Really? Darwin “did not address origins”? – and neither do …

Comment on Newly Discovered Human Footprints Undermine Evolutionary Assumptions by Sean Pitman.

Really? Darwin “did not address origins”? – and neither do modern evolutionists? Correct me if I’m wrong, but wasn’t the title of Darwin’s book, “On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life”?

So, please do explain my “mistake”. Please do explain how Darwinism, to include the claims of modern evolutionary scientists, are not actually about the “origins” of anything – not really. I’m sure many others would be most interested in your explanation of this as well…

Also, while you’re at it, please do explain to me how Darwinism is not actually tied or at all related, really, to the philosophy of naturalism…

Until then, it seems to me that William Provine was right. In the words of his 1998 Darwin Day speech the University of Tennessee he noted something that is downright obvious to those who honestly consider these things:

    “Evolution is the greatest engine of atheism ever invented. Naturalistic evolution has clear consequences that Charles Darwin understood perfectly. 1) No gods worth having exist; 2) no life after death exists; 3) no ultimate foundation for ethics exists; 4) no ultimate meaning in life exists; and 5) human free will is nonexistent” (Provine, 1998).

A year later Provine wrote:

    As the creationists claim, belief in modern evolution makes atheists of people. One can have a religious view that is compatible with evolution only if the religious view is indistinguishable from atheism. (No Free Will, 1999 p.123)

Earlier in his career he wrote in some detail:

    “In other words, religion is compatible with modern evolutionary biology (and indeed all of modern science) if the religion is effectively indistinguishable from atheism. My observation is that the great majority of modern evolutionary biologists now are atheists or something very close to that. Yet prominent atheistic or agnostic scientists publicly deny that there is any conflict between science and religion. Rather than simple intellectual dishonesty, this position is pragmatic. In the United States, elected members of Congress all proclaim to be religious; many scientists believe that funding for science might suffer if the atheistic implications of modern science were widely understood.” (Academe, January, 1987, pp.51-52)

Evidently, you don’t agree. But, how is Provine mistaken here? – in your understanding of Darwinism and the very closely associated naturalistic philosophy that usually goes with it? – especially since I’ve personally heard you say that you wouldn’t know what to tell your own granddaughter if she asked you, as an evolutionist, for some evidence of God’s actual existence?

Sean Pitman Also Commented

Newly Discovered Human Footprints Undermine Evolutionary Assumptions
I will certainly admit it if things change on this topic – as I have done in the past.

As an aside, though, where have you ever admitted to any one of the numerous fundamental problems for neo-Darwinism? Where is your viable evolutionary mechanism? Where is your explanation for high detrimental mutations rates that would have killed off all slowly reproducing organisms on this planet (like all mammals for instance) within less than a million years? or radiocarbon in dinosaur soft tissues that is far too high and uniformly consistent to be a contaminant? or the non-independence of amino acid racemization dating despite your original claims? or the preserved proteins and DNA fragments in dinosaur soft tissues? or the lack of expected erosion over hundreds of millions of years? or the widespread purity and uniformity of thick coal and sandstone beds over huge areas? and on and on and on?

These human footprints in Crete are only one small additional piece of a rather large puzzle that already has the clear weight of evidence strongly against the neo-Darwinian story of origins and strongly in favor of the biblical version of past events.


Recent Comments by Sean Pitman

After the Flood
Thank you Ariel. Hope you are doing well these days. Miss seeing you down at Loma Linda. Hope you had a Great Thanksgiving!


The Flood
Thank you Colin. Just trying to save lives any way I can. Not everything that the government does or leaders do is “evil” BTW…


The Flood
Only someone who knows the future can make such decisions without being a monster…


Pacific Union College Encouraging Homosexual Marriage?
Where did I “gloss over it”?


Review of “The Naked Emperor” by Pastor Conrad Vine
I fail to see where you have convincingly supported your claim that the GC leadership contributed to the harm of anyone’s personal religious liberties? – given that the GC leadership does not and could not override personal religious liberties in this country, nor substantively change the outcome of those who lost their jobs over various vaccine mandates. That’s just not how it works here in this country. Religious liberties are personally derived. Again, they simply are not based on a corporate or church position, but rely solely upon individual convictions – regardless of what the church may or may not say or do.

Yet, you say, “Who cares if it is written into law”? You should care. Everyone should care. It’s a very important law in this country. The idea that the organized church could have changed vaccine mandates simply isn’t true – particularly given the nature of certain types of jobs dealing with the most vulnerable in society (such as health care workers for example).

Beyond this, the GC Leadership did, in fact, write in support of personal religious convictions on this topic – and there are GC lawyers who have and continue to write personal letters in support of personal religious convictions (even if these personal convictions are at odds with the position of the church on a given topic). Just because the GC leadership also supports the advances of modern medicine doesn’t mean that the GC leadership cannot support individual convictions at the same time. Both are possible. This is not an inconsistency.