Posted on 03/02/2007 7:18:55 PM PST by balch3
recently found myself in a conversation with two college undergraduates, both of them seniors in the natural sciences (physics and biochemistry, respectively). At one point we were discussing alchemy, which they knew as a pre-modern attempt to transmute lead into gold. I asked them whether they could name any famous alchemists. They could not, though one of them dimly recalled hearing of “someone whose name began with A.”
I then predicted that Darwinian evolution would eventually fade into the same obscurity that now shrouds alchemy. Although I knew from previous conversations that my young friends were skeptical of Darwinian theory, they expressed considerable surprise at my prediction, if only because Darwinism is presently held in such high esteem by their professors.
So I proceeded to explain the basis for my prediction.
First, Darwinism is similar to alchemy in purporting to hold the key to transmutation. Alchemists sought the secret of turning lead into gold; Darwinists think they already possess the secret of turning bacteria into baboons.
The alchemists, of course, were looking in the wrong place, expecting to find their secret in physical mixtures or chemical reactions, when transmutation of the elements had to wait for radically new discoveries in nuclear physics. Darwinists are also looking in the wrong place, expecting to explain large-scale evolution by DNA mutations and natural selection, when abundant evidence already indicates that those processes cannot do the job. When biologists eventually unravel the true organizing principles of life, they will quickly put Darwinism behind them.
Of course, there are also significant differences between alchemy and Darwinism. One is that alchemists were self-consciously searching for The Answer; Darwinists think they already have It. Another is that alchemy contributed many insights, materials and tools to the development of modern chemistry; Darwinism has almost nothing to contribute to the development of biology. The insights, materials and tools used by Darwinists have almost all been lifted from animal and plant breeders, classical biology, Mendelian genetics, biochemistry, and molecular biology – none of which owe anything to Darwin’s theory. The only things Darwinism can call its own are speculations about common ancestry and the transmutation of species that look increasingly implausible with each new piece of evidence.
Finally, alchemists knew that philosophy and theology were as integral to their discipline as observation and experimentation; Darwinists think they are above philosophy and theology. Even though Darwin’s Origin of Species and subsequent defenses of his theory are inextricably tied to arguments about why God supposedly wouldn’t have made living things the way they are, Darwinists invariably accuse their critics of being religiously motivated while they think they’re just dealing with the facts.
Which reminds me of another conversation I had fifteen years ago with some communists. I was a graduate student in biology at the time, and we were discussing the nature of science. I stated that no science is entirely objective – that is, based only on the facts and free of subjective elements. One of the communists replied that he knew of such a science. I asked him what it was, expecting him to say physics (for which I already had a well thought-out response). But his answer was “The Marxist theory of history.”
Darwinists, like Marxists, tend to be blind to their own commitment to materialistic philosophy. In this regard, Darwinists are more like Marxists than alchemists. So instead of becoming, like alchemy, just a dim recollection (“someone whose name began with D”), Darwinism might, like Marxism, persist for a while (after passing into oblivion everywhere else in the world) – on American college campuses.
another Home Run from Jonothan Wells.
Home run? He can predict anything he likes, but he's right there reading from the playbook of the inquisition. Galileo was right, the planets did move, and the earth did move.
Darwin's insight into the origin of species isn't going to disappear any more than Galileo's insight into the movement of the planets.
The evidence is simply overwhelming. The fossil record, the DNA record, the blindingly obvious similarity between apes and humans, mammals and other mammals, and even, if you delve deep enough, fish and mammals, is proof of common ancestry.
We see evolution going forward today. Naturally, as our lives are short and evolution takes time, we never get to see the whole story played out from beginning to end. Nobody lives to see the galaxy turn one whole spin, for that matter, but we don't have to have arguments about whether the galaxy does spin. Things that go slowly, go too slowly for us to watch the whole event. But there is evidence aplenty for those with minds that are open to the evidence.
Certainly someone has discovered the secret of turning Democrats into baboons. Or is it the other way around?
Say, which IS the higher life form of the two, anyway?
Agreed. They see themselves as Gods. They assume, blindly, there is nothing else.
There is no link between human and their human like animal samples. There is no human DNA in anything they claim is human. Darwinism is simply another theory that has yet to be proven.
If man evolved via apes, how did their cerebrialspinal system, in one instant quantum leap, go from that of a monkey to that of a bear?
Abundant evidence already indicates that those proceses cannot do the job. RIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIght.
Horsepucky.
Marx held high respect to chemistry because he thought the society had to be studied the way people studied molecular chemistry. His doctoral dissertation was on philosophy of nature, especially atom. He argued that Social Scientists need to learn how the mechanism in the society work, the way Chemists learn how sugar dissolves in water and makes water sweet: by observing how the molecules of water react to the molecules of sugar.
Since Marx believed he already had analyzed the society the way molecular chemist did with sugar and water, he also believed that his Social Science is the objective science (of human).
Like usual, his followers shared his optimism.
Unification Church placemarker
What a buch of rehashed twaddle.
buch = bunch
More twaddle. You just scrunch your eyes closed, put your fingers in your ears, and yell "la la la la" whenever anyone points you towards the evidence. Self imposed ignorance. ..Sad..
A never ending search for exactly the right combination of just the right perjoratives that will turn twaddle into reason.
LOL! The never ending quest.
Where is the barf alert for this bit of IDiocy?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.