Evolutionary naturalism (as taught in American taxpayer-paid public schools) preaches that every living thing came from an unknown, unobserved common ancestor billions of years ago that—conveniently—left no fossil trace.The common ancestor of all living things was probably some sort of microbe, so even if it was fossilized it would be pretty much impossible to tell that it was our common ancestor. I'm not sure why he thinks this is convenient, nothing would thrill scientist more than to find such a thing. Also, I'm not sure what he means by evolutionary naturalism. If he thinks that evolution mandates a philosophical naturalism he's wrong.
The best evolutionists can do is to point to studies suggesting this is so, but then insist that evolutionism is a fact and should be dogmatically taught as such.This is simply not true. Evolution, like all of science, should be examined critically and with an open mind. The only people holding to a dogmatic view of science are the creationists. Also, evolutionism is not a word.
Recent evolution-based studies suggest that people came from marine invertebrates because we have some genes that are the same as sharks—even though these genes don't code for the same structures:This is correct. Evolution has to work with what already exists. That's why the same genes code for different things; the process of evolution co-opts them for new uses.
The same genes that give sharks their sixth sense and allow them to detect electrical signals are also responsible for the development of head and facial features in humans, a new study suggests.It's a miracle. It's an honest to God miracle. That number one, my friends, leads to a link. This link. And sure enough, it's true. Creationists citing sources. I think this is one of the signs of the end times. Regretfully, the rest of the article is not so grounded in fact.
The finding supports the idea that the early sea creatures which eventually evolved into humans could also sense electricity before they emerged onto land.1
On the genetic level, much regarding genes (DNA) is complex and not well understood. Particularly fascinating is how genes interact with each other to activate or deactivate other genes. For example, researchers know of sections of master regulatory genes (e.g., elements of Hox genes) that interact to direct development such as head and facial features. The Creator may very well use similar genes to operate a variety of genetic functions (just as the same switch design can turn on something as different as a motor or a light). This is true whether the genes are in people, sharks, or mice. Darwinists extrapolate, claiming that because the genetic switch is similar, therefore we have an evolutionary connection with these creatures. This is an unscientific leap of faith, but nonetheless must be made by those holding to a secular worldview.It isn't really a leap of faith. It is a perfectly reasonable deduction to make, given the known genetic links between organisms. Genetics has provided wonderous proof for evolution. From the fusion of human chromosome two to ancient retroviral traces in both human and chimp DNA, there is genetic proof that evolution occurs. We've also seen speciation happen so we know quite a bit about the genetics of it.
Also, I've never met anyone who claims to be a Darwinist. I really don't think it's a word. And evolution has nothing to do with a secular worldview. I'm Christian, and I think evolution is great.
Creationists acknowledge the same genetic switch activating the sixth sense in sharks, and face and head development in people. But a similar switch doesn't mean common ancestry. If this were true, the fossil record should document the amusing sea-creature-to-people transition. It does not.This is a lie.
As long as such foolishness is presented as science to the American student (and the public at large), the origins debate in school board meetings nationwide will enjoy top billet.As long as creationists continue to deny basic scientific concepts, the origins debate in school board meetings nationiwide will enjoy top billet. But the debate in the scientific community over whether evolution occurs will not, because it was over one hundred years ago. Evolution won.
2 comments:
Some small bickering with "If he thinks that evolution mandates a philosophical naturalism he's wrong."
Strictly true, although why one would imagine the implication in that direction seems odd to me. On the other hand, it could be said that naturalized epistemology (or scientific naturalism) mandates [acceptance of] evolution.
The Big Disconnect seems to be on whether ontological naturalism is the correct view. I'd argue that it is likely to be on the basis of the power of scientific naturalism, but with ontology there's rarely a substantial basis for preference...
...and in the absence of a basis for preference, who cares? :-)
P.S. The scientific-naturalism-implies-evolution view is critical: it's what's driving a lot of creationists (whether they know it or not) away from scientific naturalism and hence away from science.
This is what makes creationists more dangerous than an otherwise harmless crowd of ignoramuses. The logical consequence of their position is that they must attack science itself.
Post a Comment