Darwin's theory of evolution, had open many questions about faith. Well we still don't know what the truth is, but I think only god can answer this unanswered question.

Most people are having a hard time believing in Darwin's theories and ideas..
I think the history of man cannot be told by anybody except time.

How in the world do you limit science to a particular realm, apply its own method, to its own conclusion, and then assert the conclusion that its way of knowing is better (a conclusion extending beyond the bounds you established) to be something other than assumption?

And by the way, if I wasn't clear, thank you for your contributions. Pray this day, Feb 20, 2009, be one of particular enjoyment for you.

Jeffp: I had to put my comments about "micro" and "macro" evolution into a new comment. It appears that we are getting to the limit the software will allow replies.

god-of-the-gaps is inherent in your discussion. "Creation from nothing" -- the phrase you used -- means a gap. The thing wasn't there one moment and the next it was. A "gap". What else can you call it? There's no connection to the created thing to anything else in the universe.

Jeff, I can't add a new comment to your denial that micro vs macro was you original claim, so I'll have to do a new comment. Your original claim was:
"Evolution in one sense being how living things adapt to the environment over time. Evolution in another sense being creation of all things from nothing adapting over time to the creation we see today."

That "evolution in another sense ..." may have been what you THOUGHT was "macroevolution:, but the "ceation of all things from nothing" is NOT macroevolution. Remember, macroevolution is the evolution of a new species from an existing one, not "creation ... from nothing".

So, now that we have that straightened out, we can get back to my point that the distinction is one creationists make, not evolutionists. When speaking about evolution, evolutionists understand that the processes that modify populations (microevolution) -- particularly natural selection -- also produce new species (macroevolution).

"After all, no one can be resonsible if someone employes FLAWED reasoning from a theory. "

Even if its your own flawed reasoning?

Kevin: I never mentioned "poor" in my post, musch less equate them to "weaker".

Darwin doesn't say it isn't practicable. He says it "COULD NOT be done for moral reasons. H ere, read this again: "Nor could we check our sympathy, even at the urging of hard reason, without deterioration in the noblest part of our nature. "

"employed flawed scientific reasoning to advance their cause. "

If that is the case (and you say it is), then the conclusion is that Darwinism (and Darwin) is not responsible for Social Darwiniam. After all, no one can be resonsible if someone employes FLAWED reasoning from a theory. Thank you for destroying your own tehisis so well.

letjustiverolldown: "No. Because if my head can think a question--then I free it to ask."

Fair enough. However, you should be careful not to stick to wrong science if you don't like the answer.

"The assertion that science is the most reliable source of knowledge we have is complete assumption."

I'm afraid it is not. Instead, it's a CONCLUSION from evidence. Science has 2 reasons it is more reliable than other forms of knowledge:
1. It has an "authority" everyone can refer to: the physical universe.
2. Other forms of knowledge rely on the broad set of prersonal experience as evidence. Not all people have the same personal expereince. BUT, science limits itself to the SUBSET of personal experience that is the same for eeryone under approximately the same set of circumstances (intersubjective). Thus EVERYONE has the same evidence. That makes science more reliable, but also is a limitation. Science can't speak to everything, only those things for which there is intersubjective evidence.

"I say scientists can easily stray beyond the bounds of science"

Yes, they can. Not because of the "assumption" isn't correct (it is), but because the fact acts as strong temptation to do misuse science to "win" in an area outside of science.

"And that is the reason Kuhn came to my mind."

Kuhn says different things from this. His main thesis is that the shift from one "paradigm" to another is not based on data, but on emotion. The data shows this to be wrong.

"quite able to function with mixed motives, mixed methods and contradictions."

Of course. Because most of our lives are lived OUTSIDE OF SCIENCE in areas where we either 1) aren't dealing wht the physical universe or 2) are not dealing with intersubjective experience.

But the "Joe Friday" science is NOT dogmatic. Rather, the arguments and skepticism have all been done BEFORE this particular piece of science is presented. What you see is the consensus after all those hard fought discussions are done. Don't mistake that for how scientists operate day to day.

"I wish creationists would make a strong push to carry out their inquiry without the label of creationism"
They did. In the past. Before 1800 young earth creationism was THE ACCEPTED scientific theory. In pursuing their scientific inquiry, those scientists showed it to be wrong. Modern day creationists can't pursue scientific inquiry because the data that showed creationism wrong back then is still there. So creationism is still wrong.

Yes, there is the larger theism vs atheism debate and ssome militant atheists (like Dawkins) say that evolution shows theism is wrong. The solution to that is NOT to question evolution. The solution is to see whether the claim that evolution SHOWS THEISM TO BE WRONG is correct. That's the critical claim. As it happens, evolution does NOT sshow theism to be wrong or atheism to be correct.

SisterMarie, you may well be right. I like to err on the side of thinking the person is honest, but you certainly have sufficient evidence to reach the conclusion you did. Should Littleroundtop post anything to which a scientific response can be made, then I will respond -- mostly so the everyone else can see the correct information.

lucaspa,

I think we've been had. There's a word to describe people who go on the internet and pretend to be clueless about some topic and then people react, and the first thing you know, he (or she) has reeled in a bunch of people. No one could possibly be that **** (self-censorship) or that ****** (self-censorship). As I urged previously, give it up, and do not respond to any more contributions like that.

this is the original charge I made

the jump is bringing this into the discussion

"If you don't know the science, then shouldn't you be staying out of it until you DO know a bit of the science? Shouldn't you refrain about asking about matter/spactime until you know enough of science to know what those are and what relation they have to evolution?"

No. Because if my head can think a question--then I free it to ask. The debate is not limited to professional science. That is a significant piece of what I am trying to say. I am sure there are legions of issues/debates "within science" -- which then get layered over by broad cultural philosophical debates--which then gets layered over by the scientific/philosophical/theological debates being waged in a myriad of contexts that do not abide by any standard rules.

My attitude ultimately, is likely largely the same as yours, but I am looking at it from a different angle and I am just doing a poor job speaking that angle.

I think 95% of what passes as debate over this issue would be resolved. You think science simply resolves it. I am saying that clarity in dialogue would likely knock out 90% of it without even getting to the science.

I am fully appreciative of your posts as you work towards clarity; towards limiting your points with whatever precision is necessary to be heard. I'd be happy to pick up some of your points to argue--but that is not my goal.

I don't believe I made any point advancing a creationist view nor in rejection of any scientific fact.

The assertion that science is the most reliable source of knowledge we have is complete assumption. Pulling one's assumption out as "the card that trumps all", is exactly what I have in mind when I say scientists can easily stray beyond the bounds of science, and begin to act as dogmatists. And that is the reason Kuhn came to my mind.

And you, my dear scientist brother, (and I am saying this, honestly, with a smile---not a sneer) are quite like me and other humanity--quite able to function with mixed motives, mixed methods and contradictions.

I would not, for a second, advocate we back off scientific inquiry. I believe with all my heart that all pursuit of truth is to be valued. And it is to be held in its place. It is not science nor knowledge that we serve. Science is a profound way of knowing. I wish creationists would make a strong push to carry out their inquiry without the label of creationism and simply work to advance scientific inquiry. But there is also a larger socio-theological debate that relates to the cultural super-structure within which scientific inquiry occurs--part of which is the atheist-theist argument which you reference.

You seem to insist that science not be misused. Which is all I was really after.

One thing I just notice from the original blog: Darwin's membership in the Downe Anglican Church. During that time Brodie Innes was pastor and he and Darwin were the best of friends. They argued about everything, but that was part of the fun. Brodie once remarked that ONCE Darwin and he found themselves in agreement. They looked at each other, laughed, and decided it must have been a mistake!

The point is, Pastor Innes stoutly defended Darwin against accusations of atheism. In fact, despite Darwin's own perception of himself as an agnostic, Innes thought Darwin was a theist. I think some weight must be given to Pastor Innes. As a best friend for over 30 years, he had some insight into Darwin's thinking.

squeaky: "the more I think of it, the more I realize the only thing being threatened is human sovereignty."

That's how I view it. It's a blow to our pride, but isn't pride one of the deadly sins? :)

Let's face it, was there anything in the Hebrews that warranted God choosing them? Shoot, right after He liberates them from Egypt (with all types of miracles), holds back Pharoah's host with a pillar of fire, and then parts the Red Sea, what do the Hebrews do? As soon as Moses is out of sight they make a golden calf and worship it as god! How stupid can anyone get? EVen dogs have more brains and loyalty than that!

Yet, of all the peoples of the world, God chooses them. It cannot have been anything inherent in them. It MUST have been due only to God.

You are conflating neglect of the poor with selective breeding in a way Darwin does not.

Again, here is what he says.

1) Selective breeding would be beneficial to humanity.

2) Selective breeding isn't praticable.

3) It is wrong to neglect the poor.

"Since the rest of Darwin's work is at SCIENTIFIC dissonance with that
statement about selective breeding, then Darwin is undermining Social
Darwinism, not supporting it."

Eugenicists employed flawed scientific reasoning to advance their cause. That doesn't mean that their theories weren't employed to negative ends.







________________________________

Kevin: "But again, Darwin is silent on the question of selective breeding. "

LOL! No, he's NOT silent. He says it violates the "noblest part of our nature" and is an "evil". How can you interpret that as being silent?

"Darwin does not argue that it ought not,"

He does argue "ought not". The reasons he gives for "will not" are "ought nots":
in violation of our noblest nature and making an evil. Those are OUGHTS.

Darwin does spend the rest of the paragraph after the first sentence applying a moral argument against selective breeding in humans! DUH! How can you keep missing that?

""Perhaps so, but that is immaterial to the question of whether we can thank Darwin for social Darwinism."

No, it's very relevant. What you have to do is look at ALL Darwin's work to determine if your claim is valid. Since the rest of Darwin's work is at SCIENTIFIC dissonance with that statement about selective breeding, then Darwin is undermining Social Darwinism, not supporting it.

jeffp: "many evolutionist bait and switch the meaning of the word "evolution" (macro vs. micro) "

This is a NEW claim! You hadn't discussed "mirco vs macro before Again, this is a CREATIONIST disctintion, not one by evolutionists. The processes that produce changes in populations (micro) also produce new species (macro).

jeffp: " I simply stated that some evolutionist like to switch their use of the term "Evolution" in a way that is dishonest."

Are you sure you don't mean "creationists". I have seen very few instances where evolutionists have used "evolution" as anything other than origin of species. Perhaps you could give examples instead of such a vague claim.

jeffp: "you are jumping a large gap with your god of the gaps projection "

What gap is that? There isn't any gap in material causes after the Big Bang. Nor should there be if Christian theology is correct.