B
buffalo
Guest
If He set it up as you say, that eliminated blind unguided chance (the god of BUC)
- Status
B
Bradski
Guest
Yeah. It would just look exactly like blind, unguided chance. I could say that it has that appearance and you could nod knowingly, thinking to yourself: ‘Yeah, but I know it’s guided by God’.
Everyone accepts the evidence and we all go home happy. Sounds like a win/win situation to me. We all get to agree on the how and you get to say why.
E
edwest2
Guest
Nope. No deal. “The Acceptance Police” are here at regular intervals to get people to just agree, until full compliance is reached. Since God doesn’t matter - at all - he is quickly shuffled off stage. And we get this in textbooks. NONE of which is science:
“[E]volution works without either plan or purpose — Evolution is random and undirected.”
(Biology, by Kenneth R. Miller & Joseph S. Levine (1st ed., Prentice Hall, 1991), pg. 658; (3rd ed., Prentice Hall, 1995), pg. 658; (4th ed., Prentice Hall, 1998), pg. 658; emphasis in original.)
“Humans represent just one tiny, largely fortuitous, and late-arising twig on the enormously arborescent bush of life.”
(Stephen J Gould quoted in Biology, by Peter H Raven & George B Johnson (5th ed., McGraw Hill, 1999), pg 15; (6th ed., McGraw Hill, 2000), pg. 16.)
“By coupling **undirected, purposeless **variation to the **blind, uncaring **process of natural selection, Darwin made theological or spiritual explanations of the life processes superfluous.”
(Evolutionary Biology, by Douglas J. Futuyma (3rd ed., Sinauer Associates Inc., 1998), p. 5.)
“Darwin knew that accepting his theory required believing in philosophical materialism, the conviction that **matter is the stuff of all existence **and that all mental and spiritual phenomena are its by-products. Darwinian evolution was not only purposeless but also heartless–a process in which the rigors of nature ruthlessly eliminate the unfit. Suddenly, humanity was reduced to just one more species in a world that cared nothing for us. The great human mind was no more than a mass of evolving neurons. Worst of all, there was no divine plan to guide us.”
(Biology: Discovering Life by Joseph S. Levine & Kenneth R. Miller (1st ed., D.C. Heath and Co., 1992), pg. 152; (2nd ed… D.C. Heath and Co., 1994), p. 161; emphases in original.)
“Adopting this view of the world means accepting not only the processes of evolution, but also the view that the living world is constantly evolving, and that evolutionary change occurs without any goals.’ The idea that **evolution is not directed **towards a final goal state has been more difficult for many people to accept than the process of evolution itself.”
(Life: The Science of Biology by William K. Purves, David Sadava, Gordon H. Orians, & H. Craig Keller, (6th ed., Sinauer; W.H. Freeman and Co., 2001), pg. 3.)
“The ‘blind’ watchmaker is natural selection. **Natural selection is totally blind **to the future. “**Humans are fundamentally not exceptional **because we came from the same evolutionary source as every other species. It is natural selection of selfish genes that has given us our bodies and brains “Natural selection is a bewilderingly simple idea. And yet what it explains is the whole of life, the diversity of life, the apparent design of life.”
(Richard Dawkins quoted in *Biology *by Neil A. Campbell, Jane B. Reese. & Lawrence G. Mitchell (5th ed., Addison Wesley Longman, 1999), pgs. 412-413.)
“Of course, no species has 'chosen’ a strategy. Rather, its ancestors ‘little by little, generation after generation’ merely wandered into a successful way of life through the action of random evolutionary forces. Once pointed in a certain direction, a line of evolution survives only if the cosmic dice continues to roll in its favor. “[J]ust by chance, a wonderful diversity of life has developed during the billions of years in which organisms have been evolving on earth.
(Biology by Burton S. Guttman (1st ed., McGraw Hill, 1999), pgs. 36-37.)
“It is difficult to avoid the speculation that Darwin, as has been the case with others, found the implications of his theory difficult to confront. “The real difficulty in accepting Darwins theory has always been that it seems to diminish our significance. Earlier, astronomy had made it clear that the earth is not the center of the solar universe, or even of our own solar system. Now the new biology asked us to accept the proposition that, like all other organisms, we too are the products of a random process that, as far as science can show, we are not created for any special purpose or as part of any universal design.”
(Invitation to Biology, by Helena Curtis & N. Sue Barnes(3rd ed., Worth, 1981), pgs. 474-475.)
It’s a only one side wins situation.
Ed
B
buffalo
Guest
The death of NeoDarwinism, No Selfish Gene
“The genome… is best described as a database used by organisms to generate the functions that you and I and others study as physiology.”
“We inherit much more than DNA”
“The number of possible interactions , the number of possible circuits you could form 25,000 genes is 10^70,000. There wouldn’t be enough time over the whole billions of years of the evolution of life on earth for nature to have explored but more than a tiny fraction of those.”
On Dawkins and the selfish gene - “He is totally confused.” “He has misused a metaphor” “He [Dawkins] is philosophically naive and I am afraid he has misled many people for a very considerable period of time.” 40 minutes in
“There are no good or bad genes”
“There are reasons those genes are there”
“The great majority of people we are talking to were educated in biology 30 or 40 years ago and they really have no idea of the sea change that has occurred.”
“the house of cards, the citadel if you like is empty, but many people still do not know that.” 54 min
“The genome… is best described as a database used by organisms to generate the functions that you and I and others study as physiology.”
“We inherit much more than DNA”
“The number of possible interactions , the number of possible circuits you could form 25,000 genes is 10^70,000. There wouldn’t be enough time over the whole billions of years of the evolution of life on earth for nature to have explored but more than a tiny fraction of those.”
On Dawkins and the selfish gene - “He is totally confused.” “He has misused a metaphor” “He [Dawkins] is philosophically naive and I am afraid he has misled many people for a very considerable period of time.” 40 minutes in
“There are no good or bad genes”
“There are reasons those genes are there”
“The great majority of people we are talking to were educated in biology 30 or 40 years ago and they really have no idea of the sea change that has occurred.”
“the house of cards, the citadel if you like is empty, but many people still do not know that.” 54 min
E
edwest2
Guest
A new code has been found hidden in DNA, reducing the possibility of all this code just happening to organize itself by an order of magnitude.
sciencedaily.com/releases/2013/12/131212142151.htm
Ed
sciencedaily.com/releases/2013/12/131212142151.htm
Ed
B
buffalo
Guest
There are several layers of code that can be read forward, backward and efficiently using combinations, overlapping and superimposing to save space. More instructions from less letters. Other portions (formerly called junk DNA) of our DNA direct the reading and collect sequences that would appear random. Codes come from a mind.
B
Bradski
Guest
It’s a only one side wins situation.
Ed
Good that you started your list with Miller. Who says:
Evolution is a natural process. The whole message of evolution is that we can explain our origins and other species in terms of natural processes that operate today in living organisms that are all around us. If God is real, as I believe he is, that means that those natural processes are part of his providence. godofevolution.com/interview-with-biologist-ken-miller-part-2/
And in part three of that discussion:
Most people, however, reject evolution because they think it means we are just animals, morality doesn’t exist, and our lives are without meaning, value and purpose. They’re afraid evolution is a theological doctrine that tells us there is no God — you might call it an anti-theological doctrine. If you believe all that stuff, it would be pretty scary. If I thought that’s what evolution really meant, I would find it disturbing too. But evolution isn’t philosophy. Evolution isn’t theology. Evolution is a scientific theory that explains literally tens of thousands of observations and experimental facts about the nature and history of life.
B
Bradski
Guest
That’s fine as far as I am concerned. If that’s your belief, then it’s not the same as mine, but it doesn’t, and shouldn’t detract from the means that we can both agree by which the process has ocurred.
Because quite frankly, I could care less if you think it’s a fact or not. Just as I don’t care if people think the world is only 6,000 years old. Or that the world is flat. Or that aliens built the pyramids. Or that Elvis is still alive.
Those things would concern me if they were taught to children, but they aren’t. And I will support your right to believe whatever you want.
B
buffalo
Guest
Good that you started your list with Miller. Who says:
Evolution is a natural process. The whole message of evolution is that we can explain our origins and other species in terms of natural processes that operate today in living organisms that are all around us. If God is real, as I believe he is, that means that those natural processes are part of his providence. godofevolution.com/interview-with-biologist-ken-miller-part-2/
And in part three of that discussion:
Most people, however, reject evolution because they think it means we are just animals, morality doesn’t exist, and our lives are without meaning, value and purpose. They’re afraid evolution is a theological doctrine that tells us there is no God — you might call it an anti-theological doctrine. If you believe all that stuff, it would be pretty scary. If I thought that’s what evolution really meant, I would find it disturbing too. But evolution isn’t philosophy. Evolution isn’t theology. Evolution is a scientific theory that explains literally tens of thousands of observations and experimental facts about the nature and history of life.
Actually evolution is an ism as in evolutionism. It is scientism and “cannot let the Divine foot in the door”
‘Our willingness to accept scientific claims that are against common sense is the key to an understanding of the real struggle between science and the supernatural. We take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs, in spite of its failure to fulfill many of its extravagant promises of health and life, in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated just-so stories, because we have a prior commitment, a commitment to materialism.
It is not that the methods and institutions of science somehow compel us to accept a material explanation of the phenomenal world, but, on the contrary, that we are forced by our a priori adherence to material causes to create an apparatus of investigation and a set of concepts that produce material explanations, no matter how counter-intuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door.
The eminent Kant scholar Lewis Beck used to say that anyone who could believe in God could believe in anything. To appeal to an omnipotent deity is to allow that at any moment the regularities of nature may be ruptured, that Miracles may happen." Richard Lewontin
E
edwest2
Guest
Good that you started your list with Miller. Who says:
Evolution is a natural process. The whole message of evolution is that we can explain our origins and other species in terms of natural processes that operate today in living organisms that are all around us. If God is real, as I believe he is, that means that those natural processes are part of his providence. godofevolution.com/interview-with-biologist-ken-miller-part-2/
And in part three of that discussion:
Most people, however, reject evolution because they think it means we are just animals, morality doesn’t exist, and our lives are without meaning, value and purpose. They’re afraid evolution is a theological doctrine that tells us there is no God — you might call it an anti-theological doctrine. If you believe all that stuff, it would be pretty scary. If I thought that’s what evolution really meant, I would find it disturbing too. But evolution isn’t philosophy. Evolution isn’t theology. Evolution is a scientific theory that explains literally tens of thousands of observations and experimental facts about the nature and history of life.
It doesn’t explain anything. It has no practical scientific value. The author is a member of the National Academy of Sciences:
the-scientist.com/?articles.view/articleNo/16649/title/Why-Do-We-Invoke-Darwin-/
Ed
E
edwest2
Guest
Correct. The information is stored in digital form. I recall reading a science article in a science journal where a researcher said, “We don’t know what these switches do.” Switches that can be set to on, off, function one and function two, and it’s a factory in there where everything has to work in harmony.
Ed
H
HelenRose
Guest
Somehow we keep missing that point. He could created everything in our 7 day week or he could have done this in a second or he could have done this has it is presented to us by scientists. I have no problem with evolution. God has given us a mind to try figure out how he set about the creation of the wonderful universe He gave us. I think He intends for us to use it.
B
buffalo
Guest
E
edwest2
Guest
Thank you, very much. Bioinformatics is a far more useful approach: nature.com/subjects/bioinformatics
As is Epigenetics and epigenetic regulation: sciencedaily.com/releases/2016/12/161219084630.htm
Neanderthals were 100% human. Forensic anthropologists assigned to determining the racial classification of burned, for example, remains can state that the person was Caucasian or other. The fact that Neanderthals could breed with other humans is clear evidence they were human. There are two birds in the US that look identical but they cannot breed with each other.
Ed
A
anthony022071
Guest
I didn’t say anything that shows no knowledge of biology and evolution.
T
tomarin
Guest
They are a subspecies of Homo sapiens.
A
anthony022071
Guest
God couldn’t have created things in the way that scientists explain, because evolution theory is naturalistic and illogical. It attributes all causation to natural processes. So it attributes creative powers to natural processes that are impossible for them to have. To say that natural selection and genetic mutation has produced all species is to suggest that those processes have the power necessary to do that. But NS is a process of elimination - it doesn’t produce individual creatures so it can’t produce species - and GM occurs with only a few traits - those that are determined by alleles. So it is impossible for those processes to have produced all species. The supposed causes and effects don’t correspond. And the theory is also illogical because it presumes that similar traits between species show common descent. Similar traits are not proof of common ancestry between species. Different species with similar traits can have been created separately.
H
HelenRose
Guest
Are saying that God can’t do something illogical?
B
Bradski
Guest
Maybe we should say ‘apparently illogical’ as Anthony believes it to be so. But then, the fact that I am sitting here spinning through space at umpteen kilometres an hour seems pretty illogical to me as well.
A
anthony022071
Guest
He wouldn’t.
- Status