In a broader sense, however, a creationist is simply a person who believes in the existence of a creator, who brought about the existence of the world and its living inhabitants in furtherance of a purpose. If God brought about our existence for a purpose, then the most important kind of knowledge to have is knowledge of God and of what He intends for us. Is creation in that broad sense consistent with evolution?
The answer is absolutely not, when "evolution" is understood in the Darwinian sense. To Darwinists evolution means naturalistic evolution, because they insist that science must assume that the cosmos is a closed system of material causes and effects, which can never be influenced by anything outside of material nature-by God, for example. In the beginning, an explosion of matter created the cosmos, and undirected, naturalistic evolution produced everything that followed. From this philosophical standpoint it follows deductively that from the beginning no intelligent purpose guided evolution. If intelligence exists today, that is only because it has itself evolved through purposeless material processes.
A materialistic theory of evolution must inherently invoke two kinds of processes. At bottom the theory must be based on chance, because that is what is left when we have ruled out everything involving intelligence or purpose. Theories which invoke only chance are not credible, however. One thing that everyone acknowledges is that living organisms are enormously complex-far more so than, say, a computer or an airplane. That such complex entities came into existence simply by chance is clearly less credible than that they were designed and constructed by a creator. To back up their claim that this appearance of intelligent design is an illusion, Darwinists need to provide some complexity- building force that is mindless and purposeless. Natural selection is by far the most plausible candidate.
If we assume that random genetic mutations provided the new genetic information needed, say, to give a small mammal a start towards wings, and if we assume that each tiny step in the process of wing-building gave the animal an increased chance of survival, then natural selection ensured that the favored creatures would thrive and reproduce. It follows as a matter of logic that wings can and will appear as if by the plan of a designer. Of course, if wings or other improvements do not appear, the theory explains their absence just as well. The needed mutations didn't arrive, or "developmental constraints" closed off certain possibilities, or natural selection favored something else. There is no requirement that any of this speculation be confirmed by either experimental or fossil evidence. To Darwinists just being able to imagine the process is sufficient to confirm that something like that must have happened.
Richard Dawkins calls the process of creation by mutation and selection "the blind watchmaker," by which label he means that a purposeless, materialistic designing force substitutes for the "watchmaker" deity of natural theology. The existence of a potent blind watchmaker follows deductively from the philosophical premise that nature had to do its own creating. There can be argument about the details, but if God was not in the picture something very much like Darwinism simply has to be true, regardless of the evidence.
(Copied Source)
Dan:
ReplyDeleteI would suggest you are making "evolution" overly narrow in the same way that you say its adherents make "creationism" overly narrow. I have heard suggestions that a creating god could very well have used a tool like evolution to effect his creation.
It is certainly true that scientists only look for natural explanation. It is based on a fundamental limitation that we (people in general) have. We can only check for natural events and causes. There are no instruments that can distinguish "hand of god" from "not the hand of god."
It is an interesting conundrum. In order for science to use any god in a theory, that god must first be measurable. Measurements are necessary to science. I definitely agree that intelligent design does not belong in a science class. It is not testable. Indeed, since a designer can use evolution as a tool, there is nothing that could falsify it. I don't see any experiment that could be taken as a direct confirmation of it either. Even if evolution is wrong (I make no bets) there could still be some other (unknown) natural phenomenon that does not require a designer. So statement like "this is too complex to have evolved" are completely useless. There is no way to gauge "what is too complex to evolve." It is beyond our ability to make such a determination rationally. And even if evolution could be ruled out, it is not confirmation for a designer. The only thing that would confirm a designer would be to observe the designer.
Pvblivs,
ReplyDelete"I have heard suggestions that a creating god could very well have used a tool like evolution to effect his creation."
And that would be entirely wrong. We are jumping ahead because that exact point is addressed in one of the next posts. Stay tuned!
Dan,
ReplyDeleteI am sory, this is so insane at so many levels that I will not have the energy, nor the inspiration to set you right. I suspect that nothing we have told you has entered your head too. So, no point anyway.
G.E.
Dan said:
ReplyDelete"It is a major theme of Darwinist propaganda that the only persons who have any doubts about Darwinism are young-earth creationists of this sort, who are always portrayed as rejecting the clear and convincing evidence of science to preserve a religious prejudice."
With regard to the use of group names as propaganda, is the intention of the articles in this series to address only those whose call themselves "Darwinists"? If so, I suppose the supporters of the current theory of evolution can go elsewhere and leave you and supporters of "Darwinism" to duke it out.
Also, is it the fault of the supporters of evolution that so many of the theory's detractors seem to be young-earth creationists? And, yes, being a young-earth creationist places someone at odds with, not just the theory of evolution, but many other branches of science, as well. Frankly, I thought that was the reason why there were separate terms for creationists and young-earth creationists.
Dan also said to Pvblivs:
"And that would be entirely wrong. We are jumping ahead because that exact point is addressed in one of the next posts. Stay tuned!"
Perhaps if you don't want to discuss reactions to your statements, it would be better to just post your whole series at once. Telling someone they (or, in this case, something Pvblivs heard) are wrong and then asking them to wait for a rebuttal at a later date seems a little off putting.
Dan,
ReplyDeleteCan I assume that you are an "Old Eath" creationist?
Mike,
ReplyDelete"Telling someone they (or, in this case, something Pvblivs heard) are wrong and then asking them to wait for a rebuttal at a later date seems a little off putting. "
Again good point, but the question is addressed later on. In fact it's part of the main crust and purpose of the article.
Pvblivs said,
"In order for science to use any god in a theory, that god must first be measurable."
Exactly!! and this is the reason why God was eliminated from the equation and naturalism was accepted because it's testable. The only reason why evolution is accepted also is for that reason. Naturalism is just assumed because it's the only thing man can touch, so it has to be correct????
Dan said:
ReplyDelete"Naturalism is just assumed because it's the only thing man can touch, so it has to be correct????"
Good heavens no. Science makes no claims to be "correct". That's what philosophers and religous people are for. For all we know, last thursdayism could be "correct".
Naturalism, or at least methodological naturalism (I like that term), is one of the most important parts of science. Without it, something cannot possibly be scientific: it wanders off into the realms of philosophy.
Now, just because something is scientific, doesn't mean it's correct, but (personal opinion) I believe it's as close as we can get.
But again: science makes claims only about the real world, from evidence taken only from the real world. It cannot do otherwise, or it ceases to be science.
That is why evolution is accepted by science: it is the best, and only, scientific explanation for the evidence.
Dan,
ReplyDeleteYou said,
"The only reason why evolution is accepted also is for that reason. Naturalism is just assumed because it's the only thing man can touch, so it has to be correct????"
And, how do we detect something if not by our senses?
Quasar,
ReplyDeleteScience makes no claims to be "correct".
I perfectly understand this point but you have to admit that science pushes to prove the paradigm which is considered to be truth or "correct" Every thing is pushing towards the goal of proving that hypothesis and anything that is contrary is pushed aside as Pvblivs calls "inconclusive"
If that were truly the case, then scientists would not have been able to develop then rule out any theories in our history. We'd be far more ignorant of the workings of nature than we actually are.
ReplyDeleteStuff like "spontaneous generation" of flies from dead meat (kind of like the creation of adam from dirt), the phlogiston theory of heat, etc. would still be half-accepted, because any evidence against them would be "inconclusive" in your and Pvblivs' world view.
"If God brought about our existence for a purpose, then the most important kind of knowledge to have is knowledge of God and of what He intends for us. Is creation in that broad sense consistent with evolution?
ReplyDeleteThe answer is absolutely not"
False. Absolutely false.
Deists tend to believe in an absent Creator, and avoid searching the natural world for evidence of God's existence. Christianity, on the other hand, repeatedly points to the Bible and at the wonderous complexity of life on Earth as absolute proof of His existence.
THESE people are the ones who fail (utterly) in understanding that a creator can indeed work through apparently scientific methods to achieve the same thing. If there's no scientific evidence of God's existence, there's no need to panic; faith, after all, is supposed to allow you to believe when evidence is lacking.
Those who assert that evolution is false are merely displaying their lack of Faith.
No more, no less.