The Dover trial

[Speedwell]

Unless he created life on earth about 6000 years ago.

So what's your evidence? All you've done so far is try to debunk evolution.

 

[mark kennedy]

I too am confused.



Glad to hear that he retained a semblance of faith.

Darwin has been hugely influential (and detrimental) to Christian theology. There are plenty of books on creationism and intelligent design for those interested.

Darwin was never a Christian, he never made a profession of faith, he did complete a ministry degree and that was about it. His father and brother were both atheists and he gave every indication of being little more then agnostic. His wife was a Christian and thought little of his theory. Darwin was someone who knew so much about how favorable traits are inherited that he married his cousin. The first thing to go is the immune system and the daughters he lost was due to fever.

He was no paragon of science and certainly never was a Christian.

 

[mark kennedy]

So what's your evidence? All you've done so far is try to debunk evolution.

I don't debunk anything, when I discuss Darwinism I will focus on fossils and comparative genomics. To date, I have yet to see you make a Biblical or scientific argument so that's why you haven't seen a counter argument from me, there's little to nothing to argue against.

 

[Speedwell]

I don't debunk anything, when I discuss Darwinism I will focus on fossils and comparative genomics. To date, I have yet to see you make a Biblical or scientific argument so that's why you haven't seen a counter argument from me, there's little to nothing to argue against.

What would you consider a "biblical" argument? As to the science, I don't care that much. Even if you did succeed in debunking evolution I would still consider a 6000 year old special creation to be unconvincing. At some point you are going to have to make your own case. Just attempting to show that there are problems with the current theory of evolution won't do it.

 

[essentialsaltes]

Honest question, did you even read the article linked in the OP?

Yes, that's why in post #4, I pointed out that these laws rely on a "BACK-DOOR APPROACH". They don't explicitly discuss evolution or climate science, but their intent (in the minds of supporters) is clear, and this approach is dishonest.

 

[pitabread]

It's not a theory, it's a phenomenon, what is known as the theory of evolution is the assumption that everything 'evolved' by exclusively naturalistic processes. Another equivocation fallacy.

Judging by our conversations, I'd say you have both a shaky definition of evolution and don't know what the "equivocation fallacy" is.

like talking to you, that's an experience that just confirms the fact that Darwinians don't really care about evidence.

And yet, like a moth to a flame, you continue to reply.

The doctrine, or teaching, that all change is the result of natural law not miraculous interposition. It's a presuppositional logic known as naturalism in Darwin's day and equivocated as science and evolution today.

And speaking of equivocation...

At any rate, maybe one day you can take a biology course or two and find out what this evolution thing is really about. Until then, adieu.

 

[mark kennedy]

Judging by our conversations, I'd say you have both a shaky definition of evolution and don't know what the "equivocation fallacy" is.

Wrong on both counts, next....

And yet, like a moth to a flame, you continue to reply.

It's fun.

And speaking of equivocation...

At any rate, maybe one day you can take a biology course or two and find out what this evolution thing is really about. Until then, adieu.

I actually took a basic biology class in college, got a B. But since it's close encounters of the pedantic one liners, adieu mon ami.

Grace and peace,
Mark

 

[Gene2memE]

But Darwin's book wasn't The Species, but the Origin of.

Darwin's book, to give it its full title, was: 'On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life'

It wasn't 'The Species' - by which I will infer you mean humans. It was species generally - that is, how new forms of biological diversity originated.

It was clearly concerned with the origin of life, and in the ongoing struggle of each race to compete for the planet's limited resources.

'On the Origin of Species' specifically did not deal with the origin of life (or human origins), as Darwin knew that was too controversial a topic for his initial publication to deal with.

You should note also that Darwin presented his original work on the subject - On the Tendency of Species to form Varieties; and on the Perpetuation of Varieties and Species by Natural Means of Selection - simultaneously with Alfred Russel Wallace - who's work was On The Tendency of Varieties to Depart Indefinitely from the Original Type.

Both Wallace and Darwin examined the causes for biological diversity and proposed essentially similar mechanisms behind it. Neither publication was concerned with the origin of life.

Neither was completely original in their ideas either. Darwin attributes at least five other writers - Saint Hilaire, Wells, Herbert, Grant and Matthew - as having developed the same basic idea in the preceding 50 years, going so far as to credit Matthew with having "precisely the same view on the origin of species as that (presently to be alluded to) propounded by Mr. Wallace and myself".

So even without Darwin (or Wallace), the evolutionary view of biology was really already there, but it was just sort of waiting for some better publicity.

 

[Gene2memE]

Darwin was never a Christian

Well he was - unless you're playing the 'No True Scotsman' card.

From his own writings:

During these two years I was led to think much about religion. Whilst on board the Beagle I was quite orthodox, & I remember being heartily laughed at by several of the officers (though themselves orthodox) for quoting the Bible as an unanswerable authority on some point of morality. I suppose it was the novelty of the argument that amused them. But I had gradually come, by this time, to see that the Old Testament from its manifestly false history of the world, with the Tower of Babel, rainbow as a sign, etc., etc., and from its attributing to God the feelings of a revengeful tyrant, was no more to be trusted than the sacred books of the Hindoos, or the beliefs of any barbarian​

he never made a profession of faith,

How do you know he never made a profession of faith?

His father and brother were both atheists

My parents and my sister are Catholic, does that make me Catholic?

and he gave every indication of being little more then agnostic.

In later life, certainly. Pre 1935 (very roughly), definitely not. Again, quoting directly and referring to his time at Christ's College, Cambridge:

"and as I did not then in the least doubt the strict and literal truth of every word in the Bible"​

It seems that he was not only a believer, but a Biblical literalist to boot.

His wife was a Christian and thought little of his theory.

Which is completely irrelevant.

Darwin was someone who knew so much about how favorable traits are inherited that he married his cousin.

Cousin marriage was both socially acceptable and quite common in the period. Darwin, and society in general, had a bare fraction of the knowledge we do about hereditary and interbreeding with close relatives, given that there was no knowledge of genetics.

Furthermore, Darwin married Emma in 1939, and he didn't start developing his ideas about natural selection until the early 1840s.

You're attempting to tar him for having knowledge he couldn't possible hope to possess for at least another decade or two.

He was no paragon of science and certainly never was a Christian.

He was, and is, a paragon of science - having meticulously researched, developed, revised, expanded and popularised the fundamental underpinning of modern biology over 40 years.

He may never have been a Christian - but only if you consider his life from one very particular and very narrow view of Christianity.

 

[HereIStand]

Darwin's book, to give it its full title, was: 'On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life'

It wasn't 'The Species' - by which I will infer you mean humans. It was species generally - that is, how new forms of biological diversity originated.

Thanks. I have the book and noticed the full tittle. Favoring certain races over others sounds cruel, but that's the logic of natural selection.

'On the Origin of Species' specifically did not deal with the origin of life (or human origins), as Darwin knew that was too controversial a topic for his initial publication to deal with.

You should note also that Darwin presented his original work on the subject - On the Tendency of Species to form Varieties; and on the Perpetuation of Varieties and Species by Natural Means of Selection - simultaneously with Alfred Russel Wallace - who's work was On The Tendency of Varieties to Depart Indefinitely from the Original Type.

Both Wallace and Darwin examined the causes for biological diversity and proposed essentially similar mechanisms behind it. Neither publication was concerned with the origin of life.

Neither was completely original in their ideas either. Darwin attributes at least five other writers - Saint Hilaire, Wells, Herbert, Grant and Matthew - as having developed the same basic idea in the preceding 50 years, going so far as to credit Matthew with having "precisely the same view on the origin of species as that (presently to be alluded to) propounded by Mr. Wallace and myself".

So even without Darwin (or Wallace), the evolutionary view of biology was really already there, but it was just sort of waiting for some better publicity.

If Darwinism isn't concerned with the origin of life, then why the rabid opposition by Darwinists to teaching creationism or intelligent design? Since they are both outside the scope of evolution which is unconcerned with the origin of life, it shouldn't be a deal. But it is.

I'm not sure Darwin sought to exclude humanity from the Origin of the Species. In it, he notes that the ideas set forth "determine the present welfare" and "future success and modification of every inhabitant of this world." That would seem to include humans.

 

[mark kennedy]

Well he was - unless you're playing the 'No True Scotsman' card.

From his own writings:

During these two years I was led to think much about religion. Whilst on board the Beagle I was quite orthodox, & I remember being heartily laughed at by several of the officers (though themselves orthodox) for quoting the Bible as an unanswerable authority on some point of morality. I suppose it was the novelty of the argument that amused them. But I had gradually come, by this time, to see that the Old Testament from its manifestly false history of the world, with the Tower of Babel, rainbow as a sign, etc., etc., and from its attributing to God the feelings of a revengeful tyrant, was no more to be trusted than the sacred books of the Hindoos, or the beliefs of any barbarian​

So he makes the statement that he thinks the Scriptures reveal a revengeful tyrant and no more then the ramblings of Hindus and that is a Christian profession how?

How do you know he never made a profession of faith?

Because he was widely publicized and none exists.

My parents and my sister are Catholic, does that make me Catholic?

That depends.

In later life, certainly. Pre 1935 (very roughly), definitely not. Again, quoting directly and referring to his time at Christ's College, Cambridge:

"and as I did not then in the least doubt the strict and literal truth of every word in the Bible"​

It seems that he was not only a believer, but a Biblical literalist to boot.

He also said occasionally he accepted what he was taught without question, just didn't give it any thought. He's not talking here about anything in particular, like the gospel, just the Bible in general if he ever actually read it or not we don't know.

Which is completely irrelevant.

Irrelevant to what exactly, it was a passing remark.

Cousin marriage was both socially acceptable and quite common in the period. Darwin, and society in general, had a bare fraction of the knowledge we do about hereditary and interbreeding with close relatives, given that there was no knowledge of genetics.

Exactly! No knowledge of genetics.

Furthermore, Darwin married Emma in 1939, and he didn't start developing his ideas about natural selection until the early 1840s.

Charles Darwin died 19 April 1882, I'm not sure what day he married but I doubt it was in 1939.

You're attempting to tar him for having knowledge he couldn't possible hope to possess for at least another decade or two.

Just a swift mention of the fact that he knew so much about how favorable traits were inherited that he married his cousin.

He was, and is, a paragon of science - having meticulously researched, developed, revised, expanded and popularised the fundamental underpinning of modern biology over 40 years.

He may never have been a Christian - but only if you consider his life from one very particular and very narrow view of Christianity.

Darwin contributed nothing to modern biology, he was never a Christian and my view of being a Christian is based on the gospel. Darwin never indicated in any way, shape or form he believed in the death, burial and resurrection of Christ. If he was a Christian he took that secret to the grave.

 

[USincognito]

Then why do evolutionists object so strongly to creationism, or even intelligent design?

Science advocates oppose them because they are not scientific and do not belong in the science classroom.

As Ben Stein has shown, even the bare mention of God in a university science class can place ones tenure in jeopardy.

Expelled was masterful propaganda, but I doubt even he could support such a ridiculous assertion. (I saw it several years ago and don't recall that being "shown".)

 

[USincognito]

Darwin has been hugely influential (and detrimental) to Christian theology.

That is an absolutely bizarre assertion because Darwin wrote about science, not theology. Creationists, who choose to ignore the Creation itself and instead demand adherence to their interpretation of Genesis have created many crises of faith, but the fault lies with them and not the Creation, science or Darwin.

There are plenty of books on creationism and intelligent design for those interested.

In the 25+ years I've been reading Creationist materials, all of it has suffered from a paucity or absence of good science.

 

[Bugeyedcreepy]

Does it prove evolution? And does it use assumptions to to make points?

It demonstrates the principles of evolution, Yes. and No, no assumptions aside we can rely on reality to be real.

Though I never cared to bother looking into it, when we did discuss it, I was able to pick out the assumptions that ended one conversation as I recall. I just don't want to waste my time with something that doesn't prove evolution or that is based on assumptions, hence my prior question.

If you find I've made assumptions, I'll surely discuss them. Not entirely convinced others wouldn't have done the same when you've made the point elsewhere though, so I await your verdict.

Are you saying there is nothing honest about them or are you just conveniently picking out what you think dishonest and not mentioning the rest?

Insofar as scientific facts and principles are discussed, they aren't entirely honest at least, or wholly dishonest at other times.

The thread has nothing to do with the Dover decision, which is why no one wants to talk about it. It's about how controversy is going to be discussed moving forward.

Except in Science (you know, what the subject matter of the Science classroom is), there is no controversy to speak of.

Unless he created life on earth about 6000 years ago.

Which we know didn't happen, so no problem there...

 

[driewerf]

What anti-science? Are you actually saying because a creationists science doesn't agree with yours/evolutionary, then they must be against science period?

Honestly, I don't see the logic unless it is to deceive, but maybe you can clear it up for me.

Creationists are anti-science.
Of course they will not say it that way. But seeing through their rhetoric the anti-science attitude is clear. They have concocted a word "evolutionism" in which they lump together everything they don't like. So they can play the "we love science" attitude while attacking nearly all the sciences nonetheless. Especially Kent Hovind uses/ used that phrase a lot.
Under "evolutionism" falls.

• cosmology, with the age of the Universe and the Big Bang
• astrophysics -- the age of the stars and the formation of stars
• nuclear physics: nuclear fusion is labelled as "never observed", atoms "evolving", not withstanding that we have fused atoms.
• nuclear physics: radio active decay with it's radio metric dating methods
• glaciology: ages of glaciers are rejected out of hand
• geology: every geologiocal formation is attributed to the Flood, ages are rejected out of hand
• dendrochronolgy: year rings can form weekly according to creationists
• thermodynamics, with it's open systems. For a creationist only the 2LoT counts
• genetics, with his fused human chromosome nr 2
• genetics, again with pseudogenes and ERV's
• geophysics: plate tectonics gives a too old age for all the features on Earth
• planetary sciences

So, I don't see which science has not been under attack from creationists.

 

[HereIStand]

That is an absolutely bizarre assertion because Darwin wrote about science, not theology. Creationists, who choose to ignore the Creation itself and instead demand adherence to their interpretation of Genesis have created many crises of faith, but the fault lies with them and not the Creation, science or Darwin.



In the 25+ years I've been reading Creationist materials, all of it has suffered from a paucity or absence of good science.

Darwinism clearly has theological implications. It can only theoretically be walled off into the realm of pure science. Creationists are the few who actually do not ignore the Creation and the Creator. Attempts to harmonize evolution with the Bible have led to crises of faith. Interesting that you have such little regard for Creationist materials, yet you're here as a supporter of a Christian forum.

 

[driewerf]

Evolution is profoundly religious as well.

The ToE is not religious, it's a scientific theory. It lacks nearly all the features of a religion

• it says nothing about an after life
• it has no holy book, unlike the bible, the torah etc
• it has no initiation rite: no baptism, no circumcision
• it doesn't impose any sexually morality or behaviour: waiting until marriage, or having sex out of marriage, masturbation, etc. The ToE doesn't impose or forbid
• it doesn't claim exlusivity. While you can't be christian and muslim at the same time, you can accept the ToE and keep your faith, as different christain members here attest.
• it doesn't rely on divine inspiration: all articles, text books, documentaries are based on empirical data.
• it doesn't impose any diet --unlike the haram rules for muslims or koosher for jews
• there has never been wars fought for it: unlike the crusades or the now infamous caliphate of ISIS.
• it invites to inquiry and dissent, and doesn't harass heretics.

 

[AV1611VET]

It lacks nearly all the features of a religion

Pretty smart cookie, isn't it?

It flies just under the radar, hoping we won't notice it.

Its leader is a master of deception.

QV please: The Art of War

If its leader can crank out disciples like Sun Tzu, it can crank out others as well.

 

[driewerf]

Pretty smart cookie, isn't it?

It flies just under the radar, hoping we won't notice it.

Its leader is a master of deception.

QV please: The Art of War

If its leader can crank out disciples like Sun Tzu, it can crank out others as well.

What are you even talking about?

 

[AV1611VET]

What are you even talking about?

Thanks for the QED.