Why Aren't Scientists Allowed to Believe in God? [Huh? Allowed?]
There was a time when most scientists were also deeply religious men. When scientists were not forced to choose between belief in God and the rigorous pursuit of scientific knowledge. [Ask Ken Miller if scientists today are "forced" to be atheist.] But that all ended with Charles Darwin.
(...)
Taking a "warts and all" approach, Wiker not only offers a critical, scientific analysis of Darwin's life and his history-changing theory, but exposes Darwin's ultimate goal: the elimination of God from all science—not just evolution. [A "scientific" analysis of Darwin's writings that resulted in...]
Casting aside Darwinism's politically correct veneer, The Darwin Myth reveals:
The Darwin Myth: Darwin insisted that evolution must be godless to be scientific [Straw-man!!! Who ever said that Darwin insisted this? I'm at an evolution meeting right now, everyone mentioning Darwin's contribution all over the place, and no one ever mentioned anything about a godlessness-requirement.]
Charles Darwin didn't "discover" evolution—he just put his name on it. (It was explored in the 17th Century, long before his time.) [He didn't discover evolution, no. He postulated (and described evidence to support) common descent and natural selection. What of it?]
Although not Darwin's intention, Darwinism provides an open rationale for eugenics, genocide and racism [So does the Bible. So does agriculture. And genocide and racism existed long before Darwin. (But true, it lead to eugenics, which is a disgrace, and which no respectable scientist supports today.)]
Darwin's own theory supported natural slavery—an institution he detested [Evolution does not "support" slavery. It's a scientific theory, not a treatise on ethics (but I fear that someone with a Ph.D. in Theological Ethics sees everything in the light of values).]
Many of his best friends and allies criticized Darwin's theory, and he never definitively refuted their objections [But on the points where Darwin was correct, the criticism have been refuted since, and that's all that matters.]
From Darwin's obsession with making evolution his own to his belief that progress meant the advance of secularized science against religion ["secularized" science equals science - anything that isn't secular is biased by dogma. "Secular science" is a pleonasm], Wiker shows how Darwin's legacy set atheism as the default position of the scientific community and irrevocably divorced God from science. [But atheism wasn't Darwin's concern. That so many scientists, and notably evolutionary biologists, are atheist is not out of a requirement, but because biology can now explain everything the Bible says on the matter in a plausible and testable way. And because those stories in the Bible are insane.]
_(cropped).jpg)
3 weeks ago in Genomics, Medicine, and Pseudoscience
I know it's just a typo but please edit "Evolution does support slavery. It's a scientific theory, but a treatise on ethics" to be "Evolution does NOT support slavery. It's a scientific theory, NOT a treatise on ethics".
ReplyDeleteElse someone will take your words out of context!
Thanks. I appreciate it.
ReplyDeleteActually, “secular science” isn't an oxymoron, it's a pleonasm. “Religious science” would be an oxymoron. :)
ReplyDeletercz, thanks! A pleonasm. WIll correct.
ReplyDeleteAnyone who would like to learn about a theory of evolution that succeeds in every aspect where neo-Darwinism fails should read the book Not By Chance - A Theory of Evolution Governed by Essential Law and Driven by Natural Effectuation, by Ronald C. Dressman.
ReplyDeleteHey Ronald, instead of just pimping your book here, why don't you tell us how it is you think current evolutionary theory fails?
ReplyDeleteJust came across this from a google search, and Dr. Wiker tries to make his case that Darwin says evolution must be godless. So while it seems as if a strawman is being created, it's not really the case. His argument is more about saying parts of Darwins biography were disingenuous, from a historical context. I don't think his evidence is strong, however.
ReplyDeleteI feel his arguments aren't very good, and the more he talks about it the more he sounds like a conspiracy theorist or someone who things atheists see Darwin as a God. I don't think he understands that even if Darwin was a racist, supported Eugenics, and/or wanted to make theory that excluded goed, it doesn't matter. We now have enough information and lines of evidence to show he was correct.
Also, Wiker has an interview with DJ Grothe on Point of Inquiry.
Mate, stop swearing because it is not helping your "scientific" arguments and critique. Swearing and ridicule of the oponents is the most popular way to argue their beliefs by evolutionists. It means that they have no scientific argument to support their faith and as a result going nuts.Scientific argumenation of self proclaimed educators of the society like Dawkins and Myers consistst mainly of this type of arguments. As far as I can see you must have read many of their "scientific works" ...
ReplyDeleteBut, I like swearing on occasion! And contrary to what you say, it does not follow from swearing that one doesn't have any scientific arguments. Try logic.
ReplyDeleteAnd I see you haven't read much of Dawkins and Myers. PZ does swear a lot, but they do both present arguments for evolution and against creationism.
The evening of the day before yesterday (July 28th it was), I was listening to my shortwave radio and came upon someone who turned out to be Ben Wiker. He was discussing Catholic theology and how Darwin's theory was known in the 1st century BC. Where do these people get their notions from? Do they simply create them from nothing?
ReplyDeleteDon, I'd be extremely interested in learning what notions of evolution were present in the 1st century BC. Perhaps an email to Wiker...
ReplyDelete