You see what he has cleverly done here? He is equating Darwinism to something that he calls materialist philosophy". I'm not sure that Darwin ever thought that intelligence can only exist unless in evolved from mindless matter. Did he?Do you see what you have just done? You've assumed that what "Darwinism" is today is necessarily the same as what Darwin intended back in the mid-1800's. I'm not a philosopher, but did not Nietzche latch onto the idea of "survival of the fittest" when he postulated his theory of the "superman?" Was not that then used for such things as eugenics, and Hitler's philosophy of a "master race?"
My point about the small toe, or the appendix, was to illustrate just how distorted Darwin's theory of natural selection has become. People routinely confuse willful adaptation with genetic mutation, and frequently ascribe a "purpose" to "nature's design" in evolution.
* * *
You wrote:
So I would say to the author not to be so anti-ad hominem arguments, as they are exactly what are required to be religious.
Does that necessarily imply that an hominem arguments are the only logical construct to be used when discussing religion?
* * *
You wrote:
At least scientists admit that they don't know it all.
Perhaps that sentence should have read:
At least some scientists admit they they don't know it all.I don't believe it can be said that all scientists act with equal humility.
Similarly, some people of faith are more than happy to admit they don't know it all. I've read and listened to some of the best theological minds of the 20th and 21st century, and one thing I hear time and again is an admission that at the very center of the Christian faith there exists some profound mysteries.
Yes, there are many people who display a profound sense of arrogance with regard to the things of faith. I've written many times in this space that I have little regard for such people. Aside from doing great damage to the faith, they are displaying a fundamentally flawed response to the central premise of the faith. That's Cornerstone #6, by the way, if I ever get to it. :-)
* * *
As for the use of the term theory ... are you saying that natural selection is a proven fact? Can you cite one instance of proof of a trans-species mutation? Has there ever been an experiment where bacteria in a petri dish have responded to a change in their environment and mutated to a completely different species?
Note: I'll acknowledge that one difficulty here is the definition of the term "species." Some might argue that a bacteria that no longer dies from exposure to some antibiotic is a different species. I'm not so sure that's a proper use of the traditional meaning of the term.
Similarly, are you saying that the "Big Bang" is proven fact? What is scientific "fact?" Can "fact" be established absent a mechanism to provide repeatable and consistent demonstrations of the phenomenon?
* * *
With all due respect, scientists are humans, and humans are subject to many failings, including allowing their personal wishes and desires to enter their studies. This planet is littered with all manner of people who stake a claim for scientific neutrality, but display anything but. Here in the United States, for instance, the Centers for Disease Control published a study that claimed that obesity resulted in over 400,000 deaths per year. It has since been established that the methodology employed in the study is flawed, and that based on the raw numbers the extrapolated value should be closer to 25,000. Yet the CDC has not withdrawn the 400,000 number. Why not? I can only speculate, but here are two reasons: 1) pride, 2) money.
There can be little argument that governmental money chases after things perceived as the most critical to address. Do you think scientists are immune to the lure of grants for their research? Do you think they are immune to the temptation to hedge their findings a bit, perhaps paint a slightly different picture, all to make their particular project more critical than the next fellow's?
No comments:
Post a Comment