I am going to tell you directly, gluadys; stop putting words in my mouth concerning statements I did not make. I made no such statement. The fact is I have read and studied many scientific papers concerning a number of different subjects including Morris's dissertation on hydraulics and water erosion. that was over thirty years ago.
I have read scientific papers too--especially the ones Mark Kennedy has referred us to on the evolution of the human brain. The fact remains that for all of us, a good popular read is a lot easier than a technical paper. Morris' dissertation on hydraulics is probably a good scientific paper. ( I wouldn't be competent to judge one way or the other.) The Twilight of Evolution is mass market fiction. Of course it's easier to understand.
The truth is that TE's such as you can't stand it when someone breaks free from the darkness and error that you are involved in. You must really hate people like J.C.Sanford (Cornell U.), Dean Kenyon (fromerly at Stanford), or Richard Lumsden (Tulane)...assuming you know of them.
Hate them? No. Pity them, perhaps.
Kenyon even wrote a best-selling book on the subject of abiogenesis entitled "Biochemical Predestination' but eventually tossed it out along with evolution in toto because he realized how hopeless and without evidence evolution theory is.
So..... he was also confusing abiogenesis with evolution?
Proof that you are very wrong:
Observe:
Ever hear of a book called "Origin of the Species" by a fellow named Darwin?
Yes, and I have read it. I have it bookmarked as well in my favorites folder. I can tell you the title is origin of
species not origin of
life. And having read it I can tell you that Darwin does not devote a single word of the book to the origin of life.
How about these, all written about evolution:
Item one: Neil de Grasse Tyson and Donald Smith's "Origins: 14 billion years of cosmic evolution."
Cosmic evolution is not Darwinian.
Stellar evolution is not Darwinian.
Chemical evolution is not Darwinian.
Biological evolution is Darwinian.
Interestingly linguistic evolution is also Darwinian (at least mostly so.)
The origin of life may be Darwinian, but is not addressed by the Theory of Evolution which is about biological evolution.
You claim to understand evolution? Can you tell me why only some evolution is Darwinian and other forms of evolution are not? What makes the evolution of human languages Darwinian? Why is stellar evolution not Darwinian?
Did you really think the theory of evolution was about astro-physics
and chemistry
and biology???? If so, you never understood evolution.
Item two: A Scientific American article on human evolution--obviously an interesting sub-topic within the larger field of biological evolution. But certainly not about the origin of life.
Item three: A book entitled The Origins of Life (note the difference from Darwin's title) by John Maynard Smith and Eors Szathmary (without the diacritical marks) Interestingly, it includes everything from the origin of life to the origin of language. So it has a much broader scope than Darwin's book--and a broader scope than the theory of evolution which deals with neither the origin of life nor the origin of language.
Item four: Another book, this one called "Vital Dust". By Christian de Duve. His subtitle "the origin and evolution of life on earth" shows he understands the difference between these concepts.
Items 5 & 6 Two more books "Origins of Life" by Freeman Dyson and "The Origin of Life" by A I Oparin.
Now when I see an author title his book "Origin(s) of Life" I expect that it is about the origin of life.
When I see an author title his book "Origin of Species" I don't expect that it is about the origin of life.
Why do you think Darwin is writing about something other than what is named in the title of his book? What paragraph of "Origin of Species" can you cite that tells us about the origin of life?
I am amazed at your attitude you have in telling me that evolution has 'nothing to do' with origins.
I think you are listening to yourself, not to me.
Here is what I said: "the theory of evolution does not address the issue of the origin of life"
I could also have said, and truthfully, that the theory of evolution does not address the issue of the origin of the cosmos or the solar system or the Roman Empire.
But I never said is has 'nothing to do' with origins. Obviously it does address the origin of species and the origin of new biological features in species. The point is that in respect of origins, this is the
only aspect of origins it does address.
If you have only become aware of this today, you have never understood evolution.
Oh, of course. I'm just a dummy...who has trained PhD's in a family of PhD's in both medicine and education. Poor me. If' I had only known you 40 years ago before I began to convert from evolution.
But i never said I was
exceptional. But I'm
typical and you will se a lot more conversions from your faith.
Again, you are hearing things I did not say. You are obviously not a dummy. But have you heard the tongue-in-cheek definition of an expert? An expert is a person who knows more and more about less and less.
Do you have a PhD yourself? Then you know how you had to focus on something particular in your research and your thesis.
An expert in medicine is not an expert evolutionary biologist and may have little understanding of evolution. An expert in education (my own field) has no credentials as an expert in evolution.
To be an expert in evolution you need to get a PhD in evolutionary biology, not hydraulics or mechanics or law or economics. In fact, it is likely that a person who spends a significant part of their life becoming an expert in a different field is probably not significantly knowledgeable about evolution. One just doesn't have the time to be an expert in everything.
That doesn't mean the person is a dummy. It just means they have learned something different than evolutionary biology.
Yawn. You are really beginning to bore me now. You don't know what you're talking about. Try and convince the other creationists here that I am a deist. Good luck.
When it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck, I call it a duck. Show me I am wrong. Just what do you mean by nature being "pre-programmed".
In my vocabulary, when I pre-program my television to record a film, I make it possible for the film to be recorded in my absence.
Deism is a name for a view of God that sees God as absent from nature.
Your "pre-programming" remark suggested that you see God as absent from nature. Nature runs merrily along doing whatever its programming says with no attention from God at all.
In my book that view is Deism.
If that was not what you intended to say, by all means spell out what you really meant.
Nature doesn't create and nature doesn't design (program!)anything, but the Lord does. Now...how would you call that last statement 'deism'?
Possibly. Does God limit himself to designing and programming nature and then let it run, exerting no influence on the natural world? By your own definition (below) that is Deism.
Definition: deist - The belief, based solely on reason, in a God who created the universe and then abandoned it, assuming no control over life, exerting no influence on the natural world. (the Free Dictionary)
Or is God much more than a designer-programmer? Is God a nurturer, sustainer, helper, companion, encourager, and always present lover of nature? If so, then that is not Deism.
The latter viewpoint is the one I have seen held by most theistic evolutionists.
how you get deism from a creationist point of reference is a mystery to me but she's not the only one that does it.
