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...

[betty boop]

The sad part is that in today's society we're actually countering evolution's tendency to weed out the stupid. We are, in fact, allowing them to outbreed the intelligent.

Oh, my. And a closet eugenicist to boot!

Be careful of that eugenics thing, my friend. You could end up on the short end of the stick with that one. It all depends on how insane the eugenicists of the future might be. But they'll probably all be relying on Darwin to justify what they do.

You haven't demonstrated anything except ignorance so far. What you have is a string of unsupported and self-contradictory allegations. But this "doth not a rational argument make."

[betty boop]

If science can't touch it then it's not real.

Then you are unreal.

[bert]

Get real.....

[GodGunsGuts]

Filo: The rest of your nonsense is just that and deserves no response.

Betty Boop: If I were you, I’d stop parading my ignorance

Me: He won’t BB. Filo said it, Filo believes it, and for Filo, that settles it.

[spirited irish]

The Force, speaking through the puppet-mouth of Filo-the-meat-machine, announcess with honied words its false-concern for the ‘well-being’ of humanity: “The sad part is that in today’s society we’re actually countering evolution’s tendency to weed out the stupid. We are, in fact, allowing them to outbreed the intelligent.”

Spirited: There it is everyone, a confession. Out of one side of its’ lying mouth, The Force declares that evolution is without purpose, design , and intent while out of the other side of its’ lying mouth it confesses that evolution really does have purpose, design, and intent. And what is its’ evil intent? To ‘weed’ out the ‘unfit;’ the ‘unbelievers’ who by their existence, prevent the next leap in evolution.

The Force speaks of the necessity for Murder of course. And who are the intended victims? Those whose morally-ordered minds demand Truth, the whole Truth, and nothing but the Truth, so help them God!

And what does the Force seductively whisper to its faithful puppets? Out of one side of its lying mouth it promises: “You shall be as gods! (as soon as the next quantum leap in evolution occurs!)” Out of the other side a triumphant declaration: “Puppets belong to us! To the Kingdom they go!”

[betty boop]

Get real.....

Have you any suggestion how I might go about doing that, bert? Or are you just here to hurl spitwads?

[tpanther]

And yet it's quite worthless without the ability to think...

Whoosh!!!

Ummmm more projection on top of layers of projection isn't helping you out here.

Evolution is still clearly the liberal position no matter how many times you squeal it's not.

That was the main point.

It's your baggage, handle it as you wish.

And if you uhhh "understand your opponents" and read this or that, you should seriously consider going back and reviewing.

I've yet to see any serious peer review of the cult of evolution, and frankly it's quite pathetic to suggest evolution is science, as it's nothing but mere conjecture.

Before you go off again with the 3rd grade attacks on intellect and education (more liberal projection) you need to read www.dissentfromdarwin.org.

[tpanther]

Intelligence arose, slowly, as a survival mechanism. Just like virtually every other trait in living things.

She asked how, not at what rate or why.

Reading...

Fundamental.

[bert]

just poking with a stick

[betty boop]

She asked how, not at what rate or why.

Thanks for noticing, tpanther! I'd love to have Filo give me a description of the mechanism or process by which inert, unaided, lifeless matter bootstraps itself into life and intelligence. But he seems to have changed the subject.

[betty boop]

just poking with a stick

LOL bert! But for what purpose?

[Filo]

Thanks for noticing, tpanther! I'd love to have Filo give me a description of the mechanism or process by which inert, unaided, lifeless matter bootstraps itself into life and intelligence. But he seems to have changed the subject.

Funny, yours isn't the question that was asked either.

For the one that was actually asked (how intelligence arose), my answer is sufficient although a bit more research into the details would do anyone a world of good.

As for abiogenesis, well, that's really not within the realm of evolution.

Once the living material exists evolution provides the answer to how it becomes trees and rabbits and stupid 'thumpers with ease.

As for abiogenesis itself, there are numerous competing theories on that - all of which take into account the relative ease with which nature produces amino acids and others of life's building blocks and the various means by which these may have assembled themselves into self-replicating systems.

After that, life is really just a matter of definition.

But, unlike evolution, those various methods are still just theories and are likely to remain that way for some time.

[tpanther]

You’re most welcome. I think I recall something about not knowing, but there’s all this evidence anyway...I suppose if we just wait a few billion more years us folks will see what he sees.

[tpanther]

For the one that was actually asked (how intelligence arose), my answer is sufficient ...

Not at all. Actually you danced with the rate and why, not the how; again, reading really is fundamental and would do you a world of good.

You've proven nothing but just how helpless you are, in some 230+ posts. Nothing new to see here, just the same old tired liberal projections.

per ususal.

As for abiogenesis, well, that's really not within the realm of evolution.

Another debunked liberal myth. Of course evolution is completely dependent on origins, which is why Darwin called his book ORIGIN of species.

It all has to start somewhere and evolution does not exist within a vacuum, despite how desperately liberals wish it did!

[Filo]

Not at all. Actually you danced with the rate and why, not the how; again, reading really is fundamental and would do you a world of good.

Actually, again, reading and understanding go hand in hand.

You can read all you want (an I'm quite sure that your reading list is very limited) but without understanding that is just wasted time.

Meanwhile, virtually any book on evolution will cover the answer to your question (regarding intelligence) in the detail you require if, of course, you are capable of understanding.

My money is on not. You've proven nothing but just how helpless you are, in some 230+ posts.

And you've read all of those, have you? If you had and still called me liberal I'd think you dumber than I already do. . .

Again, I'm going with not.

I didn't think so.

Another debunked liberal myth. Of course evolution is completely dependent on origins, which is why Darwin called his book ORIGIN of species.

Debunked by whom? A motley crew of holy rollers hell-bent on "proving" their favorite work of fiction?

All we have here is more proof of your failure to understand.

Sure evolution depends, by nature, on the existence of life, but the two processes are separate. Once life came into being evolution is sufficient to define how the various species came into being (hence: Origin of the Species - gotta read the whole title, not "epic fail" on the first word.)

[tpanther]

Joe? Is that you?

http://img159.imageshack.us/img159/8673/capte72f7202cda949fb90c.jpg

[betty boop]

Filo, the question I asked was: "...how intelligence could arise from a random cause."

Darwin's macroevolution theory presupposes random causation plus natural selection. And I gather you worship at the temple of Darwinist orthodoxy, piling it on top of a materialist/naturalist/physicalist worldview. On this basis, you could give a rate and a purpose in answering my question (even though Darwinian orthodoxy says that nature has no real purpose, just the appearance of purpose). But you didn't tell me how matter bootstraps itself into life and intelligence.

To say I mentioned nothing about "life" in the formulation of my original question (and therefore its restatement wasn't the "same" question) isn't a reasonable complaint. For intelligence presupposes life: Only living systems in nature possess intelligence (in some form or other).

I am well aware that abiogenesis "isn't within the realm of evolution." At least Darwinists tend to insist on this. But the fact of the matter is even Darwin speculated about the "warm little pond scenario".... Abiogenesis would answer every desire of the materialist insisting on natural causation exclusively, in support of any plausible account of the origin of life that does not involve God. This is why abiogenesis is so desirable (especially to atheists), and will probably be taken seriously as a "reasonable" hypothesis — even in the face of zero evidence — from now till the cows come home.

And life is really NOT "just a matter of definition." It's a matter of existence. No matter what the definition, Life is something we all personally, intimately experience. And when it is absent, i.e., at physical death, we can absolutely tell the difference.

My final point would be, if you do not know what Life is, or from whence it came, but you can come up with a "theory" that it "evolves," pray tell, in what way does this tell us anything at all about what it is that is doing all the evolving? Shouldn't a theory that is supposedly about biology have something to say about the nature of its very subject?

As matters presently stand, for all intents and purposes, Darwinism deals with the behavior of an unknown or undisclosed entity. Somehow, I don't find that sort of thing terribly helpful.

Yet I wonder whether the origin of life is a question that science can answer. For one thing, Life per se is NOT a "direct observable." And no human now living would have been there to see it anyway.

Your thoughts, Filo?

[betty boop]

I suppose if we just wait a few billion more years us folks will see what he sees.

Whatever Filo sees, it seems he has a problem describing it. Maybe what he sees is simply incoherent. Sigh....

[Filo]

Filo, the question I asked was: "...how intelligence could arise from a random cause."

Exactly. And the evolution of intelligence versus the formation of life (abiogenesis) are two different things.

Darwin's macroevolution theory presupposes random causation plus natural selection. And I gather you worship at the temple of Darwinist orthodoxy, piling it on top of a materialist/naturalist/physicalist worldview. On this basis, you could give a rate and a purpose in answering my question (even though Darwinian orthodoxy says that nature has no real purpose, just the appearance of purpose). But you didn't tell me how matter bootstraps itself into life and intelligence.

Again, two different questions.

For the former there are numerous theories based around amino acids and how they might come together under different circumstances (porous rocks, mud in tide pools, etc.)

For the latter the evolution of nervous systems followed by increasing complexity, etc.

For more details consult a text book.

To say I mentioned nothing about "life" in the formulation of my original question (and therefore its restatement wasn't the "same" question) isn't a reasonable complaint. For intelligence presupposes life: Only living systems in nature possess intelligence (in some form or other).

But clearly not all of them. . .

I am well aware that abiogenesis "isn't within the realm of evolution." At least Darwinists tend to insist on this. But the fact of the matter is even Darwin speculated about the "warm little pond scenario".... Abiogenesis would answer every desire of the materialist insisting on natural causation exclusively, in support of any plausible account of the origin of life that does not involve God. This is why abiogenesis is so desirable (especially to atheists), and will probably be taken seriously as a "reasonable" hypothesis — even in the face of zero evidence — from now till the cows come home.

A whole lot of gibberish in there, but ultimately yes, abiogenesis is the operative theory in the total absence of any evidence supporting creation.

And life is really NOT "just a matter of definition." It's a matter of existence. No matter what the definition, Life is something we all personally, intimately experience. And when it is absent, i.e., at physical death, we can absolutely tell the difference.

Correct, but the metaphysical nonsense has nothing to do with the scientific definition of life.

In that realm a paramecium is alive but a virus is not. The difference between the two is subtle.

In the earliest systems that distinction would be a matter of definition; at what point do the self-replicating chemical systems become living things.

My final point would be, if you do not know what Life is, or from whence it came, but you can come up with a "theory" that it "evolves," pray tell, in what way does this tell us anything at all about what it is that is doing all the evolving? Shouldn't a theory that is supposedly about biology have something to say about the nature of its very subject?

Not necessarily.

As matters presently stand, for all intents and purposes, Darwinism deals with the behavior of an unknown or undisclosed entity. Somehow, I don't find that sort of thing terribly helpful.

Not at all. That is merely your twisted and willfully ignorant interpretation.

Yet I wonder whether the origin of life is a question that science can answer. For one thing, Life per se is NOT a "direct observable." And no human now living would have been there to see it anyway.

Life is very much observable.

The origins of life are not, but we can come up with theories that have testable hypothesis that will ultimately be reasonable or not.

For instance we have no way of observing the formation of the solar system or the Earth/Moon system but we have very good theories about how that happened.

Observations based on those (such as analysis of moon rocks, the compositions of the other planets, meteorites, comets, etc.) and so on either lend credence or discredit those theories.

This has happened to the point where we are quite confident in most of what we know about the formation of the solar system, albeit with some gaps that may be difficult to fill directly.

In the end, however, the overall knowledge is sound regardless of those minor details.

The same holds true of evolution. The whole of the system is understood while the details of how one species evolved from another may or may not be understood in totality.

Unfortunately some folks misunderstand those gaps and attempt to leverage them into a disingenuous attempt to discredit the entire system.

All they ever accomplish is documenting their own ignorance.

[Filo]

Whatever Filo sees, it seems he has a problem describing it. Maybe what he sees is simply incoherent. Sigh....

The only problem I have is trying to convince the ignorant to understand things that they refuse to see.

Sigh is right.