Dissent from Darwinism

[Denny347]

Now that I proved that one, What else you got.

Haha LOVE IT!!!. Thanks

 

[Denny347]

Believing in atheism requires more faith than believing there is a God. If you were to believe that life occurred from completely natural means, then you would have to completely ignore the complexity of the universe and of life. DNA is more complex than a 747, a toaster oven, even a caomputer. How did a random event not even produce those items or similar items, but it produced the highly, I mean highly complex DNA? A computer laying out in the middle of the desert is a lot more likely event than DNA forming randomy.

Actually, I find it would be easier to be a Thiest. All I would need to study would be the Bible and any unknowns in life will be covered by "God works in mysterious ways" or "It is not for us to know". I love the argument that life is too complex to have come about naturally, it must have been created. I will again pose the same question I have before, if life was too complex to be natural and needed a Creator, the Creator is as complex if not more. THEN who created the Creator. He is too complex to have occurred naturally and thus must have been created Himself.

 

[ThrottleJockey]

Aliens...the missing link? Many cultures AND religions around the world have always openly accepted them.

 

[IncendiaryGunner]

You can test what you observe. We observe fossils. The only thing known empirically certain is that the fossil came from a living creature, and that creature is now dead. Unless you saw that creature alive, watched it's previous and future generations reproduce, sample their DNA, and so on, it has exited the realm of the observable. I have no problem with making educated guesses, based on unprovable assumptions, as long as they aren't called scientific.

But we can also observe the way particles in our environment act. By applying our knowledge of how our universe acts, we can then deduce other things....

If I walk into my hallway, and I step in feces, I can assume an animal defecated in my hallway. Since I only have two dogs, and since my windows and doors are all closed, leaving no entry large enough for any other animal capable of defecating that size in my hallway, I can assume one of my two dogs did it. If I wanted to get scientific, I could have dna tests performed on the stool sample, and then compare the results to dna tests performed on samples collected from both of my dogs. I would not have to see either animal poop in my hallway to conclude that X dog pooped in my hallway, because I can apply logic and reason to observable evidence.

In the same way, you can compare dna to show heredity.... this guy does it all the time:

While our understanding of dna is not perfect, through the application of the scientific process we always fine tune our theories and slowly get closer to perfection. By continuing the process, it is plausible that we could provide links between fossils and their ancestors... or even disprove those theories.

DNA can tell many stories:
Mitochondrial Eve - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Believing in a scientific theory is agreeing with an assumption that came about through scientific experiments, and any scientific hypothesis, theory, or law is an implied assumption. Even gravity - although we all accept it - is inherently an implied assumption - because it is based on human means of observation. Calling something scientific is implying that it is an assumption... albeit one that follows strict, methodical applications of a very specific set of rules pertaining to reason and logic.

Faith in a divine deity is holding faith in something you believe in 100%, and is not an implied assumption.

Evolution is considered within the realm of science because it is possible to prove or disprove... empirical evidence can be applied that suggest if the assumption is correct or incorrect. The fact that it is extremely complex, or that we do not understand what experiments must be conducted to prove or disprove it - does not equate to it not being science.

Einstein's theory of static universe is still considered science, even though Edwin Hubble made new observations regarding the relationship of red sift... Einstein abandoned the theory, and it is now considered incorrect, but his incorrect theory is still science.

 

[DustinG]

Actually, I find it would be easier to be a Thiest. All I would need to study would be the Bible and any unknowns in life will be covered by "God works in mysterious ways" or "It is not for us to know". I love the argument that life is too complex to have come about naturally, it must have been created. I will again pose the same question I have before, if life was too complex to be natural and needed a Creator, the Creator is as complex if not more. THEN who created the Creator. He is too complex to have occurred naturally and thus must have been created Himself.

If you saw a painting, would you believe that nature created it through an entirely random event or would you ask who created it? Life is much more complicated than a painting. If random natural events can create life than you should also believe that random natural events can create a painting, a computer, or even a 747. Why have we not seen those created randomly? Because they are too complicated to be created by random chance.

 

[Bitter Clinger]

Computers and 747's aside - I have yet to stumble onto a ramdomly formed paper clip.

 

[DustinG]

"[M]ultiple government-backed science museums sought to suppress AFA's constitutional and contractual right to express a pro-intelligent design viewpoint . . . They [Evolutionary Scientists] paint the picture of a culture of intolerance in which scientists and other academics, at least these in the LA area, believe it is normal, appropriate, and even necessary to actively stifle scientific views that dissent from Darwinian orthodoxy. The evidence in this case makes clear the discrimination that ID proponents face in the academy. After all, if ID proponents can't even rent a theater to host a private event to discuss intelligent design, what hope is there that ID will receive a fair hearing in the academy?"

It does seem like evolutionary scientists are able to take an open debate on their theory and not suppress any opposing view.

http://www.evolutionnews.org/2011/08/evidence_revealed_in_californi050191.html

 

[IncendiaryGunner]

"[M]ultiple government-backed science museums sought to suppress AFA's constitutional and contractual right to express a pro-intelligent design viewpoint . . . They [Evolutionary Scientists] paint the picture of a culture of intolerance in which scientists and other academics, at least these in the LA area, believe it is normal, appropriate, and even necessary to actively stifle scientific views that dissent from Darwinian orthodoxy. The evidence in this case makes clear the discrimination that ID proponents face in the academy. After all, if ID proponents can't even rent a theater to host a private event to discuss intelligent design, what hope is there that ID will receive a fair hearing in the academy?"

It does seem like evolutionary scientists are able to take an open debate on their theory and not suppress any opposing view.

http://www.evolutionnews.org/2011/08/evidence_revealed_in_californi050191.html

Saddest part is since the California Science Center is at least in party government funded, a large chunk of that settlement will likely be paid for by taxpayers....

I hope whoever issued a contract without checking into the material gets canned.

 

[bigg cheese]

But we can also observe the way particles in our environment act. By applying our knowledge of how our universe acts, we can then deduce other things....

If I walk into my hallway, and I step in feces, I can assume an animal defecated in my hallway. Since I only have two dogs, and since my windows and doors are all closed, leaving no entry large enough for any other animal capable of defecating that size in my hallway, I can assume one of my two dogs did it. If I wanted to get scientific, I could have dna tests performed on the stool sample, and then compare the results to dna tests performed on samples collected from both of my dogs. I would not have to see either animal poop in my hallway to conclude that X dog pooped in my hallway, because I can apply logic and reason to observable evidence.

Your example is awful.

Assumptions you don't have to make:
You know what a dog is.
You know you have dogs.
You know that they eat and crap.
You know you have a "closed system" (house that has nothing more in it than you know)

The Big Bang was just a fabricated idea out of thin air.
You can't observe one. All explosions ever recorded, observed, or otherwise, NEVER bring about order.
The universe may be a closed system. I tend to think that it is, but there is so much out there we don't know, I suspect we are still at the .0000001% of understanding it, much less explaining it.

In the same way, you can compare dna to show heredity.... this guy does it all the time:

I hate you for making me view his face. He sickens me

By continuing the process, it is plausible that we could provide links between fossils and their ancestors... or even disprove those theories.

"links" between fossils have been provided, or should I say fabricated. Remember Lucy?

Believing in a scientific theory is agreeing with an assumption that came about through scientific experiments, and any scientific hypothesis, theory, or law is an implied assumption. Even gravity - although we all accept it - is inherently an implied assumption - because it is based on human means of observation. Calling something scientific is implying that it is an assumption... albeit one that follows strict, methodical applications of a very specific set of rules pertaining to reason and logic.

In "theory," if you'll grant me the pun, we agree. There has to be a distinction though, between what we can observe, and what we assume. Gravity is directly observable, testable, and repeatable by any living human. The Big Bang, spontaneous generation of life, the formation of the planets (but we don't even really know the conditions -- we hypothesize, and can't even come close to testing, except in a computer where we control the variables, AKA "make them up." and even our models have to violate what we can test for gases to do in a vacuum.)[/quote]

Evolution is considered within the realm of science because it is possible to prove or disprove... empirical evidence can be applied that suggest if the assumption is correct or incorrect. The fact that it is extremely complex, or that we do not understand what experiments must be conducted to prove or disprove it - does not equate to it not being science.

When we can successfully test macroevolution, the Big Bang, abiogenesis, etc, let me know. Until then, you are assuming.

 

[CarmelHP]

THEN who created the Creator. He is too complex to have occurred naturally and thus must have been created Himself.

I addressed that. If you assume there is a creator of this universe, for argument's sake, then the laws that govern this universe such as cause and effect need not affect the creator because he is not bounded by our physical laws which he created for us. That's the reason such a creator can not be approached by science, he is outside the observable limits of the creation.

 

[DustinG]

If we could see inside of a a cell, we would see a “micro-miniaturized factory, containing thousands of elegantly designed pieces of intricate molecular machinery, made up all together of one hundred thousand million atoms, far more complicated than any machinery built by man and without parallel in the non-living world - Michael Denton, Molecular Biologist

Is your first response to any object you view was that it was spontaneously created or do you ask who created it? Why did we not have a car factory before humans if random events can create extermely complicated things, this would have been been far less complicated than a cell. Or as Bitter Clinger stated, a paper clip (which is extremely simple)?

http://www.forananswer.org/Top_Ath/Michael%20Denton.pdf

 

[bigg cheese]

And not just complicated -- ordered, and with purpose.

 

[level.eleven]

I addressed that. If you assume there is a creator of this universe, for argument's sake, then the laws that govern this universe such as cause and effect need not affect the creator because he is not bounded by our physical laws which he created for us. That's the reason such a creator can not be approached by science, he is outside the observable limits of the creation.

Which is why it doesn't belong in biology class. Put it in one of the soft sciences.

 

[bigg cheese]

who said God should be in a science class? We're saying the opposite should happen. Evolution is unscientific and should be excluded. That or teach both.

 

[pirate]

Who wants waffles?

 

[jpo117]

Is your first response to any object you view was that it was spontaneously created or do you ask who created it? Why did we not have a car factory before humans if random events can create extermely complicated things, this would have been been far less complicated than a cell. Or as Bitter Clinger stated, a paper clip (which is extremely simple)?

http://www.forananswer.org/Top_Ath/Michael%20Denton.pdf

Why do you insist that something as complex as a cell must have an intelligent designer? You're stating that if something is ordered it must have a designer because if something is ordered it must have a designer, even if the only evidence of a designer is that it is ordered.

And beyond that, you insist that the incredible variety of life on this planet cannot be due to a natural phenomenon with a rational and well-examined explanation occurring over an extremely long period of time, but rather due to the guidance of an intelligent omnipotent force which we cannot empirically examine and which exists outside of our perceived reality; and this is the explanation you choose simply because it is the one you choose. Fine for you, but I can't help but wonder if that kind of logic is the reason our kids are getting routinely slaughtered in math and science by the children of a dozen other countries right now.

Also, I too would like to be pointed to this testable, falsifiable theory of Intelligent Design that we ought to be teaching to our struggling kids. I don't mean the philosophical metaphysics of it, but the actual science of it. Can you point us to that?

 

[DustinG]

Another evolutionary scientist rejects the natural selection theory. Though he does not reject evolution, he proposes a new theory, which gives him trouble because it indicates intelligent design.

[H]e proposes "sudden genome restructuring by sensory network-influenced cell systems ... It replaces the 'invisible hands' of geological time and natural selection with cognitive networks and cellular functions for self-modification. . ." [T]he phrase natural genetic engineering has proven troublesome to many scientists because they believe it supports the Intelligent Design argument. As one Nobel Laureate put it after a seminar, "If there is natural genetic engineering, that means there has to be an engineer." This empirically derived concept seems to many scientists to violate the principles of naturalism that exclude any role for a guiding intelligence outside of nature. - James Shapiro, molecular biologist

Even scientists who still believe in evolution are beginning to reject the natural selection/random mutation theory. He does not support intelligent design, but finds finds it troubling. Instead of freshly looking at the data, he is trying to reconfigurate the evolutionary theory.

 

[bigg cheese]

Also, I too would like to be pointed to this testable, falsifiable theory of Intelligent Design that we ought to be teaching to our struggling kids. I don't mean the philosophical metaphysics of it, but the actual science of it. Can you point us to that?

Did we say we had the answers? It has been stated over and over that Intellegent Design proponents believe by FAITH. I do happen to believe that what I see around me affirms by belief, but that's not the point.

The point is that evolution is a religion no better (if not worse) off than ID. I believe by faith -- so do you.

The problem seems to be that the Establishment is looking for a way to force evolution down our throats, so that there can't be a God. You know what the implications of a Creator are? Accountability.

 

[DustinG]

"[R]ather due to the guidance of an intelligent omnipotent force which we cannot empirically examine and which exists outside of our perceived reality; and this is the explanation you choose simply because it is the one you choose. Fine for you, but I can't help but wonder if that kind of logic is the reason our kids are getting routinely slaughtered in math and science by the children of a dozen other countries right now.

How about you check it out for yourself, here are a few resources:

Evolution News & Views
Explaining the Science of Intelligent Design

Rather than kids falling behind in math and science being to a loss of logic; have you ever considered parenting? Instead of teaching students, teachers are now being forced to babysit and dumb down their material so all the students do not fail. I would like to emphasize that this lack of respect from students largely comes from a decline in moral value (not what you wanted to hear). Ever heard of respecting your elders? It exists very little today except by the students who excel.

Do you believe in the big bang, something coming from nothing? How can you believe in that if it is not testable? In your own words, "it is outside of our perceived reality," but scientists still propose it and students are still required to learn it.

 

[eldirector]

The point is that evolution is a religion no better (if not worse) off than ID. I believe by faith -- so do you.

Actually, quite the opposite, by its very nature. Theories are absolutely NOT taken on faith. They are testable. To stand, they must make solid predictions of something we can then observe. That is how it works. You and I may need to *believe* in the scientist that does the actual work, but the scientist certainly does not *believe* - she tests.

There is nothing in modern evolutionary theory that has not been, and cannot be, tested and observed. It is currently the best model we have.

Does it fail at describing Genesis? Sure. It also fails at describing Gravity. Then again, both are out of its purview. Forcing Evolutionary Theory to describe Genesis works about as well as forcing Christianity to define Gravity. Simply outside of its realm.