Do Darwinists acknowledge flaws in Origin of Species?
| January 18, 2009 | Posted by Dave S. under Intelligent Design |
Steve Fuller, in the preceding article, begins by saying that Darwinists acknowledge the flaws in Darwin’s Origin of Species and seek to correct the flaws and expand on it. He further says this separates the Darwinist reading of Origin from the Christian reading the Bible.
Well, I for one would like to know exactly what flaws in Origin of Species Fuller thinks are acknowledged. Furthermore, I know plenty of Christians who believe much of the bible is methaphoric. They don’t think the earth and life was created in 6 days. They don’t think Lot’s wife was literally turned into a pillar of salt. They don’t think the entire earth was flooded and all the animals were saved in pairs on a wooden ark.
What say you?
39 Responses to Do Darwinists acknowledge flaws in Origin of Species?
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.
angryoldfatman @27
You’re certainly living up to your name!
While I’ll try to refrain from scoffing, that link is long on rhetoric and short on fact. At best, you are equivocating on the word “venerate,” ascribing religious overtones that aren’t supported by the actual behavior of the people you are criticizing.
I’m afraid you’ve completely failed to support your assertion that the NCSE “worships” Darwin. If we were shooting the breeze face-to-face, that claim might be good for a fun rant. Presented here, where many people come to get information on ID, it gives the impression that many ID supporters have other agendas.
We should be criticizing our opponents for their real shortcomings, not amusing but ultimately unfounded claims.
JJ
Since you asked, I’m a Creationist first, and an ID-er second. I believe that (falible, human) science will one day reconcile with (infalible, divine) scripture. In the meantime, I appreciate the rigourous work you ID-ers are doing, but cringe at the long-age assumptions you’ve swallowed.
Insects could have survived without being on the Ark.
Perhaps PaulBurnett should take the time and read “Noah’s Ark: A Feasibility Study”. The he wouldn’t erect these starwman arguments.
BTW Paul, Creation does NOT insist in the fixation of species. IOW it appears that you don’t even understand their position.
A question for Allen MacNeill,
Do you tell your students that Mendel was a Creationist?
If not, why not?
As for whales “evolving” for a land mammal- all your alleged “evidence” for it can also be used as evidence for common design.
There isn’t anything in genetics nor developmental biology that demonstrates such a transformation is even possible.
JamesHip @32
Those aren’t simply assumptions, James. The scientific evidence that the Earth is approximately 4.5 billion years old is overwhelming, with mutually supporting lines from different disciplines.
If you reject the science behind those lines of evidence, why are you interested in making ID scientifically rigorous?
I’m not asking to be belligerent, I’m genuinely curious about the ID “big tent.” You’ve chosen a different set of assumptions based on your faith. They aren’t exactly mine, but you have a long theological history behind you. Why mix and match?
JJ
JayM @35
Thanks for not being belligerent.
Those “mutually supporting lines from different disciplines” are being eroded, ref ICR and/or CMI.
The forensic (historic, once-only, not repeatible, not experimental) science being used to justify long ages are based on uniformitarian assumptions, instead of true catastrophism (a la Noah’s flood).
Quite simply, we weren’t there; He was. If ID is true, then the Intelligent Designer would have certain identifiable traits. I.e. a “good” creation wouldn’t require millions of years of death and disease before Adam’s sin.
And we used to think that diamonds also took eons to create. Now humans can make diamonds that cannot be distinguished from natural diamonds.
My point is until we know HOW the Earth was formed all guesses as to its age are just that- guesses.
JamesHip @36
With all due respect, the work of the ICR is refuted in numerous places on the web, including some Christian sites. They are not scientifically credible. I’m unfamiliar with CMI, but catastrophism, which you mention as well, is also not supported by the geologic record.
Be that as it may, though, I still wonder why you seek scientific validation for that which you know through faith. It seems unnecessary at best. Some of my extended family hold views that seem closer to yours than mine. They recognize that their assumptions are incompatible with methodological naturalism, and are content to seek truth within their theology rather than science. Do you seek some form of accommodation?
Genuinely curious,
JJ
JayM @ 38
Not accommodation; Truth! Newton, Pasteur, Kepler knew that science was the search after God’s own thoughts. The lie of Evolution is a harmful cancer on the body of Christ. The fact of Creation got me saved. I want to shout from the rooftops that the God of miracles is still alive today.