The new atheists of Darwin's day; part two

In my opinion evolutionary theory is far more of a philosophical position, than it is a scientific discovery. I want to look at some more evidence for this claim in this post.

Quotes and comments;

A. 'The British physicist, John Tyndall, was a naturalistic agnostic influenced by the philosophy of Fichte; he is well known from two famous speeches he delivered : "The Scientific Uses of Imagination" (1870) and the Presidential Address to the British Association for the Advancement of Science (1874). He maintained that although there is no evidence for spontaneous generation, one who believes in the continuity of nature must "cross the boundary of the experimental evidence" and affirm that life and mind were latent in matter; in this way evolution can replace the creation doctrine. (This would seem to require that "simple" matter was actually fantastically complex, thus negating the "simple to the complex" theory of development.) [1.]

- Must cross the boundary? I thought all was matter in motion; that being the case where does this 'must' come from? (As a rule, Materialists always fail to account for their own experience and thought in terms of their universal theory of reality.) Tyndall has refuted himself but doesn't seem to notice it. e.g. if all is matter in motion, working in terms of physical laws, there is no freedom... not even in human thought. If he allows for freedom in thought he's refuted his presupposition of materialism. (Materialism has to be universal to work as a system, or as a worldview.)

To say (in rhetorical flourish) we must cross the boundary of evidence simply (and sadly) means we need to ignore the evidence. i.e. if we're going to propagate Evolution to the 'ignorant' masses we need to ignore the evidence against it... ignore the evidence that says it's impossible.

This is an example of what the bible is referring to, when Paul (in Romans) says that men suppress the evidence of revelation in unrighteousness. Tyndall knew better than to ignore evidence, than to go where evidence forbid, and he knew better than to counsel others to do the same... and yet he did. This isn't science; it's an immoral and sinful act of irresponsibility and betrayal. (Students deserve better than this from their teachers; not to mention the honesty that God deserves and demands.)

B. If you thought that quote was wild, try this one from Tyndall;
"However, the process must be slow which commends the hypothesis of natural evolution to the public mind. For what are the core and essence of this hypothesis? Strip it bare, and you stand face to face with the notion, that the human mind itself - emotion, intellect, will, and all their phenomena - were once latent in a fiery cloud. Surely the mere statement of such a notion is more than a refutation.... Surely these notions represent an absurdity too monstrous to be entertained by any sane mind.... These evolution notions are absurd, monstrous..." [2.]

Bahnsen comments; 'Despite this fact, Tyndall promoted evolutionary commitment with zeal.'
- You're not likely to see the above quote in a book by one of the new atheists.

Tyndall is admitting that the evolutionary notion is absurd, but he's willing to embrace it because of his hatred for Christianity and because of his desire for human autonomy in the moral and intellectual realm. In other words; Evolution is the only weapon or tool the non-Christians have, so they have to employ it no matter how absurd a notion it is. If our intellectuals were were honest they'd just reject God; say that although God obviously exists they hate him and reject all he stands for, and intend to live as if he didn't exist. [3.]

Summary;
Our intellectual elite don't come out and admit a self-conscious rebellion against God because they feel (and correctly I think) that the greater public wouldn't accept such a proposal. This rejection would mean the intellectual elite would suffer a great fall from power. To prevent this they push the idea there is no God and that the 'true' explanation for man's origin is something called evolution.

Notes;
1. Worshipping the creature rather than the Creator - Greg Bahnsen
- 'The fact is that Darwinism, despite its boast of scientific proof, is a theory erected upon a speculative supposition and supported by imaginary evidence; it does not establish historical factuality but merely gives us a "way of looking" at the world.' - Greg Bahnsen/ibid
2. ibid [reference 99]
3. There was a small movement called 'Death of God' theology, that tried to put forward just such a program, but it never took off. (I wonder why.)