Posted on 11/11/2004 3:44:08 AM PST by Lindykim
Evolution answers many questions about the continuousness, "progress" and changes of life forms through time, but nothing about the "beginnings". There should be no arguement.
Case closed.
Hopefully the liberal birth rate will continue to plummet. That should prove some kind of Darwinism.
If it were a theory, it should be debatable and testable.
Cellular evolution is demonstrable by simple high school experiments. Intraspecies variation from environmental pressure (the finches) is likewise trivial to demonstrate.
Interspecies mutational change driven by environment, OTOH, lacks both a biologically plausible mechanism AND physical evidence that it has ever happened.
This, of course, does not falsify it. But it DOES make its enthronement as dogma unscientific.
Was Darwin wrong? No.
Was Darwin incomplete? Yes.
Does science deprive man of spirituality? No.
Intelligent Design = magic
Does a belief in magic = spirituality? No.
C'mon. Believing the magic hypothesis answers nothing and certainly doesn't make you right, religious, or scientific.
Mathematically, you can see he was essentially claiming without proof a "calculus" of biology, where as in calculus you add up infinitesimally small increments to achieve a total, as in geometry.
But where Darwin went wrong was in glossing over the fact that he never even thought about the stability of the alleged intermediate forms between species. If a member of a species has some genetic mutation to take it far enough away from the complex interplay of chemical, structural, and all other factors which make it a viable species in the first place, it becomes LESS stable regarding further survival. But the entire edifice of Darwinism assumes without proof that, no you're wrong, genetic mutations are MORE stable.
Examination of all available scientific evidence indicates which belief system is more provably true.
Considering the giant leap of 'faith' made by you when you jumped from "is Darwin incomplete" to "ID equals magic", it's apparent at least for yourself, that your third claim is....... accurate.
Well science is right... And only literalists (and contrarily to what is said Orthodox Jews aren't literalists) believe it is wrong...
The funny thing is that the literalists that think that Genesis is true don't understand symbols...
So the answer is, the evolution theory is as true as Newton's laws of gravity and as true as any scientific theory is...
Another thousand post thread is born.
(2) If Darwinism can't be tested experimentally and must be taken on faith, how is that different from magic?
Last I saw, no one has ever been recorded/observed making a species.
However, evolution is not replicable by experiment, and so it remains a theory.
Additionally, it seems that you are unaware that a text can be, at one and the same time, literally true and theologically symbolic.
I haven't seen or recorded anyone building my car, so I guess it must have just evolved, you know, like mysteriously from a bicycle or something.
Actually, if you knew what you are talking about
1) Newton's theory has been refuted in part by Eisntein's theory of Gravity
2) there have been observations of evolution.
In some cases the experiments are too long and too costly or just impossible to devise.
This is true about evolution, and about astronomy and any number of sciences...
Doesn't make it less scientific, only more difficult!
As to the Bible, you better take it as symbolic, not as scientifically correct... Because it isn't!
And what is your scientific training?
Bump
"Intelligent design" is not, and will never be, science. The minute you assume a designer, you move outside the boundaries of science into metaphysics (or, as another poster put it----"magic").
And no, Virginia, believing that evolution happened and that intelligent design is bullshit does NOT deprive the scientist of spirituality.
Simply untrue. Einstein's research demonstrated that Newton's laws of motion break down at the quantum level.
Newton, of course, did not make any claim that his laws held subatomically - the notion of "refutation" is anachronistic.
there have been observations of evolution.
There have been observations of slight variations within species. There has never been an observation of the mutation of an entirely new species from another. The science of genetics is well-proven and replicable by experiment and accounts perfectly for such small variations that have been observed.
That's all.
In some cases the experiments are too long and too costly or just impossible to devise.
Would it be impossible or too long or too costly to breed an entirely new species of say, fruitfly, out of the old? I doubt it. I've personally been involved in genetic observation of several hundred generations of fruitfly over a period of months.
If evolution was replicable, it would have been replicated in the laboratory long ago.
As to the Bible, you better take it as symbolic, not as scientifically correct... Because it isn't!
So you claim.
If you argue that the Bible does not discuss physical phenomenon in the jargon of 21st century science you are trivially correct.
If you argue that the Bible does not accurately record historical fact in the vernacular of the ancient Jewish people, you are painfully mistaken.
I know several archaeologists who would laugh at such a silly assertion.
I'll point out that much evolutionist theory is based on the assumption that curiously chipped pieces of flint demonstrate the design activity of the ancestors of humans.
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.