Originally posted by LazloFarnsworth
Hmm..the reading problem...
Well it is your problem.
A study from MIT which by the way doesn't say anything about Darwinism being false and it being replaced by Lamarckism.
Since when do you have a negative in order to prove something is false?
...Is the study peer reviewed? Have the findings been confirmed by other Biologists?
You question MIT? Wow. You must not be an American.
How about these sources:
www.alternativeinsight.com...
sciencewriter.org...
www.sciencemag.org...
www.strangescience.net...
You see, you are clearly a Christian minded person even if you are perhaps an atheist. I know that sounds strange, but my dad an Atheist and yet still
a Jewish minded person.
The point of the matter is why was Charles Darwin's theory revered so much and why do you deem it is religious neutral rather than religious
proponent to a scientific investigation?
Why am I stating this? Because Charles Darwin was a pious Christian.
Evidence One: He was raised as a pious christian.
Evidence Two: He was a student (not directly, but indirectly) of the work of his predecessor Lamarck. I mean he knew of Lamarck and work on trying to
take into account of his theories.
This proves he had a Christian mindset, a strong belief god must have had a strong role with life and in the intentions on biological studies by
Lamarck.
However, he couldn't simple make an agree between the two, because Lamarck was a clear atheist, and Darwin was clearly not an atheist. He eventually
became a doubtful Christian and later agnostic over time, but it wouldn't be until the 1870s that he would official state his agnostic beliefs.
Therefore, during the time he wrote his thesis on natural selection, he was still strong believer in god and based his study on his belief in god.
What his theory on natural selection had done was remove Lamarck's theory that evolution occurs naturally on its own. That mechanisms within a
creature allow it to evolve as it interacts with its environments. Like a clock that continues to operate without an operator.
What the theory of evolution is by establishing a view of mutation to occur by random behavior is to say that the mechanisms of chance occur outside
of the realm of physical conduct and thus lie without the hands of an unseen force just as the forces in the market are deem random by the very same
ideas. Random = Placing God in the framework of how life works.
It is not religious neutral (science without god), but religiously adamant (science with god). However, Darwin still knew his theory wouldn't be
taken seriously, because he would be challenging the views of the church. First problem is trying to get something not pertaining to your religious
views to adapt to what you currently uphold. The next problem is getting everyone else to follow along, especially an institute of orthodoxy such as
the Anglican Church.
By the way, I do have a PhD in History, not just Political Science.
Why you don't view natural selection as a theocratic upholding on the processes of evolution that Darwin had done was because you have made part of
your own beliefs that the nature of random has nothing to do with a god, but rather chance even though chance as it is defined is a process of
indeterminism that has distance the acquiring manner of knowledge outside the grasp of human minds.
However, this is no difference to the institute of religion in it self and dogmatic beliefs established by the church. The only difference between you
and the church is that you have simple removed god, but you have yet distance yourself build up of thought by from that very same theocratic institute
that has shape your views.
Instead of distancing yourself from the institute of god, you merely had replaced god from that institute that had formed from the idea of a god or
entity outside of our reality with the agnostic assumption of chaotic occurrence. However, chaos in it self has been a deity worship since ancient
Egyptian days. So in reality, aren't you truly just replacing one god with another?
A god of order with a god of chaos?
What differs me from you is that my lack of belief in a god stems from my understanding of an unknowable god, which stems from the meaning of
infinity. It is not any different from you, but when I question god's existence I also question the institute and all the ideology that had formed
around said god rather than the just god's place in that ideology and institute that had formed around "him."
In other words, I actually don't believe in a god. You still do, just not one of order yet one of chaos and you rather than calling him a god or a
being. You subject him to a mathematical cognitive assertion, which is still placed in the same seat of authority that a god would as if you were a
Creationist.