Is Evolutionary Biology the Dark Age equivalent of the Flat Earth belief?

Question

All ideological fads eventually exhaust their credibility. In my judgment, the time is right for mounting an effective intellectual challenge to the greatest and most influential of the pseudosciences of modernism. -- Phillip Johnson

Darwinists of both the theistic and atheistic varieties are trained to assume the truth of the Darwinian theory as a matter of first principle.

Critics who ask whether the theory is true therefore seem to be misunderstanding some basic step in the reasoning. It is as if they were demanding to know whether truth is true. Hence the universal Darwinist response to such critics is to dismiss them because they do not understand "how science works."

Answer 1

If you are not a theist or atheist Darwinian then you must be a theist or atheist creationist! Or is there another theory?

Answer 2

I'm not sure what you're asking. If evolutionary biology were the equivalent of belief in a flat Earth during the dark ages, then that would imply that we now have an explanation of how species diversify that better fits the evidence at hand. We do not. Intelligent design is not a better explanation because it begins from a literal interpretation of Genesis, then works backwards, searching for evidence that fits that interpretation. It does not explain how species diversify, and that's what "Darwinism," or rather the theory of evolution, is all about.

I've never heard of anyone calling themselves a "theistic" or "atheistic" Darwinist. Would you please enlighten me as to where you obtained these terms?

Those who have been convinced that life on Earth reached its present state through evolution by natural selection do not assume "Darwinian theory" as a first principle. Rather, they are convinced that evolution by natural selection works, because all the evidence supports it. They've never seen any life form change in a way that isn't supported by mutation and selection. Maybe evolution occurs in some other way, but the proponents of evolution have never seen evidence supporting that opinion. Do you have that evidence? Are you hiding something from us? Do you know something we don't?

Answer 3

Philip Johnson? You mean the Lawyer? Why would you want to read a science book written by someone who never even studied science, let alone the biological sciences? At least Behe, even though he has recanted countless times, has a science degree.

Anyway, thats lovely rhetoric and all, but does Johnson actually have anything to add to the ID table? No, much like Behe, he is a disengenuous, intellectually dishonest idiot. It's all well and good to say you believe evolution to be an invalid theory, but only until such time as you can provide a clear SCIENTIFIC reason why it's invalid. So, you either put up, or shut up.

EDIT: Guy above me: Ignorant to deny a designer, eh? Well, in that case, who designed the designer? Or do you only take your 'logic' as far as it theologically suits you? Answers like yours do not help. They never have. Saying god did it never resulted in antiobiotics. It never provided the world with an answer. All it does is pose more questions. It puts the light out on thought.

Answer 4

Well, yeah and no.
It's good that evolutionary biology is questioned and researched. Being a scientist, Darwin would have wanted it that way. And the people of the Dark Ages had every scientific reason to believe that the earth was flat. If people still believe that today, it is pretty damn stupid.
When scientists are silences by the church or governments, then it's time to worry, such as Galilao was when he hypothesised the Earth revolved around the sun. There's no need to cause alarm until scientists who contest Evolutionary Biology are silenced, which they are not. But they do need evidence to back up their theories, or else they have no credibility.

Answer 5

Critics are misunderstanding something it's true. Evolution is an observed fact, just as gravity is an observed fact. Whether Darwin's theory of evolution is perfect, close to perfect, only a rough guide or perfectly wrong, evolution remains an observed fact. That is one thing that creationist leaders will not admit.

In my opinion the reason for this non-admission is simple enough. The main difference between a monkey and a creationist leader is that the monkey isn't an habitual liar.

These leaders have been exposed as liars in the Dover, PA school case (Kitzmiller), in debates with scientists and in the fact that they continued to cite as "evidence" material that had long been corrected by scientists and others.

I refer to the bombardier beetle, the Paluxy footprints and the moronic repetition of the nonsense about the second law of thermodynamics. I refer to the uncritical acceptance of a lump of American pine cooked in teriyaki sauce as a piece of Noah's Ark. I refer to the stupid repetition of the lie that there is evidence of a world wide flood a few thousand years ago when it is abundantly clear that this is not true. I refer to the brain dead repetition of their misinformation about radioactive dating, equating all of it with Carbon 14 dating. I refer to the dating of dacites from Mt. St Helens using a method known since 1969 or earlier to be unsuitable and a laboratory that had warned it was unable to get good results on very young material. This farrago of science is still being quoted by creationists even though it has been refuted 10 years ago.

As Robyn Williams has written, creationist chestnuts have been refuted utterly by Richard Dawkins in "The Blind Watchmaker", written in 1986 with evidence stacked to the skies. "Unintelligent Design: Why God isn't as smart as she thinks she is" Allen & Unwin, Australia, 2006

Darwinian evolution is tested perhaps thousands of times a week in biological laboratories and factories around the world. Not always directly, but if evolution were not a fact of biology many experiments and procedures, including manufacturing procedures would not work.

The lies spread by creationist leaders are no different in kind from those spread by the Nazi leadership, Stalinists and the lunatic leaders of al Quaeda. Those who can convince you of absurdities can convince you to commit atrocities.

Creationism is a noxious doctrine based on nothing more than lies that leads back to the dark ages. All creationist leaders are frauds, madmen or fools, sometimes all three at once.

Answer 6

"Critics who ask whether the theory is true therefore seem to be misunderstanding some basic step in the reasoning. It is as if they were demanding to know whether truth is true. Hence the universal Darwinist response to such critics is to dismiss them because they do not understand "how science works.""

Yep, pretty much.

Answer 7

What you seem to be missing is that evolution isn't accepted due to indoctrination and rigid dogma. It wouldn't be a scientific theory without a set of facts to back it up. Those facts are always available for you to refute if you so choose such an undertaking.

If I'm to assume you DO know how science works then you're AWARE that it's ever so much more than mindless repetition. You're AWARE that theories are of course falsifiable. You're AWARE that evolution is actively researched and verified again and again.

Answer 8

No, flat earth belief was supported by the religions of medieval Europe until someone had the courage to sail around the planet and these days so called intelligent design is supported in the same way by the modern religious believer

Answer 9

Your rant might have a trace of merit if just about every biology graduate student ever has tried at some point to come up with a hypothesis to supplant evolution. Creationist assert that it's dogma, but ignore the fact that there are hundreds of thousands of scientists, inquisitive by nature investigating. Creationism is the throwback to an age of mysticism.

Answer 10

The Flat Earth belief, as you call it, it closer to creationism belief. The word belief is the operative word here, as you might surmise.

While you and I do not understand how science works, scientists do. The theories have been tested over and over since the mid 1800's and with each new discovery it is proven again. In other words its not just "one man's theory."