Wednesday, July 06, 2005

Oh yeah, that deity who does not transcend nature

A piece by Cornelia Dean in the New York Times contained this interesting assertion:

It is evolution's acceptance of nature as the only true scientific authority and its capacity to fall in the face of a more effective explanation that make evolution science, far more than its mere correctness.

That is the difficulty faced by advocates of creationism and intelligent design. It is possible to believe in evolution and believe in God. Plenty of biologists do. But their deity is not a creator or intelligent agent at work in the material world in ways that transcend nature and its laws. That would be a matter of faith, not science.

Is it not obvious that believing in a deity that does not transcend nature and its laws is also a matter of faith? Does she really mean to suggest that such belief is a matter of science? How can they print this stuff?

Of course, her real error is to ignore the fact that for many Darwinists, Darwinism is not falsifiable in practice. And she seems to think that by asserting that there is no evidence that would tend to contradict evolution, she can make it so. I find it so remarkable that she and her cohorts can state so confidently that the Cambrian Explosion poses no problems for Darwinian theory. Hence, she has rightfully earned a place among the Darwinian fundamentalists.


At July 16, 2005 10:54 AM, Blogger Mark Nutter said...

This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

At July 16, 2005 12:43 PM, Blogger Mark Nutter said...

It's not hard to think of things that would easily falsify current Darwinian theory. Fully-developed human remains fossilized in clearly Cambrian-era deposits, for instance, or a fossil record that showed a clear lack of nested hierarchies, ancestral forms, and shared-but-modified physiological structures between earlier and later species, all would be inconsistent with Darwin's theory of descent with modification. Discovery of a genetic mechanism for enforcing a barrier between microevolution and macroevolution would be another falsification of Darwinian theory - so far that hasn't been seen. There's lots of ways Darwinian theory could be falsified. It's just that so far all the evidence has been consistent with the theory of common descent.

At November 26, 2005 4:43 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Common descent is not the issue here. The issue is "what caused the whole process of common descent with modification"?

ID proponents would say that intelligent agency had to play a role, especially when it comes to macroevolution. Darwinists on the other hand would insist that natural selection alone is capable of powering the whole historical process of common descent.

At August 09, 2011 7:35 AM, Blogger Volex said...

Some thoughts on the logic of falsifiability:

And Common Ancestors:

(Please excuse me pushing my own blog, but it saves a lot of typing/cut-&-pasting.)



Post a Comment

<< Home