Posted on 12/13/2004 7:42:25 AM PST by Gritty
Destroying the unqualified and unjustified myth that "only religious fanatics oppose Darwinism", Dr. William Dembski's collection of essays presents a powerful and convincing case that exposes the many flaws and problems of Darwinism. Rather than having an agenda, the intellectuals that contributed to Uncommon Dissent exemplify the objective, rational, and scholarly manner in which they have both examined the various evolutionary theories and exposed these theories' many inconsistencies, oversights, and errors. The eloquence and thoroughness with which these essays critically analyze the Darwinian dogmas reveal that fanatical devotions to unproven theories are prevalent mainly in the mainstream secular scientific community - not among the many scholars and scientists who dare question the veracity and universality of various evolutionary models.
One of Dembski's key objections to the assertion that random changes created the vast complexity of life is a fitting summary of the structural problem of evolutionary thought. Dembski notes that "this blind process, when coupled with another blind process, is supposed to produce designs that exceed the capacities of any designers in our experience." This theoretical and chaotic process has been proposed and promoted by Darwinists as fact without the required scientific evidence to back it up. Furthermore, the intolerance shown to dissenting voices that question evolutionary theories reveals a dangerous pattern of repression and censorship within the scientific establishment.
The missing fossil data needed to support evolution is a crucial argument expressed by many of the book's contributors. If Darwin was correct, then scores of transitional animal forms must exist in the geological record. However, as Phillip E. Johnson points out:
The fossil evidence is very difficult to reconcile with the Darwinist scenario. If all living species descended from common ancestors by an accumulation of tiny steps, then there once must have existed a veritable universe of transitional intermediate forms liking the vastly different organisms of today… with their hypothetical common ancestors.
Such evidence simply does not exist. According to Cornelius G. Hunter:
The observed fossil pattern is invariably not compatible with a gradualistic evolutionary process. The fossil record does not reveal a pattern of accumulated small-change.... New species appear fully formed, as though planted there, and they remain unchanged for eons.
In the face of such convincing evidence, one would expect evolutionary scientists to acknowledge some serious flaws in their theories. After all, science should be about searching for the truth. Unfortunately, Johnson notes:
When the fossil record does not provide the evidence that naturalism would like to see, it is the fossil record, and not the naturalistic explanation, that is judged to be inadequate.
Instead of admitting the problems and allowing for criticism, the Darwinist establishment ignores the data and muzzles the dissenters, choosing to discredit the messengers rather than face reality. As Dembski observes:
Darwinism has achieved the status of inviolable science, combining the dogmatism of religion with the entitlement of science.
Michael J. Behe's "irreducibly complex" organisms present yet another stumbling block for Darwinists. He observes that most organisms are "irreducibly complex, meaning they need several parts working together in order to function." According to Behe, this creates "headaches for Darwinian theory because they are resistant to being produced in the gradual, step-by-step manner that Darwin envisioned." For evolution to work, all the complex biochemical systems needed for an organism to live must "evolve" simultaneously and in perfect synchronization so this new creature can eat, remove waste, move, and survive. Since evolutionists maintain this must all happen by chance, only an enormous miracle (or an intelligent designer) can explain these countless chaotic processes instantly coming into existence -- with just the right fine-tuning and harmonization -- to allow even the simplest organisms to stay alive. Darwinism's gradual steps and trial and error explanations simply do not suffice.
Uncommon Dissent promises to not only "detail the weaknesses of Darwinian evolutionary theory," but to also show that "the preponderance of evidence goes against Darwinism." In both respects, the essays meet and exceed these expectations. Given Dembski's own impressive academic credentials and the solid intellectual qualifications of his contributors, this book provides a strong dissenting voice to challenge the many half-truths, obfuscations, and mistakes of mainstream evolutionary thinking.
The central weakness or "fatal flaw" of Darwinism is its inability to explain the existence of both rational thought and the origins of the inherent complexity of life evident in the huge variety of organisms and their immensely intricate DNA code. The very existence of such a "code" implies that a rational force was needed to encode it. Creationists like to call this God, while Darwinists call it chaos.
While Darwin's theory seems to explain how small-scale evolutionary changes or limited natural selection processes could operate within certain species, it fails miserably to describe, as Robert Koons observes, how such functional forms and processes "came to be there in the first place" and, as Edward Sisson notes, it "tells us nothing about when and how the genes we see today first came into existence." The cavernous gap that exists in the scientific evidence purporting to prove how one-celled organisms "evolved" into man remains an immense and significant problem for Darwinists. As James Barham so eloquently notes:
Epic poems and Boeing 747s do not come into existence by themselves, no matter how much time is available - and neither do cells, or even proteins.
Darwinists demand a bigger miracle than any creationist could ever claim, as they assert that "only matter in mindless motion" gave birth to intelligent life and consciousness. Indeed, the faith required to believe that chaos allowed inanimate matter to become alive and to eventually develop into rational beings is far greater than the faith needed to acknowledge that an intelligent Creator designed it all from the beginning. Dembski is quite correct when he concludes, "Getting design without a designer is a good trick indeed."
Chris Banescu is an attorney, entrepreneurial businessman, and university professor. He manages the conservative site OrthodoxNet.com, writes articles, and has given talks and conducted seminars on a variety of business and religious topics.
Saying that something is nonscientific is not the same as saying it is false. When I point out that ID is not scientific, I am not intending to imply that I believe that ID is unlikely to be true or to insult anyone who believes in ID. What I have pointed out is a limitation of science, not a reason to believe that ID is false. Maybe this attitude of science=truth is the reason that so many are trying to push ideas into the realm of science that don't belong there. I have no problem with ID in general, just don't try to force it into science. BTW, you can't remove humanity from SETI, so therefore any life found by SETI must be human? Seems like the same argument you are making for design.
No. The obvious has been running its course for several millenia. It was only 150 years ago or so that some folks thought it keen to try and explain it away through sophistry.
Yes, but it can make predictions before the fact, rather than retro-fitting predictions into existing discoveries, or making blanket "predictions" that really can't fail.
That is precisely what it cannot do. It only predicts what will be found in the static record (which God also created for real scientists to discover). Evolutionists avoid predictions about the process of evolution like the plague because they do not know what drives it or which way it will go. They only cobble it up as a way to view history.
The static and dynamic records belong to creationists, for they are the ones who, according to their theory, predict evidence of a living God that constantly sustains His creation, and a God of order. They predict that the laws of nature will operate just the way God designed them unless, or until it suits His purpose to override them.
All of which may appear arbitrary, but no more arbitrary than conjuring up billions of years as a way to dismiss His activity and insert some other random process in His place. In view of the amount of consistency and design in the universe creationism makes far more sense.
"God did it" is not satisfactory enough? Fine. What other mechanism do you propose for the organization of the material universe? Everything evolutionists so far tout as evidence only points more to intelligent design.
Evolution cannot address those things. It is a fruitless pursuit. Vain, as it were. "I don't know" is a valid answer. It ought to be spoken more often by evolutionists. There is no God that has to be invented. There is only one, in Whom all things consist.
The universe, operating just as God created it. Intelligently, and with much design. Far greater in detail and complexity than any human could engineer or operate.
Do you have something to claim as evidence to the contrary?
"The difference is that "social darwinism" is a proactive approach, based upon the faulty notion that a scientific theory prescribes action."
Somewhat yes and somewhat no. Scientific theory should be actionable, but can only be actionable given certain premises. What I was pointing out was that social darwinism is not contrary to darwinist principles. It may use them differently than someone with different assumptions, but it isn't contrary.
For example, if I follow the theory that ice is cold, and I want to be cold, it is not misusing the theory of ice to use it to get cold. Likewise, if evolution says that the best way to preserve the species is by removing the "lesser" ones from the procreative population, and my moral code is based on survival of the species (as is most materialistic philosophies), then Hitler-esque tactics would be an appropriate use of the theory.
Although unsourced, Stalin was thought to have said that killing masses of people was equivalent to mowing the lawn.
God has been fairly insistent throughout history in stating that those who require a "demonstration" of His presence would not be convinced even if they saw someone raised from the dead. The universe speaks clearly enough that there is a God who created it. If it is something you believe needs to be explained away, please knock yourself out. He reveals Himself to those whom He choses, not whom I choose.
Meanwhile, creationism is, and remains, a better theory than evolutionism. It fits the evidence. All evolution can claim is . . . well . . . it has no claims. You said it yourself. Evolution does not, and cannot, speak to an ordered universe, for it denies any source of order.
"Except that you're first stepping beyond science by assigning a moral value to anything, then you're asserting that you know what is best for the continued survival of the species."
Read my argument. My argument was that, just as you have stated, the assignment of moral values is outside of science. However, my point was that once you have established moral values, science tells you the best direction to go to fulfill them. Which is exactly what I was talking about.
About your what-if scenario -- I'm sorry but you can't simply say "what if X" where X is some highly unlikely event. As humans, we NEVER EVER have all the data, and therefore must act on the data that we do have. By that same reasoning, I could say that someone who values reading shouldn't read because it may cause some random previously unknown unintended consequence that would decrease the overall ability to read for the population. So you're comment:
"Suddenly, your attempt to apply "darwinism" to social order in an attempt to preserve the species has backfired, because you couldn't see that evolution isn't the only thing guiding events within the universe or even on Earth."
Is the same as someone saying "suddenly your attempt to apply food as the solution to hungriness has backfired, because you couldn't see that the person's digestive enzymes were allergic to that specific combination of foods, and therefore they died instead of lived".
It cannot, and it does not have to be. Since when does something have to be "falsifiable" to be true? Whose idea was that?
They have to be falsifiable to be science. And even in ordinary speech, any statement that could not, in principal, be contradicted by evidence, is pretty empty.
Predictions about "what will be found" from one object to the next can hardly be considered predictions where the process itself is concerned. Creationism could claim the very same things and many more. Creationism claims that tire/wheels found on cars will also be found on trucks. Lo and behold! The prediction fits!
No. Evolutionists usurp creationist theories in attributing sense and design to the universe. In denying any guiding priciple to the establishment of information evolutionists exclude themselves from all credibility while pointing out mere similarities and differences between objects.
Says who? And why should one who attests to no intelligence or design behind the creation of man be a credible expositor on the fulness or emptiness of language?
Hey, that's even falsifiable. Guess that makes creationism a scientific theory after all. Of course, with falsifiable theories, you always run the risk...
...that someone will come along and falsify it. Now that creationism has been discredited, you'll be looking for a better scientific theory, I expect.
Says you, unless you can give an instance of a meaningful scientific statement that cannot be tested by evidence.
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.