Posted on 12/09/2010 7:56:44 AM PST by spirited irish
Here’s an article that all posters here on FR should take very seriously.
Well, OK, then.
I suppose it would be churlish of me to point out that what happened next included some of mankind's greatest achievements.
If you are saying that species, evolutionary genetics, radioactive decay and other thought structures are simply measuring devices I agree with you.
Exactly so! Wolfgang Smith really nails it here. "That living things created themselves" is certainly a metaphysical claim. Certainly such a thing has never been observed. The claim seeks to obviate the problem of First Cause — it's just a dodge.
Thank you so very much for posting this excellent article, spirited irish!
It's a metaphysical claim within a strawman conjured up by Wolfgang Smith.
I don't see any "strawman" here. And as for the metaphysical claim that living things created themselves,
There is no case known (neither is it, indeed, possible) in which a thing is found to be the efficient cause of itself; for so it would be prior to itself, which is impossible. (Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologiae I.2.3)Pretty simple and straightforward stuff, Moonman62.If, then, something were its own cause of being, it would be understood to be before it had being — which is impossible… (Thomas Aquinas, Summa Contra Gentiles I.22.6)
BTW, where is the strawman in Wolfgang Smith's argument?
I gather you are a Darwinist. Good luck! Darwin's theory is coming under increasing pressure nowadays....
snip: “That living things created themselves” is certainly a metaphysical claim.
Spirited: While it is certainly a metaphysical claim it is also a “magic formula.” Gnostics are the quintessential escape-artists and magic has always drawn them like moths to porch lights. To see the magic merely envision the magician waving his wand over the hat as he intones the magic fomula, “Abra Cadabra!” And presto! The “nothingness” within the hat “spontaneously generates” a bunny!
Add a large dollop of “time” (millions and billions of years) to the magic formula and suddenly it becomes “scientific” and “believable.”
Please tell me, allmendream, what exactly does Darwin's theory of evolution predict?
If it makes no predictions, then is it even science? It rather looks like myth to me.... JMHO FWIW
LOLOL!!! Or a "common ancestor"....
It has been observed the what we today call "science" originated in the practice of alchemy, which sought to transform base materials into gold. Looks to me like Darwinian "science" has cycled back to this origin....
[But first you have to bump off God....]
This original lie is the ground of all lies.... And he who spoke it is the father of lies....
Thanks ever so much for the ping to this outstanding article, dear brother in Christ!
Well and truly said, Amos the Prophet! I find it puzzling that allmendream, a self-described Christian, evidently has failed to notice this....
You wrote:
You may, of course, deride creationism. By so doing you simply relegate yourself to the world of moral relativism. In that world there is no truth. Lacking truth you have nothing to offer and your science is worthless.I totally agree.
What remains to be seen is how Darwin's theory comes to terms with another branch of science, information theory. On the one hand, there is no known natural source of information in the universe. On the other, DNA increasingly is being understood as a code. There is no known natural example of a code writing itself. All codes of which we know are products of an intelligent designer.... That is, they are products of intelligence, not of random natural processes.
Thank you for your outstanding essay/post!
Has the Pope, also a “self-described Christian” also “failed to notice” that “The very notion of evolutionary biology is incompatible with a universe created by conscious will.”?
Is he also a “moral relativist”?
The first prong of Darwinism is evolution and this is little more than an attempt to scientifically prove the "non-existence" of God and to replace Him with the "god" of science.
The second prong of Darwinism is eugenics and this is the belief that there is some sort of elite ruling class that should be in charge and that there is a class of "inferior" people who need to be controlled and even exterminated. The Darwinists go out of there way to deny or minimize the components of eugenics, but this is only because they realize the negative consequences of admitting to it.
People need to keep in mind that Charles Darwin came from a very prominent family, the Darwins were business partners with and in-laws through multiple marriages with the Wedgewood family (the pottery and china makers). The Darwins would later be closely associated with the Huxley family and also become related to them by marriage.
The carnage of the last century, abortion, Hitler, Stalin, Mao, the banning of DDT, population control schemes of major foundations, etc., was ALL carried out by people who were open or de facto proponents of Darwinian eugenics, the left has managed to make Darwin a hero to generations of school children and anyone who opposes Darwinism is openly ridiculed. Of all Satan's schemes to destroy mankind, Darwinism is certainly among the most successful.
Thus it predicts that if I subject a bacteria to cold stress it will evolve cold resistance through preferential survival of variations that arise that have DNA changes that lead to proteins that perform at cold temperatures.
It predicts that if I subject a bacteria to heat stress it will evolve heat resistance through preferential survival of variations that arise that have DNA changes that lead to proteins that perform at high temperatures.
So what does “creation science” predict, if it makes no predictions, then is it even science?
You need to be more careful in your assertions. That one goes much too far, and it's demonstrably a false proposition to boot.
To see why your assertion is false, just put yourself in the position of a designer.
The concept of a universe created by conscious will carries with it the burdens and opportunities that face any designer, divine or otherwise.
Where biological entities are concerned, the design problem is to create a self-replicating species. A good designer who is interested in creating a robust design, might very well create a mechanism that not only ensures that the design parameters are reliably passed on from one generation to the next; but also allows the species adapt to environmental conditions as they inevitably change over long periods of time.
One of the possible -- maybe even probable -- consequences of that adaptive capability, is a mechanism of biological evolution; and far from being "incompatible," it's quite reasonable to look at it as characteristic of a good design.
So the ideas of a designer and biological evolution are clearly not "incompatible." (Note that one need not take the Deist position here -- designers are not a priori disallowed from modifying their designs, whether as a matter of necessity or desire.)
What you're really objecting to is the underlying (and fatally flawed) assumptions of those who, like Mr. Dawkins, claim that the process of biological evolution stands as some sort of proof of a Godless universe.
You should probably stick with attacking those assumptions, rather than making bald assertions about things that are both reasonable and observable.
Spirited: While it is certainly a metaphysical claim it is also a “magic formula.” Gnostics are the quintessential escape-artists and magic has always drawn them like moths to porch lights. To see the magic merely envision the magician waving his wand over the hat as he intones the magic fomula, “Abra Cadabra!” And presto! The “nothingness” within the hat “spontaneously generates” a bunny!
Add a large dollop of “time” (millions and billions of years) to the magic formula and suddenly it becomes “scientific” and “believable.”
I love it.
ping for later
bump
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.