Although it's been some time since I read the book, I felt I should try to bring to a close the Slifkin & Darwinism series. The last post on this topic pointed out that Science wasn't as perfect as Slifkin claimed. In this post I'd like to discuss Darwinism specifically.
Slifkin says that the science of Darwinism should be judged separately from any implications people draw from it. This is true to a point. But if an ideology allows people to be "intellectually fulfilled atheists" [-Dawkins], perhaps that is part of the reason that it became so widely accepted. The fact that Darwinism and social darwinism developed together and led to Nazism also says something about it.. [eval on own w/o faith in sci random make sence?]
So we cannot just have faith in the Darwinist's words. We must compare their beliefs to ours. They are materialists, who do not believe in anything above the physical. Therefore, they have to pick between aliens having created life or it having spontaneously arisen. Because of many obvious problems with the former (how did the aliens arise?), most scientists prefer the latter.
Fine, that's what they're forced to believe, but why would a religious person accept that? How could someone like Slifkin accept this ideology of randomness? A perfectly encoded string RNA does not just form on it's own. And definetly not with the similarly amazing proteins (all just happening to be made of the just right order of 'left-handed' molecules) to carry out its instructions!
Life could not have arisen and evolved just by unguided forces. There was a Guiding Hand.
1 comment:
this was based on an old draft i found. i know it repeats some stuff from old posts, but i wanted to end that. I just need to write a post on other things in C of C besides darwinism and then i can blog about the oppsite side.
Post a Comment