A call to Creationists, are there any left?

[mark kennedy]

Which indicates that there ARE beneficial mutations.

But not in genes related to human brain funtion.

First fossil chimpanzee. [Nature. 2005] - PubMed result
Incorrect.


Completely out of my field of knowledge. BUT, if I had to guess, looking at the abstract of the article I just linked, it would likely be location.

Ok, that article appeared in the same issue of Nature that the Chimpanzee Genome paper was published in back in 2005. It consists of 3 maybe 4 teeth and that is it for well over 5 millions of years of chimpanzee evolution while our supposed ancestors are represented by hundreds of specimans and literally thousands of fragments.

As to the other matter if you had followed the link you would have found where Taung was discovered. It was discovered by Raymond Dart and for 50 years it was considered little more then a chimpanzee. With the demise of Piltdown Dart's fossils found credibility, probably because there were no suitable canidates for the mythical human/ape transitional. It had a chimpanzee size skull, point blank, flat out.

But if there isn’t time nor means for it to have evolved then it MUST be wrong, because for it to have evolved is an impossibility, and therefore anything showing it to have evolved is incorrect. No?

There was neither the time nor the means and there is abundant scientific research available indicating exactly that, if you ever bother to research it.

Yes, I know it wasn’t worth much. BUT in between now and then, I did some research and remembered it.
Brain endocasts. Lunate Sulkus (no idea if I spelled that right).
And:
NOVA | Becoming Human Part 1
chapter 4, about 19 minutes left in the program till about 16 minutes left. There’s some more later in the program about Homo Habilius, but I don’t remember where.
I would hope THAT is worth a lot more than the rambling I did last post.

Catch watch that special here as much as I would like to. Lucy and the speciman in question are both apes with chimpanzee size skulls. I would like to see there series though, maybe in a couple of months when I get some leave.

I would completely disagree. Being unable to isolate single gene changes that are undisputedly beneficial today is not equal to starting with a different and more primitive brain in a completely different environment working towards what we have today.

No it's not different, brain related genes result in disease and disorders not improved fittness. Environment has nothing to do with it if there is no molecular mechanism that can be triggered by external conditions. Other things can and do, apendages, metabolism, color, texture and a host of other traits. Vital organs on the other hand simply don't respond favorably to mutations.

Theme #1 of your post:
Because we haven’t found undisputedly beneficial mutations in the human brain, they are impossible and thus so is the non-human ape to man transition.

That's the gist of it and no matter how many times I bring it up not one attempt in 6 years to refute me.

I still have extreme reservations about this that fall into several categories.

The environment we have today, with civilization and all, is far different than uncivilized Africa tens/hundreds/thousands of thousands of years ago.

Humans, unlike apes, have inhabited every ecological niche on the planet and we do not change substantially from one another. We do not speciate for one thing even though both gorrillas and chimpanzee do. We are talking about chimpanzee like creatures living in Africa 2 1/2 million years ago and the climate and environment would not have been dramatically different from today.

Starting with a current human brain and trying to get it to go forward and stating that if we can’t get it to go forward means nothing could ever lead to it just seems... more than a little nonsensical to me. Just because we don’t know how to manipulate genes to go ‘forwards’ (or how they might be manipulated by nature to do so), it does not follow that it is impossible for them to have arrived at this point from something else. The notion is FURTHER complicated by the fact that we don’t have anything that was a direct predecessor to us, only other brains that have gone thru divergent processes as well. And going “Back” would be a problem because we don’t have a “back” to compare it to.

The problem is that we don't have chimpanzee ancestor fossils to compare our abundant hominid fossils to. The closest we can get as far as I can tell is Euroasian apes and that is well over ten million years. The simple fact that not one single molecular mechanism for the overhaul of the requiste genes exists and yet the common ancestry of humans and chimps must never be questioned. When you don't have a directly observed or demonstrated reason then you simply don't have a scientific explanation. What we are dealing with here is a naturalistic presupposition that dismisses God's miraculas interpolation before the evidence is ever considered.

I still maintain just how hard it is to figure out the difference between genetics and environment (nature/nurture) it would be to find just what is ‘normal’ for the human brain, and what would be caused by mutations. Photographic memory, intelligence, personality, etc COULD all be mutation controlled, no? But is this known for certain? How far above human norm does a person’s intellect have to be before we would start looking for mutations controlling it? What about less well known possibilities, like a non-degrading axon sheath that would resist Alzheimer's disease? And how to know this unless you are blatantly coding the DNA of at least a statistically significant portion of the entire human population PLUS extraordinary individuals (cue hundreds to millions of Christians decrying the effort as an attempt at instituting the One World Order by getting people’s genome on file for future control and identification).

Actually, Francis Collins (head of the Human Genome Project) lobbied for legislation to prohibit genetic profiling by insurance companies. At any rate, all you have to do is to compare two DNA sequences, nothing Orwellian or New World Orderlyish about it. If there existed a single positive proof that a molecular mechanism existed or random mutations could it would be splashed across every scientific publication in the world. Meanwhile, back in reality, mutations effecting the brain continue to cause disease and disorder every time they have an effect. This point is, in fact, irrefutable. No one ever even trys.

Your answer as to the reason WHY they would do such a study was only “Because they need an explanation for the three-fold expansion of the human brain from that of apes before they can call it a fact.” However, not every evolutionary change DOES have a full-fledged gene-by-gene description of what happened to make it so. If you accept ANY other change that we don’t have the genetic evidence you demand of human brain changes, then you are applying a double standard. If you don’t, then what would be next after the human brain? The loss of the penis bone? (being entirely serious here) Cats divergence from dogs? (if we can’t make body shape gene changes in cats that are obviously beneficial, the fact that cats and dogs had a common ancestor can’t possibly be true). And of course, since we don’t have an exact genome of THAT thing’s body, how difficult will that be? You see where I’m going with this.

I think I know what your getting at and I would love it if it were possible to compare every genome on demand. We only have complete human and chimpanzee genomes to work with and the requiste genes are all I am really concerned with.

Another theme I saw was more of a contradiction. You specifically stated both:

but then went on to state such things as

which leaves me quite in the dark at your apparent self-contradiction on whether or not any beneficial mutations ever actually happen.

Benefical mutations happen, just not in the gene related to human brain development.

I would also like to point out how you seem to roundly ignore/discredit/look down upon fossils. Even if genetics cannot reconstruct every step of the way back to some unknown intermediate and back again, fossils that SHOW various steps along the way are still evidence. I just got a feeling of extreme venom towards them, and I want to point out that OF COURSE if you throw out one whole huge line of evidence what is left is not going to be anywhere near as convincing.

And to finish off,

I have never ignored or discredited fossils, that's just plain silly. I rely heavily on the fossil evidence for my arguments and link often to peer reviewed articles and credible sources often. I consider fossil evidence to be giving us a clear indication that the chimanzee ancestors are all in natural history musuems marked Homo XXX. I do not come on here to study evolution as much as I study evolutionists.

I really have no idea what you are trying to get at. None whatsoever. I mean, the closest one word I could fit there might be knowledge, but that would lose almost all of what I meant. The Gospel of Jesus Christ is about God’s love, sacrifice, the salvation of man and our immortal souls. Not about natural history, evolution, ape-man genetic relations and origin, etc.

Metherion

That's right, knowledge is the literal meaning of science. Now we are talking about natural history and there is a correlation between both natural history and redemptive history. Both rely on evidence and since they are in direct contradition only one can be reliable. How would you say that the evidence for the New Testament stacks up against the evidence for the stone age ape men like Homo habilis?

I'm not teasing, that is actually a serious and important question. How you answer it is not as important as the fact that you consider the question.

 

[ProScribe]

Speaking of which, I still consider myself OEC Old Earth Creationist but creation is implied throughout sacred scriptures and not solely science.

 

[Kristin E]

lurking *click click* im here!
I am a Creationist believer, but I do believe faith & science can co-exist.

 

[shernren]

But not in genes related to human brain function.

No it's not different, brain related genes result in disease and disorders not improved fitness.

If there existed a single positive proof that a molecular mechanism existed or random mutations could it would be splashed across every scientific publication in the world. Meanwhile, back in reality, mutations effecting the brain continue to cause disease and disorder every time they have an effect. This point is, in fact, irrefutable. No one ever even tries.

Every time, Mark?

Actually, we did find a brain gene variant with beneficial effect, and it was splashed across the pages of New Scientist:

A gene for Alzheimer's makes you smarter

One big clue that epsilon 4 might be beneficial emerged several years ago, when Han's team scanned the APOE genes of 78 American soldiers. All had suffered traumatic brain injuries, many while serving in Iraq. Sixteen had at least one copy of epsilon 4. Han's team expected to find that these carriers would be in worse cognitive shape than their counterparts with different versions of APOE, given previous studies that showed elderly people with epsilon 4 fare worse after head injury. But the opposite was true: soldiers with the epsilon 4 allele had better memory and attention spans (Journal of Neurology, Neurosurgery & Psychiatry, DOI: 10.1136/jnnp.2006.108183).
​

(emphasis added) So not only is there a gene variant that confers (albeit for a limited time) great benefit for brain function, you might even have seen in action on the battlefield. Some of your chums may be benefiting from a mutation that according to you shouldn't exist.

Point, set, and game.

 

[mark kennedy]

Every time, Mark?

Actually, we did find a brain gene variant with beneficial effect, and it was splashed across the pages of New Scientist:

A gene for Alzheimer's makes you smarter

One big clue that epsilon 4 might be beneficial emerged several years ago, when Han's team scanned the APOE genes of 78 American soldiers. All had suffered traumatic brain injuries, many while serving in Iraq. Sixteen had at least one copy of epsilon 4. Han's team expected to find that these carriers would be in worse cognitive shape than their counterparts with different versions of APOE, given previous studies that showed elderly people with epsilon 4 fare worse after head injury. But the opposite was true: soldiers with the epsilon 4 allele had better memory and attention spans (Journal of Neurology, Neurosurgery & Psychiatry, DOI: 10.1136/jnnp.2006.108183).
​

(emphasis added) So not only is there a gene variant that confers (albeit for a limited time) great benefit for brain function, you might even have seen in action on the battlefield. Some of your chums may be benefiting from a mutation that according to you shouldn't exist.

Point, set, and game.

One point is not a game winning move and this is the first time this point has even been addressed. Now if you identify to location and the actual character of the mutation you are at least in the game which would be a first.

Quit jumping to conclusions, do the work buddy

 

[mark kennedy]

lurking *click click* im here!
I am a Creationist believer, but I do believe faith & science can co-exist.

I am as well and I agree, there need be no conflict.

Grace and peace,
Mark

 

[shernren]

One point is not a game winning move and this is the first time this point has even been addressed. Now if you identify to location and the actual character of the mutation you are at least in the game which would be a first.

Quit jumping to conclusions, do the work buddy

You telling me to do the work, now that's legendary.

Found this article in five minutes:

BMJ article: Association between apolipoprotein-ε4 and long-term outcome after traumatic brain injury

The article appears to be free although that might be because I'm in uni right now.

Gene location and function:

The apolipoprotein epsilon gene is located on chromosome 19 and has three alleles (APOE-∊2, APOE-∊3, APOE-∊4), which encode three isophorms (APOE-E2, APOE-E3, APOE-E4). Apolipoprotein is important for lipid metabolism and the maintenance of the structural integrity of microtubules. Presence of the ∊4 allele has been associated with a higher mortality, longer duration of unconsciousness, longer hospital stay, more cognitive impairments, and a higher risk of late post-traumatic seizures and unfavourable outcome. However, not all studies could replicate these results.
​

Sounds like an awful allele to have, until you see this:

Turns out all the negative effects are seen in the first few months, and after that the allele has a very positive effect on people recovering from brain injuries. So what does it do? From the Discussion:

Earlier studies hypothesised that the negative relation between APOE-∊4 and outcome could be explained by various mechanisms: decreased neurite outgrowth, increased amyloid β-protein deposits and apoptosis. However, several protective mechanisms induced by APOE-∊4 have also been described.

The APOE-∊4 protein was shown to activate an extracellular signal-regulated kinase cascade that results in activation of cAMP-response element binding protein and induction of many genes, including the cell-protective gene Bcl-2. Cholesterol is another potential protective mechanism. APOE-∊4 carriers are known to have elevated low-density lipoprotein and total cholesterol levels, which lead to an increase in γ-glutamyltransferase that is protective against neurotoxic effects of excitotoxic amino acids.

Further, the APOE-∊4 allele might have a positive effect on neurogenesis. Studies found that the APOE-∊4 allele was associated with higher infant neurodevelopment. Neurogenesis not only occurs in developing nervous systems but also in adults. Neurogenesis was stimulated in humans trough brain diseases as focal cerebral ischaemia and Huntington’s disease. It is possible that neurogenesis is positively influenced by the APOE-∊4 allele under circumstances of brain injury. In support of this hypothesis, we refer to a study in transgenic mice that found that APOE-∊4 positive mice, under normal housing circumstances, had increased neurogenesis compared to APOE-∊3 positive mice.
​

Basically, APOE4 tentatively does three things: induces cell-protective genes, increases cholesterol protection from neurotoxic effects of amino acids, and increases neurogenesis.

There ya go mark, brain-beneficial mutation.

 

[mark kennedy]

You telling me to do the work, now that's legendary.

Found this article in five minutes:

BMJ article: Association between apolipoprotein-ε4 and long-term outcome after traumatic brain injury

The article appears to be free although that might be because I'm in uni right now.

Gene location and function:

The apolipoprotein epsilon gene is located on chromosome 19 and has three alleles (APOE-∊2, APOE-∊3, APOE-∊4), which encode three isophorms (APOE-E2, APOE-E3, APOE-E4). Apolipoprotein is important for lipid metabolism and the maintenance of the structural integrity of microtubules. Presence of the ∊4 allele has been associated with a higher mortality, longer duration of unconsciousness, longer hospital stay, more cognitive impairments, and a higher risk of late post-traumatic seizures and unfavourable outcome. However, not all studies could replicate these results.
​

Sounds like an awful allele to have, until you see this:

Turns out all the negative effects are seen in the first few months, and after that the allele has a very positive effect on people recovering from brain injuries. So what does it do? From the Discussion:

Earlier studies hypothesised that the negative relation between APOE-∊4 and outcome could be explained by various mechanisms: decreased neurite outgrowth, increased amyloid β-protein deposits and apoptosis. However, several protective mechanisms induced by APOE-∊4 have also been described.

The APOE-∊4 protein was shown to activate an extracellular signal-regulated kinase cascade that results in activation of cAMP-response element binding protein and induction of many genes, including the cell-protective gene Bcl-2. Cholesterol is another potential protective mechanism. APOE-∊4 carriers are known to have elevated low-density lipoprotein and total cholesterol levels, which lead to an increase in γ-glutamyltransferase that is protective against neurotoxic effects of excitotoxic amino acids.

Further, the APOE-∊4 allele might have a positive effect on neurogenesis. Studies found that the APOE-∊4 allele was associated with higher infant neurodevelopment. Neurogenesis not only occurs in developing nervous systems but also in adults. Neurogenesis was stimulated in humans trough brain diseases as focal cerebral ischaemia and Huntington’s disease. It is possible that neurogenesis is positively influenced by the APOE-∊4 allele under circumstances of brain injury. In support of this hypothesis, we refer to a study in transgenic mice that found that APOE-∊4 positive mice, under normal housing circumstances, had increased neurogenesis compared to APOE-∊3 positive mice.
​

Basically, APOE4 tentatively does three things: induces cell-protective genes, increases cholesterol protection from neurotoxic effects of amino acids, and increases neurogenesis.

There ya go mark, brain-beneficial mutation.

I'm looking into it, it sure sounds like something worth more then a casual look but I'll need a little time to track down the particulars. It kind of looks like a repair mechanism but the details are a little sketchy

I'll get back to you on that as soon as I'm able

Grace and peace,
Mark

 

[GarrettC]

I'm a Creationist. I tend to stay away from creation/evolution debates, though. They tend to get personal far too quickly.

 

[mark kennedy]

I'm a Creationist. I tend to stay away from creation/evolution debates, though. They tend to get personal far too quickly.

That's my problem with it as well but my interest in apologetics made the subject irresistible for me. It seems like the TEs are keeping their distance right now and they mind their manners in this sub-forum while they are here.

The personal attacks are meant to discourage creationists from taking an active interest in the subject of origins. When you look at the polls and statistics in the US creationists outnumber evolutionists by 9-1 and when you add Theistic Evolutionists Creationists are still a majority. That's why they use the tactics they do, if Creationists ever really got serious about the subject evolution would be in trouble.

Appreciate your interest in the subject and if you are ever interested in looking into the subject I'll be around. That's despite the fact that I've sworn off these boards time and time again.

Grace and peace,
Mark

 

[Biblewriter]

You telling me to do the work, now that's legendary.

Found this article in five minutes:

BMJ article: Association between apolipoprotein-ε4 and long-term outcome after traumatic brain injury

The article appears to be free although that might be because I'm in uni right now.

Gene location and function:

The apolipoprotein epsilon gene is located on chromosome 19 and has three alleles (APOE-∊2, APOE-∊3, APOE-∊4), which encode three isophorms (APOE-E2, APOE-E3, APOE-E4). Apolipoprotein is important for lipid metabolism and the maintenance of the structural integrity of microtubules. Presence of the ∊4 allele has been associated with a higher mortality, longer duration of unconsciousness, longer hospital stay, more cognitive impairments, and a higher risk of late post-traumatic seizures and unfavourable outcome. However, not all studies could replicate these results.
​

Sounds like an awful allele to have, until you see this:

Turns out all the negative effects are seen in the first few months, and after that the allele has a very positive effect on people recovering from brain injuries. So what does it do? From the Discussion:

Earlier studies hypothesised that the negative relation between APOE-∊4 and outcome could be explained by various mechanisms: decreased neurite outgrowth, increased amyloid β-protein deposits and apoptosis. However, several protective mechanisms induced by APOE-∊4 have also been described.

The APOE-∊4 protein was shown to activate an extracellular signal-regulated kinase cascade that results in activation of cAMP-response element binding protein and induction of many genes, including the cell-protective gene Bcl-2. Cholesterol is another potential protective mechanism. APOE-∊4 carriers are known to have elevated low-density lipoprotein and total cholesterol levels, which lead to an increase in γ-glutamyltransferase that is protective against neurotoxic effects of excitotoxic amino acids.

Further, the APOE-∊4 allele might have a positive effect on neurogenesis. Studies found that the APOE-∊4 allele was associated with higher infant neurodevelopment. Neurogenesis not only occurs in developing nervous systems but also in adults. Neurogenesis was stimulated in humans trough brain diseases as focal cerebral ischaemia and Huntington’s disease. It is possible that neurogenesis is positively influenced by the APOE-∊4 allele under circumstances of brain injury. In support of this hypothesis, we refer to a study in transgenic mice that found that APOE-∊4 positive mice, under normal housing circumstances, had increased neurogenesis compared to APOE-∊3 positive mice.
​

Basically, APOE4 tentatively does three things: induces cell-protective genes, increases cholesterol protection from neurotoxic effects of amino acids, and increases neurogenesis.

There ya go mark, brain-beneficial mutation.

You have proved your point, that is, as soon as you prove that this variant was not in the human genome originally.

Which of these variants was the original one, and when did the other variants appear? Without this knowledge you have not demonstrated a beneficial mutation.

 

[mark kennedy]

You have proved your point, that is, as soon as you prove that this variant was not in the human genome originally.

Which of these variants was the original one, and when did the other variants appear? Without this knowledge you have not demonstrated a beneficial mutation.

My ole debate buddy is begging the question as usual. Let me explain:

So not only is there a gene variant that confers (albeit for a limited time) great benefit for brain function, you might even have seen in action on the battlefield. Some of your chums may be benefiting from a mutation that according to you shouldn't exist.

Remember this is a simple beneficial effect, not adaptive evolution strong enough to account for a massive overhaul of brain related genes needed for a three fold expansion. I'm convinced this is a beneficial effect from a mutation but the particulars are obscure. I'll have some time to track this one down in just over a month but bear in mind that the term mutation can sometimes be misleading.

I'm intrigued by this and excited to have something worth pursuing for the first time in a long time. I think he did actually come up with a beneficial effect but the nature of the mutation is still obscure, at least to me.

Grace and peace,
Mark

 

[Pete Harcoff]

When you look at the polls and statistics in the US creationists outnumber evolutionists by 9-1 and when you add Theistic Evolutionists Creationists are still a majority. That's why they use the tactics they do, if Creationists ever really got serious about the subject evolution would be in trouble.

Nah. There's too many vested interests in modern science for creationists to ever truly threaten the science of evolution. They'd need a Khmer Rouge-esque revolution before the subject of evolution would ever be in trouble. And that's just in the USA, the rest of the world would continue to move forward. So somehow I just don't see that happening. It's in the American public's best interest to foster modern science, including the subject of evolution, so America can at least try to remain globally competitive.

 

[mark kennedy]

Nah. There's too many vested interests in modern science for creationists to ever truly threaten the science of evolution. They'd need a Khmer Rouge-esque revolution before the subject of evolution would ever be in trouble. And that's just in the USA, the rest of the world would continue to move forward. So somehow I just don't see that happening. It's in the American public's best interest to foster modern science, including the subject of evolution, so America can at least try to remain globally competitive.

That's part of the problem, this has nothing to do with evolution vs creation. Creationism has not been main stream science for at least 150 years, hasn't been taught in the public schools for at least 50 years and the attack on creationism continues unabated. This isn't about two alternative views of evolution as natural history, this is a battle of persuasion between two world-views. No matter how many advantages Darwinism has had, it is still losing.

Look around Pete, you are arguing with an empty room. Creationists don't need you, as a matter of fact, the vast majority would have nothing to do with you. This should not distract from the fact that Darwinians are vastly outnumbered by people who still believe God can be a suitable explanation for origins.

Have a nice day
Mark

 

[Pete Harcoff]

That's part of the problem, this has nothing to do with evolution vs creation. Creationism has not been main stream science for at least 150 years, hasn't been taught in the public schools for at least 50 years and the attack on creationism continues unabated. This isn't about two alternative views of evolution as natural history, this is a battle of persuasion between two world-views. No matter how many advantages Darwinism has had, it is still losing.

Look around Pete, you are arguing with an empty room. Creationists don't need you, as a matter of fact, the vast majority would have nothing to do with you. This should not distract from the fact that Darwinians are vastly outnumbered by people who still believe God can be a suitable explanation for origins.

Ah, I get it now. You're using random words like "evolution", "Darwinian", "Darwinism", etc, when you really mean to say "atheism".

Why didn't you just say so?

 

[pastorkevin73]

Hi Mark,
Just saw the op. I have been mostly lurking from time to time, but resently started to post again. However, as usual, most (not all) evolutionists are more interetest in showing how "Intellegent" they are while not wanting to accept truth. This board is just as fustrating as when I stopped posting sometime ago.
I am interested in a support sit for creationists. What I would like to see is the theology side and support for how we understand the scriptures on this subject.

 

[mark kennedy]

Hi Mark,
Just saw the op. I have been mostly lurking from time to time, but resently started to post again. However, as usual, most (not all) evolutionists are more interetest in showing how "Intellegent" they are while not wanting to accept truth. This board is just as fustrating as when I stopped posting sometime ago.
I am interested in a support sit for creationists. What I would like to see is the theology side and support for how we understand the scriptures on this subject.

I'm very interested in getting creationists together for a sit down. The way things work around here the creationist really doesn't get a lot of time to sort the issues out. The evolutionist does not have to be particularly intelligent and certainly does not have to be well read. All they have to do is to confront creationists.

Drop me a PM sometime if you would be interested in organizing something like that, a sit down sounds pretty interesting to me.

Grace and peace,
Mark

 

[mark kennedy]

Ah, I get it now. You're using random words like "evolution", "Darwinian", "Darwinism", etc, when you really mean to say "atheism".

Why didn't you just say so?

Darwinism is the a priori assumptions of natural law over special creation, the use of the word is anything but random. There is an atheistic influence in the church that I regard as atheistic but that is liberal theology, isolating it can be tedious at best.

Just tell me one thing Pete, what is your interest in the Theology section, never got the impression that you were a Christian. I don't mean to run you off, just curious really.

 

[Pete Harcoff]

Darwinism is the a priori assumptions of natural law over special creation, the use of the word is anything but random.

Nope, that would be atheism again. "Darwinism" (somewhat of an archaic term) refers specifically to evolution via natural selection as proposed by Charles Darwin.

Also, as an aside on the subject of atheism, it's curious that out of most 1st-world nations, the U.S. is oddly one of the most religious nations there is. It trails Canada, various chunks of Europe, and East Asia when it comes to non-religious/atheist views. Interesting also is the correlation between various social issues and general "religousness" of nations.

Just tell me one thing Pete, what is your interest in the Theology section, never got the impression that you were a Christian. I don't mean to run you off, just curious really.

Initially just lurking to see if anything's changed, which it hasn't.

That, and I initially forgot which section I was in when replying to your original comment.

 

[mark kennedy]

Nope, that would be atheism again. "Darwinism" (somewhat of an archaic term) refers specifically to evolution via natural selection as proposed by Charles Darwin.

That would be a random use of the term since it reflects nothing substantive or relevant. Darwinism is the rhetoric of atheistic materialism and as Darwin proposed (actually expanded upon), it's natural law rather then special creation. His entire On the Origin of Species is one long argument against special creation which includes natural law rather then the miraculous.

When dealing with evolution as defined scientifically we are talking about a naturally occuring process. When we are talking about an a priori assumption of universal common descent we are talking vintage and modernist Darwinism in no uncertain terms.

Also, as an aside on the subject of atheism, it's curious that out of most 1st-world nations, the U.S. is oddly one of the most religious nations there is. It trails Canada, various chunks of Europe, and East Asia when it comes to non-religious/atheist views. Interesting also is the correlation between various social issues and general "religousness" of nations.

That is due to the First Amendment, as long as religion is allowed to develop without government intervention and support it avoids the trappings of priestcraft and dangerous commingling with humanistic philosophies. Europe has always had a fondness for administering religious practices and Canada has long followed the European rhetoric of religion being the world's greatest source of evil. The U.S. is a haven for religious views because government can't regulate it or even tax it, this goes back to a time just before the Scientific Revolution, the Protestant Reformation.

Initially just lurking to see if anything's changed, which it hasn't.

That, and I initially forgot which section I was in when replying to your original comment.

Alright, see you around.

Have a nice day
Mark