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...

[GourmetDan]

"Get over evolution already - it’s as real as the earth orbiting the sun or the expansion of the universe. None of that means anyone’s faith in God or religion should be abandoned - I know plenty of 13 year olds who are mature and secure enough in their faith to grasp that concept."

Oops.

I know some scientists who were/are a bit older than 13 years old who acknowledge the equivalence of the geokinetic and geocentric models.

“Can we formulate physical laws so that they are valid for all CS [coordinate systems], not only those moving uniformly, but also those moving quite arbitrarily, relative to each other? […] The struggle, so violent in the early days of science, between the views of Ptolemy and Copernicus would then be quite meaningless. Either CS could be used with equal justification. The two sentences: “the sun is at rest and the earth moves” or “the sun moves and the earth is at rest” would simply mean two different conventions concerning two different CS.”

Einstein, A. and Infeld, L. (1938) The Evolution of Physics, p.212 (p.248 in original 1938 ed.); Note: CS = coordinate system

“The relation of the two pictures [geocentricity and heliocentricity] is reduced to a mere coordinate transformation and it is the main tenet of the Einstein theory that any two ways of looking at the world which are related to each other by a coordinate transformation are entirely equivalent from a physical point of view.... Today we cannot say that the Copernican theory is ‘right’ and the Ptolemaic theory ‘wrong’ in any meaningful physical sense.”

Hoyle, Fred. Nicolaus Copernicus. London: Heinemann Educational Books Ltd., 1973.

"...Thus we may return to Ptolemy's point of view of a 'motionless earth'...One has to show that the transformed metric can be regarded as produced according to Einstein's field equations, by distant rotating masses. This has been done by Thirring. He calculated a field due to a rotating, hollow, thick-walled sphere and proved that inside the cavity it behaved as though there were centrifugal and other inertial forces usually attributed to absolute space. Thus from Einstein's point of view, Ptolemy and Copernicus are equally right."

Born, Max. "Einstein's Theory of Relativity",Dover Publications,1962, pgs 344 & 345:

"People need to be aware that there is a range of models that could explain the observations,” Ellis argues. “For instance, I can construct you a spherically symmetrical universe with Earth at its center, and you cannot disprove it based on observations.” Ellis has published a paper on this. “You can only exclude it on philosophical grounds. In my view there is absolutely nothing wrong in that. What I want to bring into the open is the fact that we are using philosophical criteria in choosing our models. A lot of cosmology tries to hide that.”

Ellis, George, in Scientific American, "Thinking Globally, Acting Universally", October 1995

Here is another scientist who is a bit older than 13 years old who may not be convinced that the expansion of the universe is as 'real' as you think either.

You are exactly correct that evolution is not any more 'real' than geokinetics and the expansion of the universe, but not in the way that you first thought.

[Filo]

Oh please, if it's so overwhelming, then why was Darwood forced to write Origins as nothing more than a long argument, devoid of data?

There is plenty of data in Origins, but as the initial theory it is, by nature, going to be fairly sparse.

How come they Evos are publishing articles with such titles as "What Darwin Didn't Know" or "Darwin was Wrong" or "Darwin Must Die So Evolution Can Live"???

Making stuff up doesn't really do much to support your argument. But still, Darwin was wrong about some facts and there was lots he didn't know. Regardless he still came to the correct conclusions about how species came to be even if he got some of the finer details a bit wrong.

Science, unlike religion, is not dogmatic. If facts change then the theories adopt to them.

Plenty has been discovered that has refined various aspects of Evolution over time. Different branches, different origins for particular species, different sources for functional elements, etc. None if it, however, has undermined the basic premise of evolution. Not once. Nor will it ever.

Evolution deals with very large systems and minute bits of data. What's most astounding about it is how consistently it all lines up. Let's face it, the Evos are on the run, and about the last person to realize it is you.

Not even close. Evolution is solid science and nobody is on the run except the desperate bible-thumpers and their irrational ilk.

Reality bites. Refusing to understand reality? That's something to LOL over.

[DallasMike]

Hello, my good friend. May God continue to bless you.

There are indications in the Bible that man was created to redeem creation.

For the creation waits with eager longing for the revealing of the sons of God. For the creation was subjected to futility, not willingly, but because of him who subjected it, in hope that the creation itself will be set free from its bondage to decay and obtain the freedom of the glory of the children of God. For we know that the creation has been groaning together in the pains of childbirth until now. And not only the creation, but we ourselves, who are the firstfruits of the Spirit, groan inwardly as we wait eagerly for adoption as sons, the redemption of our bodies. (Romans 8:20-23 ESV)

It's not a hill I would die on, but I believe that part of Adam's original purpose was to redeem creation that had already been corrupted by Satan. Satan had already sinned, fallen from glory, and was waiting to deceive Adam and Eve not terribly long after they were created.

When was creation subjected to futility? And who subjected it to futility?

For those who believe that God could not have created animal death as part of the original creation, Satan's earlier fall and corruption of the earth explains very well the fact that God initially placed humans in a special place, the Garden of Eden, where at least some normal rules of nature did not apply. When Adam and Eve sinned, they were banished from the special place called Eden and forced into the outside world. While it is true that God cursed creation because of man, he spoke of making it more difficult for men to make their living and more difficult for women to bear children -- not to cause T. Rex to stop being a vegetarian and begin eating meat.

Again, this is mostly speculation. Other than the verse I cited and a few other verses, the Bible has little to say on the subject.

[GourmetDan]

"Science, unlike religion, is not dogmatic. If facts change then the theories adopt to them."

Science, like religion, is absolutely dogmatic. Facts may change and theories may change but philosophical naturalism is always assumed 'a priori'.

"Plenty has been discovered that has refined various aspects of Evolution over time. Different branches, different origins for particular species, different sources for functional elements, etc. None if it, however, has undermined the basic premise of evolution. Not once. Nor will it ever."

That's correct. The basic premise of evolution is philosophical naturalism. Since that is assumed 'a priori', nothing can ever undermine that assumption.

"Not even close. Evolution is solid science and nobody is on the run except the desperate bible-thumpers and their irrational ilk."

Uh oh. You used the 'ilk' word. That automatically makes you 'the winner'. No evolutionist has ever been desperate or irrational enough to fake evidence.

"Reality bites. Refusing to understand reality? That's something to LOL over."

It sure is. LOL!

[Cedric]

What's most astounding about it is how consistently it all lines up.

Evolution is solid science...

(Nothing) has undermined the basic premise of evolution. Not once. Nor will it ever.

Wow, that's powerful stuff! You've convinced me.!

I'm switching sides!

[GodGunsGuts]

==There is plenty of data in Origins, but as the initial theory it is, by nature, going to be fairly sparse.

Ok, this is the one and only graph in , pray tell, where is the data to back up those data points on Darwood's so-called "Tree of Life"???

==Making stuff up doesn't really do much to support your argument

See also:

Darwinism Must Die So That Evolution May Live - NYTimes.com

See also:

And now that the have discovered that the genome is at least 93% functional (as opposed 97% "junk" as the Evos predicted), that is going to throw all the Evo's phylogenetic trees that supposedly show common ancestry into complete disarray. Indeed, that is one of the reasons the Evos themselves are finally being forced to cut down darwood's tree (just as creationists have been predicting all along). LOL!!!

[Kozak]

And a “perfect” man would choose the correct answer given his free will. Therefor according you we were created with flawed judgment.

[Kozak]

Oh please, if it's so overwhelming, then why was Darwood forced to write Origins as nothing more than a long argument, devoid of data?

Thats science. You look for evidence, formulate a theory, and test it against the evidence. Latter scientists add confirmatory evidence, or refute it with contradictory evidence and a new theory. Starting with a religious text is called "religion" and not science. Something you cretins don't seem to get.

[GourmetDan]

"Thats science. You look for evidence, formulate a theory, and test it against the evidence. Latter scientists add confirmatory evidence, or refute it with contradictory evidence and a new theory. Starting with a religious text is called "religion" and not science."

What you refuse to recognize is that 'science' is based on the assumption of philosophical naturalism; that is the assumption that the natural world is all that exists. Given that 'a priori' assumption you cannot return any answer other than a 'natural' one. Unfortunately, assuming philosophical naturalism is a philosophical choice, not an empirical one.

"Something you cretins don't seem to get."

Take a look in the mirror on that one.

[GodGunsGuts]

That’s the point. Darwood couldn’t find any evidence to back up his lame attempt to completely reinterpret the entire history of biological. He started with the conclusion, couldn’t find any evidence to back it up, and published his conclusion anyway—and the “unfulfilled” atheists and agnostics of his day drank it up like Kool-Aid on a hot summer day.

[Liberty1970]

Starting with a religious text is called "religion" and not science. Something you cretins don't seem to get.

Consider someone finding a diary that purports to be a record of the movements of the Continental Army by a soldier in it during the Revolution. Would you consider using it to interpret archaeological field data to be a "religious" exercise? Of course not. But that is what you are doing when you assume there is something "religious" about using historical documentation like Genesis to interpret field data. The fact that it has religous implications does not mean it is a "religious" exercise.

[GodGunsGuts]

Great tagline!

[GourmetDan]

"Great tagline!"

You'd almost think that God was omniscient and in control, huh? ;-)

[Cedric]

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

Actually, evolution was invented to give nasty, spiteful, passive-aggressive nerds something to do after high school.

[CottShop]

sure sounds liek it- sounds liek he’s hiding behind another screen name perhaps

[GodGunsGuts]

Is his old screenname no longer among us?

[CottShop]

[[Starting with a religious text is called “religion” and not science.]]

Mmmm Yes- A ‘religious text’ such as ‘Nature did it- Nature was capable of violating several key scientific laws, and nature invented information’ - Yup- you’re right- that’s NOT science!

[CottShop]

[[Actually, evolution was invented to give nasty, spiteful, passive-aggressive nerds something to do after high school.]]

Lol- perfect! Spot on

[CottShop]

I dunno- I haven’;t seen him post in a long time- and it’s not beyond folks to have two screen names so they can bash others while kepping hteir main screen name ‘secure’ and ‘reputable’ I’ve seen soem do this a few times on various forums- they a’ct professional’ with hteir main screen name, and then sign in under a different one, and really let hteir ugly side show- but more often then not, their terminology and writing style gives htem away

[Kozak]

What history of biology? The Bible? That’s your scientific basis? Fine for RELIGION. Not Science.