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.
It would be hard for you to make the argument that your translation of Genesis, and your belief in God has nothing to do with your ideas on Evolution. Your decision on your tagline is evidence that the Bible is important to your everyday life.
But you do discuss things very intellegently, so I'm sure you're about to say that your beliefs on Evolution are irrelevant to your belief in God or your translation of Genesis.
Whatever.
But my point still stands that religious conservatives have much work to do in the political arena in the next few months. This Evolution issue has clouded up not only FR, but has sucked some of the oxygen out of many issues important to those on this web site.
For the sake of these important issues, such as the Surpreme Court nomination fights to come, religious conservatives should just drop this issue for now. Evolution will not be defeated, or even significantly dented, in the next few months. But our political issues are very much in flux right now and our concentration should be there.
> I have read that some prominent leftists in the social sciences are anti-evolution because it is part of the "establishment". Not because of any evidence, but because of what it might represent.
That second sentence there also explains much of the Conservative opposition to evolution.
From: The essay on falsifiability
"In place of naïve falsification, Popper envisioned science as evolving by the successive rejection of falsified theories, rather than falsified statements. Falsified theories are to be replaced by theories which can account for the phenomena which falsified the prior theory, that is, with greater explanatory power. Thus, Aristotelian mechanics explained observations of objects in everyday situations, but was falsified by Galileo’s experiments, and was itself replaced by Newtonian which accounted for the phenomena noted by Galileo (and others). Newtonian mechanics' reach included the observed motion of the planets and the mechanics of gases. Or at least most of them; the motion of Mercury wasn't predicted by Newtonian mechanics, but was by Einstein's General Relativity..."
Again, I'll ask all of the anti-evo people? What is the evidence for greater explanatory power of your pet theory?
Also..."Popper proposed falsification as a way of determining if a theory is scientific or not. If a theory is falsifiable, then it is scientific; if it is not falsifiable, then it is not science. Popper uses this criterion of demarcation to draw a sharp line between scientific and unscientific theories. Some have taken this principle to an extreme to cast doubt on the scientific validity of many disciplines (such as macroevolution and Cosmology). Falsifiability was one of the criteria used by Judge William Overton to determine that 'creation science' was not scientific and should not be taught in Arkansas public schools..."
You know, geologists have never demonstrated macro-movement in the tectonic plates, only micro-movement. :-)
Interesting. Even if you accept the BS interpreration of Creationism, it's defenders are originally giants like Bacon (either flavour) and Galileo Galilei.
Then workmanlike practitioners like Hershal and Mendal
Then famous but not actual scientist James Irwin
Finally reaching Gish and Lumsdend, whose only claim to be "famous Creationists" is that they are famous for being Craetionists.
Looks like a belief in retreat to me.
That should be disingeneous. As I said, long day.
Excuse me, but I was not referring to the document you link, but the reference linked by PH. Nowhere does it suggest falsifiability as a necessary attribute of theories, and even where hypotheses are concerned, the operative word WRT falsifiability is "should" not "must." That ought to be of some comfort to proponents of evolution theories, not an offense.
All I'm saying (in this context) is that if you want to remove the very concept of ID from evolution, then you must first remove any ID impurities inherent in any of the tools used to prove this concept. A good start would be to stop using any ID tools while whining about ID.If the very existence of experiments (every one of which is necessarily designed) denies the existence of undesigned nature, then you have just destroyed the logical foundation for all science.Check and mate.
Congratulations! You've upheld Intelligent Design, and all it took was the denial of science. Now please turn off your computer, turn off your house's electrical main, and hand over your car keys to the closest evolutionist.
Actually it does. Your misstating of scientific terms does not increase your credibility.
Check out the link PH provided and read it. For crying out loud, this is supposed to be the terms we debate under; the inestimable standard of definitions. I read it. Why don't you, and then get back to me as to where "falsifiability" comes into play.
Perhaps this ((from the link) was too subtle for you:
A useful hypothesis will [not "may"] enable predictions to be made, by deductive reasoning, that can be experimentally assessed. If results contradictory to the predictions are found, the hypothesis under test is incorrect or incomplete, requiring either revision or abandonment. If results confirming the hypothesis are found, the hypothesis might be correct, but is always subject to further test.That's the issue. Creationism suggests zero predictions. Ditto for ID.
You made no statement about links in your erroneous posting. You only made a false statement about the use of the term "theory." Were you not ignorant about scientific methods, you would not have made such a mistake.
You've already changed the subject. The ability to make predictions, while it may impinge on falsifiability, does not necessitate it.
By the way, creationism predicts a universe will be found. Are you logged in?
Actually, creationism does make predictions. I once started a vanity thread about it:
The Five Failed Predictions of Creationism.
And ID predicts that no evolutionary pathway is possible, and none will ever be found for those items it declares to be "Irreducibly Complex."
Oddly enough, the fruits of creation science are being seen in the marketplace. Mostly in the form of book sales and lecture fees, sure, but creation science appears to be on lucrative streak right now.
Yes. And while there seems to be no demand for their skills in the biotech industry, I suppose they'd be of some use in the dem party.
Can you give me an example of prediction which cannot even in principle be determined to be false?
I thought the "E" folks themselves finally threw this hopeful monster portion of their theory out?
I predicted this placemarker
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.