Paradigm Shift: Holistic Darwinism VS the Selfish Gene

[joshua 1 9]

No matter what you state, its selfevident from your posts that you understand very little, if anything, about basic science and basic theology.

Reading and understanding is two very different things.

This maybe a surprise to you but I am a creationist and I am here to defend and to support creationism. So how much do you know about the Bible and Creationism and how many books have you read on the subject? Because it is only fair that if we are going to follow your standard then you have the burden to understand creationism as much as you think I should understand science and evolutionary theory.

As a Creationist I am ready to defend all of the various theorys, OEC< YEC< GAP and so on. If you are equally prepared to accept all of the evolutionary theories then you are going to have to argue against yourself because lots of evolutionists do not agree. Just like the harvard professors where one argued for punctuated equilibrium and the other argued for gradualism. Just whose theory are we going to support when evolutionists do not agree with each other on what they believe.

If a evolutionist has a PHD in science but he does not even have a third grade level of understanding of the Bible then don't you think that is a bit hypocritical to be judging how much science we do or allegedly do not know? Everyone in order to graduate from High School has to have a basic understanding of evolutionary theory.

 

[bhsmte]

This maybe a surprise to you but I am a creationist and I am here to defend and to support creationism. So how much do you know about the Bible and Creationism and how many books have you read on the subject? Because it is only fair that if we are going to follow your standard then you have the burden to understand creationism as much as you think I should understand science and evolutionary theory.

As a Creationist I am ready to defend all of the various theorys, OEC< YEC< GAP and so on. If you are equally prepared to accept all of the evolutionary theories then you are going to have to argue against yourself because lots of evolutionists do not agree. Just like the harvard professors where one argued for punctuated equilibrium and the other argued for gradualism. Just whose theory are we going to support when evolutionists do not agree with each other on what they believe.

If a evolutionist has a PHD in science but he does not even have a third grade level of understanding of the Bible then don't you think that is a bit hypocritical to be judging how much science we do or allegedly do not know? Everyone in order to graduate from High School has to have a basic understanding of evolutionary theory.

If you are a biblical creationist, why do you always cite Francis Collins, who aggressively supports the scientific theory of evolution?

 

[joshua 1 9]

People have constantly pointed out the flaws in the logic of your posts.

They have tried and failed again and again and again. Usually I just talk about what people who are qualified say when I agree with them like Francis Collins. He is a best selling author so he can give me the words to use to present what we as Creationists believe in. You may not agree with Collins but Obama did not seem to have any problem when they give him a billion dollars worth of research money over the years for his research on DNA (the human genome project).

 

[bhsmte]

They have tried and failed again and again and again. Usually I just talk about what people who are qualified say when I agree with them like Francis Collins. He is a best selling author so he can give me the words to use to present what we as Creationists believe in. You may not agree with Collins but Obama did not seem to have any problem when they give him a billion dollars worth of research money over the years for his research on DNA (the human genome project).

Does Francis Collins agree with the scientific theory of evolution?

Yes, or no?

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

You are wrong, I know a lot about evolution. Actually I do not even have any problem with evolution. I have a problem with the anti theist version of evolution like Dawkins selfish gene does not fit my concept and my belief of what evolution is.

Anti theists have hijacked the theory and replaced it with with a counterfeit forgery theory that does not reflect the truth. People like Dawkins like to try to promote the false theory and they argue against the truth and the true theistic theory of evolution.

Counterfeit and true evolutionists have the exact same evidence to work with. It is just the people that promote the false theory have to take the evidence and twist - warp it to serve their agenda. Francis Collins talks about this on his biologos web site. He explains all of this there. He explains this a lot better than I do and his books are widely accepted by christians and non christians. As a director he is a leading expert on the subject. He is very well respected in the scientific community. In January 2015 President Obama announced the NIH-led Precision Medicine Initiative (PMI) in his State of the Union address.[41] Collins not only had favor with the Obama administration he was also well funded. Even he received an additional $680 million in the proposed fiscal year 2017 budget. He is well funded because he knows how to get results. Even though he was appointed by Obama - President Donald Trump is keeping Francis Collins as director of the National Institutes of Health.

And yet you never show any of this self-claimed knowledge. All you do is prattle on about non sequiturs and painfully wrong comments followed by ridiculous off-topic word salads. Just like you have done in this post.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

You are not allowed to talk about me, that is against the rules.

I'm not talking about you. I'm talking about the content of your posts.

 

[bhsmte]

I'm not talk about you. I'm talking about the content of your posts.

And the content of one's posts, gives us clues about the person posting those words.

 

[joshua 1 9]

If you are a biblical creationist, why do you always cite Francis Collins

Yes I am a Biblical Creationist and I support some of Collins Theistic Evolution. I consider theistic evolution to be a creationist belief. Esp when you compare theistic evolution to anti theistic evolution. There are clearly two evolution theories one for believers and one for people that do not support or believe in the Bible and Bible creationism.

Holistic evolution is simply not the same as Dawkins selfish gene evolution. Simplistic single cause theories are inadequate compared to a multi-dimensional perspective. Let me quote Dawkins himself:

"They made the erroneous assumption that the important thing in evolution is the good of the species (or the group) rather than the good of the individual or the gene".

This erroneous belief that has permeated evolution science is the reason why coevolution has not been studied or researched to the degree that it should be. Even synergism is in opposition to Dawkins selfish gene approach to evolutionary theory. By accusing others Dawkin has admitted to his own "erroneous assumption". He has accused others of the very thing HE is guilty of. His selfish gene theory is the erroneous belief that has lead science astray from the truth. Not just social science or life science but this selfish gene approach has permeated political science as well. We know that biology or physics does not rule science. It is politics that provides the money that turns the wheels to grind out what really amounts to little more than sloppy science.

 

[joshua 1 9]

And the content of one's posts, gives us clues about the person posting those words.

And the rules say you are not allowed to attack that person or flame them. What do you care about me anyways? What am I to you?

 

[bhsmte]

Yes I am a Biblical Creationist and I support some of Collins Theistic Evolution. I consider theistic evolution to be a creationist belief. Esp when you compare theistic evolution to anti theistic evolution. There are clearly two evolution theories one for believers and one for people that do not support or believe in the Bible and Bible creationism.

Holistic evolution is simply not the same as Dawkins selfish gene evolution. Simplistic single cause theories are inadequate compared to a multi-dimensional perspective. Let me quote Dawkins himself:

"They made the erroneous assumption that the important thing in evolution is the good of the species (or the group) rather than the good of the individual or the gene".

This erroneous belief that has permeated evolution science is the reason why coevolution has not been studied or researched to the degree that it should be. Even synergism is in opposition to Dawkins selfish gene approach to evolutionary theory. By accusing others Dawkin has admitted to his own "erroneous assumption". He has accused others of the very thing HE is guilty of. His selfish gene theory is the erroneous belief that has lead science astray from the truth. Not just social science or life science but this selfish gene approach has permeated political science as well. We know that biology or physics does not rule science. It is politics that provides the money that turns the wheels to grind out what really amounts to little more than sloppy science.

Review below, in regards to Collin's explanation on the powerful evidence for the theory of evolution. Do you agree with Collin's comments below?

Karl Giberson: One of the things I appreciate a lot about Darrel Falk, who I think is a courageous voice in this conversation, is that he will come out and say that common ancestry is simply a fact. And that if you’re not willing to concede that the genetic evidence points to common ancestry than you’re essentially denying the field of biology the possibility of having facts at all. That’s the strong language that he uses.

Would you say that common ancestry and evolution in general is at that level? How compelling is the evidence at this point?

Francis Collins: The evidence is overwhelming. And it is becoming more and more robust down to the details almost by the day, especially because we have this ability now to use the study of DNA as a digital record of the way Darwin’s theory has played out over the course of long periods of time.

Darwin could hardly have imagined that there would turn out to be such strong proof of his theory because he didn’t know about DNA - but we have that information. I would say we are as solid in claiming the truth of evolution as we are in claiming the truth of the germ theory. It is so profoundly well-documented in multiple different perspectives, all of which give you a consistent view with enormous explanatory power that make it the central core of biology. Trying to do biology without evolution would be like trying to do physics without mathematics

 

[joshua 1 9]

If you are a biblical creationist, why do you always cite Francis Collins, who aggressively supports the scientific theory of evolution?

He is a popular guy so it is enough just to promote what he promotes.

 

[bhsmte]

And the rules say you are not allowed to attack that person or flame them. What do you care about me anyways? What am I to you?

I will say again, the content of your posts, is open to criticism. This is the science section of the forum and you will be asked to support your statements. If you can't deal with that, maybe another section of the forum would be more comfortable for you.

 

[bhsmte]

He is a popular guy so it is enough just to promote what he promotes.

Does this then mean, you agree with Collin's take on the how strong the evidence is, to support the scientific theory of evolution?

 

[bhsmte]

And the rules say you are not allowed to attack that person or flame them. What do you care about me anyways? What am I to you?

I keep my personal opinion in regards to the character of posters on this board to myself. I simply comment on the content of one's posts. I certainly have an opinion about you personally and I will continue to keep that to myself.

 

[joshua 1 9]

Review below, in regards to Collin's explanation on the powerful evidence for the theory of evolution. Do you agree with Collin's comments below?

Karl Giberson: One of the things I appreciate a lot about Darrel Falk, who I think is a courageous voice in this conversation, is that he will come out and say that common ancestry is simply a fact. And that if you’re not willing to concede that the genetic evidence points to common ancestry than you’re essentially denying the field of biology the possibility of having facts at all. That’s the strong language that he uses.

Would you say that common ancestry and evolution in general is at that level? How compelling is the evidence at this point?

Francis Collins: The evidence is overwhelming. And it is becoming more and more robust down to the details almost by the day, especially because we have this ability now to use the study of DNA as a digital record of the way Darwin’s theory has played out over the course of long periods of time.

Darwin could hardly have imagined that there would turn out to be such strong proof of his theory because he didn’t know about DNA - but we have that information. I would say we are as solid in claiming the truth of evolution as we are in claiming the truth of the germ theory. It is so profoundly well-documented in multiple different perspectives, all of which give you a consistent view with enormous explanatory power that make it the central core of biology. Trying to do biology without evolution would be like trying to do physics without mathematics

Yes of course I believe in common ancestor. I yell it from the housetop that Adam and Eve - Abraham Sarah & Hagar are all common ancestors. The book of the Bible is all about common ancestor. The evidence for that is overwhelming yet everyone wants to disregard the evidence. Theistic Evolution provides substantial undenyable evidence for Biblical Creationism.

The issue has to do with mechanism. Darwin simply did not understand the mechanism. Today I think the mechanism of evolution is not researched as well as it could be if we did not have to deal with selfish gene theories and other attempts of the enemy to gum up the works and the wheels of progress.

 

[bhsmte]

Yes of course I believe in common ancestor. I yell it from the housetop that Adam and Eve - Abraham Sarah & Hagar are all common ancestors. The book of the Bible is all about common ancestor. The evidence for that is overwhelming yet everyone wants to disregard the evidence. Theistic Evolution provides substantial undenyable evidence for Biblical Creationism.

The issue has to do with mechanism. Darwin simply did not understand the mechanism. Today I think the mechanism of evolution is not researched as well as it could be if we did not have to deal with selfish gene theories and other attempts of the enemy to gum up the works and the wheels of progress.

This would then mean, you don't agree with Francis Collins, because he believes the evidence for the scientific theory of evolution is overwhelming?

"The theory of neo-darwinian evolution cannot be rationally doubted by ANY EDUCATED PERSON."

See below:

1. “Faith that places God in the gaps of current understanding about the natural world may be headed for crisis if advances in science subsequently fill those gaps” (p. 93). We cannot use causal action by a transcendent intelligence to explain puzzling natural phenomena. In short, no God‐of-the‐ gaps allowed.
2. “Darwin’s framework of variation and natural selection,” but especially Darwin’s picture of a Tree of Life—the common ancestry of all organisms on Earth—“is unquestionably correct” (141). Universal common descent by natural processes is scientifically non‐negotiable. The theory of neo‐Darwinian evolution cannot rationally be doubted by any educated person.
3. The best way to reconcile the propositional content of a transcendentally grounded morality with modern evolutionary theory is what Collins calls “BioLogos,” his renaming of “theistic evolution.” BioLogos is “not intended as a scientific theory” (204), but it is “by far the most scientifically consistent and spiritually satisfying” (210) of the alternatives in the science/religion debate (the others being atheism or agnosticism, young‐earth creation, and intelligent design). BioLogos “will not go out of style or be disproven by future scientific discoveries. It is intellectually rigorous [and] provides answers to many otherwise puzzling questions” (210).
   Given this, a reasonable Christian will find herself embracing theistic evolution—BioLogos—if she wishes to be heard in our current culture.

 

[joshua 1 9]

Does this then mean, you agree with Collin's take on the how strong the evidence is, to support the scientific theory of evolution?

Wow I thought you knew me better then that. I am very grateful to all the hard work science has done to gather the evidence for us because all of that evidence supports creationism. I believe theistic evolution is creationism. My objective is to the mutation theory. I do not think that is the driving force of evolution but they do not have anything to replace that their with so for now they are stuck with it. We need to go in the direction of evo devo and that is exactly what science is doing. Because now we are starting to understand just what the mechanism is that turns the genes on and off. Or what restricts a gene from expressing itself.

 

[bhsmte]

Wow I thought you knew me better then that. I am very grateful to all the hard work science has done to gather the evidence for us because all of that evidence supports creationism. I believe theistic evolution is creationism. My objective is to the mutation theory. I do not think that is the driving force of evolution but they do not have anything to replace that their with so for now they are stuck with it. We need to go in the direction of evo devo and that is exactly what science is doing. Because now we are starting to understand just what the mechanism is that turns the genes on and off. Or what restricts a gene from expressing itself.[/QUOTE

A simple yes or no will do. You didn't answer the very simple question.

 

[joshua 1 9]

This would then mean, you don't agree with Francis Collins, because he believes the evidence for the scientific theory of evolution is overwhelming?

There are areas that I disagree with Collins. First lets look at what Collins says in his book: "The discoveries of the past decade, little known to the public, have completely overturned much of what used to be taught in high school biology". This all indicates that we are on the cutting edge of discovery and what we know pales in comparison to what we are learning and the rate that we are learning at. This makes it difficult for Creationists to keep up and process the new information. Yet the Bible and Bishop Ussher's book continues to be steadfast and true. Even when our understanding interpretation and translations are challenged. They say we stand on the shoulders of giants and It is the Biblical duty of every generation of Christians to see to it that the next generation hears about the mighty acts of God. Each generation has to discover for themselves what the message of the Bible is for them and their generation.

Of course people with a selfish gene approach does not understand the dynamics of how the organisms in a species function as a whole. Even though it is this interaction that defines a species.

 

[bhsmte]

There are areas that I disagree with Collins. First lets look at what Collins says in his book: "The discoveries of the past decade, little known to the public, have completely overturned much of what used to be taught in high school biology". This all indicates that we are on the cutting edge of discovery and what we know pales in comparison to what we are learning and the rate that we are learning at. This makes it difficult for Creationists to keep up and process the new information. Yet the Bible and Bishop Ussher's book continues to be steadfast and true. Even when our understanding interpretation and translations are challenged. They say we stand on the shoulders of giants and It is the Biblical duty of every generation of Christians to see to it that the next generation hears about the mighty acts of God. Each generation has to discover for themselves what the message of the Bible is for them and their generation.

Of course people with a selfish gene approach does not understand the dynamics of how the organisms in a species function as a whole. Even though it is this interaction that defines a species.

Ok, so you disagree with Collins. Now elaborate as to why Collins is wrong about the science, by using science.