Philo

If you wish to discuss evolution it helps if you refer to the substantiated evidence for it - fossils, geological strata, animal diversification and so on. One cannot argue with a book of myths that have no corresponding evidence.

But thank you for demonstrating why Christianity has impeded human knowledge and understanding of the world around us.

Pericles,
I’d be happy to try and back up anything I say. Though I first consider whether the person I’m conversing with is listening, whether they have ears to hear. For I don’t want to waste my breath.

You ask why I have started talking about neo-Darwinism. This is because we want to get the definitions clear of what we’re actually talking about. If we are not clear about definitions, then we could be talking past one another; we could even be arguing about something with which we’re really in agreement.

Are you suggesting ‘evolution’ is something other than the definition of neo-Darwinism that I’ve given above?

Neo-Darwinism is what’s currently in vogue. Did I give up on Darwin’s basic concepts? No, that wasn’t me, that was the rest of the world. Darwin, being a man of his day, had no idea about certain things including the study of genetics. Once genetics came along, Darwinism needed a patch and paint job, on which the scientific community by and large started building the edifice of neo-Darwinism.

Now this had its problems. Problems aren’t necessarily bad, as with research, problems can be ironed out. However, the cracks in the building were large, appearing down even in the foundations. Darwinism, as a structure, was in some appearances similar with the structures built by his contemporaries, Marx and Freud. While some still dabble in the ruins of these antiquated, turn of the (old) century ideas and want them preserved as museum pieces, few these days accept Marx or Freud as being ‘scientific’.

Alternatives were found for these. Alas for Darwin, no naturalistic alternative could be found. So, the edifice of neo-Darwinism kept being built on the cracks and shaky foundations.

Johnson said that those of Marx and Freud have fallen. Darwin’s construction is older, broader, and has grown tall. The difference between this and the other two is that when it falls, the crash will be a lot louder.

Heavy on the claims, and light on the detail, Dan.

<<Did I give up on Darwin’s basic concepts? No, that wasn’t me, that was the rest of the world.>>

Could you explain how the world gave up on Darwin’s basic concepts?

<<Once genetics came along, Darwinism needed a patch and paint job, on which the scientific community by and large started building the edifice of neo-Darwinism.>>

How did genetics do this, and what was it that you believe needed to be patched?

<<Problems aren’t necessarily bad, as with research, problems can be ironed out. However, the cracks in the building were large, appearing down even in the foundations.>>

Whoa! That must have been big!

Can’t wait to hear what you’re referring to!

<<Darwinism, as a structure, was in some appearances similar with the structures built by his contemporaries, Marx and Freud.>>

Evolution is a demonstrable science. The other two are mere philosophies.

<<While some still dabble in the ruins of these antiquated, turn of the (old) century ideas and want them preserved as museum pieces, few these days accept Marx or Freud as being ‘scientific’.>>

There’s a big difference between ‘social science’ and ‘natural science’.

<<Alas for Darwin, no naturalistic alternative could be found. So, the edifice of neo-Darwinism kept being built on the cracks and shaky foundations.>>

“Cracks and shaky foundations”?

That’s a big claim for someone has hasn’t yet been able to any evidence in support of Creationism, or against evolution - on any thread or discussion.

<<Johnson said that those of Marx and Freud have fallen. Darwin’s construction is older, broader, and has grown tall.>>

...and is a demonstrable natural science rather than an ideological philosophy.

Anyway, if you could clarify the above with some answers, that’d be swell!

Thanks.

I have to say, you're an interesting case, Dan.
As I see it, you're very much a 'love at first sight' kind of bloke. Your particular belief system doesn't seem to allow for any modifications; or at least, any modification to a belief system automatically invalidates it.
This perhaps makes some sense, if you believe the Bible is the literal word of God. Clearly, any modification would be blasphemy. Of course, this means you're stuck with stoning adulterous women, and suffering not, witches to live.
In the world of science, however, this attitude makes no sense whatsoever. Newton claimed he saw far, because he stood on the shoulders of giants; and in doing so, became a giant himself. Einstein in turn built on the work of Newton; he didn't prove him wrong, so much as incomplete.
In the same way, many (thousands) biologists have built on the work of Darwin. Even those who have proposed the greatest modifications to Darwin's work have still been amongst his greatest admirers.
There can be no doubt that, far from being threatened by the work of Mendel, Darwin would have been thrilled to learn of him; as he provided the actual mechanism for passing on characteristics that Darwin was looking for.
You seem like a man who has invested all his faith in one idea, Dan. Any threat to that idea becomes a threat to your faith.
I have no doubt Darwin would have tried to learn, to the day he died.
I have often wondered why Your God would bother. If He already knows exactly what's going to happen, his existence must be incredibly boring.

Severin,
Evolotion theory of itself may be sufficient to form your world view; however it of itself is not in conflict with Christian faith as I have tried to explain from a Biblical perspective. That is the reason many Christians can accept an old Earth position and natural long term developments of species. Atheist can believe whatever they fancy, however the subject is dealing with a Christian world view on evolution, not atheism and evolution. It appears you have no knowledge of a Christian world view and the contribution Christians have made in science. Belief in evolution plays a very small part in practical science.

Thanks Grim. What an examination! You make me think that the topic of discussion was me.

I just look at myself as someone who is willing to take on a minority position. I’d hardly be the first in this.

You say that I seem like a man who has invested all his faith in one idea. You don’t think it is possible to turn those tables around just for a moment and ponder, could the same be said of Darwin, or some of his followers?