I was scouting some of my favorite haunts. I found this article on William Dembski's blog, Uncommon Descent.
The author claims Darwin plagarized the previous work of a scientist (a Creationist, of all things) who figured out what natural selection was and how it worked a couple decades before Darwin did.
Whether or not Darwin plagarized, I was fascinated to discover that the darling of evolution has it's roots in Creation science. But then so does calculus, basic astronomy, and the scientific method (to name a few).
Be forewarned, it's a brainy article.
- Graffy
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
2 comments:
I was fascinated to discover that the darling of evolution has it's roots in Creation science.
Why? In Darwin's time, the Christian churches still held almost exclusive control of western learning centers. Most of the greatest scientists of the 19th century and earlier were trained in Christian schools and many, such as Darwin, even dabbled in seminary education.
Evolution doesn't explain how life began, only how it changed and continues to change over time.
And there's no such thing as "Creation science" and more than there's such a thing as "Resurrection science". Creationism is theology; Big Bang Theory, the ekpyrotic theory of universal genesis and the abiogenesis hypothesis are science.
By the term "creation science", I mean only the science that came from the viewpoint of scientists who looked at nature as God's creation.
Evolutionists appeal to "chemical evolution" to explain the beginnings of life - prior to biological life forms. Interestingly, I've seen many refer to a chemical form of natural selection to explain the evolution of chemical life - which is bogus since natural selection is proved purely in a biological context.
As for Darwin - he was at one time answering the call of ministry - he wanted to become a preacher. If my memory serves, he left his vocation after the death of his twelve-year-old daughter - angry that God would have let her die. The latter commentaries from Darwin regarding the creation viewpoint reveal he rejected creationism on purely personal grounds - not for any sort of evidence that refuted it. That is, Darwin presupposed creation to be false as a matter of personal preference, not scientific conviction.
Post a Comment