These Are the Most Important Questions We Can Ask
Jon Noyes explains how Darwinism differs from other areas of science and philosophy.
#TothePoint #StandtoReason #Apologetics #Science #Philosophy #Christianity #Darwinism
————— FIND MORE FREE TRAINING —————
Website: https://www.str.org/
Stand to Reason Apps: https://www.str.org/apps
Stand to Reason University: https://training.str.org/
————— CONNECT —————
Twitter: https://twitter.com/STRtweets
Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/standtoreason93
Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/standtoreason
LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/company/stand-to-reason/
————— GIVE —————
Support the work of Stand to Reason: https://www.str.org/donate
source
Click to rate this post!
[Total: 0 Average: 0]
The passage presented raises several points about Darwinism not only as a scientific theory but as an ideology that impacts various facets of life, including law, medicine, and religion. However, there are several factual and logical weaknesses in the arguments presented:
### 1. Misrepresentation of Darwinism as an Ideology:
– *Weakness:* The speaker conflates the scientific theory of evolution by natural selection (Darwinism) with scientism and ideology. Darwinism, strictly speaking, is a scientific theory explaining the biological diversity through natural selection and random mutations. Labeling it as an "ideology" extends beyond its scientific basis into a philosophical interpretation, which is not inherently implied by the theory itself.
– *Correction:* It would be more accurate to differentiate between Darwinism as a biological theory and any philosophical or ideological extensions (like social Darwinism) that go beyond the original scientific claims.
### 2. Comparison with Other Scientific Theories:
– *Weakness:* The comparison of Darwinism to theories like Newton's laws of motion or Kepler's laws by stating "We have Darwinists, but not Newtonists," implies a unique ideological attachment to Darwinism that is not present in other scientific theories. This is a misleading analogy as the "ism" in Darwinism does not necessarily imply ideology in the same way as political ideologies.
– *Correction:* Acknowledge that the term "Darwinism" is often used in scientific contexts without ideological connotations, similar to how "Newtonian Mechanics" is understood in physics.
### 3. Universal Acid Metaphor:
– *Weakness:* Daniel Dennett's metaphor of evolution as a "universal acid" that affects all aspects of human understanding is used to suggest that evolution inherently challenges all traditional concepts fundamentally. This is an overextension because while evolutionary theory has influenced many areas of thought, its application and impact vary significantly across different fields.
– *Correction:* Clarify that while evolutionary principles can provide insights in various disciplines, these applications do not "dissolve" traditional concepts but rather contribute to a broader and often more nuanced understanding.
### 4. Implication of Evolution in Various Disciplines:
– *Weakness:* The claim that evolutionary theory is bleeding into every area of life and fundamentally altering them could be perceived as an exaggeration. While evolutionary principles have been applied in fields like criminology, law, and medicine, these applications are usually one of many theoretical approaches rather than dominating or "revolutionizing" the fields entirely.
– *Correction:* It would be more accurate to state that evolutionary theory offers one of several perspectives in these fields, which may complement or challenge existing theories but does not universally reshape them.
### 5. Conflict with Religious Worldviews:
– *Weakness:* The presentation of Darwinism as directly conflicting with the Christian worldview frames the discussion as inherently oppositional, which may not always be the case. Many religious individuals and groups find compatibility between their faith and the acceptance of evolutionary science.
– *Correction:* Discuss the spectrum of religious responses to Darwinism, acknowledging that while some see conflict, others integrate this scientific understanding with their religious beliefs.
### 6. Rhetorical Questions and False Dichotomies:
– *Weakness:* The speaker uses rhetorical questions to suggest a dichotomy between being "accidental byproducts of blind forces of nature" and "the pinnacle of God's creation." This framing presents a false dichotomy that overlooks the possibility of a nuanced understanding that incorporates elements of both scientific explanations and religious beliefs.
– *Correction:* Introduce the idea that many see no contradiction between recognizing the mechanisms of evolution and believing in a purposeful creation, promoting a more integrative perspective.
*Conclusion:*
While the speaker raises interesting points about the influence of evolutionary theory beyond pure biology, the presentation would benefit from a clearer separation between Darwinism as a scientific theory and its philosophical or ideological interpretations. Addressing these weaknesses would provide a more balanced and accurate exploration of the topic.
What amazes me is how many Christians actually believe in evolution🤔📖
So much goodness here STR. Happy President's Day from NOVA.
Evolution requires three processes:
– abiogenesis,
– addition of genetic information that creates new, beneficial functions
– natural selection.
The third is plausible. The first two are statistically as close to impossible as you can get. Even those experiments that come closest to emulating some microscopic step in the first two processes require interference by intelligent agents.
You can say natural selection is a theory, but 67% of evolution is still just an unsubstantiated hypothesis. Even some atheists now admit that teaching it as fact is dishonest.
An EXTEMELY important fact that needs to be brought out is that in Darwin's time, it was thought that cells were interchangeable. I think of LEGO blocks. However, what we have discovered long after Darwin is that the cell on the bridge of your nose is genetically specific for that ONE spot. It can't be moved to be part of your lung or anywhere else. We are complex beyond belief. Evolution simply can't come up with a human, let alone the hundreds of thousands of other creatures.
"A mind that believes there is a God, or that there is no God, is a conditioned, prejudiced mind."
J. Krishnamurti
Darwinism/Evolutionism has absolutely NO observational science to back it up, so it can barely be called an idea, let alone a Theory or even Hypothesis.
Yes it is JUST A THEORY. period. Not observable, not provable. Where does the information come from?
Start with: How do you control what you think? Chemical reaction or abstract control?
Determinism or free-will? Happenstance or design?
Fine tuning by a designer or are we just the product of beating the greatest odds that ever existed?
It takes greater faith to believe in evolution than it does to believe in a designer.
Welcome to your new religion. Darwin is your god.
Evolutionary speciation is proven. Covid anyone?