Refuting Darwinism, point by point

WorldNetDaily,com ^ | 1-11-03 | Interview of James Perloff

[Dimensio]

Evolution is a materialist philosophy.

Evolution is a theory used to explain the current diversity of species on the planet. It is not a 'philosophy'. Any philosophy derived from a scientific theory is not a part of that scientific theory. You are a liar for claiming otherwise.

Show me that evolution allows for and/or welcomes divine intervention.

No theory in science welcomes divine intervention, because the divine is outside of the realm of science. Evolution does not, however, rule out the possibility of any divine intervention, and it cannot because divine intervention is outside of the realm of science.

Evolution theory does not claim that a divine agent did not create the first life forms, nor does it claim that a divine agent does not guide mutations. That you do not believe this to be the case does not rule out the possibility. All science is silent on the existence of the divine.

[Stultis]

In fact I can and do deny Perloff's implicit claim that evolution and creation are mutually exclusive

You can deny it, but you cannot back it up. However, I can back up his statements

Well then why in the $&*(@# don't you?! How absolutely typical that nothing you posted had a damned thing to do with the question of whether evolution and creation are mutually exclusive and mutually exhaustive possibilities. Why don't you try to defend that?

The rest we've gone over before. Once again the fact (which I was quite aware of, and have acknowledged all along) that Darwin eventually abandoned his belief in Christianity (which he still held, however, when he first forumlated his theory) is irrelevant. Being a non-Christian is NOT equivalent to being an "atheist".

I'm also quite aware of Darwin's circumspection regarding public airing of his religious beliefs. It is entirely YOUR eccentricity to deny Darwin any right of privacy or reserve in this matter, and therefore brand him as "dishonest." It is crystal clear who the "dishonest" party is here.

I will grant, as I always have, that part of the reason Darwin was reluctant (on most, but not all occassions) to air his more skeptical religious views was to protect his reputation as a gentlemen, but there were other reasons as well, including to protect others. I don't mean just his family (esp his wife and sisters who were devout) though that was part of it. In truth Darwin was a mild-mannered type who disliked controversy, and didn't want to gratuitously oppress the religious views of others.

There is also the fact that Darwin, though he had his opinions, did not consider them to be authoritative. He tended to consider questions of ultimate origin, of the relationship between God and the world, and the like, to be, in all probability, insoluble. He certainly did not believe that he had solved them. Why then should he make make public pronouncements on matters that he himself considered to be little better than a muddle? Here are some of his comments along this line (from an 1860 letter to the American botanist Asa Gray with whom he often discussed these issues). Emphasis added:

With respect to the theological view of the question. This is always painful to me. I am bewildered. I had no intention to write atheistically. But I own that I cannot see as plainly as others do, and as I should wish to do, evidence of design and beneficence on all sides of us. There seems to me too much misery in the world. [examples snipped] On the other hand, I cannot anyhow be contented to view this wonderful universe, and especially the nature of man, and to conclude that everything is the result of brute force. I am inclined to look at every thing as resulting from designed laws, with the details, whether good or bad, left to the working out of what we may call chance. Not that this notion at all satisfies me. I feel most deeply that the whole subject is too profound for the human intellect. A dog might as well speculate on the mind of Newton. Let each man hope and believe what he can. Certainly I agree with you that my views are not at all necessarily atheistical. The lightning kills a man, whether a good one or bad one, owing to the excessively complex action of natural laws. A child (who may turn out an idiot) is born by the action of even more complex laws, and I can see no reason why a man, or other animal, may not have been aboriginally produced by other laws, and that all these laws may have been expressly designed by an omniscient Creator, who foresaw every future event and consequence. But the more I think the more bewildered I become; as indeed I probably have shown by this letter.

(If you want to read the full letter, click here and search for "remittance of 22 pounds".)

On the other hand Darwin did express his religious skepticism on a number of occasions, while still making it clear that he did not seek or wish to convince others. Here is a passage from Life and Letters (by his son Francis) that quotes from some of his correspondence with those inquiring about his religious beliefs. The emphasis again is mine:

Again in 1879 he was applied to by a German student, in a similar manner. The letter was answered by a member of my father's family, who wrote:—

"Mr. Darwin begs me to say that he receives so many letters, that he cannot answer them all.

"He considers that the theory of Evolution is quite compatible with the belief in a God; but that you must remember that different persons have different definitions of what they mean by God."

This, however, did not satisfy the German youth, who again wrote to my father, and received from him the following reply:—

"I am much engaged, an old man, and out of health, and I cannot spare time to answer your questions fully,—nor indeed can they be answered. Science has nothing to do with Christ, except in so far as the habit of scientific research makes a man cautious in admitting evidence. For myself, I do not believe that there ever has been any revelation. As for a future life, every man must judge for himself between conflicting vague probabilities."

[Stultis]

As to Asa Gray and Dana, they were not even close to being major promoters of evolution.

[rolling eyes and reaching for aspirin]

[fabian]

Yes, of course. I also think some atheists have a belief of God inside that they just haven't realized yet.

[Dimensio]

I also think some atheists have a belief of God inside that they just haven't realized yet.

To which "God" do you refer? You need to be specific, because to an atheist there is no one 'god' that is more real than the thousands of others worshipped in human history.

[Stultis]

It doesn't really matter.

Of course it doesn't matter. If Darwin climbed to the bell tower of the local church every morning and preached atheism from a bullhorn, that wouldn't go one whit toward demonstrating that evolution was atheistic. But then you can't tell that to gore. That creature lives and breathes the genetic fallacy, and any number of others. I'm just trying to correct a few historical facts along the way.

Thanks though, as I did mean to make that point, but forgot.

[bondserv]

"If genes were rocks then you would be correct."

Creationists believe that the information in genes was put there. You seem to believe the wet rock struck by a lightning bolt put the information in the genes.hmmmm?

"If it is so impossible how is a single fertilized egg cell able to develop into a vastly more complex adult human?"

It is amazing how a single fertilized egg cell does contain all of the information to grow into an adult human. DNA!! Clearly placed there by GOD!! Not a spoiled rock. hmmm?

[fabian]

The God of creation, who put together all of the incredible complexities of life. Someone had to design it all. I mean if you look at say a watch, which is alot simpler than our bodies, you know someone had to make it.

[rmmcdaniell]

You seem to believe the wet rock struck by a lightning bolt put the information in the genes.hmmmm?

Can you please point to the part of my post that said that? No you can't. This is a complete lie and I will ignore any further moronic drivel coming from you.

[PatrickHenry]

I mean if you look at say a watch, which is alot simpler than our bodies, you know someone had to make it.

Cool argument. Never heard it before. But I know what you mean. When I contemplate the human digestive system, from esophagus to colon, yeah, wow, I get all shaky with the wonder of it all. What a design! Neato!

[Aric2000]

OHH, you must have cleaned his clock royally, he is really PISSED at you!!

[bondserv]

Most science text books, which you clearly cited as your resource material, explain that evolution began with energy and elements combining to form proteins. I was merely taking your reference to rocks in your post to represent the elements described in the science textbooks. A lightning bolt representing the energy.

So I feel comfortable that you are correct that you did not say wet rocks and lightning bolts, but I have seen it described this way in science books, so I was indirectly referring to your post in a sense.

Sorry for the mishap. I do sincerly hope that you will continue to respond to my posts.

[Aric2000]

Do what we do, ignore the Blueman, his strawmen are continually brought up again and again. His statements are the same wheever he goes. He has a little talking point book and then changes them a little to fit the context.

Same old, same old.

[Aric2000]

Oh come now G3K, have you no imagination at all?

I find that question rather easy to answer.

Those that lay eggs, have a hard time making sure that they reproduce, therefore they produce lots of them, 2-150 at a time, why? because they have to leave them in order to forage.

Those that were able to KEEP the egg with them were more likely to survive, therefore, you evolve the position of keeping the egg in the body, this keeps it warm until it is ready to hatch etc, it's in the body, well it no longer needs a shell to protect, the mothers body now protects it, so those that continued to evolve lost the shell, but kept the amniotic sack, well, the egg no longer needs the white of the egg any more because a form of nurishment is already there, so a way to get that nourishment evolves, you get the placenta, to take those nutirients directly from the mother bloodstream and transfer them to the babies bloodstream, therefore keeping it alive.

From the egg to the internal through evolution, yet they are able to continue to reproduce until it has slowly evolved into what it is today. Problem is, that when you gestate internally, the baby is born small, and must be helped far longer then a bird or other egg layer, so what you have gained in survival, you have lost a bit in the fact that you must now invest a greater amount of time in the baby in order to get it to adult hood.

Imagination is all you need G3K, and it is obvious that you don't have any.

[Aric2000]

RA!! How are you? seen anything exciting and new out in the cosmos?

Good to see you!!

[Doctor Stochastic]

The Asa Gray Link doesn't support your claims.

[garbanzo]

The problem is that it is never the truth - same old misinterpretations of basic science, same refusal to listen to people who know what they are talking about, etc. How many more times do I have listen to people botch thermodynamics or information theory?

[Condorman]

gore3000: It is also interesting that aside from insults, you and your friends have nothing to say to show that evolution is not atheistic.

Makes an interesting juxtaposition, does it not, with this post over here? It causes one to wonder just how many standards we should expect to see enforced...

[Dominic Harr]

• Science changes the theories to fit with the evidence.

• Creationism changes the evidence to fit with the theory.

[Aric2000]

Yes, isn't that interesting........

But not at all surprising...