Question about Darwinian science?

Question

Darwinism teaches that mindless evolution resulted in the complexity of life now existing. Evolution operates without intelligent guideance, without any directed purpose. It has no mind. It does not think. But humans possess a unique intellect specifically engineered to methodically and systematically seek to make sense of things. This implies an inherent need to understand the meaning and purpose of their existence. HOW could a purely naturalistic accident of physics result in creatures that are capable of the things that the force which brought it into existence is not capable of? That is creation from nothing. Mind created from mindlessness. Could mindlessness create an ability that is beyond its own ability? If a tornado whips through a junkyard, can it assemble a Beoing 747? Darwinian science is really a religion that believes a thing can create an ability that is beyond its own ability. As such requires MUCH more faith than Christianity. Even blind faith.

"The faith required by western science in general, and evolution is particular, is that if an experiment or observation turns out the same way 999 times it will turn out the same the 1000th time."

About Darwinism's boast in experimentation and observation as the method for confirming Darwinism, the fact that no one has observed one species become another species should raise at least one eyebrow. Changes in skin color or finch beaks only verify microevolution, which is true, not macroevolution. What experiment or observation can we refer to that has verified how mind can be produced from mindlessness? Again we need verification of macroevolution, not micro.

Joeyamas and AM:
You gave me intelligent responses. Thank you.

Timponderer said,
"Your logic is the same as saying how could humans create computers that can do far more powerful calculations than we can?, or how can two chemicals combine to create a third chemical which has different properties? ie. there is no logic, just irrational mysticism which shows the extent of own brain-washing and inability to be intellectually honest."

Surely you're not saying a computer is more advanced than our brains! We may not be capable of cognitively processing millions of calculations per second but the brain itself most certainly does. Also, when two properties merge to create a different one, you haven't created complexity where it did not exist, represented as 0+0=2.You have simply converged two properties, 1+1=2. But again, if the cosmos itself does not possess the ability to analyze and compute information, how could it create a thing that could? I realize this is a philosophical question, but I think a valid one.

Answer 1

Every fossil, every observation in biology points to evolution. There is nothing that goes against it or points to a different way to scientifically explain modern diversity. There is not one fossil or one piece of DNA that does NOT point to evolution. It would be hard NOT to see the concrete evidence, and only those blinded by faith can do this.

Evolution is 100% world-wide accepted fact, including the evolution of man.

There is ZERO evidence for a higher being causing anything. This is why people who are religious need faith, you can't see or study the actions of a deity, by definition. Evolution has ZERO faith and ALL evidence.

Scientists (real ones) have been studying and supporting evolution for over 150 years, and still nothing has pointed to creationism. There is clear links and transitional forms between everything in the fossil record to the Class-Family level, if not Genus-Species level. And this includes humans, which there are several 'missing links' which are well described and studied, people just choose to ignore this. Sure, there are still things we don't know, but that's why science is not stagnent and dead. We learn more every day, that's what happens when you keep an open mind and follow the scientific method.

There are some areas of evolution in which all of the pieces have not been found in the fossil record, but there is no counter theory that has even ONE piece of evidence that can not easily be explained by evolution.

Let me turn the question around, if Creationism was correct and science could definitively prove Creationism (and thus the existence of God), why would they not? That would be the greatest scientific discovery in the history of the world. No one would pass that up to maintain the 'status quo'. There is no conspiracy to hide creation evidence. Anyone who knows real scientists knows they are glory-mongers first. They love to prove others wrong to enhance their own standing. And if any scientist could prove Creation/God, it would've been done a long time ago.

Go to a museum, take a class in biology, go to reputable sites on the Internet (like AAAS: http://www.aaas.org/news/press_room/evolution or http://www.talkorigins.org ) and find out for yourself.

Answer 2

Why don't you try learning something about evolution rather than mindlessly mouthing platitudes which only demonstrate the ignorance of whoever first said them. The simple answer is that evolution takes time and works in incremental steps that are so small as to be invisible. Try reading something like Climbing Mount Improbable by Richard Dawkins. You can never score points in an argument if you don't understand what you are discussing.

The faith required by western science in general, and evolution is particular, is that if an experiment or observation turns out the same way 999 times it will turn out the same the 1000th time. It is a faith that physical phenomena rely on constant physical laws, not the whim of an unproveable supreme deity. Note that this does *not* say such a diety does not exist. If you believe the laws were originally put in place by such a being there are many scientists who would agree with you. (I am not one)

Answer 3

Your logic doesn't make any sense. By the same thinking, there can't be gravity because humans don't have the power to pull stuff to earth. Gravity is mindless. It's just a law of nature. So is evolution.

We have seen species evolving. This is not just happening in the fossil record, it's happening in real time, especially with species with faster generation rates.

Microevolution is evolution.

"The faith required by western science in general, and evolution is particular, is that if an experiment or observation turns out the same way 999 times it will turn out the same the 1000th time."

No, that's why we have statistics. When scientists report results, they report their P-values, which often only state that it is likely that things will turn out that way 95 times out of 100.

Science doesn't have blind faith. Science tests stuff. Then it looks at how it came out, and sees if that supports what we think is going on or not. You clearly have an agenda. Science does not.

Answer 4

Your logic is the same as saying how could humans create computers that can do far more powerful calculations than we can?, or how can two chemicals combine to create a third chemical which has different properties? ie. there is no logic, just irrational mysticism which shows the extent of own brain-washing and inability to be intellectually honest.

Evolution works by natural selection, not purely random chance, hence the 747 false analogy is dishonest.

And btw, you are wrong, numerous speciation events have been observed in living populations. No surprise that you are ignorant about the science you are attempting to project your weaknesses on to.

Answer 5

when you talk about Darwinian science you talk about a series of observations that lasted years. Research that started with Darwin and we continue to discover and to prove that he was right, from the discoveries of fossils and species that have been dead for ages. It's not merely a blind faith. It is a scientific process where man has discovered palpable and material prove for everything that Darwin wrote down as theory.
Man has adapted to the changes in nature and now we are capable of molding our environment to our ways. We have come a long way and we are smarter than any animal living in this planet that has brain. A tornado is a product of the right conditions in the environment, beyond that, it can't exist. It has no brain to mold it's environment. Comparing a tornado with humans? that's not fair to the tornado.

Answer 6

I think the only really implausible part of Dawinism is the original 'spark' of life. The odds of a particular chemical reaction resulting in life are impossibly small. But, assuming that that did happen, the rest is not so implausible.

Evolution is not a haphazard tornado in a junkyard. It is a systematic journey from one point to another.

On the Galapagos Islands, Darwin observed black lizards. He saw how being black gave them an advantage in survival. That means that there likely were lighter colored lizards that originally got to the island somehow. As they mated, a certain portion of their offspring were naturally slightly darker. This darker color gave them an advantage, and they survived better than their lighter colored brothers. And, they passed their darker color on to their offspring. Each successive generation got progressively darker, until the best color for survival was acheived.

As I said, the hard part of Darwinism is that first spark. But, Creation's explanation is 'F.M,' of 'Freakin' Magic.' I find that even more implausible.

Answer 7

There is nothing mindless about the theory of evolution. Consider an animal that needs a particular form of kaolin that is found in clay. That kaolin negates the toxicity of the food the animal eats. After all the animal evolved eating that food. The food needed to evolve one step forward to stop the animal eating it, so the food started to produce toxins to defend itself, to produce seeds to reproduce itself. It just so happens the seeds ended up to be the food and contained the toxins.
One day, the toxins started to take effect and the animals started to die. One smart young one, found that, at the local water hole, the water running through the clay produced a milky water that eased his discomfort caused by the toxins in his food. The animal was a handsome beast of slightly different markings from his friends and, because of his new found clay, he was the healthiest male around.
Being the healthiest male around, he, naturally picked up that he could con the young females, who followed him to the kaolin. Here the story keeps soppy, and they had family after family, all with the males new markings. The other animals that were similar started to die out, until another bird, funnily enough, a female with differnt markings, found another food source that was not toxic and bred with other young males to produce animals with the same markings. All the original animals died out due to severe stomache disorders from eating bad food, leaving two new species different from the first. Take a look at the Macaws of South America and you may understand what I am talking about.
I must say the "story" I have just told may not be the "greatest ever told", but it is a lot more credible than others! Oh, and one last thing, is it always divine intervention that causes the Bombardier Beetle, producing an explosive reaction to protect itself, not to blow it's backside off, or is it because it evolved to protect itself!
Evolution is more about learning to survive, adapt and reproduce that adaption.

Answer 8

Your question displays the appalling pig-ignorance of your ilk. Evolution is SCIENCE, not faith. Faith is what some dweeb in a pulpit threatens you every Sunday in church. It's about believing without evidence. There is a Mt Everest of scientific evidence that evolution is what created all the species on earth. Open your eyes and look at some science books, not religious ones. Start with The Blind Watchmaker - Dawkins.

Answer 9

Someone made a comment on the Darwinian synthesis' imcompatibility with the origin of life, or "spark of life" (See Wills and Bada book), b/c at some point, there needed to be organisms that existed which natural selection could act upon. But prior to that event, it was said to occur purely mechanistically. But the chicken and egg paradox arises. If natural processes lead to selection and selection leads to advancement, how could advancement arise without natural selection? If in the beginning, nature had nothing on which to exert its selection? How then did and could things have advanced? Theoretically it seems, it shouldn't have.

Answer 10

Evolution is not necessarily without intelligent design. If you believe in God, here's the question you should ask yourself: is it possible that God set the process of evolution in motion with a specific design so that, ultimately, it would result in mankind? I believe this is possible. It's a question of faith. We believe in God, but we accept the laws of physics. God didn't just "make" everything, He made everything follow rules, right? So why couldn't He have set things to follow a certain evolutionary path? The problem is, this theory opposes the teachings of all major Christian religions, especially the Catholic Church. But who says that they're right? If you reconcile science with religion instead of keeping them at odds, things start making more sense. That's my opinion, anyway.