Quote:
|
Originally Posted by rockytriton
What exactly is a "Darwinist" anyway? Is this someone who believes that there is no god that has anything to do with creation or evolution? I don't think what darwin said about things like natural selection/evolution conflict with the possibility of intelligent design. Does Darwin say anywhere that his theories show that God doesn't exist? Is it wrong to believe in evolution and natural selection and believe that there was a god or some type of intelligence behind it? I don't know why people here who support ID are so anti-Darwin. I believe in ID, and I believe Darwin's theories. Am I some kind of moron? I can't stand the stupid attitude that you must fight everything a scientist says because you are afraid of going to hell if you try to think outside of the box, or outside of the book in this case.
|
You believe in ID? What is your belief in ID based on? "The Bible tells you so?" You just said that was the only basis for 'proof' of ID. Now, suddenly, you say you believe in ID.
Nobody is going to Hell because they believe in Darwinism… according to the basic doctrines of Christianity, anyway. But pursuant to your other questions, here are some quotes from evolutionists:
Quote:
|
“The evidence of evolution reveals a universe without design.” Moreover, “Darwin made it possible to be an intellectually fulfilled atheist.”13 —Richard Dawkins, The Blind Watchmaker, 1986
|
Quote:
|
“As evolutionists, we see that no [ethical] justification of the traditional kind is possible. Morality, or more strictly our belief in morality, is merely an adaptation put in place to further our reproductive ends. Hence the basis of ethics does not lie in God’s will.... In an important sense, ethics as we understand it is an illusion fobbed off on us by our genes to get us to cooperate. It is without external grounding.”11 —E. O. Wilson and Michael Ruse, “The Evolution of Ethics,” 1991
|
Quote:
“The tendency in savages to imagine that natural objects and agencies are animated by spiritual or living essences, is perhaps illustrated by a little fact which I once noticed: my dog, a full-grown and very sensible animal, was lying on the lawn during a hot and still day; but
at a little distance a slight breeze occasionally moved an open parasol, which would have been wholly disregarded by the dog, had any one stood near it. As it was, every time that the parasol slightly moved, the dog growled fiercely and barked. He must, I think, have reasoned to himself in a rapid and unconscious manner, that movement without any apparent cause indicated the presence of some strange living agent, and that no stranger had a right to be on his territory. The belief in spiritual agencies would easily pass into the belief in the existence of one or more gods.”12 —Darwin, Descent of Man, 1871, ch. 3
|
In other words, evolution as it is taught in schools, (Darwinian) is a theory of origins that has no creator. Now, you may disagree with this much of Darwinism… you may wish to meld evolution with I.D. and that's fine… in fact, that's great. At least it's a step in the right direction. But if that's the case, and if you yourself believe in ID, then what problem do you have with IDers?
Whether ID is incompatible with Darwinism or not, the question is, "Does Darwinian evolution actually work on the macro scale?" If you assume that "particle to people" evolution was the intent of the designer, would hard evidence and laws of physics as they exist actually permit such a thing? We have moths that go from black to white, but they're still moths. We have finches whose beak sizes change over time, but in the end, they're still finches. We actually have no "hard" evidence of any one species morphing into another different species. All we really have are certain similarities between some species that are
interpreted to mean that one evolved from another. So is that really enough evidence to conclude with any certainty that evolution on a macro scale actually occurred? The answer is an emphatic NO.
Certainly, many of you will disagree strenuously with this. So at the risk of being misconstrued, I would ask for an example of one species which evolved from something different. I am
not asking this in the spirit of "Name just one" combativeness… that's not my meaning. I'm assuming for the moment, for the sake of argument, that there are many such examples and that any of you can name one that you accept as reasonable, and then I will use that to illustrate something. If you'd like an example, Pete Dunkelberg has a piece on the talkorigins web site where he speculates that venus flytraps evolved from sundews. (although he admits there's no fossil evidence to support this) So unless you all are comfortable with my using THAT as an example, please provide a different one.
Thanks.
