Over at the National Science Foundation, where your tax dollars go to promoting Darwin's religious theory, evolutionist Jim Secord asks the question "Where did Charles Darwin become convinced of the truth of evolution?" That's a good way of putting it because Darwin and evolutionists ever since have indeed been convinced that evolution is true. It is, as they like to say, a fact every bit as much as gravity is a fact. That's quite a claim. You would think they might say it is a fact as much as are Alexander the Great's conquests or some other historical record. That would still be a misrepresentation of the scientific evidence, but it would not be as blatant. The comparison with gravity is downright ludicrous, and precisely for this reason it is a tipoff that evolution is not the product of empirical science. Experimental measurements and hypothesis testing do not produce metaphysical certainty.As Secord explains, Darwin's observations led not to scientific conclusions but religious concerns:
The different varieties of tortoises and mockingbirds provided powerful evidence of the relations between the Galapagos fauna and that of nearby South America. In geographical space, as in geologic time, closely allied species emerged successively and in order, just as they did in the fossil record. These relations, which impressed Darwin throughout the voyage, suggested that species were not specially created.
Let's see now, where's that verse in Genesis about birds on islands being completely different than those on the nearest mainland? Oh well, in any case Darwin argued powerfully that special creation must be false. The evidence for evolution was weak at best, but it had to be true. Religion drives science and it matters.
It's interesting to see that false dichotomies as well as Darwin-of-the-gaps arguments are perfectly legit when employed by evolutionists.
ReplyDeleteBut then again, I think we know why, it's like Philip Johnson said, evolution or something close to it simply has to be true as a matter of logical deduction, once you have assumed metaphysical naturalism.
From here it's merely a matter of how you dress up the evidence, regardless if this evidence flies in the face of evolutionary expectation.
--Johan
So, how does special creation explain the fact that oceanic islands have (a) unique species, genera, and even larger groups, (b) they are typically most similar to the closest mainland, but (c) they are missing numerous groups that could survive fine on on those islands -- exactly those groups that would have trouble with a long oceanic water journey? What's *your* explanation, creationists? God couldn't carry very many things on his back when he was swimming out to those islands? Creationists, put up or shut up.
ReplyDeleteNickM is using good old "bite and switch" tactics, but at the same time he perfectly illustrates Cornelius' point. God couldn't do this or that, therefore Evolution is a fact. Using anti-thesis of non-scientific metaphysical proposition to build one's own science is...well, non-scientific.
ReplyDeleteNickM: "NickM is using good old "bite and switch" tactics, but at the same time he perfectly illustrates Cornelius' point. God couldn't do this or that, therefore Evolution is a fact. Using anti-thesis of non-scientific metaphysical proposition to build one's own science is...well, non-scientific."
ReplyDeleteOK, but if God exists (and we'll assume the Christian variety for a moment), isn't it reasonable to ask whether what we observe in nature is congruent with what we know about this God? (particularly when it appears most of what God has communicated seems more congruent with a creationist approach).
But even if we take God out of the equation altogether, and just look at the example of biogeography on its own, what are the possible explanations available that fit the observations? Evolution (natural selection etc) may indeed be the wrong answer, but at least for now, it seems to provide the best explanatory framework. How would ID explan biogeography?
Everybody here is fond of saying 'follow the evidence'. Let's take this example then of biogeography (i.e., observation of similar but distinct island species) - where does the evidence take us? ID? If so, how?
I, too, am interested in learning what Dr. Hunter's alternative hypothesis is, and how it explains the evidence at hand.
ReplyDeletevessnumber2: "I, too, am interested in learning what Dr. Hunter's alternative hypothesis is, and how it explains the evidence at hand."
ReplyDeleteMany have asked for this but so far CH has not been forthcoming. I suspect he believes his main ministry is really to tear down and cast doubt on evolution rather than offer anything new. I believe once he said that his hope is that mainstream scientists will eventually come up with new experimental programs, although without even a preliminary hypothesis it's hard to imagine where they would start.
I don't know what CH's goals are, but I could imagine that perhaps he sees his ministry as a valuable service to Christians who are inclined to accept evolution. In their case, it is only sufficient to cast doubt on evolution and let faith carry them the rest of the way. Most of them don't have a need for an alternative scientific hypothesis.
For scientists of course it is a different matter. I suppose if CH was to come out with a hypothesis, we could assume (since he is a member of the DI) that it would be based on ID. Of course we would have a problem with that right away, as ID in of itself does not provide nearly enough explanatory power for what we see around us (and even some ID proponents admit that ID would be complementary to evolution and would not replace it). But ID has nothing to say about when design occurred, how it occurred, why it occurred - and of course it is strictly verboten to ask who the designer might be. So when there is a new fossil found, typically all ID proponents can do is cast aspersions on evolutionists, but have nothing useful or positive to say how the find validates their own hypothesis.
I understand that there are so many exceptions to the pattern that Darwin claimed in the distribution of organisms that biogeography is rarely cited as evidence for evolution nowadays. It is mostly discussed when talking about the history of science.
ReplyDeleteCWest: I share in your hypothesis about Dr. Hunter's line of reasoning. I even have a testable prediction about how he will respond to my post, but unfortunately I can't share it here as it would surely change the outcome of the result.
ReplyDeleteHave I just tied in Intelligent Design with quantum theory?