Charles Darwin Knew: Science and Freedom

BreakPoint with Charles Colson | 1 Mar 04 | Charles Colson

[C.J.W.]

I've never been here before. I thought it was a conservative forum. If even conservatives believe in something like evolutionism then it is little wonder that homosexuality is such an issue in Americana. Evolutionism is merely the modern version of the breaking down of distinctions which runs throughout human history. Many ancient pagans used to make their gods half human and half beast.

But before going on a tangent to the disagreement, then what is your summary of the Tree Down Theory or the other explanations proferred to explain differences between kingdoms? You didn't back up your assertion by demonstrating any inaccuracy.

Perhaps you can explain sexual dimorphism as well and break down the categories of male and female? If you can do that then the natural law type of categorical discriminations that make up marriage can be broken down. And if you can also break down the distinction between human and animal then perhaps other natural law categorical discriminations can be broken down. These outcomes are not really the issue but I believe concern about these normative outcomes is what motivates people in descriptive debate.

[C.J.W.]

Other animals.

[C.J.W.]

"Oh yeah! Stephen Gould and Niles Eldredge really knew how to party!"

It's interesting that you associate animality with being ruled by feelings or passions. If you think that's not what is going on in Americana today you're incorrect.

As far as the scientists who willfully bend their intellect to support an ideology of sequence in the face of the typology of Nature, they are only living off the intellectual capital established by others. You can only continue so long sans a rationale for rationality and remain any pretense of rationality. E.g. the Nazi scientists who adhered pseudo-science based on philosophic naturalism.

[longshadow]

"Festival of the Undead Tractionless Trolls" placemarker

[general_re]

I've never been here before.

Ah. Perhaps.

I thought it was a conservative forum.

It is, but using yourself as a yardstick to measure conservatism (or just about anything else) is a sure-fire route to disappointment.

If even conservatives believe in something like evolutionism then it is little wonder that homosexuality is such an issue in Americana.

Err, well, there's your non-sequitur quota for the day.

But before going on a tangent to the disagreement, then what is your summary of the Tree Down Theory...

Sorry, I don't know the "Tree Down Theory" - as I suspect it's something you've invented, I think I'll probably do a poor job of summarizing it, let alone "defending" it.

... or the other explanations proferred to explain differences between kingdoms?

Such as?

You didn't back up your assertion by demonstrating any inaccuracy.

What would you prefer I do to "demonstrate" any inaccuracy? I can recommend some introductory texts on the theory of evolution, if you like.

Perhaps you can explain sexual dimorphism as well and break down the categories of male and female?

Explain in what sense? Why dimorphism exists?

These outcomes are not really the issue but I believe concern about these normative outcomes is what motivates people in descriptive debate.

Well, there's the problem, isn't it? People insist on attaching normative arguments to a descriptive theory. "Should" doesn't enter into the realm of evolutionary theory, any more that it does in any other scientific endeavor - the theory concerns itself with what is and was, not what should be. By way of analogy, the laws of physics tell you what will happen if you throw a baby out of a window, but those same laws are entirely silent on the matter of whether throwing babies out of windows is a good thing or a bad thing - for that, we must look elsewhere.

[PatrickHenry]

I've never been here before. I thought it was a conservative forum. If even conservatives believe in something like evolutionism then it is little wonder that homosexuality is such an issue in Americana.

Well, stranger, you certainly know how to jump in here and incite a full-blown flame-war. I strongly suggest that even if you think the advocates of evolution are queer, you ought to keep that to yourself. If you persist in posting that accusation, things will degenerate swiftly; and if experience is any guide, your career around here will be brief. So please try to get yourself under control. Debate verifiable facts all day, but cut out the silly stuff.

[steve-b]

Anything which is true is presentable in a form that anyone can understand.

Nonsense. To take the most obvious example, nobody understands quantum mechanics (some people with advanced mathematical training can manipulate the equations to produce results that can be verified, or not, by experiment, but that is not at all the same thing).

As your entire argument rests upon this false premise, it falls.

The notion that all life and ecological systems, including plant life and insects, started and the process guided by dice throws is what I consider an extraordinary claim.

Your willful ignorance certainly does not help matters. The fact that evolution is driven by natural selection, not mere random chance, is one of the points of science that is simple enough to be understood by anyone possessing enough intelligence to be allowed out without a keeper and enough honesty to be allowed out without a parole officer.

[steve-b]

So, you still believe that astronomy, being incapable of experimental testing, is not a science.

(A period, not a question mark. You have left yourself no wiggle room to deny it.)

[steve-b]

Observations are very valid forums of supporting evidence - all I am saying is observation does not equal experimentation.

If you aren't claiming, at least implicitly, that only the latter can provide definitive support for a theory, there is no reason other than water-muddying to bring up the distinction at all.

[steve-b]

This stems from the statement: show us a repeatable experiment that support evolution between species.

This statement is clearly irrelevant without the implicit assertion that only a "repeatable experiment" is an acceptable form of evidence for a scientific theory. That assertion has been cut to ribbons. Ergo, this statement is irrelevant. QED

[steve-b]

It certainly sounds like a potential example of natural selection.

[steve-b]

I thought (and the definitions state) a component of experimentation is repeatability - observing the same thing by looking at it twice does not seem to fulfill the repeatability requirement.

It most certainly does. If Galileo had claimed to see mountains on the moon, but nobody else looking through a telescope saw them, the repeatability criterion would not have been met. Ask the ghost of Perceval Lowell what that does to your credibility....

[steve-b]

If even conservatives believe in something like evolutionism then it is little wonder that homosexuality is such an issue in Americana.

American Non-Sequitur Society: We Don't Make Sense, But We Do Like Pizza.

[js1138]

Hello, ghost of Cash.

[William Terrell]

An assertion that all life and ecological system were started and are maintained in their processes by blind chance requires positive proof and plenty of it. Theorizing that the absence of proof to the contrary proves its opposite does not get it done.

[William Terrell]

Quantum mechanics can be explained in words of one syllable, however, it actual computation can't. But it does not have to. Showing a non-mathmatician the value, truth and effect of quantum mechanics doesn't need the actual computations.

Neither does the progression from one species to another need the actual computations, only the evidence that one led to another.

Nontechnical articles that explain the process of a system to a nontechnical person abound and do a very good job. Hiding in technicalese has always been a method of covering up shoddy science.

A lot of highly technical people in sciences such as biology and other relevant sciences are totally against the notion of intra-species evolution, and they can read and understand the technicalese, and see its flaws. Not only see its flaws, but point them out to a layman so he can understand them.

Natural selection. The process of natural selection is claimed to have started by blind chance. Read you own evolution gurus. If it did not start by blind chance, it being a organized stricture that governs an orderly process, then it must have been created by some intelligent source. If the latter, your premise fails.

Let me say again, both evolution and creation, as these concepts are taught, fail equally. I don't subscribe to either one.

[Elsie]

 

 

The very same 'small gene pool' that "E" types claim has started each and every change in the line, that we find in today's 'modern' animals.

Where did you get that incorrect idea from?

 

From 'E's..................

 

"..a change has occurred that enhances an organisms offspring's surviability"

 

This is, by definition, a 'small gene pool'.

[Elsie]

And no, habitat destruction is not "proof" of survival of the fittest.

Sure it is........

---

Are you unsure what "environmental pressures" force an organism to change?

[steve-b]

The process of natural selection is claimed to have started by blind chance.

No, it isn't, and to repeat this assertion is as dishonest as referring to the "Bush Recession" after being informed that the economy started heading south in mid-2000.

[Elsie]

It's an extremely elegant solution.

I'll have to agree.....

It's on the order of the bombadier beetle some folks are talking about here.....