Darwin and evolution

[4mk36]

Darwin’s version of evolution is merely the symptom of a disease rather than the disease itself,too many Christians who try to tackle the symptoms end up being infected themselves with the disease,in a manner of speaking.They play along with the rules set by the empiricist and end up making matters worse.

To a certain degree I have to agree with you. Is evolutionary theory inherently atheistic – the answer is no. But can it lead to atheism – I believe it can. I see evolutionary theory being extrapolated to answer things where there is absolutely no data (ie morality). This leads people into believing there is only the material.

However as Christians I believe we are called to be truth seekers –where ever the truth may lead. We must enter into the sciences to be knowledgeable enough to expel the myth that evolutionary theory can explain EVERYTHING.

With all respect.

-Max

 

[Kscrawler]

it is the ground rules themselves and not the conclusions which create the problems

Christ was able to help the simple and ignorant like myself by using parables and examples. I may need you to do this for me.

So how does Darwin’s, or scientifc methods “ground rules” invalidate the conclusion?

 

[oriel16]

To a certain degree I have to agree with you. Is evolutionary theory inherently atheistic – the answer is no. But can it lead to atheism – I believe it can. I see evolutionary theory being extrapolated to answer things where there is absolutely no data (ie morality). This leads people into believing there is only the material.

However as Christians I believe we are called to be truth seekers –where ever the truth may lead. We must enter into the sciences to be knowledgeable enough to expel the myth that evolutionary theory can explain EVERYTHING.

With all respect.

-Max

This is merely masking the symptoms while not tackling the disease,the fact is that Darwin’s ‘cause’ is an exposure of a system which is explicitly anti-scientific never mind anti-religious.

Darwin’s reliance on Malthus has as much to do with the prevailing empirical ‘laws’ by which Newton managed to mangle heliocentric astronomy and Malthus constantly refers to those ‘laws’ as a platform for applying it to everything else.

I am not just telling empiricists that they got it wrong,I am telling genuine scientists that if they take a wider view of things they will see what they are missing but when a one-size-fits-all ‘empirical method’ exists that is not going to happen.Without subscribing tooth and nail to very religious Pascal,I offer his words in support -

"There are then two kinds of intellect: the one able to penetrate acutely and deeply into the conclusions of given premises, and this is the precise intellect; the other able to comprehend a great number of premises without confusing them, and this is the mathematical intellect. The one has force and exactness, the other comprehension. Now the one quality can exist without the other; the intellect can be strong and narrow, and can also be comprehensive and weak.

Those who are accustomed to judge by feeling do not understand the process of reasoning, for they would understand at first sight and are not used to seek for principles. And others, on the contrary, who are accustomed to reason from principles, do not at all understand matters of feeling, seeking principles and being unable to see at a glance.

When we wish to correct with advantage and to show another that he errs, we must notice from what side he views the matter, for on that side it is usually true, and admit that truth to him, but reveal to him the side on which it is false. He is satisfied with that, for he sees that he was not mistaken and that he only failed to see all sides. Now, no one is offended at not seeing everything; but one does not like to be mistaken, and that perhaps arises from the fact that man naturally cannot see everything, and that naturally he cannot err in the side he looks at, since the perceptions of our senses are always true.

People are generally better persuaded by the reasons which they have themselves discovered than by those which have come into the mind of others." Pascal, Pensees

Newton did not take into account the physical considerations of what he was proposing but simply forced planetary motions into his agenda on terrestrial ballistics by distorting existing astronomical insights,in other words,he tried to bring astronomy down to the lab with catastrophic consequences and contrary to the work of the great Christian astronomers,Darwin was merely continuing the process in terms of evolution.

 

[oriel16]

oriel16;4833988:

it is the ground rules themselves and not the conclusions which create the problems

Christ was able to help the simple and ignorant like myself by using parables and examples. I may need you to do this for me.

So how does Darwin’s, or scientifc methods “ground rules” invalidate the conclusion?

The trajectory of biological evolution existed as a principle before Darwin as geologists were working through layers of rock strata showing that between the older rock and newer rock showed distinct impressions of changing evolutionary conditions( I am just using the following website as a loose reference ) -

“At the junction between two rock layers named Millstone and Pennant Street, they noticed a distinctive turnover in fossil types. They observed, “Beneath this bed no fossil, shells, or animal remains are found; above it no vegetable impressions.” Today, this boundary marks a recognized geologic boundary. The rocks below with “vegetable impressions” belong to the Carboniferous. The layer above belongs to the Permian and Triassic. (The boundary between the Permian and Triassic marks the most catastrophic extinction identifiable in the fossil record.)”

strangescience.net/smith.htm

This work really began with Bishop Steno over a century earlier so you can see that genuine scientists worked away with evolution while showing that humanity occupied a much grander and older planetary stage.You still can enjoy evolution without having to deal with the injection of a ‘cause’ thereby leapfrogging the contentious imposition of a ‘cause’ that Darwin introduced.

 

[4mk36]

Kscrawler;4834079:

The trajectory of biological evolution existed as a principle before Darwin as geologists were working through layers of rock strata showing that between the older rock and newer rock showed distinct impressions of changing evolutionary conditions( I am just using the following website as a loose reference ) -

“At the junction between two rock layers named Millstone and Pennant Street, they noticed a distinctive turnover in fossil types. They observed, “Beneath this bed no fossil, shells, or animal remains are found; above it no vegetable impressions.” Today, this boundary marks a recognized geologic boundary. The rocks below with “vegetable impressions” belong to the Carboniferous. The layer above belongs to the Permian and Triassic. (The boundary between the Permian and Triassic marks the most catastrophic extinction identifiable in the fossil record.)”

strangescience.net/smith.htm

This work really began with Bishop Steno over a century earlier so you can see that genuine scientists worked away with evolution while showing that humanity occupied a much grander and older planetary stage.You still can enjoy evolution without having to deal with the injection of a ‘cause’ thereby leapfrogging the contentious imposition of a ‘cause’ that Darwin introduced.

Interesting I never new Steno was a religious man. His contributions to geology are all well renowned. However he did not formulate the theory of evolution by natural selection, Darwin and Wallace are credited for that.

It is true that fossil evidence existed before Darwin – however no one formulated the idea of how progressive changes can lead to speciation and thereby explain the fossil record.

As Kscrawler has put it before me – no matter what Darwin’s intentions were when he formulated the theory, it does not negate the fact of the evidence.

With all respect.

-Max

 

[StAnastasia]

Sarcasm, the tool of the frustrated when they have no answer.

What do you mean by “sarcasm”? I’m serious in suggesting that you propose a paper on your view to a scientific conference. If you have something serious to say, why confine it to a discussion forum that is incapable of effecting any change?

 

[oriel16]

oriel16;4834232:

Interesting I never new Steno was a religious man. His contributions to geology are all well renowned. However he did not formulate the theory of evolution by natural selection, Darwin and Wallace are credited for that.

It is true that fossil evidence existed before Darwin – however no one formulated the idea of how progressive changes can lead to speciation and thereby explain the fossil record.

As Kscrawler has put it before me – no matter what Darwin’s intentions were when he formulated the theory, it does not negate the fact of the evidence.

With all respect.

-Max

Biological evolution conditioned by geological evolution prevents the utterly stupid idea of ‘natural selection’ from arising because the rock strata shows a distinct evolution from plants to animals.Do you really want to believe ‘survival of the fittest’ for plants where it turns into an animal,fish,insect and then starts eating the plant beside it ? or begging similarly really stupid questions that is beneath a reasonably intelligent human being.

I do not presume to know how and why biological evolution developed the way it did but people who think they do via an essay based on human racial supremacy are hardly the right people to speak about God’s creation.

It is inevitable that Darwin’s insertion of a ‘cause’ via the empirical method and the ‘method’ is the problem, leads to science being extracted from the Western Christian tradition and set up in opposition to it.I have shown that far from being a basis to challenge Christ and Christianity, Darwin’s approach is anti-scientific and that is actually saying something.The problem is with Christians who play along by the phony rules and it is these that weaken genuine scientific investigation and that does not even go near Christianity never mind challenging it.

Darwin’s ‘cause’ in anti-scientific insofar as it begins in a quasi-political essay on supremacy and if you can’t take into account the physical considerations of evolutionary biology via fossil data and evolutionary geology then maybe you would be a better Christian by adopting the view of those who choose to appreciate God and creation in a much simpler way.

 

[buffalo]

Ok. So now do I understand that you are not opposed to the possibility that evolution may be a fact. You are only oppposed to those who say the cause is natural selection. So that if someone else were to come up with a different “cause” you would be ok with evolution?

Actually that is becoming the case. Natural selection cannot be the only cause. That is the essence of the EES.

 

[oriel16]

Actually that is becoming the case. Natural selection cannot be the only cause. That is the essence of the EES.

Not good enough,not good enough by far.

The original proposition of ‘natural selection’ is explicitly derived from an essay on racial supremacy that makes it anti-scientific.

There is no common ground between empiricism and faith because science was once a productive facet of faith within Christianity and any Christian who proposes that they are in opposition and can be reconciled as separate entities or ‘different ways of knowing’ is ultimately weakening the intuitive intelligence which serves both the love of Christ and Christianity and also the love and appreciation of creation and genuine investigation of that creation.

Christians are at a delicate moment in their history and if the leaders go down that path to appeasement with empiricism,and that is basically an Arian cult,then God help us all and future generations.There was always a difference between genuine scientific investigation and the ‘empirical method’ which emerged in the late 17th century and it is time for Christians to fight to make the difference known.

 

[buffalo]

Not good enough,not good enough by far.

The original proposition of ‘natural selection’ is explicitly derived from an essay on racial supremacy that makes it anti-scientific.

There is no common ground between empiricism and faith because science was once a productive facet of faith within Christianity and any Christian who proposes that they are in opposition and can be reconciled as separate entities or ‘different ways of knowing’ is ultimately weakening the intuitive intelligence which serves both the love of Christ and Christianity and also the love and appreciation of creation and genuine investigation of that creation.

Christians are at a delicate moment in their history and if the leaders go down that path to appeasement with empiricism,and that is basically an Arian cult,then God help us all and future generations.There was always a difference between genuine scientific investigation and the ‘empirical method’ which emerged in the late 17th century and it is time for Christians to fight to make the difference known.

My only point is Darwinism is losing favor as time goes on.

It will be interesting to see what flavor it will be in say 10 years, if at all.

 

[oriel16]

My only point is Darwinism is losing favor as time goes on.

It will be interesting to see what flavor it will be in say 10 years, if at all.

Darwin’s injection of a ‘cause’ is a symptom of an Arian cult and its thinking by making creation something less than it is and that men can actually know the cause of life and its diversity The empiricists have lately become more aggressive,they are making a big play as to who speaks for creation and if you are too timid to realise it then you are not alone but it means a very anti-faith stance.

The damage may already have been done by the acceptance of the ground rules and this mediocre ‘different way of knowing’ which appeals to those who are incapable of acknowledging that scientific investigation was always a valuable facet within Christianity and an expression of Christian faith.The people the Church are attempting to find common ground with have mangled just about every celestial/terrestrial topic they touch to the point where they cannot answer the most basic questions correctly.

This is truly unconscionable and absolutely anti-Christian.Have I to explain the entire Western scientific tradition to get my point across or do the empiricists have us pegged as simpleminded and dumb people who are taking their time letting go of superstition ?.The Christ I love never acted like Christians are doing now in that not only did he not submit to injustice of religious or secular authority,he offered his followers the joys of God and creation.

If Christians make a bargain with empiricism ,a cult that basically destroyed the Western merit system and its huge Christian influences ,then the victory is cunningness of the ‘survival of the fittest’ and the dark political supremacy agenda from which it came.

I have said a fraction of what I need to say about the technical aspects of the true scientific heritage and leave you to handle those aspects of empiricism which you choose to accept as a basis for finding contention or reconciliation between science and religion because I refuse to acknowledge a difference imposed by people who have no feel for science or Christianity.That is the Way of Christ and I live with that with all the love of God,humanity and His creation .

Those who engage scientists,religious or non religious,must recognise that Darwin’s view is a symptom of a problem and not the problem itself otherwise the battle is lost before its starts.

 

[rossum]

Biological evolution conditioned by geological evolution prevents the utterly stupid idea of ‘natural selection’ from arising because the rock strata shows a distinct evolution from plants to animals.

Rocks do not evolve in the biological sense - they do not reproduce. Natural selection applies just as much to plants as it does to animals, fungi, protists, eubacteria, archae and viruses. Animals did not evolve from plants.

Whatever it is that you are criticisiing it is neither modern geology nor modern biology. It seems that you have constructed an incorrect idea of modern science and are criticising that.

Do you really want to believe ‘survival of the fittest’ for plants where it turns into an animal,fish,insect and then starts eating the plant beside it ?

Have you ever heard of a Venus Flytrap or a Pitcher plant? Both of them capture and digest insects. Plants compete for light (for photosynthesis) and for minerals in the soil. A Sycamore tree drops poisonous sap (to which it is immune) that kills any other plants growing near the tree - nasty things to have in your garden. Plants produce poisons to kill insects that try to eat them - nicotine is an insecticide.

Animals did not evolve from plants, both evolved from a single celled eukaryote ancestor. You are showing your ignorance of biology here. You need to remedy your ignorance or your arguments will fail. Someone ignorant of Christianity might say “Christians are cannibals: ‘unless you eat my flesh…’”; that argument would not be effective because of their ignorance. Your arguments are rendered just as ineffective by your ignorance of biology. Ignorance is easily remedied by learning: “Happy is the man who finds wisdom, and the man who gets understanding, for the gain from it is better than gain from silver and its profit better than gold.” Proverbs 3:13-14.

rossum

 

[StAnastasia]

My only point is Darwinism is losing favor as time goes on.

Indeed. As are Huttonism, Boyleism, Newtonism, and Einsteinism.

 

[oriel16]

.

Whatever it is that you are criticisiing it is neither modern geology nor modern biology. It seems that you have constructed an incorrect idea of modern science and are criticising that.

rossum

In your last response,you did not spot the words of a 19th century science fiction novel - ‘The Time Machine’ by H.G.Wells adapted to 20th century ‘theory’ of time travel and other junk remembering that this guy got ‘Man of the Century’.I know how they arrived at that ridiculous situation 100 years ago through the maneuvering in the late 17th century and that it is still celebrated as an ‘achievement’ only tells me that the Christian authorities cannot figure out where it went wrong and remain silent rather than give these empirical fantasies short shrift.Anybody who believes in this childish novelty of ‘time travel’ will have no place for temporal life and its place in Eternal life and the great cycles of existence that press in on the individual as a reminder of the greatness of God.

I also told you yesterday that it is now a Christian matter between what people call science and I know as ‘empiricism’ and there is a huge difference between the two.Darwin and Einstein are merely symptoms of the cult with the alarming possibility that Christian Church authorities may try and find a common ground based on ‘different ways of understanding’ thereby making a bad situation worse.

No man can serve two masters,if the Church tries to overturn this fundamental precept of Christian teachings and all because it can’t figure out the stupid maneuvering of the late 17th century guys then perhaps the Church deserves it fate.Now I have told you to go without prejudice and don’t embarrass yourself anymore.I tell everyone that begging the question on natural evolution from plants to animals is so stupid that anyone who engages in it deserves what they get and if you have to provide the ‘missing link’ of a venus flytrap between plants and animals in a single line trajectory starting from a pool of chemicals to humanity then good for you,in you head it probably makes sense just as ‘time travel’ does.

Now this is solely a Christian matter that does not involve the simpleminded empiricist,others are welcome to respond to you but I do not care.

 

[oriel16]

Indeed. As are Huttonism, Boyleism, Newtonism, and Einsteinism.

I do not know who is worse at the moment ,those who are dead serious in their ridiculous attempt to show Christianity in a bad light now that Christians resigned themselves to science vs religion as a plausible situation or those Christians who have little knowledge of their rich Christian heritage.

Darwin’s ‘cause’ for biological evolution,apart from arising from a flawed scientific method as an adaption of a human supremacy essay forces people into believing a timeline of species struggle in spite of the observations that there are far more symbiotic relationships such as bees and flowers , animals and seasonal patterns and all those things that a wide view encompasses.

It is St Francis who expresses my view most closely,that people ignore,are unaware of or forget in this mean spirited era (judging from the other threads here ), does not mean it does not exist for the genuine Christian -

webster.edu/~barrettb/canticle.htm

The original empiricists did take their work seriously,that much I do know,and they genuinely believed they were benefactors to mankind in framing the shortcomings of denominational Christianity but they ignored something that runs through Christianity and all Christians of genuine faith from the Founder.

 

[StAnastasia]

I do not know who is worse at the moment ,those who are dead serious in their ridiculous attempt to show Christianity in a bad light now that Christians resigned themselves to science vs religion as a plausible situation or those Christians who have little knowledge of their rich Christian heritage.

It is St Francis who expresses my view most closely,that people ignore,are unaware of or forget in this mean spirited era (judging from the other threads here ), does not mean it does not exist for the genuine Christian -

(1) I couldn’t say which is worse.

(2) Yes, the Canticle of the Sun is a beautiful statement.

StAnastasia

 

[cassini]

ist Corinthians chapter 3
18 Let no man deceive himself: if any man among you seem to be wise in this world, let him become a fool, that he may be wise. 19 For the wisdom of this world is foolishness with God. For it is written: I will catch the wise in their own craftiness. 20 And again: The Lord knoweth the thoughts of the wise, that they are vain.

Thank you for this reminder headin home, but Galileo and Darwin have rendered the Scriptures redundant.

 

[oriel16]

(1) I couldn’t say which is worse.

StAnastasia

I have seen and read scientists repeat the cute but condescending statement that ‘religion tells us how to go to heaven while science tells us how the heavens go’,these statements actually state how horrifying the situation actually is rather than the intentions of the scientist or the reader/viewer to see it as a reasonable position . These guys are actually pointing in the direction that the Church is taking and it has a very,very Arian ring to it.

We are at a most important juncture in Christianity and few know it,the empiricist agenda is almost played out because its ‘method’ paints itself into conceptual corners eventually even though people do not recognise it,for instance ,the novelties of the last century no longer interest people as humanity has become aware of climate variations and planetary concerns and looks to authorities fo find out what is occuring.The point is that if Christianity is at the point of accepting that there are ‘two ways of knowing’ then it is effectively renouncing Christ and Christianity and accepting a position that I refuse to discuss in public.

You make light of these things,others ignore it and even more play along out of intellectual pretension but the truth is that this topic ,not Darwin as a symptom but the problem itself ,represents the biggest issue for Christianity ,far greater than any challenge that Christianity faced in its history.No doubt the Church wants the role of moral authority and leave the rest to empiricism but when that happens,Christ is no longer represented in the Church.

(
(2) Yes, the Canticle of the Sun is a beautiful statement.

StAnastasia

The Canticle of the Sun is one man’s vision of what it is like to be transfigured by a journey up a personal mountain or into a private hell that God favors on his people,each to their own measure.The world becomes a garden of Eden again and not a case study in biological forensics,the great interplay of man and nature and the diversity of life shines through for the story of Christ does not end on the cross but in the Garden.

My scientific heritage is within the Christian tradition for part of that intuitive intelligence I use to comprehend celestial/terrestrial phenomena is also the same one by which I love and praise Christ and God. The praise of creation by St Francis does not look like a technical document but neither is Darwin’s view based on a single line trajectory of creation based on human racial supremacy and if people paid closer attention they would understand that St Francis is correct

I respect that work is done on a technical basis and I myself switch from technical details when working on my own projects such as climate and geological issues but they are not an end in themselves nor can be proposed as an end,these things are -

youtube.com/watch?v=cxqylxfYyQM

As an astronomer I marvel at the Earth’s daily rotation while empiricists can’t answer the basic question correctly as to how long it takes the Earth to turn 360 degrees .Modern time lapse footage makes appreciation of daily rotation so easy now -

youtube.com/watch?v=g3ddxOwjuxs

Such is paradise and a garden of Eden when men have the eyes of Christ.

 

[a_burger]

Darwin certainly was a racist.There is a belief that African Americans are black because they are not as evolved as whites and Asians. Don’t believe me. Do a search on Sharon Broome an African American woman from Louisiana. She is also a state legislator in Louisiana. She got a resolution passed in Louisiana condemning the racism of Darwin and his followers.

You didn’t read that in the newspaper and you wouldn’t read anything negative as we are headed toward the New World Order.

 

[Peccavi]

Darwin was no more racist than others of his age. Less so than most. You cannot destroy the concept of evolution by attacking it in this way any more than you can destroy the Christian faith by highlighting the racism of Spanish Catholics during their conquest of South and Central America,