The curious case of dog evolution

[Agonaces of Susa]

Do you have an example of a specific instance where a creationist paper was rejected from scientific publication?

There are so many examples I wouldn't no where to begin.

Just look at all the whining and crying this paper generated: Sternberg peer review controversy - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Meyer, S. C., The Origin of Biological Information and the Higher Taxanomic Categories, Proceedings of the Biological Society of Washington, Volume 117, Number 2, Pages 213-239, Aug 2004

If so, what are the reasons?

Fundamentalism is the reason.

Your comments about evolution lead me to believe that you think if something runs on natural mechanisms that it means God has nothing to do with it. God made the laws of physics that govern the weather, even though it has purely naturalistic causes. God also made the laws that make evolution happen. It's not an atheist science.

God made man in His image. He didn't make single-celled organisms in His image.

So does this mean that modern medicine is part of the atheist agenda? I guess this will be put to the test if you get seriously injured.

Evolution is useless in medicine: Evolution News & Views: ‘Why would I want my doctor to have studied evolution?’

Doctors don’t study evolution. Doctors never study it in medical school, and they never use evolutionary biology in their practice. There are no courses in medical school on evolution. There are no ‘professors of evolution’ in medical schools. There are no departments of evolutionary biology in medical schools.

If you needed treatment for a brain tumor, your medical team would include a physicist (who designed the MRI that diagnosed your tumor), a chemist and a pharmacologist (who made the medicine to treat you), an engineer and an anesthesiologist (who designed and used the machine that give you anesthesia), a neurosurgeon (who did the surgery to remove your tumor), a pathologist (who studied the tumor under a microscope and determined what type of tumor it was), and nurses and oncologists (who help you recover and help make sure the tumor doesn’t come back). There would be no evolutionary biologists on your team.

I am a professor of neurosurgery, I work and teach at a medical school, I do brain research, and in 20 years I’ve performed over 4000 brain operations. I never use evolutionary biology in my work. Would I be a better surgeon if I assumed that the brain arose by random events? Of course not. Doctors are detectives. We look for patterns, and in the human body, patterns look very much like they were designed. Doctors know that, from the intricate structure of the human brain to the genetic code, our bodies show astonishing evidence of design. That’s why most doctors—nearly two-thirds according to national polls—don’t believe that human beings arose merely by chance and natural selection. Most doctors don’t accept evolutionary biology as an adequate explanation for life. Doctors see, first-hand, the design of life.

I do use many kinds of science related to changes in organisms over time. Genetics is very important, as are population biology and microbiology. But evolutionary biology itself, as distinct from these scientific fields, contributes nothing to modern medicine.

***

What if you are looking at buying a home and the inspector is looking at things from a naturalistic point of view. You know, if he said that the dampness in the basement was possibly from a crack in the foundation, instead of attributing it to a supernatural spirit. Would you trust him?

That depends on whether he is an evolutionist or a creationist.

Do you ever drive over bridges?

Yes; I have faith in the LORD.

They are designed with natural forces in mind and don't take into consideration supernatural forces. Are they unsafe to drive on?

Obviously not unless you have faith in our blessed LORD.

 

[metherion]

Oh really?

"There is no unintelligent processes known to science that can generate codes and machines." -- Michael Egnor, neurosurgeon, February 5th 2009

Yes, by all means quote a neurosurgeon against evolution after making big cases about how they don't study it. Appeal to authority.

Exactly. Only Intelligent Design can explain the origin of life.

No. And furthermore, that isn't remotely related to the gist of what I was saying. Natural selection and random mutation occur on already formed life. They have nothing to do with life's formation. Biochemistry, on the other hand, does.

Now, for the 3rd time, what about my point on the example of a neutral mutation? Or will you just ignore it again? This is the final time I will ask.

Metherion

 

[Mallon]

AoS, when I asked you earlier whether intelligent design and evolution were mutually exclusive, you said they weren't (remember: agency vs. mechanism). Yet you keep citing intelligent design arguments in order to oppose various evolutionary scenarios presented here. This doesn't strike me as consistent with your earlier remarks. Why the sudden change in your position?

 

[gluadys]

No one in restricting ID to a specific form of evidence.

"All things were mixed up together, then Mind came and arranged them all in distinct order." -- Anaxagoras, philosopher, 5th century B.C.

"Then I heard someone who had a book of Anaxagoras, as he said, out of which he read that mind was the disposer and cause of all, and I was quite delighted at the notion of this, which appeared admirable, and I said to myself; If mind is the disposer, mind will dispose all for the best, and put each particular in the best place ...." -- Socrates, philosopher, Phaedo, 360 B.C.

"Some people even question whether they [chance and spontaneity] are real or not. They say that nothing happens by chance, but that everything which we ascribe to chance or spontaneity has some definite cause ...." -- Aristotle, Physics, Book II, 350 B.C.

"... if chance were real, it would seem strange indeed, and the question might be raised, why on earth none of the wise men of old in speaking of the causes of generation and decay took account of chance; whence it would seem that they too did not believe that anything is by chance." -- Aristotle, Physics, Book II, 350 B.C.

"Certainly the early physicists found no place for chance among the causes which they recognized...." -- Aristotle, Physics, Book II, 350 B.C.

"There are some too who ascribe this heavenly sphere and all the worlds to spontaneity. They say that the vortex arose spontaneously, i.e. the motion that separated and arranged in its present order all that exists. This statement might well cause surprise. For they are asserting that chance is not responsible for the existence or generation of animals and plants, nature or mind or something of the kind being the cause of them (for it is not any chance thing that comes from a given seed but an olive from one kind and a man from another); and yet at the same time they assert that the heavenly sphere and the divinest of visible things arose spontaneously, having no such cause as is assigned to animals and plants. Yet if this is so, it is a fact which deserves to be dwelt upon, and something might well have been said about it. For besides the other absurdities of the statement, it is the more absurd that people should make it when they see nothing coming to be spontaneously in the heavens ...." -- Aristotle, Physics, Book II, 350 B.C.

"Spontaneity and chance, therefore, are posterior to intelligence and nature. Hence, however true it may be that the heavens are due to spontaneity, it will still be true that intelligence and nature will be prior causes of this All and of many things in it besides." -- Aristotle, Physics, Book II, 350 B.C.

"... Anaxagoras, who says that all things were together and at rest for an infinite period of time, and that then Mind introduced motion and separated them...." -- Aristotle, Physics, Book VIII, 350 B.C.

"... nor again could it be right to entrust so great a matter [nature] to spontaneity and chance. When one man said, then, that reason was present -- as in animals, so throughout nature -- as the cause of order and of all arrangement, he seemed like a sober man in contrast with the random talk of his predecessors. We know that Anaxagoras certainly adopted these views, but Hermotimus of Clazomenae is credited with expressing them earlier." -- Aristotle, Metaphysics, Book I, 350 B.C.

"As with these productions of art, so also is it with the productions of nature." -- Aristotle, On the Parts of Animals, Book I, 350 B.C.

"Empedocles, then, was in error when he said that many of the characters presented by animals were merely the result of incidental occurrences during their development; for instance, that the backbone was divided as it is into vertebrae, because it happened to be broken owing to the contorted position of the foetus in the womb. In so saying he overlooked the fact that propogation implies a creative seed endowed with certain formative properties. Secondly, he neglected another fact, namely, that the parent animal pre-exists, not only in idea, but actually in time. For man is generated from man; and thus it is the possession of certain characters by the parent that determines the development of like characters in the child." -- Aristotle, On the Parts of Animals, Book I, 350 B.C.

"Yet even from this inferior intelligence of man we may discover the existence of some intelligent agent that is divine, and wiser than ourselves; for, as Socrates says in Xenophon, from whence had man his portion of understanding?" -- Marcus T. Cicero, philosopher, The Nature of the Gods, Book II, Chapter VI, 1st century B.C.

"Yet these people doubt whether the universe, from whence all things arise and are made, is not the effect of chance, or some necessity, rather than the work of reason and a divine mind. According to them, Archimedes shows more knowledge in representing the motions of the celestial globe than nature does in causing them, though the copy is so infinitely beneath the original." -- Marcus T. Cicero, philosopher, The Nature of the Gods, Book II, Chapter XXXV, 1st century B.C.

"Can any one in his sense imagine that this disposition of the stars, and this heaven so beautifully adorned, could ever have been formed by a fortuitous concourse of atoms? Or what other nature, being destitute of intellect and reason, could possibly have produced these effects, which not only required reason to bring them about, but the very character of which could not be understood and appreciated without the most strenuous exertions of well-directed reason?" -- Marcus T. Cicero, philosopher, The Nature of the Gods, Book II, Chapter XLIV, 1st century B.C.

"Again, he who does not perceive the soul and mind of man, his reason, prudence and discernment, to be the work of a divine providence, seems himself to be destitute of those faculties." -- Marcus. T. Cicero, philosopher, The Nature of the Gods, Book II, Chapter LIX, 1st century B.C.

"He [Anaxagoras] said that the beginning of the universe was mind and matter, mind being the creator and matter that which came into being. For that when all things were together, mind came and arranged them." -- Hippolytus, priest, 2nd century

Nice collection of Greek philosophers. Perhaps they were unfamiliar with Hebrew scripture.

I returned , and saw under the sun, that the race is not to the swift, nor the battle to the strong, neither yet bread to the wise, nor yet riches to men of understanding , nor yet favour to men of skill ; but time and chance happeneth to them all. Ecclesisates 9:11

By medieval times (as in Dante's Divine Comedy) chance (personified as Fortuna) was considered one of God's ministers. Seems medieval Christians had no problems fitting chance into God's work. Why should we?

 

[gluadys]

Depends on how you define evolution.

"Well, evolution is a kind of funny word. It depends on how one defines it. If it means simply change over time, even the most rock-ribbed fundamentalist knows that the history of the Earth has changed, that there's been change over time. If you define evolution precisely though to mean the common descent of all life on Earth from a single ancestor via undirected mutation and natural selection, that's textbook definition of Neo-Darwinism, biologists of the first rank have real questions. -- Paul A. Nelson, philosopher, 2008

If you define evolution as spontaneous and random undirected mutation then yes that is atheism.

But neither of the definitions you quoted defined it like that, and neither do biologists or evolutionary creationists.

 

[Agonaces of Susa]

AoS, when I asked you earlier whether intelligent design and evolution were mutually exclusive, you said they weren't (remember: agency vs. mechanism). Yet you keep citing intelligent design arguments in order to oppose various evolutionary scenarios presented here. This doesn't strike me as consistent with your earlier remarks. Why the sudden change in your position?

It depends on how you define evolution.

"Well, evolution is a kind of funny word. It depends on how one defines it. If it means simply change over time, even the most rock-ribbed fundamentalist knows that the history of the Earth has changed, that there's been change over time. If you define evolution precisely though to mean the common descent of all life on Earth from a single ancestor via undirected mutation and natural selection, that's textbook definition of Neo-Darwinism, biologists of the first rank have real questions. -- Paul A. Nelson, philosopher, 2008

I don't believe in organization by random chance but only by intelligent design.

 

[Agonaces of Susa]

Nice collection of Greek philosophers. Perhaps they were unfamiliar with Hebrew scripture.

Considering they faught the Persian Empire and that the New Testament was written in koine Greek that is quite unlikely.

I returned , and saw under the sun, that the race is not to the swift, nor the battle to the strong, neither yet bread to the wise, nor yet riches to men of understanding , nor yet favour to men of skill ; but time and chance happeneth to them all. Ecclesisates 9:11

What does the Bible say about luck?

Much of what Ecclesiastes shares is from the perspective of a person who looks at life on earth without God, or life “under the sun.” From such a perspective—leaving God out of the picture—there seems to be good luck and bad luck.

By medieval times (as in Dante's Divine Comedy) chance (personified as Fortuna) was considered one of God's ministers.

If Fortune is one of God's ministers then nothing happens by chance.

"The lot is cast into the lap, But its every decision is from the Lord" -- Proverbs 16:33

Seems medieval Christians had no problems fitting chance into God's work. Why should we?

"The lot is cast into the lap, But its every decision is from the Lord" -- Proverbs 16:33

 

[BigBadWlf]

I don't believe in organization by random chance but only by intelligent design.

If you knew anything about evolution you would know how laughable this statement is

 

[gluadys]

Considering they faught the Persian Empire and that the New Testaament was written in koine Greek that is quite unlikely.

Both irrelevant. The Old Testament was not written in Greek (except for some parts of the Septuagint), and most of the philosophers you cited died before the New Testament was written or koine Greek spoken. Neither the Persians nor the Greeks had much motivation to study Hebrew or read the Hebrew scriptures.

What does the Bible say about luck?




If Fortune is one of God's ministers then nothing happens by chance.

"The lot is cast into the lap, But its every decision is from the Lord" -- Proverbs 16:33


"The lot is cast into the lap, But its every decision is from the Lord" -- Proverbs 16:33

Actually that is not a bad article, but you seem to be getting the wrong conclusions from it. It mentions several scriptural references to things that occurred or might occur "by chance" but then notes that the element of chance comes from human ignorance of what the cause of the event was or what the outcome would be. In God's eyes they are not chance, but part of his plan.

We say, because of the limitations of our knowledge/foresight, that the outcome of casting a lot is determined by chance. But it is, actually or potentially, determined by the Lord.

One could say exactly the same thing about any mutation. And about any significant event which affected the historical course of evolution, like the asteroid which slammed into the earth initiating the circumstances which led to the demise of the dinosaurs.

From a human perspective, it was a "chance" encounter. But, it could equally have been sent by God. There is no way scientifically to distinguish between these possibilities.

So there is no need to exclude evolution from a Christian world-view on the basis that to some extent it depends on "chance" events. That term reflects our level of ignorance; it does not reflect how those events appear to God.

 

[Agonaces of Susa]

Neither the Persians nor the Greeks had much motivation to study Hebrew or read the Hebrew scriptures.

Utter nonsense.

If the Persians had no motivation to study Hebrew then why did Cyrus the Great free the Jews from Babylonian captivity and decide to rebuild the Temple of God in Jerusalem?

Why did Xerxes marry a Jew named Hadassah (Esther)?

Why did Artaxerxes appoint a Jew Nehemiah to be his cupbearer?

Why did Artaxerxes rebuild the walls and gate of Jerusalem?

But it is, actually or potentially, determined by the Lord.

One could say exactly the same thing about any mutation. And about any significant event which affected the historical course of evolution, like the asteroid which slammed into the earth initiating the circumstances which led to the demise of the dinosaurs.

From a human perspective, it was a "chance" encounter. But, it could equally have been sent by God.

Exactly.

There is no way scientifically to distinguish between these possibilities.

If that's true, then why do scientists claim that it's possible?

"Why do Darwinists claim that intelligent design is untestable, and simultaneously claim that it is wrong?" -- Michael Egnor, neurosurgeon, February 5th 2009

"Intelligent design and evolutionary theory are either both testable or both untestable. Parity of reasoning requires that the testability of one entails the testability of the other. Evolutionary theory claims that certain material mechanisms are able to propel the evolutionary process, gradually transforming organisms with one set of characteristics into another (for instance, transforming bacteria without a flagellum into bacteria with one). Intelligent design, by contrast, claims that intelligence needs to supplement material mechanisms if they are to bring about organisms with certain complex features. Accordingly, testing the adequacy or inadequacy of evolutionary mechanisms constitutes a joint test of both evolutionary theory and intelligent design." -- William A. Dembski, philosopher, August 25th 2005

"Evolutionary biologists claim to have demonstrated that design is superfluous for understanding biological complexity. But note: even such a claim demonstrates the genuine scientific status of intelligent design, for it implies that the question whether design is superfluous in biology is a legitimate scientific question and one whose outcome can be decided by scientific investigation. In science no outcome is a forgone conclusion." -- William A. Dembski, philosopher, March 21st 2002

"Highly improbable events don't happen by chance." -- William A. Dembski, philosopher, 1998

So there is no need to exclude evolution from a Christian world-view on the basis that to some extent it depends on "chance" events. That term reflects our level of ignorance; it does not reflect how those events appear to God.

So why do atheists have a monopoly on religion in our public school class rooms?

 

[gluadys]

Utter nonsense.

If the Persians had no motivation to study Hebrew then why did Cyrus the Great free the Jews from Babylonian captivity and decide to rebuild the Temple of God in Jerusalem?

Persian policy regarding conquered peoples was different from Babylonian policy. The Jews could make a case that they had helped (through the prophecies of Daniel, for example) to undermine the Babylonian regime. But even apart from that, allowing the Jews to rebuild their temple and city provided the Persians with an ally on the Mediterranean coast between them and Egypt, and a source of tribute. Win-win for the Persians whether or not they had any interest in the god of the Jews.

Why did Xerxes marry a Jew named Hadassah (Esther)?

At the time he married her, he didn't know she was a Jew.

Why did Artaxerxes appoint a Jew Nehemiah to be his cupbearer?

The Persians had many foreigners in high office. Daniel and Mordecai were two others. But they also had non-Jews like Haman (who was not a Persian either) in their court. Do you think they took any more interest in Daniel or Mordecai's god than in Haman's?

Why did Artaxerxes rebuild the walls and gate of Jerusalem?

Because Nehemiah had an in with him.

There is no way scientifically to distinguish between these possibilities.

If that's true, then why do scientists claim that it's possible?

They don't. It is the pseudo-science of ID that makes the claim one can distinguish something in nature that is intelligently designed from something that is just a design. Scientists say the opposite, that there is no way to tell them apart just by studying nature. (Note that all your citations are from IDists and that neither Egnor nor Dembski is a biologist. Dembski's field are mathematics and theology, not science at all. And while a doctor uses science, he is not necessarily a scientist and may not have much more biology than is needed to understand anatomy and physiology. It doesn't mean he has any background in evolutionary science.)

So why do atheists have a monopoly on religion in our public school class rooms?

They don't. Public schools teach no more atheism than they do religion. Less in fact, because generally they don't teach atheism at all, while some schools do teach comparative religion and touch on religion in history and literature classes as needed.

 

[BigBadWlf]

If that's true, then why do scientists claim that it's possible?

"Why do Darwinists claim that intelligent design is untestable, and simultaneously claim that it is wrong?" -- Michael Egnor, neurosurgeon, February 5th 2009

Because it is untestable (anything claiming to be a theory must be testable) it also flails to allow the making of predictions.

Technically legitimate scientists call it unsupported, in that there is nothing to support ID as a workable theory, no evidence is just the tip of that particular iceberg.

"Intelligent design and evolutionary theory are either both testable or both untestable. Parity of reasoning requires that the testability of one entails the testability of the other.

False. (and a rather silly statement) To be testable a theory has to lend itself to naturalistic observation and/or to laboratory analysis.

The theory that disease is caused by microorganisms is testable because we can collect suspect microorganisms and watch their interaction with human or animal test subjects. The theory that disease is caused by invisible and intangible alien parasites clinging to our bodies is not testable because…well how do you find something imaginary?

Evolutionary theory claims that certain material mechanisms are able to propel the evolutionary process, gradually transforming organisms with one set of characteristics into another (for instance, transforming bacteria without a flagellum into bacteria with one).

Which can be observed in the form of intermediate steps and changing functionality of your example of flagellum adaptability.

Intelligent design, by contrast, claims that intelligence needs to supplement material mechanisms if they are to bring about organisms with certain complex features.

Which cannot be tested as it is unobservable and no evidence for such meddling intelligence exists

"Highly improbable events don't happen by chance." -- William A. Dembski, philosopher, 1998

Again demonstrating a lack of knowledge about evolutionary theory

So why do atheists have a monopoly on religion in our public school class rooms?

Because ID has been shown in court of law to be nothing more than thinly disguised religion.

 

[Agonaces of Susa]

But even apart from that, allowing the Jews to rebuild their temple and city provided the Persians with an ally on the Mediterranean coast between them and Egypt, and a source of tribute.

They already had that.

Win-win for the Persians whether or not they had any interest in the god of the Jews.

In other words, they had an interest in Hebrew.

At the time he married her, he didn't know she was a Jew.

And yet he stayed married to her regardless.

The Persians had many foreigners in high office. Daniel and Mordecai were two others. But they also had non-Jews like Haman (who was not a Persian either) in their court. Do you think they took any more interest in Daniel or Mordecai's god than in Haman's?

I think the Persians had an interest in Hebrew considering it was part of the Empire.

Because Nehemiah had an in with him.

What in? The fact that he could speak Hebrew?

They don't. It is the pseudo-science of ID that makes the claim one can distinguish something in nature that is intelligently designed from something that is just a design. Scientists say the opposite, that there is no way to tell them apart just by studying nature.

In other words, they are either both testable or they are both untestable.

(Note that all your citations are from IDists

"If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down." -- Charles R. Darwin, naturalist, Novemer 24th 1859

and that neither Egnor nor Dembski is a biologist.

And Charles Darwin was a theologian by training and not a biologist.

Dembski's field are mathematics and theology, not science at all.

Irrelevant: Darwin's field was theology, not science at all.

And while a doctor uses science, he is not necessarily a scientist and may not have much more biology than is needed to understand anatomy and physiology. It doesn't mean he has any background in evolutionary science.)

No doctor has background in evolutionary pseudoscience because evolutionary pseudoscience is utterly useless in medicine.

Evolution News & Views: ‘Why would I want my doctor to have studied evolution?’

Doctors don’t study evolution. Doctors never study it in medical school, and they never use evolutionary biology in their practice. There are no courses in medical school on evolution. There are no ‘professors of evolution’ in medical schools. There are no departments of evolutionary biology in medical schools.

If you needed treatment for a brain tumor, your medical team would include a physicist (who designed the MRI that diagnosed your tumor), a chemist and a pharmacologist (who made the medicine to treat you), an engineer and an anesthesiologist (who designed and used the machine that give you anesthesia), a neurosurgeon (who did the surgery to remove your tumor), a pathologist (who studied the tumor under a microscope and determined what type of tumor it was), and nurses and oncologists (who help you recover and help make sure the tumor doesn’t come back). There would be no evolutionary biologists on your team.

I am a professor of neurosurgery, I work and teach at a medical school, I do brain research, and in 20 years I’ve performed over 4000 brain operations. I never use evolutionary biology in my work. Would I be a better surgeon if I assumed that the brain arose by random events? Of course not. Doctors are detectives. We look for patterns, and in the human body, patterns look very much like they were designed. Doctors know that, from the intricate structure of the human brain to the genetic code, our bodies show astonishing evidence of design. That’s why most doctors—nearly two-thirds according to national polls—don’t believe that human beings arose merely by chance and natural selection. Most doctors don’t accept evolutionary biology as an adequate explanation for life. Doctors see, first-hand, the design of life.

I do use many kinds of science related to changes in organisms over time. Genetics is very important, as are population biology and microbiology. But evolutionary biology itself, as distinct from these scientific fields, contributes nothing to modern medicine.

They don't. Public schools teach no more atheism than they do religion.

You've got to be joking.

The Bible isn't taught in public school. The infallible atheist holy Scriptures by Darwin are taught in biology class.

Less in fact, because generally they don't teach atheism at all, while some schools do teach comparative religion and touch on religion in history and literature classes as needed.

I'm talking about public schools.

 

[gluadys]

They already had that.

So? You ever hear of a government that didn't want more money?

In other words, they had an interest in Hebrew.

No, they had an interest in holding onto their territory through a people subject to them. As for Hebrew, by this time it was a nearly dead language. The daily language of the Jews was Aramaic when they were part of the Persian empire. Correspondence with the imperial court was in Aramaic (the official corresponding language of the Persian empire), not Hebrew. Hebrew had become a ceremonial language of scripture, synagogue and temple and was not needed for Persian-Jewish government relations.

I think the Persians had an interest in Hebrew considering it was part of the Empire.

Judea was a part of their empire, not Hebrew.

What in? The fact that he could speak Hebrew?

No, he probably spoke to the emperor in Aramaic or Persian. And he would speak to the workmen in Jerusalem in Aramaic as well. He didn't need Hebrew for daily conversation in either Susa or Jerusalem. But he was personally known to and trusted by the emperor.

In other words, they are either both testable or they are both untestable.

Material events are testable. Whether the material events are, as they appear to us, chance events or events controlled by God is not testable.

"If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down." -- Charles R. Darwin, naturalist, Novemer 24th 1859


And Charles Darwin was a theologian by training and not a biologist.

In his day "biologist" was not a profession. "Biology" was not a university course. The nearest thing was "natural philosophy" which was the study of nature and covered all of the various fields of science from astronomy to zoology. Darwin took a couple of years of theological training (which was a profession) but spent a lifetime studying nature before and after those years. He was recognized by his peers as a pre-emininent "naturalist" or student of nature. (The word "naturalist" has since acquired philosophical overtones that it did not have in the 19th century. In those days it was not an oxymoron to speak of a Christian naturalist.)

No doctor has background in evolutionary pseudoscience because evolutionary pseudoscience is utterly useless in medicine.

I take it you don't bother with a new flu shot every year. What's the point since bacteria and viruses don't change?

You've got to be joking.

The Bible isn't taught in public school. The infallible atheist holy Scriptures by Darwin are taught in biology class.


I'm talking about public schools.

So am I. Many public schools teach comparative religion, and that includes study of Christianity and Judaism and their scriptures. And it is not possible to teach about any culture without teaching something about their dominant religion. One doesn't teach about India and South Asia without teaching something about Hinduism and Buddhism. One doesn't teach about Europe without teaching about Christianity and the history of Christianity--the Crusades, the Reformation, the wars of religion, --- how America itself was founded by people fleeing religious persecution in Europe, etc.

And as a teacher of literature, I can assure you that any course in English literature that does not include some study of the bible and the many allusions to it in literature (not to mention music, architecture and all the fine arts) is inadequate. A fascinating read on the bible in English literature is the two-volume work by Northrope Fry (The Great Code and Words of Power).


And Darwin's writings are neither infallible, holy, atheist nor scripture. In fact, for the most part, they are not taught in biology class because they are mostly of historic interest. As science they are considerably outdated.

 

[metherion]

Well, I guess you’re just going to ignore my example of a neutral mutation, after repeated posts going off on red herrings and then talking to other people without responding to me. So, now, I’ll have a go at the falsities you’re peddling to others.

"If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down." -- Charles R. Darwin, naturalist, Novemer 24th 1859

Except in every single case it has been shown that they can be.

And Charles Darwin was a theologian by training and not a biologist.

Doesn’t mean his scientific work is actually theology like you seem to insist. Furthermore, what is encompassed by the field of evolution is FAR more than Darwin ever contributed.

Irrelevant: Darwin's field was theology, not science at all.

So what years long study on one small part of evolution did Dembski do?

No doctor has background in evolutionary pseudoscience because evolutionary pseudoscience is utterly useless in medicine.

You know, you’re both right and wrong.

Right: Doctors don’t necessarily need evolution. It’s true, you don’t need to know how a lung evolved to treat it if it’s collapsed. You are perfectly correct on this part.

Wrong: calling it psuedoscience. It isn’t. Get over it.

Wrong: It is utterly useless in medicine. Medicine is MUCH more than doctors. You know who I want to know about evolution? The people who make my medicines. The people who study diseases for vaccines. The people who do animal testing and extrapolate to what the effect on the human body will be. Those people, I would want to know and use evolution. There is much more to medicine than doctors.

You've got to be joking.

The Bible isn't taught in public school.

Neither is the Koran. Neither is the Torah. Neither is the Bhagavad Ghita (probably murdered the spelling on that). Outside of history and literature classes, neither are the Greek, Roman, Egyptian, Asgardian pantheons or Native American or Druidic spirits (and they aren’t taught as religion to believe they are taught as what people did believe, which is a difference). Neither is atheism.

The infallible atheist holy Scriptures by Darwin are taught in biology class.

They are not infallible, they are not atheist, they are not holy, the are not scriptures, and much much less than everyone thinks is attributed to Darwin. And it’s known he was wrong on some points. But that’s okay, because they’ve been improved upon, better understood, fixed over time.

Unless gravity, chemistry, electricity, atoms, etc are atheistic.

I'm talking about public schools.

And...? Public schools have no teaching on God. That is completely different from teaching that there is no God, which is not done.

Metherion

 

[Agonaces of Susa]

So? You ever hear of a government that didn't want more money?

No, but the question is how does spending money give the Empire more money?

Material events are testable.

Do you claim the origin of life and of species is not a material event?

Whether the material events are, as they appear to us, chance events or events controlled by God is not testable.

If that's true, then why do scientists claim it's testable?

"Why do Darwinists claim that intelligent design is untestable, and simultaneously claim that it is wrong?" -- Michael Egnor, neurosurgeon, February 5th 2009

"Well, it [Intelligent Design] could come about in the folowing way, it could be that at some earlier time somewhere in the universe a civilisation ... [came] to a very high level of technology and designed a form of life that they seeded onto perhaps this planet. Now that is a possibility, an intriguing possibility, and I suppose it's possible that you might find evidence for that if you look at the details of biochemistry and molecular biology you might find a signature of some sort of designer. And that designer could well be a higher intelligence from elsewhere in the universe." -- Richard Dawkins, atheist preacher, 2008

"Intelligent design and evolutionary theory are either both testable or both untestable. Parity of reasoning requires that the testability of one entails the testability of the other. Evolutionary theory claims that certain material mechanisms are able to propel the evolutionary process, gradually transforming organisms with one set of characteristics into another (for instance, transforming bacteria without a flagellum into bacteria with one). Intelligent design, by contrast, claims that intelligence needs to supplement material mechanisms if they are to bring about organisms with certain complex features. Accordingly, testing the adequacy or inadequacy of evolutionary mechanisms constitutes a joint test of both evolutionary theory and intelligent design." -- William A. Dembski, philosopher, August 25th 2005

"Evolutionary biologists claim to have demonstrated that design is superfluous for understanding biological complexity. But note: even such a claim demonstrates the genuine scientific status of intelligent design, for it implies that the question whether design is superfluous in biology is a legitimate scientific question and one whose outcome can be decided by scientific investigation. In science no outcome is a forgone conclusion." -- William A. Dembski, philosopher, March 21st 2002

"Darwinism is not a testable scientific theory, but a metaphysical research programme." -- Karl Popper, philosopher, 1976

In his day "biologist" was not a profession. "Biology" was not a university course.

Exactly. Therefore Darwin was not a biologist.

In those days it was not an oxymoron to speak of a Christian naturalist.)

Do you claim it is an oxymoron today?

I take it you don't bother with a new flu shot every year.

Correct.

What's the point since bacteria and viruses don't change?

"One of the peculiar features of history is that time always erodes advantage." -- Matt Ridley, zoologist, 1993

"In history and in evolution, progress is always a futile Sisyphean struggle...." -- Matt Ridley, zoologist, 1993

Many public schools teach comparative religion, and that includes study of Christianity and Judaism and their scriptures.

What school teaches Darwinian atheism in comparative religion class?

And Darwin's writings are neither infallible, holy, atheist nor scripture.

Darwinists behave otherwise.

In fact, for the most part, they are not taught in biology class because they are mostly of historic interest. As science they are considerably outdated.

This sounds like utopian vision.

 

[Agonaces of Susa]

Well, I guess you’re just going to ignore my example of a neutral mutation, after repeated posts going off on red herrings and then talking to other people without responding to me.

You mean like how you ignored every point that I made?

Except in every single case it has been shown that they can be.

You've demonstrated that self-replicating organisms can be generated slow and gradually?

Doesn’t mean his scientific work is actually theology like you seem to insist.

Darwin was not a biologist. So either non-biologists are qualified to speak on the subject or they're not. Which is it?

Furthermore, what is encompassed by the field of evolution is FAR more than Darwin ever contributed.

Darwinism is not a field but a metaphysical faith-based belief.

So what years long study on one small part of evolution did Dembski do?

If you have to ask this question I suggest you do some research.

And it’s known he was wrong on some points.

Don't tell that to a Darwinist -- your life could be endangered.

Unless gravity, chemistry, electricity, atoms, etc are atheistic.

Considering they were all intelligently designed that is quite impossible.

In fact the hypothesis of gravitation specifically relies upon intelligent design, divine intervention, and miracle works.

"...lest the systems of the fixed stars should, by their gravity, fall on each other, he [God] hath placed those systems at immense distances from one another." -- Isaac Newton, mathematician, 1687

"...to establish it [gravitation] as original or primitive in certain parts of matter is to resort either to miracle or an imaginary occult quality." -- Gottfreid W. Leibniz, polymath, July 1710

And...? Public schools have no teaching on God. That is completely different from teaching that there is no God, which is not done.

Do you claim that evolution does not teach there is no God?

Evolutionists e.g. Dawkins, Dennett, etc. say otherwise.

 

[gluadys]

No, but the question is how does spending money give the Empire more money?

It's called investment. Spend money now, get it back with interest (in this case in the form of taxes) later.

Do you claim the origin of life and of species is not a material event?

No. But neither do I claim that it is only material. The material aspect of the origin of life and species is testable. The non-material aspect (if such exists) is not.

If that's true, then why do scientists claim it's testable?

Scientists don't claim that non-material events are testable. Only ID proponents do and few of them are scientists.

"Darwinism is not a testable scientific theory, but a metaphysical research programme." -- Karl Popper, philosopher, 1976

Popper later retracted this statement.

Exactly. Therefore Darwin was not a biologist.

In a time when all biology was an "amateur" pursuit, he was the best. Olympic athletes are amateurs too. Doesn't mean they are not good at what they do.

Do you claim it is an oxymoron today?

Yes, because the meaning of the word has changed (that happens in actively spoken languages you know). In Darwin's day "naturalist" meant "one who studies nature" irrespective of their philosophy of nature. So one could be a Christian naturalist, as many were, including many clergy. Today "naturalist" refers to a philosopher who takes a position somewhat like that of Carl Sagan who insisted that nature is all there is or ever was or ever will be---IOW there is no creator--there is nothing that caused nature to be. So today it would be an oxymoron to speak of a Christian naturalist.

"One of the peculiar features of history is that time always erodes advantage." -- Matt Ridley, zoologist, 1993

So, he agrees that species do change, since they do not always retain an advantage.

"In history and in evolution, progress is always a futile Sisyphean struggle...." -- Matt Ridley, zoologist, 1993

True. This is something we have learned about evolution that is different from the 19th century conception (which was still burdened down with the Chain of Being metaphor). Evolution is not the same thing as progress.

If you like Matt Ridley, you might like to follow his tutorials on evolution, here:
Evolution - Tutorials

What school teaches Darwinian atheism in comparative religion class?

None, because there is no such thing as "Darwinian" atheism. A comparative religion class might include a discussion of atheism and prominent atheists. Evolution will be discussed in science class. "Darwinism" is not a topic in either class because it is a figment of imagination conjured up by anti-evolutionists.

 

[metherion]

You mean like how you ignored every point that I made?

What points? You specifically asked for an example of a mutation that would be neutral. Instead of acknowledging it, you said (and i’m quoting):
A)“Natural selection can only happen after the DNA has been intelligently designed”, which isn’t true because the DNA merely has to exist, it could form naturally and be selected upon.

B)“Natural selection and random mutation do not explain the origin of the first self-replicating organisms.”, which is a complete red herring because how the first organisms came about is abigenesis not evolution, so evolutionary mechanisms OF COURSE wouldn’t explain it, they don’t apply. Gravity doesn’t explain electricity either, so why don’t you jump down its throat? Nor does electricity explain disease. So?

C)“Oh really”? followed by a quote by a neurosurgeon. You have made a HUGE point about how doctors don’t study evolution and you have yet to present your neurosurgeon as an expert in either biochemistry or statistical thermodynamics, so his opinion is pretty much worthless on the subject. You have no point here.

D)”Exactly. Only Intelligent Design can explain the origin of life.” which is an unsubstantiated assertion that ignores all sorts of things including the aforementioned statistical thermodynamics and biochemistry. It WASN”T a point.

Nowhere did you acknowledge that I had done EXACTLY what you asked and provided an example of a neutral mutation. And I ALREADY made a separate post to each of yours, you just kept with more red herrings and then dropped the topic.

You've demonstrated that self-replicating organisms can be generated slow and gradually?

No, but that’s not what the quote you posted said. The ‘but in every case they can be’ was directed at Darwin’s quote about organs, where I was referring to every case of claimed-IC such as the immune system, bacterial flagellum, etc. Bait-and-switch is a VERY dishonest tactic.

Darwin was not a biologist. So either non-biologists are qualified to speak on the subject or they're not. Which is it?

As Gluadys has said, it wasn’t an actual field then. It is now. All the developments in the past... say, 150 years have expanded it enough so that it now IS its own field. I mean, before Edison, electricity wouldn’t have been its own field. Times change, and whereas people with no training COULD make huge contributions to a field when it is in its infancy, there comes a point where that can no longer be done.

False Dichotomy.

Darwinism is not a field but a metaphysical faith-based belief.

This is a nice can of worms, continuing to use the word Darwinism. Obviously you ignore the fact that there have been huge advances in subfields of evolution like DNA, cladistics, genetics, etc. Is evolution also Mendlism? Wattson and Crickism? There might be Darwinian evolution, as opposed to Lamarckian evolution, but there is no Darwinism, and it sure as heck isn’t a religion. Unless you want to throw that Karl Popper quote out again? If you feel tempted to, check my sig, ESPECIALLY THE DATE.

If you have to ask this question I suggest you do some research.

Then you should be able to tell me. Or provide a link.

Don't tell that to a Darwinist -- your life could be endangered.

PAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA holy cow I haven’t heard something so funny in a while.

Yes, DARWIN WAS WRONG ON SOME POINTS. Flat out, straight up, WRONG. For example, life is not a tree as Darwin thought, but much more like a bush. There is no upward mobility, progress, whatever, in evolution. Whoops, he was wrong on that. That is one example. There are more. However, evolution by natural selection is correct. That is what he is remembered for. Not every word being infallible. He isn’t a prophet, a god, someone who can speak no wrong. Just a man who made a very important contribution to biology that is opposed on religious grounds by denial, misrepresentation, outright lying, and so on.

Considering they were all intelligently designed that is quite impossible.

They are all science. So is evolution. So one can only be as atheistic as the rest. You cannot claim chemistry, gravity, electricity, etc to be intelligently designed unless you claim the very process of evolution is as well, since they all come from the same God.

In fact the hypothesis of gravitation specifically relies upon intelligent design, divine intervention, and miracle works.
"...lest the systems of the fixed stars should, by their gravity, fall on each other, he [God] hath placed those systems at immense distances from one another." -- Isaac Newton, mathematician, 1687

Except for the fact that, you know, general relativity has eliminated the need to put God into the equation. And it quite a bit more recent than the 17th century.

Do you claim that evolution does not teach there is no God?

Yes. I claim that. I loudly proclaim it.

Evolutionists e.g. Dawkins, Dennett, etc. say otherwise.

And other professional biologists, e.g. Ken Miller, Francis Collins, etc claim there is one. Your point?

And I see you used your Karl Popper quote in response to Gluadys. I’m calling you out on it here and now. Look at my signature. Look at the date. Stop using the 1976 Karl Popper quote as he recanted it later. It is the height of dishonesty to keep using it, especially because this won’t be the first time it’s been pointed out.

Metherion

 

[Papias]

You should note that my faith is not marked Catholic for a reason.

OK, fine - See, when questioned about evolution, you responded by posting that Catholics can be creationists. I responded by pointing out that both recent Popes and the Vatican support evolution, and you respond that you aren't Catholic. OK, but then why did you post about Catholics then? Why do you care about Catholics, since you brought us up first?

Papias