Posted on 11/01/2003 4:13:59 AM PST by I Am Not A Mod
Evolution under fire? -- Part 2
By David F. Dawes
|
CanadianChristianity.com: Does the general public realize the extent to which evolutionary theory is under attack by people with legitimate scientific and scholarly credentials?
Denyse O'Leary: Well, how could they? Darwinism is the orthodoxy of textbooks. It is the staple of TV science programs. In the United States, it is even protected by law.
I only discovered how much trouble Darwinism was in when I took a year out of my life -- late 2002 to late 2003 -- to study the situation. I was appalled. Darwinism has nothing like the support that we are accustomed to for theories in physics or chemistry.
CC.com: There is a crucial distinction between 'micro-evolution' (physical changes within a single species) and 'macro-evolution' (transformation from one species into another). Do you think there is sufficient awareness of the fact that there is no concrete evidence for macro-evolution?
D.O.: First, we need to distinguish between two ideas: Darwinism and macro-evolution. Darwinism says that evolution occurs as a result of the natural laws of physics and chemistry acting on purely random mutations in organisms. The origin and development of life is explained entirely in this way. The main driver (not necessarily the only one) is natural selection. Natural selection means that only those organisms that survive and breed leave offspring, so their traits are passed on. All other drivers -- for example, constraints on development -- are equally the outcome of law and chance.
Regarding macro-evolution: We know it happens. After all, there were trilobites in the Cambrian, but not horses. There are horses today but not trilobites. The unanswered question is -- how does it happen?
Theories of evolution have been proposed since the 18th century. Darwinism became the orthodoxy because it ruled out design. But it is not the only way of understanding evolution.
CC.com: The PBS special on evolution a few years ago was a clear demonstration that the theory is still deeply ingrained in scientific thought. Why does the scientific establishment (in a general sense) seem to be so determined to cling to evolutionary theory? How did this theory become so deeply entrenched as 'scientific' orthodoxy?
D.O.: Darwinism became entrenched because it eliminates design. Traditionally, three factors -- a sort of triangle -- accounted for creation and life: law -- what must happen; chance -- what might happen; and design -- art, engineering, intelligent design. Darwinism eliminated design from life forms. Design was merely an illusion. Life was really the outcome of law and chance.
Eliminating design enables a purely mechanistic world, which is easy for science to understand if -- and only if -- it is true. Is it true? Are the miracles of the cell and the eye, and the Cambrian Explosion really the result of blind chance, compelled by law? Of course not. Darwin knew nothing of these things. He was a clever man, but he had no idea what he was talking about. He lived and died before these wonders came to light.
CC.com: Are a significant number of scientists now open to alternatives to evolutionary theory?
D.O.: Yes and no. Many scientists are not happy with Darwinism. But Darwinism is more than a theory in science. It is the chief prop of an approach to science called methodological naturalism. Put simply, this approach means that law and chance are assumed to govern everything in the universe. In principle, design is ruled out.
The Big Bang theory and the discovery that Earth is a favoured planet -- not a mediocre one -- have dealt serious blows to this idea in physics and chemistry. When the COBE satellite confirmed the Big Bang, physicists were shouting that they had seen 'the face of God.' Stephen Hawking has nonetheless been trying to avoid God for decades, but does not appear to have succeeded.
Don't expect scientists to admit this. They don't like it, and are looking for a way to avoid it. It is a very unwelcome discovery.
CC.com: Are a lot of schools and school boards showing increasing willingness to give a platform to origins theories other than evolution?
D.O.: No. And they would be the last ones to do so. They have to please a variety of stakeholders, and the good union joes are still solidly behind Darwinism. To be fair, they have seldom had a chance to look at what is wrong with it. It won't be the establishment's fault if they do get a chance.
CC.com: To what extent has the Intelligent Design (ID) movement given added credibility to creationist views? Is ID making serious inroads into the scientific, educational and philosophical establishments? Specifically, do you know if much is happening in Canada, in this regard?
D.O.: Intelligent design is not a form of creationism. Creationism can be seen as a form of intelligent design, in that it identifies a designer. However, intelligent design simply argues that design is real, not apparent. Not everything that looks like design is in fact design. The frost patterns on the window are law and chance, not design. On the other hand, the origin of life forms continues to defy any explanation other than design.
I doubt that much is happening in Canada. Advocating intelligent design is costly even in the United States, where minority views are more easily tolerated. My book features lots of stories of people who have suffered career damage simply for saying that they believe that Darwinism is not true.
Ironically, one of Darwin's strongest supporters, Thomas Huxley, warned that Darwinism might become an ignorant superstition one day -- and it has.
CC.com: Is belief in evolutionary theory crumbling, in a general sense? Can you speculate whether it will finally be publically discredited -- and if so, whether you think that may happen in the near future?
D.O.: Actually, I very much doubt that belief in 'evolutionary theory' is crumbling. I certainly hope it isn't. After all, 31 phyla appeared in the Precambrian era . . . and of these, nine are extinct. Of the surviving ones, many have diversified remarkably -- vertebrates are a good example.
It is interesting to reflect that we humans have the same basic body plan as frogs, snakes, dinosaurs, and birds. We need some explanation for where we are today, that takes into account our planet's past.
On the other hand, the evidence from embryology shows that, while we have the same five-digit limb as they do, we do not get it by the same embryology path. That is not what Darwinism would lead us to expect. There are many remarkable puzzles waiting to be solved.
My prediction is that design will be restored as a normal part of our understanding of the universe, just as it was before Darwinism appeared in the 1850s. Thus, evolution will be seen as, in part, a function of design.
That, of course, leads inevitably to talk about God in biology. That's okay, really. Physicists have been doing it for decades. It didn't stop them from doing good science. It didn't stop Newton or Kelvin. It won't hurt biology either.
God does not tell us how he does things. He makes us find out all by ourselves.
CC.com: Can you share an anecdote involving an encounter you've had with someone who believes in the theory of evolution, and their response to creationist concepts and materials?
D.O.: Let's see . . . One Darwinist, encountering the Burgess Shale (where 31 phyla appeared suddenly) suggested that maybe it can all be explained by assuming that the Burgess creatures evolved eyes. Eyes explain all the complexity, he said. They enabled the complex evolution. The trouble with his idea is, what explains eyes?
Vision is a fantastically complex ability, quite apart from the eyes that enable vision cells to function. The eyes are complex too, but that is a separate story.
How did the complex vision cells start? Darwinism asks us to believe that, by accident, most of the Burgess creatures hit on this incredible series of steps at once, even though the creatures are so unrelated that they are put in different phyla by taxonomists. But some creatures never even developed vision and got on just fine. How is that?
After a while, I realized that the Darwinist simply needed to believe that there is no design. There is a huge investment in this sort of thing in our society. Many people simply cannot afford to see the design. They keep looking for chance, and it isn't there.
All religions, superstitions, and cults make the same claim with the same degree of certainty that you have. Your sacred book is just ancient mythology, many times revised and translated, filled with errors, and demonstrating the influence of cultures with which the ancient Hebrews interacted. The Christian sect of Judaism relied heavily on earlier ancient resurrecting god-men myths melded with the Messiah belief.
It is always a good idea to study the origins of any belief system before deciding to become a "true believer." Believers who fear that evolution discredits their faith are wasting their worry on something that is entirely inconsequential -- the historian have already proven that their literalist faith in an old book is entirely unwarranted.
LOL, The dead sea scrolls demonstrated how accurately revisions and errors crept into various books of the bible. There were practically none. The only transcription errors that occurred were inconsequential.
the historian have already proven that their literalist faith in an old book is entirely unwarranted.
The historian has proved nothing of the sort. In fact archeological digs have repeated shown the bible to be true and made various historians who disputed the bible out to be the liars and crackpots they are.
No they don't. Have you studied religions very much? Because I don't see how you could even come close to making that claim.
The Christian sect of Judaism relied heavily on earlier ancient resurrecting god-men myths melded with the Messiah belief.
Christianity relied on Judaism and it's prophets. You obviously didn't study the origins closely or you wouldn't be making that claim.
I wonder that myself. I think the goal is to convert the non-believers. In the past, that would have been done at swordpoint. Now, they're limited to hijacking school boards and making laughingstocks of certain parts of the country.
Ummm, T-Rex did not evolve into any type of bird. When the big rock hit, the vast majority of dinosaurs got wiped out. A few evolved into birds. Mammals filled the niches formerly held by reptiles.
You're setting up a straw man argument. T-Rex did not sprout wings.
Oh yeah?
Theories aren't 'proved', they're either 'validated' or 'falsified' by observations (field or lab).
Evolution has never been falsified, either, despite a lot of people trying to.
Actually there is a lot more evidence for evolution than there is for Hawking's most amazing prediction, the "Hawkig Radiation". (for which there is zero observational evidence - it's pure theory right now).
Using evo, biologists have made predictions, predictions which were later shown to be true.
See my post 74
Or look in talk.origins.org for lots of examples and some fascinating natural history and genetic research, and also a lot of good links
An interesting snide remark: Why does talk.origins link to creation/id sites, but *none* of them link to talk.origins? This shows confidence on which side?
Are historical novels "true?" It would be fairly easy to demonstrate that the novels of Dickinson were written at a specific point in time with plenty of corroborating evidence to show that many of the events and places described in the writing did in fact occur and exist. A more thorough investigation would quickly reveal that a number of the characters and places described were fictional. The same is true of the Bible, both the old and the new testament. Genesis, for example, was written by a Babylonian born Jew. The Old Testament was written over a period of 1200 years with some adjacent passages separated in time by as much as 700 years. The Phoenician (i.e., Cannanite) influence on the literary devices and content of the Hebrew texts is now apparent. In short, these are books written by men who often recorded events of which they had knowledge but who just as often recorded the myths and beliefs of other cultures with whom they had contact as in the case of the Christ myth. Alexandrian Jews steeped in Greek culture adopted the resurrecting god-man myth popular at the time in that culture. They naturally modified it to fit the Jewish prophecies about the Messiah. These facts are well established and you may discover them for yourself if you will bother to read something besides the pamphlets provided at your church.
"No they don't. Have you studied religions very much? Because I don't see how you could even come close to making that claim." -- DannyTN
Yes, they do! Religious Belief (as with all superstitions) is characterized by a suspension of the critical faculties. In some cases this disease is fatal (e.g.,Jim Jones cult in Guyana, Heaven's Gate, etc.). Do you imagine that these fanatics believed less strongly than you? Do you consider their beliefs false?
There have been many belief systems throughout history that have been discredited and abandoned -- yours included. Why do these beliefs persist in spite of overwhelming refutation? Read Eric Hoffer's little book, "True Believers" if you want some insight into this all too common human weakness.
"Christianity relied on Judaism and it's prophets. You obviously didn't study the origins closely or you wouldn't be making that claim." -- DannyTN
Literalist Roman Christianity relied on brute force and intimidation by roving bands of illiterate monks to destroy the opposition, including benign forms of Christianity. Constantine completed the task of destroying remnants of the pagan and Gnostic traditions and the orthodox Roman hierarchy established the Church as a temporal force to subjugate men for the next millenium. The atrocities were innumerable, the effects devastating, and the lies abundant. You won't find any of this in your typical catechism however because they tend to focus on just one book and ignore everything else. They do this because to study history would prove the falseness of their belief system and leave them without livelihood. Such has ever been the practice of priestcraft.
Genesis was written by Moses. There is no evidence to the contrary.
In short, these are books written by men who often recorded events of which they had knowledge but who just as often recorded the myths and beliefs of other cultures with whom they had contact as in the case of the Christ myth.
They did not incorporate myths and beliefs of other cultures. There were counterfeit religions. And some of those borrowed and perverted concepts from Judaism. But just because Satan knew Jesus would be born as a virgin and went off and created some cults centered around virgin births doesn't mean Judaism and Christianity borrowed from those religions. They borrowed from Judaism.
Religious Belief (as with all superstitions) is characterized by a suspension of the critical faculties.
No, rather God gave us a brain and expects us to use it. He gave us knowledge of right and wrong. When God repeated answers prayers, whey you see miracles, and when you see prophecies repreated fulfilled, it is not a suspension of the critical faculties. Rather, it's an excercise of them.
In some cases this disease is fatal (e.g.,Jim Jones cult in Guyana, Heaven's Gate, etc.). Do you imagine that these fanatics believed less strongly than you? Do you consider their beliefs false?
It's not their believe that was less strong. It's what they based that belief on. Their beliefs were false. Jim Jones used enough truth from the Bible to convince people, but had they studied the Bible closer, they would have realized their faith was in Jim Jones rather than the Word of God.
Heaven's Gate didn't have a basis for their beliefs. They did suspend their critical facilities.
That some beliefs are false, does not make all beliefs false. That some people have put their faith in God's that existed only in their own imagination, does not negate the existence of the One true God. That some people have put their faith in false religions does not validate a "faith" in no God or a "faitn" in the invalidity of all religions to be valid. Rather, God gives people ample evidence. They choose to ignore it. These facts are well established and you may discover them for yourself if you will bother to read something besides the pamphlets provided at your church.
I have studied the core beliefs of most religions. I know the differences. I studied Ancient religions at a secular state university. I know what is false and what is true. I know and understand the differences in the Christians sects too. As well as those cults that claim to be Christian and are not.
"Literalist Roman Christianity relied on brute force and intimidation by roving bands of illiterate monks to destroy the opposition, including benign forms of Christianity."
And your point is? I'm not sure I would call the Roman Catholic leadership during those years Christians. Their actions and teachings during those periods do not resemble the teachings of Jesus. So what? The Roman Church was taken over by evil leadership? Does that invalidate all of Christianity? Hardly. But it is what Satan wants you to believe.
I'm very familiar with the failings of the Roman Catholic church. Satan is always working to infiltrate the leadership of the church. The priesthood of Judaism also led their people astray numerous times, as is faithfully recorded in the Bible. All that proves is that people need to listen to God rather than man. And it sounds to me like you've been listening to men quite a bit.
Why are you surprised at some of these things? If there is a true religion at odds with evil, then every tactic of war is going to be used to discredit it and divide it. This shouldn't come as a surprise. Nor should you decide from it that all religions must be false.
they tend to focus on just one book and ignore everything else. They do this because to study history would prove the falseness of their belief system and leave them without livelihood.
No, they focus on one book because it is Truth. If you get familiar with it, you can recognize falsehood. It's the same process that the Federal Reserve uses to identify counterfeits. They study the originals until they know them like the back of their hands. Then anything that doesn't match tends to to be obvious.
you 're comfortable with that gobble - gobble - turkey !
We are all born as virgins unless the act of leaving the womb via the vagina deprives us of our virginity, in which case only persons delivered by Caesarean section are born as virgins. I realize, of course, that you meant to say "born of a virgin." This however is illustrative of a typical mistake in biblical interpretation. Virginity was defined by the early Hebrews as the state of a woman who has not yet borne children. Therefore every first birth was a "virgin" birth. Later use of the word by the gentiles to define a woman who has not had sexual intercourse leads to some confusion in doctrine and a clearly mistaken notion of the birth of this type of mythological character.
Be that as it may, the early Church created the doctrine of Diabolical mimicry in a futile attempt to explain away the historical similarities between the innumerable resurrecting god-men of antiquity and their preferred version, the Christ myth. Your explanation was discredited centuries ago. No logical person would ascribe to such a notion today.
Moses is also a mythological character. What do you think the Bedouin Khabiru learned from the more sophisticated and complex Babylonian society during their captivity? It was at that time that they began to develop a monotheistic religion based entirely on a Persian god. Previously the god of the Hebrews had been a genie inhabiting and activating a volcano in northwest Arabia -- just one tribal god among many.
"The priesthood of Judaism also led their people astray numerous times, as is faithfully recorded in the Bible. All that proves is that people need to listen to God rather than man. And it sounds to me like you've been listening to men quite a bit." -- DannyTN
Men write books. The Bible is a book. Therefore it was written by men. There is no disputing this. Claiming divine inspiration for your book is no more valid than claiming divine intervention for something as clearly ridiculous as the Book of Mormon, for example. You must understand that it is not god in which you have faith, rather your faith is in a book about a god. If you trusted this god you would not need the book. Instead you could examine nature with complete freedom to arrive at your own conclusions, trusting your god not to intentionally deceive you for some petty egoistic purpose. In other words, nature is a more reliable store of information about whatever gods may be than all the books ever written.
My faith is both directly in God as well as the guide that he provided through the Bible. God taught me long ago, that He can teach me things one on one. But I can learn a lot faster, if I sit down with the written guide that He provided and study it.
If you knew the scripture you would understand why Mormonism must be rejected. You would understand why Joseph Smith cannot be considered one of God's prophets. To you they all look the same, because you do not know the scripture.
The Hebrews did not worship a volcano. They worshipped the genie that lived there. Big difference.
There are simply no reputable modern historians to support the notion that Moses actually lived. The Exodus is likewise a Hebrew myth as there never was an Egyptian Captivity nor forty years wandering in the desert before settling in the promised land. I know whereof I speak -- having lived with an Israeli woman with a PhD for some time. However, if you require a printed source you might try Arnold Toynbee's ten volume "Study of History." All such assertions will be amply substantiated with copious footnotes and citations.
Where's the evidence for your claims? What historian claims this and on what evidence? I think you are just making this crap up.
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.