Was Charles Darwin a fraud?

[Jerry N.]

You are incorrect.

We have a known, and repeatedly observed mechanism for the process and that is mutation.

As shown in the posts about phylogenetics, it is not as simple as mere mutation.

The point is not merely that the right material is in place, it's the right material in an environment that makes it possible, if unlikely.

A common Creationist request is for new life to form from non living matter in environments already filled with extant life... even if the environment was suitable for hypothetical new life forms, it is likely that such a simple structure would be trivial food for more evolved organisms in place.

So how did life come to be?

Tour has a rather long history of profound scientific mistakes.

I think James Tour can defend himself.

This particular challenge is built on false premises. A dead organism does not have all the material in place. The process of dying transforms many chemical aspects of an organism into structures not merely unsuitable for continued living function, but actually antithetical to the process.

A recently dead signal-cell body is much closer to the organized structure than a primordial soup.

​

 

[BCP1928]

Another person in this thread was kind enough to introduce me to the word “abiogenesis,” but we are moving the target of the discussion. The question is whether or not divine intervention took place. My argument is that micro-evolution was programed into the design to adapt to changes in the environment and can be supported by duplication in a laboratory today, but macro-evolution and abiogenesis require divine intervention and can only be observed in the past but not duplicated.

My point was that theologically speaking, it need not be. A fully naturalistic and self-explanatory evolutionary process is entirely compatible with divine providence in action. Philosophers and theologians have understood this for millenia. I think it is largely only Protestants who reject basic theology in favor of ID or other interventionist theisms and why Roman Catholics--though they may have other issues with evolution--don't have any use for ID.

 

[Jerry N.]

My point was that theologically speaking, it need not be. A fully naturalistic and self-explanatory evolutionary process is entirely compatible with divine providence in action. Philosophers and theologians have understood this for millenia. I think it is largely only Protestants who reject basic theology in favor of ID or other interventionist theisms and why Roman Catholics--though they may have other issues with evolution--don't have any use for ID.

I just meant that you introduced me to the word. You are entirely correct that “A fully naturalistic and self-explanatory evolutionary process is entirely compatible with divine providence in action.” It wasn’t until early in the last century that the theory of evolution became a weapon against the existence of God, which I suspect wasn’t Darwin’s intention, considering the topic of this subject. Paleontology is a wonderful field of study, but Christians have been discouraged to participate in it in mainstream academia. Intelligent Design was seen as a way to participate in the scientific discussion without denying the intervention of God in the field. It was hijacked in some cases, but the intent was to enter scientific discussion once again.

 

[BCP1928]

I just meant that you introduced me to the word. You are entirely correct that “A fully naturalistic and self-explanatory evolutionary process is entirely compatible with divine providence in action.” It wasn’t until early in the last century that the theory of evolution became a weapon against the existence of God, which I suspect wasn’t Darwin’s intention, considering the topic of this subject.

It rarely has been used as a weapon against God. For the most part it has been painted as a weapon against God by 'biblical' Christians who think their theology is the only possible and correct Christian theology and want to deny the faith of other Christians who disagree with them.

Paleontology is a wonderful field of study, but Christians have been discouraged to participate in it in mainstream academia. Intelligent Design was seen as a way to participate in the scientific discussion without denying the intervention of God in the field. It was hijacked in some cases, but the intent was to enter scientific discussion once again.

Nonsense. When I was an undergraduate 60 years ago the head of our biology department was a Roman Catholic brother in orders who was also a nationally recognized expert in the evolution of bats. He was definitey a mentor and a source of encouragement to his students.

Intelligent Design was never anything but a Trojan Horse for a right-wing political agenda.

 

[Jerry N.]

It rarely has been used as a weapon against God. For the most part it has been painted as a weapon against God by 'biblical' Christians who think their theology is the only possible and correct Christian theology and want to deny the faith of other Christians who disagree with them.


Nonsense. When I was an undergraduate 60 years ago the head of our biology department was a Roman Catholic brother in orders who was also a nationally recognized expert in the evolution of bats. He was definitey a mentor and a source of encouragement to his students.

Intelligent Design was never anything but a Trojan Horse for a right-wing political agenda.

I don’t doubt that you have had that experience, and I am happy for you. Unfortunately, others have had quite a different experience, particularly in the last 20 to 30 years. This is true for Protestants more than anybody else, but it doesn't negate the problem.

It is also true that Intelligent Design has been used as a Trojan Horse, but others were just hoping to return to the situation your Roman Catholic brother enjoyed. Personally, I prefer “Divine Intervention” to “Intelligent Design” for macro-evolution and simply “creation” for the beginning of life.

 

[BCP1928]

I don’t doubt that you have had that experience, and I am happy for you. Unfortunately, others have had quite a different experience, particularly in the last 20 to 30 years. This is true for Protestants more than anybody else, but it doesn't negate the problem.

It is not a coincidence that in the last 20 or 30 years Evangelical Protestants have taken to an increasingly aggressive right-wing political agenda while denying the faith of other Christians. Whatever. That the theory of evolution denies the existence of God is a lie, whoever tells it to you.

It is also true that Intelligent Design has been used as a Trojan Horse, but others were just hoping to return to the situation your Roman Catholic brother enjoyed.

Why did they ever leave it?

Personally, I prefer “Divine Intervention” to “Intelligent Design” for macro-evolution and simply “creation” for the beginning of life.

OK.

 

[Jerry N.]

It is not a coincidence that in the last 20 or 30 years Evangelical Protestants have taken to an increasingly aggressive right-wing political agenda while denying the faith of other Christians. Whatever. That the theory of evolution denies the existence of God is a lie, whoever tells it to you.

I didn't mean that the theory of evolution necessarily denies the existence of God, but that it has been used that way.

Why did they ever leave it?

A generation of academics who started in the 1960s and were atheist later became professors and intentionally or unintentionally made it difficult for those who disagreed with them to make it through graduate studies in non-STEM fields.

OK.

 

[BCP1928]

I didn't mean that the theory of evolution necessarily denies the existence of God, but that it has been used that way.

A generation of academics who started in the 1960s and were atheist later became professors and intentionally or unintentionally made it difficult for those who disagreed with them to make it through graduate studies in non-STEM fields.

It's interesting that only biblical creationists have experienced such problems, don't you think? Especially biblical creationists who promote a pseudoscientific hoax like ID as a cover.

 

[Jerry N.]

It's interesting that only biblical creationists have experienced such problems, don't you think? Especially biblical creationists who promote a pseudoscientific hoax like ID as a cover.

Wikipedia says, “Biblical inerrancy is the belief that the Bible ‘is without error or fault in all its teaching"; or, at least, that "Scripture in the original manuscripts does not affirm anything that is contrary to fact.’” I was a believer in Biblical inerrancy when I was young. One is led to the path of salvation through the teaching of the Bible and in the urging of the Holy Spirit. Once one accepts Christ, they have bet their eternal soul on the teachings of the Bible. It takes a while to learn that the truth of the Bible only instructs and illustrates, but it is the grace of God through His Son that gives salvation. We are anchored in faith in Christ more than faith in the Bible. Accepting Christ’s salvation is the biggest decision in a person’s life. Therefore, any question about the truth of something in the Bible, or one’s understanding of something in the Bible, is an attack on one’s faith at this early point. One feels as though they are fighting the flames of hell. Their zeal is commendable, but they may need a bit of growth.

 

[Shemjaza]

As shown in the posts about phylogenetics, it is not as simple as mere mutation.

That is your claim, I feel "shown" is unreasonable.

Every single generation in what will be interpreted on a long scale as macro-evolution would be a micro evolutionary change.

So how did life come to be?

We don't actually know in detail, maybe we never will.

What we have demonstrated is that necessary precursor chemicals and processes can increase in complexity without the presence of life or intelligence.

Organic chemicals self organise and polymerise both in laboratory experiments and out there across the universe.

I think James Tour can defend himself.

I'll leave that to biologists to point out his scientific issues.

A recently dead signal-cell body is much closer to the organized structure than a primordial soup.

​

You are literally responding to my statement:
process of dying transforms many chemical aspects of an organism into structures not merely unsuitable for continued living function, but actually antithetical to the process.

 

[Jerry N.]

That is your claim, I feel "shown" is unreasonable.

Every single generation in what will be interpreted on a long scale as macro-evolution would be a micro evolutionary change.

I am not really knowledgeable enough to detail the problem, but there are discussions among scientist whether adaption (micro-evolution) is sufficient.

We don't actually know in detail, maybe we never will.

What we have demonstrated is that necessary precursor chemicals and processes can increase in complexity without the presence of life or intelligence.

Organic chemicals self organise and polymerise both in laboratory experiments and out there across the universe.

Do they "self-organize" enough?

I'll leave that to biologists to point out his scientific issues.



You are literally responding to my statement:
process of dying transforms many chemical aspects of an organism into structures not merely unsuitable for continued living function, but actually antithetical to the process.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

Another person in this thread was kind enough to introduce me to the word “abiogenesis,” but we are moving the target of the discussion. The question is whether or not divine intervention took place. My argument is that micro-evolution was programed into the design to adapt to changes in the environment and can be supported by duplication in a laboratory today, but macro-evolution and abiogenesis require divine intervention and can only be observed in the past but not duplicated.

Which your idea cannot be scientifically tested since there is no way to test for a designer.

 

[Shemjaza]

I am not really knowledgeable enough to detail the problem, but there are discussions among scientist whether adaption (micro-evolution) is sufficient.

Discussions yes, but scientific justifications is what they need to demonstrate their opinions.

Do they "self-organize" enough?

It's a reasonable extrapolation from the existent evidence.

There isn't s single step in the chemical process of life where supernatural interference is demonstrably necessary, and the scale of the universe breaks down even exceptionally unlikely scenarios into probable.

 

[Jerry N.]

Which your idea cannot be scientifically tested since there is no way to test for a designer.

Maybe macro-evolution and abiogenesis can't be tested because there is divine intervention.

 

[Jerry N.]

It's a reasonable extrapolation from the existent evidence.

There isn't s single step in the chemical process of life where supernatural interference is demonstrably necessary, and the scale of the universe breaks down even exceptionally unlikely scenarios into probable.

That sounds like faith.

 

[Shemjaza]

Maybe macro-evolution and abiogenesis can't be tested because there is divine intervention.

No macro-evolution has in fact already been tested and been found consistent with the evidence of multiple fields of scientific study.

Abiogensis isn't yet developed enough to be classified a theory, but it can absolutely be tested and examined.

The presence of divine intervention doesn't render physical explanations untestable, merely incorrect conclusions from limited evidence.

However, premise that includes the assumption of unknowable divine intervention is inherently untestable.

That sounds like faith.

Incorrect. An extrapolation from physical evidence and processes isn't any kind of reasonable definition of faith... unless you extend the definition to trivial and useless concepts like "I have faith the sun will rise over the horizon".

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

Maybe macro-evolution and abiogenesis can't be tested because there is divine intervention.

But macro-evolution CAN be tested. That's been pointed out repeatedly. It even has another name that shows that its been tested: speciation.

 

[Jerry N.]

But macro-evolution CAN be tested. That's been pointed out repeatedly. It even has another name that shows that its been tested: speciation.

We went around this block about 100 posts ago. We obviously disagree, and I don't think doing it all again will help.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

We went around this block about 100 posts ago. We obviously disagree, and I don't think doing it all again will help.

Yeah, you disagree. Doesn't mean that it's incorrect though.

 

[Shemjaza]

We went around this block about 100 posts ago. We obviously disagree, and I don't think doing it all again will help.

People have pointed out how it has been tested... an your reply is that there's disagreement, but no explanation as to why the disagreement is reasonable.

Just because you prefer an answer doesn't make it more likely.

Genetics, fossils, geology and physics are all very real and very useful outside of demonstrating the facts that support the theory of evolution.