Book: The Hoax Called Evolution

[mathematician]

The only difference is how you want to explain the mutations occurring. Is it God’s hand? Is it just the forces of nature? Who cares, evolution is happening either way, which is the whole argument.

It might not matter to an agnostic, but both theists and atheists have been known to get hot under the collar about it.

 

[reggieM]

The only difference is how you want to explain the mutations occurring. Is it God’s hand? Is it just the forces of nature? Who cares, evolution is happening either way, which is the whole argument.

It’s far from the whole argument. If it can be proved that evolution does not occur through random mutations, then Darwinian theory is falsified. Scientists would have to account for God’s actions in nature.

That is the direct opposite of what Darwinian theory proposes.

“Evolution” is about a mechanism. The claim is that random, unguided, purposeless, unintelligent forces created all of the diversity in nature.

Your claim regarding TE is virtually the same as the claims of ID. Did God create or guide the mutations? What evidence is there for that claim?

Once it is shown that God’s hand specially created conditions that made the development of species possible (as TE claims) then attempts to prove evolution while omitting the role of God in the process are obviously false.

The evolutionary enterprise collapses if God directed the changes. Darwin admitted that. There is no reason to postulate natural selection as a mechanism since it’s not true – it’s “divine selection” and not “random mutations” either.

This is the “whole argument”. Claims of evolutionists fail if TE is correct. It’s a direct attack on evolutionary theory itself.

 

[reggieM]

They are few and far between, and invariably have a creationist agenda.

I tend to dismiss scientists who have an atheistic agenda also, so I do understand your concern.

 

[mathematician]

That is an excellent response – thank you.

Darwinian evolution claims that the process happens and continues through fluke chances. That is part of the scientific literature.

The scientific literature is justified in using a word like fluke insofar as the process LOOKS random. That says nothing about whether or not there is a God, or whether or not it looks random to him. Human and divine perspectives are not the same thing.

Theistic evolution disagrees with this. What evidence can TE provide to show that evolution does not occur by fluke chances?

That evolution is not a purely chance process is a point of view which necessarily flows from belief in a creator God. Neither theist nor atheist can prove their respective interpretations. It is a matter of faith.

 

[liquidpele]

It’s far from the whole argument. If it can be proved that evolution does not occur through random mutations, then Darwinian theory is falsified. Scientists would have to account for God’s actions in nature.

The theory being falsified does NOT SUPPORT another theory. I’m so sick of that argument.

That is the direct opposite of what Darwinian theory proposes.

“Evolution” is about a mechanism. The claim is that random, unguided, purposeless, unintelligent forces created all of the diversity in nature.

Your claim regarding TE is virtually the same as the claims of ID. Did God create or guide the mutations? What evidence is there for that claim?

Once it is shown that God’s hand specially created conditions that made the development of species possible (as TE claims) then attempts to prove evolution while omitting the role of God in the process are obviously false.
.

Ah, I see your point in the difference of theistic and atheistic evolution now. Evolution is evolution: the change and adaptation of species. Darwin’s theory could be wrong yes, but his theory is about how evolution happens, not that evolution exists. If it’s God directing it, then it’s still evolution, it’s just by a different means. Thus I see why you would want the distinction.

 

[buffalo]

As one Catholic scientist described it, the problem with postulating the miraculous is that it immediately brings any further scientific investigation to an end. “God did it,” and there is nothing further to say.

Why do the planets orbit the sun? “God does it” Jolly good, we don’t need a theory of gravitation then.

What causes disease? “God does it” Jolly good, so we don’t need to investigate any physical causes then.

That is why even theistic scientists have a problem with ID. That, and the fact that it conjures up the famous god of the gaps (who rightly has his name spelt with a small g).

The same is happening in science. As we discover more the gaps multiply and become wider. Now we have a science of the gaps and guess what fills it. Evolution.

Here is how it plays out - we discovered something at odds with our predictions, but we know evolution did it.

 

[reggieM]

The scientific literature is justified in using a word like fluke insofar as the process LOOKS random. That says nothing about whether or not there is a God, or whether or not it looks random to him. Human and divine perspectives are not the same thing.

As I stated before, it cannot be proven that God did not directly place fossils in rock strata all at one time. It may “look” like they were added successively over centuries, but that could be an illusion that God created.

So, in this view – creationists who totally deny the dating of the fossil record are justified in that view.

That evolution is not a purely chance process is a point of view which necessarily flows from belief in a creator God. Neither theist nor atheist can prove their respective interpretations; it is a matter of faith.

That is excellent also. The claims of mainstream evolutionary theory are clear. They can be found in the science texts. Mutations are random. They are not-guided. That is explicitly stated (Mr. Ed West can provide a list of several quotes from biology textbooks proving that).

But in your view, this is a matter of “faith”. So, the claims of evolutionary theory are based on faith, not on science.

In the case of mainstream evolutionary theory, which claims that mutations are ‘unguided’, the faith which underlies that is atheism – the belief that nature acts without the involvement of God.

Theistic evolution claims that the mutations are “not random” and it does so with no evidence for that claim.

Atheistic evolutionists test the outcomes of random processes. They point out that if a god was involved in the lab test, then that god does nothing at all.

If the god does do something to affect the lab test – what is it?

The default view is atheism. There is no god affecting the development of nature.

 

[mathematician]

The same is happening in science. As we discover more the gaps multiply and become wider. Now we have a science of the gaps and guess what fills it. Evolution.

Here is how it plays out - we discovered something at odds with our predictions, but we know evolution did it.

So evolution is used to explain the fact that the moon doesn’t appear to be where it should be according to General Relativity?

Just because scientific explanations are incomplete that does not mean that it is right, or even wise, to use God as a means of plugging the gap.

 

[liquidpele]

The same is happening in science. As we discover more the gaps multiply and become wider. Now we have a science of the gaps and guess what fills it. Evolution.

Here is how it plays out - we discovered something at odds with our predictions, but we know evolution did it.

I’m not sure why you think gaps in knowledge support or refute evolution.

Can you give an example of something that you think is “assumed” to be evolution when it is not? Perhaps you are ignoring evidence that suggests evolution?

 

[reggieM]

Darwin’s theory could be wrong yes, but his theory is about how evolution happens, not that evolution exists.

That’s a confusion of terms. His theory is about how evolution happens. If it doesn’t happen that way, then the theory is false.

If it’s God directing it, then it’s still evolution, it’s just by a different means. Thus I see why you would want the distinction.

If God specially creates creatures from the dust of the earth, or from other biological organisms – you could call that “evolution”. But your atheistic view would be falsified by the scientific data.

 

[reggieM]

I’m not sure why you think gaps in knowledge support or refute evolution.

A theory gains more support and certainty as it closes gaps. If the findings in the data create more unexplained phenomena, then the theory loses credibility.

But there’s a difference between the theory and the paradigm. The paradigm is a mind-set that assumes the theory is certain and correct. The mind-set will not change unless it finds something equally appealing.

ID is not appealing to the atheistic-science enterprise. But “self-organization” is something that atheists can embrace without losing their worldview.

 

[buffalo]

Evolution is not theistic or atheistic; it is just evolution. If you stick a label like “theistic” or “materialist” in front of it, that is a matter of philosophical interpretation; not science.

That has been my claim as well as others that evolutionism is philosophy and should be taught in philosophy class not science class.

 

[buffalo]

So evolution is used to explain the fact that the moon doesn’t appear to be where it should be according to General Relativity?

Just because scientific explanations are incomplete that does not mean that it is right, or even wise, to use God as a means of plugging the gap.

Agreed, nor should evolution.

As far as ID goes it is a pursuit of formulizing what humans readily recognize as design. We know something is designed when we see it. We recognize it - therefore it was already cognized.

The question is can we make an E=mc2 equation.

 

[mathematician]

That has been my claim as well as others that evolutionism is philosophy and should be taught in philosophy class not science class.

Evolution is not philosophy. Evolution is a scientifically established fact. Philosophy only comes in when you want to put a theistic or atheistic interpretation on it.

 

[buffalo]

I’m not sure why you think gaps in knowledge support or refute evolution.

Can you give an example of something that you think is “assumed” to be evolution when it is not? Perhaps you are ignoring evidence that suggests evolution?

The language of DNA.

 

[buffalo]

Evolution is not philosophy. Evolution is a scientifically established fact. Philosophy only comes in when you want to put a theistic or atheistic interpretation on it.

Change over time is a scientific fact. Empirical tests of these changes rise to the level of science. Inferences drawn from one-time events are just that inferences.

 

[mathematician]

The language of DNA.

The origin of DNA is not something evolution attempts to explain. Insofar as an ill educated atheist tries to claim that it does, then he doesn’t know what he is talking about.

That does not mean the origin of DNA will never yield to scientific investigation, but it is not part of the theory of evolution.

 

[mathematician]

Change over time is a scientific fact. Empirical tests of these changes rise to the level of science. Inferences drawn from one-time events are just that inferences.

When enough inferences point to the same thing you are justified in concluding that the thing is proved. With evolution there are more than enough.

 

[buffalo]

Whenb enough inferences point to the same thing you are justified in concluding that the thing is proved.

Only is you do not exclude data contrary. And thank you, that is exactly why we believe in God.

 

[buffalo]

The origin of DNA is not something evolution attempts to explain. Insofar as an ill educated atheist tries to claim that it does, then he doesn’t know what he is talking about.

That does not mean the origin of DNA will never yield to scientific investigation, but it is not part of the theory of evolution.

Then you are in agreement that DNA could be a case of ID?