Originally posted by Dasa
I am quite conscious that my speculations run beyond the bounds of true science….It is a mere rag of an hypothesis with as many flaw[s] & holes as sound parts.” Charles Darwin to Asa Gray, cited by Adrian Desmond and James Moore, Darwin, (New York: W.W. Norton and Company, 1991) pp. 456, 475.
Phillip E. Johnson, former law professor at Berkeley, very much in ...[text shortened]... are learning to press the right questions and to refuse to take bluff or evasion for an answer.”
I took a look into the people referred to in this post:
a) Darwin, who presented a new theory in conflict with prevailing beliefs and at great risk to his reputation, speaking in all humility at the intimidating odds he faced in adopting a difficult new position based on many years of serious research and experiment. There are many arrogant "Darwinists" but Darwin was not one of them.
b) From Wikipedia: Phillip E. Johnson (born 18 June 1940) is a retired UC Berkeley law professor and author. He became a born-again Christian while a tenured professor and is considered the father of the intelligent design movement. A critic of what he calls "Darwinism" and "scientific materialism", Johnson rejects evolution in favor of neocreationist views known as intelligent design.
c) Dasa's profile: Over time the religions of the world namely Islam Christianity and Judaism have made the word RELIGION synonymous with make believe and therefore most people are suspect of all religion. Whilst false religion should be made suspect there is true religion. The religion presented by the Vedas is the one and only original and eternal religion which stands alone and above the rest for its flawlessness and truth.
At the very least, I have trouble in Dasa citing as his support a born again Christian, whose beliefs are based on the absolute truth of the bible, which his profile argues to be flawed and false. If the bible supports intelligent design and if Dasa wants to accept this as his evidence, then surely he should accept the bible and edit his profile accordingly. If he does not accept the absolute truth of the bible then he should surely agree with most rational educated people (including rational, educated Christians) that it does not give an accurate, factual account of the origin of species. Which of course would rather destroy the point of his post.
Secondly he seems to ignore the fact that Darwin was perfectly aware of both the contents of the Bible and the argument from design, which indeed he took very seriously and therefore set out to see if the evidence supported that or not, finding no evidence of the need for design in evolution and plenty of contrary evidence.
If people actually took the trouble to read a half decent biography of Darwin they would save us all an awful lot of futile argument. It seems to me hard to understand Darwin without explaining intelligent design, since that was the very theory which Darwin took very seriously indeed and tested to destruction in a prolonged process of research and observation. As such, it provides the context for one of the very greatest pieces of scientific theory making. We should indeed set out the theory of intelligent design, explain how this is falsified by the evidence, and explain why Darwin's alternative theory fits the evidence so powerfully as to force us to abandon design as an account.
The trouble with failing to explain the history is that we are doomed to relive it, this time as farce.