Does Darwinism Attempt to Replace God?

11-30-2004 | W.T. Stewart

[Poohbah]

I'm just passing on the Biblical account.

When the Biblical account is tested against the facts on the ground, a literal reading of said Biblical account does not square with the observed facts.

Like I said, quit telling God how He's supposed to be doing things.

[Busywhiskers]

"Please name one scientific theory that has been proposed as an alternative to evolution."

So called "Design science". The idea that biological structures are often so irreducibly complex that they could not have arisen gradually through the process of mutation and natural selection.

(To which you will undoubtedly reply--it isn't a scientific alternative, proving my point.)

[TitansAFC]

UM...the post was for him, specifically, because he was going the way of the "what is reality, anyway?" argument (Prove that the Earth is Round!)

But I accept your premise. It simply restates what I have been saying all along. It's not that intelligent people can disagree with you; it's that they simply aren't intelligent people because they do not see it your way. Must be zealots.

Some day perhaps all Creationists in the world will come to see how much smarter Dimensio is than they are. For now, you'll just have to continue calling them "cowards" and implying they are stupid.

For the record, not everyone who believes that the Creationist argument has a place in public debate is a card-carrying Creationist.

[Dimensio]

One can talk to a miriad of evolutionists on any given day who say God doesn't exist because evolution is a fact. Your statement is most incorrect.

There are people who assert that evolution is evidence that God does not exist. Those people are ignorant and talking out of their ass, however that is still not the same as them claiming -- as many dishonest creationists do -- that the theory of evolution was created specifically as a means of replacing God.

[Busywhiskers]

Thank you. You demonstrate my point with your inappropriate hostility and ridicule.

[Dimensio]

Darwin himself may not have, but many of those since him have!

Doesn't matter. Their opinion on the matter is not a part of the theory itself.

[Right in Wisconsin]

Easy - microevolution. So many holes in the macroevolution make it unprovable and therefore just as much a leap of faith as ID.

[Dimensio]

There is an attempt to remove God from public schools--biology class is just one example.

Call me wacky, but I don't see why schools should be teaching about any gods at all. I would prefer that be left to private instruction rather than government education.

[Right in Wisconsin]

Evolution and Creationism are diametrically opposed. In order for evolution to work, it needs zillions and zillions of years. Genesis says the Earth was created in 6 days, and describes days as light to dark and back to light again.

[BikerNYC]

Immanuel Kant developed the weaknesses in Anselm's argument's very effectively back in the 18th century. Even Church philosophers who were contemporaries of Anselm rejected his "proof" as insufficient.

You assume that creation requires a cause, yet you reject the idea that God requires a cause. I have no idea why there is something, including God, rather than nothing, but to postulate God as the source of it all leaves a lot to be desired. Why is there God rather than no God?

Quarks are an element of the Standard Model of nuclear physics. It is a theory which has a good deal of evidence to support it, but a new theory may someday be developed that better explains the evidence. Are you willing to put the God Hypothesis on the same footing and admit that there may someday be a theory that better explains the origins of things? Or does your faith in the God Hypothesis prevent you from considering that it may be in error?

[Dimensio]

As many have stated in this thread, and past threads, true science is now coming to the conclusion, that Darwin was wrong.

Yep. It's only been in the last 150 years. Evolution is sure to fall as a theory any day now...

Evolution didn't start off with the purpose of "murdering God", as some put it, but it would be comforting to believe that we would not be held accountable by a superior being at the end of the age... So that's what it became, a comfort to those whose lifestyles could no longer be considered as "sin". Eliminate God, and right and wrong don't exist; so are the thoughts of those who are willing to believe the "liberal media", for once, on this topic.

Oh, sorry, but falsifying evolution would not turn me into a theist. Your religious claims have to stand on their own merits, they do not win out by default simply because some other -- and totally unrelated -- viewpoint is falsified.

[stremba]

I would point out that the theory of evolution nowhere says that evolution depends on chance. It depends on natural laws. Is it not possible that God created the laws of nature? As far as time goes, time depends on your reference frame. It is possible the the six days referenced by Genesis would be measured as tens of billions of years from our frame of reference. (The extremely high gravitational field in the early universe in the first moments after the big bang would cause a difference in measured time intervals.) A time frame of billions of years, therefore, is not inconsistent with the Bible. As far as matter goes, if God caused the big bang, He created matter. Since He created matter and the laws of nature that matter obeys, there is no problem with evolution. It simply occurs according to the Divine plan. I would agree that many people have used the theory of evolution to support an atheistic point of view. IMHO, these people are simply unjustified in doing so.

[Shryke]

So called "Design science"

Ah. Please describe how we can set up an experiment to disprove said theory (which is a requirement).

[orionblamblam]

> your inappropriate hostility and ridicule.

I'm sorry you see facts as hostile, and that you feel ridicule every time someone tells you the truth. But it's not my fault, and there's very little I can do about it.

[js1138]

The interesting question is not whether God requires a prior cause, but rather, how His attributes just happen to align with the creed of one small sect, among all the world's religions.

[Dimensio]

I can, a lizard's DNA can not cause it to lay a chicken egg... A bird's DNA will not allow it to give birth to a rat, a rat's DNA will not allow it to give birth to a monkey, and last but not least, a monkey's DNA will not allow it to pop out a human being... Not naturally, anyways.

So? The theory of evolution doesn't predict such things happening either. Seems that one of your problems with the theory is that you clearly don't understand it.

[Right in Wisconsin]

Can I collect? Elementary School gets it all rolling. The dinosaurs lived millions and millions of years ago, the Earth is millions and millions of years old, 3rd grade biology texts have simplistic diagrams pointing from the sea, to a frog, down the line to ape, then human.

[JeffAtlanta]

The whole concept of evolution is to state a belief, that man and organisms come from a rock! Exactly a rock, if you do your research, take the time to read all the books on evolutuin, it is a false religion, that we do not have to answer to a supreme being

That's rich. If you had really done any research, you would know that evolution doesn't predict that man came from a rock. In fact, the theory of evolution doesn't even deal with the origin of life - the theory only deals with how existing life adapts and ever changing conditions.

I'm curious where you get your information.

[Right Wing Professor]

This is interesting:

More interesting than when you posted the exact same thing earlier in the thread?

A bit of wisdom, MM. When they ignore you, it's not always because they didn't hear you. Sometimes, they're just being polite.

[Dimensio]

So called "Design science". The idea that biological structures are often so irreducibly complex that they could not have arisen gradually through the process of mutation and natural selection.

What does this theory predict, how can those predictions be tested and what hypothetical observation would falsify the theory?