Darwinism: The Evolutionary Cult
Good article on Darwinism by...Pat Buchanan?? Yeah, really.
Here's an excerpt:
Could be. Read the rest of the article here.
HT: William Dembski
Here's an excerpt:
For generations, scientists have searched for the "missing link" between ape and man. But not only is that link still missing, no links between species have been found. As Bethell writes, bats are the only mammals to have mastered powered flight. But even the earliest bats found in the fossil record have complex wings and built-in sonar. Where are the "half-bats" with no sonar or unworkable wings?Buchanan's prediction: "Like the Marxists, the Darwinists are going to wind up as a cult in which few believe this side of Berkeley and Harvard Square."
Their absence does not prove -- but does suggest -- that they do not exist. Is it not time, after 150 years, that the Darwinists started to deliver and ceased to be taken on faith?
Could be. Read the rest of the article here.
HT: William Dembski
Labels: David C. Price
posted by DAVID C. PRICE at 12/18/2005 07:10:00 PM
|
8 Comments:
Loved this article...Thank you. Linked to it on my blog HT to you.
I am still waiting to see the mutations of the walking the fish and the talking chimp...
Thanks. Well, there are a few people I can think of that almost pass for the latter.
I don't know. I wish Buchanan was right, but the Darwinists are far from mere cult status. A lot is going to have to happen culturally (no need to use the word "scientifically" here) before it happens.
You are right in your observation on the popular level, but among scientist, it is very much like a cult. Many scientists are blindly predisposed to believing it is true so that nothing that only explanations that have a natural origin (sans the supernatural) will even be considered.
Whereas science used to be about following evidence where it leads and trying to get to truth at all costs, it has very much become a protectionists exercise in order to preserve a preconceived idea of how life developed.
Unfortunately, many people have blindly bought into this and, rather than thinking through the evidence for themselves have just accepted that only naturalism is real science because the "experts" have told them so.
That actually sounds rather cult-like, doesn't it?
Thanks for your comment.
David,
Do you know any professional scientists? And I'm not talking about William Dembski. What do they think about your disparaging their profession as a cult.
You say, "following evidence where it leads." Please tell me, what evidence do you have that is not natural. Show it to me. Let me hear it, smell it, taste it, touch it. Sounds like evidence refers to purely natural things, don't you think?
Absolutely! We dolive in a natural world and the natural evidence does need to be material (though, in addition to the physical evidence, there are mounds of philosophical evidences that also support theism without even getting to the more subjective experiences of those who understand the reality of Christ as Lord). The fact is, there is more evidence around us that we can see, feel, taste and touch that demands a Creator than any level of macro-evolutionary "evidence"...and let's be clear here: we're talking "macro." Nobody here is arguing against micro-evolutionary changes (simple adaptation to our environment).
You show me the evidence I can feel, taste, touch or smell that proves macro-evolution. Show me this overwhelming evidence that ANY one species crossed over to develop another. Where are the intermediary species? Where are the half gorilla/half man species? Shouldn't there at least be something we could point to as conclusive evidence since EVERYTHING followed this developmental procedure, meaning there should be literally millions of processes all around us. How about just one? If they were there, it would no longer be a theory, would it?
The fact is, the evidence isn’t there. Instead, we have a group of elitist, naturalistic scientists trying to bully their philosophy on a world that, by and large, doesn’t buy it (that’s what the surveys show) and they can't prove otherwise. They have the bully pulpit; the scientific "expertise" on their side and they still can't get the job done. Why?
People who actually believe this macro-evolution theory are in the minority...a vocal minority, I’ll give you (though that is changing quickly). But most people understand that the amazing design elements in the universe didn't...couldn't...happen by chance anymore than the chance development of the computer I'm typing on now.
Clearly, one must be philosophically predisposed to naturalism for it to work (you give me a good example of that predisposition by your outright rejection of William Dembski as a professional scientist because he didn't join the evolutionary boys club, despite his impressive credentials).
Darwinism is a weak philosopy, but it is just that: a philosophy. Passing it off as pure science is a sham...it is philosophy OF science (see my post, Darwin the Philosopher for more).
Science is supposed to be about the process of discovery based upon following the evidence WHERE IT LEADS. Naturalistic scientists won’t do that...they reject other philosophies of science outright that do not lead to their own, predetermined, philosophical conclusions.
This is not all scientists, and it should be obvious that scientists who don’t prescribe to this philosophical and professional straight jacket are not lumped into this category. Sadly,it is most likely a majority...though the numbers seem to be changing almost every day.
By the way, I’ve missed your comments. Good to hear from you again and I hope your family is doing well.
Thanks for the good wishes. I also hope you and your family are doing well and I hope that your Christmas tour goes well. It sounds like a busy trip.
Let me address some of your points.
First, I don't reject W. Dembski because he is not a proponent of evolution, rather I was trying to rule him out since he is a mathematician, and they deal with different types of 'proof,' although the fields do, of course, overlap. Also, I realize that you were studying at the same institution Dr. Dembski is currently employed.
"Macro vs. Micro" - This is a popular objection against evolution since the evidence for 'micro'evolution, as you call it is incontrovertible, and so must be encompased. But I wonder where exactly is the barrier to be found between them? 'Macro' is simply the accumulated 'micro' changes over very long time periods. Very long. Which leads me to ask about your view on the age of Earth. Are you a YEC? Or do you accept the evidence (the physical kind) for an ancient Earth?
"Missing Link" - Another popular one. What you are apparently looking for is some sort of chimera, but I'm afraid it doesn't work that way. Each animal in an evolutionary sequence was a fully formed and functional individual. Part of the problem here is one of artificial dualism. You would see a skeleton and say, "That is human." Shown an ape skeleton, you would say, "That is ape." Shown one that has characteristics mostly like the human but with some more ape-like, you would put it in one of the two groups. This is the artificial dualism. There aren't two groups, but a sliding scale. Ask a professional biologist and they can show you many series from the fossil record showing intermediate forms.
Also, I must admit being disappointed with your use of the word theory. An educated person like yourself should know not to confuse the popular definition of the word with the technical definition.
"People who actually believe this macro-evolution theory are in the minority..." Here I must, sadly, agree with you. But the facts of science are not decided by popular vote. They are discovered through a process of work and study.
Why can't scientists "get the job done"? I'm not sure, since the evidence (the physical kind) seems overwhelming to me. One answer is simply ego. People just don't want to believe that they are animals (or descended from them), and who can blame them? And yet, it moves.
So could you point me to one of these pieces of evidence (the physical kind) that "demands a Creator." Or is it just that people can't believe that there is no creator.
I know I haven't been back for a long time. I decided to check your blog to get your take on the Dover decision.
Be well.
You know, I read your comment and immediately began thinking of examples to counter your arguments and illustrations just within the small confines of the human body that are evidence of design, as in the digestive system that processes food in such a way that it sifts out things that are needed for the body and efficiently eliminates the parts we don’t; white blood cells that attack germs that enter our bodies; eyes that are perfectly suited windows on the world; the various other vital organs that fulfill important functions that just work. Then I realized that wouldn’t make any difference. The problem is you look at these various systems in their parts and come up with a particular way in which they theoretically could develop on their own. I know in the past, for instance, you’ve brought up a counter-argument to an irreducibly complex system like the eye using a fish with a sensitive spot, which to me sounds ludicrous, yet you believe it. That shows me I probably could not argue you away from your commitment to Darwinism. The point is that I don’t know that there is a good reason for me to offer a tit-for-tat justification for everything that is. I’m not as interested in winning a philosophical argument as I am at finding truth.
There is a real difference in the way naturalists approach science, often looking at all of these different parts and missing the big picture. Where is there evidence of design? Really, everywhere. This entire universe has so many elements of design that most people not predisposed to disbelief in a Creator have no problem recognizing it. You say ego is a driving force for disbelieving in evolution. I say, it’s the opposite. It’s not a matter of being too good to be the off-spring of an animal, it is realizing we are too complex (including animals) to be the product of blind, unintelligent chance. To me, it looks more like ego when the naturalist can’t imagine himself not in control or being the product of something being and more intelligent than himself. Why not the possibility of a designer? Why is that such a problem? Have you ever even given it a consideration? Do you really have the ability to disprove that possibility?
See, for me, it’s the big picture. I look not simply at the parts (though the parts are very design-like), but the whole enchilada and realize that without a transcendent creator, there is no giving account for so much that I know is reality by experience. I don’t know about you, but I don’t live my life the way naturalists say they do (and you probably don’t either, really…I doubt very seriously that many, if any, do). For instance, when I make my way through the world, I see complexity all around me and immediately posit a designer. When I enter a city, I see design in the buildings even if I never saw them built. I enter an art gallery and even with the modern art that I rarely understand, I posit an artist. I walk through a forest and come across a hut, I posit a builder; I see a sign, I posit a sign-maker intent on communicating something. Just this morning, I was listening to the radio and the old song “Stairway to Heaven” came on. I don’t know if you remember or ever heard of this, but there was some sort of back-masking technique that was used on that. I remember getting together with a friend who had some of the albums that had that kind of stuff on there and hearing it for the first time. You could literally hear sentences being said. The point? Whether or not I agree with what I heard, I think that is pretty cool technology. But my first reaction was to assume someone did that; that someone was communicating something on purpose. It was intentional. Is that just because I believe in a God? Of course not. Though I had no proof; though I suppose it could have been a very wild coincidence, I immediately assumed intent. Yet with the most complex systems of the universe, common sense doesn’t apply. It just makes no sense to say that amazing complexities developed from chaos. It’s not the way anything in the world works (chaos to order), yet we’re supposed to believe that all the obvious intricacies are nothing more than dumb, blind luck.
Moreover, it is impossible to hold that all we are is material robots. You and I both know we’re not. Yet, naturalism can offer no adequate explanation for things we take for granted every day. I know you have a son about my sons age that I’m sure you love him very much as I do mine. Yet, where does that “feeling” or emotion or whatever you want to call “love” come from? For that matter, where do any of our emotions come from? Naturalism only provides for utilitarianism…survival of the fittest. According to naturalism, what we call love is simply showing favor to another creature only so far as it benefits ourselves and our own survival. Would you give up your life for your son? If so, as a naturalist, why? That doesn’t make sense from a naturalistic perspective. You wouldn’t be honest to do so; you would be betraying your own worldview.
What about all this deep thinking? What’s the point when there is absolutely no way to know if what you are thinking is right if “thought” simply developed as a random mutation of the brain. How do you trust those thoughts to tell you what is right? As a matter of fact, what constitutes “right” or “wrong” in the first place? For a naturalist whatever happens is what is “right.” Yet “right” is a value-judgment. Whose values? The majority? What if the majority decides that killing all first born sons is “right” in order to control population or for any other strange reason that might be deemed beneficial for the survival of the species? I think you and I both would have a major problem with this. Why, if you are right and we are just accidental, pre-determined robots?
And while we’re at it, where is freedom? Do you make real choices in which to do otherwise than that what you do is a real possibility? Not if you are right. Naturalism doesn’t provide for that. In a closed system of cause-and-effect, you do not have any freedom at all. You must simply do and act according to your environment and all prior events. There is no such thing as evil because, again, that is something of a value-judgment. Yet we both know that there really are things that are more than just “the way it is.” What happened on 9/11 can no more be said to be wrong or evil than providing a meal to a homeless man, nor can that be considered “right.” Many naturalists theoretically claim that they agree that there is no evil or right and wrong (if they’re being honest with their own worldviews), but rare is the one who can stay so true to his philosophy when some of those things happen to him. All of a sudden, he has been “wronged.” Someone kills his son, he wants justice. Well, what is justice in your worldview? Your son was killed, that’s the way it is, there is your justice. There is no reason to try the individual…he did nothing truly wrong. He may have done something you didn’t like, but big deal?
I could literally go on and on with example after example of things that you and I both, even coming from such different ideologies, take for granted everyday. But can you give account for these things according to your system of beliefs? Does evolution provide for any of this? I’d really like to know because I have really searched for something that could provide some semblance of meaning within a naturalistic worldview and I haven’t found anything that objectively holds water.
It’s really not just an exercise in philosophical one-upmanship in debating the minutiae of evolution. It’s real life…it’s the whole of life. It’s taking into consideration everything I know to be true, physically, emotionally, intellectually, and yes, even spiritually, and looking for the worldview that makes the most sense. It’s a quest for truth. See, my worldview offers a reason for looking for truth. There is a Creator who has revealed Himself and He does so through His creation. Things like beauty and intricate, natural mechanisms that work with amazing efficiency as with the amazing complexity of the placement, speed and make-up of our very own earth. Things like love and hate, right and wrong, self-sacrifice, and even evil. I see reasons for these things. I look from your worldview and I see reason for nothing. Chance can offer no reasons. It can’t even offer reason, itself. Reason and rationality cannot be a bi-product of naturalism. Think about it.
So, these are things you may never be able to see. You experience them, but perhaps you can accept all of this amazing and complex creation as just another rock randomly falling from a mountain. No reason, no real cause, no purpose. I cannot. It just makes no sense to do that just because I refuse to even think about the possibility of there being something bigger and more intelligent than myself.
Look, you are a smart guy and based on some of our past interactions, if we hung out together, we’d probably be good friends. So I say this: at least spend as much time thinking about the possibility that you are wrong in your philosophy. Take an honest look at everything you hold dear and try and come up with any reason you have to hold to it. Think about truth. Is there really truth and what makes it so? If, somehow, I were wrong on this, you have absolutely nothing to lose by examining it. You’re just going to cease to exist anyway.
If you refuse to even be open to the idea of something greater than naturalism, why is there any reason that you can think of not to just go ahead and embrace nihilism now since that is the logical conclusion for a naturalist…there really is no meaning at all and trying to create meaning is an exercise in futility. One can only fool himself so long. Eventually, we have to realize the emptiness in that. There is no reason for anything. There are no real emotions. No real love. Nothing called commitment. There is no hope for your children. No future. NOTHING.
If I’m right, though, you have absolutely everything to lose and the possibility of everything to gain. I’m not talking as a philosopher or a debater, or anything of the sort…just as a human being who has experienced all of these things that you cannot honestly believe in and am here to tell you that it is incredible. It’s not a sham or some psychological mind game, my friend. It’s real. You may think I’m delusional, but the millions of others who have experienced could not all be this delusional for such a long time. Maybe all this talk of a God is not really a crutch after all. I wish you could see that.
Anyway, I wish the absolute best for you and your family and hope you have a wonderful Christmas season.
Post a Comment
Links to this post:
Create a Link
<< Home