oldmanintheskydidntdoit
Posts: 4999
Joined: July 2006
|
speaking of OW, anybody catch this thread at the time?
Somebody on OW asks have you read the book origin of the species @ troutmac, I unfortunately didn't save that bit, but the rest is classic. If you can't be bothered to read it all, the money shot is Troutmac saying at the end "it does appear that Darwin did not fancy his own theory as an explanation of the origin of life. And thank you for providing the bottom line". Fair play to him for responding rationally! I'm afraid there's no link to go with the text because of course it does not exist anymore
| Quote | TRoutMac | Fri, 2007-03-16 23:45
TRoutMac here… I'm gonna take a wild guess that your question is directed at me.
I have not read "Origin of the Species." Nor do I plan to.
Should I have? If so, why?
Why should I be concerned with what someone thought about origins of--whatever--when, at the time the book was written, they had so little knowledge and understanding of how biology worked? At that time, scientists thought that a cell was very, very simple. They had no technology to discover otherwise. As a result, the grander claims of evolution seemed plausible. I'll grant you that wasn't Darwin's fault. But it is the fault of Darwinists that they cannot let go of an obsolete theory.
I would suggest that reading books such as Michael Behe's "Darwin's Black Box" would be more useful, since it reflects contemporary knowledge and understanding of biology.
TRoutMac
Intelligent (Graphic) Designer |
| Quote | tylerzookie | Fri, 2007-03-16 23:52
The title of the blog post is
Just What DOES Darwin's Theory Explain?
You said I have not read "Origin of the Species." Nor do I plan to. Should I have? If so, why?
Why not find out for yourself what Darwin's Theory Explains?
It's only at the link on my 1st post! It's just a click away.
You yourself asked Just What DOES Darwin's Theory Explain? The answer is here
http://www.literature.org/authors....ex.html
If you don't want to know why did you ask the question?
reply | email this page | 1 point
|
| Quote |
Thanks, but No Thanks
TRoutMac | Sat, 2007-03-17 00:00
tylerzookie wrote:
"If you don't want to know why did you ask the question?"
The question "Just what DOES Darwin's theory explain?" is aimed at pointing out that there seems to be much controversy, even among Darwinists, about whether Darwin's theory purports to explain the origin of life. I would not expect such a controversy within such a well established theory whose proponents insist is proven fact. Would you?
Thanks, but no thanks. I know Darwinism and neo-Darwinism well enough to reject it.
TRoutMac
Intelligent (Graphic) Designer
reply | email this page | -1 points |
| Quote | tylerzookie | Sat, 2007-03-17 00:08
In the conclusion of the book Darwin himself addresses your point.
It is no valid objection that science as yet throws no light on the far higher problem of the essence or origin of life. Who can explain what is the essence of the attraction of gravity? No one now objects to following out the results consequent on this unknown element of attraction; notwithstanding that Leibnitz formerly accused Newton of introducing "occult qualities and miracles into philosophy."
I see no good reasons why the views given in this volume should shock the religious feelings of any one. It is satisfactory, as showing how transient such impressions are, to remember that the greatest discovery ever made by man, namely, the law of the attraction of gravity, was also attacked by Leibnitz, "as subversive of natural, and inferentially of revealed, religion." A celebrated author and divine has written to me that "he has gradually learned to see that it is just as noble a conception of the Deity to believe that He created a few original forms capable of self- development into other and needful forms, as to believe that He required a fresh act of creation to supply the voids caused by the action of His laws."
My bold. |
| Quote | To Darwinists: Pick a Story And Go With It!
TRoutMac | Sat, 2007-03-17 00:58
Alright, it does appear that Darwin did not fancy his own theory as an explanation of the origin of life. And thank you for providing the bottom line, tylerzookie. Personally, I never have accepted it as a theory about origin of life… even though it was presented quite plainly as just that when I was in high school.
It's odd (don't you think?) that so many opponents of Intelligent Design theory (which actually is a theory about the origin of biological life) treat ID as though it were a direct competitor. It can't very well be a directly competing theory if one purports to explain 'Question A' and the other makes no such claim.
How do I reconcile this? Well, it appears that Darwinists are talking out of both sides of their mouth. They are proud to claim that Darwinism quite adequately accounts for the existence of life on this planet, even to the extent that it eliminates any need for a designer, but then once the theory's weaknesses are exposed, they fall back on "Oh, Darwin never claimed to have explained the origin of life."
Convenient, don't you think?
TRoutMac
Intelligent (Graphic) Designer |
Hmm, I might have to adopt
Convenient, don't you think?
As a catchphrase!
--------------
I also mentioned that He'd have to give me a thorough explanation as to *why* I must "eat human babies".
FTK
if there are even critical flaws in Gauger’s work, the evo mat narrative cannot stand
Gordon Mullings
|
