How Much Longer Can They Sell Darwinism?

From Sea to Shining Sea ^ | 1/4/09 | Purple Mountains

[PurpleMountains]

All across the country, archeologists, paleontologists and biologists are taking part in what is perhaps the greatest example of political correctness in history – their adherence to Darwinism and their attempts to ostracize any scientist who does not agree with them. In doing so, they are not only ignoring the vast buildup of recent scientific discoveries that seriously undermines the basics of Darwinism, but they are also participating, due to politically correctness, in a belief system that indirectly resulted in the deaths of millions of people – those slaughtered by the Stalins, the Hitlers, the Maos, the Pol Pots and others who took their cue from Darwinism’s tenets.

[BroJoeK]

"Ernst Haeckel and Natural-Scientific Materialism , V.I. Lenin"

The word "science" goes back to ancient times. It has always been that branch of philosophy which deals with the natural material world, not the supernatural. Supernatural comes under metaphysics = "beyond physics".

I know, ECO, you desperately want to turn this into an argument of "Science versus Christianity." Then you could zero your rhetorical weapons and happily fire for effect, right?

But I'll remind you that the vast majority of Christians belong to denominations which have long since accepted the school of thought called "theistic evolution," which is also what I believe.

[Ethan Clive Osgoode]

The word "science" goes back to ancient times.

But your kind of science goes back to Marx's time.

[Just mythoughts]

The word "science" goes back to ancient times. It has always been that branch of philosophy which deals with the natural material world, not the supernatural. Supernatural comes under metaphysics = "beyond physics".

Science is a branch of PHILOSOPHY, YES!!!!! Now who holds the copyright? How ancient? Millions and millions of years ago? Or maybe a few thousand years ago?

I know, ECO, you desperately want to turn this into an argument of "Science versus Christianity." Then you could zero your rhetorical weapons and happily fire for effect, right?

How do you know? Who told you? Any claim made that Christ, 'you know' Christianity, has Christ's origin coming from a hot steaming pot of primordial soup is against Christ. But hey be happy, your legally required indoctrination in the minds of mush over the past 40 + years are now totally and completely in control of government. Remember the 40 and under COLLEGE educated crowd overwhelmingly voted for liberal rule. YOU WON, did you NOT get the news?

But I'll remind you that the vast majority of Christians belong to denominations which have long since accepted the school of thought called "theistic evolution," which is also what I believe.

You think this was not foretold that would be the case? Christ said let no man deceive you... even those calling themselves Christians.

Oh and just so you know before you respond, I have NO doubt this earth is very very very old. Flesh man, however, beginning can be dated, and while the substances used to form the flesh vessels have commonality even from your great apes their purposes for being have NO commonality.

[BroJoeK]

"At this point I suppose that it would be appropriate, using your own standard of judgment, to call you a liar and demand that you recant some of your more categorical declarations. I’m not going to do that, even though outing you as a liar would be a fact by definition and not a personal attack. Instead, I prefer simply to observe that you are mistaken in many of your attacks, and to recommend that you withdraw briefly and contemplate your method of participation in this forum. How you respond to this suggestion will go a long way in demonstrating to all of us if you are merely a propagandizing bully, or if you have a more beneficial motive for your participation."

By the way, this little gem of a response from you deserves a closer scrutiny, I'd say. I notice you not only suggest I'm not truthful, but also that I "attack" and "bully" people. Well...

First, again on the subject of truthfulness -- if I've said anything you believe untruthful, by all means challenge me support it. I think I've been careful to distinguish between facts and my opinions. Facts I can reference, opinions I can explain why.

But look YHAOS, you have to acknowledge one basic fact of this entire "debate," and that is what it's all about. Our Creationists / IDer's core argument is that science itself is lying to us about evolution. Not just that science is mistaken, but that it's actively suppressing "alternate views," in the defense of false evolutionary theories.

More than that, as the introduction to this whole thread demonstrates, ID Creationists argue that science in general and evolution specifically are downright evil, as demonstrated by various quotes and arguments!

What I'm saying is, it's obvious to me that SOMEBODY is lying here, and I don't think it's science, and I've tried to explain why. Now, if you consider that an "attack" and "propagandizing bully," well, then I'm sorry. But if anti-evolutionists start off calling someone else a liar, then why would they NOT expect to be called liars in return?

Finally, please note that almost every post I've made here was in response to someone else's post addressed to me. Obviously, I enjoy these exchanges, or I'd not continue with them. And, I have to assume that people sending posts to me feel the same way about it. Do you disagree?

[hosepipe]

[ Everything can be reduced to simple, evident, mechanical interactions. The cell is a machine; the animal is a machine; the man is a machine. -Jacques Monod ]

If this is true THEN... the human body could be and probably is a Space Suit for the human spirit.. Because it seems that all flesh of any organism is a machine.. even Jesus flesh was a machine.. (John ch 8)..

Wonder if there are "levels" of spirit.. or KINDS of spirit.. that inhabits various "machines".. From God to Angels, humans, animals, insects and plants.. even mushrooms and microbes.. And that flesh is merely the conduit on this planet, to function..

It could be that all flesh is merely mechanical.. but spirit is the motor in the machine.. Wondor "IF" that was Jesus message to all.. You know, that "we" humans(as spirits) are greater than we appear in the flesh.. And when flesh dies, "we" don't.. Heaven and Hell, could be, and probably are "hints" of this..

Monod could be closer to the truth than Darwin can/could compute.. Charlie Darwin could have overlooked the obvious.. But not of evolution of the machine but evolution of the spirit.. Spiritual evolution could be the truth of what Darwin was observing.. Not only with humans but with ALL LIFE... NOW, would'nt that be a "HOOT"..

[Sopater]

The word "science" goes back to ancient times. It has always been that branch of philosophy which deals with the natural material world, not the supernatural. Supernatural comes under metaphysics = "beyond physics".

Actually, the word "science" comes from the Latin word scientia, from scient-, sciens having knowledge, from present participle of scire to know. (source: Merriam Webster)

You are correct, however, that the word science has been hijacked by phylosophers who which to redefine just as you have stated above, which is more accurately called materialism or naturalism. That is the phylosophy that all that cannot be known scientifically can be explained by purely natural processes.

But I'll remind you that the vast majority of Christians belong to denominations which have long since accepted the school of thought called "theistic evolution," which is also what I believe.

Consensus does not constitute evidence.

[tacticalogic]

You are correct, however, that the word science has been hijacked by phylosophers who which to redefine just as you have stated above, which is more accurately called materialism or naturalism. That is the phylosophy that all that cannot be known scientifically can be explained by purely natural processes.

That is what is referred to as "metaphysical naturalism" or "philosophical naturalism".

Science, and the scientific method do rely on "methodological naturalism", which is not the same thing. The two terms are frequently conflated making a generic reference to "naturalism", and then using that to characterize science as being intrinsically atheistic. It is essentially an exercise in sohpistry.

[betty boop]

Monod is probably one of the most doctrinaire materialists imaginable. He rules out spirit on principle. When he says man is a machine, this is precisely what he means — there is only the machine, there is no soul or spirit. Plus he avers that everything we see all about us in the universe is the result of "pure, blind chance."

I wouldn't call the cell a machine; it would be more correct to say it has machine-like properties. But that doesn't make it a machine. It is only to analogize.

[tpanther]

Uh-huh and how many string and multiverse theorists have been dragged to sourt to be shut up?

It’s a simple problem really, godless liberal fascists insecure about their cult and with myriad hang-ups with God treat evolution like a cult, not a theory.

[GodGunsGuts]

==Sorry pal, but that’s just bunk. As of today, evolution is the only scientific game in town.

You mean the only materialist historical interpretation game in town. And you never answered my question. Given that Darwin had the audacity to reinterpret the entire history of biology with nothing more to go on than a few minor variations between finches, at what point in history did Darwin’s fanciful creation myth become science?

[tpanther]

Every field of science has its own journals, where recognized scientists publish their peer-reviewed results. These journals act, in effect, as disciplinarians on scientists, forcing them to justify everything they say. Even so, occasionally a fraudulent report will slip through, causing a big scandal when it’s later discovered false. So their system is not fool-proof, but it’s the best they can do.

And there are lots of true scientific questions relating to evolution being researched and reported on. Whether any of this research has ever resulted in findings supporting “creationism,” I don’t know. But I’ve never heard of it.

Now what all goes on OUTSIDE the world of recognized science, I couldn’t begin to guess, but we have to assume that every little social movement has its own journals. And occasionally, a really good radical idea, possibly modified will make the jump from “fringe-kook group” to mainstream science, but not very often.

You might even say that science imposes a process of “natural selection” intended to weed out ideas unfit for mainstream acceptance. ;-)

---

So are you saying that scientists are the one group that are wholly objective and can not be influenced by politics or ideology or money, etc., AND this is the one place liberals will dare not infect with their ideology as they’ve plainly infected anything and everything else:

politics
journalism
eduacation
law
govt
history
etc. etc. etc. ????????

[hosepipe]

[ I wouldn't call the cell a machine; it would be more correct to say it has machine-like properties. But that doesn't make it a machine. It is only to analogize. ]

Why not a machine?.. a machine that can re-produce.. If so, how does the "spirit" get added to the machine(upon reproduction).. Woo Hoo.. A lot of interesting questions..

No doubt every human has a spirit.. a human spirit.. inhabiting the machine.. If a carrot is alive, does a carrot have a spirit?.. or an amoeba?.. Would make a good novel.. LoL..

[js1138]

Consensus does not constitute evidence.

In this case it is evidence that Christians can accept evolution.

[betty boop]

Well as far as we know, dear hosepipe, machines do not "reproduce." Actually, the machine analogy is rather unfortunate. For there is no machine ever built that was not designed and constructed by an intelligent being (i.e., a human), and that it was built for a purpose. (Otherwise, it would not have been built.) These are two things that materialists strenuously deny — (1) design in nature and (2) purpose in nature.

I prefer your rider/donkey analogy to this spirit/machine one. JMHO FWIW

[js1138]

Actually, the machine analogy is rather unfortunate.

The Designer analogy is also rather unfortunate, because we have only one observable example of an intelligent designer -- humans -- and we have quite a few examples of living things that have been genetically modified by humans.

The strinking thing about living things designed by humans is that they are instantly identifiable as artifacts. They could not be the result of evolution.

[Alamo-Girl]

Thank you both so very much for sharing your insights on this fascinating sidebar!

Truly, Monad's choice of the word "machine" backfired against his own statement that "The first scientific postulate is the objectivity of nature: nature does not have any intention or goal" in that machines are functional per se.

[betty boop]

Hi js1138! I’m preparing an article for posting here, hopefully later today, that I think may address your issues more exhaustively than I can do here. I’ll be sure to ping you! Thanks for your patience!

[betty boop]

Really, A-G, I don't know what the man was thinking of! How can there be a "function" without a teleology, a goal, a purpose toward which the function is directed, and for which the function exists in the first place? Such people really need to assess the logic of their own thinking before they spout off with such irrational statements. JMHO FWIW

[Alamo-Girl]

So very true, dearest sister in Christ! It is as if the metaphysical naturalist's thinking is "off."

And even as they did not like to retain God in [their] knowledge, God gave them over to a reprobate mind, to do those things which are not convenient; - Romans 1:28

Another example is Dawkins' thinking that the existence of God is a scientific question when science precludes from its field of inquiry anything that is not governed by physical laws, physical causation and physical constants.

I cannot think of a single rational scientist who would claim that God can be subjected to the scientific method, i.e. that the Creator can be put under a creature's microscope or observed with a creature's telescope.

Man is not the measure of God.

To God be the glory!

[Alamo-Girl]

Oops, wrong link. That should have been: post 62.