It's more likely the younger scientists will be the doubters if Kuhn's 'Structures of Scientific Revolutions' has any validity.
Posted on 06/27/2006 5:06:32 AM PDT by 7thson
Ann Coulter states in her book on page 201 -
Darwin’s theory of evolution says life on Earth began with single-celled life forms, which evolved into multicelled life forms, which over countless aeons evolved into higher life forms, including man, all as the result of the chance process of random mutation followed by natural selection, without guidance or assistance from any intelligent entity like God of the Department of Agriculture. Which is to say, evolution I the eminently plausible theory that the human eye, the complete works of Shakespeare, and Ronal Reagan (among other things) all came into existence purely be accident.
On page 202, she states The “theory” of evolution is:
1. Random mutation of desirable attributes (highly implausible)
2. Natural selection weeding out the “less fit” animals (pointless tautology)
3. Leading to the creation of new species (no evidence after 150 years of looking)
My question – is she correct in her statements? Is that Darwin’s theory?
On the ligher side, check out the first paragraph on page 212. LOL Funny!
Not a good application of OR.
By definition, a Creator is more complex than his Creation. God is not less complex than the universe.
Darwin's original theory made no attempt to explain how life first originated. It addressed only the changes over time in that life, resulting in new species.
I hate to say it, but Ann is starting to remind me of Jim Carville.
It's more likely the younger scientists will be the doubters if Kuhn's 'Structures of Scientific Revolutions' has any validity.
Where the heck did you get that? What you're saying is that humans will never build a computer which is smarter (more complex) than a human. Artificial Intelligence is impossible -- by definition.
I don't believe that.
My original point was that, as a Christian, I need to believe 1 thing: God created Man. Evolutionists need to believe trillions of things happened over billions of years and all these random changes resulted in the world we see today. I find that hard to believe -- my faith isn't strong enough to support that belief.
And I agree. I was attempting - in my feeble manner - to point this out to Strategerist, who brought it up. According to his statement, no one on FR can comment on evolution unless they have looked at the fossil record.
Have you read her book?
What scientific facts did she get wrong? Other than evolution.
What does Darwins theory state?
Yes, she is. I was hoping more people would talk about page 212 as well as her take on evolution.
She's using the non-scientists typical description.
She's wrong that there's no evidence of speciation in the last 150 years.
I got the book for Father's Day and haven't had a chance to read it yet. Ann usually documents her sources very meticulously, so I'm looking forward to seeing who she used for references for this part of the book.
I think the overall point of her book is well taken, but she took a big hit among folks literate in the sciences for her description of evolution and her understanding of it.
Setting up one side or the other of a particular religious belief as a litmus test for politics serves no useful purpose whatsoever.
You are correct. But is it random at the macro level as well?
I believe it is. And this gets to an idea I find fascinating. Is the universe determinate or indeterminate? If it's indeterminate how do non random processes evolve from a indeterminate universe? This has profound philosophical/theological as well as scientific implications. IMO.
.."God does not play dice with the universe"
"Darwin's original theory made no attempt to explain how life first originated. It addressed only the changes over time in that life, resulting in new species."
You write as though Darwin and his original theory are two separate entities. Now if Darwin claimed there to be a primordial "warm pond" beginning then your claim that he did not address origination is not accurate.
Stars, planets and galaxies evolve, of course, but the word is used in a completely different sense. The Darwinian theory, which the original poster referenced, is limited strictly to biological processes.
I've never read the book so I don't know if he limited the scope to that. But the scope of the concept of evolution is much broader than biological evolution. Have you ever heard Carl Sagan? The theory encompasses everything from the big bang to man.
I may not be stating my main point well.
The Law of Gravity states that a human body cannot walk on water. However, it does not say that a localized, temporary exception to this law has never occurred. Thus a Christian who believes in the Law of Gravity is still perfectly free to believe that Jesus walked on water. He did not violate the Law of Gravity, he made an exception to it.
Similarly the Theory of Evolution attempts to describe how species change and evolve into other species. It cannot say that there has never been "interference" in this process, by "gods," advanced lifeforms or other entities.
This is where you are wrong. Evolution is about natural processes. Back to gravity, the law of gravity says if you slip out of a tree you will fall. The theory of evolution attempts to combine natural laws into a proof that evolution happens without interference.
All science can do is say that it finds no evidence of such interference, and that such interference is not necessary to explain the facts around us.
I believe you are closer here. Yes science is only examining natural laws and trying to conclude what nature, apart from any supernatural interference, can do.
In my opinion, which is generally not popular with either side, God can use the process of evolution to accomplish his Creation while at the same time guiding or making exceptions to the natural processes as He sees fit.
That's fine but that's not what evolution is about. That is your personal hybrid. When you see the word natural in your reading about evolution, that is a key word. It means the laws of nature do this without any outside help.
Really? Ever heard of the water cycle. It has fancier names, ofcourse, but it is that thingie where it rains, then the water flows into rivers, then the rivers flow into the ocean, then the sun shines on the ocean and evaporates the water which form clouds, which causes rain. It's not a single law but a series of laws that form a......process.
Maybe you should.
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.