Agree or disagree? Darwinism is not just about mutations and fossils, It is a comprehensive philosophy?

Question

stating that all life can and is explained by natural causes acting randomly over time. Therefor there is no need for a creator. No life after death, no ultimate foundations for ethics, no ultimate meaning for life, no free will. The only reason people still believes in such things as ethics, morals and free will, is that people have not yet grasped the full implications of Darwinism.

William Provine, Cornell University.

Answer 1

I agree.

It is a Philosophy,

The Debate is really not about "evidence", though the Atheist Evolutionist will disagree, they being brainwashed and all by Psuedo Humanistic secularism and Moral relativism.
But is more about Philosophy about what "they" want to be right and wrong, they being brainwashed into believing that whatever they feel is right is right for them and all that silly nonsense, and fabricating evidences to justify it and brainwashing themselves into believing their own lies.

Answer 2

There is a lot of ignorance of the Theory of Evolution and many people have taken it to an extreme especially in the field of economics.
As I understand it, and I am an engineer and not a scientist, the theory says that mutations occur and this explains variation in a species exist and how some variations are more successful at surviving than others. When this happens that variation becomes reinforced and eventually becomes a characteristic of the species.
Fossils are used to study the way this may well have happened in the past.
The theory says nothing about the meaning of life or ethical and moral issues. Nor does it say anything about the origin of the universe or life itself.
If I am right the correct response to the Theory is not to denigrate it but to discuss the boundaries of where it applies.

Answer 3

For the record, Darwin himself limited the concept of Evolution to the development of life forms. He did not sign on to every extension of his theory, "social Darwinism" for instance. Whatever he may have thought privately, he had the integrity not to take a public position in a field he did not know.
However, for some people Evolution has become the comprehensive philosophy you describe, with this modification: the conventional wisdom among total evolutionists now includes the idea that ethics and morals and belief in free will are "hard-wired" into the human brain, and are beneficial to the species.
Agree or disagree? Disagree. I'll go with Darwin himself: scientific theories are useful for science, but we must be careful not to extend them into situations where they do not fit. Science has to be rigorous in this way, or it turns into a religion. When science turns into a religion, it ceases to be science. Darwinism was developed as a tool for science. It doesn't make a satisfactory religion.

Answer 4

What you are stating, when you say that there is no need for a creator, is that energy and matter have always existed, and have evolved over time into living organisms with intelligence. Although you are entitled to an opinion, you should be aware that the comprehensive philosophy you advocate is a faith-based religion, not science. I also think that it takes much greater faith to believe that energy and matter always existed than it does to believe in God. While an eternal God could easily have created energy and matter as we know it in the universe, as well as the great variety of living things, in the absence of a creator, one must ask from where came even the first pulse of energy or the first atom. If one wishes to state that these all came from a singularity, then one must state also from where came the singularity. Is the universe an open or a closed system? Will it close back in upon itself and return to an indefinitely small point, then later to explode and expand outward again into a universe? Darwinism is religion.

Answer 5

Social Darwinism is not evolution.

The value of a scientific theory is how it best fits the evidence,

not how it sounds on an emotional level.

Read up, or be one of the Christians who remains ignorant of science or spreads misconceptions about evolution for religious objectives (also known as lying, which doesn't sound good to the few of us who have studied biology and do not allow emotions to interfere with scientific research)

Let's be honest here, you folks are one of the primary reasons that 4 out of 10 Americans still thinks the earth is 10,000 years old -- regardless of whether or not a god exists, why not embrace new ideas that show the complexity of our existence? Isn't a 14 billion-year-old universe more beautiful and ancient than a 2,000 year-old concept? Why does the universe, the raw manuscript of a creator if you are a theist, need to be shoved into tiny boxes like creationism? Isn't a humble search for truth with science more noble than saying "my god must work like this, and anything that conflicts is wrong?"

P.S. Morals, value systems, and ethics are not related to any concept of a creator. They can exist with or without religion. The premise of the statement is flawed.

Answer 6

Disagree

Let me sum this up. Darwin created a scientific Theory. Science deals with the NATURAL world..not the supernatural. So BY DEFINITION it has to do with how NATURE acts and does NOT have anything to do with supernatural BECAUSE we have no way to objectively measure/observe the supernatural

Theory does NOT say there is no God, Theory does NOT say there is no way God could not have been involved, the Theory does NOT deal with the afterlife (again since science by definition does not involve with supernatural..only natural), the Theory does NOT NOT NOT NOT deal with creation of universe or origin of life...only how life adapts.

Ethics, Morals, Free Will are NOT scientific concerns so they are not addressed.


Comparing Darwin to religion and/or philosophy is silly as it is like comparing automotive engineering to Spanish literature


Lion of Judah> Where is this universe where things are as you describe...I know it isn't this one.

Country girl> That is a BOLD FACED LIE that lying scum spread. 1) Evolution is a Theory, not a theory...different meaning and 2) Darwin NEVER recanted Evolution in his lifetime and per his daughter who was at his deathbed he NEVER recanted it. That filthy lie was started by a religious woman who thought if she made up lies and spread them around then the Theory would be discredited. I hate when people spread this 100% false, filthy lie. I might as well spread that Jesus recanted his teachings when on the cross...yeah that's it..JESUS RECANTED EVERYTHING HE SAID AND PROMOTED VIOLENT SOLUTIONS TO ALL OF LIFE'S ISSUES ON HIS DEATHBED. See I can lie just as much as your side can Country girl.

TexasJew> You're a liar and have ZERO understanding of the laws of thermodynamics since Evolution in no way violates them (every bumpkin who brings this up doesn't realize the Earth is NOT a closed system.....we get energy all day every day from the Sun..that is an open system...go to school). If you wanna argue the Theory then fine..come up with REAL arguments and get proof for what you say....stop lying thru your teeth and using tactics that even Hitler would find distasteful

Answer 7

We can quibble all day about whether "Darwinism" is evolution or not, what are the proper semantics, but that's just avoiding the real question and what Provine said.

The idea that life created itself spontaneously out of non-life is unproven and, therefore, a theoretical interpretation of data. No scientist has ever produced life from non-life.(Well, Mary Shelly did, but let's not go there.)

Until you do that, the scientific interpretation of "Darwinism," fossil study, etc. is just that - an interpretation of what is seen. I have a different interpretation of the same data called God.

Edit: In case my answer isn't clear, I think Provine is right. The logical conclusion is chaos.

Answer 8

Disagree, unless he's working from a conception of "Darwinism" that means something different than the term "evolution."

Evolution is just about mutations and fossils. It also doesn't rule out a creator, life after death, an ultimate foundation for ethics, meaning, and free will.

In fact, it provides such a foundation for ethics and a metaphorical foundation for life after death in one's genetic code.

Answer 9

The only reason that people don't understand science is a lack of ethics. The facts in support of evolution are overwhelming. The problem is that fear-mongering preachers, eager to get money for their vices, turn to the Doctrine of Biblical Literalism to fleece the masses. If they acknowledge, that Genesis is only an allegory, they lose money. For this reason, they find no misrepresentation, slander, or outright lie too great. Creationists ignore the ethical teachings of the Bible, so this point is moot.

Answer 10

CountryGirl is exactly right in stating that Darwin recanted the whole matter before he died. HE knew it was absolute nonsense, but the morons he had already influenced just couldn't see fit to let their "master" have the last say on the matter. That generation of goobers has led to THIS generation of equally nonsensical goobers who infect gullible minds with the nonsense of "evolution". They do it very eloquently.

It is a THEORY that violates the KNOWN LAWS of thermodynamics. Anyone who believes in evolution has a definite mental, and spiritual, problem and needs to seriously re-think that position.

Answer 11

The theory of evolution does say that there is no need for a creator, but it doesn't say there isn't a creator. It says nothing regarding life after death, ethics, meaning of life or free will. It only deals with the origin of species. Hence the title.