template=/CM/ContentDisplay.cfm&ContentID=16608

“[T]he Darwinian brand of evolution is becoming increasingly vulnerable as the progress of science reveals its weaknesses.”—Historian Paul Johnson in Forbes

**. . . **

For example, a November 2004 Gallup poll reported that 83 percent of Americans believe that God was involved in human origin and development. Only 13 percent believed that God had no part in the process. Remarkable, considering that Darwinian evolution has been a theory without rival in public education ever since the Scopes Trial.

These numbers made academians wonder how the public could fail to “get it.” Surely Christian fundamentalists are to blame. Those religious zealots who believe in biblical truth are trying to re-infect society with myth and superstition—evils from which science rescued us long ago.

But here’s the rub. That same Gallup poll reported that only 34 percent of Americans believe in the literal truth of the Bible.

Define “literal”, please​

In other words, fundamentalist teaching can’t account for the lack of public acceptance for Darwin’s theory. And, if eighty years of education have been insufficient to convince the public otherwise, something else must be wrong.

What’s wrong is that Darwinism lacks the creative power to explain the full complexity and diversity of life. And a growing number of scientists agree

**. . . **

Since more than 70 percent of the populace favor “teaching the controversy,” it was only a matter of time before states began amending science curricula

**. . . **

The Giant Staggers

I have been asked more than once why many people hold tenaciously to a theory riddled with so many problems. I think the best answer comes from NYU Law professor Thomas Nagel, a self-professed atheist:

It isn’t just that I don’t believe in God . . . I hope there is no God! . . . I don’t want the universe to be like that. My guess is that this cosmic authority problem is not a rare condition and is responsible for . . . the overuse of evolutionary biology to explain everything about life, including everything about the human mind.

When neo-Darwinists begin hammering us with their best shots—dogmatic claims based on philosophy, speculation, flawed studies, and fraudulent evidence—you know it won’t be long before the lumbering giant staggers, stumbles, and collapses to the canvas.

I gave up when I saw this ​

Prior to 1859, the humanistic ideals of the Enlightenment were insufficient to jettison God from the universe. The most any honest skeptic could do was shove Him into a remote outpost of the cosmos where He could amuse Himself with heavenly delights, thus leaving mankind to perfect society through science and technology.

However, all of that changed in 1859 with the publication of The Origin of Species. Charles Darwin’s theory of evolution enabled “enlightened” thinkers to eject the Clockmaker completely, and become intellectually fulfilled atheists, as neo-Darwinist Richard Dawkins once said.

---

God-as-Clockmaker is not a Christian model of God at all - it is a Deistic model: God, far from being a God Who ceaselessly governs the least and lowliest even in His creation, creates it, sets it working, and ceases to be involved in its workings.

Christians are not obliged to defend so poor and so utterly unBiblical - and anti-Christian - a notion. God is **not **an explanation - He is the Source of all creation.

An author who does not realise that Deism is not Christian theism but a threadbare version of it, is not fit to be taken seriously.

The other deficiency of this article is, not only that Darwinism is not synonymous with evolution - even if it were, it in no way does away with “Creator, Saviour, or supernatural”. It would do so only if God were the explanation of entities accounted for - adequately or not - by evolution. Darwinism, naturalism, Marxism, Freudianism, do not in the slightest rule out God, because God is transcendent. They might be intended to do so - but they fail to.

Why must God not work through “natural processes” ?

This article is appallingly stupid ##

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

Faithful One:

Thanks for having the courage to report the truth, dts, knowing that there will always be one or two in that thirteen percent who will feel the need to resort to railing on the publisher of such data.

However, I am amused as I watch the futile attempts of evolutionists trying to assasinate the character and knowledgeability of the authors who have revealed the multipicity of reports which show how a majority of Americans have rejected atheistic evolutionary theory.

Rather than trying to find out why the public rejects the foundations of evolution theory, the ususal response by evolutionists is to denegrate both the publishers of the data and the public themselves as illiterate fools. How dare them oppose our scientific data! …he,he ).

To me this type of foolish railing by die-hard adherents goes a long way in revealing the true inept condition of evolution theory, void of any ability to present logical & consistent facts necessary to sway public opinion, and is itself valid evidence that evolution theory is entering the trash heap of humanity. The violent atheistic promotion of evolution as fact, force feeding it down the throats of the public, is actually accelerating its ultimate fate of being vomited out of rational public acceptance…

Thanks again for the excellent report;
Faithful One

Unfortunately, it is not a very intelligent article - as pointed out.​

God is truly an Almighty Gracious Creator-God, even if He works by natural processes within creation so as to govern and maintain what He has created by the word of His power; an author who doesn’t appreciate this, is not an author who can be taken seriously. God’s activity does not have to be startling or spectacular or unconnected to the natural order, in order to be the activity of God. “More spectacular” or “less connected to the natural world”, does not imply “more religiously valid” or “more truly God’s work”.

Darwinism does not destroy the doctrine of creation ex nihilo - it leaves it alone, because Darwinism does not go “into God” Who is the transcendent Creator of all things. Darwinism cannot do so, because it does not profess to transcend creation - it is not a species of theology, discourse about God, in the strict sense; but of a theology which considers His works; & no more.

Unfortunately, the author of the article sacrifices the Providence of God to His Creativity, and completely ignores the Transcendence of God, as well as implying that God does not work through and in nature. A supernatural Creator-God is no Christian God, if He is not a God of Providence, immanent in creation, & wholly transcending it.

Neither Darwinism in particular nor ideas of evolution in general do anything to make Christian theism more difficult to believe than before - a belief in some form of evolution (such as Darwinism) merely increases the amount of *detail *for the believer to consider. Since Christian believing does not come from reason but from God’s grace bringing about the grace of faith active through love in us, no extra burden is imposed on reason at all. So Christian believing and Christian theology are, in their essence, unaffected. ##

 

[Steve_Andersen]

philipmarus:

Then why have I had professors in college at one of the Big Public Universitites in my state, lecture on how Evolution disproves the existence of God?

I don’t know
They shouldn’t have said that, perhaps you misunderstood what they were saying. The best they could say was that there is no evidence for the supernatural…which makes sense since the supernatural is…supernatural

but what does a the actions of an individual have to do with the merits of the science?
you wouldn’t say that since Jim Jones was a nut therefore all religion is bad now would you?

 

[Steve_Andersen]

john doran:

so. is that principle natural and measurable? i.e. is the statement stipulating that methodology itself a piece of “metaphysics” or physics?

and where does it leave M-theory and loop quantum gravity? or any other theories proposing to describe the planck domain?

don’t know

not realy sure

what does that have to do with biology?

evolution is far more prosaic than that

 

[Steve_Andersen]

Orogeny:

… I think so. There is no real scientific debate, but when a scientist declares that evolution is proof that God doesn’t exist, he is definately stepping out of the realm of science, just as do those who advocate ID.

yeah but there are no evil atheistic scientists holding our children’s future ransome by trying to change the school system

it is the ID proponents who are trying to change the system…they are the ones stepping out of bounds

 

[dts]

Steve Andersen:

yeah but there are no evil atheistic scientists holding our children’s future ransome by trying to change the school system

it is the ID proponents who are trying to change the system…they are the ones stepping out of bounds

The atheists don’t need to change the public school system. They already control it.

 

[dts]

Steve Andersen:

I don’t know
They shouldn’t have said that, perhaps you misunderstood what they were saying. The best they could say was that there is no evidence for the supernatural…which makes sense since the supernatural is…supernatural

but what does a the actions of an individual have to do with the merits of the science?
you wouldn’t say that since Jim Jones was a nut therefore all religion is bad now would you?

But of course, if they said there was no evidence for the supernatural that would violate Scripture. It would be an atheistic presupposition about the nature of reality.

Romans 1

For I am not ashamed of the gospel: it is the power of God for salvation to every one who has faith, to the Jew first and also to the Greek. 17 For in it the righteousness of God is revealed through faith for faith; as it is written, “He who through faith is righteous shall live.” 18 For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and wickedness of men who by their wickedness suppress the truth. 19 For what can be known about God is plain to them, because God has shown it to them. 20 Ever since the creation of the world his invisible nature, namely, his eternal power and deity, has been clearly perceived in the things that have been made. So they are without excuse; 21 for although they knew God they did not honor him as God or give thanks to him, but they became futile in their thinking and their senseless minds were darkened. 22 Claiming to be wise, they became fools, 23 and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images resembling mortal man or birds or animals or reptiles. 24 Therefore God gave them up in the lusts of their hearts to impurity, to the dishonoring of their bodies among themselves, 25 because they exchanged the truth about God for a lie and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed for ever! Amen. 26 For this reason God gave them up to dishonorable passions. Their women exchanged natural relations for unnatural, 27 and the men likewise gave up natural relations with women and were consumed with passion for one another, men committing shameless acts with men and receiving in their own persons the due penalty for their error. 28 And since they did not see fit to acknowledge God, God gave them up to a base mind and to improper conduct. 29 They were filled with all manner of wickedness, evil, covetousness, malice. Full of envy, murder, strife, deceit, malignity, they are gossips, 30 slanderers, haters of God, insolent, haughty, boastful, inventors of evil, disobedient to parents, 31 foolish, faithless, heartless, ruthless. 32 Though they know God’s decree that those who do such things deserve to die, they not only do them but approve those who practice them.