Raving Conservative

Google

Wednesday, March 08, 2006

Introduction to the Series “Dismembering Evolution”

This is not the official start to the entirely too-long awaited series I have been preparing on evolution, it is just an introduction of what to expect, and the only place I plan on listing my sources, so pay attention because I do not intend to quibble over which book said what later.

This series will be presented in a reasonably logical order, starting with a discussion of Darwin and the origin of his theory of evolution. There will then be a jump back in time to the Big Bang, which I will not dispute in this series, and have actually come to support through my research, but in a different way and reason than most of you might expect. I will also discuss the conditions and probabilities of life.

Next will follow a point by point discussion on the proof of evolution. I will be presenting 2 views, the simple critique of what is supposed to prove the theory, and also the Intelligent Design position regarding evolution. I am not a supporter of ID as I am a Creationist, but there are some extremely compelling arguments within ID that have at least as much merit as anything Darwinian Evolution has to say, so I shall cover this topic as well.

At various points I intend to discuss probabilities as they have been shown according to physicists and mathematicians. I will discuss some physics as well as biology. There will be some philosophy. And some of what I have to say will be very familiar to people currently embroiled in the evolution debate, and I hope some of it will be new. I shall endeavor to remain logical in all aspects of my presentation and debate, but there will be the occasional “God in the gaps” argument, I just plan on presenting it with the most reasonable evidence possible.

My sources are as follows: The Science of God by Gerald Schroeder. Genesis and the Big Bang by Gerald Schroeder. Icons of evolution by Jonathan Wells. The Origin of the Species by Charles Darwin. Darwin’s Black Box by Michael Behe. My college astronomy textbook is still missing from the move, but I still have my notes and will be using them. I shall also be running off memory from years of indoctrination into evolution throughout my schooling.

I doubt that I shall be as eloquent or persuasive as the authors of these books. I am simply trying to present the disparate arguments in a single forum.

I want to go over the rules for debate in this series because I know that, given the chance, any one debate can go so far off topic as to become irrelevant to the posting at hand. All debate MUST be on the topic covered that week. If I am talking about dinosaurs I don’t want to debate about embryology. All topics will be covered at some point, and if I overlook anything, don’t worry, at the end I will have an open posting for anything that I neglected to discuss in this series. Also, all arguments based on lawyers and judges will be laughed at and mocked without mercy. This is about science. Stick with the science and the math as they are the ONLY relevant tools in a scientific debate. Where theology enters, and it WILL enter, then that opens up theology for that debate. When philosophy is used, it opens up philosophy. But it only opens up those subjects as far as they are relevant to the actual post. It is my desire to see the debate remain civil enough that profanity, personal attacks on debaters, and general rudeness do not enter. Please do try to remain civil despite the obvious controversy and strong feelings involved in such a debate.

This said, I look forward to next Wednesday and finally getting this thing started.

8 Comments:

  • Well, while I'm not exactly a science buff :), I'm looking forward to it!

    By Blogger Rebekah, at 1:32 PM  

  • Four thoroughly debunked books by a noted Christian apologist and two Intelligent Design mooks. Glad to know you're using only "scientific" sources. I haven't read Wells but I'm sure he does exactly what the other books do: build an evolutionary strawman and then throw fire at it for 300+ pages. They have no credibility outside of the ID/Creationist believers for whom they write these books. But I'm sure you know that already...

    I admire your chutzpah in any case, Daniel. No one could ever accuse you of failing to stand up for your beliefs.

    Are you going to be "dismembering" any other scientific theories or just the one that doesn't agree with your belief in Biblical literalism?

    By Blogger Samurai Sam, at 2:05 PM  

  • Sam,

    You only think they are discredtited. The fact is that they are not. It's nice to know you are paying such close attention to anti-scientific ideologues though. I am looking forward to your arguments.

    By Blogger Daniel Levesque, at 3:08 PM  

  • I see the "debate" has already begun! :)

    I'm not a "science buff" either, and may have to disqualify myself from this exercise. I would rather remain silent than sound stupid. I will come back to read your post and decide from there.

    Have fun!

    By Blogger Gayle, at 8:15 PM  

  • Daniel: You only think they are discredtited. The fact is that they are not.

    No, actually, they are. All you have to do is Google for any of the authors and you will find numerous critiques amply demonstrating their fallibility. Here’s one on Schroeder, another on and one on Behe. I am predictably disappointed in your reading list, but not surprised. Did you read anything on the theory of evolution that wasn’t written by Christian apologists or 150 years out of date?

    Daniel: Stick with the science and the math as they are the ONLY relevant tools in a scientific debate. Where theology enters, and it WILL enter, then that opens up theology for that debate.

    If science and math are the only relevant tools in a scientific debate then why on Earth would theology enter into it? Theology has absolutely nothing to do with science.

    I have a general question concerning this series. The title Dismembering Evolution indicates that you believe there are grave problems with the theory of evolution and that you will attempt to falsify it. To what end? If you could falsify evolution, what would that achieve?

    By Anonymous cjb, at 12:15 AM  

  • You only think they are discredtited. The fact is that they are not.

    Behe himself admitted in the Dover School District case that in order for Intelligent Design to be considered legitimate science, the entire definition of science would need to be changed. This is while under oath, testifying in front of a federal district judge. It doesn't get any clearer than when the author discredits himself.

    Don't sell yourself short, Gayle! This debate has never been about science. It's been about certain religious folks wanting the world to conform to their beliefs and being uncomfortable that it doesn't. I grew up with the stories of Adam & Eve, Noah's Ark, Cain & Abel, the same as most Americans, but I came to the understanding that they are myths. They were written to explain the unexplainable, the same way the Greeks wrote myths, and the Akkadians, and the Egyptians and the Mayans, etc. They are symbolic and allegorical, not literal. There is absolutely no reason that someone cannot be a Christian and accept the reality of modern science as well. The two are no threat to each other. Evolution is only a threat to the belief that Old Testament Jewish mythology is literally true.

    By Blogger Samurai Sam, at 1:14 PM  

  • I'll have to agree with Samurai again. The church has been told what it must believe to be orthodox and that bill of goods includes an awful lot of stuff that is extrabiblical.

    By Blogger Dan Trabue, at 3:04 AM  

  • Religion and science go together like Bush and any books not written by Dr Seuss.


    Having said that, I do look forward to a heated debate.

    By Blogger DanProject76, at 1:13 PM  

Post a Comment

<< Home


 
Listed on BlogShares