Hegelian Dialectic and Darwinism

[JohnR7]

How CAN you call something Creation SCIENCE if it doesnt involve experimentation?

You can't, in order to be creation science then it has to be based on science. If it is not based on scientific evidence then you would call it something else.

Of course that is a oxymoron for the people who do not believe there is any scientific evidence for creation. But that is because they have a mistaken concept of the vast amount of science that backs up and supports scripture.

Francis Collins in his book "The Language of God" says (it is) possible for the scientist-believer to be intellectually fulfilled and spiritually alive, both worshiping God and using the tools of science to uncover some of the awesome mysteries of His creation.

 

[mark kennedy]

According to Karl Marx, Charles Darwin posited the Hegelian Dialectic in his book The Origin of Species. In natural selection, Marx saw the Hegelian Dialectic manifested in the following manner:

Species (Thesis) interacting with their environment (Antithesis) create new species (Synthesis).

To show his appreciation to Darwin for positing Hegels Dialectic, Marx dedicated his book Das Kapital to Darwin. Darwin, who never intended to posit Hegels Dialectic, wasn't enthused with the compliment and distanced himself from Marx.

"All nature, from the smallest thing to the biggest, from a grain of sand to the sun, from the protista to man, is in a constant state of coming into being and going out of being, in a constant flux, in a ceaseless state of movement and change." --Friedrich Engels, Dialectics of Nature.

I have known all along that Darwinism was focused on a philosophy of history, not biology. I started a thread in the C&E forum asking people for the evidence that convinced them of apes and humans having a common ancestry. Over 50 chose Multiple disciples while only one person chose biology and genetics. Evolution as it is argued on these boards has absolutly nothing to do with the life sciences, it is all about a philosophy of history.

Look at the quote, particularly the bolded section. Then look at my signiture, notice what Mendel, the father of modern genetics concluded about 'continuous evolution, complete transformation and limits beyond which they cannot change'.

A dialectic is supposed to be a synthesis of two conflicting ideals or principles but it's not. It subverts the meaning of both by redefining them. The long established meaning of the words are usurped but a subtle twist of semantics giving the illusion that the dialectician and the listener are on the same page. Darwin's arguement was not for or against evolution, he hardly ever even mentions it. Darwin's On the Origin of Species is one long argument against immutablity, particularly that of God working in creation.

Grace and peace,
Mark

 

[LightHorseman]

But that is because they have a mistaken concept of the vast amount of science that backs up and supports scripture.

Aside from the moved mountain at Hong Kong airport... I'm still interested to see any of this science that supports scriptural miracles... especially OT ones

 

[mark kennedy]

Aside from the moved mountain at Hong Kong airport... I'm still interested to see any of this science that supports scriptural miracles... especially OT ones

Are you aware that theology was considered the queen of the sciences for over a thousand years. This continued throughout the renaissance, which was the rebirth of classical learning. One of the elements of a classical education has allways been theology. It is a science but God as an explanation for anything has been rejected a priori in naturalistic philosophy. It is the redifintion based on a biased worldview that is at the heart of the issue.

 

[gluadys]

Are you aware that theology was considered the queen of the sciences for over a thousand years.

And are you aware that during that time the word "science" had a much broader application than it does today. In those times "science" simply meant "knowledge" of any sort. Alchemy and astrology were also included as "science" then.

Today the term "science" is restricted to the sub-set of knowledge acquired via the scientific method and does not include any sort of metaphysical knowledge.

One of the basic features of language is that words change their meaning over time.