Is Darwin's Theory Of Evolution True? Part Two

  • Thread starter Thread starter Techno2000
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
buffalo said:
It is the only religion allowed in school.
Click to expand...
False. Even in the US, comparative religion lessons are allowed, and UK law requires that religion be taught in schools.

Evolution is taught in science lessons, not in religion lessons.

Again with the “evolution is a religion because it is not real science and religion is inferior to science” argument. I always find that argument strange coming from proponents of a religion, implicitly admitting that their beliefs are inferior to science.

rossum
 
buffalo said:
He is the only unconditioned reality.
Click to expand...
His status as ‘creator’ is conditional of the existence of at least one created thing. Hence, at least one of His attributes is conditioned. In order for there to be a “creator of the universe” that is the condition that there is at least one universe in existence.
buffalo said:
or the uncaused cause…
Click to expand...
He cannot be a “cause” without at least one effect existing. Before the first effect He was not a cause. Being a cause is conditional on their being at least one effect.

rossum
 
Last edited:
rossum said:
His status as ‘creator’ is conditional of the existence of at least one created thing. Hence, at least one of His attributes is conditioned. In order for there to be a “creator of the universe” that is the condition that there is at least one universe in existence.
He cannot be a “cause” without at least one effect existing. Before the first effect He was not a cause. Being a cause is conditional on their being at least one effect.
Click to expand...
As a reminder of some Buddhist concepts:

“Reality transcends all conceptual fabrications”
We can get ourselves into a muddle. It is best to not overthink things because it can lead us to where we are just juggling concepts. A pointless exercise except where it brings us to the Truth, but only after our mind exhausts itself and surrenders to It.

“The Buddha neither exists not does not exist, nor is some combination of the two, nor is something neither of them.”
This is self-explanatory, or not.

“The true nature of reality transcends both permanence and impermanence.”
All things are impermanent, yet the natural purity of reality’s basic essence never ceases to exist. We are talking about transcendent Being, who can be known, but is beyond our conceptual fabrications.
 
Last edited:
rossum said:
Evolution is taught in science lessons, not in religion lessons.

Again with the “evolution is a religion because it is not real science and religion is inferior to science” argument. I always find that argument strange coming from proponents of a religion, implicitly admitting that their beliefs are inferior to science.
Click to expand...
Evolution is based on a materialist foundation. It is metaphysics and religion, not science. It should not be taught in science class if science class is to be just about the data. But, science needs to be relevant to the needs of society, in which case other perspectives on what the fossil record and genetics mean should also be introduced. What evolution is trying to explain has to do with our origins and therefore who we are, which is then tied to the meaning of existence and which choices we make. That’s all it does. It doesn’t help build a better computer, doesn’t help cure disease; it doesn’t do anything of practical value. Where people claim it does, a quick analysis demonstrates that it is the primary data that does that, not the story of ape to mankind.

That you believe religion to be inferior to science, you have made clear. Nobody has said or implied this. Evolution is bad science and bad religion.
 
Last edited:
PickyPicky said:
I am an atheist, and I don’t like his approach to religion, either.
Click to expand...
I find the label “atheist” a bit negative. It comes across as “counter-religious”, an active denial of what one thinks others believe, rather than an assertion of how things are. Evolution is religion in the sense that it gives us an idea of the foundations of reality which would be either matter itself, or more commonly, the idea of nature in its totality, a flux of life and death, coming to know itself through us.
 
Last edited:
Aloysium said:
Evolution is based on a materialist foundation.
Click to expand...
So is chemistry. Are you saying that chemistry is a religion?
Aloysium said:
It should not be taught in science class if science class is to be just about the data.
Click to expand...
That is a very narrow view of science, science is based on data, but goes a lot further. Besides, there is a great deal of raw data for evolution-as-data. Evolution is based on the observation that the genome of a population changes over time. The theory of evolution offers an explanation as to why that observed change happens.
Aloysium said:
What evolution is trying to explain has to do with our origins
Click to expand...
Evolution also has to do with ways to stop bacteria evolving immunity to antibiotics, which is of great use to society. If you want working antibiotics, then you need to study evolution.
Aloysium said:
That you believe religion to be inferior to science…
Click to expand...
No I do not. It is people who say, “Evolution is like a religion so it is not real science,” who imply that. I am more on the Non-overlapping Magisteria side; both science and religion are valid in their own areas.

Evolution is good science, with all the advantages and disadvantages of that status. The error is by those who try to import religion into a scientific area. If the argument is on scientific grounds, as with Galileo, then science will always win. The YEC claim that the universe is 6,000 years old is a classic example of religion trying to decide a scientific question. Science will win that argument because the age of the universe is a scientific question.

rossum
 
Phages were abandoned in favor of antibiotics. Maybe we would be better off if we didn’t fall for the Darwin paradigm.
 
Let’s see if we can get though this.

Chemistry is not a religion. When someone says as the Church does that we exist as a unity, comprised of matter and spirit, that is a religious teaching. When someone similarly states that we are just matter, that is a metaphysical view, not scientific. The physical science, and there are others, study matter and should focus on the material dimension of a human being. To say that we are evolved from apes, that we are a form of hominid is to step into what is beyond the physical. Evolution is one story about how all the remnants of the past in the present fossil record and what we know about genetics come together.

Data is already processed by the theoretical system that separates it from the background. The great deal of raw data for random self-generating evolution better supports a design story. But because evolution is materialistic, it somehow is science and Design is seen as pseudoscience because it is not. Evolution is wrongly extrapolated from adaptive changes that are observed in nature. The theory of evolution offers an explanation as to why observed change happens, but perhaps it should restrict itself to the what change happens and how. When we introduce a why, we are blurring what we are trying to understand. The bottom line is that if biology is to be about matter and not life, then stick to matter. When we start questioning what it means that we found a bunch a bunch of old bones that resemble our own, we should be handing it over to another field, if biology is not willing to address a creationist perspective on the data.

That a person automatically will say that evolution also has to do with ways to stop bacteria evolving immunity to antibiotics demonstrates how ingrained evolution is in our world view. If you want working antibiotics, then you need to study evolution, not because the theory is helpful in any way, but because it is a belief that must be affirmed, if not believed, to progress within the social system that is academia. Genetics, adaptation, drugs resistance are as well understood by someone who places in in the rubric of creation.

I don’t really know what “Evolution is like a religion so it is not real science,” is intend to say. How I would interpret it is that evolution is being passed off as science when it is like a religion. It’s not that science would be better or worse, but that it is being sneaky about it. Materialism, which is a philosophical, paradoxically metaphysical, and pseudo-religious system of thought, enters into the physical sciences masquerading as just another fact, where other more comprehensive explanations are prohibited, because they are classified as not science, not about matter. As you say, the error is by those who try to import religion into a scientific area; and I would agree.
 
Last edited:
Once one leaves the empirical science world (observable, repeatable and predictable) world they have entered into philosophy.
 
Last edited:
“Even when ignoring deleterious mutations, mutation/selection cannot create a single gene within the human evolutionary timescale. When deleterious mutations are factored back in, we see that mutation/selection cannot create a single gene, ever. This is overwhelming evidence against the Primary Axiom.In my opinion this constitutes what is essentially a formal proof that the Primary Axiom is false” (2008, p. 139, ). John Sanford

“Very regrettably, evolutionists have treated two very different phenomenon, adaptation to environments and evolution of higher life forms, as if they were the same thing. We do not need to be geniuses to see that these are different issues. Adaptation can routinely be accomplished by loss of information or even developmental degeneration (loss of organs). However, development of higher life forms (representing more specified complexity) always requires a large increase in information” John Sanford
 
Last edited:
"I believe the “going down” aspect of the genome is subject to concrete analysis. Such analysis persuasively argues that net information must be declining. If this is true , then even if it could be shown that there were specific cases where new information might be synthesized via mutation/selection, it would still be meaningless since such new information would promptly then begin to degenerate again. The net direction would still be down, and complex genomes could never have arisen spontaneously. If the genome is actually degenerating, it is…bad news for evolutionary theory. If mutation/selection cannot preserve the information already within the genome, it is difficult to imagine how it could have created all that information in the first place! We cannot rationally speak of genome-building when there is a net loss of information every generation! Halting degeneration is just a small prerequisite step before the much more difficult question of information-building can reasonably be opened for discussion " JOhn Sanford
 
Last edited:
"Degeneration is the precise antithesis of evolutionary theory. Therefore the reality of Genetic Entropy is positively fatal to Darwinism” John Sanford

So here again - Darwinism is DEAD!
 
Last edited:
Dr. John Sanford “Genetic Entropy and the Mystery of the Genome”

Below is additional support for IDvolution.

Some quotes from Dr John Sanford on genetic entropy. Very consistent with IDvolution and Scripture. To get the full effect take the time to view the videos. Listen carefully where he states it is “kind of a trade secret of population geneticists.” The design of the genome is astonishing and shows intelligence, design and purpose.

"We are not some casual and meaningless product of evolution. Each of us is a thought of God."Pope Benedict XVI​

“a vastly superior operating system”
“a galaxy of design and complexity”
“over 90% of the genome is actively transcribed”
“the genome has multiple overlapping messages”
“data compression on the most sophisticated level”
“more and more the genome looks like a super super set of programs”
“more and more it looks like top down design”
“the reality is everybody is mutant”
“the selection process really has nothing to grab hold of”
“so it’s kind of a trade secret amongst population geneticists,any well informed population geneticist understands man is degenerating”
“so in deep geological time we should have been extinct a long time ago”
“the human race is degenerating at 1-5% per generation”
“so personal and so immediate, because there is no circle of life where things where things stay the same, and it’s not an upward spiral of evolution, things keep getting better and better, it is a downward spiral exactly as described in Scripture”
"I realized it had major implications for evolution, but I had no… I couldn’t have guessed how profound the biblical implications are, how profoundly the evidence supports the biblical perspective of a dying universe and a dying world, we are dying because of the fall"

Dr. John Sanford "Genetic Entropy and the Mystery of the Genome"

IDvolution - Where faith and reason intersect. - intelligent design Jim Serafin
idvolution.blogspot.com idvolution.blogspot.com
 
Last edited:
buffalo said:
Phages were abandoned in favor of antibiotics.
Click to expand...
Irrelevant. For the purposes of this experiment, antibiotics would work as well. Every time you post one of your “soil bacteria found to be already immune to new antibiotic” pieces you are once more confirming the result of the Luria-Delbrück experiment.
Maybe we would be better off if we didn’t fall for the Darwin paradigm.
Click to expand...
So, every time you get a bacterial infection you insist on being treated with the original formulation of Penicillin?

rossum
 
Aloysium said:
To say that we are evolved from apes, that we are a form of hominid is to step into what is beyond the physical.
Click to expand...
How so? Our bodies are physical and the physical evolution of one body-form to a different body-form with less hair, shorter arms, longer legs and a larger brain is purely material and well within the remit of science.

Souls did not evolve, so any discussion of souls is for theology, not science.

rossum
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top