Search blog.co.uk

The philosophy of the anti-evolution movements

by ranfuchs @ 2008-03-26 - 10:02:32

monkey

It was not surprising that evolution theory had evoked passionate antagonism. Its radical implications were far more reaching than the “we are not monkeys” emotional response. The theory eliminated the need for a designer or a creator, and it undermined what was probably the oldest and most frequently used proof for the existence of God, as first expressed by the ancient Roman Marcus Tullius Cicero (106– 43BC):

When you see a sundial or a water-clock, you see that it tells the time by design and not by chance. How then can you imagine that the universe as a whole is devoid of purpose and intelligence, when it embraces everything, including these artifacts themselves and their artificers?

Those who object to the evolution theory can be broadly classified into two camps: creationists, and the advocates of intelligent design, also known as design theorists. Creationists believe that the literal biblical narration provides a factual account of events, and reject any kind of evolutionary process. Intelligent design, on the other hand, accepts that organisms could evolve from other organisms, but rejects the randomness of the process and suggest that it was preordained and following a blueprint. To use an analogy, when dominos fall, although each piece falls because it is pushed by its predecessor, the pattern of the fall is predefined by the original setting of the dominos.

Intelligent design theorists claim that without such a blueprint, biological organs and systems that display irreducible complexity could not have evolved. That is, no random process could account for the development of an organ, like the eye, which is composed of several interacting parts, all required for its functioning. As evolvement of anything but the complete operating organ could not function at all, it would not have survived the process of natural selection.

Trackback address for this post:

authimage

Comments, Trackbacks: Hide subcomments

deleted user [Visitor]

2008-03-26 @ 10:20

great post, I love this blog!

I fall into the category that says "scientist thought the world was flat until they were proved wrong.we know nothing for definite.all our beliefs may be totally wrong. I believe in nothing except in myself".

ranfuchsranfuchs pro
2008-03-26 @ 20:44

Thanks mate. It sounds like you should love René Descartes, who said "I think therefore I am". You may even find Spinoza interesting. I love him, but I must say, I find his philosophy very hard to understand.

So I take my time, read it slowly, and think of it a lot

CassandraofTroyCassandraofTroy [Member]
2008-03-27 @ 08:20

That's exactly what all good scientists say.
Ever thought of being one?

Leave a comment :

Your email address will not be displayed on this site.
Your URL will be displayed.
Allowed XHTML tags: <!, p, ul, ol, li, dl, dt, dd, address, blockquote, ins, del, a, span, bdo, br, em, strong, dfn, code, samp, kdb, var, cite, abbr, acronym, q, sub, sup, tt, i, b, big, small, img>
URLs, email, AIM and ICQs will be converted automatically.
Options:
 
(Line breaks become <br />)
(Set cookies for name, email & url)
Validation code:
Please enter the above code here:
For protection from spambots (case-sensitive).