Evolution

[bhsmte]

I decline to give a simple yes or no answer. As best as I can answer:

1- For many or most scientists, there is a concious attempt to deny the obvious evidence for, at minimum, intelligent design. I do not believe there is a formal conspiracy, as in people plotting together. This is the first problem with your question: what is a conspiracY?

FROM: conspiracy - definition of conspiracy by the Free Online Dictionary, Thesaurus and Encyclopedia.

con·spir·a·cy (kn-spîr-s)
n. pl.con·spir·a·cies
1. An agreement to perform together an illegal, wrongful, or subversive act.

2. A group of conspirators.

3. Law An agreement between two or more persons to commit a crime or accomplish a legal purpose through illegal action.

4. A joining or acting together, as if by sinister design: a conspiracy of wind and tide that devastated coastal areas

I would say that most scientists are in a conspiracy as per definition 4 ONLY.

2- the second problem with your question is that different people have different motives, as I have written before. For some it is the religious zeal of secular humanism. For others it is preservation and/or advancement of their careers. For others it may be the herd mentality, and I could list other reasons. Yes, that includes some that are unable to think clearly (or at least anywhere near my own abilities, I told you I was arrogant). I generally dislike dealing with motives because they are often multiple, difficult to REALLY determine and come dangerously close to ad hominem attacks.

3- the third problem with your question is that you think I ought to answer. As I keep writing, I am not authority driven. I care alomst nothing WHY they are wrong, rather I see the relevant facts, evaluate them myself and whatever I think is what I stick by until someone can correct me. If someone states something, my general nature is to figure out why they are wrong. This is very much carried into my Church where some teachers have asked me not to come to their classes (not because I am disrespectful or disruptive); and others truly enjoy me around because I stir things up, and wind up teaching them. I think for myself. BTW to get to my position I hid my views, wrote down the answers they wanted because I know the material solidly. I am now 54, I gave up academics long ago, and so I no longer care. However, my thoughts were always my own.

JR

This pretty much gives me what I was looking for, thanks for replying.

 

[classicalhero]

I like this quote from Richard Lewontin. RICHARD LEWONTIN: Billions and Billions of Demons

Our willingness to accept scientific claims that are against common sense is the key to an understanding of the real struggle between science and the supernatural. We take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs, in spite of its failure to fulfill many of its extravagant promises of health and life, in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated just-so stories, because we have a prior commitment, a commitment to materialism. It is not that the methods and institutions of science somehow compel us to accept a material explanation of the phenomenal world, but, on the contrary, that we are forced by our a priori adherence to material causes to create an apparatus of investigation and a set of concepts that produce material explanations, no matter how counter-intuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door. The eminent Kant scholar Lewis Beck used to say that anyone who could believe in God could believe in anything. To appeal to an omnipotent deity is to allow that at any moment the regularities of nature may be ruptured, that miracles may happen.

Just shows the bias in science, because if the evidence point to design, it must be ignored, since it will mean there is a designer which we call God.

As for Francis Click, he is just showing his bias in what he believes.

 

[bhsmte]

I like this quote from Richard Lewontin. RICHARD LEWONTIN: Billions and Billions of Demons
Just shows the bias in science, because if the evidence point to design, it must be ignored, since it will mean there is a designer which we call God.

As for Francis Click, he is just showing his bias in what he believes.

I would disagree. Francis Collins has massive amounts of testable evidence that he is relying on as a scientist and his knowledge of the same is extremely high.

Evidence towards design? I would assume you are referring to intelligent design? If so, those folks are free to investigate what they claim and produce testable evidence to back their claim. So far, they have fallen short and no objective testable evidence has been discovered to refute the theory of evolution. And dont think there are not scientists out there who wouldnt be eager to show evolutions was wrong, as they would be the most famous scientists on the planet. They just need to demonstrate objective testable evidence that evolution is wrong. For 150 years, no one has been able to.

 

[Rudolph Hucker]

I would disagree. Francis Collins has massive amounts of testable evidence that he is relying on as a scientist and his knowledge of the same is extremely high.

Evidence towards design? I would assume you are referring to intelligent design? If so, those folks are free to investigate what they claim and produce testable evidence to back their claim. So far, they have fallen short and no objective testable evidence has been discovered to refute the theory of evolution. And dont think there are not scientists out there who wouldnt be eager to show evolutions was wrong, as they would be the most famous scientists on the planet. They just need to demonstrate objective testable evidence that evolution is wrong. For 150 years, no one has been able to.

Many scientists have tried, are trying and will try.

Nothing a scientist likes better than to disprove an earlier theory .......

 

[bhsmte]

Many scientists have tried, are trying and will try.

Nothing a scientist likes better than to disprove an earlier theory .......

Indeed.

Science follows the evidence.

 

[DanJudge]

Do you guys love it or hate it?

Whatever exists is caused by another. Thus there was a beginning to what is
therefore a causal chain when an uncaused First Cause brought the world into being
Hallelujah!

​

They will ask you, “Who did you get your Bible from?”
Tell them, “God. It is not of men at all.”
They will ask you, “Are you of this nation?”
Tell them, “I am not of this nation or of any nation. The Bible alone
is sufficient for me.” ​

Hallelujah

​

—Barry I. Hyman
CHRISTIAN REVOLUTIONARY BROTHERHOOD

GOD The Ultimate Programmer --- Thank You My LORD and My GOD
Brothers/Sisters, This is some infro. from the "Little Book" of Revelation Chapter 10. Read and Study, Seek and You Will Find.

Behold, He survives the peoples and lands, who is more Ancient than they. Behold, He is Man-crafter, fixed, immutable, the Giver of the Book to man. And DNA produces life to produce more DNA. And He is Encoder, Programmer, who rules the world from the Scrolls of light, sparkings and flashings rising to man, coalescing, freezing in the Semite, immutable, fixed, bowing in awe toward their Source in the radiant Scroll of Moses.

And look now at this glorious phenomenon of the racial Semiticization of one billion South Asians, how successful a life-form the Semite therefore is in evolutionary terms! And indeed all humanity is clearly programmed for reunification in the Semite, for mankind was in the beginning all one, and then spread out from Africa, filling the limits of the world island, this issuing in the emergence of those specialized subdivisions known today as races. But each race bore all distinctive characteristics of man, including his incomparable brain, and a primordial knowing is therefore shown in the great ease and success of Semiticization, that the brain of man must ultimately remake his environment, so that mankind, temporarily dividing not to compete but to survive, would fuse together yet again and become yet again as at the beginning all one. Thus evolution and its exalted Programmer — ever triumphant is He, all aware — have sought from the dawn-age and seek still today an all Semitic world. It is a programmed ultimate. And if all matter is congealed energy and resolves itself back to energy again, and the energy then recongeals once more, we must yet affirm that the ultimate ground and root of "motion," that is, the causality displayed in all this, is again an extraneous mind and will, which is to say our God, the Self-existent One, the Root of all being, blessed be He, and exalted be the remembrance of His glorious Name forever.

Behold, the Scripture shows itself again as the perfection of contemporaneity! The Designer, the Programmer, the Cause of causes, the Power in the Law, the Power in the Prophets, the Power in the Gospel, Master of the law of nature reaching out, Master of the Law of Moses reaching out — say that He is God the One, Immutable, Splendid. There is no God but He.

Come to Christ and hear Him well. He has rendered the Synagogue a translucent gem, irradiant, impregnable. He bids you to enter and remain with Him forever. He is the universalizer of the Law and the Prophets, that man of Israel called "Light of the Gentiles." He has come. He has not founded a new religion, but calls all men eternally to the first of faiths, and the Law of the God of Moses. See how evolution stops short with man, for man is the child and image of its exalted Programmer, blessed be He, and all that is coming is worldwide racial Semiticization, programmed in from before the emergence of the races. And man is and shall be forever one unified distinct species, and is to become even "one nation in the earth" (II Samuel 7:23; I Chronicles 17:21), and one life alone is ideal for man, which he had at the beginning but then lost in Babylon, and this is restored to him through the Scripture of truth.

Truly these are present there, as is Israelite status for the poor of the world, but no man can draw them to the surface without prophetic authority, which is to be found only in Christ and the New Testament. the Programming Mind; utter truth-telling through symbols and types, figures, foreshadowing that no man could miss, that no man could know of the ancient men who wrote these words of veiled and encoded wisdom and wonder; utter truth-telling of being, of existence, of the world as witness, the emergence of all, the mechanistic, the non-mechanistic, Mind as the Root of matter, the Root of life, the Root of law, God as One, as the Cause of causes, the Miracle enfolding from which the cosmos lives, the house of law and nature lit by flashes from the true Beyond, from the Designer, the Guide, The Programmer, Lord of Creation, of evolution, of history, Lord of the Scripture that has no peer, Heart of Heaven, Heart of earth, the Light within all screens and veils, the Light beyond all screens and veils, instantly knowable, ever unknowable, Lord of the Realm of Mystery. And you know much of the wonders of the Name. And it is the lightest of sounds to pronounce, for He creates through His word, exalted be He. And a spark goes forth from Him, who has no second, before whom stands no intercessor, and it is the first of four, of the Name of the God of all the earth, of whom it is written, "as the LORD is One only, so shall His Name be one only" (Zechariah 14:9). And a window opens in Heaven, and the spark of light and life-force flashes through, passing to a lower realm by the wide open portal beneath.

Every effect requires a cause. The world is an effect. Have we not shown you the Exalted One? Whatever could exist or not exist found presently to exist, is maintained in its existence by an external cause. Then have we not shown you the Exalted One? Design bespeaking purpose bespeaks a designer. Then surely we have shown you the Exalted One. All programmed law bespeaks a programmer. Thus do we show you the Exalted One. Complex life-systems emerging all at once as units bespeak cosmic programming. Surely we have shown you the Programming Mind. Behold the immense instability within the subatomic level, and yet this superstructure rises and stands undisturbed. Behold the zone of contact with, the zone of emanation from, the mind of the dreaming God. The knowing of the unknowable in a Book preserved, flawless, multidimensional, fifteen hundred years in the birthing — surely there are signs for a people having understanding.

Thus the existence of God is as self-evident to the mind nearest to nature and the point of evolutionary emergence as the messiahship of the Holy One. Say then, "Where did it all come from? Who made all this world? He must be wise with the wisdom of life; He must be the most Ancient of elders; He must be the Lover and Turner toward man, and the Giver of Law to nature and to man. He must be God our Lord the One, as nothing is just there, a given, as everything has a cause, as this world is unified, a vast machine, and with no chaos in it. No, I do not much care where He came from, but this world is here, and Somebody made it. Beyond flux and motion stands the Mover, beyond design and purpose stands the All-aware, beyond the impossible stands the miraculous, the Programming Mind.." Say, "I seek the causes of things — seeking the causes of things is my most distinctively human trait. Seeking the causes of things, I find I must posit the existence of a God — One, Wise, orderly, man-loving, profoundly sane. Thus have I found the Programming Mind. Having found a man-loving Programmer, I look for a Law from Him for man, for I see that man’s affairs are in manifest disarray, and I find that the miraculous breaks through nature only to validate one Book only. It is a Book of Law, of heritage and tradition, of universalization, a Book of the miraculous, of order and rationality, of God our Lord the One, guiding man back to Eden, there to remain with this Book in his hand forever." Say, "Now I see before me the wonder-working Christ. I say, ‘My Lord and my God!’ I say, ‘Jesus, will you work Your wonders in a thousand lands two thousand years from now? Will You send a Revelation through Your prophet John? Jesus, I believe You, Lord! I believe You when You speak of Moses and the canon of the Jews. I believe You when You speak of God the One, the Wise, the All-aware. And I believe You when You speak of me a worm and not a man, who bows Himself in awe before Your Throne, O Lord, and at the feet of our master Moses.’ " The cosmic Christ stands before you, suffused with the glory of the Father, bidding to the Faith of the Father, bidding to love and mercy, bidding to the Prophets of old and the eternal, immutable and perfect Law of Moses. Speak and say, "O Bringer of truth and righteousness to the world, who goes before the Father to prepare a way among the Gentiles for the Law, You told us plainly ‘by their fruits shall you know them’ (Matthew 7:20) — and none of all the Christians bear good fruit but Protestants!" "It is even as you say, O man. You are not far from the Kingdom of My Father. He must increase, but I must decrease. This My joy therefore is fulfilled. Have I not brought the Law forth to man? Is the Father-God not the Lord of hosts due to Me? Praise be to God My Lord, the Wise, the Merciful, the All-aware! The First of the Hebrews is He, the Lord God of Israel in a Jewless world. And He is God the One, Immutable, Loyal, Bold. There is no God but He!" And so returns the Faith of the Father-God the One, and the Faith of our master Moses. It is a programmed ultimate.

— Barry I. Hyman
CHRISTIAN REVOLUTIONARY BROTHERHOOD

Peace Be With You All
DanJudge
​

Brothers/Sisters, Please Listen To The Still Small Voice.



Ephesians 2:8-9 For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God: Not of works, lest any man should boast.



John 6:63 “It is the Spirit who gives life --- the flesh is of no use at all”, the words that I speak unto you, they are spirit, and they are life.

 

[cubanito]

The above post signals the end of any worthwhile debate as a troll has arrived. It irritates me to have intelligent dialogue blown up by those whom I happen to agree with on a particular point.

JR

 

[bhsmte]

The above post signals the end of any worthwhile debate as a troll has arrived. It irritates me to have intelligent dialogue blown up by those whom I happen to agree with on a particular point.

JR

Trolls are indeed annoying, but why would the presence of one inhibit you from stating your opinion?

 

[cardoctor]

believing in micro evolution but not macro evolution is like believing in stairs but not stair cases.

More over all Knowledge wisdom and good counsel is of God. So if, world wide, every major body of research across all disciplines of science, in a system where well supported dissension brings untold wealth and fame, agreed on one concept of speciation (not necessarily creation) don't you think that as an uneducated non-specialist in the field it might be prudent of us to consider their consensus Knowledge and good counsel?

That aside, paraphrasing Augustine, if you begin your credibility to the world around you with a statement that appears deeply uninformed and contrary to an apparent agreed upon reality and when questioned use your bible to justify your position (or science that lack the academic integrity to be published) they will simply assume that your bible is wrong. This is problematic because when you try to talk to them about the gospel and morality from your bible (the bible's primary aim) they will discard you because your bible is a known falsehood to them.

I do understand there is an on going debate but it is important to realize that no where does genesis state that it is to be taken literally and it contains a verse discussing rain, and how God sends the rain. We readily accept that as figurative because we fully understand evaporation and condensation.

 

[cubanito]

1- believing in micro evolution but not macro evolution is like believing in stairs but not stair cases.

2- More over all Knowledge wisdom and good counsel is of God... ....don't you think that as an uneducated non-specialist in the field it might be prudent of us to consider their consensus Knowledge and good counsel?

3- .....and when questioned use your bible to justify your position (or science that lack the academic integrity to be published) they will simply assume that your bible is wrong....

4- I do understand there is an on going debate but it is important to realize that no where does genesis state that it is to be taken literally and it contains a verse discussing rain, and how God sends the rain. We readily accept that as figurative because we fully understand evaporation and condensation.

1- I believe in stairs and staircases, but not in an endless staircase. I believe in lizards and extinct dinosaurs, but I do not believe in a real fire breathing Godzilla that ravages Tokyo. Projecting an observation must be done with caution, see for example the blackbody problem in physics.

2- There are thousands of highly educated PhDs in their field who deny macroevolution. They are systematically supressed. You proceed with the assumption that scientists are somehow above bias and groupthink. try this one 6 Shocking Studies That Prove Science Is Totally Broken | Cracked.com

3- Perhaps others, but I never once used the Bible as an argument point. I do believe it is possible to be a consistent theistic evolutionist. My rejection of macroevolution occured while I was an agnostic, and had nothing to do with the Bible.

4- I have no idea what you are getting at there, but it does not matter, see point 3 above.

 

[bhsmte]

1- I believe in stairs and staircases, but not in an endless staircase. I believe in lizards and extinct dinosaurs, but I do not believe in a real fire breathing Godzilla that ravages Tokyo. Projecting an observation must be done with caution, see for example the blackbody problem in physics.

2- There are thousands of highly educated PhDs in their field who deny macroevolution. They are systematically supressed. You proceed with the assumption that scientists are somehow above bias and groupthink. try this one 6 Shocking Studies That Prove Science Is Totally Broken | Cracked.com

3- Perhaps others, but I never once used the Bible as an argument point. I do believe it is possible to be a consistent theistic evolutionist. My rejection of macroevolution occured while I was an agnostic, and had nothing to do with the Bible.

4- I have no idea what you are getting at there, but it does not matter, see point 3 above.

Lets assume for a moment that you are correct and the 95% of bilogists who are members of the national academy of science and who strongly support the theory of evolution are wrong.

Can you then explain why for over 100 years, no scientists have been able to identify the empirical evidence to show the theory is false? As anyone who is familiar with science knows, scientists would love to make a discovery such as this, earn a nobel prize and have their legacy secured. No matter how many scientists currently support evolution, new evidence would trump all and couldnt be ignored, yet, we only have minute factions of certain scientists saying they doubt the theory, but have zero empirical evidence to refute the mountains of fossil evidence and dna evidence, that supports the theory.

So, can we then anticipate scientistz producing the empirical evidence to show the theory of evolution to be false?

 

[cardoctor]

1) I agree that the concept of speciation ought to be addressed with caution and it certainly is a portion of a theory that requires a great deal of support and thus cannot be counted as fact. However, the plausibility of the theory has yet to be assaulted, in other words, no body of legitimate scientists has presented a complete case proving the impossibility of speciation. As previously noted the scientist who does so would be a household name overnight. more over evidence continues to mount that would appear to support the hypothesis of speciation. I'm not saying it's a fact but i'm saying there exists no more complete theory that i am aware of.

2) With respect: I highly doubt there is a worldwide, cross-discipline, universal conspiracy. I have seen the various resources suggesting that this is true and most provide shaky statistics and anecdotal evidence or cite a aversion to the gospel. There exists a great deal more empirical evidence for speciation through evolution than there does a conspiracy to protect it no matter what Ben Stein says.

to the point about group think bias. certainly this is true within groups, however, scientists are not one group. They are separated by disciplines, competing organizations, languages and continents. My assertion is that while individual groups may be swayed by group think, the overwhelming consensus of all the groups lends credibility to the theory from my prospective as a layman.

3) Of course not all creationists support their theory with the bible but in my experience a plurality do, which is why I saw fit to make the point.

4) I was further excluding the genesis account of creation from the evolution debate in an effort to divorce evolution from atheism or those who would call the Bible text fallible.

 

[bhsmte]

I would agree. Far too many eager scientists on this planet for empirical evidence against evolution to be non existent.

Science does indeed get things wrong, but it has also proven to be self correcting over time, for the reason mentioned above.

 

[cubanito]

By the above posts it would seem truth is a democratic process.

JR

 

[bhsmte]

In science, truth is determined by the evidence.

Seek and you shall find.

 

[cubanito]

In science, truth is determined by the evidence.

Seek and you shall find.

In modern science truth is most often determined by who can get the grant money.

As to the majority being wrong, again, that is the usual. There is plenty of empirrical evidence that has no evolutionary explanation at all. Awhile back I posted some and never got a response to any.

If y'all want to believe because the authority says it is dogma, please do, and while at it consider joining the Roman "catholic", LDS, Watchtower society or any other of a plethora of authority driven belief systems. Frankly, the RC has waaay the most authorities, many which have studied for many years, and so y'all should join the RC byyour logic, as they've made friends with macroevolution.

I prefer to examine matters for myself using my own mind, perhaps that's why I am a CalvArminian member of the PCA who does not agree with Covenant, Dispensational OR New Covenant Theology but have my own hermeneutics. Maybe that's why I agree with Athanasian and Nicean Creeds but not with Chalcedon.

If your only reasons for belief is that most others also do, you really need to re-read the Emperor's clothes story.

I do appreciate the respectful responses here, and hope you have seen mine also respectful.

JR

 

[bhsmte]

In modern science truth is most often determined by who can get the grant money.

As to the majority being wrong, again, that is the usual. There is plenty of empirrical evidence that has no evolutionary explanation at all. Awhile back I posted some and never got a response to any.

If y'all want to believe because the authority says it is dogma, please do, and while at it consider joining the Roman "catholic", LDS, Watchtower society or any other of a plethora of authority driven belief systems. Frankly, the RC has waaay the most authorities, many which have studied for many years, and so y'all should join the RC byyour logic, as they've made friends with macroevolution.

I prefer to examine matters for myself using my own mind, perhaps that's why I am a CalvArminian member of the PCA who does not agree with Covenant, Dispensational OR New Covenant Theology but have my own hermeneutics. Maybe that's why I agree with Athanasian and Nicean Creeds but not with Chalcedon.

If your only reasons for belief is that most others also do, you really need to re-read the Emperor's clothes story.

I do appreciate the respectful responses here, and hope you have seen mine also respectful.

JR

If truth is determined by who gets the grant money, does this mean the empirical evidence discovered during the process is not accurate, or there is some conspiracy to fudge evidence?

I fully understand grant money and science, but they still have to do peer reviewed work and if it is faulty, there are plenty of scientists out there who would be more than willing to point out the flaws.

Not unlike yourself, I have worked in healthcare for many years and scientists are like doctors in many ways, they don't like to be told what to do and how they should reason. By nature, they are independent and there are always some willing to go against the flow. All they need to show they are right is empirical evidence to show they are right and someone else is wrong. Scientists are like herding cats, not unlike docs, very difficult to get them all to think like robots, because they have large egos and want their own identity and most of all, like to be right and proven right.

 

[classicalhero]

I would disagree. Francis Collins has massive amounts of testable evidence that he is relying on as a scientist and his knowledge of the same is extremely high.

Evidence towards design? I would assume you are referring to intelligent design? If so, those folks are free to investigate what they claim and produce testable evidence to back their claim. So far, they have fallen short and no objective testable evidence has been discovered to refute the theory of evolution. And dont think there are not scientists out there who wouldnt be eager to show evolutions was wrong, as they would be the most famous scientists on the planet. They just need to demonstrate objective testable evidence that evolution is wrong. For 150 years, no one has been able to.

A quote for this scientist. Francis Crick - Wikiquote

Biologists must constantly keep in mind that what they see was not designed, but rather evolved. It might be thought, therefore, that evolutionary arguments would play a large part in guiding biological research, but this is far from the case. It is difficult enough to study what is happening now. To figure out exactly what happened in evolution is even more difficult. Thus evolutionary achievements can be used as hints to suggest possible lines of research, but it is highly dangerous to trust them too much. It is all too easy to make mistaken inferences unless the process involved is already very well understood

Denial is such a wonderful thing. They constantly see evidence of design, but that is unscientific. "The ultimate aim of the modern movement in biology is in fact to explain all biology in terms of physics and chemistry." So if evidence point to a creator, it must be ignored. As Romans 1 said, man worshipped the creation more than the creator.

An honest man, armed with all the knowledge available to us now, could only state that in some sense, the origin of life appears at the moment to be almost a miracle, so many are the conditions which would have had to have been satisfied to get it going. But this should not be taken to imply that there are good reasons to believe that it could not have started on the earth by a perfectly reasonable sequence of fairly ordinary chemical reactions. The plain fact is that the time available was too long, the many microenvironments on the earth's surface too diverse, the various chemical possibilities too numerous and our own knowledge and imagination too feeble to allow us to be able to unravel exactly how it might or might not have happened such a long time ago, especially as we have no experimental evidence from that era to check our ideas against.

 

[bhsmte]

A quote for this scientist. Francis Crick - Wikiquote
Denial is such a wonderful thing. They constantly see evidence of design, but that is unscientific. "The ultimate aim of the modern movement in biology is in fact to explain all biology in terms of physics and chemistry." So if evidence point to a creator, it must be ignored. As Romans 1 said, man worshipped the creation more than the creator.

Do you know what else Crick has been quoted as saying?

 

[classicalhero]

He saw how designed the DNA structure was, that to keep up and pretend that it isn't designed, he turned to Direct Panspermia as a "possible" solution, meaning that he had no scientific answer as to why life on earth began and he tried to wave his hands and push it to were it can't be observed. What a scientist he is for thinking that way. He uses so much language of possibility, not of certainty, which is what a real scientist would be doing.