Hi there,
So this is quite an obscure question, really, but there is something really disturbing about 'Evolution' as a theory. Actually there are a number of things that are disturbing, but the picture that has developed for me, has started to point in one particular direction: that Evolution itself is untested by its own standard. That standard, is the standard of appearance. To be specific, Evolution - if it were removed from living memory - would be thought to reappear, exactly the same, every single time it was forgotten. Why? Because the arbitrary abstract rules of Evolution, are that knowledge of Evolution is "science" and that "science" is singularly interpreted no matter the object, as the most universally accurate description, of its function.
But how can this be? If Evolution is true, it will be different every time it reappears, on the basis of mutations, or the same, on the basis of selection pressures! Do you see the problem, it is not possible to backwards engineer the same theory, on the basis of evidence, which it is duplicitous about. What we have discovered, is the Telephone Game - the game where people try to communicate the truth they have heard to someone else, necessarily altering it along the way. People don't communicate more (in the Telephone Game), the more they know about Evolution, they are just as bad as everybody else. They have tested this. For Evolution to mean anything, it has to raise the bar of adaptability - how it does that while old memories of spurious conjectures about Man coming from subordinate species are in place, how would you know? And how long would improving Evolution with "Evolution" last, we should also be interested in?
The short of it, is simply this: Evolution is derivative of the observation that species differ, on the basis of alternatives that are unique to their genome - the more it interferes, without correction, the less sense its adaptations make. Like a chameleon that keeps its old disguise, in a new environment or a spider that tries to make its web on drugs, Evolution keeps us from interpreting the truest path, until we start to bring that interpretation around to the real limits and precursors of the design we want to keep, not discard. While Evolution must be in play, for Design to work, Design does not need to hand over the reigns to something that doesn't answer on terms it begins in - this is disingenuous.
No, Evolution needs to exercise a Dead Sea Scrolls test - will it reappear, if we forget about it, or alternatively "what can we do about Evolution now, to speed up the recognition of the things that drive it?" If understanding Evolution is "quickened" that is a massive selection pressure advantage, one that might make Evolution interperable to the layman and give him the psychological sanction to ensure that he is indeed passing on his best, to the next generation - in all those things that Evolution currently just calls "expedient"? The Scriptures have passed the Dead Sea Scrolls test, everything revealed was found to confirm what was already trusted - over and over again! This test was not carried out in spite of "Evolution", it was objectively in favour of the given compilation of the Bible.
So, a choice is needed. Is it thought that Evolution as it stands now, is based on the veracity of a response to mutation, or is it as it stands now, founded on a response to selection pressure? And how would this change, if the test were done again? Do you suppose that it would cease to be new? Or do you suppose it would be more effective if it was fragmented? Or should it have been a choice between initial and belated Evolution, to begin with? And we will discover this divided interpretation has strength, the more? What is the routine exercise of fitness that is necessary, to keep Evolution alive, if it turns out that culturally there is not enough truth in it, for people to believe consistently from Age to Age? The Words of Jesus already pass that test, they are so worded that no meaning is lost, if the interpretation is of the letter - the Telephone Game does not diminish their veracity. Does Evolution desire this? If so, how is it going to get it?
I trust you will think about a small part of this and steer me towards an Evolution, the interpretation of which, you are confident.
So this is quite an obscure question, really, but there is something really disturbing about 'Evolution' as a theory. Actually there are a number of things that are disturbing, but the picture that has developed for me, has started to point in one particular direction: that Evolution itself is untested by its own standard. That standard, is the standard of appearance. To be specific, Evolution - if it were removed from living memory - would be thought to reappear, exactly the same, every single time it was forgotten. Why? Because the arbitrary abstract rules of Evolution, are that knowledge of Evolution is "science" and that "science" is singularly interpreted no matter the object, as the most universally accurate description, of its function.
But how can this be? If Evolution is true, it will be different every time it reappears, on the basis of mutations, or the same, on the basis of selection pressures! Do you see the problem, it is not possible to backwards engineer the same theory, on the basis of evidence, which it is duplicitous about. What we have discovered, is the Telephone Game - the game where people try to communicate the truth they have heard to someone else, necessarily altering it along the way. People don't communicate more (in the Telephone Game), the more they know about Evolution, they are just as bad as everybody else. They have tested this. For Evolution to mean anything, it has to raise the bar of adaptability - how it does that while old memories of spurious conjectures about Man coming from subordinate species are in place, how would you know? And how long would improving Evolution with "Evolution" last, we should also be interested in?
The short of it, is simply this: Evolution is derivative of the observation that species differ, on the basis of alternatives that are unique to their genome - the more it interferes, without correction, the less sense its adaptations make. Like a chameleon that keeps its old disguise, in a new environment or a spider that tries to make its web on drugs, Evolution keeps us from interpreting the truest path, until we start to bring that interpretation around to the real limits and precursors of the design we want to keep, not discard. While Evolution must be in play, for Design to work, Design does not need to hand over the reigns to something that doesn't answer on terms it begins in - this is disingenuous.
No, Evolution needs to exercise a Dead Sea Scrolls test - will it reappear, if we forget about it, or alternatively "what can we do about Evolution now, to speed up the recognition of the things that drive it?" If understanding Evolution is "quickened" that is a massive selection pressure advantage, one that might make Evolution interperable to the layman and give him the psychological sanction to ensure that he is indeed passing on his best, to the next generation - in all those things that Evolution currently just calls "expedient"? The Scriptures have passed the Dead Sea Scrolls test, everything revealed was found to confirm what was already trusted - over and over again! This test was not carried out in spite of "Evolution", it was objectively in favour of the given compilation of the Bible.
So, a choice is needed. Is it thought that Evolution as it stands now, is based on the veracity of a response to mutation, or is it as it stands now, founded on a response to selection pressure? And how would this change, if the test were done again? Do you suppose that it would cease to be new? Or do you suppose it would be more effective if it was fragmented? Or should it have been a choice between initial and belated Evolution, to begin with? And we will discover this divided interpretation has strength, the more? What is the routine exercise of fitness that is necessary, to keep Evolution alive, if it turns out that culturally there is not enough truth in it, for people to believe consistently from Age to Age? The Words of Jesus already pass that test, they are so worded that no meaning is lost, if the interpretation is of the letter - the Telephone Game does not diminish their veracity. Does Evolution desire this? If so, how is it going to get it?
I trust you will think about a small part of this and steer me towards an Evolution, the interpretation of which, you are confident.
