What exactly is Darwinism?

Does the author mean the theory of evolution?

Then say that....

Evolution and God can and do co-exist. What greater power can God have than to make a species that can evolve and adapt to its surroundings?

The theory of evolution *is* science. The Biblical account of creation is *not* science. It's a story - a story which is a basis for many differing branches of religion.

Religion can, perhaps, also be labeled a science (as it is also a pursuit of truth), but aside from scripture, there is not the same kind of evidence to support it.

While I, myself, place a great deal of significance on my religious beliefs, I feel that my religious instructors are far more capable to teach that subject whereas my secular instructors are far more capable of teaching various aspects of science, including laws and theories - the crux of which all modern scientific discoveries have been derived.

What we have here is failure to communicate. The writer should have learned in high school that science NEVER proves anything in the sense of a mathematical or logical proof. Science is inductive (go look it up) and holds theories only tenuously. Scientists all recognize that the most secure and beautiful theory can be utterly destroyed by the discovery of a single ugly fact.

As for Ethan's comment, religion is not a science because it does no experiments on its subject matter nor does it criticize or correct itself. It can be studied scientifically but it is not a science anymore than a black hole is a science.

First mistake: calling evolution Darwinism.
People who know about science don't usually do that. Evolution is a strong area of science, with a lot of evidence to back it up. Some of us who actually have an understanding of it (and a background in science) are getting tired of people attacking it because they don't understand it, or because they feel it attacks their religion.
If you want to understand it, go take a basic biology class. If you want to understand its relationship to religion, go read Ken Miller's "Finding Darwin's God".

Next we'll be getting preachings about scientifically-proven data on talking snakes in the garden.

Were these people asleep in school when being taught the meaning of metaphor and symbols?

Creation "science" is based on the aspects of evolution that are not yet fully understood. When they see an unexplained part of evolutionary theory the creationists rush in and say "Because it is so complicated God must have done it!" Evidently, as scientists understand more, and more, about evolution, God's role in the process becomes smaller and smaller.

Our educational system has so failed this person.

the fact that the flu virus mutates is proof evolution exists. Is evolution responsible for people being on earth? I think not.

The fossel record shows several great destruction of life, afterwards for a period not much life then all of the sudden life. This to me indicated seeding of planet earth.

So science as taught today does not have everything right. But religion throughout history has gotten their share wrong too. Even today there are religions who teach people that the universe is only 12,000 years old.

Seems there are few if any tradition who have everything right.

It is evident the writer doesn't have a clue of what evolution is or what Darwin did. Darwin NEVER dismissed the existence of God. It was, however, through Darwin's work that the "Big Bang" theory came about, but not from Darwin himself. His experience on the Galapagos Island regarding Natrual Selection, evolution, all are well written and backed up.

It is also important to note that not everything involved with evolution was Darwin's work.

Science and Religion wrong:
You say: "The fossil record shows several great destruction of life, afterwards for a period not much life then all of the sudden life. This to me indicated seeding of planet earth."
I disagree with your assessment. IMO this doesnt indicate a seeding of the planet, it indicates that when a mass extinction event happens, it opens up so many unused niches that life and diversity explode to fill those niches. This is what happened when the dinosaurs were killed off 60 million years ago, opening the planet to colonizations and domination of the planet by mammals which led to us.

Actually it's been PROVEN time and time again. Species evolve. We KNOW this to be true.

You can BELIEVE in religion, you cannot KNOW it. There is a difference, a big one.

You can KNOW evolution occurs.

The writer is wrong. Evolution has been studied for 150 years and every discovery in biology has gone to uphold evolution. It is simply one of the most proven scientific theories ever studied. If you would like to disprove evolution have at it. If you can disprove evolution then you will win the Nobel prize and become one of the most famous scientists ever. But you will need to have a basic understanding of science first, something that this writer lacks.

Where does The Church of Scientology fit in to all of this??? It's a church AND it's science! The best of both world!!!

A clear-headed and honest look at the Bible reveals it to be the product of a dozen or so writers who were entirely human. Their stories of supernatural beings, miracles and glorious conquests are just as blood-thirsty, hateful, cruel and pointless as the tales of Zeus or Jason.

It makes no more sense to believe in the "God" of the Bible than it does to believe in Odin, Shiva, Ra or Zeus.

Nick: Your comment is right on!

Funny how physicists never say "Relativity is as much a proven fact as Darwinism."

Evolution has been disproven. I commend to you The Design Inference: Eliminating Chance Through Small Probabilities, by William A. Dembski, PhD, published by Cambridge University Press, if you have the background to understand it. If, after that, you need assistance in applying the concepts therein to biology, I will be happy to help.

Essentially, small probability on a universal scale, combined with patterned features, is a reliable hallmark of intelligent - as opposed to "natural" - causation.

The prior question not allowed is "is this an accident or was it on purpose?" If we disallow the "on purpose" explanation, Darwinism - the "accident" explanation - wins, because the only alternative is ruled out beforehand. Kind of a vacuous "proof," though.

Since the "on purpose" explanation is not allowed, how, pray tell, could Darwinian evolution be disproven so we can collect that Nobel? What would a falsified Darwinian hypothesis look like? Common descent is *axiomatic* in biology, so the random mutation and non-random death bit is the only way to get the appearance of design without a designer, right? And that's the whole point of evolutionary theory.

Anon:
Most physicists would refer to it as evolution, not Darwinism.

I don't have a problem with science and evolution. What I do have a problem with is when secular humanists, and others, use their public pulpit (public schools) to preach that their "science" proves there is no God, and then scream "separation of Church and State" when others take offense. It is one more evidence of the duplicity of the left.

Why do so many insist on trivializing God by reducing him to an old, angry-looking old geezer who lives "out there" somewhere and throws people into hell for their transgressions - because he loves them.

Try expanding your thinking for once on this.

Do you have the background to understand The Design Inference? Have you ever read Origin of Species?

Since you understand The Design Inference, please provide a summary of proof of intelligent design.

I have a question: What kind of intelligent designer do you have mind? Zeus, Shiva, Yahweh or some other deity. If you choose Yehweh or God of the Bible, I doubt your motives for accepting the theory of intelligent design.

As far as the Bible goes, I think it's fairly easy to show that the God of Bible is horrible one. Do you want to stone your children to death for disobedience? If not, why not? God says to do so in the Bible. It's it obvious that humans invented Yahweh much in the same way that humans invented Zeus?

The majority of us seem to grossly misunderstand the notion of scientific "theory." There is an uninformed lay idea that "theory" applies to hair-brained hypotheses, hence we say "it's just a theory." We claim that "theories" are unproven.

In fact, "theory" is perhaps the highest attainment of the scientific method. Observations, coupled with sound reason become hypotheses. Hypotheses, when applied to the scientific method, are either vetted and vindicated by empirical means, or are disproved in a similar manner. When a hypothesis is "proved" via the scientific method, it becomes a theory. The word theory is used to indicate that all known empirical evidence supports the hypothesis.

We have theories that govern nearly all practical applications of knowledge. Theory in medicine, physics, biology, chemistry, and so forth. Those principles that keep the plane aloft, numb the nerves, concoct medications, and produce synthetic materials, are all based on "just theory."

Hence, the "theory" of evolution is far from "unproved." When scientists say that evolution is a theory, what they mean is that a preponderance of evidence has been examined and demonstrated to support the original hypothesis.

Anon: You are correct, relativity is as much a proven fact as evolution. Both theories have stood up to every test we have come up with. Come up with a test for your theories and perhaps they can become as fundamental to science as the two theories you mention. Stating god did it is not a test. I understand the theory proposed by the ID crowd and I dont think they are true, they havent come up with any test (or any idea to be tested) so I have no basis to believe them. I dont believe in the hypothesis of superstrings for the same reason.

is a creationist (intelligent designer) and he certainly hasn't disproved evolution. Quit playing the dishonest game the i.d.-ers are playing with the general public.

Why is it, in a newspaper owned by a religion whose members knew the ugliness of persecution, is the persecution of secular humanity so joyfully accepted?

We have the all knowing conservatives. They have the gift of mind reading. They confidently know what others believe.

I believe, to be educated, you must study belief systems. To understand Western culture: its art and literature, you should read the Bible. Read about Greek mythology too. I read the Bible. It has great stories. I found reading about daughters seducing their father, by getting him drunk, disturbing.

Darwin is a great point. I bet the writer knows little about who he so reflectively condemns. Darwin, like me was raised in a religious family. In fact Darwin was studying to be a vicker when he decided to travel on the Beagle. It was Darwin’s biblical knowledge that let him see the contradictions in what he was taught about life on earth. Darwin had courage to let facts and not beliefs define life. For this, religions will be eternally unhappy with him.

Here's a summary of design theory.

In our experience, whenever a phenomenon has displayed small probability and easily described patterns, and how the phenomenon came about was fully known, that phenomenon was the result, at least in part, of intelligent causation.

Biological life displays small probability and easily described patterns.

Therefore, we are justified in inferring that biological life is the result, at least in part, of intelligent causation.

It is clear that "who" any particular designer is for any particular phenomenon observed is irrelevant to the issue of intelligent causation. It is referred to in neither the premises nor the conclusion of the argument. It is also clear that there is no religious component to this argument, whatever its religious implications.

We are quite comfortable in inferring design to computers, books, or even chimpanzee termite-catching sticks, without controversy; why is the method of design detection suspect *SOLELY* when aimed at biology?

Answer: because "science" has, a priori, ruled out intelligent causation in that field.

God created evolution, and it was good.

The author of this letter makes it clear he doesn't understand evolution. He also doesn't understand the word "Theory" as it relates to science.
He can believe in all of the Super Natural stuff He wants, but it's not Science and should not be taught in Science Class.

To Casey: Please cite one single instance where a U.S. public school has stated that "science proves that there is no god."

Exactly what part of "theory" don't you understand?

It is not a fact!

Mother Nature created the whole thing.
But she is warning us that we have perhaps pushed the limit.

Next thing you know there will be "scientific proof" that women come from men's ribs.

What I have a problem with are religious folks who use the public pulpit to promote the idea that a particular god exists with no evidence for it, along with the request that we ignore some things that can be KNOWN for the sake of maintaining an imaginary friend. This wouldn't be so bad if it didn't come along with all the toxic "morality". A god's existence is a reasonable question for science to explore, especially considering how widespread and influential this notion is. To date there is no evidence that a god exists, and there is plenty that suggest a god does not exist. But if you think scientists are giving religion a hard time, it pales in comparison to what religion tries to do science.

What, you think that men came from womens ribs?

What part of theory don't I understand?

The definition of theory, in the scientific sense, is "knowledge or information based on empirical (or real) occurrences that validate working hypotheses."

What is the definition of "fact?" Just this: "Knowledge or information based on real occurrences."

Gravitation is a fact, we lay-people say. Scientists reply, no, it's theory. So what's the difference?

Well, science doesn't use the word "fact" because "fact" suggests that no additional knowledge can ever be known about it. "Theory," on the other hand, establishes a completely factual working model that can be refined in the future as new evidence arises.

Thus, theory must be factual by definition. Any other understanding of the word is misinformed.

Can there be other explanations for scientific theories? Yes, but until these can be examined by the scientific method, they will never be scientific theories.

To all the evolution supporters, please provide the proof that matter was created from nothing via the big bang. Please also provide the proof that organic can be created from inorganic. If your theory is as proven as you claim, these proofs should be fairly easy to articulate. Thank you.

Casey;
I am a high school biology teacher, Christian. I hit evolution pretty hard, since it is the core concept that fits the data so well, and which biology can be interpreted from so intelligently. However, no one in my class could every misconstrue that as the statement that God doesn't exist; in fact, we carefully review the difference between religion and science, and science's inability to say anything about a supernatural God. I defy you or anyone to point out any teacher who did so; if there have been examples in the past, they no doubt paid a price for it in terms of job, tenure, or community respect.

One wonders what 12:01 considers evidence against the existence of a god - and one might hypothesize it would most likely be the same "evidence" that motivated Dawkins to reject all gods - the supposed "truth" of Darwinian evolution.

Please, 12:01, tell us: what evidence have you seen that discounts the existence of a god?

If your religion entails (a) god(s) who claim(s) to be the creator(s) of biological life and do(es) not lie then your religion is false if Darwinian evolution is true.

Proof: Darwinian evolution of biological life is a a process of *undirected* material processes alone. By virtue of the definition of *undirected*, no intelligent direction is involved. The claim that intelligent direction was involved in the production of biological life contradicts the description of Darwinian evolution as *undirected*, which in turn would negate Darwinian evolution.

Thus, if Darwinian evolution were true, most branches of the Judeo-Christian religion are, as renowned atheist and exponent of evolution Richard Dawkins put it in "Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed," akin to accounts of hobgoblins, fairies, and so forth.

Anon 12:23 -
If you are interpreting "god" as a bearded old man who hides in the clouds from us and who throws people into everlasting hellfire for their transgressions - because he loves them,

I am afraid YOUR interpretation is much, much smaller than MY interpretation.

So let's just leave it at that.

What's the big deal about evolution. I think evolution and creationism can and do go hand in hand. I guess that's why they taught evolution back in my Biology 100 class at BYU.

"Darwinism" is a word used by those who seek to make evolution science into a cult. It is not the same as evolution.

In science, a "theory" is the best available explanation that accounts for all data. Evolution is a theory--it is the best available explanation, and it accounts for all available information. In science, that is as close to "truth" or "proven" as we can get.

The evidence that life forms have evolved is mountainous and undeniable.

I refer LDS readers to the recent book about LDS scientist Henry Eyring.

It was this writer's intention to once more jump into the fray and argue the merits of science and the the methodology that distinguishes it from faith-based concepts like creationism, when it became apparent that the whole discussion is moot.

It is presumed that the letter writer is not trying to counter the scientific basis for the Theory of Evolution, but he is only attempting to let similar believers know that he stands with them in the denial of anything that appears to challenge their beliefs. His is not the objective to refute the massive evidence to support Darwin's observations. Rather, he only wants to remind the readers of the Deseret News that he is beyond discussing the science behind an idea if it threatens his narrowly-defined perspective.

Let us take note than no amount of discussion will persuade this man and his like-minded brethern that there is legitimacy to a view different from his own. Like the Muslim fundamentalists who cannot tolerate any interpretation of the Koran different from their own strict understanding, enlightenment and adaptation to the changing world is forbidden lest they stop accepting the established dogma governing their lives and cast doubt on their very being.

Evolution means natural change.
Change, like the word liberal, is a dirty word to our neo-red friends here in Utah.

See the problem?

re Darin to Casey:

I understand when you say that there is no evidence that God exists, although I think that there is much evidence of the existence of God. I don't understand when you mention all the evidences that there is no God. I don't know of one. Could you please give me an evidence.

One of our children had a teacher who did just what Casey is talking about. It wasn't in Utah, but it happened. And as far as I know they are still doing it.

As for science finding more evidence to support the theory that there is not god than evidence to support there is. God reveals Himself to those who seek Him. Someone looking to prove He does not exist will not find Him and therefore conclude He is not there. To one who is open minded to His existence they will find ample evidence to support this fact. I worry for those who claim He isn't there. They are missing a lot. The "hammer, bend and pound to fit" religious crowd do more harm than good, but that does not prove that God does not exist. Only that He doesn't exist in their hearts.

It's all in your personal interpretation of "god" Big Al.

There are a lot of us whose personal interpretation of god far exceeds the concept of a mere man in the clouds or on some planet far, far away. Much more vast. Much more encompassing. Beyond gender. Beyond a human-like figure.

But if it works for you ...

All is conceptual.
All is in the mind.
Go to work on transforming the mind and you realize that there is no distance between yourself and God.
Meditators find this out for themselves.

You ARE God.

Anon,

The claims posed by Dembski have been reviewed and subsequently rejected by the scientific community.

His mathematical "proofs" have been discredited by the scientific and matehmatic communities. His evidence that it is not possible for complex specified information to occur randomly in nature is based upon an assumption that it is not possible because William Dembski has defined it so.

Is this another example of the "teach the controversy" bs. Stir up the scientific debate of ID vs Evolution? There is no scientific debate because there is no evidence in support of ID.

Why not argue that an alien cluture started life on earth? Mr Dembski did.

Regardless; Gus hit the nail on the head.
There is nothing we can do to convince these people.
You are of course free to hold on to your beliefs.
Just remember that they are just beliefs after all.

In order to offer any of your beliefs as arguments rather than claims you will need evidence.
In order to get evidence to support your claims you will need science.

Good luck with that but stop offering speculation and assumption as proof.

"I don't know how that works."
"It must be god's design then"

Sorry; but "you ARE God" is not something you find when meditating.
When meditation reaches a certain point of trance you can feel your place in infinity (time/space).

Dear 3:53 -

I have not seen an on-point rebuttal of Dembski. The sole relevant attempt at a counterargument to Dembski - that of Elliot Sober - criticizes Dembski's use of Fisherian hypothesis testing over Bayesian hypothesis testing. If you've read Dembski's work in response to this argument over at designinference.com, please, inform the audience here exactly where Dembski got it wrong in utilizing Fisherian statistical hypothesis testing over Bayesian (for the whole argument turns on that point).

I repeat what I've said elsewhere: personal incredulity is not an argument.

Also, wasn't it Sir Francis Crick, atheist and co-discoverer, with Watson, of the double helix structure of DNA, who published first the idea that space aliens seeded the earth with life (also known as directed panspermia), specifically because his in-depth knowledge of the cell could not be reconciled with the claims of Darwinian evolution? I do believe it was!