This thread began as part of the discussion called Turning Away with Jan (Darwinist), who describes himself as "a male, almost 46 years old, raised as a Christian (Dutch Reformed church)and educated at a Christian college. I am a teacher and a psychologist. And yes, I moved away from faith. Why? In retrospect I think two factors played an important role: The readings in the Bible itself and alternative explanations for creation as proposed by science." Jan is impressively active in his posting, so I anticipate a vigorous discussion.
The original discussion was getting overly long, so I split off the creation/evolution discussion. We begin with Jan:
Darwinism influenced Hitler more than Luther did : those who assert must prove. if you are so sure about it, prove it. And, btw, The evolution theory is like gravity, wether you like it or not, you are bound to it.
Posted by Darwinist on 2003.10.01
Well, Jan, you're certainly prolific. I've got a hectic week, so it will take me awhile to respond in any depth. I did notice that your first two posts mentioned homosexuality, including this claim:
approximately 5% of the world population is born homosexual
I don't believe that anyone is born homosexual, other than the fact that we all are born with a propensity for sin. I won't challenge you to prove your case, since you can't. What I do want you to do is to make a case for how homosexual tendencies can remain in the gene pool despite Darwinian evolution's presumed ability to favor those genes which increase survival fitness. You can't be a consistent Darwinian without pronouncing homosexuals to be defective aberrations in the gene pool.
Posted by Randy on 2003.10.14
Now let me adress Darwin.
"Race", as used by Darwin, refers to varieties, not to human races. It simply points out that some variations which occur naturally survive in greater numbers. Origin of Species hardly refers to humans at all. Click here.
Darwin ( and Wallace) just showed by which mechanisms species developed in time, and he did so in a way that can be tested and/or refuted, contrary to the creation position.
Now lets contrast Darwin with George McCready Price:
In The Phantom of Organic Evolution, he referred to Negroes and Mongolians as degenerate humans. [Numbers, 1992]
Or Henry Morris: "Sometimes the Hamites, especially the Negroes, have even become actual slaves to the others. Possessed of a genetic character concerned mainly with mundane, practical matters, they have often eventually been displaced by the intellectual and philosophical acumen of the Japhethites and the religious zeal of the Semites." [Morris, 1976]
Thats racism, Randy.
Posted by Darwinist on 2003.11.05
Jan,
"Race", as used by Darwin, refers to varieties, not to human races. It simply points out that some variations which occur naturally survive in greater numbers. Origin of Species hardly refers to humans at all.
Would you please supply a reference in OOS where race is used of non-humans? I was unable to find one. In any case, "The Descent of Man" provides a clear statement of Darwin's beliefs:
At some future period, not very distant as measured by centuries, the civilised races of man will almost certainly exterminate, and replace, the savage races throughout the world...The break between man and his nearest allies will then be wider, for it will intervene between man in a more civilised state, as we may hope, even than the Caucasian, and some ape as low as a baboon, instead of as now between the negro or Australian and the gorilla.
Darwin ( and Wallace) just showed by which mechanisms species developed in time, and he did so in a way that can be tested and/or refuted, contrary to the creation position.
Evolution can't be refuted because it is so amorphous. Poke a hole in one part and another theory will ooze into replacement. It's much more of a worldview than a testable scientific hypothesis. (If you want to get into a discussion on that, I'll start another topic thread.)
Now lets contrast Darwin with George McCready Price...Or Henry Morris...Thats racism, Randy.
I agree (with you, not with them). What's your point? Because I've read some of Morris's books and agree with some aspects of them, I must back everything he's written? Not at all. I disagree with him on other things as well, such as his excessive defense of the King James Bible. Notice, however, that I don't sign my name as "Morrisist." You wear the name of Darwin proudly--how then do you deal with my quote from "The Descent of Man"?
Posted by Randy on 2003.11.05
Hi Randy, its nice to be back!
I called myself Darwinist, to oppose your young earth creationism stance. And, as far as I know Darwin was not a racist ( he was opposed to slavery for instance, in a time when most of his contemporaries were not) . I haven't read the Decent of Man, but I will look for your quote. I am not so much interested in the man, as in the theory he offered. Nevertheless, evolution theory is as much an ideology as gravity theory. Don't shoot the messenger (Darwin in this case), as was done with Galileo or Copernicus.
Can evolution theory be refuted? Yes, because you can make predictions out of it. If you can't make a verifiable (refutable) prediction, a theory is worthless and explains nothing at all.
Evolution can't be refuted because it is so amorphous. Poke a hole in one part and another theory will ooze into replacement. It's much more of a worldview than a testable scientific hypothesis.
Hehehe, you can't be serious. Although after reading this quote you might really be serious;
"Creationists have set themselves apart from other Christians by intimately interweaving their story of the "who" of creation with the "how" of creation. For them, it is the flat earth problem all over again. Creationists have taken a theory of creation which is testable and tied it to an inherently untestable story about God. In the process, they have declared a testable theory to be also inherently untestable." ... "Creationists follow a predictable pattern as they find it easier to deny physical evidence than to deny God. Physical evidence, no matter how overwhelming, can be dismissed as the work of the devil."
(Theology Today, October 1982, 39(3):249-59)
Your opposition to evolution theory, is as ideological based as was Lysenkoism to the sovjets after Worldwar II. ( Lysenkoism set back the agricultural development in the Sovjet Union for years to come, because it denied Mendelian genetics). Lysenkoism was taught in schools, just like creation pseudoscience is forced into the American schoolsystem. The Sovjet Union paid a very high prize for being so dogmatic and stupid.
Evolutionary theory is the most powerfull integrating idea in all of biology, and essential for other sciences ranging from astronomy to anthropology. (Carl Sagan)
"Poke a hole.." Yep, Randy, thats how science works, because of science's passion to frame testable hypotheses that confirm or deny ideas. And guess what: that's exactly what scientists studying evolution do to themselves (poking holes), because science is the quest for truth, independent of wether you like the results or not.
Worldview instead of testable hypothesis? Well my dear biblical literalist, that's bullshit. Evolution has lots of evidence:
geological, astronomical, biological, archeological etc. I guess its the overwhelming evidence for evolution why creationists feel threatened in the first place!
