Darwin didn’t discover evolution. He observed minor variations within species, assumed without any scientific evidence whatsoever that said variations could cross every taxonomic boundary, and further assumed without evidence that this had been going on for millions of years, and further assumed without a shred of evidence that this traced all the way back to a mythical first protocell. In other words, Darwinian evolution is a materialist religion, not science.
Of course. Evolution was invented by a guy named Murphy. We call it Murphy's Law. "Anything that can happen, will happen."
"He observed minor variations within species, assumed without any scientific evidence whatsoever that said variations could cross every taxonomic boundary,"
Minor variations are what drive evolution, just as consumer choice drives economics.
There are no taxonomic boundaries. They are simply convenient demarcations within a broad spectrum of variation.
"... and further assumed without evidence that this had been going on for millions of years,"
The evidence was his own observations, which you have already acknowledged, as well as his understanding of the geological processes of the Earth, which are clearly evident to any honest observer.
"... and further assumed without a shred of evidence that this traced all the way back to a mythical first protocell."
Darwin was not promoting any kind of mythology. He was simply offering an alternative explanation for the variation between life forms that is clearly observable. This alternative explanation is analogous to Copernicus' alternative explanation for planetary orbits, which simplified our conception so radically that it soon became obvious that this clear and simple explanation was the truth.
"In other words, Darwinian evolution is a materialist religion, not science."
In your words, it is. Do you find religion offensive?
If observation, hypothesis, and verified predictions are not science, what is?
Likewise, we use materialism to explain biology. If we waited for God to poof up living things out of nothing, we'd be waiting forever. He doesn't work that way.
The study of fossils predated Darwin. Darwin did hundreds of experiments.
Creation requires a combination of “Special Creation” of each creature combined with “Special Deliver” of each species around the world in the niche where it is found.
Darwin produced papers for the Royal Society showing how long plants could survive or seeds could germinate after immersion in sea water. (He had 7 bathtubs in his house, and several were devoted to this study at any point in time. Pity his poor butler.)
That combined with the mapped sea currents would predict the range where the plants could migrate. After the prediction, results from returning ships would find that Darwin had correctly predicted the range of another plant species.
Yep. That's about the size of it GGG! Astutely and most concisely noted. Thank you!
My own view is the theory has a suspicious premise and is incomplete at best. And yet it seems to be the core ideology of biology today. Which puts it very much at odds with findings emerging from complexity and information sciences, and biosemiotics. At the very least, it is helpless to explain them.
Still, many cling to the faith. For as Francis Bacon, the founder of the modern scientific method, observed [Novum Organum]:
The human understanding when it has once adopted an opinion (either as being the received opinion or as being agreeable to itself) draws all things else to support and agree with it. And though there be a greater number and weight of instances to be found on the other side, yet these it either neglects and despises, or else by some distinction sets aside and rejects; in order that by this great and pernicious predetermination the authority of its former convictions may remain inviolate.Bacon indicates this sort of thing is an example of an "Idol of the Tribe." An "idol" is a "false notion." Bacon's classification of this one as "of the Tribe" means that it is innate or inherent "in the very nature of the intellect," thus "in human nature itself, and in the tribe or race of men." The danger it poses to human understanding is its "false mirror" quality, which, according to Bacon, "receiv[es] rays irregularly, distorts and discolors the nature of things by mingling its own nature with it."
We may think we're "objective observers." But if we can't get around that idol, we aren't justified in thinking of ourselves as truly "objective."
Bacon suggests that the only cure for this universal human phenomenon is,
...let every student of nature take this as a rule — that whatever his mind seizes and dwells upon with particular satisfaction is to be held in suspicion, and that so much the more care is to be taken in dealing with such questions to keep the understanding even and clear.In sum, science ought to be about Nature, not partisanship.
“He observed minor variations within species”
You probably aren’t qualified to decide what is minor and what is not. I suggest Darwin probably was.
“assumed without any scientific evidence whatsoever”
You just said he “observed” - that would be scientific evidence at that time, and even now.
“that said variations could cross every taxonomic boundary”
“could” leaves the door open for more research, doesn’t it?
“and further assumed without evidence that this had been going on for millions of years”
That would be a reasonable assumption, based on observation - which qualifies as evidence, would it not?
“that this traced all the way back to a mythical first protocell.” It could have. Is this that big a stretch for a theoretical concept?
“In other words, Darwinian evolution is a materialist religion, not science.””
No, in other words, creation “science” is for folks who can’t separate science and religion, and lack faith and understanding of both.
You just described the development and extension of scientific data into a theory that was published for actual peer review and has survived, in concept, for 150 years.
It seems from the innumerable posts on creation “science” by you, that really, you object that science that follows a scientific process exists at all.