Now I understand why you're so avid about Darwinism. You think tautologies are somehow meaningful and say something new.Hi SKMS - I'm only saying what I'm saying.
Does it have to? If you claim that evolution is unguided and random, you have said "God is not sovereign."For example, your assessment "God is not sovereign" would not appear in any evolution textbook.
I would like to introduce you to modus tolles
1) P -> Q
If God is sovereign (P), then as the Bible says, nature is submissive to the will of God (God runs the world) (Q).
Evolution is random and unguided (~Q).
Therefore God is not sovereign(~P).
Now, that is poorly worded, but it should be easily understood. It may not be said explicitly, but it is said by way of negation.
I never said it would be found in a textbook, now did I? Please stop making things up. Or quote my relevant posts if I am wrong.No version of your words, "one misguided version of evolution is atheists waving it as a banner saying "we explained it, God is gone!" - would appear in an evolution textbook.
And I can get away saying the UK and Britain have nothing in common, because the United Kingdom dominated most of the world, but Britain is merely an island. You are splitting hairs.A third meaning is in specific reference to Darwin's theory of evolution...Darwinian evolution is not a matter of things developing "just by random chance." Darwinian evolution has two fundamental pieces. One is the genetic variation of offspring (which is the "chance" part and is due both to the normal genetic variations within a species and to mutations). But the other is "natural selection" (which is not random), in which the fittest offspring (best suited to their environment) survive, producing more offspring who pass on their genes. Over time, this combination of genetic variation and natural selection produces new species. On a small scale, Darwin's theory has been well verified...it is now quite clear that, at least on some scales, Darwinian mechanisms are indeed a valid description of nature.
A sixth way in which "evolution" is sometimes used is to refer to a metaphysical position in which atheistic philosophy is grafted onto the science in the mistaken belief that finding a natural explanation for something puts God out of the picture..."metaphysical naturalism." Such philosophical extrapolations are completely unscientific, and it is shameful when some try to pass them off as results of science.
Clearly these are two completely different concepts.
But isn't one way people argue for Darwinism is by saying we can see microevolution (different dog breeds for example), therefore macroevolution via extrapolation?Such philosophical extrapolations are completely unscientific, and it is shameful when some try to pass them off as results of science.
So what? You reject it, it wouldn't be in a text of evolution, but how does that make it untrue? Darwin didn't do anything really new. The idea of biological evolution had been thought up by Anaximander and Darwin's grandfather, Erasmus. What about Haegal's philosophy? What about the fact Huxley, Darwin's bulldog, said the reason people accepted his ideas because it got around Moses (that is, it was now legitimate to talk about biology divorced from God and teleology). What about the fact that Darwin proposed gradual evolution, and that because of the utter lack of evidence in the fossil record, Stephen Jay Gould came up with the idea of punctuated equilibrium? How absurd is that? There is a lack of evidence for Darwinism, so the theory is adjusted not only to conform with the facts, but also adjusted so that there can be no facts supporting it. Things happened so quickly at discrete points in time that, we will not find evidence of evolution in the fossil record.
"You can't divorce the science and the philosophy." I reject the metaphysical position stated in #6 and hereby divorce the science from that philosophy in my discussions. That is an issue in a course on the Philosophy of Science but not an issue in any individual discipline and would not likely be found in a text of evolution.
Please refer to my modus tolens above. Implicit rejection of the sovereignty of God.As you mentioned, The Late Stephen Jay Gould popularized an understanding of evolution that focused on the role of randomness and chance. "Rewind the tape" (of evolution), he would say, and imagine the whole process unfolding from the start once again: everything would be different. Yes, I think most evolutionists would agree with this.
No, Alfred Wallace came up with survival of the fittest. Darwin published first. I am not ignoring natural selection. But if you say it is unguided, you are saying the cause of new mutations is randomness, you've just said that there is nothing guiding it. You can't have it both ways. If you're saying that new mutations that natural selection will select are created randomly, you are explicitly saying there is nothing guiding it, there is no teleology behind it, no purpose, etc. Finally, you are completely naive. Do you also believing in Rousseau's idea of the "noble savage"? Do you think if you just tell people what is right, they will do it? By the way, how is the war on drugs going? Just say no? Fantastically, right? Now, you have an interesting problem. If scientists are simply (and exclusively) following the trail of evidence, why didn't Gould abandon Darwinism? He came up with punctuated equilibrium because there was no evidence in the fossil record for Darwinism. What about the scientists who don't believe in Darwinism? What about global warming, and the fact that there are scientists who claim global warming is manmade, and others who say it isn't. If scientists are "simply following the evidence," then why does the same evidence lead to contradictory conclusions? Nietzsche was horribly wrong, and his philosophy was self-defeating, but he was right about one thing. He called philosophers "hired guns." They were working out philosophy according to their own beliefs. And this is how people are in general.Now for the random and undirected. Evolution is random to a point, but non-random when it comes to natural selection. Survival of the fittest (not Darwin's words) is a non-random major feature of evolution. Evolution is also considered by scientists to be undirected. That is simply because there is no scientific evidence that it is directed. Any evidence to the contrary would be the biggest scientific news of the century and would get positive attention from scientists all over the world. As in any scientific pursuit, they are simply (and exclusively) following the trail of evidence.
By far the funniest thing you have just said is that paleontology provides evidence for Darwinism, and (I think you were getting at it) shows common descent. But you just said nowhere is the fossil record complete. You said it is up to paleontologists to put it back together, so to speak. But if there is no complete fossil record, then by what evidence are paleontologists putting it back together? And on what grounds did they determine that the fossil was an intermediate? On what grounds did they determine, with the evidence, that this fossil was a bridge between fish and amphibians? Finally, why do you completely ignore the Cambrian Explosion? And why do you also ignore the Avalon Explosion? If you are claiming there is positive evidence for Darwinism in the fossil record, then why are you ignoring all the evidence against Darwinism? How do you get off claiming the fossil record shows a gradual transition between species, despite the examples of massive influxes of new species in a relatively short period of time with no apparent ancestors?It took them 6 years to find it, but the fossil confirmed a prediction of paleotology: not only was the new fish an intermediate between two different kinds of animals, but they had found it at the right time period in earth's history and in the right ancient environment. They engaged the local Inuit Indians to come up with the appropriate name.
The order of fossils in the world's rocks is powerful evidence of our connections to the rest of life. If, digging in 600 million years old rocks, they had found the earliest jellyfish lying next to the skeleton of a woodchuck, there would be something drasticly wrong. That woodchuck would have appeared earlier in the fossil record than the first mammal, reptile, or even fish - before even the first worm. Moreover, our ancient woodchuck would tell us that much of what we know about the history of the earth and life on it is wrong. Despite over a century of people looking all over the world for fossils, this type of finding has never happened.
Of course, a single column containing the entirely of earth history doesn't exist, but the pieces do, here and there. Putting them together is a continuing labor of love for paleotologists, like working a giant jigsaw puzzle.
http://www.thedesignoflife.net/blog/The ... fault.aspx