Monday, September 14, 2009

The Miracle of Darwinism


Since journalist Steve Sailer is such an icon among the HBD/Game crowd, I decided to read his well-known article, "A Miracle Happens Here: Darwin's Enemies on the Right.


Overall, there was nothing insightful or entertaining in this piece, but one paragraph did catch my eye - simply because of it was so brazenly contradictory.

Sailer writes...

"For a good scientist it's simply more fun to try to explain some facet of nature than to assert like [Michael] Behe that nobody could ever explain it. Anti-religiousness is the appropriate professional prejudice of scientists.

The Sidney Harris cartoon summed it up. A lab-coated researcher is filling the left and right sides of a black board with equations, but the only thing connecting the two clouds of symbols are the words, "Then a miracle occurs." Another scientist suggests, "Maybe you could give us a little more detail on that middle section."

Relying on miracles in science is like relying on the lottery in retirement planning.


OK, let's make sure we understand this: Sailer (and his cartoon buddy) are mocking Intelligent Design for inserting a "miracle" into the early stages of creation...But according to Darwin's version of events, how does Non-Life turn into Life?...Waiting...Waiting...Waiting...Oh yeah...A miracle happens!

The Darwinists have no idea how Life originated on this planet...They are just as guilty of the "miracle defense" as any I.D. advocate...The only difference is that I.D. advocates feel comfortable with the idea that God is the source of the miracle; the Darwinians, on the other hand, a priori, rule out the possibility of God's involvement.

So, regardless of whether you're a Darwinist or a theist, you are believing in a miracle. The question then is: Which God caused the miracle? The God of Love or the God of Evolution.
Which do you choose?

-Todd

11 comments:

Jesus Christ Supercop said...

"The Darwinists have no idea how Life originated on this planet...They are just as guilty of the "miracle defense" as any I.D. advocate...The only difference is that I.D. advocates feel comfortable with the idea that God is the source of the miracle; the Darwinians, on the other hand, a priori, rule out the possibility of God's involvement."

What science does not know, it seeks to learn. If it doesn't know, then it makes the best possible guess using scientific principles and, if possible, experiments. There are many theories to explain abiogenesis, and many experiments have been undertaken to understand it even further. This obviously has nothing to do with declaring that a miracle occured.

The difference between scientists and creationists is science. The former use it, the latter don't. Creationists seem happy to remain ignorant about how the universe works, but at the same time they don't want to admit ignorance, so they "explain" everything with God. Scientists, however, know they don't know everything, and try to fill the gaps using science. God's involvement must necessarily be ruled out by science since there is no evidence for the existence of God, and nothing scientifically useful is known about God anyway.

Those who attack science (such as you) always do it from a position of ignorance. You don't even understand the basic principles of science, and seem completely oblivious to the fact that without science (and its pre-science equivalents) we'd still be banging rocks together to appease the Sun God.

What has always puzzled me is that while creationists accept scientific explanations for most things in the universe, it's evolution and abiogenesis that always make them say that both are nonsense because God used a miracle to create life. Well, if most of the things in the universe can clearly be explained through science, including the way humans function and what they are made of, why would the creation and development of life be any different? Why does it even matter to creationists?


"But according to Darwin's version of events, how does Non-Life turn into Life?...Waiting...Waiting...Waiting...Oh yeah...A miracle happens!"

Here you apply a religious model to science by thinking that whatever Darwin said will now and always be unquestionable fact, so if Darwin didn't know something then it can never be known. This, of course, is not how science works. Newton isn't the final word on physics just like Darwin isn't the final word on evolution or abiogenesis.

Furthermore, what Darwin said on the subject was that life may have begun in a "warm little pond, with all sorts of ammonia and phosphoric salts, lights, heat, electricity, etc. present, so that a protein compound was chemically formed ready to undergo still more complex changes, at the present day such matter would be instantly devoured or absorbed, which would not have been the case before living creatures were formed." This is clearly not the same thing as saying that a miracle occured.

Todd White said...

JCS:

I think you’re missing the point of the essay.

You wrote, “What Darwin said on the subject was that life may have begun in a ‘warm little pond, with all sorts of ammonia and phosphoric salts, lights, heat, electricity, etc. present'...This is clearly not the same thing as saying that a miracle occurred.’”

Yes, obviously the Darwinists don’t say “a miracle occurred.” But the fact remains: They have no idea what happened. Darwin’s “warm pond” is just a theory. In fact, “theory” is too strong a word; it’s more of a “hope;” a “wish.” Scientists have been experimenting with Darwin’s pond for generations and it doesn’t lead to life.

Therefore, most objective observers would agree that if and when we discover the origin of life it will be a product of something radically beyond our current understanding.

A Darwinist, of course, would say that whatever we find, it will be *material.*

An I.D. advocate, on the other hand, will say, the source is probably *immaterial.*

Who’s right? We can’t say for certain. Perhaps one day we’ll know. Until then, this is an issue where honest people can disagree. Ah, but how many Darwinists are truly honest? Obviously, not Mr. Sailer. He goes out of his way to mock the I.D. advocates for not knowing how life began, when he doesn’t know either!

The Darwinists AND the I.D. Advocates both say the same thing: “Something happened.” The question is: “What?”

And that’s the point I was trying to make: The Darwinists are not only arrogant, they are so bloated with hubris that they blindly attack their opponents without realizing how those attacks can be equally used against them.

Jesus Christ Supercop said...

There are many different theories about abiogenesis, and research is ongoing. It's clearly a very difficult field. Are creationists putting forth legitimate scientific theories and performing experiments? No. Does their position have a scientific leg to stand on? No. They merely assert that God did it, and cannot even prove that God exists. Truly, they might as well claim that the Flying Spaghetti Monster was responsible.

There is no reason whatsover to think that the answer to abiogenesis would involve God or something else that's "immaterial." And the answer isn't going to fall out of the sky, scientists will have to keep working on the problem until it gets solved or is deemed to remain a mystery.

Sailer is not mocking creationists for not knowing, since scientists don't know either (there are many things they don't know). He is mocking them for offering divine intervention as an explanation and then acting like they have an actual answer. "A miracle occurs" isn't going to cut it in the world of science.

Todd White said...

JCS: “There are many different theories about abiogenesis, and research is ongoing…Are creationists putting forth legitimate scientific theories and performing experiments? No. Does their position have a scientific leg to stand on? No.”

TW: I support scientific research. No one is telling the Darwinists to stop doing their research (although, ironically, the Darwinists ARE quite eager to prevent I.D. advocates from doing THEIR research).

The position of the I.D. community is that life shows evidence of design, NOT chance. As I said to Chuck Ross yesterday, “It’s like putting together a crime scene.” You have to reconstruct what happened, and determine whether it happened by accident or on purpose. I.D. advocates see purpose. And that explains their position on the origin of life.

Jesus Christ Supercop said...

They can see all the purpose they want to, but creationism is not science and should not be treated as such.

Todd White said...

JCS: "They can see all the purpose they want to, but creationism is not science and should not be treated as such."

TW: Well, for starters, I'm not advocating "Creationism;" I'm talking about Intelligent Design.

There's actually an important difference.

Creationism starts with the Bible, and uses science to validate the Bible's worldview.

I.D. is independent of religion.

I.D. deliberately uses the scientific method: observe, develop a hypothesis, test the hypothesis, analyze the result, repeat.

The I.D. movement is focused on the facts and is determined to follows the facts wherever they go.

That's why I.D. is a perfectly legitimate form of science.

Indeed, what's NOT science is the deliberate attempt by Darwinists to strangle the I.D. debate.

Jesus Christ Supercop said...

ID is really just a spin doctored version of creationism, something that gives the appearance of being non-religious, or not specific to Christianity. Nobody in the science world treats ID as science, and ID hasn't even been practised as such.

ID has no business going anywhere near anything science-related, because it is not science. It only pretends to be. That is why scientists are so vehemently opposed to ID. Even outside the scientific community, ID has been repeatedly discredited.

Todd White said...

JCS: "ID is really just a spin doctored version of creationism, something that gives the appearance of being non-religious, or not specific to Christianity."

TW: I’m really not sure how you can say that, given what I wrote above.

JCS: "Nobody in the science world treats ID as science, and ID hasn't even been practiced as such."

TW: This summer, Professor Bradley Monton published a book called, “Seeking God in Science: An Atheist Defends Intelligent Design.” I haven’t read the book but the thesis is clear: The heart of the I.D. debate isn’t science vs. religion; it’s science vs. itself. Do we want science to be an honest exploration of the world or a materialist ideology that is enforced in a way that would do Stalin proud?

JCS: “ID has no business going anywhere near anything science-related, because it is not science. It only pretends to be. That is why scientists are so vehemently opposed to ID. Even outside the scientific community, ID has been repeatedly discredited.”

TW: So let me understand: I.D. ISN’T science. And yet it’s been discredited. Huh? Either it IS a science that’s been discredited OR it’s outside the purview of science (and thus immune to being discredited). Which is it?

Jesus Christ Supercop said...

Since science is an honest exploration of the world, it must necessarily reject ID for being dishonest (and unscientific).

By discredited I mean even those outside the scientific community have concluded that it isn't science.

Todd White said...

JCS: We might just have to agree to disagree on this one. Until the Darwinists prove at least 1 of these 3 items, I feel comfortable advocating the freedom to discuss alternative theories...

(1) life can be produced "by chance" in a soup of chemicals,

2) life can come from non-living matter,

3) random genetic mutations and environmental pressures can explain the creation of new species.

Todd White said...

Update here:

http://mustardseednovel.blogspot.com/2009/10/is-that-all-doctor.html