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

To: tacticalogic; betty boop
IMHO, the inferences aren't justified and aren't Darwin's fault.

It's not a matter of fault but of a need to communicate clearly what the theory entails or does not entail.

You and I both know that Darwin did not theorize about abiogenesis. His was not a theory of origins of life but rather of speciation, origin of species. Nor was his a theory of what life "is."

But if you were to poll people on the street - or even Free Republic for that matter - you'd probably discover, as I have, that most people are under that impression. And, I suspect for that reason, many of them are upset with Darwin over something he never claimed in his theories in the first place.

When I look at what Darwin actually said it is not all that earth shattering. Living things change and adapt over time. Some are successful, some are not.

Likewise I do not find the intelligent design hypothesis to be all that earth shattering. Indeed, I wouldn't even call it a hypothesis, I'd call it an observation.

It simply says (paraphrased) that "certain features of life and the universe are best explained by intelligent cause rather than an undirected process." And, after all, many creatures are known to choose their mates thus affecting inherited traits. And it is not a substitute for the theory of evolution either, it applies only to certain features. Nor is it a theory of origins. It has no Holy writ, no milk, no meat.

Give me something meaty to chew on! Let's debate what life "is" not what it looks like. Let's look at origins of life, space/time, inertia, information, autonomy, semiosis! Let's discuss the philosophies involved - what can man know, what can he never know! Let's discuss formal cause, material cause, efficient cause and most especially final cause!

And most important of all, let's talk about Jesus Himself!

550 posted on 10/02/2009 12:59:09 PM PDT by Alamo-Girl
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 547 | View Replies ]


To: Alamo-Girl
But if you were to poll people on the street - or even Free Republic for that matter - you'd probably discover, as I have, that most people are under that impression. And, I suspect for that reason, many of them are upset with Darwin over something he never claimed in his theories in the first place.

I've discovered that there are people both on the streed and here at Free Republic who simply will not accept that. There appears to be more to it than simple misperception.

551 posted on 10/02/2009 1:58:00 PM PDT by tacticalogic ("Oh bother!" said Pooh, as he chambered his last round.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 550 | View Replies ]

To: Alamo-Girl
Give me something meaty to chew on! Let's debate what life "is" not what it looks like. Let's look at origins of life, space/time, inertia, information, autonomy, semiosis! Let's discuss the philosophies involved - what can man know, what can he never know! Let's discuss formal cause, material cause, efficient cause and most especially final cause!

I consider a "meaty" issue finding a methodology that will satisfy the complaints about materialism, and still provide an objective framework for scientists of dissimilar religious beliefs to collaborate effectively. That seems a pivotal matter in the entire debate, but I can't seem to find anyone who's willing to address it in concrete terms.

552 posted on 10/02/2009 3:20:17 PM PDT by tacticalogic ("Oh bother!" said Pooh, as he chambered his last round.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 550 | View Replies ]

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