Hinduism is mysticism, polytheism is generally inspired by a personification of nature, that hold true for all pagan belief systems. That include Darwinism, including Erasmus Darwin, Charles Darwin's grandfather:
"ORGANIC LIFE beneath the shoreless waves
Was born and nurs'd in Ocean's pearly caves;
First forms minute, unseen by spheric glass,
Move on the mud, or pierce the watery mass;
These, as successive generations bloom
New powers acquire, and larger limbs assume;
Whence countless groups of vegetation spring,
And breathing realms of fin, and feet, and wing.
(The Temple of Nature By Erasmus Darwin)
The mythographers are Darwinian, history is not something that you get to make up as you go along.
That's just something you are making up as you go along.
Among the mutations that affect a typical gene, different kinds produce different impacts. A very few are at least momentarily adaptive on an evolutionary scale. Many are deleterious. (Rates of Spontaneous Mutations, Genetics 1998)
There's that mantra of mutation plus selection out there being the cause of everything and doing nothing. Beneficial effects from mutations are very rare and them going on to fixation is an even steeper climb. That whole rant is based on a fundamental misconception about what a mutation actually is:
In the living cell, DNA undergoes frequent chemical change, especially when it is being replicated (in S phase of the eukaryotic cell cycle). Most of these changes are quickly repaired. Those that are not result in a mutation. Thus, mutation is a failure of DNA repair.
Mutations
We know from genetic research and medical science what mutations do.
Single-base substitutions result in Missense mutations like cystic fibrosis, Nonsense mutations, Silent mutations, Splice-site mutations. Indels are when extra base pairs may be added (insertions) or removed (deletions) from the DNA of a gene. The insertion of many copies of the same triplet of nucleotides. Huntington's disease and the fragile X syndrome. Muscular Dystrophy. Other indels cause Lou Gehrig's disease.
Mutations
That's your explanation for the adaptive evolution of all life on this planet over three billion years. Copy errors that when they have an effect it is deleterious, producing disease and disorder on an epic scale. That' not how adaptive evolution works, anyone who knows basic biology knows mutations are the opposite of how beneficial traits are passed from one generation to the next.
Well yea, when Darwinism dominates the educational system real world science is suppressed. Of course it's been on the decline. Darwinism has always had this effect on science, it gutted Soviet biology for half a century:
They were not receiving Western journals. And Western ideas were considered bourgeois, erroneous and that they had to be abandoned, including - and this is what shocked Monod - 50 years of genetics. So this - there was a public announcement in the Soviet Union that Mendelian genetics, the genetics of Gregor Mendel and the chromosomal theories of genetics...It gutted Soviet biology, I would say, really, since that time; that Soviet biology never really recovered from this long episode of genetics being suppressed in the Soviet Union. And it had disastrous consequences for Soviet agriculture and Chinese agriculture because China adopted the same sort of ideological approach to agriculture and had miserable crop failures and famines in the 1950s. So, you know, sounds like a bizarre academic, you know, point, but it had profound consequences.(
'Brave Genius': A Tale of Two Nobelists NPR)
Darwinism has a deleterious effect on science, it has a long track record on this account. It's long been the basis of eugenics, something about American legal precedent the Nazis cited as justification for their eugenics programs:
Three generations of imbeciles are enough." This decision opened the floodgates for thousands to be coercively sterilized or otherwise persecuted as subhuman. Years later, the Nazis at the Nuremberg trials quoted Holmes's words in their own defense...In Mein Kampf, published in 1924, Hitler quoted American eugenic ideology and openly displayed a thorough knowledge of American eugenics. "There is today one state," wrote Hitler, "in which at least weak beginnings toward a better conception [of immigration] are noticeable. Of course, it is not our model German Republic, but the United States."
HNN article
The reason the US is competitive is trade, we have the largest capacity and a long history trading with Europe. Between Europe and the United States we trade more then the rest of the world combined. Nixon opened normal trade relations with China after years of isolation had devastated communist China, which resulted from atheistic and Darwinian China suppressing influences from the west. Freedom of religion is our first right as Americans and there is a reason for this, the early United State were profoundly religious.
The founding of the United States was sandwiched in between two profondly Christian social and cultural movements. The Great Awakening (1730-1760) was briefly interrupted by the drama leading up to the war for independence that culminated in the ratification of the Constitution in 1789. This was followed by what has come to be known as the Second Great Awakening (1790-1840).
The Great Awakening
The Second Great Awakening
The Scriptures are the best preserved living history in the history of the world, there is no close second. The Scriptures have been in the custody of living people it's entire history, the Hebrew and Christian communities respectively. The other religious systems of the ancient world are relics of dead religions written in dead languages from long dead nations. What is more the Pentateuch is clearly written as historical narrative with a living legacy that has preserved it's national identify, language, blood line and religion becoming again in the twentieth century a nation again after being dispossessed of the land for 2000 years. The nation of Israel and the meticulous preservation of the Old Testament is unparalleled both as a living witness and a viable source of a true and vibrant history.
I understand perfectly fine, I just disagree.
First of all God is self existing and self evident, you do have evidence of God's existence but people suppress the truth in unrighteousness:
The wrath of God is being revealed from heaven against all the godlessness and wickedness of people, who suppress the truth by their wickedness, since what may be known about God is plain to them, because God has made it plain to them. For since the creation of the world God’s invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that people are without excuse.
For although they knew God, they neither glorified him as God nor gave thanks to him, but their thinking became futile and their foolish hearts were darkened. Although they claimed to be wise, they became fools and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images made to look like a mortal human being and birds and animals and reptiles. (Romans 1:18-23)
You equivocate mutations with adaptive evolution and faith in the true and living God which is a profoundly fallacious logic. Rambling and contentious the substantive element in your arguments is as elusive as chasing ghosts in the fog. You point isn't elusive, it's illusory.
There have been miracles, the problem is the people suppress the truth in unrighteousness:
"He said to him, 'If they do not listen to Moses and the Prophets, they will not be convinced even if someone rises from the dead.'" (Luke 16:31)
Evolution is the change of alleles in populations over time. Darwinism is the apriori assumption of universal common descent by exclusively naturalistic means going back to and including the Big Bang. Don't equivocate the two.
Rambling satire isn't science and cannot be mistaken for a philosophy of history. The age of the earth is irrelevant to the doctrine of creation, all we know about the creation of the universe and the sphere we inhabit is that it was in the beginning. The creation of life in general and man in particular is another matter entirely. We have been gimped by arguments of science, falsely so called. Darwinism has wrapped itself around science like a boa constrictor, the same predatory mentality has been deleterious in legal, political and social settings where it has been allowed to control.
Creationism is ministry oriented and as such is supported by the free will offerings of it's supporters. This is a perfectly legitimate free exercise of religion that has not the slightest influence or effect on science, in the proper sense of that word. What Creationism is opposed to is the atheistic materialism known as Darwinism which if it has to stand or fall on it's own merits would drift aimlessly into the long line of the pagan mythologies that proceeded it.
Galileo was in his eighties when he was called to the Inquisition, he was put under house arrest in a mansion.For at least a hundred years attempts were made to modernize Aristotelian mechanics but Galileo argued that it should be scraped. Mind you, he was a devout Catholic and wouldn't dream of disparaging Aristotelian ethics or metaphysics. Still, when the professors at Piza couldn't refute him he ended up at the Inquisition. His argument still holds true, the Bible tells us how to get to heaven, not how the heavens work. Science is about tools, mental and physical and it was not invented overnight during the Scientific Revolution. The accomplishments of the past were not swept away by the development of physics and the principles of motion, they built on Euclidean geometry, they didn't replace it. Great things came from the Scientific Revolution, Algebra and Calculus, telescopes and microscopes, the deductive approach of Aristotelian scholasticism inverted into an inductive approach to natural phenomenon.
As usual a Darwinian wants to write satire about things he knows nothing about, typical.
Oh it's a thing, defined by Darwin himself:
all change in the organic, as well as in the inorganic world, being the result of law, and not of miraculous interposition. (Darwin, On the Origin of Species)
It's not a science, it's a presupposition. The a priori assumption of universal common descent by exclusively naturalistic means going all the way back to and including the Big Bang.
Darwinism never follows scientific method, that's absurd. It's a philosophy of natural history that permeates and predicates anything the empirical process produces. It was blended with modern genetics in a philosophical effort produced by Ivy League and European elitists in the Modern Synthesis. Are you really going to defend a philosophy you know so little about?
Indirectly, my favorite approach is comparative genomics. I do have evidential arguments but getting you through the background sounds like a long process. You want to defend science from religion when you know very little about either and could care less.
Getting bored with fish in the barrel, see you again when you recycle your satirical ramblings.
Have a nice day
Mark
