How Science Responds When Creationists Criticize Evolution

[apothanein kerdos]

The article centers on evolution by natural selection, not Darwinism.

Wrong. The article discredits irreducible complexity, which argues against Darwinism.

That's a sad excuse. Too bad the article doesn't talk about Darwinism.

When you guys can put down your straw men maybe will have a real conversation.

*sigh*

Have you even studied the theory of irreducible complexity and how it operates with natural selection and Neo-Darwinism? By attacking irreducible complexity, the article was supporting Darwinism. Just because a term is not mentioned does not mean the idea doesn't exist.

[MorningGlory]

Just a casual observation from the sidelines as I am not involved in this discussion. Why does 'Darwinism' get dragged into every single thread that remotely pertains to evolution, Creation, or jelly doughnuts? I just want to know WHY? It makes these other wise interesting debates redundant and sophmoric. Remember that nonparticpants are always perusing these discussions.

Just a causal answer

[The Lorax]

Stop it Lorax. In your haste to a rabid defense of science, you haven't even begun to understand what I'm saying. I am not like Horizon east in this matter, I know how to differentiate between evolution and Naturalism. I have master's credit on studying this issue, from someone I believe is an expert in differentiating between the two...so don't act like I don't know what I'm talking about. I'll try to find it, but Horizon and I got into it over the definition of Evolution and Darwinism. He does think the two are linked...I don't. For Pete's sake, I believe in evolution...and I thought you knew this...so how could I support the idea that all evolutionist beliefs are Darwinian?

If anyone needs to cool their jets, it is you mate.

The point you and I were debating was whether evolution by natural selection is compatible by divine creation. I said it is. You said it isn't, then you pulled naturalism into it, out of the blue, in this post.

How is evolution by natural selection incompatible with divine creation?

[The Lorax]

I think I've found the root of the misunderstanding. Look at this post:

Wrong. There is no compatibility problem here.

Natural evolution (of life) and divine creation (of the universe) are complementary explanations. Evolution is the How, God is the Why.

This is why you should study philosophy mate.

Naturalistic evolution is antithetical to divine creation. The entire point in choosing the term "naturalistic evolution" is to show the philosophy attached. It is the brand of evolution that Charles Darwin, Gould, Dawkins, and others adhere(d) to. It teaches that life sprang up through random variations and eventually natural selection. Essentially, there is no need for God, and according to Dawkins, disproves the existence of God. Thus, Darwinian/Naturalistic evolution does not allow for the idea of God as a creator. The ideas are mutually exclusive.

Notice I said "natural evolution", a particular physical process, and from there you began talking about naturalism, the philosophy. This inappropriate substitution led to a quick departure from my actual argument. Actually, I'm still waiting for you to address it. Here it is again, in a nutshell:

Darwinian evolution and divine creation can coexist.

"Darwinian evolution" = evolution by natural selection, by the way. It is not a commentary on origins.

[apothanein kerdos]

AK

[apothanein kerdos]

I think I've found the root of the misunderstanding. Look at this post:

Wrong. There is no compatibility problem here.

Natural evolution (of life) and divine creation (of the universe) are complementary explanations. Evolution is the How, God is the Why.

This is why you should study philosophy mate.

Naturalistic evolution is antithetical to divine creation. The entire point in choosing the term "naturalistic evolution" is to show the philosophy attached. It is the brand of evolution that Charles Darwin, Gould, Dawkins, and others adhere(d) to. It teaches that life sprang up through random variations and eventually natural selection. Essentially, there is no need for God, and according to Dawkins, disproves the existence of God. Thus, Darwinian/Naturalistic evolution does not allow for the idea of God as a creator. The ideas are mutually exclusive.

Notice I said "natural evolution", a particular physical process, and from there you began talking about naturalism, the philosophy. This inappropriate substitution led to a quick departure from my actual argument. Actually, I'm still waiting for you to address it. Here it is again, in a nutshell:

Darwinian evolution and divine creation can coexist.

"Darwinian evolution" = evolution by natural selection, by the way. It is not a commentary on origins.

No, you're misunderstanding me. Darwinian Evolution is Naturalism...it cannot exist with creation.

[The Lorax]

No, you're misunderstanding me. Darwinian Evolution is Naturalism...it cannot exist with creation.

Evolution does not equal origins. Origin theories like abiogenesis are separate from the theory of evolution.

"The origin of life from self-catalytic chemical reactions is not a part of biological evolution, but rather of pre-evolutionary abiogenesis."

from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theory_of_evo...History_of_life

[apothanein kerdos]

No, you're misunderstanding me. Darwinian Evolution is Naturalism...it cannot exist with creation.

Evolution does not = origins.

I sense we will agree to disagree on this one. But now, at least, you know I am not talking about origins.

Darwinian Evolution deals with origins. Thus, if you're going to say it's compatible you have to deal with the entire package. Thus, if you're not dealing with origins and solely with natural selection within biological species, then you need to drop the term "Darwinian Evolution" and go with "biological evolution."

[apothanein kerdos]

AK - do you (as a theist) agree or disagree with Phillip Johnson's assessment that there is no need to accept

[The Lorax]

Darwinian Evolution deals with origins.

Darwinian evolution has nothing to do with origins, but I will oblige your request so that you will shut up. "Bio evo" it is.

Philosophers cling to debating terms but scientists have much better things to do. (Really, we do.)