Paradigm Shift: Holistic Darwinism VS the Selfish Gene

[joshua 1 9]

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

I did answer yes and no. Sometimes I agree with him and sometimes I do not agree with him. That is what the process of learning is all about. Let us take a look at what Collins has to say: "COLLINS: By being outside of nature, God is also outside of space and time. Hence, at the moment of the creation of the universe, God could also have activated evolution, with full knowledge of how it would turn out, perhaps even including our having this conversation. The idea that he could both foresee the future and also give us spirit and free will to carry out our own desires becomes entirely acceptable." I agree with Collins that God knows the end from the beginning, and He could have full knowledge of how it would turn out. This is the direction that Evo Devo is going in. This is in opposition to a random process that could go anywhere being promoted by Dawkins and Gould before him.

 

[bhsmte]

I did answer yes and no. Sometimes I agree with him and sometimes I do not agree with him. That is what the process of learning is all about. Let us take a look at what Collins has to say: "COLLINS: By being outside of nature, God is also outside of space and time. Hence, at the moment of the creation of the universe, God could also have activated evolution, with full knowledge of how it would turn out, perhaps even including our having this conversation. The idea that he could both foresee the future and also give us spirit and free will to carry out our own desires becomes entirely acceptable." I agree with Collins that God knows the end from the beginning, and He could have full knowledge of how it would turn out. This is the direction that Evo Devo is going in. This is in opposition to a random process that could go anywhere being promoted by Dawkins and Gould before him.

Which parts of Collin's take on the evidence for the scientific theory of evolution do you disagree with and please be specific. Then, use science to show us why Collins is wrong.

 

[Speedwell]

Hence, at the moment of the creation of the universe, God could also have activated evolution, with full knowledge of how it would turn out, perhaps even including our having this conversation. The idea that he could both foresee the future and also give us spirit and free will to carry out our own desires becomes entirely acceptable." I agree with Collins that God knows the end from the beginning, and He could have full knowledge of how it would turn out. This is the direction that Evo Devo is going in. This is in opposition to a random process that could go anywhere being promoted by Dawkins and Gould before him.

An important component of the "evo devo" position is that it could well be both. There is certainly no serious teleological objection to such a possibilty.

 

[joshua 1 9]

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

You have to understand that simplistic explanations are not sufficient. The answer is going to be a multidimensional perspective. Paradoxes are a reflection of contradictory forces inherent in human nature & human existence. This can all be accounted for in a logical and consistent way. NeoDarwinism is not able to deal with this complexity.

Look at complexity theory in nursing where we see that science is more than metaphors and organizations are more than machines. We know that Self-organisation creates a new order because one of the characteristics of complexity is that actions emerge spontaneously based on the interaction of the individual elements. (Complex Systems and Evolutionary Perspectives on Organisations) Selfish theory does not adequately understand this interaction. Although I am sure that they would disagree with me and say they do understand and that is why they arrive at the conclusion they have. I maintain that they do not understand the interaction.

 

[joshua 1 9]

An important component of the "evo devo" position is that it could well be both. There is certainly no serious teleological objection to such a possibilty.

Evo Devo looks at what controls or regulates the expression of Genes and Neo Darwinism's approach is inadequate to provide an explanation for how genes express themselves.​

 

[Speedwell]

Evo Devo looks at what controls or regulates the expression of Genes and Neo Darwinism's approach is inadequate to provide an explanation for how genes express themselves.​

That dichotomy ignores the beliefs of many theistic evolutionists, mine in particular. Granted Dawkins is an atheist and sees no God behind evolution, but his use of the concept of randomness in evolution itself is no different than mine. Evolution need not be "guided" in order to embody divine providence.

 

[bhsmte]

You have to understand that simplistic explanations are not sufficient. The answer is going to be a multidimensional perspective. Paradoxes are a reflection of contradictory forces inherent in human nature & human existence. This can all be accounted for in a logical and consistent way. NeoDarwinism is not able to deal with this complexity.

Look at complexity theory in nursing where we see that science is more than metaphors and organizations are more than machines. We know that Self-organisation creates a new order because one of the characteristics of complexity is that actions emerge spontaneously based on the interaction of the individual elements. (Complex Systems and Evolutionary Perspectives on Organisations) Selfish theory does not adequately understand this interaction. Although I am sure that they would disagree with me and say they do understand and that is why they arrive at the conclusion they have. I maintain that they do not understand the interaction.

Word salad.

Where is Collins wrong and what simplistic explanations are you talking about. You are very vague and don't bother to give any specifics, as to how you are right and Collins is wrong.

 

[VirOptimus]

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.

I couldnt care less about your belief, but your posts on science and theology is simply wrong. Also, I have previousöy demonstrated that you lie and as you refuse to acknowledge that there is no reason to care about anything you post.

 

[joshua 1 9]

I couldnt care less about your belief,

That is the epitome of absurdity to ask a question and then be so rude as to say you do not want an answer. There is a simple solution: quit rattling my chain and asking questions if you do not want to know the truth.

 

[joshua 1 9]

Word salad.

Of course and we have told you dozens of times that in order to understand you have to be born again and be transformed by the renewing of your mind. Then you can have the mind of Christ and know the Divine thoughts of God. Those that are unregenerate can not expect to know and to understand what only the redeemed are able to comprehend. That is they way we see it even if your perspective is different than ours as Born Again Believers in the Lord Jesus Christ.

Where is Collins wrong and what simplistic explanations are you talking about. You are very vague and don't bother to give any specifics, as to how you are right and Collins is wrong.

There are areas where he contradicts himself. He claims to believe in evolution as a random process yet he also believes: "God could also have activated evolution, with full knowledge of how it would turn out," So for me this needs further explanation so Collins can make himself clear. It is good that he struggles with this because somewhere along the way he will figure it out and understand.

As I said Corning talks about paradoxes and how there are ways to reconcile what seems to be complexities and contradictions in the very nature of mankind. He feels all of this can be accounted for in a logical and consistent way.

This reminds me of the discussion that Calvan, Armenian and Wesley had about predestination. This discussion is still going on today after more then 500 years. We have people today that believe evolution is predetermined and others that believe it is random.

 

[bhsmte]

Of course and we have told you dozens of times that in order to understand you have to be born again and be transformed by the renewing of your mind. Then you can have the mind of Christ and know the Divine thoughts of God. Those that are unregenerate can not expect to know and to understand what only the redeemed are able to comprehend. That is they way we see it even if your perspective is different than ours as Born Again Believers in the Lord Jesus Christ.

There are areas where he contradicts himself. He claims to believe in evolution as a random process yet he also believes: "God could also have activated evolution, with full knowledge of how it would turn out," So for me this needs further explanation so Collins can make himself clear. It is good that he struggles with this because somewhere along the way he will figure it out and understand.

As I said Corning talks about paradoxes and how there are ways to reconcile what seems to be complexities and contradictions in the very nature of mankind. He feels all of this can be accounted for in a logical and consistent way.

This reminds me of the discussion that Calvan, Armenian and Wesley had about predestination. This discussion is still going on today after more then 500 years. We have people today that believe evolution is predetermined and others that believe it is random.

Who is the "we" that keeps telling me the whole key to understanding your word salad, is being born again?

Here is a recommendation, read what Collin's states about the scientific theory of evolution a bit more thoroughly.

 

[bhsmte]

That is the epitome of absurdity to ask a question and then be so rude as to say you do not want an answer. There is a simple solution: quit rattling my chain and asking questions if you do not want to know the truth.

Anyone can claim to have truth, as you do, it is meaningless, without evidence to support what you claim.

 

[joshua 1 9]

Anyone can claim to have truth, as you do, it is meaningless, without evidence to support what you claim.

I do not have truth, the truth is in the Bible. We are told to: "Do your best to present yourself to God as one approved, a worker who does not need to be ashamed and who correctly handles the word of truth." 2Timothy 2:15

 

[bhsmte]

I do not have truth, the truth is in the Bible. We are told to: "Do your best to present yourself to God as one approved, a worker who does not need to be ashamed and who correctly handles the word of truth." 2Timothy 2:15

I agree you don't have truth.

I don't see any credible evidence, the bible is supported with any reliable evidence in regards to refuting the scientific theory of evolution either.

 

[VirOptimus]

That is the epitome of absurdity to ask a question and then be so rude as to say you do not want an answer. There is a simple solution: quit rattling my chain and asking questions if you do not want to know the truth.

I have never asked you to tell me about your beliefs.

Stop lying.

 

[joshua 1 9]

I have never asked you to tell me about your beliefs.

Stop lying.

Yes we should never ever tell a lie. The Bible is very clear as to the destination of all liars. A lot of people do not seem to be much worried about the subject of annihilation. It does not seem to be much of an issue for them.

Rev21:8 "But the cowardly, the unbelieving, the vile, the murderers, the sexually immoral, those who practice magic arts, the idolaters and all liars--they will be consigned to the fiery lake of burning sulfur. This is the second death."

 

[VirOptimus]

Yes we should never ever tell a lie. The Bible is very clear as to the destination of all liars. A lot of people do not seem to be much worried about the subject of annihilation. It does not seem to be much of an issue for them.

Rev21:8 "But the cowardly, the unbelieving, the vile, the murderers, the sexually immoral, those who practice magic arts, the idolaters and all liars--they will be consigned to the fiery lake of burning sulfur. This is the second death."

If you believe that, then why do you lie?

 

[joshua 1 9]

If you believe that, then why do you lie?

Flame me one more time and I will report you.

 

[VirOptimus]

Flame me one more time and I will report you.

Its not a flame, its a legitamite question.

 

[joshua 1 9]

Its not a flame, its a legitimate question.

It is a flame but if you are not sure we can ask the sysop to give us their opinion on it. All I said was if you do not want an answer then don't ask the question. Period the end.