Is Darwin's Theory of Evolution True? Part 4.1

  • Thread starter Thread starter Techno2000
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Hugh_Farey said:
I see. How does it know what these historical one time events were?
Click to expand...
One gathers information and then tries to reconstruct scenarios that may explain it. Conjecture, guesstimates, multiple assumptions, inferences and extrapolation are used. Evolution uses abductive reasoning.
 
edwest211 said:
Dinosaurs were here and then they died. So what? Novel organs? Getting wings? No plausible explanations, just guesses. If I put a generic 3D body plan on my computer, I could create a lot of creatures with similar body plans but that’s where it ends. Similarity does not mean a common ancestor for all.
Click to expand...
Actually, utilizing these basic parts would be common design.
 
buffalo said:
One gathers information and then tries to reconstruct scenarios that may explain it. Conjecture, guesstimates, multiple assumptions, inferences and extrapolation are used. Evolution uses abductive reasoning.
Click to expand...
One gathers information, does one. And what does that information look like?
 
No. Missed again. So what if evolution uses adductive reasoning. That’s not what I asked. In what form does the information about historical events come?
 
But Dawkins does conform to the “common wisdom.” The National Academy of Sciences allows only one answer about evolution being true - yes - period. It even tries to convince visitors at its website that evolution is compatible with religion. Where? Certainly not in the Biology textbook. God/gods are not scientific concepts. To answer your question:

“According to St. Thomas Aquinas: “The effect of divine providence is not only that things should happen somehow, but that they should happen either by necessity or by contingency. Therefore, whatsoever divine providence ordains to happen infallibly and of necessity happens infallibly and of necessity; and that happens from contingency, which the divine providence conceives to happen from contingency” (Summa theologiae, I, 22,4 ad 1). In the Catholic perspective, neo-Darwinians who adduce random genetic variation and natural selection as evidence that the process of evolution is absolutely unguided are straying beyond what can be demonstrated by science. Divine causality can be active in a process that is both contingent and guided. Any evolutionary mechanism that is contingent can only be contingent because God made it so. An unguided evolutionary process – one that falls outside the bounds of divine providence – simply cannot exist because “the causality of God, Who is the first agent, extends to all being, not only as to constituent principles of species, but also as to the individualizing principles…It necessarily follows that all things, inasmuch as they participate in existence, must likewise be subject to divine providence” (Summa theologiae I, 22, 2).”
 
Last edited:
It is not the concern of the National Academy of Science to do theology, except to say that it is not necessary for a theory explaining physical observations to be taken as an attack on religion. In spite of what Richard Dawkins thinks, that is true. Richard Dawkins has a theological bone to pick, and he isn’t shy about saying it.
 
I’ve already addressed this conceptual problem, I believe.

What separates baby you from adult you, physically? At what single point did baby you become a man? Obviously, there’s no such point. Baby grew so imperceptibly, over such a long period of time, that at no two moments could you say, “Aha! Here we have a different person.” And yet. . . baby you is gone, and adult you is here.

What caused baby you to “die out”?
 
Intelligent Design is the only way. That’s why scientists have no choice but to treat the genome like a mechanical device. To take it apart and figure out what the parts are, what they do and so on. They don’t know much. I suspect they will be painted into a corner when they realize the “device” is orders of magnitude beyond probability/chance.
 
Last edited:
Most of the greater scientists have decided to look at it like Dawkins has.
 
Last edited:
Darwin’s House of Cards: A Journalist’s Odyssey Through the Darwin Debates

(Ouch!)

In this provocative history of contemporary debates over evolution, veteran journalist Tom Bethell depicts Darwin’s theory as a nineteenth-century idea past its prime, propped up by logical fallacies, bogus claims, and empirical evidence that is all but disintegrating under an onslaught of new scientific discoveries. Bethell presents a concise yet wide-ranging tour of the flash points of modern evolutionary theory, investigating controversies over common descent, natural selection, the fossil record, biogeography, information theory, evolutionary psychology, artificial intelligence, and the growing intelligent design movement. Bethell’s account is enriched by his own personal encounters with of some of our era’s leading scientists and thinkers, including Harvard biologists Stephen Jay Gould and Richard Lewontin; British paleontologist Colin Patterson; and renowned philosopher of science Karl Popper.

 
benjamin1973 said:
I’ve already addressed this conceptual problem, I believe.

What separates baby you from adult you, physically? At what single point did baby you become a man? Obviously, there’s no such point. Baby grew so imperceptibly, over such a long period of time, that at no two moments could you say, “Aha! Here we have a different person.” And yet. . . baby you is gone, and adult you is here.

What caused baby you to “die out”?
Click to expand...
One could see and photograph every single change year-by-year and my intellect would show change also, plus I’m not morphing into a completely different species.
 
No human being ever has. The false premise is this: Man evolved from a sea creature that evolved from something even more primitive. One very obvious problem is, right now, all of the so-called “earlier forms” exist. Sure, a tiny percentage died out, but from the single cell organism to the human being and everything in between, is alive right now.

Based on this line of reasoning, only a handful of super-fish and super-land mammals would exist today. After all, those with a slight reproductive advantage, plus the evolution of better body parts, would leave all that came before - dead. Either eaten to death or unable to compete for resources as well.

But that is not true.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top