Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Why do people think Darwinism is a perfect creation? (the unabashed bigotry of staunch Darwinists)
The Telegraph ^ | Feb 20,2009 | Christopher Booker

Posted on 02/22/2009 6:59:30 PM PST by SeekAndFind

As an old hand at tangling with Darwinists, I was well aware that a howl of furious protests would greet my item last week describing their curious inability to recognise just how much of the story of evolution Darwin's theory cannot explain, For pointing out that they rely on no more than an unscientific leap of faith to believe that an infinite series of minute variations could bring about all those extraordinary leaps in the evolutionary story, such as the emergence of the eye and countless others, I was derided as "stupid", "idiotic" and "scientifically illiterate". Clearly I was unaware all these riddles had been solved by genetics and the decoding of the human genome.

The trouble is that, as my colleague Dr James Le Fanu has lucidly set out in his admirable new book Why Us? How Science Rediscovered The Mystery Of Ourselves (Harper Press, £18.99), the unravelling of the genome has done nothing of the kind. When mice, men and chimpanzees all turn out to be made of almost identical genetic material, the unknown factor which determines why the same building blocks should give rise to such an astonishing variety of different life-forms leaves the Darwinian thesis as full of holes as ever. To believe that genetics have solved the riddle relies as much on a leap of faith as that Biblical â Creationism' which causes the more fanatical Darwinians to foam at the mouth.

Last Tuesday various eminent figures from the scientific establishment wrote to the Daily Telegraph, prompted by the remarkable finding of a poll published in this newspaper two weeks ago that only 37 percent of those questioned agree that Darwin's explanation for evolution is â beyond reasonable doubt'.

(Excerpt) Read more at telegraph.co.uk ...


TOPICS: Culture/Society; Editorial; Philosophy
KEYWORDS: bigotry; darwinism; spam
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-70 last
To: muawiyah
Except when what they see threatens their core beliefs.

Get back to me when you detect a creationist who has realized that there is no conflict between the biblical creation story and the theory of evolution.

61 posted on 02/24/2009 7:13:56 PM PST by elkfersupper (Member of the Original Defiant Class)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 60 | View Replies]

To: elkfersupper

One of the Popes in the last 150 years would have done so.


62 posted on 02/24/2009 7:23:53 PM PST by muawiyah
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 61 | View Replies]

To: muawiyah

Yes, if a Pope’s job were to spread truth rather than doctrine.


63 posted on 02/24/2009 7:39:10 PM PST by elkfersupper (Member of the Original Defiant Class)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 62 | View Replies]

To: elkfersupper
Doctrine vs. Truth ~ rather provocative. There's a doctrine regarding the way to conduct scientific inquiry ~ are you suggesting that in some way that "doctrine" is not a path to "truth"?

It's pretty obvious that at some time in the last 150 years at least one Pope came on the scene as a Creationist and adapted his views to Evolution. The evidence for such an event is that the Catholic Church teaches that Evolution does not conflict with Genesis. The Catholic Church gets its interpretive viewpoints from the Pope.

Earlier Popes wouldn't have known beans about Evolution. Neither would scientists!

In any case, neither point of view is relevant in the long run. We will eventually discover things going on in our genome that we had only thought possible with super computers.

64 posted on 02/24/2009 7:44:40 PM PST by muawiyah
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 63 | View Replies]

To: muawiyah; elkfersupper
"Doctrine vs. Truth ~ rather provocative. There's a doctrine regarding the way to conduct scientific inquiry ~ are you suggesting that in some way that "doctrine" is not a path to "truth"?"

There is no doctrine regarding scientific inquiry. There is only the scientific method, which is a method that only involves logical operations and physical evidence. Something carries the weight of doctrine and the the consequential quality of truth, because it's been declared so, or as such by a consensus of folks in authority. Nothing similar exists in science.

"It's pretty obvious that at some time in the last 150 years at least one Pope came on the scene as a Creationist and adapted his views to Evolution."

Darwin did the same.

"In any case, neither point of view is relevant in the long run."

The truth always matters, regardless of run.

65 posted on 02/24/2009 8:20:36 PM PST by spunkets
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 64 | View Replies]

To: spunkets
Spunkets, the "scientific method" is a doctrine.

If you were to change it to include "even falsified data may be used to substantiate desirable findings", you would be subject to sanction.

66 posted on 02/24/2009 8:29:29 PM PST by muawiyah
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 65 | View Replies]

To: muawiyah
"Spunkets, the "scientific method" is a doctrine."

No, it is what I said.

"If you were to change it to include "even falsified data may be used to substantiate desirable findings", you would be subject to sanction."

As I said, it involves logical operations and physical data. data can not be falsified. Data is fact. Findings, as the meaning is considered here, are conclusions, which must be the result of logical operations. Although one generally starts out with a hypothesis, no desire, no matter how hard one squints and tapps their heels together, will produce data that will support the faulty reasoning of a bad hypothesis.

67 posted on 02/24/2009 8:39:26 PM PST by spunkets
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 66 | View Replies]

To: spunkets
Even Gregoire Mandel "adjusted his data" ~ with the consequence he failed to notice the phenomena of "jumping genes" that another researcher got a Nobel for decades later.

Yes, data can be fudged, and folks do it all the time. However, that's contrary to the method (or doctrine).

68 posted on 02/24/2009 8:47:29 PM PST by muawiyah
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 67 | View Replies]

To: muawiyah
"Yes, data can be fudged, and folks do it all the time. However, that's contrary to the method (or doctrine)."

Facts can not be made up. Messing with data, or coming up with fictitious data is an example of bearing false witness, or lying. One has a right to be told the truth. That's why the moral code forbids lying, bearing false witness, ect...

Fraud isn't contrary to the scientific method, only to the moral code. The logical operations of the scientific method will simply generate garbage if false data is used. ...GIGO.

69 posted on 02/24/2009 9:19:30 PM PST by spunkets
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 68 | View Replies]

To: spunkets
"...or doctrine"

The relevant concept here is how the qualitative quantifier truth gets applied to some conclusion, or claim. In the case of logical operations, every sentient rational being will conclude either the quantifier applies always and universally, or it never does. In the case of doctrine the application of the quantifier is due to a consensus vote, that fixes the application to the claim forever. Science never considers doctrine to be valid, only valid outcomes of logical operations are.

70 posted on 02/24/2009 9:27:07 PM PST by spunkets
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 69 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-70 last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson