Why is it always Darwinism?

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

I disagree. If it is appropriate to refer to Darwin's work as "evolutionary theory" - and I think it is - then it is appropriate to call Paley's "watch on the heath" argument a form of intelligent design. The foundation for both arguments is identical: if something looks designed it is designed. ID seeks to do quantitatively and objectively what Paley attempted to do qualitatively and subjectively. (And thus far has failed.)

Aside: Darwin not only studied Paley's work at university, but took a copy of "Evidences" with him on the Beagle. He greatly admired the style and incorporated elements of the structure into On the Origin of Species.

I've been making it clear what I mean by Intelligent Design.
Intelligent Design is pseudoscience and pseudo-religious nonsense pushed by people who want to try and shoe-horn the Bible into everything, as pushed forward by groups like the Discovery Institute.
It is not the same as intelligent design as put forward by teleology.
Note the capitals.

 

[Ophiolite]

I've been making it clear what I mean by Intelligent Design.
Intelligent Design is pseudoscience and pseudo-religious nonsense pushed by people who want to try and shoe-horn the Bible into everything, as pushed forward by groups like the Discovery Institute.
It is not the same as intelligent design as put forward by teleology.
Note the capitals.

ID has evolved, by common descent, from teleology. Case closed.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

ID has evolved, by common descent, from teleology. Case closed.

...

Well played, sir. Well played.

ETA: Oh 'eck. I did not want those attached files.

 

[coffee4u]

I'm disappointed you cannot accept a little gentle humour directed at you.

I was being humorous right back at you, maybe my Aussie humour doesn't translate over to the UK.

Annoying creationists ranks very, very low on my reasons for posting.

Glad to hear it. One thing to know about us Aussie's is we are really quite chill. We only normally only get offended if you are trying to be offensive.

What makes you comfortable railing against something that is supported by overwhelming amounts of evidence and is accepted by the majority of Christians?

Such a good question. The Bible mate, the Bible.

 

[SLP]

This is something I don't fully understand when I look on this forum.
Every time a Creationist of any stripe or someone who says they're 'critical of evolution' talks about the theory of evolution, they only ever refer to it as Darwinism.

Darwinian evolution is no longer the accepted model for the theory of evolution. It has been superseded by the modern synthesis, and there have been talks of replacing it with the extended evolutionary synthesis or even the post-modern synthesis.

So I have to ask: why is it always Darwinism that is railed against?

It is easier to attack a person than a thing. To attack a thing, you have to know about the thing. To attack a person, you just need their name.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

Thanks, but I'll go with Wikipedia.

The 'Teleological Argument' is not the same thing as teleology, just as the 'Fine-tuning Argument' is not the same as fine-tuning:

Teleology or finality is a reason or explanation for something as a function of its end, purpose, or goal. It is derived from two Greek words: telos (end, goal, purpose) and logos (reason, explanation). A purpose that is imposed by a human use, such as that of a fork, is called extrinsic. Natural teleology, common in classical philosophy but controversial today, contends that natural entities also have intrinsic purposes, irrespective of human use or opinion. For instance, Aristotle claimed that an acorn's intrinsic telos is to become a fully grown oak tree.
Wikipedia​

 

[Theodore_Harris]

Probably the most important factor behind propelling the idea into modern thought was disproving the "biblical" age of the Earth during the century leading up to Origin of Species.

Except they've never "disproven" anything, because they've never proved the age of the Earth to be any older than the Bible says. Which means the biblical age of the world is still the Truth and anything else is just opinion.

 

[SLP]

Except they've never "disproven" anything, because they've never proved the age of the Earth to be any older than the Bible says. Which means the biblical age of the world is still the Truth and anything else is just opinion.

Not remotely correct.

If the bible timeline is correct, the Noah flood happened when the Egyptian Old Kingdom was flourishing. So either the Noah flood is a myth, or it was a local flood that got very very very embellished to make people think God was really mean.

 

[Theodore_Harris]

Not remotely correct.

If the bible timeline is correct, the Noah flood happened when the Egyptian Old Kingdom was flourishing.

Perhaps the Egyptian Old Kingdom heiroglyphics were off. The Bible was observed whereas the Egyptian Old Kingdom wasn't.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

Perhaps the Egyptian Old Kingdom heiroglyphics were off. The Bible was observed whereas the Egyptian Old Kingdom wasn't.

No, we're not doing this on this thread. If you want to discuss the topic of the age of the Bible or whatever, please start your own thread on it.

 

[Theodore_Harris]

It was observed because extra biblical sources confirm its happening. From Josephus, Tertullian, near every civilization has a flood story, Greek sources corroborate Maccabees, Persian sources and Babylonian histories mirror old testament stories. Whereas nobody else is verifying these other religions tall tales.

 

[Theodore_Harris]

No, we're not doing this on this thread. If you want to discuss the topic of the age of the Bible or whatever, please start your own thread on it.

Ain't this relevant to Darwin?

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

Ain't this relevant to Darwin?

Not in the slightest.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

Perhaps the Egyptian Old Kingdom heiroglyphics were off. The Bible was observed whereas the Egyptian Old Kingdom wasn't.

What about the other civilizations of the time, such as the Mature Harappan (Indus Valley Civilisation), and the Sumerians of Mesopotamia?

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

What about the other civilizations of the time, such as the Mature Harappan (Indus Valley Civilisation), and the Sumerians of Mesopotamia?

Please. Please don't go on with this.

 

[Theodore_Harris]

What about the other civilizations of the time, such as the Mature Harappan (Indus Valley Civilisation), and the Sumerians of Mesopotamia?

These were never corroborated by any extratribal sources whereas the Bible was.

 

[Theodore_Harris]

No, we're not doing this on this thread..start your own thread on it.

Im talking to you on the internet. What's thread got to do with it?

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

Im talking to you on the internet. What's thread got to do with it?

This thing you're posting comments on is called a thread.
Now, stop taking this thread off topic or I will get a moderator involved.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

Please. Please don't go on with this.

Sorry. I've stopped.

 

[SLP]

delete