Schonborn attacks evolutionary biology again

[abcdefg]

Orogeny:

Those are from two separate posts, the second was posted in the same post you are replying to!

What is the conclusion? Science cannot describe or explain God nor can it use God as an answer to a problem. Once God is invoked, it becomes theology.

don’t you think ET is a scientific explanation to the origin of life?

Do you believe Jesus literally resurrected? Now give me a scientific explanation. not everything that is true beyond doubt can be scientifically explained

Orogeny:

You are wrong. The body is completely natural.
What are you talking about? If the laws regarding the body haven’t been made, how do you know there are more to come?
Boy, is this getting old. Where do you get that from my posts? Ok, ok. Let’s make this real clear since you want to make a lot of assumptions about me that are false.

Human body generally follows a set of rule, but God can break the rule whenever he wants. How dead humans are revived by Jesus as described in the Bible? Do you think they’re not truly dead or there’re imposters?

 

[SydLake]

abcdefg:

Virgin Mary’s empty tomb can be scientifically explained as someone had stolen the corpse.
Any Catholic believes in this?

I thought she was assumed bodily into heaven, was she dead or alive, was she ever buried? There is no evidence or mention of what happened in a historical way so evrything about her assumption is conjecture, however infallible, conjecture at that.

Peace

 

[abcdefg]

SydLake:

I thought she was assumed bodily into heaven, was she dead or alive, was she ever buried? There is no evidence or mention of what happened in a historical way so evrything about her assumption is conjecture, however infallible, conjecture at that.

Peace

all right coffin. or something like that.
Bible’s description of that event is historical. Do you think a book with various proves of Virgin Mary’s body was stolen is historical?

 

[wildleafblower]

abcdefg:

denying God’s role in the formation of human body lead to wrong conclusion

God is present.

 

[MichaelTDoyle]

Well, one disturbing thing about ET was this show I saw about “Do we need God?” and it interviewed a variety of people, celebrities I think, and all the atheists repeatedly cited evolution as somehow justifying their atheism.

I geuss that’s why I get so peeved about the misapplication or over application of this theory. People take it as a kind of catch all meaning “change happens and everything improves over time” but something so wide that explains everything really explains nothing. I see this generic evolution theory used to explain every facet of reality from our humanity, our social structure, our psycholgy, our thoughts. In short all phases of existence; it becomes an all inclusive mask for hapless determinism where the only logical thing is achieve! so that you’re in some mythical way part of the naturally selected.

Ultimately this kind of thinking is rubbish; it is determinism and worse it may choke off one’s ability to even communicate to Jesus or even know your own soul. If you believe your heart–compassion-- is something that is merely naturally selective impulses that help you to survive you have denied your own authentic self sacrificial heart in its ding an sich, the very means we use to pray. You have traded your authentic reality for a gross animal playing out a role in a wholly deterministic universe.

That’s exactly how those atheists and the atheists I know see their role. Their loves seem tragically, mortally ephemeral and forlorn. I should have prayed for them and for those I know in life. They are good friends and good people as people can be good; I should pray for them more.

peace

 

[abcdefg]

wildleafblower:

God is present.

:yawn:Are you surprised? God is omnipresent.
But I guess you have something else in mind.

 

[wildleafblower]

:yawn:Are you surprised? God is omnipresent.
But I guess you have something else in mind.

Nope, I’m not surprised your guess is wrong like everything else you’ve guessed upon, :yawn: trying to find some hidden meaning in my simple three word sentence, “God is present.”

 

[Karl_Keating]

I followed a link that Phil gave and another link and another link and ended up at a curious page of autobiography apparently written by Jonathan Wells, author of “Icons of Evolution.”

Wells explains that he is an ardent Moonie (member of Sun Myung Moon’s Unification Church) and that in 1976 he heard “Father” (which is to say Rev. Moon) speak strongly against Darwinism.

“Father’s words, my studies, and my prayers convinced me that I should devote my life to destroying Darwinism.” To accomplish this, Wells decided to get a second Ph.D., this time in biology.

You can read the rest of his account at tparents.org/library/unification/talks/wells/DARWIN.htm

I find two things disconcerting.

First is Wells’s adherence to the Unification Church. The same web site explains that relgion’s core belief: Adam and Eve fell through sexual sin; Jesus, the Second Adam, was supposed to marry, have children, and establish an earthly kingdom–but failed; the Third Adam was Sun Myung Moon, who, with his wife, fulfilled the mission that Jesus failed to fulfill.

See tparents.org/Tp-WhoAre.htm

To a Christian, this is nonsensical–and not just because the middle portion of it echoes elements of “The Da Vinci Code.” Moon succeeds where Jesus failed? Whatever else you want to call this religion, don’t call it Christian. And don’t call it reasonable either. It is no more reasonable than is Scientology.

And it’s that lack of reasonableness that concerns me. I don’t hold to the view that a man’s religious views tell us nothing about his reasoning powers. For example, I think we can conclude something about Tom Cruise’s ability to think clearly once we know his attachment to Scientology.

The second thing that bothers me is the way Wells presents his mission in life: to devote his life “to destroying Darwinism”–a decision he made after he heard Moon lecture but before he had entered scientific studies.

His decision came in response to his religious leader’s call, not in response to his own extensive study of the issue. This suggests an ideological approach, and those who take an ideological approach–to any issue, whether scientific, political, religious, or moral–usually are not fastidious when seeking out and evaluating facts.

Maybe Wells is an exception in both regards: clear-thinking despite his attachment to the Unification Church, objective in his critique of Darwinism even though he understands himself to be on a mission to “destroy” it. Nevertheless …

 

[wildleafblower]

Thanks, Karl. Should be an really interesting bedtime story to read. What caught my immediate attention was this:

“First is Wells’s adherence to the Unification Church. The same web site explains that relgion’s core belief: Adam and Eve fell through sexual sin; Jesus, the Second Adam, was supposed to marry, have children, and establish an earthly kingdom–but failed; the Third Adam was Sun Myung Moon, who, with his wife, fulfilled the mission that Jesus failed to fulfill.”

Wow! Unbelievable. I can’t stop laughing.

 

[PhilVaz]

Karl << The second thing that bothers me is the way Wells presents his mission in life: to devote his life “to destroying Darwinism”–a decision he made after he heard Moon lecture but before he had entered scientific studies. >>

Yep, I was surprised when I learned that myself. I figured Wells was just another evangelical or fundamentalist Christian when I first heard about his book Icons of Evolution

Of course Wells does have a reply to all this you know, ever since that Moonie web page about his “mission in life” began being referenced around the web. Basically he says “so what” or some such. Darn it, couldn’t find it, but its probably somewhere at Discovery, ARN, or Wells own site.

Your best replies to Wells book are the reviews at TalkOrigins Icon of Obfuscation, NCSE Gishlick’s reply, or the reply by paleontologist Kevin Padian The Talented Mr. Wells or PDF version

Wells has attempted to reply to those as well. He does have a legitimate Ph.D. in biology from Berkeley, unlike Kent Hovind. We’ve talked about Wells in here before, at the start of the board if memory serves, in one of those 4.5 billion creation-evolution threads.

Phil P

 

[EnterTheBowser]

Incidentally, I just want to say that evolution “justifies” atheism in that it is a good response to the “argument from design” or the “pocketwatch proof.” It is not a positive argument for atheism but is a good response to a particularly pervasive argument for theism.

 

[wildleafblower]

Karl and Phil,

You’ve opened a bag a worms and I’m adding another worm to the pile! As you already know I’ve got a problem with those Intelligent Design folks.

Here’s a quote from Phillip E. Johnson, J.D. that Alec is going to love!

“Biologists affiliated with the Intelligent Design movement nail down the distinction by showing that DNA mutations do not create evolution in any significant sense. Instead, they make birth defects, so the whole thing is false from the get-go. There is no way you can establish that a bacterium is the parent of a complex animal. There is no mechanism to make the change, no historical or fossil evidence that such a change ever occurred, and there’s no way to duplicate the process in a lab.” (Berkeley’s Radical, An Interview with Phillip E. Johnson, 2002.)

touchstonemag.com/docs/issues/15.5docs/15-5pg40.html

I may be wrong, but I think Johnson’s interview reflects somewhat Karl’s line of thought that Wells ‘decision came in response to his religious leader’s call, not in response to his own extensive study of the issue’.

 

[PhilVaz]

wild << but I think Johnson’s interview reflects somewhat Karl’s line of thought that Wells 'decision came in response to his religious leader’s call >>

Yes, in my opinion Johnson’s science has been pretty well demolished by Denis Lamoureux in the book Darwinism Defeated? The Johnson-Lamoureux Debate on Biological Origins, also by Ken Miller in Finding Darwin’s God in the chapter dealing with Johnson. Some of Johnson’s philosophical critiques make sense, but he really knows little of the biology, paleontology, and general science. His critiques are religious / philosophical ones, not scientific. You can also see this in his (short) debate with Ken Miller from NOVA Online, or the Firing Line debate from 1997.

Some of his Veritas talks are online and he can be an entertaining speaker. He gives his history why he got involved in the creation-evolution debate. Basically he became a Christian in his late 30s, a little later read some evil Richard Dawkins books, and “devoted his life to destroying Darwinism” and had a few successful debates with Will Provine, but then he met Lamoureux and Ken Miller and the debate was over.

Phil P

 

[wildleafblower]

Phil,

Intelligent Design has been debunked! This should explain it all:

Kitzmiller Decision: Plaintiffs Prevail
December 20, 2005

The much-awaited decision in the Kitzmiller et al. v. Dover Area School District is now available here!. (pdf)
sciohost.org/ncse/kvd/kitzmiller_decision_20051220.pdf

The 139 page document finds for the plaintiffs.

Judge Jones finds that “intelligent design” is not science. The DASD ID policy fails the “endorsement test” for both student and adult observers, violates both purpose and effect prongs of the Lemon test, and also violates the Pennsylvania constitution.

www2.ncseweb.org/wp/

 

[wildleafblower]

I should add that I’m proud to be a volunteer for the National Center for Science Education Defending the Teaching of Evolution in the Public Schools! I learned just about everything about Intelligent Design there is to know. You don’t have to be a scientist to love science
ncseweb.org/

 

[PhilVaz]

wild << Phil, Intelligent Design has been debunked! This should explain it all: Kitzmiller Decision: Plaintiffs Prevail December 20, 2005 >>

Yes, it was available on the 20th. I’ve printed it out. Anyone who followed the trial would conclude the judge made the right decision based on the evidence and facts of the case. All the PDFs of the witnesses and their testimony are available also.

I accept “cosmological” ID or what might be called lower-case “intelligent design.”

You volunteer for NCSE? How so? How do you become one?

Phil P

 

[abcdefg]

Phil,

Intelligent Design has been debunked! This should explain it all:

Creationism/ID was first “debunked” not in the US but in USSR by Lenin.

 

[rossum]

seabird3579:

And, “All” scientists do not agree on evolution.

Agreed, there are many disagreements about the details of evolution. There is also a small minority of scientists who do not accept evolution at all. How does this affect the truth or not of evolution? Christians disagree on many different things, does that mean that Christianity is false? Disagreements do not imply falsity either for evolution or for Christianity.

seabird3579:

ACLU liberals dictated what would and what would not be taught to young minds.

This is false. The ACLU had no impact on my education since I was educated in England; America is not the world. Even in America the ACLU does not determine the school curriculum. You are getting carried away by your own rhetoric here I think.

seabird3579:

As far as they are concerned, 'the books have been closed, no more science questions!

All questions in science are always open. If you have the evidence then you can show that evolution is wrong. A Devonian rabbit would be a good start.

seabird3579:

Darwin settled it, there is no God, humans evolved from monkeys!

Evolution says nothing at all about the existence or not of God. If our ancestor was alive today then it would be classified as an ape: monkeys have tails, apes do not. As I understand it the Catholic church allows the belief that our physical bodies evolved from ape-like ancestors and that at some point God added a soul. Such a belief is perfectly compatible with the theory of evolution.

seabird3579:

Pro-evolutionists, in all of your badgering you’ve never offered authentic scientific data prooving Evolution.

No scientific theory is ever “proved”. All scientific theories are provisional until a better theory is found. Newton’s theory of gravitation was good, but Einstein’s was better, so Netwon was replaced by Einstein. Prior to 1859 creatinism was the dominant theory, it was replaced by evolution because evolution explained the evidence better.

If you want evidence then there is a mountain of it. My favourite is that we share errors in our DNA with modern apes and other primates. Identical errors are powerful evidence for common descent, see Plagiarized Errors and Molecular Genetics for further details. You could also try 29+ Evidences for Macroevolution. These two are only scratching the surface of the evidence available. The evidence is there, are you prepared to follow it or do you suffer from Morton’s Demon?

rossum

 

[SydLake]

seabird3579:

Why do devout Evolutionists cut down ID as being religion instead of debating the science within ID. If you read the original report on Intelligent Design by the original Scientist who “discovered” it, he has an incredible amount of information on the specialization of the human cell. Why is it that Evolutionists will not let this debate take place?

It seems to be obvious they are afraid that Evolution will become completely irrelevant. So I guess their personal ideology is getting in the way of true science.

Actually, that’s the Evolutionists tactic when it comes to ID.

The reason Evolution falls flat on its face is because reasonable people do not naturally conclude that highly specialized human beings “randomly” occured. If there were actual “proof” that would be different. But as we know, most all of Evolution is hypothesis – without bonafide proof when it comes to jumping species. But bless 'em anyway, they keep looking for that missing link!

In fact, Man left to his own devices …if you are willing to observe a little social history ---- has De - Volved.

We just keep getting worse and worse each year. If our spiritual side is any indication as to our physical side of nature, we should just about be at the Neanderthal stage right now, chimp status not far off!

If that is the case, has God , through ID , designed humankind to get worse with the passage of time?