The difficulty begins when we start to dig into the common textbook definitions of the term "evolution". Here, evolution is often defined by its opposition to creation. Consider just two academic sources among legion: "That organisms have evolved rather than having been created is the single most important and unifying principle of modern biology." (Daniel R. Brooks and E. O. Wiley, Evolution as Entropy [Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1986], p. xi.) And here's the Harvard paleontologist George Gaylord Simpson: "Man is the result of a purposeless and natural process that did not have him in mind." (G. G. Simpson, The Meaning of Evolution: A Study of the History of Life and of Its Significance for Man, revised edition (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1967), p. 345.)Jay W. Richards, God and Evolution: Protestants, Catholics and Jews Explore Darwin's Challenge to Faith (Seattle: Discovery Institute Press, 2010), p. 12f.
Darwin himself understood his theory this way. As he said, "There seems to be no more design in the variability of organic beings, and in the action of natural selection, than in the course which the wind blows." (Francis Darwin, Life and Letters of Charles Darwin, (New York: Appleton, 1887). Vol I: pp.280, 283--284, 278-279).
These descriptions of (Darwinian) evolution don't leave a lot of wiggle room.
So, when humanists and evolutionists re-introduce the concepts and language of structure, order, telos, purpose, plan, or design they are not just trying to get wiggle room, they are engaging in, and complicit with, the greatest intellectual legerdemain ever seen. As our mothers tartly observed, they want their cake and they want to eat it too--which is a polite way of saying that they want it both ways. This self-deceit and intellectual dishonesty are the hallmarks of our age.
2 comments:
And then Jesus said, "Human sacrifice!, what kind of Neanderthal bullshit is that!!?. What are we, living in the Stone Age?"
And his disciples responded, "Ummm, come again, master?"
Seems like the definition of "evolution" can be a moving target.
I'm becoming interested in the General Theory of Evolution and what it actually is, so I hope to read up on it over the summer break. That also means looking at some alternative accounts - such as this book:
Jonathan Sarfati, The Greatest Hoax on Earth? Refuting Dawkins on evolution.
Although, I must admit I'm getting distracted with Pinker's new book advancing the idea that violence is decreasing. The small bit I've read so far is concerning. Whether violence is decreasing or not seems to becoming less important to me as I review his book, because he builds his argument on the most illogical foundations (after declaring reason and empirical science so important to him).
Just thought I'd share :)
Post a Comment