gentlegreen
I hummus, therefore I am ...
How does "religious belief" fit in ?
Why Did Darwinism Emerge?
- Thread starter phildwyer
- Start date
Yes, it suggests that it is a theory rather than fact. I'm not sure why scientists tend to deny this, except as rhetorical ammunition against creationists (which I hasten to add is unnecessary here). I was under the impression that one of the most vaunted strengths of science was its openness to refutation.
And I think that Darwin has been refuted by, among other things, the discovery of the K-T event. More to the point I think that by the end of his life SJ Gould believed that Darwin had been refuted by, among other things, the discovery of the K-T event. .
In any case, I see no reason to give Darwin's theory the irrefutable status conveyed by the absence of an "ism."
Well, Darwinism was instrumental in the destruction of religious belief. So I suppose it fits in as the dialectical thesis to science's antithesis.
It always amazes me how few Darwinists have read the book to which Darwin was responding: William Paley's Natural Theology. Paley uses exactly the same empirical evidence as Darwin, but reads it to the opposite conclusion: he finds it proof of intelligent design. This tells us that Darwinism is an adjustment of the relation between humans and the world, rather than a product of any new empirical discoveries.
gentlegreen
I hummus, therefore I am ...
It's Al Gorism all over again ...
gentlegreen
I hummus, therefore I am ...
Where do you stand on God's "mistakes" ?
Me too, if we allow a sufficiently capacious understanding of "dissertation" (and come to think of it "religion," "politics" and "nineteenth-century.")
I'm particularly interested in the decline of substance dualism and the rise of materialist monism as the dominant popular ideology, a position it retains to this day. It seems to me that this would have been inconceivable without Darwinism.
I'm not sure what you mean.
toggle
wobbly
bollocks.
Much like universities in the twentieth century (though not I fear the twenty-first).
gentlegreen
I hummus, therefore I am ...
I'm trying to
And the extinction events that were essential for our "creation" - did God set those up ?
And the stability of our solar system that uniquely protects our planet - did God set that in motion ?
All the millions of extinct species in the fossil record.
And the extinction events that were essential for our "creation" - did God set those up ?
And the stability of our solar system that uniquely protects our planet - did God set that in motion ?
I certainly have no religious agenda, if that's what you're suggesting. I've laid my cards on the table regarding my beliefs.
I think we are now in a post-Darwinist age, and that this allows us to look back at the era of Darwinism from its beginning to its end.
The question that most interests me is whether popular materialist monism (that is to say, the widespread assumption that matter is all that exists) can survive the demise of Darwinism.
They happened. So if God is omnipotent (and that is the only kind of God that makes sense) then the answer must be "yes."
gentlegreen
I hummus, therefore I am ...
toggle
wobbly
yes, a growing secularisation in society that allowed the reexamination of existing evidence without the necessity of a pre determined conclusion that supported a particular religious theme.
however, you do seem to be giving darwin's ideas a great deal of credit as a causal factor in the changes in society rather than seeing them as part of a pre existing and growing pattern of changes
Are you trying to be funny?
Serious question, because a lot of stupid people think it's funny to even mention the word "God." If you're one of them: it isn't really very funny, so don't bother doing it.
But on the assumption that your question is meant sincerely: the only God who makes rational sense is both omnipotent and omnipresent, so the answer must be "yes."
I invite you to consider the characteristics of an omnipotent and omnipresent Being, for you will find that He bears little relation to God as He is popularly conceived.
Actually Darwin showed an impressive disregard for empirical evidence. The empirical evidence doesn't support his gradualist thesis at all--Darwinists try to explain this away by claiming that the fossil record is "incomplete."
So it is in fact Darwin who seems to have been working towards a predetermined conclusion. Unconsciously no doubt, but nevertheless.
Not really, since my opening question asked where his ideas came from, thus clearly positioning them as effect rather than cause.
Point to the contradiction if you see one. I don't (unless perhaps you think that anyone who discusses the nature of God is automatically religious?)
gentlegreen
I hummus, therefore I am ...
Did Darwin consider himself a Darwinist ?
Do any actual proper scientists consider themseves -ists ?
As I said, this is Al Gore all over again - except Darwin was truly brilliant and seems to have got a lot of it right - even 100 years before the structure of DNA was discovered.
It's nice that the Left and the Xtian Right can find common cause - discovery that we weren't just plonked here by some deity - leads to Darwin formally conceiving of natural selection - leads to Eugenics - leads to ...
/Godwins
Do any actual proper scientists consider themseves -ists ?
As I said, this is Al Gore all over again - except Darwin was truly brilliant and seems to have got a lot of it right - even 100 years before the structure of DNA was discovered.
It's nice that the Left and the Xtian Right can find common cause - discovery that we weren't just plonked here by some deity - leads to Darwin formally conceiving of natural selection - leads to Eugenics - leads to ...
/Godwins
toggle
wobbly
another of your agendas is shining through here phil.
you perhaps would care to explain how any of this addresses your own OP.
Spud Murfy
Relic
Do you reckon there's such a thing as 'Jewish physics' then?
Not sure what your point is, sorry.
You do understand that you answer your own question here, right?
gentlegreen
I hummus, therefore I am ...
I'm not sure how Darwin can be considered an advance on Paley et al, though I'm certainly willing to be convinced.
As I said earlier, his originality seems to consist in giving a materialist interpretation of the existing evidence. I suppose a materialist would say that was an advance, but obviously I'm not a materialist.
But in any case, we now know a lot that Darwin didn't and couldn't have known. Whether our new knowledge is sufficient to constitute as post-Darwinist phase in scientific history is a matter of debate. Personally I think it is.
I'm saying that natural selection is not the only, or even the main cause of evolution.
Would you dispute that?
But obviously a monotheistic God is not just "some deity."
As I say, the salient characteristics of such a God are omnipotence and omnipresence. I've found that the best way to understand God is to seek synonyms for an omnipresent and omnipotent being. Apart from anything else, that exercise will liberate us from the childish anthropomorphisms to which atheists (and to be fair many believers) are prone.
bi0boy
Power User
Yes, I see lots of evidence for natural selection, including a clear mechanism at the molecular level.
Using a "gap in the fossil record" to deny natural selection is like denying the earth rotates because it's sometimes too cloudy to see the sky.
You have misread my post--in a very interesting and symptomatic way. This is what I said:
So: would you dispute it?
Similar threads
