Title Author Date

The meek inherit the Earth? Holland, Andy Jan 07, 2005

If one puts forth a theory of natural selection or "survival of the fittest", then what scientific criteria apply to prove or disprove the theory? What is the science in measurable terms, of the theory?

When Newton set about his laws of motion, he stated that his equations worked in an inertial system. An inertial system is formally defined as a system in which the laws of motion work (according to Newton).

There are inertial systems, this is provable - it is also good science. There are non-inertial systems, and sometimes mappings to and from. But the theory of the laws of motion actually relate measurable quantities. They make verifiable and testable predictions. They also have defined limits of applicability.

In no way does Newton put forth that such a theory explains anything universal or grand. (Note that force being defined as a change of momentum with respect to time is formally relativity agnostic - and this was intentional on the part of Newton).

So what is the scientific portion of the "theory" of Darwinian evolution, and how is it tested and what predictions does it make? What are its conditions, boundaries, and limits of applicability?

I would note "the meek inherit the Earth", with meek being defined in measurable scientific terms (size, strength, bone, muscle, mass) - does seem to be verifiable against the fossil record. It also appears to be true - relatively meek species have indeed inherited the Earth. This is counter-intuitive but so is General Relativity. It also makes a prediction, the meek shall inherit the Earth. This is verifiable (history as well as the fossil record).

This concept of the meek inheriting the Earth, put forth by Jesus, seems much more "scientific" to me than the Darwinian notion of "survival of the fittest" or "natural selection". The latter Darwinian terms are more philosophical because they are not defined (unless one wants to use meek for fit and preferred selection).

Also, the gradual advancement of species to man was proposed in a book curiously entitled, "On the Origin of Man", written by St. Gregory of Nyssa in the fourth Century.

In another book called, "On the Soul and the Resurrection", St. Gregory also makes similar statements regarding the ascent of man from the universe. Augustine also had a gradual theory of evolution of sorts based on seeds (DNA - Logos, the Word).

It seems to me that with Darwin there is both "nothing new under the sun" and not much a "scientific" theory.

read replies (2)
write a reply

Title Author Date

inquiry Kalchstein , Shlomo Dec 26, 2004

Dear Talkreason,

This email is for Alexander Eterman. I have read two of your essays and would like to know your position on two fundamental issues.

1. Do you consider "Jewish" as an actual category of humanity, such as oriental or black, or merely as a chosen, assumed, changeable and sheddable association such as a political affiliation or school enrollment?
2. If "Jewish" is an intrinsic trait or layer of identity in your view, meaning someone is born Jewish by nature, then what do you perceive as the SOURCE of Jewishness? In other words, what MAKES a person Jewish? What is the criteria?

I have asked these two questions to many people with your ideological mindset. I have never received a logically cohesive reply. Most of them say reluctantly that they never thought it out. However, you seem much more knowledgeable and analytical than others I have encountered. Would you please provide me with your thoughts?

Thank you.

read replies (3)
write a reply Related Article(s):
On Orthodox discourse

Title Author Date

Hang in there Gaudia, Gil Jan 07, 2005

Whoever you are, please keep up the resistance to the lunatics who want the Bible to replace the Encyclopedia Britannica and the Ten Commandments to replace the U.S. Constitution. I admire your compilation (although I've read only a few)of articles challenging Behe, Johnson, Dembski and all the other dishonest "scientists" who wouldn't recognize an experiment if they tripped on it in church. They are so afraid of going to Hell that they have blinded themselves to anything that threatens to reveal the ridiculousness of their mythology. How can I help? I am a retired psychologist and writer.

Gil Gaudia, Ph.D.

read replies (1)
write a reply

Title Author Date

talk reason Seidel, Paul Jan 07, 2005

I liked your page "talk reason" and agree wholehartedly. the big problem that you confront is that these chalatans preach these figments of their imagination and any Christian that does not question what they say accepts their imaginary theories as gospel They could say they saw the cow jump over the moon and those brainwashed enough would believe them!

read replies (1)
write a reply

Title Author Date

hard to read website Bajema, Carl Dec 23, 2004

While a small font size enables you to squeeze more inofrmation into the same space it makes it very hard to read. This is a major criticism because we are all busy and it takes too much time to try to read small print. I listed Talk Reason as one of my favorite websites and had planned to refer students to articles posted on the website but I don't want to take the time using a magnifying glass to read the text.
I am a 67 year old evolutionary biologist who appreciates what you are doing but I would like to read it in a more user friendly font size and style.
carl bajema

read replies (1)
write a reply

Previous | | Next