Evolution is religion
Larry Moran's Sandwalk blog has the following excerpt from a talk given by Darwinist cafeteria Christian Francis Collins:
So Collins leaves no question that evolution is part of his religious beliefs. Furthermore, he appears to be arguing that evolution must be true because it is the method that God chose for creating living things. In contrast, most or many advocates of Intelligent Design are very careful to avoid religious arguments. So, why is teaching Intelligent Design in public schools a violation of the "separation of church and state" whereas teaching Collins' evolution is not? The answer, of course, will be that evolution can be taught without mention of religious beliefs, but the same is true of ID. William Jennings Bryan said, "If those who teach Darwinism and evolution, as applied to man, insist that they are neither agnostics nor atheists, but are merely interpreting the Bible differently from orthodox Christians, what right have they to ask that their interpretation be taught at public expense?"
This jerko Collins is a darling of the hypocritical accommodationist National Center for Science Education, one of the biggest opponents of teaching criticisms of evolution in the public schools. Furthermore, this jerko Collins was appointed by Pres. Obama to be head of the National Institute of Health, probably a political appointment based on Collins' beliefs about evolution.
Here's a video of a talk he gave last October at The Veritas Forum in California. All of it is really interesting but the punchline comes at 50 minutes when he gives a short summary of his beliefs.[First Slide] Almighty God, who is not limited in space and time, created a universe 13.7 billion years ago with its parameters precisely tuned to allow the development of complexity over long periods of time.
[Second Slide] God's plan included the mechanism of evolution to create the marvelous diversity of living things on our planet. Most especially, that plan included human beings.
[Third Slide] After evolution, in the fullness of time, had prepared a sufficiently advanced neurological "house" (the brain), God gifted humanity with free will and with a soul. Thus humans received a special status, "made in God's image."
[Fourth Slide] We humans used our free will to disobey God, leading to our realization of being in violation of the Moral Law. Thus we were estranged from God. For Christians, Jesus is the solution to that estrangement.
That's it. A very simple but, I think, entirely compatible view that does no violence either to faith or to science. And puts them in a harmonious position ...
So Collins leaves no question that evolution is part of his religious beliefs. Furthermore, he appears to be arguing that evolution must be true because it is the method that God chose for creating living things. In contrast, most or many advocates of Intelligent Design are very careful to avoid religious arguments. So, why is teaching Intelligent Design in public schools a violation of the "separation of church and state" whereas teaching Collins' evolution is not? The answer, of course, will be that evolution can be taught without mention of religious beliefs, but the same is true of ID. William Jennings Bryan said, "If those who teach Darwinism and evolution, as applied to man, insist that they are neither agnostics nor atheists, but are merely interpreting the Bible differently from orthodox Christians, what right have they to ask that their interpretation be taught at public expense?"
This jerko Collins is a darling of the hypocritical accommodationist National Center for Science Education, one of the biggest opponents of teaching criticisms of evolution in the public schools. Furthermore, this jerko Collins was appointed by Pres. Obama to be head of the National Institute of Health, probably a political appointment based on Collins' beliefs about evolution.
Labels: Intelligent design (new #1), National Center for Science Education
posted by Larry Fafarman | 4/26/2010 07:44:00 PM
43 Comments:
‘So Collins leaves no question that evolution is part of his religious beliefs. Furthermore, he appears to be arguing that evolution must be true because it is the method that God chose for creating living things.’ – you are right, the man’s approach is foolish. Religion and evolution are incompatible.
‘most or many advocates of Intelligent Design are very careful to avoid religious arguments.’ – well of course they are. If they did they would lose, because……..
‘teaching Intelligent Design in public schools’ is ‘ a violation of the "separation of church and state" as it is actually based on religion.
‘evolution can be taught without mention of religious beliefs, but the same is true of ID’ – no, that's not true! ID is merely retitled creationism and both are based on religious concepts.
‘are merely interpreting the Bible differently from orthodox Christians, what right have they to ask that their interpretation be taught at public expense?" – Exactly! Well said. If the bible is in it, then it mustn’t be taught at public expense.
‘So Collins leaves no question that evolution is part of his religious beliefs. Furthermore, he appears to be arguing that evolution must be true because it is the method that God chose for creating living things.’ – you are right, the man’s approach is foolish. Religion and evolution are incompatible.
‘most or many advocates of Intelligent Design are very careful to avoid religious arguments.’ – well of course they are. If they did they would lose, because……..
‘teaching Intelligent Design in public schools’ is ‘ a violation of the "separation of church and state" as it is actually based on religion.
‘evolution can be taught without mention of religious beliefs, but the same is true of ID’ – no, that’s not true! ID is merely retitled creationism and both are based on religious concepts.
‘are merely interpreting the Bible differently from orthodox Christians, what right have they to ask that their interpretation be taught at public expense?" – Exactly! Well said. If the bible is in it, then it mustn’t be taught at public expense.
So, you are just gonna ignore the fact that whatever references to God that Collins adds into his "interpretation" of evolution is entirely absent from the actual scientific theory? Under this flawed logic alone, 99% of ID advocates can be said to follow it as a religion since they all choose to substitute the Christian (or any other religion) God as the designer in question, whether in their minds or openly declared. Any ID proponent who is also a Christian is guilty of this, since in their beliefs, there can be no other creator.
Barely any ID advocates try to hide their own personal association of it with Christianity due to their religious zealotry, and those that do end up having their scientific justifications fall apart since ID is based on such so many scientifically flawed methods. I can think of one, Behe, who falls in the latter category. Can you honestly think of one well-known ID proponent who falls into a category other than the aforementioned two?
What you are doing is deflecting the real issue of how ID has no scientific basis. It is a nice try though, but falls apart the moment someone begins to claim that they worship the god who created the laws of physics. Or math. The list goes on.
So, why is teaching Intelligent Design in public schools a violation of the "separation of church and state" whereas teaching Collins' evolution is not?
Because Collins didn't give that speech in public school, braniac...
Whateverman barfed,
>>>>>> Because Collins didn't give that speech in public school, braniac... <<<<<<
That's what I said, bozo --
The answer, of course, will be that evolution can be taught without mention of religious beliefs,
So I was a step ahead of you, doofus.
Rupert,
You submitted duplicate comments -- this apparently was not a glitch, because the posting times are widely separated. You apparently grew impatient because your comment did not appear immediately. I have comment moderation turned on, so readers' comments do not appear immediately.
>>>>> ID is merely retitled creationism and both are based on religious concepts. <<<<<<
Wrong -- ID is, or is supposed to be, based solely on scientific facts and reasoning. In order to properly understand evolution theory, it is necessary to understand the scientific criticisms of the theory, and ID is a major source of those criticisms. Consider "exaptation," for example. This is an attempt to explain irreducible complexity by arguing that the components of irreducibly complex features had previous independent functions (something similar was used on this blog to try to explain co-evolution: claiming that co-dependent traits in co-evolution had previous independent functions).
Bob the Bastard barfed,
>>>>> 99% of ID advocates can be said to follow it as a religion <<<<<
You have no sources to back up your wild claims. You are so full of living crap that it is coming out your ears.
Whateverman barfed,
>>>>>> Because Collins didn't give that speech in public school, braniac... <<<<<<
LF responded: That's what I said, bozo --
The answer, of course, will be that evolution can be taught without mention of religious beliefs,
So I was a step ahead of you, doofus.
Are you *actually* getting more dense the longer this conversation continues?
The difference between ID and evolution is that one is religious and the other is not. There are no religious beliefs associated with the ToE. None. Zip, zilch, nada nein, zero. None.
The fact that a Christian teaches evolution DOES NOT MEAN EVOLUTION IS RELIGIOUS.
I'm sorry, Larry, but you're truly an idiot.
<<<<<>>>
Prove me wrong. Name a major ID proponent/advocacy group which has absolutely no ties to with Christianity or any religion.
Also, you haven't addressed the logical pitfall of equating evolution with religion just because someone chooses to incorporate it into his/her existing faith.
Bob the Bastard said...
<<<<<>>> Name a major ID proponent/advocacy group which has absolutely no ties to with Christianity or any religion. <<<<<<<
That's easy -- the Discovery Institute, for example. And a lot of individual ID proponents have no ties to any religion.
>>>>>> Also, you haven't addressed the logical pitfall of equating evolution with religion just because someone chooses to incorporate it into his/her existing faith. <<<<<
And have you addressed the logical pitfall of equating ID with religion just because someone chooses to incorporate it into his/her existing faith?
You Darwinists just keep making the same old tired arguments over and over again.
Whateverman barfed,
>>>>> There are no religious beliefs associated with the ToE. <<<<<<
Like I said, you are so full of living crap that it is coming out your ears.
actually I wasn't sure I had submitted properly as I couldn't remember seeing the 'awaiting moderation' thingy when I first lodged. I wouldn't bother with a second lodge because if you rejected the first post there would be no point.
As to your claims that ID is not religious based. All the responses you have given are ludicrous. What about the book which was a re-print with the words 'creation' crossed out and replaced with 'ID"? The Discotute not religious based - HA HA HA what a joke.
You god-botherers keep coming up with seemingly new arguments all the time but they amount to the same old tired argument.
oops, might have double posted . I seriously do apologise if I have
actually I wasn't sure I had submitted properly as I couldn't remember seeing the 'awaiting moderation' thingy when I first lodged. I wouldn't bother with a second lodge because if you rejected the first post there would be no point.
As to your claims that ID is not religious based. All the responses you have given are ludicrous. What about the book which was a re-print with the words 'creation' crossed out and replaced with 'ID"? The Discotute not religious based - HA HA HA what a joke.
You god-botherers keep coming up with seemingly new arguments all the time but they amount to the same old tired argument.
from the Discotute website - 'The point of view Discovery brings to its work includes a belief in God-given reason'
from Answers in Genesis - '...Of course, the best method is to check the account of a reliable eyewitness, if one is available. The Bible is such a record. Since it is the written Word of God, we can trust it to tell us the truth about the past. Carefully studying the Biblical record, we find that the universe has an age of around 6,000 years, and that a world-changing, global Flood occurred about 4,300 years ago.
Those who don’t accept the Biblical account of history look for other ways to discover the age of things.'
Have you seen the books and other products the Disco advertises on it's site? That's right, ones that attribute stuff to god.
To deny that support of ID isn't intrinsically linked to a belief in god is obtuse at the very least.
You named the Discovery Institute as an example of an entirely non-religious ID advocacy group?!?
Is this from some bizzaro reality where the Wedge document never existed? What about the various revisions of their ID textbooks with all their references to Creationism, God, and other biblical references which were shuffled around between different editions before finally being removed in subsequent lawsuits? What about the fact that 90% of the DI membership are self-declared bible-thumping, frothing-at-mouth, evangelical Christians who have said in their own words in interviews that they believe God to be the designer, and that in time, everyone will accept this?
<<<<<<>>>>>>>>>
ERROR: CIRCULAR REASONING DETECTED. NO ACTUAL RESPONSE FOUND.
Problem here is, biologists and other scientists don't even need to argue this point in their arguments against ID. The fact that there isn't anything scientific about its development or methods is damning enough to remove its presence from the science classroom.
Also, evolution theory itself was not researched and developed with the intent of starting or promoting a religion, unlike ID, whose transition from Christian creationism was well documented on paper.
If merely pointing out your obvious ignorance is trolling, then I guess I'm a troll. It's not my fault that you (willingly) ignore the numerous DI publications which outline the religious purposes of their methods and goals. Even if they wiped all religious references from their current publications, their goals remain quite consistent, but you'd know that if you bothered to check the documents. The DI didn't just pop up overnight all secular and non-partisan. They even have a federal court ruling declaring their efforts to be religious in nature back in 2005.
The mouthpieces of the DI seem to have problems keeping the religious overtones in check. They talk of godless scientific materialism, even state that their efforts are to bring God back into public schools in some cases, and almost always turn to the conservative Christian demographic for political support with promises that blatantly violate separation of church and state.
Are you religious zealots always to dishonest?
The idea that ID emerged from creationist roots is clearly false. It emerged from Darwinisr roots, when some scientists concluded that the scientific evidence fails to support the idea that species arose by completely mindless, unintelligent, mechanical causes. One of them was Fred Hoyle, who wrote in 1982 that that the first carbon-based life was very probably the product of what he called "intelligent design." Since Hoyle was an atheist, he preferred to arbitrarily assume that the intelligence involved had somehow arisen by natural laws.
Jim Sherwood - another liar or fool.
Neither of you have responded to the evidence provided, merely reacted in your normal glassy-eyed, intellectually incoherent and dishonest manner.
This is typically symptomatic of the guileless who have been 'blinded by the light'. It closes your eyes to the truth and factual reality.
Too bad the brand of ID being pimped by the Discovery Institute is indeed derived from Christian creationism. Hoyle's intelligent design was used in context of life on earth evolving from extraterrestrial life forms - seeds, microbes, and other living organisms that can hypothetically survive entry through earth's atmosphere. He called this hypothesis panspermia, and it is far removed from the supernatural nonsense being promoted by DI today.
Also, if you want to go further back beyond Hoyle, ID was used in the Macmillan Encyclopedia of Philosophy, explicitly referencing a supernatural deity responsible for the perceived order of the world back in 1967. Others such as Robert Nozick and James Horigan used ID as a concept which included supernatural deities not limited to, but including the Christian God years before Hoyle.
Ultimately, ID in its original form can be said to have origins derived from Deism. However, the kind of ID that is promoted by the DI is indeed derived from creationism.
Although Larry has kicked me off his blog, there have been a number of developments in the past week that he may be interested in.
Yesterday, the Supreme Court issued a ruling on Salazar v. Buono. Larry was interested in this case because it was cited by another case for precedent on standing. The Supreme Court upheld the standing ruling, either directly or by res judicata, depending on which round of litigation was cited. Also, the land transfer was remanded back to the district court to analyze Congress's actions. The ruling was 71 pages including the summary, so I haven't read it in detail yet. Personal preference: distrct judge rules that Congress has a secular interest in requiring a war memorial be maintained on the site if it is transferred to private owners, but may not dictate the contents of said memorial. That should make everybody happy.
Also, the Court last week decided a case reaffirming the lodestar calculation as the primary method of determining attorney fees in civil rights cases. See Perdue v. Kenny A. Larry is opposed to the use of the lodestar calculation.
Texts and analysis of those two rulings can be found at SCOTUSblog.
Finally, last week Carl Zimmer last week posted an update on the wasp that zombifies roaches. Turns out the wasp is targeting a specific portion of the roaches brain,and if that portion is removed, the wasp spends some time trying to find it. More can be found at The Loom. Larry has mentioned this wasp in the past.
BTW, Collins is actually arguing that the method God chose for creating living things must be evolution because evolution is true. However, since Larry has kicked me off his blog, I will refrain from further comment.
Jim Sherwood wrote the following: The idea that ID emerged from creationist roots is clearly false.
http://www.antievolution.org/features/wedge.html
Considering that the veracity of this document was established in a court of law, would you care to rethink your statement?
No?
I'm not surprised
W. Kevin VIcklund said,
>>>>>Although Larry has kicked me off his blog<<<<<<
No, I have not kicked you off this blog, dunghill, though you deserve to be.
>>>>>> there have been a number of developments in the past week that he may be interested in.
Yesterday, the Supreme Court issued a ruling on Salazar v. Buono. <<<<<<
Yes, I was already aware of the Salazar decision -- but what does this decision have to do with Caldwell v Caldwell (Caldwell v. Caldwell is listed in the post labels in the left sidebar of the homepage)?
>>>>> Larry is opposed to the use of the lodestar calculation.<<<<<
I don't even know what the "lodestar calculation" is, and I couldn't find a good definition.
>>>>> Turns out the wasp is targeting a specific portion of the roaches brain,and if that portion is removed, the wasp spends some time trying to find it.<<<<<<
I think that it is amazing that the wasp can detect whether that portion of the brain is there or not.
>>>>> Collins is actually arguing that the method God chose for creating living things must be evolution because evolution is true <<<<<<
It is still a religious argument as opposed to a scientific argument -- he still appears to be implying that the reason why criticisms of evolution are invalid is that God chose evolution as the way of creating living things. And as I said, evolution is part of his religious beliefs, and your statement does not change that.
>>>>> since Larry has kicked me off his blog, I will refrain from further comment. <<<<<<
What do you mean, "further" comment? If I had kicked you off this blog, why would I even post your above comments?
Bob the Bastard said,
>>>>>> Ultimately, ID in its original form can be said to have origins derived from Deism. However, the kind of ID that is promoted by the DI is indeed derived from creationism. <<<<<<<
This bullshit is just guilt-by-association. There are different kinds of ID and ID is not the only criticism of evolution theory.
If it were under any other circumstances, I would actually agree. Unfortunately, guilt by association cannot apply in this case because the Discovery Institute made their religious intentions and purposes known. Also doesn't help that their mouthpieces continuously betray their supposedly secular and non-partisan goals with all that Jesus talk. If it walks like a duck and talks like a duck...
Darwinist Christians such as Francis Collins have actually played a major role in promoting Darwinism. Darwin himself became a vehemently anti-Christian agnostic, who ranted against Christianity in his letters, and in his posthumously-published autobiography. Yet Darwin is buried in Westminster Abbey, the "holiest sanctuary" of the Anglican Church.
The reason? Many Anglican clerics embraced Darwin's theory just as if it were verifiable science, and altered their views accordingly. Others had their doubts about Darwin's notions, but were afraid that they'd be branded "anti-science" if they didn't honor the old boy. So the collaboration of some Christians with Darwinists, is a very old story.
Bob the Bastard said,
>>>>>> guilt by association cannot apply in this case because the Discovery Institute made their religious intentions and purposes known <<<<<<
What has that got to do with guilt by association? You don't know what guilt by association is.
Larry posted:
This bullshit is just guilt-by-association. There are different kinds of ID and ID is not the only criticism of evolution theory.
I know exactly what guilt-by-association is. And what I was originally responding to was Jim's assertion that ID is totally atheistic/non-religious in origin. You(Larry) are the one charging my assertion that ID is deistic in origin with creationist undertones as guilt-by-association. Look at your own post if memory fails you.
The fact remains, the Discovery Institute's religious intentions are well known. It is well documented in how they transitioned from creationism into ID through various edits, enough to for anyone to validly claim that the ID currently promoted by the DI is wholly derived from creationism. Arguing guilt-by-association do not apply in this case.
Jim:
Ain't nothing wrong with collaboration. Are you making some sort of point, or just telling an amusing story?
Reading the wildly misinformed comments of Darwin-fans on this blog reminds me of the ranting of Bernard Henri Levy, a French atheist "philosopher," who declared in the leftish magazine The Nation, in 2006, that intelligent design is a "ridiculous fraud" hatched by "the religious right." P.Z. has similarly cried that Michael Behe is a "fraud." Daniel Dennett stupdly brays that ID is a "hoax," is "dishonest to the core," and is similar to maintaining that quantum physics is the work of the devil.
Stupidity and extreme misinformation, however, are evidently not the exclusive property of Darwin-fans. A recent Harris Poll indicates that 57% of American Republicans have the cock-eyed opinion that President Obama is a Muslim, while 32% of the general public believes the same thing. 24% of Republicans rather ludicrously assert that the President is the Antichrist, while 45% of them think that he wasn't born in America. All of this strikes me as so extreme and/or deluded, that even P.Z. might be hard-pressed to maintain more improbable things.
Trying to enlighten anyone about anything may, after all, be a complete waste of time.
Having read Collins' book "The Language of God" I will venture an opinion. Unlike many fundamentalist Christians, he accepts that the universe is billions of years old, and that life developed through a process of evolution, and he accepts this because of the science, not any religious beliefs on his part. Then, as a Christian, he accepts a theological perspective of evolution. Personally, I did not find his theology very sophisticated, not much more than "that's the way God did it" but that is what he believes. Most nonfundamentalist Christians have accepted the theory of evolution, just as earlier Christians accepted the Copernican theory.
Evolution is not a religion, and Creationism is not science. To think otherwise is simply to confuse categories. Intelligent Design is more sophisticated than the "Creation Science" it grew out of, but still has a religious core. (Despite a certain coyness of some ID proponents the Designer is obviously God.)Conceivably ID theory may yet make some contribution to Science, although it hasn't as yet.
Bob, I've never met someone so enthusiastically ignorant as Larry before. Sadly, I stumbled across this blog looking for information from people who claim to have valid criticisms of the theory of evolution, but that's not what I found - not at all.
How can you stand to engage Mr Fafarman? I certainly can't...
what, no new posts or responses to comments?
Been too busy in the church confessional seeking redemption for all your lies and misrepresentations?
Careful you don't get interferred with.
It looks like Larry is continuing to deteriorate. Rather than the previous poorly thought out rants, he has lowered himself to baseless personal attacks.
The last step is usually falling back into arbitrary censorship of anyone who he can't logically dispute. Oops! He is already there.
Bob the Bastard said...
>>>>>>>> Unfortunately, guilt by association cannot apply in this case because the Discovery Institute made their religious intentions and purposes known. <<<<<
Like I said, you don't know what guilt by association is, bozo. Here it means condemning ID -- and all criticisms of evolution -- because some ID advocates and some other critics of evolution are motivated by religion. It is like condemning evolution because some evolutionists are motivated by atheism or -- in Collins' case -- theism.
Rupert barfed,
>>>>>> what, no new posts or responses to comments?
Been too busy in the church confessional seeking redemption for all your lies and misrepresentations? <<<<<<<
Dunghill, I had no access to the Internet since Thursday because the cybercafe that I use was down.
Also, if you read the introduction to this blog, you can see that I don't always respond to comments, and I should not be expected to.
gary said,
>>>>>>> Having read Collins' book "The Language of God" I will venture an opinion. Unlike many fundamentalist Christians, he accepts that the universe is billions of years old, and that life developed through a process of evolution, and he accepts this because of the science, not any religious beliefs on his part. <<<<<<<
But when people question evolution because of the science, you Darwinists jump up and down saying, "see, criticisms of evolution are based on religion," whether or not those people have even said anything at all about their religious beliefs. So there is obviously a double standard operating here.
>>>>>> Intelligent Design is more sophisticated than the "Creation Science" it grew out of, but still has a religious core. <<<<<<<
ID is not the only scientific (or pseudoscientific) criticism of evolution. For example, co-evolution can be a problem for evolution even where ID (or irreducible complexity) is not a problem. In co-evolution, unlike in evolutionary adaptation to widespread fixed physical features of the environment, e.g., air, water, and land, there may be nothing to adapt to because the corresponding co-dependent trait in the other organism may be initially absent.
And evolution, like ID, creation science, and other criticisms of evolution, also has religious implications. What in the hell is the difference?
Larry posted:
Like I said, you don't know what guilt by association is, bozo. Here it means condemning ID -- and all criticisms of evolution -- because some ID advocates and some other critics of evolution are motivated by religion. It is like condemning evolution because some evolutionists are motivated by atheism or -- in Collins' case -- theism.
Wait, wasn't this exactly what you were doing in your very first post?!?
Also, Jim (and Larry if his reading comprehension is good enough):
If you'd bother to read the exact origins of ID, you'd realize that even back then, it was regarded as a philosophical exercise on the existence of god(s). It was even careful to distance itself from the scientific process before Christian fundamentalists began twisting it for their purposes in the 80s. They worked their creationism mythos into its various tenets and labeled it as a scientific theory instead of a purely philosophical one for the sole purpose of expanding its distribution in fields of thought where it really does not belong. To say ALL of ID is creationist in origin is inaccurate. However, the ID that is currently promoted by DI is with 100% certainty.
evolution has religious implications?
Other than the need to dispel the creationist/ID myth, how does this occur?
So ID is either scientific or pseudo-scientific? I'll go with pseudo-scientific.
According to Sherwood: 45% of {Republicans} think that {0bama} wasn't born in America. All of this strikes me as so extreme and/or deluded, that even P.Z. might be hard-pressed to maintain more improbable things.
It is so extreme and deluded, that 0bama's wife Michelle, his grandmother, and numerous newspapers in Africa also think that he wasn't born in America. (Besides which, he just doesn't act like an American.)
Trying to enlighten Sherwood about anything is indeed, after all, a complete waste of time.
I had long supposed that Darwin-fans are half-wits, but after reading the recent comments here, I confess that I've been mistaken. They are more properly regarded as quarter-wits, at most.
Jim Sherwod did blather as follows: I had long supposed that Darwin-fans are half-wits, but after reading the recent comments here, I confess that I've been mistaken. They are more properly regarded as quarter-wits, at most.
This from a guy who also wrote "The idea that ID emerged from creationist roots is clearly false."
Classic!
If I look for a dictionary definition of "projection", will I find your name listed, Jim?
Darwin laid down an essentially reigious, or metaphysical, dogma in his Autobiography (p.87): "Everything in nature is the result of fixed laws."
Some things in nature are the result of laws, which at least appear to be fixed. We know that because we know the laws, and can use them to very accurately predict certain phenomena, in advance. But the notion that everything in nature (however nature may be defined,) is the result of fixed laws is an unverifiable and arbitrary claim, a metaphysical dogma. It has become the central dogma of philosophical materialism.
Notice that before 1859 no such dogma was common among scientists: for most biologists, such as the great Louis Agassiz at Harvard, were creationists of one variety or another: not because they "banged the Bible" at all, but because the fossil record and other scientific evidence appeared to fit best with a creationist conclusion. (Note: I am not any sort of creationist, for those Darwin-fans who may assume otherwise.)
Darwin was an influential religious prophet, a prophet of the philosophical materialist faith. But I don't think he was much of a scientist.
Post a Comment
<< Home