Posted on 09/20/2001 8:46:10 AM PDT by aculeus
The Wedge of Truth: Splitting the Foundations of Naturalism
by Phillip E. Johnson
InterVarsity Press, 192 pp., $17.99
Icons of Evolution: Science or Myth? Why Much of What We Teach About Evolution Is Wrong
by Jonathan Wells
Regnery, 338 pp., $27.95
Darwin's Black Box: The Biochemical Challenge to Evolution
by Michael J. Behe
Touchstone, 307 pp., $13.00 (paper)
Mere Creation: Science, Faith and Intelligent Design
edited by William A. Dembski
InterVarsity Press, 475 pp., $24.99 (paper)
Intelligent Design: The Bridge Between Science and Theology
by William A. Dembski
InterVarsity Press, 312 pp., $21.99
Tower of Babel: The Evidence Against the New Creationism
by Robert T. Pennock
Bradford/MIT Press, 429 pp., $18.95 (paper)
Finding Darwin's God: A Scientist's Search for Common Ground Between God and Evolution
by Kenneth R. Miller
Cliff Street Books/HarperCollins,338 pp., $14.00 (paper)
1. It is no secret that science and religion, once allied in homage to divinely crafted harmonies, have long been growing apart. As the scientific worldview has become more authoritative and self-sufficient, it has loosed a cascade of appalling fears: that the human soul, insofar as it can be said to exist, may be a mortal and broadly comprehensible product of material forces; that the immanent, caring God of the Western monotheisms may never have been more than a fiction devised by members of a species that self-indulgently denies its continuity with the rest of nature; and that our universe may lack any discernible purpose, moral character, or special relation to ourselves. But as those intimations have spread, the retrenchment known as creationism has also gained in strength and has widened its appeal, acquiring recruits and sympathizers among intellectual sophisticates, hard-headed pragmatists, and even some scientists. And so formidable a political influence is this wave of resistance that some Darwinian thinkers who stand quite apart from it nevertheless feel obliged to placate it with tactful sophistries, lest the cause of evolutionism itself be swept away.
As everyone knows, it was the publication of The Origin of Species in 1859 that set off the counterrevolution that eventually congealed into creationism. It isn't immediately obvious, however, why Darwin and not, say, Copernicus, Galileo, or Newton should have been judged the most menacing of would-be deicides. After all, the subsiding of faith might have been foreseeable as soon as the newly remapped sky left no plausible site for heaven. But people are good at living with contradictions, just so long as their self-importance isn't directly insulted. That shock was delivered when Darwin dropped his hint that, as the natural selection of every other species gradually proves its cogency, "much light will be thrown on the origin of man and his history."
By rendering force and motion deducible from laws of physics without reference to the exercise of will, leading scientists of the Renaissance and Enlightenment started to force the activist lord of the universe into early retirement. They did so, however, with reverence for his initial wisdom and benevolence as an engineer. Not so Darwin, who saw at close range the cruelty, the flawed designs, and the prodigal wastefulness of life, capped for him by the death of his daughter Annie. He decided that he would rather forsake his Christian faith than lay all that carnage at God's door. That is why he could apply Charles Lyell's geological uniformitarianism more consistently than did Lyell himself, who still wanted to reserve some scope for intervention from above. And it is also why he was quick to extrapolate fruitfully from Malthus's theory of human population dynamics, for he was already determined to regard all species as subject to the same implacable laws. Indeed, one of his criteria for a sound hypothesis was that it must leave no room for the supernatural. As he wrote to Lyell in 1859, "I would give absolutely nothing for the theory of Natural Selection, if it requires miraculous additions at any one stage of descent."
Darwin's contemporaries saw at once what a heavy blow he was striking against piety. His theory entailed the inference that we are here today not because God reciprocates our love, forgives our sins, and attends to our entreaties but because each of our oceanic and terrestrial foremothers was lucky enough to elude its predators long enough to reproduce. The undignified emergence of humanity from primordial ooze and from a line of apes could hardly be reconciled with the unique creation of man, a fall from grace, and redemption by a person of the godhead dispatched to Earth for that end. If Darwin was right, revealed truth of every kind must be unsanctioned. "With me the horrid doubt always arises," he confessed in a letter, "whether the convictions of man's mind, which has been developed from the mind of the lower animals, are of any value or at all trustworthy. Would any one trust in the convictions of a monkey's mind...?"
[snipped. Go to site for the balance.]
Darwin ch 7
No excuse is needed for treating this subject in some detail; for, as the German philosopher Schopenhauer remarks, "the final aim of all love intrigues, be they comic or tragic, is really of more importance than all other ends in human life. What it all turns upon is nothing less than the composition of the next generation.... It is not the weal or woe of any one individual, but that of the human race to come, which is here at stake."*
* "Schopenhauer and Darwinism," in Journal of Anthropology, Jan., 1871, p. 323.
Darwin ch 20
for more on rats and jews go to:
http://www.holocaust-history.org/der-ewige-jude/stills.shtml
The culturally superior, but less ruthless races, would in consequence of their limited soil, have to limit their increase at a time when the culturally inferior but more brutal and more natural t peoples, in consequence of their greater living areas, would still be in a position to increase without limit. In other words: some day the world will thus come into possession of the culturally inferior but more active men.
Then, though in a perhaps very distant future, there will be but two possibilities either the world will be governed according to the ideas of our modern democracy, and then the weight of any decision will result in favor of the numerically stronger races, or the world will be dominated in accordance with the laws of the natural order of force, and then it is the peoples of brutal will who will conquer, and consequently once again not the nation of selfrestriction.
No one can doubt that this world will some day be exposed to the severest struggles for the existence of mankind. In the end, only the urge for self-preservation can conquer. Beneath it so called humanity, the expression of a mixture of stupidity, cowardice, and know-it-all conceit, will melt like snow in the March sun. Mankind has grown great in eternal struggle, and only in eternal peace does it perish.
Ch 4
I read it, and it was only the usual doubletalk about some people say that Behe is wrong, etc., etc. but it did not show any refutation of what he said. In other words, it was just some more inane blather.
AND, there is no such thing as proof in natural sciences,
Of course there is. That is why we have electric light bulbs, automobiles, televisions and space ships. They are living proof of scientific theory. Evolution cannot give proof for one simple reason: evolution is not science.
This statement isn't true. But you have a problem with science, facts, and truth. Don't you?
It must be terrible to live in the gore3000 world. Where scientific fact must be hidden, and if it comes to light, it must be rejected. Disproving evolution (which you haven't done) doesn't make the creation myth accurate. "Our Invisible Buddy who lives in the Sky" isn't awarding anyone brownie points for his/her posts.
Sad. Almost pathetic.
Of course there is. That is why we have electric light bulbs, automobiles, televisions and space ships. They are living proof of scientific theory. Evolution cannot give proof for one simple reason: evolution is not science.
I patiently await your proof of the theory of gravity.
I read it, and it was only the usual doubletalk about some people say that Behe is wrong, etc., etc. but it did not show any refutation of what he said. In other words, it was just some more inane blather.
I patiently await your refutation of the three journal articles I cited which are living contradictions of key predictions in Behe's book. Obviously, you haven't, in fact, read what you are defending, have you?
I patiently await your alternative explanation as to how oil companies search for oil.
As the letter I posted shows quite clearly, Darwin was a liar and a hypocrite about his religious views.
You can wait a long time. If you have proof - you post it here. I will not do your work for you. I post my proof right here where everyone can see it.
The truth of the matter is that you have no proof, you do not even have the names of the articles. You are a total phony who has completely lost the argument and are lying. If there were such articles and they had refutations, you would have given the refutations right here.
Evloutinists like evolution itself always say the proof is somewhere else. Like McCarthy they have the proof right in their hands - but will not tell it to anyone.
This statement isn't true.
Of course it is, that is why neither you nor any of your fellow evos is able to refute my statements and indulge yourselves in constant slimes and character assassination of your opponents. If you had a shred of proof none of you would have to lower yourselves to the level of slimy Clintonite to promote your views.
The proof is real easy, we used the theory of gravity to guide our men to the moon. That is proof, practical real proof, the kind evolution can never give.
The truth of the matter is that you have no proof, you do not even have the names of the articles. You are a total phony who has completely lost the argument and are lying. If there were such articles and they had refutations, you would have given the refutations right here.
Anyone can see, in post #100 above, that I, in fact, did give the titles of the articles, which are a direct and palpable refutation of several key predictions Behe made in his book, which, quite obviously, you also did not read. Persistently ignoring or misrepresenting what's said to you only serves you well for a while--eventually everyone catches on.
Now, lets take up your theory of light bulbs. I am aware of your spurious theory of light bulbs, BUT, yesterday, I screwed in a light bulb, and IT DID NOT LIGHT, and furthermore, that's happened to me more than once! So, you see, there are these irrecoverable light gaps in the theory of light bulbs, and no one will ever see the missing light. So much for your vaunted Edison, you fraud.
...
Try to learn the difference between a proof, and an inductive demonstration. A proof requires a formal domain of discourse, a set of theorems, and an hypothesis demonstrated in deductive steps on the theorems to reach the conclusion. An inductive demonstration, or a million inductive demonstrations, help improve your confidence, but they do not constitute a proof.
The proof is real easy, we used the theory of gravity to guide our men to the moon.
Which theory of gravity? How is that different from oil companies using evolutionary theory to locate probable oil fields?
Say, where are those quotes from US Supreme Court decisions
in which you CLAIM requires the teaching of evolution?
And while you're at it, where are the citations from biological science
journals stating that "ID" is an actual theory competing with the Theory of Evolution?
I've been patiently waiting for months.
You don't produce on your BS claims because you CAN'T.
The proof is real easy, we used the theory of gravity to guide our men to the moon. That is proof, practical real proof, the kind evolution can never give.
The failure of the classic theory of gravity to predict the perihelion of Mercury accurately is a devastating indictment of the theory of gravity. The calculations weren't wrong--they just failed--therefore, the theory of gravity is athiest trash.
The man hung out with atheists and knew darned well that his theory was an attack on religion.
He also hung out with the best the Anglican church had to offer. Does that make him a priest? Of course he knew a battle line would form around his theory. That is why he went out of his way to point out that his theory had no enlightenment to offer concerning the ultimate origin of life. The battle lines had already formed up for a century or more around what was then called "spontaneous generation"--and concerned itself only incidently about the question of whether God was responsible or not--and he wanted to distance his theory from that embroglio.
Also view the link by an evolutionist who says quite plainly that Darwin formulated the theory of evolution as an atheistic theory.
Oh piffle, I can say the moon is green cheese, but nobody will take me seriously until they taste a chunk. Somebody else has pushed a bunch of quotes from Darwin up above here, kindly point to one that suggests God couldn't have got the whole shebang rolling, according to Darwinian Evolutionary theory.
Also view his following of another atheist Malthus, the high praise he gives him and his crediting him for giving him the impetus to formulate the theory of evolution.
As the letter I posted shows quite clearly, Darwin was a liar and a hypocrite about his religious views.
WHO BLEEDIN' CARES?--what a bunch of irrelevant whining. The question was, does Darwinian evolutionary theory necessarily eliminate God from the picture, and, regardless of how much you want to badmouth Darwin, the answer is, obviously not--on the official word of Darwin, and, incidently, the Catholic Church, and common sense.
You can wait a long time. If you have proof - you post it here. I will not do your work for you. I post my proof right here where everyone can see it.
uh huh. If you posted your proof, than it should only take you a few seconds to point out to me what the domain of discourse is, and where the tabular list of lemmas that lead to the conclusion are.
You are a total phony who has completely lost the argument and are lying. If there were such articles and they had refutations, you would have given the refutations right here.
I already told you I wouldn't be posting the articles from scientific journals for your amusement. That you don't understand the nature of proof, and disdane the practices of modern scholarly & technical debate is no reflection on me. When you learn to belly up to the intellectual bar like a man instead of acting like a bullying three-year old going "oh, yea!" over and over, you might discover that people persistently treat what you have to say with a bit of respectful attention. It might be a refreshing experience.
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.