10 comments (Add your own)

1. Dimensio wrote:

" Darwinism tends to be just bad science that cannot withstand real scrutiny and so does not invite any. "

I have observed that individuals who employ the term "Darwinism" when making reference to the theory of evolution are far less likely to have an accurate understanding of the theory of evolution than those who refer to it as the "theory of evolution". This is actually unsurprising, as usage of the term "Darwinism" itself implies a lack of understanding, as the term would suggest that the entirety of the theory is based primarily upon the work of Charles Darwin, when in fact his research provided only a foundation upon which many other individuals have conducted extensive and exhaustive research.

Essentially, I have come to understand that the claims made regarding evolutino by those who employ the term "Darwinism" are typically safely disregarded. This is illustrated in the movie "Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed", which employs a number of demonstrably false claims and which is narrated by an individual who frequently makes use of the term "Darwinism" (and who, on one occasion, claimed that "Darwinism" was attributed as the cause of gravity, even though no such attribution has ever been made; whether Mr. Steien is genuinely willfully ignorant of the subject that he is claiming to address with expertise or whether he was simply engaging in dishonesty is not clear).

January 5, 2009 @ 1:44 PM

2. Cody wrote:

I use Darwinism and macroevolution rather synonymously. By this, I basically mean large-scale (amoeba to Adam)evolutionary ideas. Evolution is often used these days as an umbrella term for a wide swath of ideas (some mutually contradictory). I appreciate that fact. This is why I choose to use language such as Darwinism and macroevolution. I want to be clear with my readers exactly where I see the need for apologetic effort. The conflict isn't between the Bible and evolution per se. It is between principles communicated under the heading "evolution" that violate any of the four principles of the doctrine of Creation. Mostly, those ideas have to do with macroevolution and materialism/naturalism/atheism. Darwinism is not a perfect term, but is a decent one since he pioneered these concepts.

So, I don't mean the term Darwinism, Darwinian, or Darwinist as derogatory, and I respect your right to distance yourself from his line of thinking.

Thank you for your comments.

January 5, 2009 @ 3:47 PM

3. Dimensio wrote:

"I use Darwinism and macroevolution rather synonymously. By this, I basically mean large-scale (amoeba to Adam)evolutionary ideas."

As I have stated, your usage of the term "Darwinism" strongly suggests a lack of understanding of the theory of evolution. For example, your reference to "amoeba to Adam" suggests that you believe that the theory of evolution implies that Homo sapiens sapiens are descendants of amoebas. If you had actually studied the theory of evolution, you would be aware that no biologist has ever proposed that any ancestor of humans was an amoeba.

January 5, 2009 @ 4:13 PM

4. Cody wrote:

"Amoeba to Adam" is written with a tinge of humor. Again, my point is to use a distinct label to describe proponents of large-scale evolution. Whether or not there are those who suggest that humans descended from amoebas, Darwinism does indeed hold that human beings descended from single cellular organisms (of which amoebas are a well-known type).

"If you had actually studied the theory of evolution, you would be aware that no biologist has ever proposed that any ancestor of humans was an amoeba."

What I'd like to know is exactly how much material do you have to study related to evolution to be able to state with such certainty that "no biologist has ever proposed that any ancestor of humans was an amoeba." Are you really aware of everything that every biologist has ever said?

Or do you really want to make this a debate based only on how we use language?

January 5, 2009 @ 7:50 PM

5. Steve Taylor wrote:

After the swathe of stuff you find around the internet, I was really encouraged to find that this link off Facebook really does follow the biblical line. There's enough messing around in this world.

It's difficult to know exactly where to pick the battle with young-old earth though. If we're faced with defending your final point - the rightful first man and woman - then that automatically brings the question of time. The thrust of the question becomes how man came into the mix timewise. Because even if we discount time as being a battle not to take, we're still saying that on day 6 we had the first man. So then are we to say that days 1 to 5 could be symbolic or otherwise, whilst always defending the solidarity of days 6 and 7? So ultimately, where is the battle? Where is the in-house debate that shouldn't become a stumbling-block to the world?

January 14, 2009 @ 10:00 AM

6. Cody wrote:

Hey Steve,

Thanks for your comment. To respond to your questions about young/old earth debate, etc. I want to first refer you to my more recent post "Theistic Evolution, the Image of God, and Original Sin." I don't deal directly with the time debate, but it is there.

I suppose that my position on the young/old earth debate is pretty nebulous. I haven't taken a firm position because I'm not convinced that the age of the earth is an issue the Bible intends to speak to. I believe it intends to speak to the four points that I have raised here (on the doctrine of Creation, that is). As to why I don't think the young/old earth debate is a battle worth fighting (at least not with non-believers), let me address that quickly. On the one hand, I can't imagine why it would be difficult to believe that God created the world with apparent age. On the other, it would be pretty silly to assume that Moses would have the same concept of time as U.S. Americans. Really, I think there's just too much metaphysical wiggle-room on this issue too. I mean, maybe I could go back in time to the 3rd day and use my stop watch to time it. Maybe it would end up being 24 hours. But who's to say God didn't slow down the stop watch and change my experience of time. It ends up being a very difficult question to answer Biblically because, again, I don't think the Bible intends to make a big deal about it.

As for descent from Adam, I'm not concerned about it being a stumbling block to non-believers if it is a necessary one. After all, so is the cross. The point is, that I do think it is necessary (I deal with this in the article I referred to above). I don't see time as a big problem here either. For one, I think there are possible gaps in the genealogies in the OT. And, again, we shouldn't assume that time was thought of in the same way as it is in the USA today. Beyond that, I don't think decent from a common human ancestor is a big problem with non-believers. That's essentially what Darwinism holds. They just don't like to call that first couple Adam and Eve.

Well, anyway, I just woke up. So this may not make sense when I read it later. Blessings!

January 14, 2009 @ 10:45 AM

7. Steve Taylor wrote:

Thanks for the quick response. Having an open opinion on such a subject is never really a bad idea. Most of what you said carries some sort of weight - except for the apparent age argument.

Really, when considered to any depth it is pretty difficult to properly explain if nothing else: That God would create a world that not only looked but scientifically dated as much older, a lie coded in the rocks. And beneath the rocks that hadn't 'really' been buried that long were fossils, also left there with an appearance of age.I know that's a highly critical and biased way of explaining it, but my point is to draw out its weaknesses.

Though I've been through several people's shares of debates on such issues, I most recently came across a very interesting book, "Science versus Evolution" by Malcolm Bowden. I was utterly shocked at just how simply he explains the faults in evolutionary theory on the three main fronts - geology, biology and physics. An impeccably well-referenced little 150 page book with an extra hundred pages of appendices etc, not a work of mere intention or fiction. I'd highly recommend it if you found some spare intrigue and one or two hours.

I'm usually the first to pick fault with anything - be it theology, science or apologetics, and was shocked how watertight the book was. It might help you underpin some kind of opinion where you've only found lack of discussion or evidence. Cheers!

January 14, 2009 @ 12:08 PM

8. trimtab wrote:

"For example, when Galileo Galilei challenged the Copernican view of a geocentric universe,..."

Cody, please get your facts in order. Copernicus was a proponent of heliocentrism, as opposed to Ptolemaic system, or geocentrism.

Oh, and regarding the use of the term "Darwinist" or "Darwinism," the following is from Wikipedia:

"While the term has remained in use amongst scientific authors, it is increasingly regarded as an inappropriate description of modern evolutionary theory [6][7][8] For example, Darwin was unfamiliar with the work of Gregor Mendel[9], having as a result only a vague and inaccurate understanding of heredity, and knew nothing of genetic drift.[10] In modern usage, particularly in the United States, Darwinism is often used by creationists as a pejorative term.[11]"

Also, referring "Expelled" as a source of (dis)information is pretty low. I would suggest your readers to visit www.expelledexposed.com to discover the sheer intellectual dishonesty of its authors.

"It certainly fails on theological grounds from a Biblical perspective."

That's like failing on fairyological grounds. I have no problems with that.

Cheers.

January 18, 2009 @ 1:16 AM

9. Cody wrote:

Trimtab wrote:

"Cody, please get your facts in order. Copernicus was a proponent of heliocentrism, as opposed to Ptolemaic system, or geocentrism."

Thank you, that should be supported rather than challenged. I'll edit the article.

So, Trimtab, are you bored or what? Don't get me wrong, I'm glad you keep visiting my blog. Really, I appreciate the comments. Feel free to weigh in anything you want.

Oh yeah, I use the term "Darwinist" to refer to those who are sometimes referred to as "adherents to the neo-Darwinian synthesis" - my term is shorter. I could say evolutionists, but I think this term is confusing as there are those who believe in evolution on a micro but not on a macro scale. I don't mean it pejoratively.

January 18, 2009 @ 3:26 AM

10. trimtab wrote:

Cody wrote:

"So, Trimtab, are you bored or what?"

No. but I feel the need to correct many of your errors.

Speaking of which...

"I could say evolutionists, but I think this term is confusing as there are those who believe in evolution on a micro but not on a macro scale. I don't mean it pejoratively."

1) If you accept the theory of evolution, and you do not accept an ontological distinction between micro- and macro-evolution, then you're an "evolutionist."

2) If you accept the possibility of "micro-" evolution, but not "macro-" evolution, and you believe that species and organisms were poofed into existence all at once, then you are you're a creationist.

3) If you accept the possibility of "micro-" evolution, but not "macro-" evolution, and you DO NOT believe that species and organisms were pooffed into existence all at once, then you're ill-informed.

January 18, 2009 @ 4:25 PM

Add a New Comment

Your Name:

Your Email/URL (Optional):

Your Comment:

Enter the code you see below:

 

Comment Guidelines: No HTML is allowed. Off-topic or inappropriate comments will be edited or deleted. Thanks.