Darwin's Theory of Evolution is not scientific

[Cruciferi]

Evolution is a theory that’s full of holes and it will eventually be changed just like everything else.

I often wonder why these evolutionists race to save endangered species. Where’s Survival of the Fittest?

 

[benjamin1973]

It’s because we are the primary environmental pressure on these species, and it is our own loss when we will show our kids only pictures, rather than being able to take them to the zoo.

It would be pretty uncharitable to chop down the entire forest which hosts the “warbled-footed pink treefrog” or whatever, and then say, “Well. . . they couldn’t adapt to the sudden lack of trees. It’s their problem for failing to evolve faster than we can use chainsaws!”

 

[rossum]

ID the science only can say there is a designer.

ID claims an Intelligent Designer. Since intelligence is itself complex, therefore the complex Intelligent Designer requires a Designer Designer to design the complexity inherent in the Intelligent Designer.

If complexity always requires design, and intelligence is complex, then any proposed Intelligent Designer always requires an intelligent meta-designer. ID contains an inherent infinite regress, unless there is a non-intelligent way to produce a complex system like intelligence.

Evolution is a non-intelligent way to produce complex systems like intelligence.

All ID does is to confirm the existence of evolution, or something similar.

rossum

 

[Bradskii]

edwest211:

Those who do not comply are then treated to the usual, planned responses:
Ignorant
Fundamentalist
Anti-Science

Many Catholics sadly seem much more interested in defending “evolution” than actual teachings of the Church such as our Lord’s resurrection, the Eucharist, etc.

That’s patently nonsense. There are two or three posters that class themselves as Christian who ONLY post on threads that discuss evolution. Everyone else I see discussing various matters all over the forum, but these two or three (hi guys!) spend all their time on one subject.

Perhaps you are better advised to direct your accusations of a one-track mind to them.

 

[Bradskii]

benjamin1973:

Yeah, as soon as you quoted him, I instantly went to Youtube to see what he actually said. I was not surprised to see that you were misrepresenting the case.

I’m still curious if you really can’t understand the language in that video, or if you are deliberately misrepresenting them?

your turn - explain what he meant.

Surely only someone whose language is not primarily English could fail to follow that conversation. Surely.

He is explaining that if we are designed and there was someway to determine that (no-one has yet come up with a method other than ‘gee, it looks designed to me’), then that fact IN ITSELF, does not point to a deity. As the IDers tbemselves claim. And that at best it leads to an infinite regress.

He is reiterating what you claim. And you think it proves some sort of point.

Ye gods and little fishes. He is calling ID a nonsensical proposal and it goes straight over the top of your head. There is no hope.

 

[o_mlly]

Evolution is a theory that’s full of holes and it will eventually be changed just like everything else.

I often wonder why these evolutionists race to save endangered species.

Evolution, as you point out, is a great theory destroyed by facts (and absence of facts).

Taxonomy, the categorization of life, is highly subjective. How many dissimilarities between two animals determines a new species? A new genus? A new family, etc.? Is that “mutation” a new species or just an inferior reproduction? These classifications of life are man’s inventions as abstractions and are quite arbitrary. Darwin could have written, “On the Origin of Phylums” and his text would have been pretty much the same.

 

[Aloysium]

When you make yourself an enemy of the truth, when you refuse to lift your eyes up from your texts and look at the word of God writ all around you, then is this an act of faith? Or a lack of faith that God is revealing the truth to us all the time, in reward for our interest in His Creation?

Imagine we are talking about string theory and this is the response one receives to a statement of disbelief in the what they are hearing.

Imagine that rather than matter, everything is a form of existence arising from One Act of Being, separate from the creation which He brings into existence. Transcendent, He is relational, personal and triune in nature, one God. Everything that is, is. Everything comes into being in its moment. As part of the overall spiritual, existential reality where existence takes on particular forms, all relational as an image of their Maker, each thing in itself, relating to other things, has some degree of existence along two dimensions - the physical and the psychological. Each creature has a soul that defines what it is along these two separate categories, making it one thing, be it an atom, a bacterium, a plant, an animal, an angel, or a human being. You and I as persons are one being in ourselves as a knower-knowing-known, where self connects with other. In the unity of the person as body and spirit, the spirit is primary. That soul, repeatedly created in the form of individual organisms, which change over successive generations, had a beginning in time. That is creation.

It only appears that evolution occurred. In physics, in both relativity and quantum physics, time is secondary to causality. When we speak of living forms of being, here too the central reality is their existence being caused in their moment in time, within eternity. The ontological reality of any organism is such that each is an expression of its kind, having had beginning in time. The particular soul of any creature may result in a variety of forms which, in this world we find are both in union and in conflict with their environment. The offspring of any kind of animal may have a different morphology and psychology than the original form reflecting not merely environmental pressures, but primarily the beauty and creativity of God.

If anyone fails to lift their eyes from a text, it is evolutionists who don’t see the truth but rather the reflection of their own ideas. The truth is at the corner store where two persons meet and engage in the social dance of trade. Coins are exchanged for goods that are consumed to become a part of one’s physical form. Smokes can be purchased to quench cravings and cause the random genomic mutations that give rise to cancer and are revered by those who believe they are the source of all the diversity and complexity of life.

 

[Aloysium]

All ID does is to confirm the existence of evolution, or something similar.

something similar = creation, by design.

 

[Aloysium]

I often wonder why these evolutionists race to save endangered species. Where’s Survival of the Fittest?

It is because of their unconscious knowledge that natural selection is at best conservative, allowing to let live what already is. It’s driving force is death. For creation to happen and be maintained requires love - a giving of oneself for the good of the other.

 

[Techno2000]

It’s because we are the primary environmental pressure on these species, and it is our own loss when we will show our kids only pictures, rather than being able to take them to the zoo.

It would be pretty uncharitable to chop down the entire forest which hosts the “warbled-footed pink treefrog” or whatever, and then say, “Well. . . they couldn’t adapt to the sudden lack of trees. It’s their problem for failing to evolve faster than we can use chainsaws!”

We humans are a product of evolution also,so how could you blame us ? Evolution is supposed to have a remedy for things like chainsaws.

 

[benjamin1973]

Wow, solid logical point. I think you’re winning this debate now!

 

[Techno2000]

Wow, solid logical point. I think you’re winning this debate now!

Thanks… if man is destroying the planet, then the only thing to blame is evolution for not following its own rules.

 

[RandomAlias]

Patience…

 

[buffalo]

Evolution is a non-intelligent way to produce complex systems like intelligence.

Through blind unguided chance. Really? You have a repeatable lab experiment that demonstrates this in entirety?

Natural Selection - the wonder god of evolution. It can do everything. Such nonsense.

 

[Techno2000]

Natural Selection - the wonder god of evolution. It can do everything.

Exactly

 

[opop]

The theory of evolution was not subjected to the scientific method so is not “scientific” per se. It It has never made any prediction which might be verified

Yes it has. For example J. B. S. Haldane, when asked what hypothetical evidence could disprove evolution, replied “fossil rabbits in the Precambrian era”. In other words, the prediction that you will not find such and such species in such and such strata is a prediction that can be verified.

Neo-Darwinists have long promised a missing link but only fakes have ever emerged.

I don’t know what you are talking about. We have found tons of links for tons of different species, including humans.

the Neo-Darwinist theory of evolution states that the complete diversity of life today arose from a single common ancestor which developed from a primordial chemical soup billions of years ago, when no-one was on earth to observe and record it.

It’s not because we don’t directly observe something that we can’t have super strong arguments for it. You should know it, you who believe in God.
Also, even in the unlikely scenario where abiogenesis and the single common ancestor theroy would be proved wrong, it would not dsprove evolution in itself.

Nor has anyone ever seen one species change into another.

Actually yes we have. There are at least two examples: tragopogon miscellus and tragopogon mirus.

Genetic homeostasis 1 (I.M. Lerner) is a testable law which overwhelmingly speaks against Darwinist evolution from one species into another.

There are even more testable laws and facts that speak for it.

Nothing from ancient pre-history is observable, repeatable, nor can it be measured.

False. It can be observed and measured through fossils and genetics.

Darwinism is non observable, so is simply not falsifiable

I already gave you an example of how it can make falsifiable predictions. But here’s an other:
the fact that humans have one fewer pair of chromosomes than the great apes offered a testable hypothesis involving the fusion or splitting of chromosomes from a common ancestor. The fusion hypothesis was confirmed in 2005 by discovery that human chromosome 2 is homologous with a fusion of two chromosomes that remain separate in other primates. Extra, inactive telomeres and centromeres remain on human chromosome 2 as a result of the fusion. The assertion of common descent could also have been disproven with the invention of DNA sequencing methods. If true, human DNA should be far more similar to chimpanzees and other great apes, than to other mammals. If not, then common descent is falsified. DNA analysis has shown that humans and chimpanzees share a large percentage of their DNA (between 95% to 99.4% depending on the measure).

 

[buffalo]

Let’s go through the Dawkins video

First half minute - no one knows how life got started, we just know the kind of event it must have been,

:39 What do you think is the possibility that Intelligent Design might turn out to be the answer to some issues in genetics or in Darwinian evolution.

DAWKINS: Well, it could come about in the following way. It could be that at some earlier time, somewhere in the universe, a civilization evolved, probably by some kind of Darwinian means, probably to a very high level of technology, and designed a form of life that they seeded onto perhaps this planet. Um, now that is a possibility, and an intriguing possibility. And I suppose it’s possible that you might find evidence for that if you look at the details of biochemistry, molecular biology, you might find a signature of some sort of designer.

Here is his denial, (he is actually agreeing with Catholics here - God did not just jump into existence - right - He is the uncaused cause and always existed.)

“And that Designer could well be a higher intelligence from elsewhere in the universe. But that higher intelligence would itself have had to have come about by some explicable, or ultimately explicable process. It couldn’t have just jumped into existence spontaneously. That’s the point.”

---

Pretty clear to me. and - We may find a signature - indeed, we have.

Here is the video again

 

[rossum]

something similar = creation, by design.

Evolution is non-intelligent design. As long as ID throws out the “Intelligent” part there is no conflict.

If the “Intelligent” part is included, then ID has the problem of explaining the origin of a complex property like intelligence. Random mutations and natural selection need no such explanation because they are not complex.

rossum

 

[rossum]

Through blind unguided chance. Really?

No. It is not “unguided”. Natural selection applies a filter to chance, so the resulting output is not chance.

Put sand and gravel into a stream. Is it “chance” that the sand is swept downstream while the gravel stays behind on the stream bed? Many natural processes act as filters; natural selection is just one of them.

rossum

 

[buffalo]

Natural selection applies a filter to chance, so the resulting output is not chance.

How was this designed?