Posted on 06/27/2006 5:06:32 AM PDT by 7thson
Ann Coulter states in her book on page 201 -
Darwin’s theory of evolution says life on Earth began with single-celled life forms, which evolved into multicelled life forms, which over countless aeons evolved into higher life forms, including man, all as the result of the chance process of random mutation followed by natural selection, without guidance or assistance from any intelligent entity like God of the Department of Agriculture. Which is to say, evolution I the eminently plausible theory that the human eye, the complete works of Shakespeare, and Ronal Reagan (among other things) all came into existence purely be accident.
On page 202, she states The “theory” of evolution is:
1. Random mutation of desirable attributes (highly implausible)
2. Natural selection weeding out the “less fit” animals (pointless tautology)
3. Leading to the creation of new species (no evidence after 150 years of looking)
My question – is she correct in her statements? Is that Darwin’s theory?
On the ligher side, check out the first paragraph on page 212. LOL Funny!
Science uses very precise definitions of all forces and quantities and reactions. There is no scientific definition of supernatural to even default to. That is simply something that one of the scientists may or may not state but it is opinion, not science.
By definition, any phenomenon that can be investigated by science is a natural phenomenon. It sounds circular, but it isn't. Science is not simply a body of knowledge; it is a process.
Science eats away at the supernatural. It examines phenomena as it acquires the methods and tools to do so. The world of the supernatural is shrinking.
Wrong, it doesn't start out with "there is no supernatural", it starts out with, "the supernatural is not subject to rational investigation".
all I've been trying to say is that since science can never cross that line, to me, it is atheistic.
Science is neither theistic nor atheistic. It has absolutely nothing to say about the existence or non-existence of any deities. Science can examine the specific claims of particular religions and compare them with observed reality however. If the findings of science contradict the beliefs of some religions while supporting others then that is a problem for the religions being contradicted, not for science.
Put it this way. Supposing science had formed the conclusions, solely from examination of the physical evidence, that the universe is 6000 years old and biological kinds were separate creations at around that time, and there was a global flood around 5000 years ago. Would Christians under such circumstances still be declaring that science was atheistic? Somehow I doubt it. Religious people only have a problem with a science when it appears to be contradicting *their* religion. Not when it contradicts everybody else's.
inconvenient facts placemarker
On the other hand it could have a supernatural explanation
The gripping hand is it's a tale told by fishermen.
Well, I think I qualify as one of those people but I don't have a problem with science. I just point out it's limitations. Science measures light from galaxies and concludes that that light has been traveling billions of years for it to reach us. I don't have a problem with the fact that science is wrong because it has to be. It has no other recourse.
What it means is that science and scientists are kind of like blind people trying to figure out what things look like. It does get a bit tense when the blind people don't realize they are blind and insist that things look one way when people with sight can see how things really look. Many of these blind people realize they are blind and stick to "well this thing feels, tastes, sounds and smells like such and such but that's all I know".
You apparently have never met an argument from adverse consequences you didn't like.
Coulter's "reasoning" is fallacious, and so is the reasoning you've quoted above.On this very thread, which I (perhaps mistakenly) assume you've been reading, it's been pointed out that all of the terms I've bolded in the paragraph above also took place before 1859!
Kindly explain (or find us a book blurb explaining), how Darwin's theory caused events that took place before it was expounded.
For the same reason science is wrong when it says a man can't walk on water. Light can't go faster than C, a man can't walk on water. Or we could throw in that non scientific stipulation "apart from some supernatural force" which has been tossed around on this thread. I just never saw that in any of my physics books.
What took place before is not relevent to this argument. Whatever the reasons for those things happening before 1859 are beside the point. The argument being made by Colter and people like Richard Wiekart is that Darwin influenced the thinking in the 20th century. The people of earlier ages had other ways of rationalizing their inhumanity I assume, but there is no denying that Darwin had an impact on the thinking that went into what Hitler and the Nazis and others did during the last century. And it can be argued that moral relativism, euthanasia, infanticide, abortion and the like which continue into this century were all influenced by Darwinism.
So were tales of mermaids ...
I posted a photo of a man walking on water. And as an engineer, I can say that science does not repudiate that act.
Monday: Man beats wife.
Tuesday: Man beats wife.
Wednesday: Man beats wife.
Thursday: Man watches Geraldo and beats wife. m5c blames Geraldo for man beating wife.
You are correct. I had forgotten the Carbon dating time limitation. I should have thought about the facts I was using in my admittedly poor example before posting them. I agree that Carbon dating is not used for fossil age testing nor should it be.
Acknowledging that however, and recalling of the article, I submit to you that Carbon dating could have certainly been used to test the age of artifacts coming out of an Egyptian tomb, not withstanding the 400K was probably more likely 40,000. The point of the article was that Carbon Dating was not infallible. I don’t think it’s to far a stretch to presume that no dating method today is infallible when dealing with those durations.
But that wasn’t your point of your personal attack was it.
Perhaps rather than launching into attacks questioning everything from job status, to educational level a more compassionate conservative approach would have been …
I believe your recollection of the article you mentioned in your post is in error. Although it is true that Carbon dating would be a valid why to measure the age of Egyptian artifacts, and therefore cat bones found in the tomb, it is not used to measure any dates of longer duration than 50,000 years and up to 100,000 years using ‘Accelerator Techniques for Carbon Dating” (ref. http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/nuclear/cardat.html#c5 go to the bottom of the page. So now you and others on this blog have the correct facts when you launch your next personal attack on someone using the wrong numbers. Would it be appropriate to use your own words and say ….. Anyone even remotely close to the issue would know that 50k years for carbon dating would be an erroneous statement unless they knew nothing about Accelerator Techniques. All in good fun mind you).
Flabbergasted-by-unspeakable-ignorance placemarker.
Well, I think I qualify as one of those people but I don't have a problem with science.
Well, actually you do. Your following paragraphs show that you will ignore or handwave away physical evidence that contradicts your religious preconceptions. That means you have a problem with science, because science can only operate if Holy Works are left outside the laboratory.
I just point out it's limitations. Science measures light from galaxies and concludes that that light has been traveling billions of years for it to reach us. I don't have a problem with the fact that science is wrong because it has to be. It has no other recourse.
Please explain how the science "has to be wrong" with reference to physical evidence. Explain why the geometric placement of SN1987A at c180k light years away from us is wrong. Explain why atomic decay rates of the fusion products of SN1987A are exactly what we what expect if lightspeed had been constant for the last 180,000 years at least. Explain why far more distant pulsars rotate at the speed that we would expect if lightspeed had been constant in its journey from those incredibly distant objects. Explain the anisotropy of the cosmic microwave background, which was predicted as an current holdover effect of the big-bang BEFORE it was detected. When you can explain those things you'll have earned the right to declare that standard cosmology "must be wrong". Absent that, you just have religious problems with observed reality.
What it means is that science and scientists are kind of like blind people trying to figure out what things look like. It does get a bit tense when the blind people don't realize they are blind and insist that things look one way when people with sight can see how things really look. Many of these blind people realize they are blind and stick to "well this thing feels, tastes, sounds and smells like such and such but that's all I know".
Who is the blind man? The man who looks at the world about him with no preconceptions and draws the conclusions that the physical evidence leads him to? Or the man who decides the answer in advance of looking, and ignores any observations that contradict his religious beliefs?
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.