Book: The Hoax Called Evolution

[mathematician]

It works. Period.

What works? The bacterial flagellum? I don’t hear anybody disputing that. But what the IDers try to assert, and what most Christian biologists find unconvincing, is that it couldn’t have been the result of evolution.

But Mr. Miller, in particular, has followed the party line regarding evolution. God becomes the bystander in Creation, or, at best, the kick starter. I’ve chosen not to worship science or the human mind.

You have chosen to worship your own brand of creationism.

The more I read about evolution, the less likely it actually worked as currently advertised.

Apart from “God didit - end of story” evolution is the only game in town.

If a similar process occurred, then God is a direct causal agent.

As a statement of faith there is nothing wrong with that. But it is faith and not science.

 

[StAnastasia]

That is a false statement. Intelligent Design recognizes what the Catholic Church already knows, there is actual design in nature…I know that only an intelligence can design specific, complex and functional living things.

Can you give some examples of things that we know were designed by God, and what your evidence is?

 

[edwest2]

Can you give some examples of things that we know were designed by God, and what your evidence is?

By asking this question, you show that Theistic Evolution is a fiction. A story to convince the unwary. The Catholic Church does not agree with any theory, including those of a neo-Darwinian provenance, that explicitly denies to divine providence any truly causal role in the development of life in the universe. (from Communion and Stewardship)

So, the book is now closed on that matter.

Peace,
Ed

 

[mathematician]

By asking this question, you show that Theistic Evolution is a fiction. A story to convince the unwary. The Catholic Church does not agree with any theory, including those of a neo-Darwinian provenance, that explicit deny to divine providence any truly causal role in the development of life in the universe. (from Communion and Stewardship)

So, the book is now closed on that matter.

It could have been better phrased, I agree. What I think he was asking is whether there is anything which we can know to have been designed by God, on the basis of scientific evidence alone. Because that is what your arguments appear to require.

 

[StAnastasia]

The Catholic Church does not agree with any theory, including those of a neo-Darwinian provenance, that explicit deny to divine providence any truly causal role in the development of life in the universe.

Can you give some scientifically observable examples of the divine causal role, and what your evidence is?

StAnastasia

 

[edwest2]

It could have been better phrased, I agree. What I think he was asking is whether there is anything which we can know to have been designed by God, on the basis of scientific evidence alone. Because that is what your arguments appear to require.

I hope post 265 confirms to you that the phrasing is intentional. That God is the bystander to science/nature. This completely refutes the Theistic part of Theistic Evolution.

Peace,
Ed

 

[StAnastasia]

I hope post 265 confirms to you that the phrasing is intentional. That God is the bystander to science/nature. This completely refutes the Theistic part of Theistic Evolution. Peace, Ed

Sorry Ed, but it doesn’t refute Theistic evolution at all. A theist such as I believes that God is here all the time, undergirding reality itself. What I don’t need is to be able to detect God’s fingerprints on flagellae, or to measure the muscle power of the divine arms moving tectonic plates around on the magmatic plumes, as ID does.

 

[edwest2]

Sorry Ed, but it doesn’t refute Theistic evolution at all. A theist such as I believes that God is here all the time, undergirding reality itself. What I don’t need is to be able to detect God’s fingerprints on flagellae, or to measure the muscle power of the divine arms moving tectonic plates around on the magmatic plumes, as ID does.

I now fully understand that only the Biology textbook is being promoted here. Nothing more. Mentioning God is no longer necessary. Unless you can provide a scientific reference that supports your statement, it doesn’t mean anything. Young men and women in public schools will continue to get the full, 100% atheist story of their supposed origin.

1. A self-generating engine called evolution spits out organisms.
2. Nature selects whichever organism happens to be at the right place at the right time.
3. You’re just another animal. Nothing exceptional. A twig on the evolutionary branch.

In 1985, in a general audience, Pope John Paul II spoke about design in nature. To deny it would be “an abdication of human intelligence.” It appears that those who are threatened by ID are actually threatened by people coming to the conclusion that an Intelligence made them.

Peace,
Ed

 

[StAnastasia]

I now fully understand that only the Biology textbook is being promoted here. Nothing more. Mentioning God is no longer necessary. Unless you can provide a scientific reference that supports your statement, it doesn’t mean anything. Young men and women in public schools will continue to get the full, 100% atheist story of their supposed origin.

I’m sad for you, Ed, that this is all you can see of the universe!

 

[Touchstone]

In 1985, in a general audience, Pope John Paul II spoke about design in nature. To deny it would be “an abdication of human intelligence.” It appears that those who are threatened by ID are actually threatened by people coming to the conclusion that an Intelligence made them.

Peace,
Ed

Well, what would Catholics say about, say, astrology being taught in science class. If Astrologists prevailed in their campaign to prevent “young men and women in public schools will continue to get the full, 100% anti-astrologist story of their supposed destity”, wouldn’t that be a problem as a matter of teaching science?

If you did complain upon finding out your eighth grader was being taught astrology in her science class, do you suppose that would indicate that you are threatened by the conclusions of astrology? How do you propose one go about objecting on the merits in such a way that astrologists would be patently unfounded in saying that criticism of their ideas as anti-science was just prompted by fear?

Genuinely interested in the answer to that.

-TS

 

[reggieM]

The ID argument is to try and identify things which could not have happened except through direct divine intervention.

ID is an attempt to discern signs of intelligence in the evidence from nature. It does not claim that the intelligence is necessarily divine (although that’s the most common assumption.

The fundamental constants, with which the fine tuning argument concerns itself, could not be the result of natural processes for the very good reason that they were there from the very moment of creation. Before there had even been any natural processes.

It’s not just the cosmological constants, but the finely-tuned characteristics of the universe – which are either the result of chance operations or of design. Francis Collins concludes, based on the evidence, that they are not the result of chance. They could not have happened except through the plan of an intelligent agent.

 

[reggieM]

If you want to look at the complexity of nature, and give what you see a theistic interpretation, that is fine by me.

Actually, your ridicule of the idea makes it appear that it is not “fine by you”. Additionally, the best way to “look at the complexity of nature” is through scientific methods.

 

[buffalo]

Can you give some examples of things that we know were designed by God, and what your evidence is?

The DNA code.

 

[StAnastasia]

The DNA code.

And your evidence that we *know *it was designed by God?

 

[buffalo]

And your evidence that we *know *it was designed by God?

It is the product of a mind. Codes, languages, instructions, maps and such are never found in nature. They are always the product of a mind. They are all designed.

 

[reggieM]

Mentioning God is no longer necessary. Unless you can provide a scientific reference that supports your statement, it doesn’t mean anything. Young men and women in public schools will continue to get the full, 100% atheist story of their supposed origin.

That is correct and we can see that very clearly. Mentioning God is not necessary at all. God is an imaginary figure that plays no role in theistic evolution.
Here is some clear and striking proof of that.

Well if he/she wants it to look like there is no god then how can he/she take issue with someone when they withhold belief.

There’s an innocent question from an atheist. It’s as straightfoward as you can get – insightful and clear. The theistic evolutionists simply ignored it – of course. Because they can’t answer it.

So, they don’t have an apologetical defense for Catholicism against atheism at all. Here an atheist asks why God would make it look like there is no God – as the theistic-evolutionists must agree since there is zero empirical evidence of God’s presence in nature (according to them).

So, theistic evolution has eliminated God entirely. They can’t answer the question, can’t defend the Catholic faith and really only care about their belief in evolution. There is no content to that kind of religion – it’s fideism at best and probably much closer to agnosticism.

The “theism” in that evolutionary scheme has no meaning at all. That version of god has created nothing.

 

[buffalo]

That is correct and we can see that very clearly. Mentioning God is not necessary at all. God is an imaginary figure that plays no role in theistic evolution.
Here is some clear and striking proof of that.

There’s an innocent question from an atheist. It’s as straightfoward as you can get – insightful and clear. The theistic evolutionists simply ignored it – of course. Because they can’t answer it.

So, they don’t have an apologetical defense for Catholicism against atheism at all. Here an atheist asks why God would make it look like there is no God – as the theistic-evolutionists must agree since there is zero empirical evidence of God’s presence in nature (according to them).

So, theistic evolution has eliminated God entirely. They can’t answer the question, can’t defend the Catholic faith and really only care about their belief in evolution. There is no content to that kind of religion – it’s fideism at best and probably much closer to agnosticism.

The “theism” in that evolutionary scheme has no meaning at all. That version of god has created nothing.

Bingo! Lights and sirens. And what do we see today as the product of this thinking?

 

[reggieM]

If Astrologists prevailed in their campaign to prevent “young men and women in public schools will continue to get the full, 100% anti-astrologist story of their supposed destity”, wouldn’t that be a problem as a matter of teaching science?

What campaign is that? I’d like to see it.

How do you propose one go about objecting on the merits in such a way that astrologists would be patently unfounded in saying that criticism of their ideas as anti-science was just prompted by fear?

That’s a reasonable question.

I think we can find some of the answer in your very words. Notice how you word it “that astrologists would be patently unfounded”. You have taken a position of attack and your goal is to prove them unfounded in their reaction.

This is counterintuitive, but if you want to prove that your view and position is not built on fear, the first thing to do is not to attack your opponent or make them an enemy. This almost never happens with evolutionists. They unleash all kinds of attacks and ridicule – obvious indications of fear.

So, the second thing you should do is try to build some trust. If you have that, then all you’d need to do is merely say “I am not motivated by fear in my opposition to astrology”. You give your word, and your opponent accepts it fully. Case closed.

But how do you built trust like that? First, you have to prove that you are a trustworthy witness of the truth. Do you spin the truth for your own advantage? Do you exaggerate your claims to score points against your opponents? Do you adhere to, and promote false notions that cause people to distrust your word?

Again, how does an atheist who mocks God and religious belief expect his word to be considered trustworthy?

Again the attacks, ridicule, extreme emotionalism that one can see in abundance on atheistic-evolutionary sites is very clear evidence of fear – not of confidence and certainty in one’s position.

 

[edwest2]

Well, what would Catholics say about, say, astrology being taught in science class. If Astrologists prevailed in their campaign to prevent “young men and women in public schools will continue to get the full, 100% anti-astrologist story of their supposed destity”, wouldn’t that be a problem as a matter of teaching science?

If you did complain upon finding out your eighth grader was being taught astrology in her science class, do you suppose that would indicate that you are threatened by the conclusions of astrology? How do you propose one go about objecting on the merits in such a way that astrologists would be patently unfounded in saying that criticism of their ideas as anti-science was just prompted by fear?

Genuinely interested in the answer to that.

-TS

I genuinely don’t understand your question, at all. If you are attempting to equate astrology with religion, that’s a no go. I am only pointing out that the Biology textbook is woefully inadequate and incomplete as an explanation of human origins.

I have seen numerous rephrasings of the importance of something called science. Science has now become a religious institution. When I see talking heads grilling politicians about evolution, I see it for what it has become: an ideological weapon used to club your political opponents. All Republicans don’t believe in evolution??

And the sad thing is too many people believe these loud, stony faced TV personalities. They actually believe people are ignorant – the new way to diss your ideological opponent. They actually believe that there is a lack of understanding about science/evolution and if that understanding could be gained, there would be instant, guaranteed acceptance.

I’m tired of having my trust abused.

Peace,
Ed

 

[reggieM]

And what do we see today as the product of this thinking?

Excellent and sobering question. Those who have eyes to see …