Is Evolution Science?

[mark kennedy]

What are the alternatives to evolution, what would falsify it?​

]

I recently posted this to the creation\evolution forum but was curious what kind of a response I might get in here. Now, understand, I am a strict YEC creationist I just thought I would share my thoughts with anyone who might be interested in evolution as a tool in the hand of the creationist...any takers?

Science is simply a word that means experiential knowledge. In the 17th century they began to make a distinction between natural science and theology and Francis Bacon called them sister sciences. For decades the tools (mental and physical) were developed and natural science began to explore the natural world on an inductive (particulars to princliples) basis. When Sir Issac Newton did a series of experiments at the Royal Society in London on the refraction of light there was one crucial demonstration that he had to perform in order for his experiment to corrospond with the hypothesis. This is know as the experimentum crucis and with this succesfull demonstration modern science as we know it was born.What you have to understand is that when a hypothesis is tested there is a crucial point of demonstration, if the result is positive then the hypothesis becomes a theory.

Lets look at evolution now, it is defined in the modern synthesis as the change in gene frequencies over time. This is the definition that you will find in virtually any biology textbook on the subject of evolutionary biology. Ernst Mayr, who was the first to use this defintion, had this to say about the philosophical underpinnings of modern biology and he credited Charles Darwin with its development:

"Darwin founded a new branch of life science, evolutionary biology.

1.The first is the non-constancy of species, or the modern conception of evolution itself.

2.The second is the notion of branching evolution, implying the common descent of all species of living things on earth from a single unique origin.

3.Darwin further noted that evolution must be gradual, with no major breaks or discontinuities.

4.Finally, he reasoned that the mechanism of evolution was natural selection.

Its nature is simplicity itself. It is not a force like the forces described in the laws of physics; its mechanism is simply the elimination of inferior individuals. This process of nonrandom elimination..."survival of the fittest."

(Darwin's Influence on Modern Thought,by Ernst Mayr)

Now what you have to understand here is that this is not a theory, its a synthesis. A synthesis is a philosophical reconciliation between two seemingly contradictory points of view. What you have in the modern synthesis are two seemingly antithetical theories (some would say philosophies) that are at odds with one another. The one is Darwin's natural selection and the other is genetics. In the modern synthesis what you have is a conception (natural selection) merged with the demonstrated empirical science of genetics. The foundational laws of science were developed by Mendel.

This is called the subjective/objective duality of science and you have to discern between the naturalistic materialism of Darwin (subjective) and the empirical demonstrations of Mendel (objective).

I'm going to see what kind of responses I get before I elaborte on the implications of the modern synthesis for creationism.

 

[InigoMontoya]

I'm quite anxious to hear what your thoughts

 

[Micaiah]

1. Do you believe God used evolution to create animals.
2. Do you believe God created our universe in six literal days.
3. Do you believe the definition above correctly defines what the evolutionist means by evolution.

In spite of your intitial comments, I am wary of your beliefs. If you are not a Creationist, you shouldn't be promoting evolution on this forum.

Apologies if I have misunderstood your intent here.

 

[Eric_C]

"Is Evolution Science?"

No. It is an unbelief of the truth system adorned in scientific garb.

"What would falsify it?"

Scientifically? Nothing. Any scientific evidence that is presented against it can be, by unbelief of the truth, disbelieved.

Every bit of evidence that I've seen in support of evolution requires interpretation of scientific data, which is subjective to ones own premises. There is not one piece of evidence-data that empirically states evolution. It is only arrived at by an accumulation of limited data under the premise of evolution. Any data that is contrary to the accepted established paradigm is treated as anomalous and or due to some error-(something vigorously and regularly denied)-but who will accept that they're in the dark when they're convinced that they're in the light?.

What is surprising to me about the TEs is that they identify or define their Christanity in being an evolutionist and all of the interpretational gymnastics (unbelief) they must perform with the Scriptures to do so. But the faith of Christ has nothing to do with belief in evolution, accepting evolution as fact has to do with unbelief.

Peace in Christ Jesus

Eric

 

[SIXDAYCREATIONIST]

evolution is built on faith in the uniformity of natural laws. it assumes that the way we observe things today is the way things have occurred throughout history. not only is this false, but many scientists have shown why this is empircally wrong. this is why there is now punctuated equilibrium.

 

[mark kennedy]

1. Do you believe God used evolution to create animals.

No, God created the animals in an instant, they were fully formed and evolution is the changes that have happened since.

2. Do you believe God created our universe in six literal days.

Yes, in fact I don't think it took all day.

3. Do you believe the definition above correctly defines what the evolutionist means by evolution.

No, it just all that they are able to demonstrate. The only reason they are capable of demonstrating that much is due to the work of a creationist, Gregory Mendel.

In spite of your intitial comments, I am wary of your beliefs. If you are not a Creationist, you shouldn't be promoting evolution on this forum.

Apologies if I have misunderstood your intent here.

No apology nessacary, I understand that this forum is for creationists and you do well to question the motives of posters on here. I just came from the formal debate forum where I am ingaged in debating a miltiant evolutionist. If you have any doubts about where I stand on this issue you can check out my arguements there.

I hope that answers your questions.

Grace and peace,
Mark

 

[mark kennedy]

"Darwin founded a new branch of life science, evolutionary biology.

Not exactly, I post this for you're edification and general understanding of the nature of evolution as it is taught and believed among modern Darwinians.

"On the Origin of Species was published on November 24, 1859. The word "evolution "barely appears in it. Many scientists by 1859 were evolutionists-that is, they believed that species had not been created once and for all, but had changed over time. The French naturalist Jean-Baptiste Lamarck had advanced his theory of progressive adaptation in Philosophie Zoologique in 1809; the English philosopher Herbert Spencer had published his evolutionary thory of mind and behavior. Principles of Psychology, in 1855. Darwin's book decisively tipped the balance of educated opinion to evoltionism; but even after 1859, more nineteenth-century evolutionists were (whether they identified themselves as such or not) Lamarkins or Spencerians the Darwinians. The purpose of On the Origin of Species was not to introduce the concept of evolution; it was to debunk the concept of supernatural intelligence-the idea that the universe is the result of an idea. "

(The Metaphysical Club, by Louis Menand)

This is such an obvious principle on modern evolutionary thought that I am staggered at the audacity of modern evolutionists to deny it. It is the rejection of supernatural intelligence, it was replaced by the naturalistic materialism of Mayr and others which is not only evident in their writing, it is obvious.

1.The first is the non-constancy of species, or the modern conception of evolution itself.

Darwin said that the essense of species was 'undiscoverable'. Were this true it would render the terms microevolution and macroevolution meaningless. This point is easily made but it is hard to get the modern evolutionist to see it. They like convoluted taxonomic graphs and charts and pretend as if how they draw them up are proof of common ancestory from a unicellular organism. It is obvious by the fact that they will resort to name calling when you try to get them to show their demonstrated mechanism.

2.The second is the notion of branching evolution, implying the common descent of all species of living things on earth from a single unique origin.

The key word here is 'single', if you have multiple starting points then you have creationism, pure and simple.

3.Darwin further noted that evolution must be gradual, with no major breaks or discontinuities.

We see the exact opposite in the fossil record and the world as it exists today. The word for it is stasis and species continue relativly unchanged for millions of years, if you agree with their dating techniques. In creationist thought there is something called catastrophism. This is based on geology and the idea is that either the geologic strata is accounted for by a gradual accumulation over billions of years or there was a catastrophy that devastated and changed the living world very suddenly. This of course was the flood and they go into fits if you suggest that a global flood was an actual historical event. Now if it was a myth then why would such learned and accomplished men such as Henry Morris be advocating it? I leave you to you're own ideas to answer that one.

4.Finally, he reasoned that the mechanism of evolution was natural selection.

Natural selection is a metaphore for purely naturalistic explanations. There is no selection in the sense of a conscious choice. Evolution is not the enemy since it simply looks at the evidence and identifies that there has been a change. The ideal is that the created world is not the result of an idea, an idea from the mind of God. TE is a compromise with this worldly frame of referance and is nothing more then atheism put in theological terms. It is a wolf in sheeps clothing and you should be leary of these views. It is marginally better then the atheist's attack on special creation but never the less not consistant with the clear teaching of Scripture. "In the begining God..."

Its nature is simplicity itself. It is not a force like the forces described in the laws of physics; its mechanism is simply the elimination of inferior individuals. This process of nonrandom elimination..."survival of the fittest."

Ok, now look at the statement by this learned man of science and then consider, is this consistant with Christian theism? Two more quotes for you, I have insisted that they are identical but the evolutionists I debate with insist that I am prejudiced. Your thoughts...

"Over against all this, the völkisch concept of the world recognizes that the primordial racial elements are of the greatest significance for mankind. In principle, the State is looked upon only as a means to an end and this end is the conservation of the racial characteristics of mankind. Therefore on the völkisch principle we cannot admit that one race is equal to another. By recognizing that they are different, the völkisch concept separates mankind into races of superior and inferior quality."

(Mein Kampf , Adolf Hitler)

"Finally, it may not be a logical deduction, but to my imagination it is far more satisfactory to look at such instincts as the young cuckoo ejecting its foster-brothers, ants making slaves, the larvae of ichneumonidae feeding within the live bodies of caterpillars, not as specially endowed or created instincts, but as small consequences of one general law leading to the advancement of all organic beings--namely, multiply, vary, let the strongest live and the weakest die."

(Origin of Species, Ch. 8 Instinct, C. Darwin)

Links available upon request.

Submitted for your carefull consideration.

Grace and peace,
Mark

 

[Micaiah]

No, God created the animals in an instant, they were fully formed and evolution is the changes that have happened since.

While I understand what you are saying, I do not think it is agood use of the term evolution. Evolution embodies more than just the genetic change due to natural selection and the mutations we see around us. Evolution has the connotation increased complexity, something changing from a simple state to a far more complex state.

We're really getting down to semantics here. That is the stuff the TE's thrive on. Where hard evidence fails, tricks with words are the order of the day. The type of genetic change you mentioned is not the same as 'slime to scientist' evolution. God told us the animals are created after their 'kind'. Dogs don't evolve into monkeys. Christians who say things evolve after creation implies that can happen.

Anyway, you already knew all that.

 

[mark kennedy]

While I understand what you are saying, I do not think it is agood use of the term evolution. Evolution embodies more than just the genetic change due to natural selection and the mutations we see around us. Evolution has the connotation increased complexity, something changing from a simple state to a far more complex state.

We're really getting down to semantics here. That is the stuff the TE's thrive on. Where hard evidence fails, tricks with words are the order of the day. The type of genetic change you mentioned is not the same as 'slime to scientist' evolution. God told us the animals are created after their 'kind'. Dogs don't evolve into monkeys. Christians who say things evolve after creation implies that can happen.

Anyway, you already knew all that.

Oh but I know this all too well, its the old bait and switch. You try to be open minded and concede that evolution happens then they act like you have to accept the single common ancestor part as well. I just hate to see creationists put off by these attacks on Christian beliefs.

The Christian faith has endured far worse then this modern concept of life emerging from natural selection. Just because things evolve doesn't mean I have to accept their bogus model of descent. God said be fruitfull and multiply he didn't say go and be immutable by never changing. He never said anything of the sort.

 

[Beowulf]

lol

The bible never said "God caused man to be created" either.

 

[adam149]

Since you will be attending the Creation Conference once it's organized, I would be interested in your assembling your thoughts together in a paper to present for discussion.

What are the alternatives to evolution, what would falsify it?​

]

I recently posted this to the creation\evolution forum but was curious what kind of a response I might get in here. Now, understand, I am a strict YEC creationist I just thought I would share my thoughts with anyone who might be interested in evolution as a tool in the hand of the creationist...any takers?

Science is simply a word that means experiential knowledge. In the 17th century they began to make a distinction between natural science and theology and Francis Bacon called them sister sciences. For decades the tools (mental and physical) were developed and natural science began to explore the natural world on an inductive (particulars to princliples) basis. When Sir Issac Newton did a series of experiments at the Royal Society in London on the refraction of light there was one crucial demonstration that he had to perform in order for his experiment to corrospond with the hypothesis. This is know as the experimentum crucis and with this succesfull demonstration modern science as we know it was born.What you have to understand is that when a hypothesis is tested there is a crucial point of demonstration, if the result is positive then the hypothesis becomes a theory.

Lets look at evolution now, it is defined in the modern synthesis as the change in gene frequencies over time. This is the definition that you will find in virtually any biology textbook on the subject of evolutionary biology. Ernst Mayr, who was the first to use this defintion, had this to say about the philosophical underpinnings of modern biology and he credited Charles Darwin with its development:

"Darwin founded a new branch of life science, evolutionary biology.

1.The first is the non-constancy of species, or the modern conception of evolution itself.

2.The second is the notion of branching evolution, implying the common descent of all species of living things on earth from a single unique origin.

3.Darwin further noted that evolution must be gradual, with no major breaks or discontinuities.

4.Finally, he reasoned that the mechanism of evolution was natural selection.

Its nature is simplicity itself. It is not a force like the forces described in the laws of physics; its mechanism is simply the elimination of inferior individuals. This process of nonrandom elimination..."survival of the fittest."

(Darwin's Influence on Modern Thought,by Ernst Mayr)

Now what you have to understand here is that this is not a theory, its a synthesis. A synthesis is a philosophical reconciliation between two seemingly contradictory points of view. What you have in the modern synthesis are two seemingly antithetical theories (some would say philosophies) that are at odds with one another. The one is Darwin's natural selection and the other is genetics. In the modern synthesis what you have is a conception (natural selection) merged with the demonstrated empirical science of genetics. The foundational laws of science were developed by Mendel.

This is called the subjective/objective duality of science and you have to discern between the naturalistic materialism of Darwin (subjective) and the empirical demonstrations of Mendel (objective).

I'm going to see what kind of responses I get before I elaborte on the implications of the modern synthesis for creationism.