Someone tries telling the truth: Darwin wasn’t that great but he met an elite need – July 29, 2014
Excerpt: , he (Charles Darwin) devoted almost every bit of his magnum opus (Origin Of Species) to tedious examples of artificial selection in domestic animals. He brushed away the glaring advantage of artificial over natural selection with rhetoric along the lines of “I see no reason why” natural selection might not have fashioned the eye or any other organ or living thing. For such schoolboy ineptitude he was roundly criticized by his contemporaries, all of whom are now consigned to history’s dustbin, regardless of their skills and biological competency.
http://www.uncommondescent.com.....lite-need/
Anti-Science Irony
Excerpt: In response to a letter from Asa Gray, professor of biology at Harvard University, Darwin declared: “I am quite conscious that my speculations run quite beyond the bounds of true science.”
When questioned further by Gray, Darwin confirmed Gray’s suspicions: “What you hint at generally is very, very true: that my work is grievously hypothetical, and large parts are by no means worthy of being called induction.” Darwin had turned against the use of scientific principles in developing his theory of evolution.
http://www.darwinthenandnow.co.....nce-irony/
An Early Critique of Darwin Warned of a Lower Grade of Degradation – Cornelius Hunter – Dec. 22, 2012
Excerpt: “Many of your wide conclusions are based upon assumptions which can neither be proved nor disproved. Why then express them in the language & arrangements of philosophical induction?” (Sedgwick to Darwin – 1859),,,
And anticipating the fixity-of-species strawman, Sedgwick explained to the Sage of Kent (Darwin) that he had conflated the observable fact of change of time (development) with the explanation of how it came about. Everyone agreed on development, but the key question of its causes and mechanisms remained. Darwin had used the former as a sort of proof of a particular explanation for the latter. “We all admit development as a fact of history;” explained Sedgwick, “but how came it about?”,,,
For Darwin, warned Sedgwick, had made claims well beyond the limits of science. Darwin issued truths that were not likely ever to be found anywhere “but in the fertile womb of man’s imagination.”
The fertile womb of man’s imagination. What a cogent summary of evolutionary theory. Sedgwick made more correct predictions in his short letter than all the volumes of evolutionary literature to come.
http://darwins-god.blogspot.co.....ed-of.html
Sedgwick to Darwin
“…I have read your book with more pain than pleasure. Parts of it I admired greatly, parts I laughed at till my sides were almost sore; other parts I read with absolute sorrow, because I think them utterly false and grievously mischievous.”
Adam Sedgwick (1785-1873) – one of the founders of modern geology. – The Spectator, 1860
Sean, and other Darwinists, may object that Darwinian evolution could just as well do without all the bad liberal theology that underpins Darwinian claims, and that they could just as well rely only on mathematics and evidence as other theories of science do. But he, and they, would be wrong in that claim.
Darwinian evolution simply does not have a rigid mathematical basis to test against as other overarching theories of science have. In fact, Charles Darwin himself was trained in (liberal) theology and said that he found mathematics to be ‘repugnant’. And as such, it should come as no surprise that Darwin used no mathematics whatsoever in his book ‘Origins’ to try to establish the legitimacy of his claims of evolution:
Darwin Timeline
Excerpt:1827 May
,,, Plans were made for Darwin to study for the clergy, and his father arranged for him to attend Christ’s College at Cambridge University.,,,
1831 January 22
He took his final exam and passed with very good scores! The exam covered such topics as Homer, Virgil, Paley’s Moral and Political Philosophy (good scores here), Locke’s Essay concerning Human Understanding (did well here, too), mathematics (did not do so well), physics and astronomy (also, not very good). He came in 10th place out of 178 students who passed the exam.
1831 March/April
Darwin started thinking about settling down in a nice countryside parish as a clergyman with ample time to ramble about the countryside collecting bugs and plants.
http://www.aboutdarwin.com/timeline/time_03.html
“During the three years which I spent at Cambridge my time was wasted, as far as the academical studies were concerned, as completely as at Edinburgh & at school. I attempted mathematics, & even went during the summer of 1828 with a private tutor (a very dull man) to Barmouth, but I got on very slowly. The work was repugnant to me, chiefly from my not being able to see any meaning in the early steps in algebra.”
Charles Darwin, 1887 – Recollections of the Development of my Mind & Character, the work which Darwin himself referred to as his autobiography
..........
Where Darwinian evolution goes off the rails, theologically speaking, as far as science itself is concerned, is that it uses bad liberal theology to try to establish the legitimacy of its atheistic claims, all the while forgetting that it itself is dependent on basic Theistic presuppositions about the rational intelligibility of the universe and of our mind to comprehend it.
In fact, Darwin’s book, ‘Origin’, is replete with bad liberal theology. Which should not really be all that surprising since Darwin’s college degree was in (liberal) theology:
Charles Darwin, Theologian: Major New Article on Darwin’s Use of Theology in the Origin of Species – May 2011
Excerpt: The Origin supplies abundant evidence of theology in action; as Dilley observes:
I have argued that, in the first edition of the Origin, Darwin drew upon at least the following positiva theological claims in his case for descent with modification (and against special creation):
1. Human beings are not justified in believing that God creates in ways analogous to the intellectual powers of the human mind.
2. A God who is free to create as He wishes would create new biological limbs de novo rather than from a common pattern.
3. A respectable deity would create biological structures in accord with a human conception of the ‘simplest mode’ to accomplish the functions of these structures.
4. God would only create the minimum structure required for a given part’s function.
5. God does not provide false empirical information about the origins of organisms.
6. God impressed the laws of nature on matter.
7. God directly created the first ‘primordial’ life.
8. God did not perform miracles within organic history subsequent to the creation of the first life.
9. A ‘distant’ God is not morally culpable for natural pain and suffering.
10. The God of special creation, who allegedly performed miracles in organic history, is not plausible given the presence of natural pain and suffering.
http://www.evolutionnews.org/2.....46391.html
To this day, Darwinists are still dependent on bad liberal theology in order to try to establish the supposedly ‘scientific’ legitimacy of Darwinian claims:
Nothing in biology makes sense except in light of theology? – Dilley S. – 2013
Abstract
This essay analyzes Theodosius Dobzhansky’s famous article, “Nothing in Biology Makes Sense Except in the Light of Evolution,” in which he presents some of his best arguments for evolution. I contend that all of Dobzhansky’s arguments hinge upon sectarian claims about God’s nature, actions, purposes, or duties. Moreover, Dobzhansky’s theology manifests several tensions, both in the epistemic justification of his theological claims and in their collective coherence. I note that other prominent biologists–such as Mayr, Dawkins, Eldredge, Ayala, de Beer, Futuyma, and Gould–also use theology-laden arguments. I recommend increased analysis of the justification, complexity, and coherence of this theology.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23890740
Moreover, the scientists of Darwin’s day rejected his theory whilst, not so surprisingly, the liberal clergy readily accepted it:
“Religious views were mixed, with the Church of England scientific establishment reacting against the book, while liberal Anglicans strongly supported Darwin’s natural selection as an instrument of God’s design.”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/R.....of_Species
Was Darwin a Scholar or a Pitchman? – Michael Flannery – October 20, 2015
Excerpt: By and large, the scientists of his day were not much impressed with Darwin’s theory. John Herschel called natural selection “the law of higgledy-piggledy,” and William Whewell thought the theory consisted of “speculations” that were “quite unproved by facts,” so much so that he refused to put the book on the shelves of the Trinity College Library.
http://www.evolutionnews.org/2.....00191.html
http://www.uncommondescent.com/evolution/americans-support-dissent-re-evolution/ |
