We’ve been reading Charles Darwin all wrong

[Fervent]

Let me ask you a sincere question:

Do you profess yourself to be wise?

And if not, why not?

Romans 1:22a Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools,

After all, doesn't "Homo sapiens" mean "wise man"?

I profess to know nothing but Christ and Him crucified. So why do you then attempt to put a stumbling block in front of me?

 

[AV1611VET]

I profess to know nothing but Christ and Him crucified. So why do you then attempt to put a stumbling block in front of me?

Have a good day.

Don't let me ruin it.

 

[Buzzard3]

Since you can't support your claim, I can't take it seriously.

Next time you read an article, book or scientific paper that attempts to explain the evolution of some prehistoric life-form, look for hypotheses that can't be tested - you're bound to find some. That's story-telling, not science, and evolution so-called science excels at it.

 

[BCP1928]

Next time you read an article, book or scientific paper that attempts to explain the evolution of prehistoric life-forms, look for hypotheses that can't be tested - you're bound to find some. That's story-telling, not science, and evolution so-called science excellence at it.

Perhaps you could suggest one or two for discussion?

 

[AV1611VET]

Perhaps you could suggest one or two for discussion?

 

[Hans Blaster]

Quotes from William B. Provine:

"Evolution is the greatest engine of atheism ever invented."

I like Asimov's version better:

Properly read (meaning read with attention to actual content), the Bible is the most potent force for atheism ever conceived

"Let me summarize my views on what modern evolutionary biology tells us loud and clear — and these are basically Darwin’s views. There are no gods, no purposes, and no goal-directed forces of any kind. There is no life after death. When I die, I am absolutely certain that I am going to be dead. That’s the end of me. There is no ultimate foundation for ethics, no ultimate meaning in life, and no free will for humans, either." (Darwinism: Science or Naturalistic Philosophy April 30 1994)

Oh, good grief. Evolutionary biology is about how life gets the way it is. It is not a philosophy of life or meaningfulness or some substitute for religion.

"Naturalistic evolution has clear consequences that Charles Darwin understood perfectly. 1) No gods worth having exist; 2) no life after death exists; 3) no ultimate foundation for ethics exists; 4) no ultimate meaning in life exists; and 5) human free will is nonexistent." “Evolution: Free will and punishment and meaning in life” (1998 Darwin Day Keynote Address)

Oh, good grief. Evolutionary biology is about how life gets the way it is. It is not a philosophy of life or meaningfulness or some substitute for religion.

"As the creationists claim, belief in modern evolution makes atheists of people. One can have a religious view that is compatible with evolution only if the religious view is indistinguishable from atheism." No Free Will (1999) p.123

Oh, good grief. Evolutionary biology is about how life gets the way it is. It is not a philosophy of life or meaningfulness or some substitute for religion.

Remembering William Provine (1942–2015) | Uncommon Descent

From Wikipedia:
William Ball Provine (February 19, 1942 – September 1, 2015) was an American historian of science and of evolutionary biology and population genetics. He was the Andrew H. and James S. Tisch Distinguished University Professor at Cornell University and was a professor in the Departments of History, Science and Technology Studies, and Ecology and Evolutionary Biology.

A historian, eh? I would have sworn he was a Christian philosopher or apologist. For a historian of science he has a remarkably poor understanding of what science is and what it can and cannot do.

 

[Buzzard3]

Pulus cantor dlividium nosi elotim vraga

I like this one:
Aliquos homines aliquando fallere potes, sed non omnes semper fallere potes.

You can fool some of the people some of the time, but you can't fool all of the people all of the time.

 

[Buzzard3]

But it is though. You just saying that it isn't doesn't mean you are correct.

But you can't prove it though. You just saying that it is a natural process doesn't mean you are correct.

If you're correct, then show the evidence for your claim being correct.

Science admits that it can't prove that history of life on earth is the result of a natural process ... bcoz science admits it doesn't prove anything. If science can't prove it, no one can.

 

[BCP1928]

But you can't prove it though. You just saying that it is a natural process doesn't mean you are correct.

Science admits that it can't prove that history of life on earth is the result of a natural process ... bcoz science admits it doesn't prove anything. If science can't prove it, no one can.

Science doesn't "prove" things. It just has to give us a plausible working explanation of the evidence at hand. What have you got?

 

[Buzzard3]

By looking at the evidence, scientists have concluded that the theory of evolution is the best explanation available

I agree.

and since there is no evidence which contradicts it and no more credible explanation is available, it is accepted provisionally, the basis on which all science theories are accepted. Is that what you mean by "prove?"

It's accepted as the best available theory - that's it - no more, no less. It's not accepted as the truth or proof that it's the truth, bcoz it's possible that new evidence could disprove the theory.
Of course that doesn't stop folks believing that it's the truth, but their personal belief doesnt belong in science.

 

[Buzzard3]

No, a theory is not a scientific fact. A theory is a coherent explanation of facts. The problem you're having with the theory of evolution is that currently there are no facts which contradict it and no better explanation has been suggested

... which means no more than ToE is the best scientific explanation available. It doesn't prove that the history of life on earth is the result of a process described by ToE - it doesn't even prove that that history is the result of a natural process.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

But you can't prove it though. You just saying that it is a natural process doesn't mean you are correct.

Science admits that it can't prove that history of life on earth is the result of a natural process ... bcoz science admits it doesn't prove anything. If science can't prove it, no one can.

Oh wow. Such a mature and well thought out answer...

Science doesn't prove things. Mathematics does. Science presents the evidence it has found, and all the evidence shows that the theory of evolution is factually evidenced science.

Proof and truths are absolutes, which science does not deal in.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

... which means no more than ToE is the best scientific explanation available. It doesn't prove that the history of life on earth is the result of a process described by ToE - it doesn't even prove that that history is the result of a natural process.

You're absolutely spot on! It doesn't prove any of that.

It merely shows that evidence supports the hypothesis that history and life on Earth is the result of a natural process. Now, whether that natural process was started by God or not is not a scientific issue but a religious issue.

 

[Buzzard3]

Try reading a biology book first, and then come back to this discussion when you know something.

Which biology book describes how mammals descended from fish via a natural process ... and then proves that its description is actually what happened and not just a theory?
I suggest no such book exists.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

Which biology book describes how mammals descended from fish via a natural process ... and then proves that its description is actually what happened and not just a theory?
I suggest no such book exists.

Because you're showing that you fundamentally don't know what you're arguing against.
Science doesn't deal in proofs, nor proves anything - that's for mathematics and alcohol. Science deals in facts, evidence, hypothesis and theories.
In science, a theory is a framework that brings together facts, evidence, and hypothesis all together to explain the broader topic it is dealing with. Hence germ theory, nuclear theory, gravitational theory, plate tectonic theory, electromagnetic theory and the theory of evolution.

Understand these simple easy to understand things and life will be so much easier for you.

 

[Buzzard3]

How about you answer his question and quit ignoring everyone?

He has no more chance of answering my question that the "biology book" he recommends.
Answering my question is impossible ... which is my point ... a point that some posters here evidently can't accept. For some reason, they desperately need to believe that the theory of evolution solves the mystery of life's history on earth, even though it does nothing of the sort.

 

[BCP1928]

Which biology book describes how mammals descended from fish via a natural process ... and then proves that its description is actually what happened and not just a theory?
I suggest no such book exists.

If it did it wouldn't be a science book.

 

[Buzzard3]

You know -- from gills to lungs?

Via natural processes.

The evolutionist mentality is effectively this:
Billions of years of mutations and natural selection can perform magic ... given enough time, a fish can turn into a dog, for example.

It's a smokescreen that attempts to cover up the theory of evolution's inadequacies, viz-a-viz how novel organs, body plans and phyla could have evolved.

 

[BCP1928]

He has no more chance of answering my question that the "biology book" he recommends.
Answering my question is impossible ... which is my point ... a point that some posters here evidently can't accept. For some reason, they desperately need to believe that the theory of evolution solves the mystery of life's history on earth, even though it does nothing of the sort.

The mystery of life's history? Science doesn't "solve mysteries." it draws the best conclusions it can from the data available.What have you got?

 

[Buzzard3]

the Catholic Church accept evolution

... without being dogmatic about it. No Catholic is obliged to accept evolution. A Cathoilc is free to accept a literal interpretation of Genesis and believe in a young earth.