Darwin’s Sad Legacy (evolution invented to give death and suffering a positive explanation?)

AiG ^ | April 14, 2009 | Dr. Tommy Mitchell

[GodGunsGuts]

The common thread throughout Darwin’s life was his continual struggle with the issue of death and suffering. He was never able to reconcile the existence of death, disease, and struggle with the character of a loving God:

I cannot persuade myself that a beneficent and omnipotent God would have designedly created the Ichneumonidae with the express intention of their feeding within the living bodies of Caterpillars, or that a cat should play with mice.[1]

Darwin was unable to understand why a loving Creator God would allow the horrible things he witnessed in nature and everyday life. Animals fed on one another; creatures ripped each other apart; women died in childbirth, etc. The world seemed heartless and cruel. Darwin’s eventual expansion of the concept of evolution seemed to provide a somewhat positive purpose for the suffering and death he could not explain.

Two of Darwin’s biographers went so far as to imply that...

[Filo]

No, it's not. Though plenty of evoFreepers seem smart enough to reject it, the idea that there's no such thing as a proven fact in science has been advanced here a number of times. One evo even said germ theory is unproven.



And gravity isn't proven either.

Regardless, that kind of silliness won't fly with those of us who think. . .

[Filo]

By now all here should be well aware that Filo does nothing but Ad Hoc Handwaving.

As opposed to the religious folks who post fact after fact, eh?

[Filo]

Nobody created God. God is eternal Being (i.e., Life).

Which falls under the heading of those self-serving definitions we've been talking about.

Defining God* as "just is" kinda takes the fun (and thought) out of it, don't you think?

[Filo]

How have you disproved God? On what basis have you determined that He is imaginary? What are your proofs?

I don't.

I think it's pretty clear that the notion is fanciful but I leave it to those who do believe to prove his/her/its existence.

They never do.

I then take a reasoned look at the universe, the state of religion in the world and myriad other factors in deriving my belief (and, in this case, it is just that) that there is no God*.

Which dovetails nicely into the whole evolution/creation "debate." On one side you have facts, science and reason, on the other creative nonsense.

It ain't too hard to pick sides on that one.

[Filo]

Sure the evos do. They claim that they have the truth and that the rest of us are wrong. If they can say that we are wrong, that must mean that they have the truth and know it. But they don't. Science changes constantly. By default that means that everything they've told us before is wrong cause if it wasn't they wouldn't need to change it.

Interesting interpretation of what science is.

What evolution does is provide the best possible explanation for the totality of observable evidence.

It does a very good job of that. The concepts make sense and fit the data extremely well.

Then, on the other hand, you have the various forms of creationism from YEC to ID. None of these even holds a candle to Evolution in their ability to interpret the evidence and predict what we might find (and then usually do.)

[Filo]

Is it possible something can be beyond formulation?..

Not in my world.

[Filo]

Let's analyze this statement.

From past experience you're already in way over your head.

We just know "there is a naturalistic explanation," even though we have not a shred of objective evidence for believing this.

Actually we have millions of pages of evidence supporting just that assertion.

It's called science. You should look into it.

(Filo has provided none so far.)

I am not conducting a class here. If you want to learn go and do it. Don't blame me for not spoon-feeding you hundreds of years of scientific discovery on a political forum.

People have been saying "there is a naturalistic explanation" for well over two centuries by now. Two-hundred-plus years to work on the problem, and science still has no answer, let alone any practical idea about how to advance this question. But don't worry: The proof WILL COME some day! This eschaton WILL be immanentized!

Which question are you talking about now? The origins of the universe? You expect that to be figured out in 200 years?

Man, if that is not a faith statement, I don't know what is.

It is, but it's a different type of faith. I have faith that Mankind will find the answers. Not all of us, obviously (some are too brainwashed by silly notions) but we, as a species, will discover these answers.

The odd thing is this faith statement is being undermined by science itself these days. Advances in information theory and complexity theory have demonstrated the extreme statistical unlikelihood of matter generating natural systems having greater algorithmic complexity than itself. Matter alone cannot account for the astonishing algorithmic and morphological complexity that we see in the biosphere. [...]

ROFL.

Using big words to make stupid statements won't make you appear any smarter.

Filo, may I dare to suggest that your "faith" appears to be on extremely shaky epistemological footing?

You can say it, but you'll be wrong. That, it seems, is turning into a really bad habit.

Whereas the Christian faith in the Creator God is eminently reasonable, and gives a rational account of what we perceive in nature, in the hearts of men, and in history and society? It's explanatory coverage and power is truly universal.

None of the above.

[Filo]

Truth, as recorded over and over by history shows that the seed of wheat, when planted, watered and tended, has never brought forth anything but wheat. Never once has the seed of wheat brought forth tomatos, as ought to happen if evolution is true. [...]

You really shouldn't try to argue against things that you are clearly not capable of understanding.

If the above represents your real viewpoint then you are an intellectual lost cause.

Your gibberish has nothing to do with evolution.

[Filo]

Well you liberals just let us know when it is that he assumes whatever color he wants.

You should ask that question of a liberal. . .

[tpanther]

Are you referrring to the God of all, or your god: Darwin?

Darwin wasn’t a god, he was a scientist which puts him above “God*” since he really existed.

---

Darwin was a scientist?

And you know this how?

Was it via education...ooops, I mean indoctrination and reading books written by liberals?

Hundreds times more people that have lived over the centuries have come to know Jesus really exists.

[tpanther]

I did. Evolution IS the liberal position.

[tpanther]

I’m glad you posted that article:

Call it a fluke, a mystery, a miracle. Or call it the biggest problem in physics. Short of invoking a benevolent creator, many physicists see only one possible explanation: Our universe may be but one of perhaps infinitely many universes in an inconceivably vast multi­verse. Most of those universes are barren, but some, like ours, have conditions suitable for life.

---

But once a theory makes liberals uncomfortable about God, they rush to court.

Where are the multiple liberal lawsuits over multiverse theory?

It’s about the science my eye!

[Alamo-Girl]

What a beautiful, insightful essay-post, dear spirited irish, thank you!!!

[Filo]

I did. Evolution IS the liberal position.

Evolution is the intelligent position (as in, it's the right one.) I've seen no evidence that liberals possess the qualities of intelligence or correctness.

In short, you're confused.

[spirited irish]

Filo: You really shouldn’t try to argue against things that you are clearly not capable of understanding.

If the above represents your real viewpoint then you are an intellectual lost cause.

Your gibberish has nothing to do with evolution.

Spirited: Yours is the standard Gnostic stance which, being built upon a foundation of massively inflated pride of mind (worship of one’s mind and its output)says with misplaced smugness to all others, “You simply cannot understand the deep things which my own highly exalted mind can comprehend, for mine is an intelligence far surpassing all others.”

However, Truth reveals that just like the foolish, narcissistic King, you “have no clothes.” For if evolution is true (despite its’ counterintuitive claim that truth cannot exist) and you and the output of your mind (which is, btw, of the so-called ‘nonexistant’ metaphysical realm, as are ideas, theories, formulas, etc., dear Filo) and you are in fact fully caused and determined by external forces of deified Nature (Naturalism), then the output of your ‘nonexistant mind’ is nothing more than brain-drips: the product of the firing of nonintelligence-bearing synapses, chemical reactions, and so on.

In short, if you believe you are thinking, you are merely experiencing a delusion, an epiphenomenon. And you? Well, if evolution is true, then there is no ‘you.’ All that exists is a meat machine called Filo and somewhere nearby in the unseen realm hovers an impersonal intelligence-force that works through the body called Filo. It directs the puppet Filo to open its’ mouth in order that words unintelligible to Filo can be uttered.

Indeed, meat-machine called Filo, the gibberish emerging from your puppet-mouth has nothing to do with truth and reality.

[Filo]

Yours is the standard Gnostic stance which, being built upon a foundation of massively inflated pride of mind (worship of one’s mind and its output)says with misplaced smugness to all others, “You simply cannot understand the deep things which my own highly exalted mind can comprehend, for mine is an intelligence far surpassing all others.”

Don't mistake my smugness with you and yours with overall smugness.

I know what I know and don't know and I'm quite well aware that there are minds far more capable than mine out there.

None of those, however, eschews reason for faith.

So when I say "you are clearly not capable of understanding" I am addressing you specifically and you the deists who believe in stupidity like ID, not everyone who is not me.

[tpanther]

There’s enough liberal projection going on here, hate to burst your bubble:

http://www.evolutionnews.org/2006/03/americans_overwhelmingly_suppo.html

Headline: “Americans Overwhelmingly Support Teaching Scientific Challenges to Darwinian Evolution, Zogby Poll Shows” From March 2006.

http://www.discovery.org/scripts/viewDB/filesDB-download.php?command=download&id=719

**********************************************************
Free Republic Poll on Evolution
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-backroom/1706571/posts?page=63#63

**********************************************************
Creationism makes a comeback in US
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1856224/posts

***********************************************************
Teaching creation and evolution in schools
Solid research reveals American beliefs
http://www.answersingenesis.org/tj/v13/i2/teaching.asp

************************************************************
Survey Finds Support Is Strong For Teaching 2 Origin Theories
http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9B07E4D9143BF932A25750C0A9669C8B63

************************************************************
Public Divided on Origins of Life
http://people-press.org/report/254/religion-a-strength-and-weakness-for-both-parties

************************************************************
Americans Believe in Jesus, Poll Says (creation poll results included)
http://derekgulbranson.com/2005/01/17/americans-believe-in-jesus/

---

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

[Filo]

There’s enough liberal projection going on here, hate to burst your bubble:

More self-serving nonsense.

The reality is that almost all educated people (as opposed to indoctrinated people) recognize evolution as fact.

[tpanther]

Evolution isn’t even a good theory, nevermind fact.

I see you ignored the facts and continue to project.

Oh well, you csan lead a horse to water...

[Filo]

Evolution isn’t even a good theory, nevermind fact.

It's an excellent theory. It lays out a hypothesis and metrics that can be used to prove or refute it along with evidence to date.

And, to date, there has been no evidence capable of undermining the theory. All has been supportive.

With the amount of evidence gathered it's as close to fact as gravity, germ theory and other nailed down concepts.

I see you ignored the facts and continue to project.

You haven't posted any.