The Origin of Speciousness (Darwinism is an intrinsically atheistic theory. If...)

The American Prowler ^ | 11/18/2005 | George Neumayr

[goldstategop]

There's a difference between naturalism and atheism. The former are the workings of natural processes; the latter is a philosophy that says faith isn't necessary to understanding our place in the world. E.O Wilson has conflated the two. You can read the Origin as an endorsement of a non-theist view of life. No doubt a number of prominent scientists think the logic of Darwin's theory presupposes a world without God in it. The other way of looking at it is that the existence of natural processes cannot be sufficiently accounted for by blind chance or random mutation alone. So we're back to an Ultimate Cause for all things and where evolution falls short is that while it can admirably explain natural processes, it can't explain who or what is behind them.

(Denny Crane: "I Don't Want To Socialize With A Pinko Liberal Democrat Commie.Say What You Like About Republicans. We Stick To Our Convictions. Even When We Know We're Dead Wrong.")

[Ditto]

Frankly, I think this article is BS. Darwin, said nothing about the origin of life or the origin of matter, of which all life itself is built. Darwin only attempted to explain how environment influenced the evolution of life, not the creation of life and surely not the creation of the universe. That theory of natural selection neither supports nor rejects the existence of a God.

For anyone to take Darwin and translate that into "proof" that there is no God is nothing but supposition and not based on empirical evidence or any verifiable claim of science just as the belief in God can not be based on empirical evidence. There is no scientific evidence that proves either view.

What we have here is two opposing "faiths", one pro-God, and one anti-God, throwing rocks at each other with poor Mr. Darwin and the rest of us who can accept both God and evolution, stuck in the middle. It's nonsense.

[goldstategop]

Au contraire. The entire point of the theory of natural selection is Nature is far from perfectible. And very few creatures in each generation succeed in passing on their genes to the next. We've all observed that mutations in general are harmful, not beneficial, to an organism's chances of survival. Think of cancer in the human species. So given this rule, the number of mutations that advantage a species in some way are few and between. And Nature is pitiless in making sure that those species best adapted to taking advantage of their environment live to see their genes perpetuated in their offspring. Where Darwin up-ended conventional wisdom and where it burns like a universal acid through all our comfortable assumptions is precisely in his recognition that Nature plays no favorites and all of life is governed by natural laws that have operated for billions of years long before Man stepped foot on the planet. It is that simple and undorned truth that has demolished our claim to be singularly unique in our certainty the world is perfect. Far from it and its certainly much more understandable once we accept the way it actually works rather than the perfection we believed in for thousands of years. In short, the natural world has never been a paradise. Here is where Darwin was a revolutionary and that is why he is still regarded as controversial. You might not like seeing life as motivated by a ceaseless drive to live, to survive, to reproduce and to ensure the survival of the species but this is what happens around us in the drama of life on earth without our even being aware of it. After reading the Origin none of us can ever look at Nature in the same light again.

(Denny Crane: "I Don't Want To Socialize With A Pinko Liberal Democrat Commie.Say What You Like About Republicans. We Stick To Our Convictions. Even When We Know We're Dead Wrong.")

[itsahoot]

DID LIFE EVOLVE? DEFINING EVOLUTION
In recent weeks the debate over intelligent design has intensified. School districts all across the country are debating the question: should evolution be taught as a scientific fact? Some scientists and educators and parents say that the study of evolution is necessary for understanding many biological processes. Others argue that evolution is a humanistic belief system that has been promoted as science. Both statements could be considered correct, even if you believe Bible's account of creation, it all depends on what people mean by the term "evolution".

There are a number of different concepts that can be used when talking about evolution. Unfortunately, many people do not stop to define the terms they are using when getting into discussions on evolution and teaching "evolution" in the classroom. Because of this, educators and parents and students can easily misunderstand one another. Below are some general terms often involved in discussions about evolutionary theory. Sorting these out can help one keep definitions straight when discussing origins and the value of "evolutionary" education in the classroom.

Change over time: The most basic definition of evolution is simply "the process of change or development over a period of time". Hence, music, cultures, sports teams all "evolve". In biology, classes of animals and plants have experienced marked change over dozens or hundreds or thousands of years. At one time, beavers were as big as today's bears, and ancient ground sloths once grew to be the size of oxen. There were once little three-toed horses and large cats with monstrous saber-like fangs. Over time, groups of animals diversify, as shown by the fossil record and common observation. This definition is extremely broad, and says nothing about what caused the change or where the beavers or sloths came from in the first place.

Descent with Modification: This term that Darwin used basically means that living creatures have the ability to create offspring like themselves, but with the potential for variation. Today, descent with modification is explained through the field of genetics and studies involving DNA, the coding mechanism of life. Through the code of DNA, creatures can produce offspring like themselves, yet with room for variation. Brown-eyed parents who have recessive gene coding for blue eyes can produce blue-eyed children. Cats can give birth to kittens with a range of characteristics, all in one litter, depending on the specific DNA coding passed on to each kitten by its mother and its father.

Adaptation: Sometimes an offspring receives certain traits or characteristics from its parents that allow it to survive in certain situations better than in others. Large-beaked finches adapt better to eating hard, large seeds, because their beaks are strong enough to crush them. Finches with long, thin beaks adapt better to getting food out of hard-to-reach places.

Survival of the Fittest: This basic concept promoted by Darwin argues that those organisms that are best able to adapt to a particular environment will live to produce more offspring. For instance, when there is plenty of food, all the finches on an island can do well. However, during times of drought, only the finches with the strongest beaks will be able to eat the hardest seeds, enabling them to survive and reproduce. If other finches with longer, thinner beaks can get seeds from places the rest of the finches can't, these will survive and reproduce. The other finches that can't compete for the food supply will die out. Soon, the "specialized" finches are reproducing more "specialized" offspring like themselves, so that obvious variations start showing up between the different groups of finches.

Natural Selection: Adaptation and Survival of the Fittest work together to create success among certain groups of creatures with certain genetic variations. "Nature" selects which ones survive based on which ones are best adapted to their environment and best able to overcome the competition. Natural Selection includes both ecological selection (overcoming competition for food, safety, shelter) and sexual selection.

Genetic Drift: This refers to the way small populations of creatures end up reproducing and passing on their genetic information and becoming specialized even if they are not the best adapted to an environment. If all the competition got killed by a lightening storm or flood or avalanche, those left behind would continue to reproduce and survive, whether or not they were the best suited to survive otherwise.

Most of the above concepts can be seen regularly in nature and are largely beyond dispute. However, the following ideas start creating heavy debate:

Speciation: This term refers to the formation of new "species" over time, generally through the mechanisms of natural selection and survival of the fittest. When many people talk about "evolution", they often mean "speciation", arguing that through natural selection, entirely new species have been formed.

Whether this can be proven actually depends on the definition of the term "species" (there is still a great deal of arguing among scientists on this subject). Usually, a species is considered to be a group that does not reproduce with other groups. Finches may become so specialized that they no longer mate with other kinds of finches. These can be considered a new "species" of finch.

Yet, evolutionists often extrapolate to argue that through these processes thousands or millions of years ago, finches evolved from some more generic form of bird, which evolved from some more generic form of vertebrate. The line should be drawn at the DNA evidence. What does the DNA allow for? How much genetic variation was originally available in the DNA of the earliest finches, and how can we determine it? Natural Selection can only work with the DNA code already present, and cannot create new DNA coding that did not previously exist. The specialized finches are still finches, and are not turning into some other kind of bird.

Mutation: To deal with this obvious problem of DNA coding, some evolutionary scientists have argued that through small mutations, new information can be added to the genetic code.

However, there is much debate over this issue. Mutations are naturally destructive and cause damage, and evolutionary scientists have been hard pressed to find "beneficial mutations". On rare occasion, a mutation can help a creature survive when it would otherwise not be able to, but only because the mutation has caused a malfunction. For instance, children with sickle-cell anemia are more resistant to malaria, but this is because their red blood cells are not functioning properly, (and large numbers still die from the sickle-cell anemia). Many "super bugs" in hospitals are immune to antibiotics -because they are actually mutated, sickly bacteria and can't function properly to take in the antibiotics. When put in competition with normal bacteria outside of a hospital setting, these "super bugs" can die off quickly.

The General Theory of Evolution: This is the popular but controversial idea that all life on earth started in a primordial soup, and that all the variation of life on earth arose through gradual evolution by way of mutation, adaptation, and survival of the fittest.

This is where the heavy argumentation over "evolution" is often focused. The general theory that all life on earth evolved from primordial microbes is based on philosophical beliefs about the nature of nature, on models, on extrapolations, and on guesswork – because it deals with theories about things that cannot be directly observed or reproduced. The best scientists can do is create models and work to fit the observable evidence to their models. In this sense, evolutionary theory is absolutely a "work in progress".

While many concepts in "evolutionary" science are useful in understanding genetics and the variations between species, it is important to recognize where observation ends, and where extrapolation and theorizing begin. Those in the information sciences recognize the vital importance of focusing on information and the genetic code, and of determining where the DNA code originated in the first place. Without a mechanism for adding information to the genetic code, natural selection and adaptation can only produce more specialized finches or dogs or horses, but they cannot tell us how finch or dog or horse DNA was programmed in the first place.
Related Links:
• Who's really pushing 'bad science'? - Answers in Genesis>
• Definitions of "evolution" - SIU Department of Zoology
• Evolution and Creation Resources - Koinonia House
• Intelligent design evolving into hot issue - Indy Star
• 'Intelligent design' backers lose in Pennsylvania - USA Today

Reprinted from

K-House eNews For The Week Of November 15, 2005

[jennyp]

I just can't imagine not believing in God. Even if I didn't want to, I would have to. The evidence of a higher power seems overwhelming.

Oh, I've always wanted to believe. It's just that my mind kept butting in and blurting out, "now hold on just a darn minute!..." :-)

But I wish you well in your journey for the truth.

Thanks, and I you!

[HitmanLV]

Why is this a conservative issue?

[itsahoot]

If I were a Christian, I'd be very reluctant to say you can't be a Christian and believe in a theory as successful as evolution; because ultimately, if that is true, many people will decide they aren't Christians.

There in lies the rub, you can't know one with out the other.

[itsahoot]

by studying the rabit.

Did Rabit evolve into rabbit?<(•¿•)>

[js1138]

So is our existence, our very being, like living in California?

[wallcrawlr]

Not very Christian of you.

Looks ok to me...

[Right Wing Professor]

So is our existence, our very being, like living in California?

That's like a gnarly question, dude.

[BMCDA]

I was just referring to the contention that if you check into the Catholic Church, you can never leave.

But there's always excommunication ;)

[Para-Ord.45]

So if Darwin is the be-all end-all how did the first protien invent itself and then construct itself?

"It didn't. Next question."

Correct.It cannot.

[Right Wing Professor]

But there's always excommunication ;)

Actually, maybe I'll email our local bishop and apply for that.

[mlc9852]

That's really sad and I'm not even Catholic.

[Right Wing Professor]

That's really sad and I'm not even Catholic.

Cheer up. If our primitive lobefinned ancestor had swum in a different direction, we might be blind cave fish.

[mlc9852]

Or we might not exist at all.

[Right Wing Professor]

Or we might not exist at all.

Who said that?!

[GOPPachyderm]

I think you deliberately misunderstand the question.

[edsheppa]

...while Christianity is never going to be any different than it ever was.

Given historical experience, I consider that very unlikely.