How we found out evolution is true: John van Wyhe at TEDxNTU

[Guy Threepwood]

No, that is not the whole point of Darwin's ToE.

The whole point was to explain the observed phenomena, just as others like Lamarck and Wallace were attempting to do. None of them were motivated by eliminating the gods.

It used to be thought that angels pushed the planets around. The whole point of the theory of gravity was not to kill them.

The point of the theory was that it was unguided, naturalistic, did not require Divine intervention. Whether or not Darwin was personally motivated to remove God is a little beside the point though there is certainly some evidence of that also.

 

[Mountainmike]

I do know I have lived in the most magical period that world has ever known but that is now coming to an end. Personally I don't have much to complaint about, but I feel badly for those who have not been so lucky. I do try to be selfless and contribute what I able to do .

On all that we agree. Bravo you!

I just urge you to be as cynical with those who proclaim truth in science as those who proclaim truth in religion.

As Lennox said:
“What this all goes to show is that nonsense remains nonsense, even when talked by world-famous scientists. What serves to obscure the illogicality of such statements is the fact that they are made by scientists; and the general public, not surprisingly, assumes that they are statements of science and takes them on authority

And Feynman said
“ If you thought that science was certain - well, that is just an error on your part.”

 

[essentialsaltes]

The point of the theory was that it was unguided, naturalistic, did not require Divine intervention.

What do you base this on?

On the Origin of Species makes a number of references to special creation, but generally in the context of demonstrating why that hypothesis is inferior based on the facts. It doesn't touch at all upon 'guidance' or 'divine intervention'.

 

[Guy Threepwood]

What do you base this on?

On the Origin of Species makes a number of references to special creation, but generally in the context of demonstrating why that hypothesis is inferior based on the facts. It doesn't touch at all upon 'guidance' or 'divine intervention'.

On the Origin of Species - Wikipedia
Darwin considered human evolution as part of the natural processes he was investigating,[183] and rejected divine intervention

 

[essentialsaltes]

On the Origin of Species - Wikipedia
Darwin considered human evolution as part of the natural processes he was investigating,[183] and rejected divine intervention

But that is not the point of developing evolutionary theory. Astronomers reject divine intervention in the motion of the solar system. That is not "the point" of celestial mechanics. Paraphrasing Laplace, divine intervention is entirely beside the point.

 

[Estrid]

You get one point for phlebotomy. Why not more than one point. Phlebotom was not based on a consilience of multiple unrelated scientific fields.

The endosymbiotic theory explains how eukaryotic cells evolved

Isn't it strange that those who are dismissing evolution as impossible never provide any scientific evidence to support their beliefs.

The scientific method is open to scientists and non-scientists alike. Discovery Institute, AIG and others raise millions of dollars supporting anti-Darwin activities. Can you point us to any science research they have published?
Thanks for the example of how science is self-correcting. Study reveals culprit behind Piltdown Man, one of science's most famous hoaxes
Perhaps you can come up with something better.

Just as an aside: ALL professions, even religious ones, have their share of bad actors.

It's strange that anti -evolution people never seem to
understand that one needs facts to disprove a theory,
and that they don't have any.
It would be extremely strange that no such facts could
be found it ToE were false.
With God, the angels, the Bible and all of reality on
the side of creationism, why isn't even one fact to be
found?
The Conspiracy?

 

[Estrid]

But that is not the point of developing evolutionary theory. Astronomers reject divine intervention in the motion of the solar system. That is not "the point" of celestial mechanics. Paraphrasing Laplace, divine intervention is entirely beside the point.

Astronomy, such as it has been in different cultures
and times, was all about divine intervention.
Failure to detect the divine in the "heavens" !

The outrage at sunspots and elliptical orbits!

 

[Astrophile]

Does unconformity show that the earth is unimaginably old… or that there was (at some time) an unimaginable and colossal amount of upheaval as described in Genesis??? It appears Darwin may very well have put more thought into whether or not he should marry than he did the likelihood of creation.

Unconformities show that the Earth is unbelievably old. As John van Wyhe explains in the video, from his research in the Paris Basin Cuvier (who was not an evolutionist) concluded that there was not a single cataclysm but a series of extinctions and re-creations with long intervals of time between them. So far as I know, Cuvier thought that Noah's flood was merely the most recent in the series of cataclysms and extinctions.

 

[Astrophile]

Darwin was a 19th century biologist if you want to know about how science arrives at the age of the earth, a modern physicist like Sean Carroll would be a better person to quiz. If you want a theological assessment, take your pick from the many religions in the world.

G. Brent Dalrymple, in his books The Age of the Earth (1991) and Ancient Earth, Ancient Skies (2004), gives a detailed explanation of how geologists have measured the age of the Earth and established the geological time-scale.

 

[Hans Blaster]

The scientific community also accepted steady state when the vast majority of the world never did. That said a lot more about the ideology in academia than weight of scientific evidence.

I assume you mean (the off topic subject of) cosmology and are talking of the steady state model of the Universe.

What were they all then: Big Bangers?

 

[Astrophile]

The point of the theory was that it was unguided, naturalistic, did not require Divine intervention. Whether or not Darwin was personally motivated to remove God is a little beside the point though there is certainly some evidence of that also.

In the 'Historical Sketch' at the beginning of The Origin of Species, Darwin says 'Lamarck [1744-1829] was the first man whose conclusions on the subject [of evolution] excited much attention. ... He first did the eminent service of arousing attention to the probability of all change in the organic, as well as the inorganic world, being the result of law, and not of miraculous interposition.'

Lamarck's achievement appears to have paralleled that of Pierre Simon Laplace (1749-1827), the author of Mécanique céleste and the first person who succeeded in explaining the movements of the planets without needing the hypothesis of God. It puzzles me that some people are willing to swallow the camel of an unguided naturalistic theory of celestial mechanics and of stellar and galactic dynamics but then strain at the gnat of a similar theory of the organic world.

 

[Astrophile]

The scientific community also accepted steady state when the vast majority of the world never did. That said a lot more about the ideology in academia than weight of scientific evidence.

I may be wrong (it is a long time ago), but when I was learning astronomy in the early 1960s, I got the impression that on the whole the scientific community favoured the Big Bang cosmology of Georges Lemaître and George Gamow, and that the Steady State cosmology of Hoyle, Bondi and Gold had the support of only a minority of astronomers. I suspect also that in 1960 less than one in a thousand of the world's population could have given a coherent explanation of the scientific evidence in favour of or against either the Big Bang or the Steady State.

Both theories were published in 1948, and the debate lasted for 17 years (to 1965), when the discovery of the cosmic microwave background provided compelling evidence in support of the Big Bang.